Bill S-8 (Historical)

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands

This enactment addresses health and safety issues on reserve lands and certain other lands by providing for regulations to govern drinking water and waste water treatment in First Nations communities. Regulations could be made on a province-by-province basis to mirror existing provincial regulatory regimes, with adaptations to address the circumstances of First Nations living on those lands.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to speak in support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. This proposed legislation is an essential part of a larger collaborative strategy to ensure that residents of first nation communities can reliably access clean, safe drinking water, like all other Canadians.

Provinces and territories each have their own legally binding safe drinking water standards. These laws assign responsibility for the specific tasks and standards that protect the safety of drinking water, such as treatment and quality testing protocols. Under these laws, provincial, territorial and municipal authorities collaborate to ensure that residents have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. Regulations differ based on local circumstances, but the overall impact is the same, as regulations help establish a chain of accountability and quality control.

In contrast, there are currently no legally enforceable protections governing drinking water and waste water on first nation lands. With the exception of a small number of self-governing first nations that have established laws in this area, most residents of first nation communities do not benefit from the legal protections for safe drinking water that all Canadians expect and deserve.

Bill S-8 would directly address this gap by enabling the federal government to work with first nations on a region by region basis to create regulatory regimes to govern drinking water in first nation communities.

It is important to note that Bill S-8 is enabling legislation. Following passage of Bill S-8, the Government of Canada would work in close partnership with first nations and other stakeholders to develop federal regulations tailored to their unique regional circumstances.

The underlying principle of Bill S-8 is simple: all Canadians, regardless of where they live, should have access to safe drinking water. In other words, when it comes to drinking water, the law should offer the same level of protection to Canadians, whether they live on or off reserve.

I want to speak to the long and collaborative effort leading up to this bill, which our government initiated six years ago to correct this serious issue. In 2008 we introduced the first nation water and waste water action plan, which provided $330 million in water and waste water funding over two years for treatment facility construction and renovation, the operation and maintenance of facilities, and training of operators on reserve. We have since renewed this program twice, most recently in economic action plan 2012.

Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure and related public health activities to support first nation communities in managing their water and waste water systems. Throughout the same time period, we have invested in over 130 major projects and funded maintenance and operating costs of over 1,200 water and waste water treatment projects. We also invest $10 million a year to support the training and certification of first nation water systems.

However, we do recognize that funding is not the only solution to ensuring safe drinking water and health and safety. That is why in 2009 we initiated a national assessment of first nations' water and waste water systems. This was the most rigorous, comprehensive and independent study of its kind ever conducted in Canada, surveying 97% of drinking water and waste water systems on first nation lands. Site visits to the 571 participating first nations began in September 2009 and concluded in November 2010. The assessment took more than 18 months and involved the inspection of approximately 4,000 drinking water and waste water systems. The results, released last year, provide a comprehensive summary of the situation, including the amount of investment required to address deficiencies and reduce risk. They provide Canada with an unprecedented reference tool that will inform future water and waste water initiatives. This is for priority setting, appropriately done.

One of the main problems identified by the assessment was the lack of crucial regulations pertaining to operations, maintenance and operator qualifications when it comes to drinking water on reserve. This is consistent with the message conveyed in 2011 in the report by the Auditor General, which identified the lack of a legislative framework for first nations drinking water as a major impediment to ensuring clean drinking water for first nation communities.

Over the course of the past six years, we have also heard from countless other organizations and from first nations members, as well as other key stakeholders, about their concerns related to safe drinking water on reserve.

In 2006, an independent panel, consisting of experts jointly appointed by our government and the Assembly of First Nations, travelled across Canada for a series of public meetings. It listened to more than 110 presentations and received and considered more than two dozen written submissions. The independent panel heard from a wide range of people, representatives of first nations, provincial, territorial and municipal authorities, as well as private sector organizations.

The panel's final report stands as a valuable contribution to the effort to improve drinking water quality in first nation communities. A key recommendation was the development of appropriate regulations.

The following year, the Senate standing committee held a separate series of hearings to investigate the matter. In May of 2007, it released a report that called similarly on the government to undertake a comprehensive consultation process with first nation communities and organizations to develop regulatory options.

Our government responded to these calls for action and at the beginning of 2009, after significant consultation with first nations technical experts and leaders across the country, we released a discussion paper that outlined a proposed solution that would allow for regional differences to be reflected in the development of future regulations to be developed in partnership with first nations following the passage of enabling legislation. This discussion paper served as the basis to develop the approach outlined in Bill S-8, namely legislation that provides for the establishment of regulations that reflect the diverse needs and realities of first nations across the country.

In early 2009, a series of 13 engagement sessions were held across Canada. During these sessions, representatives of first nations, provinces and territories discussed the proposed legislative framework and identified potential improvements. Our government also provided funding to first nation organizations so they could conduct regional impact analyses of the proposed legislative framework. To discuss specific regional issues, further meetings were held with first nation chiefs and organizations. The government maintained an open dialogue with first nations throughout this time, explaining the purpose of the legislation and responding to concerns.

After the 2011 federal election, government officials and representatives from my office met on a without prejudice basis with representatives of first nations to discuss issues of concern and to explore potential solutions, in particular with first nation organizations from Alberta and the Atlantic region.

I have personally met with chiefs at several key crossroads in the negotiations to maintain forward momentum. The direction given to ministerial and departmental staff involved in these discussions was based on establishing and maintaining a respectful and credible relationship.

The progress made during these sessions is reflected in the legislation now before us. The commitment and leadership demonstrated by first nation leaders to improve the legislation should be commended.

There are several key differences between Bill S-8 and its predecessor. First and foremost, Bill S-8 includes a non-derogation clause, developed in collaboration with the Alberta Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, that specifically addresses the relationship between the legislation and aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

A preamble has also been added to describe this government's intention to develop regulations working with first nations. The proposed legislation also features new language to clarify several key points. In particular, the legislation would not automatically apply to first nations that are signatories to self-government agreements; regulations would not include the power to allocate water supplies or license users of water for any purpose other than for accessing drinking water; regulations on source water protection on first nation lands would be restricted so as to protect it from contamination; only the powers necessary to effectively regulate drinking water and waste water systems would be conferred on any person or body; and first nations would not be held liable for systems owned by third parties that are on first nations lands.

Bill S-8 was first introduced in the Senate in February of 2012, where it was subject to further scrutiny and review by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. During my testimony to the committee, I reiterated our government's intention to collaborate with first nations on the development of regulatory regimes.

As I described to committee members, we will work with first nations to ensure that the proposed regulatory regime will be rolled out in a phased approach over several years. Our government will work with first nations to develop regulations that would establish standards comparable to those that safeguard drinking water elsewhere in Canada. These regulations would come into force once communities have the capacity to adhere to them.

I also expressed the same commitment in a letter I sent to every first nation in Canada that would be subject to the legislation. A similar letter was sent to the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. This government's intentions are clear. We want to ensure all Canadians have access to safe drinking water. This is a matter of health and safety.

Clearly, the passage of Bill S-8 would extend the collaborative effort that was launched more than six years ago. This effort has inspired steady progress on drinking water issues. It has followed a strategic step-by-step approach that has addressed all of the main factors that conspire to undermine access to safe drinking water in many first nation communities.

Training and certification programs have increased the number of qualified operators. Protocols and procedure manuals have been published and disseminated. Investments in infrastructure have upgraded dozens of treatment facilities. Plans are in place to strategically address the specific needs of other facilities.

Bill S-8 also serves as a clear demonstration of our government's commitment to strengthening the relationship between Canada and first nations through working in partnership to address issues of mutual concern. It proposes a process that would see first nations and government officials work together to design and implement appropriate regulations. Some first nations have already expressed their eagerness to work with the government to develop these regulations.

Back in November of 2011, the Liberal member for Toronto Centre put forward a motion calling on the government to improve first nations access to safe drinking water.

The House fully endorsed this motion. I hope that now my hon. colleagues opposite will honour their noble commitment to improving access to safe drinking water and back this very important legislation, which would go far beyond the words of that motion. On this side of the House, we are interested in more than passing motions. We are interested in concrete action. I hope the opposition will stand with the government as we move forward to take concrete action for first nation peoples.

Thousands of Canadians currently lack the legislative protection needed to safeguard the quality of their drinking water. Bill S-8 would not only ensure that this gap is closed but that it is done in close partnership with our first nations partners. I urge my hon. colleagues to endorse Bill S-8.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister has indicated that when the original Bill S-11 was tabled, the government heard, loudly and clearly, that there were some deficiencies in the bill. Now Bill S-8 has come as a revised form, but there are still some gaps in that piece of legislation.

I have two specific questions for the minister. In the preamble, as he pointed out, the bill indicates that the departments have committed to working with first nations to develop proposals for regulations to be made under this act. There is nothing in the act that outlines what those working relationships might look like. In the past there has developed a level of mistrust because under the specific claims legislation, for example, there was a protocol agreement signed where there was a commitment to work with first nations. However, when one of the assistant deputy ministers came before the aboriginal affairs committee, she indicated that the commitment to working did not actually mean that they were going to engage in a process.

So would the minister make a commitment in this House today to define exactly what working with first nations, in the preamble, would look like? Could he also comment on the fact that what this act does is propose a process to develop regulations, which have no oversight in Parliament? How he would see Parliament having oversight of that regulatory process?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I outlined a long process to get to where we are today, and that process was loaded with consultation. When we had the committee hearings in the Senate, we had representation there that indicated very strongly that some of the first nations that were involved saw this as a model for how to develop first nations legislation. I intervened at a personal level when we had some difficulties with the original bill and we were trying to get to the current format of the bill, because this is a very loaded issue from the standpoint that it gets tied in with water allocation and with provincial issues. It becomes a very broad conversation, so we had to find a way to address all those concerns, and I believe we have achieved that.

Ongoing, I have made commitments in writing, at the committee and in every other way that the consultation process on the regulations will continue and that we will not move faster than the capacity development of the first nations in terms of operator certification and their ability to have things in place prior to any enforcement of the regulations.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the minister for his leadership on this file and acknowledging that we needed to do a thorough engagement process, one that had never been done before, not in the size or scope of any legislation, certainly not from my perspective after almost two decades of living in the north and seeing the extent to which we performed our consultations to develop the framework he was explaining.

I would like to ask him if he could explain a little more the thorough engagement process that has occurred between the Government of Canada and first nations. Are there technical experts involved? Did community members get a chance to speak about these really important issues before our framework or pathway was established?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long period of consultation on this bill. There has been much input from technical experts, community members, people who inform the leadership and their legal counsel. This was unprecedented consultation, in my view. I am not aware of any other piece of legislation in this place that has taken that length of time in a collaborative fashion to get to final form. I believe we are currently looking at a bill that is about as good as it can get.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations said it is clear that it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements. The government's own estimates identify a $5.8 billion shortfall to deal with the first nations waste and waste water capacity gap.

We thank the minister and his government for voting for the opposition day motion by the member for Toronto Centre, but I would like to ask the minister whether we can anticipate in the upcoming 2013 budget the amount of money that would be required to meet the objectives of this bill. When, in a long-term strategy, could 100% of first nations homes in 100% of first nations communities be expected to have safe drinking water?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is our intent to move as quickly as possible on all of this infrastructure, certification and operator training question, because this is a health and safety issue. We have discovered, with our serious investments to date, that the national assessment set some pretty good priorities. I can say that when I was here for 13 years in opposition, we used to hear horror stories about water systems on first nation reserves over and over again, and now we have addressed many of those.

We have also moved forward from the standpoint that, because we have made those investments, we have learned a lot and there are new and more cost-effective technologies. We have a circuit rider training program in place; we have increased the percentage of the systems that have fully certified operators, both for water and waste water systems; and we have told the communities that we do not expect full compliance on anything until such time as the infrastructure and all the certifications are in place. That is all very positive.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great concerns about the water quality on reserves in British Columbia. I know there are a number of pipeline projects that are slated to go through reserves in B.C. In particular, the Kinder Morgan company wants to run a new pipeline through 15 first nations reserves. When asked, the head of the National Energy Board said it would expropriate land on these reserves and put these pipelines through without the consent of first nations.

I am wondering if the minister can say whether he would allow that to happen in these reserves in British Columbia.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not expecting that question on this bill. I am not aware of those statements. This is part of an environmental assessment process we have not even come to yet with Kinder Morgan. Therefore, that is an inappropriate question and it would be inappropriate for me to respond at this time.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands. I am going to start differently than I planned because I want to respond to something that both the minister and the parliamentary secretary addressed in their speeches or their questions.

I want to start with a quote from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 18 says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decisionmaking institutions.

Article 19 says:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

It was interesting to hear people describe the consultation process as engagement. It is an interesting twist of words, because when we talk about full, prior and informed consent, I am sure that many nations would argue that engagement does not equal full, prior and informed consent. I want to turn for a moment to some comments about the engagement or so-called consultation process.

The Safe Drinking Water Foundation, in a position statement it issued on April 14, 2009, talked about this engagement process. It said that few first nations voices were heard at the engagement sessions, but enough were present that INAC was able to claim that they were engaged. It said that many first nations in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta did not receive their engagement session invitation packages in sufficient time for people to attend the sessions. For example, George Gordon First Nation received its package on January 25 at noon when the engagement session was taking place the following day in Saskatoon, three hours away. Of course, we know what winter road conditions can be like in Canada at that time of year, so it adds an additional stress.

In addition, the Safe Drinking Water Foundation said that civil servants dominated conversations in each discussion group, offered incomplete and inaccurate information and failed to relay first nations' concerns to the larger audience. The INAC official report omitted all of that.

Consultation is all in the eye of the beholder. There are some guidelines that first nations have proposed in terms of what meaningful consultation would look like. I have been hearing from people who do not feel this process fulfilled that responsibility to consult.

I want to turn to the legislative summary of the safe drinking water first nations act that was put out by the Parliamentary Library so that people understand what it is we are talking about today. In the legislative summary it says:

The bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in First Nations communities...the bill also establishes that federal regulations developed in this regard may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking water and waste water in First Nations communities.

It goes on to say:

The delivery of safe drinking water to on-reserve First Nations communities is critical to the health and safety of the communities’ residents. Access to safe, clean, potable water is also closely tied to the economic viability of individual communities. For more than a decade, research has indicated that many First Nations communities lack adequate access to safe drinking water. A 2001–2002 assessment found that the quality of almost three quarters of drinking water systems in First Nations’ communities were at significant risk.

I know some of those numbers have changed since then and I will talk about the waste water and drinking water assessments that the government commissioned.

Later on in the legislative summary it indicated some key challenges. It says:

In addition to the absence of a regulatory framework and the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities...core issues relating to the provision of safe drinking water on reserves include the high costs of equipment for, and construction and maintenance of, facilities in remote locations; infrastructure that is either obsolete, entirely absent or of low quality; limited local capacity and ability to retain qualified or certified operators; and the lack of resources to properly fund water and waste water system operation and maintenance.

All of us in the House would agree that there are significant challenges on first nation reserves about access to safe quality drinking water and to the functioning of the waste water treatment systems.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there is the St'át'imc reserve which butts up against the municipality of Nanaimo. We literally have a reserve that is in an urban area and there has just recently been an agreement to allow the extension of the water system, but the reserve has been there for decades.

The ability of the residents to engage in economic development on their recognized traditional lands has been hampered by the fact that they do not have access to clean water. In fact, on one of the reserves they are trekking in water. This is a reserve right beside the city of Nanaimo. We are not talking about some remote reserve hundreds of miles away that is accessible by air only, or ice road, or sealift.

Therefore, this is not just a rural and remote community problem. There are reserves close to urban areas that do not have the infrastructure to not only supply safe drinking water, but to enable them to engage in the economy in a more meaningful way.

Back in 2005, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development also highlighted the problem of drinking water for first nation communities. I want to touch on a couple of points here.

The report noted that when it came to the safety of drinking water:

—residents of First Nations communities do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that of people who live off reserves.

It goes on to say that:

Despite the hundreds of millions in federal funds invested, a significant proportion of drinking water systems in first nation communities continue to deliver drinking water whose quality or safety is at risk. Although access to drinking water has improved, the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems is still deficient. Moreover, to a significant extent, the success of the First Nations Water Management Strategy depends on INAC and Health Canada addressing the management weaknesses we have noted.

The report talks about a number of management weaknesses between the departments. It goes on to say:

The technical help available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented. Given that most First Nations communities have fewer than 500 residents, and that providing drinking water has become more complex, the development of institutions that can provide ongoing technical support is critical to a continuing supply of safe drinking water for these communities.

In part, many first nation communities have relied on tribal councils to help them with technical advice and organizational administration. In the last round of budget cuts, we saw tribal councils had their funding cut. That is going to significantly impact on some of these smaller communities' ability to deal with some of these very complex issues.

The report, “Drinking Water on First Nations Communities” also highlighted some challenges . It is important to state this because it is a very complex problem. It says about location:

Many First Nations are located on the Canadian Shield, or other difficult terrain, making it technically difficult and costly to provide water services. Some reserves are isolated and can be accessed by roads only in winter; some have limited access to electricity or other forms of energy. Water sources are often located off reserves, and it is difficult for First Nations to protect them.

Interestingly, on the difficulty of protecting water, we have just seen a number of waterways no longer included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Many of those waterways on first nation reserves are no longer protected. Did the department do an analysis of what this change in the Navigable Waters Protection Act would have in the context of this legislation? I understand from a briefing from government officials that it has not been done.

It is a very important question. If first nations cannot protect their waters by whatever means available to them, one questions how they would improve the quality of the drinking water.

Other challenges include accountability. The report says:

Federal departments set requirements that make First Nations responsible for providing day-to-day drinking water. It is not clear who is ultimately accountable for the safety of drinking water.

Costs and financing...It is difficult to find and retain operators.

Technical standards. It is not clear which standards are applicable. Provincial guidelines and regulations on drinking water are to be applied except when less stringent than federal standards.

The population growth on reserves has been noted in report after report. This report says that:

On-reserve population is estimated to increase by 230,000 people between 2004 and 2021. It is difficult to estimate population growth and economic development in each community to plan water systems that can meet drinking water needs for 10 to 20 years.

It is a very challenging environment that we are operating in.

In the Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, there was a number of matters that it highlighted.

First, it states:

Pursuing “laws of general application” is too uncertain

If it could be established that provincial laws of general application applied to Indian reserves, legal frameworks would be instantly in place and a great deal of consultative and Parliamentary process avoided. However, in the view of legal counsel to the panel, applying provincial drinking water and wastewater law as a law of general application is “fraught with such uncertainty that it is neither a viable nor effective option.”

We know that provincial laws differ from province to province so there will be a very uneven level of water quality standards from province to province, depending on which province the first nation resides.

It report says that before there is any legislation that there are preconditions that must be in place before legislation moves forward. The first is, “Provide resources, discuss and deal with high risks”. It says:

The federal government must close the resource gap

First, and most critically, it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements. While it is tempting to assume that putting a regulatory regime in place would reduce the dangers associated with water systems, exactly the opposite might happen. This is because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management and governance.

But the problem is more fundamental than the resources that would be lost to creating a regulatory regime. The underlying issue is that the federal government has never provided adequate funding to meet the 1977 policy commitment of comparable facilities on reserve....If funding were supplemented to cover only the costs of a regulatory regime, the gap would continue.

We therefore see it as a precondition to moving forward on any of the viable options that the federal government must finally close the resource gap. It must provide, over a reasonable period, the funding needed to ensure that the quality of First Nations water and wastewater is at least as good as that in similar communities and that systems are properly run and maintained.

That is a precondition.

It also goes on to say that discussion with first nations is essential. It says:

The second precondition is the need for the federal government to assess whether it has a legal duty to consult with First Nations affected by any of the three options. This duty, according to the Supreme Court arises “when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it.”

As the minister pointed out, it indicates in the preamble that it will work with first nations, but nowhere is that working relationship defined. Because of the ongoing mistrust with the government, that relationship needs to be clearly spelled out about how first nations will be consulted, not just engaged, in the development of these regulations, as we saw from other consultative processes.

I spoke this morning to Bill S-2 about the so-called consultative process that was conducted with matrimonial real property. Wendy Grant-John tabled a very thorough report and many of the critical recommendations were disregarded when Bill S-2 was brought forward. Therefore, not only must the consultation process be outlined and resources attached to it, but there must be a commitment that when that consultation process is completed, the recommendations that come forward be actually incorporated into the regulations.

Finally, one of the other preconditions was, “Deal with high-risk communities immediately”. It says:

—any of the options would take time – probably several years – to reach the ultimate goal of safer drinking water for all First Nations. In the meantime, however, many reserve residents face serious risks from the drinking water available to them, sometimes from collective systems but...often from individual wells or other water sources.

It talks about the fact that we cannot just wait for the regulations to be developed or legislation to move forward. Rather we have to actually deal with the high-risk systems.

I want to touch briefly on the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems. As I indicated earlier, in early 2000 a significant number of wastewater systems and water quality systems were at risk. That number has come down. I will give the government credit to the extent to which it has invested money over the years, so the numbers have reduced, but we know it has not been enough.

To provide a couple of really important numbers on this, nationally 571 of the 587 first nations, 97%, participated in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems study. That is important.

It says that “12 First Nations have no active infrastructure on reserve lands, in some cases [this was] as a result of recent or ongoing land claim settlements”.

Under the heading “Individual Systems”, the document states that “[a]n assessment was completed for approximately 5% of the individual well and septic systems”. Some of these numbers are still staggering. It goes on to say:

36% of the individual wells sampled did not meet the requirements of the GCDWQ for a health related parameter (i.e. arsenic, barium, bacteriological, etc.) and 75% did not meet the GCDWQ for an aesthetic parameter (i.e. hardness, sodium, iron, manganese, etc.). Approximately 47% of the septic systems assessed had operational concerns identified, which were usually attributed to limited maintenance (not pumping out septic tank regularly), leaching beds installed in inappropriate soils and age....

It then states, “A risk assessment has been completed for each water and wastewater system according to the INAC Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines”. Overall, of the 807 water systems inspected, 39% were categorized as high overall risk, 34% were categorized as medium overall risk and 27% were categorized as low overall risk. Therefore, 73% of the systems have some level of risk.

There have been some improvements. We know the number of boil-water advisories has decreased. However, there are still significant problems with the water systems.

That leads me to a comment that I made earlier around the need to invest in the capacity for these water systems for first nations. Later on in the report, it did indicate:

Small water systems are generally found to have a higher risk rating than larger water systems. In many cases, these small facilities were not designed to meet current protocols and do not have the same level of resources available for operation as larger systems. In addition, the overall risk of a system appears to increase with remoteness.

Of the high risk systems, 150 systems serving 16% of the on-reserve population are flagged as high risk as a result of a bacteriological exceedance.

Of the 532 waste water systems inspected, 14% were categorized as high overall risk and 51% were categorized as medium overall risk. Again, what we are seeing is that there continues to be significant risk attached to both the water quality and to the waste water systems.

The report also made an estimate about what was required to upgrade to meet the protocol. The report said, “The total estimated construction cost to meet protocol is $1.08 billion”. That is a lot of money. However, we are talking about people's health and safety. It says:

[These] requirements...are considered to be related to health and safety, providing minimum levels of treatment, providing firm capacity, standby power and best management practices.

Members can see that the scope and the magnitude of the problem are very serious.

Groundwater is an important source and in a paper that was put forward by Sarah Morales, a submission to Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, she pointed out that it is estimated that 750,000 people in British Columbia, and this is not just first nations, rely on groundwater as their drinking source. She said that protection of this drinking water source had become a major issue in British Columbia where the aquifers, underground sources of water, and so on, were at risk. She also said that the bacteriological contamination of private domestic wells was an issue across the province.

Members can see how important it is for whatever regulation or legislation we put in place to be effective in terms of dealing with water quality. It is also important that first nations have the resources they require to construct and maintain, and to train their operators, and that there is a meaningful consultation in the development of these regulations.

Based on what we have before us, unless there is some serious amendment to this piece of legislation, New Democrats will not be able to support it.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech she referred to the capacity on first nations with regard to water and waste water. There was some inference that depending on the size of the capacity of the water or waste water system, it would determine how well that water or waste water could be treated.

The member is well aware that the capacity of water and waste water is not based upon how good the system is, but upon how good the system was that was put in. Would she agree that most waste water systems that are put in first nations communities today are to the same standard as anywhere else in Canada and that not one is substandard?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. There has been a great deal of discussion about the systems that have been installed in various communities. I am sorry if the member thought I was implying there were substandard systems installed. I was not implying that. The challenge is that sometimes systems are installed that are not actually appropriate for the size of the community. There are different kinds of systems.

In one community I visited, a very sophisticated system had been installed that was inappropriate for the size of the community. There was a huge cost to the community to operate that system in terms of chemicals, the operator training that was required and whatnot. It was not that it was a substandard system. It was a system that was inappropriate for that community.

The bigger challenge is that there are significant numbers of communities at risk, either because they do not have the training that is required or there is not appropriate monitoring. Sometimes there are well systems, whether community wells or individual wells, and there are some questions about the kinds of monitoring that goes on. If some of these wells fail, communities cannot afford to replace them.

In one of the communities I visited, the wells were all contaminated and the community is currently having to truck in water. It is more about whether the resources are available to operate, maintain and construct new facilities as appropriate.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on an excellent speech this afternoon. She has much more expertise in this area than I do and I hope she will forgive me.

I have a hard time believing the minister because he has such a long record of broken promises. Members will know that water is an internationally recognized human right. We have also made commitments to the rights of indigenous people, but the Conservative government still continues to ignore the rights of Canada's first nation communities.

A study commissioned by this very government found that an investment of $5 billion over 10 years is needed with an immediate investment of $1.2 billion. However, we are seeing in the bill that the government has ignored the recommendation from the Assembly of First Nations dealing with safe drinking water and is still advocating for incorporation by reference of provincial laws, effectively placing much of the responsibility with the provinces.

I have to ask myself what we are doing here. How much is this going to cost the provinces? We know the federal government is not coming to the table to pony up. I wonder if my colleague would elaborate on what this means for provinces such as hers, British Columbia, and provinces right across the country.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, an analysis done by Koch Thornton on March 27, 2012, made a couple of observations about the problems with Bill S-8. One of them, of course, was that there is no new funding. It said:

The implementation of a complex source-to-tap water regulation regime, as contemplated by Bill S-8, is an enormous undertaking.

Then it went on to talk about how much money that would cost. It does acknowledge that Bill S-8 cannot provide for new government spending, but it indicates that what should have happened was that an appropriation bill should have also been tabled in order to indicate the government's commitment to the funding that is required.

The other thing the member for Hamilton Mountain talked about was inherent rights. This memorandum also talks about the failure to respect inherent aboriginal treaty rights and that the original bill, Bill S-11, took a very top-down approach. It talked about the abrogation and derogation clauses, but also about how the preamble does not cover some of the issues around what that consultation process would look like for including first nations.

On the whole issue of provincial regulation, from my understanding of it, it is not so much that this is a downloading for provincial governments in terms of cost but a reconciliation of standards at the provincial level. That would mean that even though the federal government has a nation-to-nation responsibility for first nations, it is actually saying, “Where you live will determine what your water quality standards are”.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's presentation. Obviously, there are a few things we do not agree on. However, what is clear is that we agree on a couple of things.

First, with regard to capacity, we know that reporting, monitoring and maintenance is an absolutely essential facet to any comprehensive plan to address these issues and with that, an ongoing investment in infrastructure.

I appreciate the member's recognition and acknowledgement that this government has made those key investments to infrastructure and so, the final piece in this three-pronged response would be a piece of legislation.

She mentioned earlier some high-risk statistics. It is worth pointing out that some of those high-risk statistics are high-risk communities in one province but may not be in a high-risk category in another province. This depends, of course, upon a couple of key things. First, what those provincial standards are and what systems they use or do not use that constitute high risk.

As a practical matter, in terms of the need for a piece of legislation, Bill S-8 would fill that legal and regulatory vacuum. That is to say that the federal government and the first nation communities, for the first time ever, would bring together the three essential components: the capacity piece, reporting, monitoring and maintenance; the ongoing investment in infrastructure; and the need to create a regulatory framework so that first nation communities and the federal government of Canada can work together.

Would she agree that the legislation would do that and would also address the discrepancies between high risk as they are different or may be different from one jurisdiction to the other, be it a province or a territory?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is, and this is again from the national assessment of first nations report, that:

A risk assessment has been completed for each water and wastewater system according to the INAC Risk Level Evaluation Guidelines.

My understanding is that they used the INAC not the provincial guidelines.

With regard to infrastructure, what the risk assessment did identify was that there were still serious infrastructure deficits in the country. The bill before us, and as I pointed out the Senate could not tie money into the bill, has no commitment going forward for the water and waste water systems .

The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, in its summary of recommendations, clearly indicated that infrastructure investment was absolutely required. It included:

—works and measures associated with ensuring current systems meet the requirements of the various protocols, thereby reducing the risk associated with these systems; [and] the approach to addressing future servicing needs associated with the projected growth in First Nation communities.

We are not seeing that.

I indicated that over the next several years we are going to see an enormous growth in first nation communities and yet, we do not see a plan of action moving forward that would accommodate this growth in population. We already have systems that are overloaded and at risk and now we are going to add population growth.

It is essential that, if we are going to move forward with legislation, we actually commit to put the resources in place to ensure that first nations can meet those commitments.

One of the concerns with this piece of legislation is that there would be a downloading to chiefs and councils and to communities for the liability and for the cost of these systems. They may be held to a standard that they simply cannot achieve because they do not have the resources to do it.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hugely important topic that we are discussing this afternoon. I do not think that there is anyone in this chamber who does not believe that the question of unsafe drinking water has been a chronic problem and an embarrassment to Canada. Many first nation communities, especially northern and rural communities, are still living in third world conditions here in Canada in 2012.

On September 30, 2012, 116 first nations communities throughout Canada were still subject to a drinking water advisory.

This is clearly unacceptable and requires immediate action.

As National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, Assembly of First Nations, said, “Access to safe, potable water and sanitation is a basic human right”. Unfortunately, the bill would simply provide for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities.

According to every report addressing the tragic situation of water on reserve, the massive infrastructure deficit—and problems with capacity—must first be addressed before any legislation is passed.

I remember visiting the communities in northern Manitoba a little more than two years ago during the outbreak of H1N1. In Garden Hill, only 50% of the community had access to safe drinking water. In Wasagamack, only 20% of the homes had access to safe drinking water, and those are the homes on the footprint of the health unit. There are federal labour laws that insist people working in that space have to have clean drinking water.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide any additional resources or funding to address this critical capacity gap in infrastructure, nor in training. Further, there are serious concerns about the lack of real consultation with first nations during the development of the legislation, infringements on first nations jurisdiction and the inadequacy of the non-derogation clause currently in the bill.

The government's own national assessment on first nations water and waste waster systems, released on July 14, 2011, identified 314 water systems as high risk. It is interesting that the report was ready in April but somehow ended up delayed in order to not actually influence the election of 2011. The majority of high-risk systems served a small population, and water systems in remote communities were 2.5 times more likely be at high risk than low risk.

Now, more than a year after the release of that report on the national assessment on first nations water and waste water systems, which shows 73% of reserve water systems at high or medium risk, the Conservatives have failed to make any real progress toward the right of every first nations community to clean, safe, running water. As previously noted, as of September 30, 2012, there were still 116 first nations communities across Canada under a drinking water advisory. This is simply unacceptable.

I want to remind this Chamber that some of the communities that do not have drinking water at all and have to truck bottles of water to each home are not included in those statistics.

The Assembly of First Nations estimates that it will cost approximately $6.6 billion over 10 years to address this deficit. The 2012 federal budget allocated $33.8 million over two years for first nations water systems and wastewater infrastructure. This level of funding will perpetuate the status quo from previous years and is grossly inadequate.

“The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems” said it would cost $1.08 billion to bring everything up to protocol immediately. The government's own estimates identify a $5.8 billion funding shortfall to deal with the first nations water and waste water capacity gap.

After the release of the national report on September 13, 2011, I wrote to the minister with respect to what we thought was impending legislation on water and waste water management. I quote:

I am writing to you on behalf of Liberal Leader Bob Rae and my Liberal colleagues in the Senate and House of Commons to convey the position of our caucus regarding the government's approach to creating a regulatory regime for drinking water for First Nations on reserve. Our position [which has not changed] has two main points:

First, Liberals will not support any legislation on safe drinking water that is introduced without an implementation plan for additional resourcing that fully addresses the deficiencies identified in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Waste Water Systems (prepared by Neegan Burnside Ltd., April 2011). There is a clear consensus that the resource gap must be addressed as a precondition to any regulatory regime. The Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations (November 2006) states unequivocally that “it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements..”. This precondition was repeated by witnesses at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples during its study of Bill S-11, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nations lands, in spring of 2011.

Second, the government must collaborate with First Nations and obtain their free, prior and informed consent [as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People] on the range of regulatory options regarding safe drinking water identified by the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations before the re-introduction of legislation. This approach is consistent with the Crown's obligation under the law, existing treaties and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We went on to say:

It is essential that the concerns raised in this letter are fully addressed in the government's policy on safe drinking water for First Nations. The body of survey data, research and parliamentary testimony on this matter are a clear guide on what must be done. It is up to the government to adopt a new approach of collaboration and mutual accountability—one that we believe will surely have better results for the health and well-being of First Nation citizens.

That was the letter we sent September 13, 2011, and we have not changed our minds.

A year ago, in November 2011, the Conservative government supported the Liberal Party motion introduced in the House of Commons calling on the government to address, on an urgent basis, the needs of those first nations communities whose members have no access to clean running water in their homes. Yet, the government has still not moved to resolve this deplorable situation a year later.

The 2012 federal budget allocated a measly $330.8 million over two years for first nations water infrastructure. However, this money simply maintained the status quo from the previous year and was far from what is required. The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations was clear, and I will say it again. It is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

According to that report, regulation alone will not ensure safe drinking water. Any regulations must be accompanied by the adequate investment in human resources and physical assets. Yet, the government is content to impose standards and regulation on first nations regarding water and waste water treatment without providing the required investment in physical assets or capacity-building assistance to deal with the problem.

Where are the additional resources and funding to address the capacity gap? Where is the credible plan to bring first nations water systems up to a level comparable with other Canadian communities and the plan to keep them there, meaning the adequate training to keep those systems working after they have been installed? Where is the credible plan to have enough training and certification that the first nations themselves can design?

When I visited the Beausoleil First Nation in your riding, Mr. Speaker, I heard the story of unacceptable waits for a membrane just to fix a state-of-the-art treatment plant. There was worry after a lightning storm. There were fully qualified and very experienced 20-year veterans, who were unable to step into the water treatment plant after an electrical storm because they had not met the criteria. Even though in any oral exam these people were encyclopedic about the microbiology and the planning of it, they had to wait until the next morning for the first ferry for someone from the mainland to come along, to even walk into the plant.

It is ridiculous that we cannot find a system that allows people to work who know how to do the things that need to be done for their people. They end up on a boil water advisory because of that gap. It is just totally unacceptable and shows that no one is listening to these people as to what it takes to meet their needs.

The government must immediately target sufficient financial resources to close the capacity gap for first nations, in terms of both infrastructure and training regarding water and waste water systems on first nations land. Most of all, it must listen to first nations themselves and involve them in the planning for the placement of these projects as well as the training and certification.

There is no question that the goal of the bill is right. We want to address health and safety issues on reserve lands and certain other lands, by providing for regulations and waste water. Unfortunately, we believe the work has not been done in developing the kinds of regulations that are required. The regulations, on a province-to-province basis, to mirror existing provincial regulatory schemes, may not work all of the time. First nations must be consulted this time.

Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric at the recent Crown–first nations gathering about resetting the relationship, the Conservative government has shown a total disregard for the rights of indigenous people. The government has used the same flawed approach on first nations accountability and matrimonial real property without discussions on the specifics of the bill with stakeholders or political parties before tabling.

Numerous witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee said that they were frustrated that the government did not consult the first nations regarding the drafting of this bill.

Introduced in the Senate in May 2010, Bill S-11, Safe Drinking Water for First Nations act, was sharply criticized by first nations and NGOs for ignoring the expert panel recommendations and for claiming sweeping jurisdiction without consultation.

Bill S-8 has most of the same flaws as its predecessor and does not seem to have taken first nations concerns into account. Consultation requires both a substantive dialogue and that the government listen and, when appropriate, incorporate what it hears into its approach. Consultation is not an information session, as we have heard time and time again, legislation after legislation, by the government. How can the government cite The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations as the prime example of its consultation process and then move forward with a regulatory regime without a plan to deal with capacity issues for implementation? Consultation is of no use if the government simply disregards what it hears.

It is also unacceptable that the current non-derogation clause in the bill still expressly allows for the abrogation or derogation of aboriginal and treaty rights.

It is clear that the legislation completely misses the mark and fails to deal with the real issues underscoring first nations access to clean, safe drinking water. Until the government comes forward with a credible plan to deal with the huge shortfall in funding for needed infrastructure and the training required to further develop the operational capacity within communities to maintain that infrastructure, we are not going to tackle this national disgrace.

That is what the government's own expert panel has told it. That is what first nations is telling it. It is time for the government to listen.

It is with sadness, I remind the House, that it was seven years ago when the Kelowna accord was signed, after 18 months of work with first nations and provinces and territories. Five billion dollars was assigned to close the gap, and then the agreement was torn up as soon as this government came to office. We are seven years behind where we could have begun to address the problem with that money that was expressly for these purposes.

This afternoon I asked the minister whether we could expect to see in budget 2013 the kinds of dollars the Conservatives' own expert panels stated would be necessary to fix this problem.

To me, a strategy must be what, by when and how. My question for the government and the minister, accordingly, is when will 100% of first nations homes in 100% of communities have the same access to safe and potable drinking water and to waste water management as other Canadians in all communities and municipalities in this country?

I implore this House to actually call upon the government to put in place the dollars necessary to meet the objectives of the bill. Otherwise the bill is totally useless.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of observations. First, the Government of Canada also initiated a national assessment of first nations' water and waste water systems, resulting in the most rigorous, comprehensive and independent report of its kind. The assessment released on July 4, 2011 showed that the majority of risk is due to capacity issues, although infrastructure issues and lack of enforceable standards are also a factor.

Departmental officials, first nations and other stakeholders are encouraged by the recommendations and the next step. Funding is only part of the solution to address the provision of safe drinking water on reserve. Enforced regulations are also necessary to protect the health and safety of first nations.

The national assessment and numerous other reports have addressed the need for water and waste water regulatory regimes and standards on reserve. That is why the introduction of safe drinking water legislation remains a priority for the Government of Canada, and it is our intention to introduce the bill during the fall sitting of Parliament.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member actually made my point, which was that the panel said that we cannot go forward without the dollars to build the capacity to do this, both for infrastructure and the training to keep that infrastructure running.

I am still not sure. I understand that the parliamentary secretary asked that member to get this on the record, but really, the question he is asking supports the view on this side of the House that no regulations will work unless there are the dollars for the capacity and the training needed to meet the objectives of the bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Paul's spoke eloquently and from the heart. The problem is that the Liberal Party of Canada was in power. The problems with drinking water did not occur overnight. They did not suddenly appear when the Conservative government got elected. These problems keep resurfacing, and have been around for some time. It is perhaps time for this country called Canada to meet its obligations. Political parties should not only talk about these issues when they are in opposition, they must take action when they are in power.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party of Canada left a terrible legacy, that of the three wise monkeys: speak no evil, see no evil, and hear no evil. The Senate is the perfect example of this—just look at this bill.

Can the member for St. Paul's tell us whether she is going to walk the talk?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member. This is a non-partisan issue. The history of our aboriginal people is a shared history among all Canadians and a shared history among all political parties.

I remember the Kelowna accord. It was a start. It involved 18 months of consultations between the provinces, territories, and aboriginal leaders. Afterwards, there was a real strategy for health, education, affordable housing, infrastructure, accountability and also economic development, and it included $5 billion over 5 years to begin to improve this situation, which is an embarrassment to all Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but perhaps I will just get a couple of facts on the record first.

I am glad to see that the government is bringing this bill forward. After all, it was four front-line cabinet ministers in the government who were named by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor as being responsible for the Walkerton crisis, which killed many Ontarians and poisoned thousands of others.

The second thing I would like to remind the House about is that right now, for example, we are seeing the Experimental Lakes Area of Canada being completely killed in terms of funding. It is a global masterpiece of research for water and freshwater in the country. Moreover, the Environment Canada water research unit has been completely eliminated by the government. There is no water research capacity left. NRC's water research division has been slashed. The list goes on. The sustainable development technology Canada fund has been exhausted. There is no new money coming forward for water technologies.

How does my colleague react to that, particularly given the importance of not only Canada's first nations' drinking water crisis, but also the fact that one of the fastest growing environmental technology marketplaces in the world is to actually deal with water and waste water?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are also hearing across the country from first nations about navigable waters and why, in this omnibus bill, the only lakes and rivers protected seem to be in Conservative ridings. What happens to the lakes and rivers that first nations, Métis people and Inuit need for their livelihood? These waters must stay pure and remain something they can count on.

Many first nations leaders will tell us that they used to be able to put a cup in the water and drink it, that water is really important to them, the lifeblood of their existence. Just fixing bad water is not the issue. Protecting our water systems and being able to actually develop an economic development strategy that includes safe drinking water and waste water management should also be part of the economic development strategy for first nations.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question and talk about safe and reliable drinking water and the increased capacity that we have.

I am quite amazed that it appears that the member opposite and the Liberal Party are prepared to oppose this bill, in clear contradiction of the motion that the Liberal Party put forward and that was carried unanimously in this House of Commons. I am wondering how she can square that.

I would also like to speak about the circuit rider training program. It is an important first vehicle for first nations operators to receive ongoing training and mentoring on-site. Since 2006, Aboriginal and Northern Affairs has increased funding from about $5 million to $10 million per year to hire more trainers. There are currently perhaps only 65 circuit trainers working for first nations across the country.

However, I would first really like to know how the hon. member is going to square that circle I mentioned.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the motion for the member:

That the House call on the Government of Canada to address on an urgent basis the needs of those First Nations communities whose members have no access to clean, running water in their homes....

That actually means money. It means there must be the dollars for the infrastructure, the water treatment and the waste water plants, as well as the training that is required.

The 2012 federal budget did not deal with the billions of dollars that the federal panel said was required to fix this problem. We will see what happens when it comes to the committee. However, I was clear with the minister from September of last year that without some commitment to the money it will take to fix this problem, it will be very difficult for us to support this raining down of legislation: thou shalt do this and thou shalt do that, with no money to support it at all from the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will split my speaking time with my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

My speech will concern the bill respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. And I would emphasize “first nation lands”. The French version of the bill is quite ambiguous about this. Does the expression “terres des premières nations” also include traditional lands? I will come back to that later.

This bill is an opportunity for me to expand on certain concepts outlined in my previous speeches that deserve to be explained in clearer terms for all Canadian citizens as a whole.

I will apply the principles of feedback here. Some of my colleagues, constituents and employees have told me that my way of speaking may seem arcane at times. This is something of an occupational hazard since I spent two years working for my band council on consultations about private cottage leases with Quebec's department of natural resources and wildlife. I subsequently taught at the college level and gave a course on legal and administrative aspects of aboriginal organizations. That has necessarily had an effect on the way I speak. Sometimes people may feel a bit lost as result of the terms I use, including “Indianness”, “fiduciary relationship” and “fiduciary obligation”. Today I will take stock and try to express those ideas in simpler terms. This is where we stand as a society. The general public must understand that, if we have to deal with legal texts that aim to circumvent those obligations by indirect means, that has something to do with all these subtleties surrounding the aboriginal question.

Certain concepts of aboriginal law should be explained since the bill before us is worded in a roundabout way that suggests there has been some recurring intrigue in the study of recent Conservative legislative initiatives respecting first nations.

Over the past year and a half, I have observed that a number of initiatives to amend the Indian Act, or matters specific to aboriginal identity in this country, have been designed to divide up the crown's current obligations toward aboriginal communities. This is quite distressing since, in many cases, those matters are entrenched in the Constitution. From the moment they concern identity issues, they are “Indianness” issues and issues that fall under the fiduciary relationship that must exist between the crown and aboriginal people. These are matters for the courts. The Supreme Court has staked it all out, through case law in particular; it is not codified. The ins and outs of this fiduciary obligation, of the fiduciary relationship, are not codified. However, they are clearly marked out. Many judges have adopted positions on these matters. We must examine the case law in order really to take stock of the scope of this fiduciary obligation.

Today I will try to explain it all in simple terms. From the moment an initiative, whether a legislative or a field initiative, is brought forward by the government and can interfere with title, traditional activities and aboriginal identity issues, it becomes an obligation issue, a fiduciary relationship issue. The government has a duty to adopt a rigorous principle of precaution and avoid affecting or unduly altering that relationship and matters that are entrenched in the Constitution. “Indianness” issues are all identity issues of the communities and of the Canadian government.

Coming back to matters specifically pertaining to drinking water, surface water and groundwater, I see from this bill that the Conservatives are trying to distance themselves somewhat from that obligation. This obligation falls, first and foremost, to the government. As is the case for Canadians as a whole, access to drinking water is a government obligation.

The aim of this specific bill is to make regulations that will ultimately transfer the entire burden to the communities, without—and this is worth noting—granting the necessary management budget and without any concern for water quality or damage to the water table.

Ironically, in 2012, the Conservatives are in the spotlight for approving a number of mining and forestry sector initiatives. Inevitably, those initiatives most often involve traditional first nations lands across the country. In communities that live in remote regions and in most cases return to those traditional lands, which have been theirs for more than 20,000 years—they have visited every square centimetre of them—there is a special relationship with drinking water sources on the land.

If the water table is damaged and the quality of surface water sources is no longer good, that is often related to this development, to these explorations. From the moment you carry on mining exploration—you drill and remove and analyze an ore sample—there is a real chance the water table will be affected.

If the Conservative government is trying to distance itself today, that is no doubt because it knows perfectly well that the intrigues involving the communities' traditional lands are linked to the lack of quality, to a damaged water table and to the often fair or debatable quality of surface water.

That is why I suspect the government, today, of trying to offload the responsibility onto the communities which, at the end of the day, have to deal with the radon gas contaminated water. It is just an example, but it is a relevant example that concerns my own riding.

In this particular case, it is clear that the relationship with the freshwater sources located on traditional lands is one of the first nations' bastions of identity.

This unilateral initiative violates the principles of the Crown's fiduciary responsibility, which describes the contribution of aboriginal peoples to the development of measures that have a major impact on the ancestral rights, titles and interests of the first nations. When I refer to fiduciary relationships, and fiduciary obligations, I should point out that this, too, is tied to this notion.

It means that governments, before considering and instituting measures that may hamper the traditional activities of communities and violate their identity and their rights—both treaty rights and ancestral rights—must, first and foremost, ensure that communities are involved, which is not the case here. Once again, this is a unilateral initiative. It has been decried internationally. Canada has been exposed in this matter.

I humbly submit that all of these initiatives are destined to fail as long as the first nations are not on the front lines, because these decisions must, ultimately, be the fruit of their reflection, and must be implemented by them.

In this instance, the government is trying to shirk its responsibility and distance itself from negative perceptions associated with its failure to take charge of issues that are its exclusive responsibility.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his very eloquent and very complete speech. I think our colleagues on the other side will have learned much from it.

I think clean drinking water is a fundamental right. My colleague may have heard of the municipality of Shannon in my riding, which has had to deal with contaminated water problems and needed substantial federal investments in order to get access to a potable water system.

Why is the government not investing in first nations communities, when they have a significant problem—even worse than in my riding—when it comes to access to drinking water?

I would like to hear more from my colleague on that question.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I will tell her now that the cost, in both financial and human terms, for remediating many surface water sources and water tables, is enormous at the present time. I think the Conservatives are starting to realize this today. There are analyses that have been brought to their attention.

Most often, these water sources, water tables and surface water sources, are located on traditional lands. The Conservatives know very well that their fiduciary duties mean that at this time, it is the people in power who have to make sure that services are delivered to the public and that the public has access to that water.

I know of communities very close to here, in Pontiac county, that simply cannot drink the water in their homes because the level of radioactivity exceeds all relevant standards. These are heavy costs, and they are the result of negligence that has gone on for decades, and today we can see the result. That is why the Conservatives are trying to distance themselves and shift the burden onto someone else.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member sits on the aboriginal affairs committee with me, he would know that in the past two years our Conservative government has put forward $338 million toward first nations water and waste water systems. That is a significant amount of money. He would also understand that this money needs also to have first nations' buy-in for those systems to be put in.

Would the member agree that our government is working toward access for first nations to clean water and waste water systems but that it requires the first nations to buy in to the process and that we cannot force a first nation into it?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There are always numbers to be cited regarding massive investments, but I would say that what is being done at present is damage control. That money could have been invested differently people’s quality of life had come first, rather than mining and industry agendas. We might not have needed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in filtration systems for remediation and to ensure that people are drinking clean water in those areas.

If there had been better oversight of resource development initiatives, perhaps we would not be in the situation we are in today. If there had been better oversight of the impact of illegal occupation of the land for decades, we would not be where we are today. The negligence of the Conservatives today is cited as the problem, but the negligence of many others, before that, has also contributed.

The negligence has piled up over the years, and today we have this utterly deplorable result. If efforts had been made from the outset, there would be no need to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in water remediation and treatment in 2012.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, late last fall, the interim leader of the Liberal Party brought in a motion for an opposition day, where we would recognize the importance of having clean running water for all Canadians. If memory serves me correctly, all members of the House voted in favour of that motion.

Given the very nature of the importance of having access to clean water, to what degree does the member believe the government is making it a priority issue, considering the fact that the House itself voted in favour of a motion that virtually said this is something we have to do?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

On the face of it, the government is going to say all the right things. It will say that it is crucial that first nations have access to clean drinking water, just as every other Canadian does. However, it will be their actions in 2012 that will be lacking, given that really fixing the problem would be extremely costly, not to mention the human resources that would be needed, often in very remote regions. Common sense must prevail, and the Conservatives will have to give in and listen to the fact that fixing the situation is crucial and that access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right that belongs to all Canadians.

It is an enormous undertaking, and even with the best intentions in the world, so it will remain until fundamental changes take place in industrial practices and in social intervention, and until water quality is monitored in these communities, which are often remote.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate today on this bill, but it is not because this is a good piece of legislation. It is a bill that misses the mark on an important issue.

The legislation concerns itself with a basic human right: the right to safe, sufficient, affordable drinking water. For too many in this world, that is unattainable, but while it might be tempting to think that struggle is the stuff of distant and impoverished nations, it is difficult to admit this is a challenge in many Canadian communities. It is even more difficult to admit how many of those—in fact, a disproportionately large number of them—are first nations communities.

For a country blessed with the freshwater resources of Canada, it should be unimaginable that this is the case. Yet here we are today debating a bill that seems more interested in pursuing a Conservative view of how first nations should be run than dealing with the actual problem. Bill S-8 is long on prescriptions and predictably short on resources to back them up, which helps explain, in part, why this is a problem that persists.

What we have is another in a series of bills that excuses the government from its primary obligations to first nations while subjecting those communities to substantial risk, significant financial burdens and a patchwork of provincial standards for the delivery of safe drinking water. What this bill does not do is adequately address the needs of first nations to build capacity in order to develop and administer water and waste water systems on their lands.

This bill would provide for federal regulations to govern drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nations communities, which sounds good enough, but we will see that the devil is in the details, like the way it leaves communities on the hook for existing problems they may not have created, even if what they really want to do is start over in an attempt to get things right.

Some of the items covered in this legislation are the training and certification of operators for drinking and waste water systems; source water protection; the location, design, construction, modification, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of drinking water and waste water systems; drinking water distribution by truck; the collection and treatment of waste water; the monitoring, sampling and testing of waste water and the reporting of test results; and the handling, use and disposal of products of waste water treatment.

As I mentioned, these regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nations communities. What is not mentioned is that those regulations are not uniform, which could lead to unequal burdens for communities for what is primarily a federal responsibility.

The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations, claiming it would result in a patchwork of regulations, leading to some first nations having more stringent standards than others. Incredibly, the regulations in this bill would overrule any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. This is becoming old hat for the government. It has an insatiable capacity for paternalistic measures when it comes to first nations. That goes hand in hand with the seemingly uncontrollable urge to shortchange first nations with crippling cutbacks, as we saw recently with tribal councils. In keeping with the Conservatives' desire to excuse themselves from federal responsibilities, this bill would limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of their duties under the regulations the bill sets out.

As I mentioned at the outset, safe drinking water is a basic human right. For many first nation communities, adequate access to this has been a well-known problem for more than a decade.

This is not the first crack the Conservatives have had at this issue, either. What is unfortunate is how this really is not any better than the previous attempt.

The other place has sent us a similar piece of legislation that also tried to undermine the primary responsibility of the federal government when it comes to first nations. We have already seen the preference to employ the mishmash of provincial regulations on water safety instead of determining an even and consistent set of regulations, regulations that should have been arrived at in consultation with first nations instead of by unelected and unaccountable professional politicians in the other place. Perhaps if there were a few people involved in developing these regulations who would ultimately have to use them, we might be debating a bill with a little more merit to it.

I would not want anyone to think that New Democrats do not appreciate the need to address inadequate water systems or to improve standards in what can only be viewed as far too many communities for a country as rich as Canada. We understand the connection to health and economic well-being that flows from safe, dependable and affordable water. It is this legislation that is missing the mark.

For example, this bill would make first nations liable for water systems that have already proven inadequate, but has no funding to help them improve those deficient systems. Even if the first nation wants to build a replacement that would better suit their needs, it has to maintain their old and often costly systems at the same time. It is a case of “Sorry, you're stuck with it, and it's a money pit”. In that respect, this is a recipe for failure.

Then there is the end run on aboriginal rights that is written in to the bill. It is a seemingly innocuous statement that sets a terrible principle. By adding the words, “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”, the previous clause that states nothing in the bill may be taken as abrogating or derogating from aboriginal or treaty rights is negated.

I want to state that is a Conservative view of how relations should be pursued with first nations and bears no resemblance to the New Democrat belief that the relationship between Canada and our first nations should be rooted in a respectful nation-to-nation dialogue on matters like this.

It is a relationship that should grow out of a trust that is built in many ways, including through legislation arrived at as a result of thorough consultation and not as the product of a patriarchal view of how things could be better when viewed through the narrow lens of red and black ink on a ledger sheet.

New Democrats believe that regulations alone will not help first nations people to develop and maintain safe on-reserve water systems. They need crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems, and adequate housing. It is naive to think this can be achieved on the cheap.

In the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Constance Lake First Nation's water supply has been through a state of emergency. Its traditional water source has been contaminated by blue green algae, which resulted in a shutdown of the community's water treatment plant. After drilling two new wells, it is off boil water advisories for the first time in years, but it requires a new system to ensure quality and to meet its growing demand. Under this legislation, it would be liable for the old system while it tried to build a new one.

I want to reiterate the importance of safe drinking water. I would encourage all members to take a few moments to become familiar with the good work of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation. Its excellent website is a treasure trove of information and includes this language with respect to the challenges we are discussing today:

While it is hard for many rural communities to provide safe drinking water, the situation in First Nations communities is especially difficult. Since 1995, a number of reports have highlighted the unacceptable situation in these communities. Health Canada still tells approximately 120 communities to boil their water and Indian Affairs says that there is a good chance that water systems in 85 communities could break down. Without a proper regulatory framework and enough resources, First Nations will continue to face this risk to public health. We work with First Nations to improve public policies to make sure that First Nations get the systems and resources they need.

I would have the government note the reference to working with first nations and the need to provide resources to go along with the proper regulatory framework.

Ultimately, the Safe Drinking Water Foundation sees the challenges for what they are, that what is really needed is for the government to sit down with first nations in a peer-to-peer manner and work together to develop a kind of regulatory framework that will ultimately change the circumstances for many first nations.

While the government is able to ram through legislation, that should not be its goal, especially for issues as important as this. If the government is able to go back to the drawing board, undertake the necessary consultation to legitimize the process and draw up legislation that reflects as much, it will be better received on the opposition benches and, more important, among Canada's first nations.

I want to also mention that the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Treaty 7 first nations in Alberta have signalled continued concerns with the proposed legislation, signing among others the need to address infrastructure and capacity issues before introducing federal regulations.

It is not only the opposition that is against this legislation; it is first nations that would actually benefit from better drinking water. They know this is not what they need. They need actual resources.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the drinking water advisory notices. When we have a situation on a reserve where the quality of the water is questioned, these drinking advisories go out. Members might be surprised to know that back in September 2012 well over 100 of those advisories were issued for on-reserve quality of water related issues.

That is one of the reasons why I believe this chamber needs to give more attention to the issue of good quality drinking, running water for all Canadians.

Would the member comment on the serious nature every year when so many communities are given these drinking water advisory notices because of inadequate or water of poor quality?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments with respect to the advisories. It is truly a sad day, and there have been a lot of sad days, when we see so many advisories going out.

However, it is not just about the advisories. In April 2011, and let us just look at that piece because those are the specifics I have right now but I know this continues on, 1,880 first nations homes reported no water services and 1,777 reported no waste water services. We can see that the infrastructure within our first nations has been lacking for quite some time. I would have to remind the member that the Liberals had 12 years to do something about and they did not.

I did also want to add a couple of things. I mentioned Constance Lake First Nation, which is one of the first nations in my community. It has had serious issues with its water. I spoke about mercury poisoning last night during my late show. That continues on. Health Canada indicated that it was not a problem. Even the Minister of Health said that there was no issue for them to drink its water.

This is what Constance Lake First Nation have in one of its newsletters right now. It said that Health Canada had said the water was good to drink, that it was safe. The newsletter adds that this is still not believed because tea is still black in colour on top of pots and kettles. It says that the high levels of manganese and iron in its new water are causing these visual changes in tea. The first nation has questioned whether that water is still good to drink.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity and I appreciate the work this member does with us on the committee. I want to raise two things as briefly as I need to be.

First, this whole notion of a lack of consultation is just foolish. Even before I was elected, in my capacity in two different professions, which were almost totally invested in first nations communities, I have never seen a government so thoroughly walk lock-step with first nations leadership across the country from coast to coast to coast since 2006 with the AFN, with community leadership.

I was working with community members to help draft reports for this national consultation. Frankly, there has not been legislation so thoroughly consulted with its constituents.

Further to that, with respect to the aboriginal treaty rights the hon. member raised in her speech, I remind her that Bill S-8 addresses the relationship between legislation and aboriginal treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act and it will not infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, other than to the extent necessary to take health and safety measures to protect the source of drinking water.

I hope she can grasp the technical dimensions of that and the important and prevailing help—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will give the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing some time.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to question with respect to consultation. We are getting emails, we are talking to the chiefs and they are telling us the same thing, that they are not being consulted.

When the government says that it is consulting, it is specifically picking on who it wants to consult with to get the point of view for which it is looking.

Just on this note, I could turn around and ask the questions. If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he is more than welcome to make it. Why is the government refusing to invest in safe drinking water for aboriginal communities, despite the recommendations of a government-commissioned study and the recommendations of its own expert panel? This is the question that needs to be answered by the government.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I will start by quoting Shakespeare, who said, "Much ado about nothing". Clearly, with regard to drinking water, we have a collective obligation to achieve a result. It is not enough just to talk about it; we actually have to do something about it.

We have before us a bill that comes from the Senate, which in theory embodies wisdom and experience. However, this Senate is asleep at the wheel. They only wake up at about the same time as my colleagues in the Liberal Party. The Liberals were in power for 12 years, and now that they are in the opposition, they realize there is a problem with drinking water. It is sad to say, but it is astonishing to see how some people are concerned about problems not when they are in a position to solve them, but only once people have withdrawn their support. The current Conservative government policy is based on the policy that was developed by our colleagues in the Liberal Party.

There are people who do not deliver on their mandate, and who never deliver on their mandate. They only want to talk about these problems once they are in opposition. For example, the 2% increase on spending on higher education was introduced by the Liberal Party. It would be interesting if, one day, the Liberal Party actually put their money where their mouth is. They should stop saying one thing and doing another. That would solve a lot of problems.

Unfortunately, Canada as a whole is affected by this record of failure, and this is the main problem. There is an old proverb that says, “Charity begins at home”. In the future, Liberal policies will have to be distinct from Conservative policies, once they are in power. The record on the whole range of aboriginal issues is a disaster on every point right down the line, and drinking water is only one problem among many.

Infrastructure is not tailored to suit the needs of the aboriginal communities. It is deteriorating while the first nations population is experiencing its highest growth rate ever. This is not a problem that will diminish, but one that will intensify over the years. People on reserves are living in third world conditions. They are living in third world conditions here, in Canada. In a country that claims to be rich and developed, we allow a part of our population to live in conditions that are comparable with those in the third world. This situation is the result of a long-standing lack of political will.

Support for education is very low. We talked about it again this fall. The government talks about it, but perhaps it should stop introducing Senate bills and private members' motions and actually decide to take action on education.

I would like to bring up a particularly important point and say that education is probably the best way for people to lift themselves out of poverty and to participate fully in the prosperity of this country. This is important to note.

Access to health care is difficult and sometimes there are no health care services. Aboriginal communities have the highest rate of suicide in Canada. More attention must be given to health care and prevention. All this results in an extremely high unemployment rate and grinding poverty, and leads to exclusion. It makes me wonder whether so much negligence is perhaps not race-related.

If there were no drinking water for a week in a neighbourhood in my riding, there would be a riot, and the whole of Parliament would support me in finding a solution to the problem. In this example, I am talking about a drinking water shortage that lasts just a few weeks, but in aboriginal communities it is a problem that has gone on for years and years.

It is obvious that Parliament is still at the discussion and research stage. That is where the problem lies.

We are dealing with a government that invites white supremacists to speak before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We can only imagine what it will do with petitions from aboriginal peoples. They are the government’s lowest priority, and it shows.

I invite everyone here to observe the reaction of the Conservatives when aboriginal communities appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. They ignore them, barely listen to them, are paternalistic and behave in a haughty manner towards them. The problem with fine speeches is that “words are wasted on a hungry man”. We suggest that the government “deliver the goods”. Once it does that, we might be able to listen to its proposals a little more attentively. Credibility is something that has to be built.

Since 1911, there has been a long string of reports, including one on aboriginal communities and their right to a water and sewer system. The report stated clearly that a substantial financial commitment would be necessary for the development of infrastructure and that it would cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to meet the needs of the community. An amount and an objective are clearly stated: it will cost this much for drinking water and for sewer systems.

In response to the urgent need to invest $1.2 billion, the government committed to paying $330 million over two years, in 2010, and nothing in 2011. It simply threw in the towel. It is all very well to talk about projects, but promises must be kept. The funds need to be available, but they are not. It has been claimed that efforts were made in the past, but they were clearly inadequate and did not continue.

This leads us to ask an important question. Are the Conservatives really in power to serve Canadians? Providing drinking water to Canadians ought to be a government priority, because the government should care for its citizens. But no, they do not see the urgency of the situation.

I can guarantee that if there were ever a shortage of drinking water somewhere in a Conservative riding, the Conservatives would not talk about it for six years before taking action. Things would move more quickly. Studies carried out over a 10-year period have shown that first nations communities do not have access to drinking water. This is not exactly news.

The bill includes the following words:

[...] to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nations lands.

It was a United Nations priority. The problem is that the current government pays about as much attention to the United Nations priorities for aboriginal peoples as it does to aboriginal peoples themselves.

The results have been disastrous. Let us not forgot that the government, in fact all parliamentarians and the people of Canada, have an indisputable moral obligation as human beings to provide assistance to anyone who is in danger. It is even mentioned in the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, when aboriginal people are involved, this moral obligation disappears.

As a people, If we deny assistance to others in need, we become accomplices to genocide. It is morally unacceptable and amounts to throwing in the towel. The NDP refuses to do so, and to be a party to the inaction of far too many previous successive governments.

It is a debate that we, the NDP members, will engage in once we are in power. We will deliver the goods.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the New Democratic members choose to throw stones in glass houses. I would refer to a report of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs related to the flooding of massive amounts of water. On April 3, 2012, a class action was commenced against the government of Manitoba—that being NDP of course—for damages suffered by members of the first nation residing on several different reserves that the flood cut through.

It says that the members of the first nation allege that the government of Manitoba breached their treaty rights to use and occupy the reserve lands and that they are in a position that, once they were evacuated by the government of Manitoba, Manitoba breached its fiduciary duty to provide them with adequate accommodations, medical care, schooling for their children and dietary needs. This is the NDP government in the province of Manitoba.

When the member tries to say the Liberals could have done something, we are trying to address the issues of today. Will the member not acknowledge that today there is a very serious issue regarding water quality and attempts to ensure there is running water in all of our communities across Canada? In fact the leader of the Liberal Party brought in a motion to that effect, which all members of the House supported. All political parties need to pick up and do what they can to deal with this issue as opposed to trying to politicize—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We must allow time for the answer.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: governments must put their money where their mouth is. Governments have never delivered the goods. There comes a time when we must produce results. There is more to results than just talk. It takes more than just scribbling on a piece of paper from the Senate and calling it legislation. We must deliver the goods.

Unfortunately, whether the issue is drinking water, housing, access to education, access to economic prosperity or anything else, Canada as a country has never delivered the goods, and that responsibility falls to all politicians.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his excellent speech. I share his outrage at this government's highly paternalistic attitude toward first nations.

As the hon. member mentioned, the lack of infrastructure is a major problem.

Could he comment on the shortfall regarding how much this government has invested in infrastructure for first nations reserves?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there used to be an agreement between first nations and the Government of Canada: the Kelowna accord, which provided for a $1 billion investment every year. Had we had that money, we could have started solving the problem long ago. Funding is severely lacking now.

Moreover, reports from experts—including the government's own experts—show that we need an additional $4.7 billion for infrastructure, including water systems and drinking water. That is significant.

On top of that, this government has the unfortunate habit, when criticized by a band council, to put that band in trusteeship. We saw a sad demonstration of that approach to the housing situation in Attawapiskat. We can hardly speak of negotiating infrastructure issues when one party acts as judge, jury and executioner.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the honourable member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at approximately 5:30 p.m. at the end of the time provided for government business.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-8 concerning the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Essentially, the bill provides for the development of federal regulations governing the supply of drinking water, water quality standards and the elimination of wastewater in first nations communities.

It also stipulates that these regulations may incorporate, by reference, provincial regulations concerning drinking water and wastewater in first nations communities. Access to drinking water is crucial to the health and safety of all Canadians, including the 500,000 people spread out among approximately 560 first nations.

Access to drinking water is also closely tied to the economic viability of various communities. For the past 10 years or more, studies have shown that many first nations communities do not have adequate access to safe drinking water. On September 30, 2012, 116 first nations communities across Canada were subject to an advisory regarding the quality of their drinking water.

In April 2011, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development estimated that 1,880 aboriginal households did not have running water and that 1,777 households did not have sewage services. In total, 807 water systems serve 560 first nations. It is estimated that a quarter of the water systems in first nations communities present a potential risk for the health and safety of the consumers.

I would like to speak briefly about the sharing of responsibilities in the area of water management. On first nations reserves south of the 60th parallel, the responsibility to guarantee the safety of drinking water is shared among first nations communities and the federal government. The chief and council are responsible for the planning and development of facilities that meet the needs of the community, especially in the supply of drinking water.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides funding for the supply of water and its associated infrastructure, in particular for the construction, modernization, operation and maintenance of water treatment facilities on reserve. The department also provides financial support for training purposes and for the issuance of facility operator certificates.

In this debate, it is important to stress that the crux of the problem has to do with under-investment by the federal government. According to a 2011 independent evaluation on water and sewage systems in first nations communities, $1.08 billion would be required to bring existing water and sewage systems in compliance with federal guidelines and protocols, and provincial standards and regulations.

It will also be necessary to put about $79.8 million into work that is not related to construction, such as training operators and preparing plans for protecting water sources and emergency response plans. In total, it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to guarantee that the first nations communities’ water and wastewater system needs are met. That one-time investment of $4.7 billion is in addition to the regular operating and maintenance budget, estimated at $420 million a year.

When we consider the extent of the need, it is easy to understand that the Conservative government’s recent investments amount to only a drop in the ocean. We also have to understand that access to drinking water involves investing in infrastructure, but also funding the science and the regulation.

Drinking water has to be stringently managed and regularly analyzed to ensure that it is safe and to protect public health. The provinces have put legislation and regulations in place to secure their drinking water distribution systems, but those do not apply on reserves.

Health Canada is responsible for ensuring that drinking water quality monitoring programs are in place and has to collaborate with the provinces and territories to make recommendations about drinking water quality in Canada.

Environment Canada is responsible for developing standards, guidelines and protocols for wastewater systems located on federal or aboriginal land, as defined in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

These same departments, which are responsible for conducting water management studies based on rigorous scientific standards, are engaging in mass layoffs of dozens of scientists because of the Conservative government’s budget cuts.

It must be noted that over 1,500 federal government professionals and scientists represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada were informed this week that their positions will be affected by the government’s irresponsible budget cuts.

Two thousand professionals represented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, including 100 at health Canada, received a work force adjustment notice when the 2012 federal budget was tabled.

As well, in the Public Service Alliance, it is estimated that 1,200 unionized positions will be affected by the cuts at Health Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In short, the Conservative government’s budget cuts could reduce oversight.

In 2005, however, the Auditor General of Canada said that in most first nations communities, drinking water was analyzed less often than required under the recommendations for drinking water quality in Canada.

Why does the Conservative government want to set us back 10 years by making cuts to science and oversight?

In March 2012, I had the opportunity to participate in the showing of Wapikoni mobile in Boisbriand. This is an excellent travelling audiovisual creation project that criss-crosses aboriginal communities in Quebec to give young people an opportunity to tell their stories on film and in music. It is an excellent project, and one that has unfortunately been cut by the Conservative government.

In short, the NDP recognizes that the water supply systems are jeopardizing the health and welfare of the first nations.

But we also find it unacceptable that Bill S-2 proposes only to transfer responsibility for water supply systems to the first nations without giving them the resources they need in order to acquire adequate systems that meet their needs.

Like most first nations organizations that have spoken to this, and I am thinking in particular of the Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski nation, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the nations that have signed Treaty 7 in Alberta—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member will have two minutes the next time if she wishes to finish her speech.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 1 consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. The proposed legislation is an essential part of a larger collaborative strategy that would ensure that residents of first nations communities have reliable access to clean, safe drinking water, like all Canadians.

At a recent Crown-first nations gathering, first nations and the government committed to working together to support strong, healthy first nation communities. The safe drinking water for first nations act is a key milestone in making this a reality and a vital step toward ensuring that first nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water in their communities as other Canadians.

While provinces and territories have their own legally binding safe drinking water standards, there are currently no legal enforceable protections for first nations governing drinking water and waste water on first nations lands. Following passage of Bill S-8, the Government of Canada would work in close partnership with first nations and other stakeholders to develop federal regulations for access to safe drinking water and to ensure the effective treatment of waste water and the protection of sources of drinking water on first nations' lands.

The proposed legislation would provide incentives to maintain the infrastructure involved, as well as clarify the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater treatment facilities on first nations' lands. First and foremost, however, and as our top priority, it would help protect the health and safety of first nations.

With that said, I move:

That the question be now put.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the parliamentary secretary is not engaging in debate with members of this chamber who, in some cases, have taken time to raise concerns and ask questions of he and his colleagues as to why the Conservatives are moving in this direction. Why do they expect this level of accountability on this one group of citizens, on the first nations people, in complete contravention of the spirit of the meetings that have been held over the past year? We have not received sufficient answers.

Why does the parliamentary secretary feel the answers to those questions is to shut down debate?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of my entire professional life, invested in living and working in first nations communities, I cannot recall a time when any government, provincial or federal, has engaged in such an extensive exercise of consultation. This government in 2006, in lockstep with the Assembly of First Nations, did a coast to coast to coast consultation to set the table for the kinds of principles that we are moving forward with respect to Bill S-8.

As somebody who worked with first nations communities on the input for this extensive consultation, I am pleased to report for the minister that we are moving forward on this legislation because it and two other essential components, namely capacity and infrastructure, are what first nations communities, their leadership, the AFN and technical experts have decided and have said that this is the way to move forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was only a matter of minutes ago that we had time allocation put on Bill C-27. That, in essence, said that the members of the House would have limits on our abilities to contribute to the debate on a very important issue with regard to our first nations.

Now we are talking about the importance of water on our reserves and other areas and we have a government member moving a motion that would again prevent debate on a critically important issue. The Conservatives will not allow members, whether it is members of the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party or even the Green Party, the opportunity to address important issues.

When the member talks about consultation, why will he not be very specific and tell us what first nations leaders the Conservatives consulted prior to the drafting of either Bill S-8 or Bill C-27?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I swear to God, Mr. Speaker, these questions just get easier and easier.

What was not allowed under the previous Liberal government up until 2006 was for communities to proceed with a legitimate strategy to address what at the time was an absolutely deplorable state of water and waste water treatment plants in first nations communities across the country. I happened to live in a couple of those regions at the time during the nineties, so I can speak to it.

This legislation is derived from one of the most extensive consultative exercises any government in my memory has every undertaken with respect to legislation that would apply with, to and for first nations communities. It deals with capacity, the ability to report, monitor and maintain facilities that have been rehabilitated or have been replaced and that are state of the art. It deals with infrastructure, objectivising the process, not in the discretionary, arbitrary way of governments past, and focuses on priorities. It deals with substantive issues like why one community would be at high risk in one province and not in another.

The legislation would deal with that legal vacuum. It would provide standards for both the government and the first nation to adhere to and it would facilitate the important role that provinces could play in establishing standards to which those parties could adhere.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate quite closely. I do not have the length of experience that the parliamentary secretary has on first nations, but I have in my previous career worked in several first nations territories in a different capacity. I know this government is anxious to get the job done. We have to address this problem because it is urgent.

The hon. parliamentary secretary talked somewhat about the capacity and the ability of the infrastructure to do the things we want it to do. Could the parliamentary secretary expand on the capacity?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expound more on one of the three pillars of the strategy moving forward.

Capacity has three essential components: reporting, monitoring and maintenance. Some chiefs have said that they cannot move ahead with this project because they do not have the certified operators to work the water treatment plant or the waste water treatment plant. That is why if the member comes to my great Kenora riding or Thunder Bay, he will see an emphasis on resources to good colleges like Confederation College and Northern Waterworks now on a downtown street in Kenora, up in Red Lake and out in Dryden. They have recognized and understand that if we are to move forward with legislation or infrastructure, we have to have the capacity to operate these state-of-the-art facilities. Chiefs and councils came to us with that during our consultations from coast to coast. We are moving forward on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, chiefs and councils went before the Senate over and over again because the Conservative government chose to table that bill not before the elected representatives in the House but in the Senate. After many years of dragging out this process under this so-called urgency to finally provide first nations with the same level of services the rest of us have the privilege of appreciating, the government now wants to cut us off, the elected representatives, from honouring the input that first nations peoples have asked for both before the Senate and the House.

What I find extraordinary is the actual purpose and intent of the bill. The bill is only an umbrella enabling bill. It would provide absolutely no guarantee of safe drinking water to a single first nation in Canada. It requires decades of work, drafting regulations, training people. The bill would essentially in one fell blow transfer liability for providing safe drinking water from the federal government to first nations. First nations have all 100% said that the government might have fixed the bill up a bit but have asked where the money is. They have said that they do not want the legislation. The Auditor General said not to pass the law until the money was committed.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's input, particularly with respect to some of the writing she has done on this subject matter. It is rather unfortunate that she does not understand the trajectory on which the legislation takes us.

Nobody disputes the fact that this will be a work in progress. She herself has written on the regulatory issues that have to deal with this. We want to move forward with standards for first nations communities that the governments can adhere to and embrace, just as much as the first nations communities.

However, we all agree that the capacity to do the reporting, monitoring and maintenance of these facilities and a commitment to the infrastructure on these communities, which has already been going on, I might add, these two critical components, this legislation completes that and we feel confident we will move forward, lockstep with first nations leadership and communities across the country, toward a meaningful standard that puts a priority on the safety of water and waste water treatment in first nations communities.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to speak to the bill. I want to give my hon. colleagues the actual history of what went down around safe drinking water and why we are here today.

The bill before us is supposed to reflect the consultation that happened as a result of the horrific E. coli contamination in Kashechewan in 2005. I was in Kashechewan in 2004 and 2005 when we were trying to deal with the federal Liberal government at the time and warn it about the water crisis and the fact that there were no water standards on reserve. However, the fact that there were no water standards on reserve was a perfect get-out-of-jail card for the then Liberal government.

With my dear friend, Jack Layton, who was leader of the party at the time, we visited the Kashechewan water treatment plant because the community was concerned. There was no real training in any of those communities for the maintenance of water safety and the equipment was completely breaking down. Jack and I saw pumps that were being held together with duct tape and they were using boards to hold up supports.

Of course, when E. coli broke out in November 2005, the then Department of Indian Affairs completely ignored the situation because it did not want to spend the money. Within the capital budgets of the Department of Indian Affairs, then and now, money is used to put out fires here, there and everywhere, but the department ignores actual health and safety issues.

The other department that had a key role to play was Health Canada, which has, over the years, continually left people at risk if it means spending any money. Therefore, when E. coli was found in the water system in Kashechewan, Health Canada's response was the rubber stamp that it responds with every single time first nations are put at risk: “boil your water”.

We have had communities that have had a boil water advisory for five, six, seven or ten years running. In the case of Kashechewan, Health Canada actually had the nerve to tell people that the solution for E. coli was to just boil the water. It was like telling the families to bathe their children in the toilet. That would be the same thing.

To put this in context, it happened in Ontario, which was ground zero of the biggest E. coli scandal in Canadian history and basically a direct result of the front line of the current Conservative government bench, who were then under the Harris Conservatives in the “common sense revolution”. The Walkerton E. coli scandal shocked people and changed water standards in every community in Ontario, except on reserve. For the people on reserve, they were left completely on their own.

We were in Ontario with a major E. coli outbreak and the federal and provincial governments fought back and forth for about two to three weeks about what they were going to do. As unfortunately happens, whenever we have a crisis in one of our communities, they just hope that people stop complaining and it will go away. Well, it did not. The James Bay medical authority came up and, under Dr. Murray Trusler, took pictures of children. It was the pictures of children in Kashechewan in 2005 that shocked not just this nation but others around the world. We were faced with a forced full evacuation of the community of Kashechewan because the entire infrastructure had collapsed.

At the time, I was working with the then opposition critic, Jim Prentice. I have always had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice, not just because he is from Timmins and comes from the famous Prentice brothers hockey family, but because Jim was deeply concerned. When the present Conservative government came in we had an Indian affairs minister who took his file seriously and had a level of competence. One could disagree with him and still know that he was a man who took it seriously. Jim Prentice had said that he needed to deal with the water situation on reserves because it was appalling. Jim knew that one of the problems was that there were absolutely no standards. Without any standards, anything could happen.

As the Conservatives are claiming now, there was a consultation process that was put in place. However, fast forward to today, the bill that was brought through the unelected, unaccountable Senate is not the result of the consultations that took place with first nation communities across Canada. The bill is something completely different. It really speaks to how far down the Conservative government has gone in terms of its willingness to be accountable to Canada's most vulnerable population, which is within our first nation communities.

The bill has a lot of window dressing on language about water quality, but is about the transferring of liability to communities that do not have the resources to maintain adequate water safety standards. There is always this underlying dog whistle to the Conservative base that says the government has to bring in these standards to make people actually bother to look after their own communities, as if the communities have not been calling out for years for what they need, which are the dollars and the infrastructure to maintain proper water treatment plants. I do not know of a single community in my riding or any community in this country where safe water drinking standards can be maintained if there are no adequate systems.

According to the April 2011 release of the National Assessment of First Nation Water and Wastewater Systems, we have a situation under the current government, despite all the consultations, where 39% of the first nation communities in Canada are high risk, which means that people can die. Of those communities, 34% are at medium risk. We are looking at a bill that is going to transfer liability to the Bantustans and shanty shack towns of the far north and tell them to fix it without doing anything to ensure that those Canadian citizens have the resources that any other Canadian would take for granted. That is what the bill is about.

Think about the kind of money the government was going to blow on the F-35 in 2011. Yet it told 39% of first nation communities that they could remain at high risk, and if they did not have the training or the money to fix it, the government would go after them. That is the systemic negligence that has gone on and continues to go on in this country. Whether we are talking about health services, policing or education, it is a system of apartheid that has been set up and maintained. There are two levels of people in this country. When 39% of first nation communities are at high risk because their water is dirty and the government tells them that it is their responsibility, that is absolutely intolerable.

The government's sleight of hand is to set the standards but to not put the money in place. What has been identified to deal with the shortfall right now is $146 million. That is what is needed. Dollars and cents are needed to get these water treatment centres up to standard. It is going to cost $4.7 billion over the next 10 years to maintain them, with an annual maintenance cost of $419 million. That is what the government needs to do. There needs to be a throne speech from the Government of Canada saying that the days of maintaining the fourth world communities in northern Canada are going to end and that it is going to put the funding and training in place. I have been in communities where people said they wanted the training.

Let us look at Bill S-8 in terms of a practical example. The Marten Falls First Nation is right beside the Ring of Fire. The federal and provincial governments are licking their chops to get their hands on the Ring of Fire. They are saying the Ring of Fire is going to be the greatest thing. Dalton McGuinty thinks it is going to restart his economic credibility once he gets his hands on it. The federal government is saying the Ring of Fire is going to be the oil sands of Ontario. Marten Falls is a little community that is right beside the Ring of Fire. It has been on a boil water advisory since 2005, for seven years. It is considered normal that the community has to boil its water year after year.

Health Canada has decided it spent a little too much looking after Marten Falls, so it is suspending the bottled water that has been going to the community. It has decided not to do it any more. This little community sits beside what will probably be one of the richest mineral developments in this coming century and its bottled water is being cut off.

How does that relate to Bill S-8? It actually relates in a very clear way, which I can explain to people back home. The community has been concerned. I remember people in the community were asking for help when the sewage lift was hit by lightning. They told Indian Affairs that they did not have, within their little community, the resources to fix it. They asked Indian Affairs to come in to work with them to fix it. However, Indian Affairs did not want to spend the money, so the sewage overflowed and the water system was contaminated. Now the government is saying it is tired of the situation in Marten Falls and that it will just put in a reverse osmosis water system and walk away.

At the same time, the government has commissioned a study to find out how to fix the problem in Marten Falls, how to fix the sewage and the water, but the department does not want to wait for the study. The band wants clean drinking water for its community. The band wants to work with the department, but it asks whether it would not be prudent to actually get the report, find out what works and then put the money in to ensure that it works in the long term. In first nation communities, again and again, the federal government always does what is cheapest and quickest. It puts whatever Band-Aid it can on the septic wound and walks away. When the Band-Aid fails, the federal government blames the community.

The community has raised legitimate, serious questions about whether a reverse osmosis system would work in their community. Because of the heavy level of turbidity in the water, the amount of bacteria that sits in the tank, it is not a system that would work. People in the community are asking the department to work with them. It does not necessarily have to be adversarial. However, the department has decided, thanks to some fonctionnaire at some level, that this is how it will go and the community can take it or leave it. Bill S-8 will then allow the government to hold the community accountable if something goes wrong, because it would be the community's responsibility, even though the community was not able to participate in the decision making.

I think I have had probably 12 or 13 states of emergency in four communities that I represent since 2005. A state of emergency is not something easy to declare. It just does not happen. A state of emergency happens when an entire community is put at risk.

The response in Ontario is interesting. If a municipality declares a state of emergency, Emergency Management Ontario is sent in at the provincial level and it will do an assessment immediately. Once that is done, plans are set up. What happens in first nation communities when a state of emergency is declared? People in the community call Indian Affairs, and Indian Affairs says, “Hell, no, we're not paying”, and the province will say that it is sorry but that the community is on its own. That has happened again and again.

I will give a few examples. We had two evacuations in one year in Kashechewan in 2008. The entire sewage system in Fort Albany collapsed and thousands of gallons of raw sewage, actual human waste, was piling up in people's basements. The department's response was to tell the people to stay there. People were actually staying in homes where the methane gas was coming up to such a toxic level that people were lighting candles in their basements to try to put the methane gas down.

The Indian affairs minister knew this. The department knew this. They had footage of it. They knew those houses were in danger of blowing up from methane gas. Families had little babies in those houses. The department thought that was okay because it did not want to spend the money. It did one Band-Aid solution after another because it did not want to do it right. A private company ended up flying in bottled water. A private company flew in pumps. The deadbeat government did not want to pay any bills. At the same time we had the ongoing rebuilding in Kashechewan from the floods there.

In 2009, we had a state of emergency declared in Attawapiskat from the sewage lift collapsing there. Once again, think of the communities on a stretch from Windsor to London and imagine three or four communities where the entire sewage system, in community after community, just collapses to the point that thousands of gallons of human waste is pumped into people's basements. That was happening on the James Bay coast between 2008 and 2011, and the government's response was to blame the community.

The Prime Minister got up and did his famous, “We gave those Indians $50,000 each, every man, woman and child. What did they do with our money?” That was the Prime Minister's response on the day when the International Red Cross came in to help people in Attawapiskat.

Of course, the Prime Minister did not bother to say that the price on the head of every first nation child and parent in Attawapiskat was based on overall spending over a six-, seven- and eight-year period. The Conservatives never put that number on non-native people, but thought it was perfectly okay in Attawapiskat because they were trying to divert attention from the fact that they had allowed not one, two, three nor four states of emergency in Attawapiskat to create a situation that we saw this past year in which the entire community was put at risk.

Let us talk about the Attawapiskat state of emergency in 2009 when the sewage systems failed and we had numerous homes damaged to the point where people were getting sick and needing to be medevaced. The Department of Indian Affairs and Health Canada said to keep the families in the houses with the raw sewage. Former minister Chuck Strahl was a great guy for never knowing there was a problem. He would just cover his ears and say he was just going to ignore these people until they shut up. That was the attitude, for a community that was calling for help.

Our new minister over there was shocked. He did not know there was a problem in Attawapiskat. Nobody told him. They had been told since 2009 that people were living in tents. Why were they living in tents? They were living in tents because their homes had been destroyed because the sewage had backed up.

The Nishnawbe Aski Nation is opposing Bill S-8 because it expected the government would work with the communities to put in the necessary resources so that when we have water standards on reserves, we would actually have the resources to ensure the communities can have standards. We have been pushing from the beginning to establish the same standards at the provincial and federal levels, so if they have water standards in a municipality in Ontario, first nations should have the same standards at the federal level.

We have been asking that for fire protection, and that does not happen. In 2007, Ricardo Wesley and Jamie Goodwin burned to death in a fire in a makeshift cell in Kashechewan. The federal and provincial governments fund the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service. They knew that those police officers were working in a situation where there were no fire sprinklers. They could not put in fire sprinklers because it was a shack. No police officer would be expected to work under those conditions in a provincial jurisdiction, but it was okay to do it at the federal level because it did not cost as much, so two young men burned to death. The 80-some recommendations from the jury, which came out of that horrific Kashechewan fire inquest, said that if there had been a basic sprinkler system those young men might not have died and the police officers who were seriously injured trying to save them would not have been put at risk.

It is about this system we have now, where there is one set of standards for all the municipalities and the provinces and all the non-native people across Canada. They live at one level, and then the first nations communities are left down at another level. The only time they changed that standard was on the so-called “session of accountability”, where we would hold those communities to account and blame those communities.

My good friend from Fort McMurray asked me about the chiefs who are taking the money down and spending it on gambling. I was scratching my head and wondering. Was he talking about Fort Chip or about Fort McKay, or about the communities that are living downstream from the oil sands investments, communities that are trying to get by? Are we to believe that they are taking their money and gambling in casinos? However, this is the kind of talk the current government members use. They are going to put a level of accountability on these impoverished first nations communities, without the money.

Are my hon. colleagues on the other side serious about following through on what Jim Prentice started? He was working with us at that time because Jim Prentice was a collaborative kind of guy. Where is the money? Where is the money to ensure we have these standards, because until we see the money, this is just another Conservative bill that would punish communities and leave them on their own.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, but I do not necessarily have respect for some of the rhetoric he brings to the House. In fact, he missed an entire time in history, the last six or seven years, when the government has consistently, budget after budget, put billions of dollars into first nations infrastructure and water systems throughout the country. We recognized, having taken office from the previous government, that there was a need to build up infrastructure. In every single budget since, there has been money budgeted toward this type of infrastructure.

In the case of my own community, we have seen world-class water treatment plants being built. They are very expensive; they cost hundreds of millions of dollars, in some cases, in some communities.

I recognize that the member does not acknowledge the money that has been spent. He voted against every dollar that has been invested in those communities. However, now that the money has been spent and since first nations now have been consulted with regard to the legislation and are supportive of the legislation, will he now not let the legislation be put into place to ensure that, with the investments that have been made, those water treatment facilities are serviced and that there are precautions to ensure first nations people are protected?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague was here for my whole speech because we would have talked about what happened in 2005-06 and how I worked with Jim Prentice. He recognized this. Unfortunately, the standard that was set for the department of Indian affairs under Jim Prentice has dropped drastically, I am sorry to say.

We are in a situation now where, under the first nations water systems assessment, done in April 2011, 39% of communities are at high risk and 34% at medium risk. When a community is said to be at high risk, that means life and death. That means threats from E. coli, sickness and people going to the hospital.

The issue before us here is, if we are going to talk about bringing these communities up to a standard, we have to ask where the money is. Where is the long-term commitment? We know that Minister Prentice, at the time, made water a priority issue in 2006, in the first Conservative budget, and started a process of consultation. However, we talk to the chiefs across the country who were part of that process—for example, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, for which I have such great respect. It said that what is coming out of Bill S-8 is not part of the consultation process.

We have a long way to go, and we need to keep that front and centre on this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House recognizes that this is indeed a very serious issue. Clean, running water is one of those things we look at as an essential necessity of life here in Canada, and a vast majority just take it for granted.

Back in November, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion, which ultimately received all-party support from the House. It was great to see the support that seems to be here to try to address the issue.

The member made reference to the importance of resources. We can talk a lot inside the Chamber, but at the end of the day, if we are not prepared to pony up some resources, it would be very challenging for us to ever be able to achieve clean, running water. Would the member not agree?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the House indeed did vote on this. The House also voted on the Shannen's Dream motion, to close the funding gap on education. We have to follow through on those commitments, because water and education have been determined by the United Nations as universal human rights. Those are rights that are routinely denied first nations communities through the systemic negligence that happens. We will set a standard in the House and then not put the resources aside. The communities suffer and the people are at risk.

The Conservatives talk about my rhetoric. I have met the families of the children who are sick. I have met the kids in Attawapiskat who are dying from bone cancers, liver cancers, kidney failures and skin cancers. I know those children. I know where they have been educated, on top of a toxic brownfield with benzene contamination. If we look up in a medical textbook the effects of benzene, we would see that those children have all the markings of it. I have seen it in the water. They cannot drink the water in Attawapiskat. I have seen it when I have walked through the streets and smelled diesel contamination.

The Conservatives should not ever talk to us about rhetoric in the House when children, under their government's watch, are being put at risk time and time again. We have already wasted the lives of thousands of young people in first nations communities who were taken off to residential schools. It is being done again, under their watch. They have to start being serious and putting some money into this.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech. It was not a speech so much as it was his sharing stories of events that have taken place. He meets these people and knows them by name.

He also spoke about our commitment to the United Nations and about what we are putting in jeopardy. Does the member not think that our international reputation with the UN is in jeopardy because of our incompetence?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember a time when Canada has been under so much scrutiny for failing to meet basic human rights requirements as it has been during the last four years. This is something that the media in Germany and England and all over the world is now watching.

I say to my honourable colleagues on the other side that our primary relationship in this country is our relationship with our first nations people. That relationship will continue. I always hear the Conservative types asking when this obligation will end—as though it is an obligation—and why we do not just cut it off and ignore the treaties. Our obligation does not end. It is a relationship and it has been one heck of a dysfunctional and abusive relationship for the last 300 years, but that relationship will continue. It will either continue in a positive manner or under the Conservative government in a negative manner. It is a relationship that defines our country and it is a relationship that defines us internationally.

The UN has in the past year denounced the Conservative government for its treatment of the people in Attawapiskat, for its failure to have a plan for food in the far north and for its abuse of children in its bogus educational system. Three times in the last year, the United Nations has challenged the Conservative government and said it has to start meeting basic human rights standards.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his speech, which gave me goosebumps several times.

From what I know of aboriginal issues, I do not think there has been much progress since the 19th century. Unfortunately, I would say that there has probably been a regression.

Obviously, the fact that legislation is proposed but the means do not follow is a very troubling aspect of the government's stubbornness in wanting to speed up the process and circumvent a thorough examination of Bill S-8, without taking into account the effects this could have.

I get the impression that the government wants to put a lid on this affair, that it wants to shut this whole thing down and abandon the first nations. What does the member for Timmins—James Bay think about that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an excellent question. The issue in terms of addressing this problem is not about shifting blame; it is about taking responsibility. That has not been happening under the government's watch. The government seems to be playing a game of bringing in a bill and blaming the bad chiefs and holding them to account.

The issue that has been identified in terms of safe drinking water is the lack of proper resources. How could one region on the James Bay coast have a complete sewage infrastructure collapse in three communities in a four-year period? That is staggering. That is something we might expect in Haiti, but we should not expect it in James Bay, especially when one of the richest diamond mines in the world is nearby. We are moving into the Ring of Fire, which will affect the people along the Attawapiskat River. There is enormous potential in these communities, but we see the desire is to take the resources out and not build the infrastructure. If we are building the infrastructure to get these mines off the ground, then we can build the infrastructure to ensure sustainable communities.

What the government is giving up is the greatest resource we have in this country, which is the young people on those first nations communities who have so much potential. So rather than treating them as a burden, we need to see their potential, get the job training, get the resource development happening in conjunction with the communities, as the infrastructure is being built.

This could be a positive story. Unfortunately we just see bills. We do not see any forward thinking in terms of fixing this relationship with our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to speak to this bill. I will be splitting my time with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

Clean running water is an important issue, which I posed in a question a few minutes ago to my colleague from the New Democratic Party. It is something for which I believe a vast majority of Canadians take for granted. After all, most Canadians live in metropolitan centres, such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax and St. John's, from coast to coast. We assume that the water we drink is healthy and that all Canadians have access to clean running water sources. We need to recognize that there are deficiencies all over Canada with regard to clean drinking water or clean water for bathing.

At the end of the day, I believe all political parties will recognize the importance of having clean running water. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion in November of last year calling upon the House to address the urgent need of first nations communities whose members have no clean running water in their homes. There was great support for that motion. We were quite proud of the fact that we were able to provide that debate in the House last November. At the end of the debate, the consensus was that we should pass the motion. The Liberal Party was quite happy with the unanimous support from all political parties.

We expected some action would be taken. That happened about a year ago in the House. We now have before us Bill S-8, which has a huge gap, the gap being that there are no real financial resources being tied to it. If we are not prepared to recognize the importance of capital infrastructure in order to provide clean running water, we can talk all we want but it will not change the fact. The fact is that there are far too many first nations people living on reserves who do not have access to clean running water. That is something the government needs to be more sensitive to. It is great that it says that it will support the Liberal Party motion that recognizes the importance of the issue and then introduced Bill S-8, but at the end of the day the area of greatest concern must be the financial resources.

I went on the Internet to see just how serious a problem it is. Every year we hear about boil water advisories. Manitoba has thousands of freshwater lakes, rivers, just name it, with high-quality water. In fact, many talk about how we will be able to export water into the future. It is a wonderful natural resource that Manitoba is blessed to have. How that water is managed is being watched very closely.

If we compare Manitoba to many countries in the world, it is amazing the degree to which we have so much good quality water.

I will talk about the list of boil water advisories in Manitoba. These lists are on the Internet and can be accessed by everyone. It is amazing the type of information people can find on the Internet. I think the list of communities would surprise a lot of people. The list includes Alexander, Anola, Balmoral, Birch River, Blue Lakes Resort, Brandon, Carey, Cartwright, the Churchill River Lodge, Duck Bay, East Selkirk, Elma, Fairford, the Garrison, Gem Lake, Glenboro Health Centre, Grand Marais, Granville Lake, Great Falls, Haywood, Île-des-Chênes, Inwood, Lac du Bonnet, Lee River, Lynn Lake, New Bothwell, and the list goes on. The list even includes Pelican Lake, a beautiful are in which we have our cottage. These are all communities where there has been a great deal of concern, and I did not even list half of them in Manitoba. On this particular list it shows 110 where they have boil water advisories or other concerns regarding blooms, but 95% of those are just boil water advisories.

People may ask themselves what it means when they see a boil water advisory. In many of these communities, much like on our reserves, people are astounded to hear that they need to boil their water in order to drink it. Quite often, that is what they need to do. Putting it into perspective, that is nothing new for many people on reserves or in first nations communities. They deal with this year in and year out, which is why we in the Liberal Party tried to raise the profile of the issue. We do not get very many opposition days. It would be nice if the government would allow us to have a few more. However, even with the few that we do have, we listed this issue as an opposition day motion because we felt it was something the House needed to address.

What do we mean when we say “boil water”? The Manitoba government has been somewhat weak in many areas but in certain areas it has made some progress. If we go to its website, we get all sorts of information in regard to what is meant by “boil water”. The Manitoba government website states:

Water Advisories are issued for a drinking water system or a drinking water source by a Medical Officer of Health (Manitoba Health) due to a confirmed or suspected water quality problem. Affected residents and businesses are notified in the event an advisory is issued and provided with instructions on precautionary measures.

There is so much there. At this point, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #506

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

There are five minutes left for the hon. member for Winnipeg--North. Are there any questions or comments?

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies.

When the vote finished and you asked for questions and comments, I looked up and my colleague did have a question for me. I would like the opportunity to be able to answer the question. If not, I know my colleague, who I agreed at the beginning to share my time with--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

So there are questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for St. Paul's.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that in preparing its legislation the government took seriously the letter I sent the minister a year ago explaining that we would not be able to support any bill unless the resources were there to fix the water and wastewater treatments in all communities in Canada? Will 100% of first nation families in 100% of first nation communities have access to safe drinking water and wastewater management?

Does my colleague also believe that the government honoured the commitment in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior and informed consent on any legislation dealing with first nations in this country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a critically important issue for all of us to recognize, the issue of financial resources. To deal with the issue of clean running water, we are not talking about tens of millions of dollars but literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Bill S-8 does not allow for any sort of government commitment.

Last year the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion in the House that all members voted in favour of, a motion aimed at ensuring that the government of the day recognized the urgency of dealing with the issue of clean running water. We were happy that the Conservatives voted in favour of the motion, recognizing how important an issue it was. However, we are disappointed they did not follow through by providing the necessary financial resources to deal with this critically important issue. Unfortunately, until the government recognizes the importance of financial resources, first nations will not be able to have the clean running water they are demanding today. We appeal to the government to look at the resource issue so that we can deal with the issue at hand.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-8 would basically transfer responsibility, that is, it would transfer liability, to communities that have been calling out for years for resources to ensure that they will have safe and adequate drinking water. To New Democrats this bill seems to be aimed at cutting off a whole segment of Canadian society, a segment of Canadian society that is being denied basic water rights and safety in their communities. First nations will now told that they are responsible for anything that goes wrong, but will not have the resources to address that.

We see from the 2011 release of the national assessment of first nation water systems that over 39% of first nation communities in Canada are at high risk, meaning there is a threat to human health, and 34% are at medium risk. The shortfall is going to be $4.7 billion over the next 10 years.

Why does my colleague think the government did not bring this forward in a throne speech where it would have set out a clear commitment to clean drinking water and resources, and why is it proposing to basically leave--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North, a short answer please.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that this report was brought forward before the last federal election. It is interesting that it was only after the election that we were able to see the report.

I would emphasize that the vast majority of Canadians expect to have clean running water, and in most parts of the country that is the case, but not necessarily in many of our first nation communities. This is most unfortunate. More importantly, we need to get the government of the day to not just talk about and support the Liberal motion, but also to put forward the financial resources necessary to making a real difference.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I indicated I was sharing my time with my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. I believe it is his turn.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When the hon. member for Winnipeg North was speaking, he moved a motion to adjourn the debate. At that point, it terminated the entire 20-minute time slot that had been allocated to the Liberal caucus. As such, we will be resuming debate with the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the members should calm down. They are cutting into my time. I know all the members, especially those on the other side, and especially the Minister of Foreign Affairs, are waiting with bated breath for my comments.

I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his heartfelt grounded intervention on behalf of his first nations constituents.

There are a number of members in the House who have first nations communities in their ridings. I know they stand with me, no matter what party they are in, in that it is time for us as a nation to stand up and look after their interests so they can be treated equably as all other Canadians. The member for Timmins—James Bay has been an incredible advocate for those constituents.

Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, has been a long time in coming. Regrettably, it continues to be the policy of the government not to bring important legislation, in a timely manner, before the elected House. Instead, for the second time in a row, it tabled the bill first in the Senate.

Now the Conservatives are trying to object to the fact that we might actually want to propose changes to the bill, changes that have come to our attention by the first nations themselves. It is absolutely reprehensible. It shows a great disdain for Canadians who have chosen to elect us and send us to this place.

First, it is important to consider that the provision of safe drinking water for first nations is a federal responsibility. This is not a responsibility that the federal government can slough off to the provincial and territorial governments.

Second, no federal laws exist to regulate safe drinking water or waste water in first nations communities, so we have a complete vacuum. This is unlike the provinces and territories, where they have seen cause to step up to the plate and put in place regimes to protect those for whom they are responsible so they can live in the modern world.

Another appropriate starting point is to clarify the state of drinking water in first nations communities. The current update posted on the Health Canada website reports that as of October 31, 122 first nations communities across the country remain under a drinking water advisory. That means 122 first nations communities cannot go to the tap for a glass of water. It is absolutely reprehensible in the 21st century. That is 122 communities and countless numbers of aboriginal children, elders, people who risk illness from contaminated drinking water in 2012. It is simply unforgiveable.

It is not just me or my colleagues on this side of the House who say it is unforgiveable. In her final audit report in 2011, former Auditor General Sheila Fraser called for even deeper reforms to ensure that first nations on reserve were accorded the services comparable to other Canadians, including access to safe drinking water.

Mrs. Fraser identified that structural impediments to improve access to these basic services, which most other Canadians take for granted, must be resolved if we were to see real results. These include not only a legislative base or program, which is what the government has presumably put forward, but also clarified service levels, commensurate statutory funding, an end to the reliance on policy or contribution agreements and support to organizations that support service delivery to first nations.

For example, the Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group has for many years supported the first nations in addressing problems with their drinking water systems. I might point out that those are the very kinds of organizations the government has chosen to cut back in the budget.

It is very important what Sheila Fraser had pointed out. To this point in time, in this day and age in the 21st century, first nations communities have to wait, with open hand, for the government to decide from year to year whether they will have sufficient funds to provide a glass of safe drinking water for their children. She said that it was beyond high time that this obligation to transfer the necessary money be imposed by statute and be obligatory. We do not find that in Bill S-8.

The government made a previous half-hearted effort at proposing legislation and then let it die on the order paper.

Bill S-11, also tabled in the Senate in 2010, was roundly criticized by first nations and legal experts. Bill S-8 was also first tabled in the Senate and now finally brought before the House.

Regrettably, there has been little parallel action on the other measures needed to address the critical need for safe drinking water supply in first nation communities.

It should be pointed out that the government is well aware of the core barriers experienced by the majority of first nations in providing safe drinking water supplies to their communities, including: the equipment, construction and maintenance facilities, especially in remote areas, is costly; much of the necessary infrastructure is either lacking, obsolete or of poor quality; there is a limited local capacity or limited ability to retain qualified operators and even when they are trained, they then move on to other communities where they can be paid better; and, limited resources to properly fund water system operation and maintenance.

The current federal budgeted amount of $330 million over two years offers only a small percentage of the $4.7 billion capital costs and estimated $419 million per year to upgrade and run drinking water systems in compliance with the intended law.

If this intended law is passed, there will almost immediately be an obligation by all the first nations to deliver safe drinking water. I say almost because the government fails to mention that the law absolutely has no substance, so it will take five to ten years to actually develop these regulations. Once that is in place, then we will have close to a $5 billion deficit, with no undertaking that it will provide that.

No new moneys have been committed for the promised direct negotiations with the first nations on the strategy to implement the proposed law or for the promised negotiation process on the myriad of complex and technical regulations necessary to give any real substance to Bill S-8. There is no indication that the government has begun to move away from the one-off contribution agreements to long-term financial commitments to finance drinking water systems, as recommended by the former auditor general.

Far from delivering the support for organizations that can support first nations in developing and managing effective drinking water, in this budget the government has cut back support to these entities, including treaty organizations that provide support on technical and policy matters to first nations, which brings us to the matter of consultation on the bill.

The duty to directly consult first nations on legislative or policy matters that affect them is not a mere nicety. Aboriginal Canadians are not mere stakeholders in this legislative process. The duty to consult and accommodate is a constitutional duty established in legal precedent echoed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada finally endorsed.

At the January Crown-First Nations Gathering, the government publicly committed to support first nations self-government to strengthen and reset the government-to-government relationship and to move away from the unilateral imposition of laws and policies.

Self-government was endorsed under the UNDRIP. However, at the last minute, we saw some move, despite calls by first nations over decades, of the minister to met with at least one treaty group in Alberta.

I will quote a comment made at the Crown-First Nations Gathering on the consultation process, which states:

At the recent Crown–First Nations Gathering, First Nations and our Government committed to working together to support strong, healthy First Nation communities...[The bill] is a key milestone in making this a reality...

That statement was made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who said that the process for the consultation on Bill S-8 was a milestone in making the government-to-government relationship a reality. Yet we have a statement from the Assembly of First Nations stating that the government has continued a pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation that does not meet the standards of joint development and a clear recognition of first nations jurisdiction.

This so-called exceptional process of sitting down and reviewing proposed legislation was in fact the common practice of most past governments. In many instances, white papers or even draft formats of bills were circulated and consulted to ensure that the interests of all 600 first nations, not just one first nation, were considered and accommodated. This made for sound, supported, workable legislation. Again, in the case of the first nations, this consultation is an obligation, not just an option.

Even when late in the day some discussions did occur with first nations, they expressed concerns that their issues had not been fully addressed. They were also clear that the process did not constitute “consultation”. This is made evident in testimony before the Senate on the bill.

By way of example, Treaty 6, 7 and 8 testified that while a limited number of their representatives had a chance to review the bill, incidentally, less than a week before it was tabled in the Senate, a number of significant outstanding concerns were yet to be addressed. I reference these three groups as they were among the few that the minister finally relented to discuss in more detail their concerns with the proposed law before it was tabled.

In his testimony, Charles Weaselhead, Grand Chief of the Treaty 8 First Nations Chiefs Association, echoed the views of many when he said that “support of the Alberta Chiefs is not unconditional” and that first an agreement must be reached “on an adequately funded joint process for the development of the regulations”.

We have members of the one group, which the minister actually took the time to hear what their issues, saying that it is not enough. What they need at the same time is the commitment of the money.

Further, Grand Chief Weaselhead said:

Second, the national engineering assessment identified that only three First Nation systems in Alberta are operating safely with certainty....About a dozen systems in Alberta pose significant risks to human health.

He advised that about $160 million was needed to update facilities just for Alberta.

He testified that while they were willing to be patient, their patience was not limitless. He said, “the Government of Canada must also make a firm commitment toward infrastructure, monitoring and capacity”.

They have yet to obtain any binding commitment to a regulatory development process that is well-funded and approved by the chiefs and no commitment of the $140 million funding gap identified by the National Engineering Assessment for just Alberta.

I now wish to share a number of the serious deficiencies identified in the bill itself as a safe drinking water regulatory framework.

Frankly, I am stunned that the government has stated at this stage that it will not allow amendments. This kind of questions the value of even having a committee and bringing in these first nation and legal experts again.

However, these are some of the issues that were raised before the non-elected house. Many of the issues were raised by expert panels and legal experts testifying in the Senate and in previous government reviews, treaty organizations and individual first nations.

The main purpose the bill appears to have is transferring liability from the federal government to first nations for delivery of the drinking water regime. Of equal concern is the fact that the full long-term costs and liability have yet to be calculated. The transfer of liability would be made with no binding commitment that the federal government would provide the necessary funds for technical training or equipment. However, Bill S-8 carefully imposes limits on the liability of federal ministers and officials.

Bill S-8 is essentially lacking in substance. It would merely be an enabling law. It would allow for, but does not require, any federal action to promulgate the myriad regulations necessary to establish drinking water standards, public hearings, appeal procedures, standards for training and certification of water systems and operators, waste water disposal, emergency response and so forth.

The law would impose no obligation on the federal government to deliver these rules in a timely manner. It would impose no obligation on the federal government to finance development or implementation of the first nations drinking water regime. Despite the non-derogation clause, Bill S-8 may have as its key purpose to transfer away treaty and constitutional obligations in this regard.

Incredibly, the law would impose no requirement for consultation with the first nations in the promulgation of these rules, regardless of the overriding constitutional duty to consult and despite the fact that most laws enacted these days, especially for environmental matters, specify that the government must in advance consult.

Finally, the bill ignores the advice of the very expert panel appointed by the federal government, which recommended the establishment of two independent entities to provide direction and oversight on the water regime.

A first nation water commission was recommended. It was to be mandated to oversee the licensing and operation of water facilities and to advise the ministers and first nations. The second entity recommended was a first nation water tribunal mandated to hear appeals on water approvals and investigate complaints. It was suggested that entity could provide one of the bridges to self-governance over water, which has been promised.

As pointed out by the Assembly of First Nations in their brief to the Senate, despite appreciation expressed that the government provided a slightly stronger non-derogation clause it appears to include a broad loophole in the words “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nation lands”.

The obvious question arising is: Who decides that? Consistent with the remainder of the bill, it appears it would be the minister.

Another issue is that, astoundingly, the bill imposes no obligations on the federal government to consult first nations in the promulgation of any of the implementing regulations. This not only runs contrary to most environmental laws, as I said, but to their constitutional obligation.

Concerns have been raised with the option of incorporation by reference of provincial regulations. This has not been a common practice and serious concerns have been raised by a number of legal experts.

It is incumbent on the government today to admit that the law is not enough. It must, today, commit that it will not enact this law until it has provided the resources necessary to genuinely implement the long overdue protections for first nation water.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona will have four minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When we last had debate on Bill S-8, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona had four minutes remaining in her remarks.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to sum up the address I provided on the bill. As I mentioned in my comments last week, there is a lot of support for moving forward on an expedited and complete action to provide safe drinking water to first nation communities, as other Canadians have taken for granted for many decades. We are fully in support of the government finally moving forward and expediting action on this.

The problem is that the bill is in fact hollow. There is no substance whatsoever to Bill S-8. All of the substance will come in the regulatory agenda that is provided for in the bill. All of that action will proceed presumably in consultation with the first nations but there is no provision in that bill requiring that the government consult directly when developing and implementing those regulations with the more than 600 first nations that will be impacted.

Second and more important, the Auditor General, the expert panel that previous governments appointed to address this outstanding problem, the first nations and the organizations that represent them have been very clear over the past decades that we cannot enact legislation that will transfer liability and responsibility to first nation communities to deliver their own safe drinking water programs, if the appropriate and necessary resources are not transferred at the same time.

I am sad to say that we do not see anything in the current budget or the supplemental dollars that will enable either the necessary consultation with the first nations on developing and implementing the regulations, or the installation, operation and maintenance of the necessary mechanisms to provide the safe drinking water.

As I mentioned, there are a number of additional problems with the legislation, which hopefully can be addressed in committee. Some of those include the fact that there is a failure to establish the regulatory and operational advisory bodies recommended by the expert panel and by the first nation interveners before the Senate. Those include the first nation water tribunal and the first nation water commissions, which would genuinely provide a voice to first nations to work alongside the federal government in actually implementing this legislation, or in implementing their own regime.

That is another error in the legislation pointed out by the head of the Assembly of First Nations. There is no recognition in this legislation that the first nations themselves may already have a regime for safe drinking water or may choose to go down the path, with assistance from the federal government, of implementing their own regime.

There are also problems with the non-derogation clause, which one could shoot a cannon through, a huge exemption. Clause 7 also provides a potential conflict with section 35 of the Constitution, where it would allow federal regulations under Bill S-8 to prevail over first nation laws.

In closing, I would like to share a very strong comment by National Chief Shawn Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations in his submission to the Senate in their review of Bill S-8. After going through a number of these additional concerns, where he welcomes some action finally by the government, he remonstrated with them for these kinds of concerns and also for the failure to consult. He said:

Bill S-8, as part of ongoing process started with Bill S-11 prior to the [Crown-first nations gathering], continues a pattern of unilaterally imposed legislation and does not meet the standards of joint development and clear recognition of First Nation jurisdiction. The engagement of some First Nations and the modest changes made to the Bill do not respond to the commitment to mutual respect and partnership envisioned by the [Crown-first nations gathering].

As I shared at the outset of my speech last week, even the first nations in Alberta, in Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8, while they expressed gratitude to the minister for finally coming back and consulting them in greater detail, said very clearly that they did not think it was appropriate to move forward until there was the adequate funding and an undertaking to directly engage them in the development of the regulations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising key points here in the House as to why we oppose Bill S-8.

I wonder if she could elaborate on a very disturbing trend we are seeing from the government with regard to first nation legislation and the lack of consultation, not just in the context of Bill S-8 but also when it comes to matrimonial property rights and first nations' accountability. I would like to hear the member's comments on how she views this approach.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her continued advocacy on behalf of the first nations not only within her constituency but across the country.

Indeed, it is a concern that not just the official opposition is raising. New Democrats are raising this concern on behalf of the first nations who have been trying to get the federal government to live up to its commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, by which the government has committed to respect and honour the right of first nations to self-determination and self-governance.

At the Crown-first nations gathering this past January, there again was strong language by the Prime Minister of this country on behalf of the government to strengthen and reset the relationship with the Crown and first nations and to move away from the unilateral imposition of policies and laws. Yet in Bill S-8 we see the same old same old.

Frankly, I am stunned given the constitutional obligation upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government's duty for advanced consultation, consideration and accommodation of first nations' rights and interests to the peoples and their lands. It is rather stunning that even the government's own environmental legislation requires that the public be consulted when it is developing an array of environmental laws, yet it did not see fit to impose at least that precondition in the promulgation of regulations under the bill.

Overall, there was some movement, grudgingly, toward consultation on Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 in Alberta, but that was because first nations remonstrated so strongly that they needed to be consulted.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my hon. colleague is well known for her work in environmental activism and being a leader in calling for states and obviously Canada to take a lead role in that area.

The question of ensuring safe water systems has an environmental aspect to it. I am wondering if she could comment on how Bill S-8 fails to ensure environmental sustainability.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily convinced that this particular act should be the one to protect source water, but she raises a very important point. It is something that I and many others have researched and spoken out about as the dialogue has proceeded over several decades on how to ensure safe drinking water for first nation communities. The problem is at the federal level. There has been almost no exercise of the mandate to protect source water, which provides the sources for safe drinking water for first nation communities. Why is that a problem? When source water is not protected, the cost of cleaning and making drinking water available is all the more expensive.

The government is, instead, going in the opposite direction. It is going backward and making it more difficult for first nations to intervene in hearings, without providing them the expenses and expertise to intervene when other major energy and resource projects may impact the sources of their safe drinking water.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to speak to such an important piece of legislation that will have a direct impact on my constituency of Churchill in northern Manitoba.

I have the honour of representing 33 first nations in northern Manitoba. Many of these first nations have tremendous opportunity. They have the youngest population in Canada. The young people on these first nations are looking toward training and education, opportunities in the job market, the ability to have families and the opportunity to contribute to their communities in all sorts of ways. However, along with these opportunities are some significant barriers and none perhaps is more entrenched than the lack of access to safe drinking water, which a number of the first nations that I represent face. It is obviously a barrier that affects their day-to-day lives in a very real way. It is not a question of comfort; it is a question of basic health.

Aboriginal people as a whole in Canada share a lower life expectancy than non-aboriginal people. I think we would all agree that the fact that first nations people live less than everyone else is shameful in a country as wealthy as Canada. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why that is the case. One of the indicators is the lack of access to basic rights, including the right to safe drinking water and the use of safe water systems. That is very much the case with respect to some of the first nations that I represent. I have seen it first-hand.

I want to share the experience of the Island Lake first nations. It is a group of four first nations located on the east side of Lake Winnipeg close to the Ontario border. The Oji-Cree people live there in the communities of Garden Hill, St. Theresa Point, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. These first nations are isolated in that they do not have a road that they can use year round to access their communities. People must depend on the ice roads to get in and out at an affordable cost. The only other option is flying in and out, which is completely out of the reach of the average resident of these communities. It is often only used at the eleventh hour when people either need to see a doctor or need medevac because of an unfortunate urgent incident.

These communities face some of the highest levels of water insecurity. I had the opportunity to visit these communities on many occasions. I even drove on winter roads. The lack of access to safe drinking water is one issue that has come up time and time again.

I also had the opportunity to visit St. Theresa Point during the H1N1 outbreak, which impacted the Island Lake first nations disproportionately. Many medical professionals indicated that the number one reason why more people on Island Lake were impacted by H1N1, and by impacted I mean sent to emergency wards in Winnipeg and other communities, is that they did not have access to safe drinking water. What was so disturbing and disgusting at the time was the federal government's slow reaction to the demands for hand sanitizer and a long-term investment in water infrastructure, when it was so clearly linked to the serious health implications that we were seeing.

Shortly after that the federal government made some basic commitments to the Island Lake first nations. I remember being in Garden Hill when one of those commitments came to fruition in the form of large bins to be used as toilets. Everyone in the House and probably everyone across Canada would agree that is not only an inadequate response but an offensive response, when the day-to-day reality on first nations is one that is so far off the average Canadian's. It is quite clear that inadequate sewage and water systems have held people back on these first nations and continue to hold people back.

It is an issue that has been raised by local and regional leadership. We have seen the federal government respond to these demands in a very inadequate way through the continuous use of short-term and, in some cases, even offensive measures through the sending of bins to be used as toilets.

The fact of the matter remains that these are not issues mired in silence. There are international campaigns that have focused on the plight of the Island Lake first nations and other first nations in Canada, pointing to the lack of water security and the need for immediate action by the federal government.

I want to reference a study that was commissioned by the government itself that found that an investment of $5 billion over 10 years was needed to truly ensure safe water systems for first nations. This also included the need for an immediate investment of $1.2 billion. That study was commissioned by the government itself, so the numbers are clear, stark and significant. This would be an answer to what is perhaps the clearest indication yet that there are still first peoples of Canada living in third world conditions, which is unacceptable.

Instead, however, the Conservatives have only committed $330 million over two years. We saw that in 2010 and no commitments were made in 2011. Now we are in 2012. As we know, as these first nations communities grow, the need to access safe drinking water only grows along with them.

What we have here today is again an inadequate and very problematic response to a very serious issue facing first nations.

We as New Democrats are proud to be able to work with first nations' national leadership, but also regional, local leaders and community band members to say that Bill S-8 is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I want to make another point as well. One wonders how a government could go so far back in time. One only has to look at the kind of legislation the government is bringing forward when it comes to first nations to understand that trend, because Bill S-8 also involves no consultation with first nations. This is not an optional piece. We certainly have learned from our political and societal evolution and the mistakes of the past that if we do not consult with first nations and use a top-down approach, it is the wrong way to go. It simply revives the colonial relationship that Canada for so long imposed on first nations, a relationship that has caused nothing but grief.

We have an opportunity here to break free from that trend and sit down with first nations to not just hear from them or media reports about how bad things are, but also to work to find an adequate solution that works for them. This lack of consultation is extremely disturbing.

The Conservatives have a track record of broken promises. In March 2006 they announced a plan to implement the protocol for safe drinking water for first nations communities. Their piecemeal strategy was not fully implemented and failed to solve the problem. In 2010, the Conservatives introduced Bill S-11 to improve standards for first nations' drinking water quality, focusing on existing provincial regimes, contrary to the preference of its own expert panel and the wishes of the Assembly of First Nations.

Aboriginal groups were also unhappy with the legislation because the government failed to adequately consult them, ignoring first nations' right to self-government and to water and environmental protection. Now the Conservatives are introducing Bill S-8, with only minor changes from previous legislation. Again, I want to reiterate the important point about lack of consultation.

I noted earlier in response to the speech by my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona that we are seeing this disturbing trend in a host of pieces of legislation when it comes to first nations. The same applies to the matrimonial property rights bill and the first nations transparency bill. First nations have caught onto this and so have Canadians. For us to move forward, however, consultation with first nations is absolutely key.

The Prime Minister himself indicated that he was interested in a new relationship and a new chapter when it came to first nations. It was something he spoke of very clearly in his apology to residential school survivors and those who have suffered the intergenerational trauma of residential schools. Evidently, they are just words because when it comes to action, we are seeing bill after bill seeking to impose a framework on first nations without consultation. However, the government goes even further by imposing some real challenges when it comes to respect for aboriginal rights.

The regulations in Bill S-8 would overrule any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. However, interestingly, the bill would limit the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of its duties under the regulations.

Therefore, we see a system with two standards. One is for first nations in taking on a liability without, of course, the necessary support for building infrastructure and human resource capacity to deliver safe water systems. On the other hand, the government is able to run away from its own potential liability. If that is not a clear indication of how unfair Bill S-8 is, then I do not know what is. I believe this to be an indication that the government would pull away from its own commitments. I would also note that this is an option that the government is increasingly interested in as it moves forward in reaching out to first nations.

Another key trend that we are seeing, not just in terms of first nations but also in terms of the provinces, is the Conservative government's zeal in downloading services and responsibilities on other jurisdictions.

Let us look at the example of first nations, the most impoverished jurisdiction in the country bar none. They are not like municipalities or provinces that face challenges. We know that the situation first nations face in terms of lack of resources and capacity is the most extreme. However, the government, through Bill S-8, would like to download a critical service, which it ought to be responsible for, onto first nations without giving them the support they need to ensure they have the right infrastructure and capacity.

That is setting them up to fail. It is the federal government absconding on its responsibility and it really speaks to its lack understanding of its fiduciary obligation to first nations. Perhaps, more broadly, it is a complete lack of vision when it comes to building a better Canada. I believe this is the saddest part of what we are debating here and what we often debate in the House.

The Conservative government, with its omnibus budget bills, and with health transfers and support for post-secondary education and the need for stronger infrastructure programs, is like no other in its desire to pull away from what is fundamentally its responsibility.

We saw a similar kind of zeal under the Liberal government in the 1990s. One would have expected the Conservative government to take note of that kind of approach to governing. The government has taken it to the next level at hyper speed, saying that it has nothing to do with fundamental services that ought to be offered to Canadians. That is something that I and many other Canadians we are increasingly opposed to. The federal government has less and less to do with health transfers, with supporting affordable education and with making sure that our roads are of good quality and that there is adequate infrastructure in communities, and with playing a role when it comes to protecting the environment and with supporting people at the margins of society in achieving a better quality of life and, most specifically, in the context of Bill S-8, with making sure that first nations have access to safe drinking water like any other Canadians. It is a sad state of affairs when the leadership of the federal government pulls away from its responsibility and the concept that a better Canada involves a federal government working with other partners, including in consultation with first nations in addressing the real gap that exists with the lack of safe drinking water in first nation communities.

I know well the experience of first nations communities in my part of the country in northern Manitoba. However, I also know there are many members across the aisle who also represent first nation communities where similar challenges exist, where they see people getting sick because of the lack of safe drinking water and living in abject poverty without the kinds of services other Canadians take for granted. I would ask them what they are doing for those people and why they are letting go of the responsibility they have to ensure that first nations, Métis, Inuit and all Canadians have access to the kinds of infrastructure we all expect in a country as wealthy as Canada.

I am proud to be part of the New Democratic Party that stands with first nations and opposes legislation that re-enacts the colonial relationship and fails to consult with first nations. I am proud to be part of a party that calls for immediate action so that first nations can live in dignity, the way we all deserve to.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my hon. colleague mentioned that, in a country like Canada, we should not have communities living in abject poverty, in third-world living conditions, and we should be taking care of these communities. She also talked about the fact that this has not gone unnoticed by the international community and that our reputation regarding how we treat aboriginal communities is being disparaged around the world.

Several UN reports—particularly concerning the rights of the child, respect for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—have been critical of Canada, saying that Canada is not meeting international standards and that aboriginal communities, and especially children, are living in extremely vulnerable situations.

NDP members are not the only ones who recognize the seriousness of the situation facing our aboriginal communities, for the international community does too. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised a crucial point.

The truth is that, more and more, the international community is watching how Canada treats its aboriginal people, Canada's first nations peoples. And it is truly shameful.

Whether a question of access to clean drinking water, violence against aboriginal women or a lack of support for first nations education, the Canadian government's attitude represents a step backwards in terms of the promises made to first nations people. Furthermore, statistics on aboriginal peoples' living conditions in Canada also confirm this. The fact that the international community is talking about this proves how much Canada's reputation has suffered.

It is crucial that the Conservative government improve Canada's reputation by taking action to ensure that aboriginal people in Canada live in dignity, like all other Canadians.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Churchill. My goodness, one would think we never invested a dollar in first nations. We have invested over $3 billion in infrastructure for fresh water and waste water for first nations since 2006. That includes $330 million over the next two years.

The minister has already indicated that first nations certainly will require additional support to participate in regulatory development and funding will be available. The government will continue to provide funding for improvement of infrastructure and capacity development.

I cannot believe the member across the way has actually said that we have not done anything for first nations. Could that member actually recognize that we in fact have put billions of dollars into first nations fresh water and waste water infrastructure?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the member across would listen to my speeches perhaps a little more carefully. He might not want to, but certainly the statements he attributed to me are not the case. I would ask him perhaps to read Hansard just to clarify that point.

It deserves clarification and it is something that I referenced in my speech. A study commissioned by the government found that an investment of $5 billion over 10 years was needed, with was immediate investment of $1.2 billion. Instead, the Conservative government committed only $330 million over two years in 2010 and nothing in 2011.

Investing $330 million, and we do not know how much of that money actually went on reserve to fix the systems there, does not mean that everybody gets a bit of good water. It means some people might get it, but there is a whole lot of people who still do not have access to safe drinking water, like the people I represent. I invite him to come to the Island Lake to see first-hand the precarity in which people live in Canada in 2012.

I also note that this legislation does not have any funding attached to it, so I would expect the same vigour that the member used to ask his question might be applied to asking his own colleagues to ensure that legislation to deal with something as serious as unsafe drinking water actually has money attached to it to make a difference, not just words.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was very clear in her excellent speech that on any legislation that needs to be brought forward in the House, the people who will be affected should be consulted. Clearly, that has not been the case with Bill S-8.

In legislation that has come from the government in the last number of weeks in regard to our first nations, about transparency, about land rights, we have seen a downloading of responsibilities to the first nations, but yet there is no investment, there are no resources attached to it.

We have seen the government downloading issues to the provinces, whether it is health care or other responsibilities on which traditionally the federal government has taken a leadership role.

Conservatives talk about investing in our young people. My colleague talked about investing in our aboriginal young people who are the largest young population in our country. Yet we see no investment in housing or in education. Could the member talk about those?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's raising such important points, in terms of Bill S-8, but more generally the extremely problematic trend the Conservatives have been applying when it comes to downloading critical services onto other jurisdictions without the kinds of supports necessary. It is interesting to hear the government take that approach in various different areas.

We have seen from before that downloading often leads to serious problems, a lack of equality of service and in many cases a phasing out of the service entirely. I can speak to the fact that airports and even the Port of Churchill in my riding have been downloaded onto other jurisdictions and also private entities and we have seen the quality of service suffer as a result of that.

When we are talking, though, about something as critical as safe drinking water, there is no room to gamble with this. It is clear that proper consultation needs to take place. The figures have been made clear as to what kind of investments are needed in order for first nations to have basic safe drinking water. How can we expect first nations young people to excel in school or go on to employment opportunities when they do not have clean water to drink, when they do not have water to wash their hands, when there are not adequate sewage systems available? That is the kind of fundamental piece we are talking about here, not some pie-in-the-sky luxury but basic safe drinking water.

The fact that we are talking about this in 2012, almost 2013, is absolutely shameful. We on this side demand that the federal government step up to its fiduciary obligations, consult with first nations and make the investments that are needed to ensure that all first nations have access to safe drinking water.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on safe drinking water for first nations.

As someone who in a previous career had some sense of responsibility for drinking water facilities in a municipality, I find it incredulous that in this day and age we have communities of people across our nation who do not have clean, safe drinking water, running water or waste water facilities that nearly everyone else in the country takes for granted. These are not people who are living in a cabin for two weeks and draw a pail of water from the closest river or lake because they are looking for the great outdoor experience, if one could put it that way. Rather these are folks who live their daily lives without clean, safe drinking water.

My friend across the way from Medicine Hat, who I like immensely, talked about the fact that the government deserves some credit with respect to spending $3 billion since 2005-06 on safe drinking water for first nations. It did. The difficulty is that there are still 124 first nations communities across this vast nation that still do not have any safe drinking water, not 124 individual homes or individuals. It is not a question of people living in homes inside these communities who in a pinch can go to their neighbours to get some water. They do not have any. That cries out for action.

If it was the case that 124 non-first nations communities across this great land did not have safe drinking water, there would be a heck of a lot of folks not sitting in municipal office for very long since it is the purview of municipalities across the nation, outside of first nations, to govern the safety of the water systems, whether it be for drinking water or waste water.

Clearly this requires some investment. As my colleagues have pointed out, it was reported back to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which commissioned the report that was done in 2011, that there was a financial commitment needed in infrastructure beyond what had already been done. Therefore, it is all well and good for the Conservatives to say that they have done that, which is fair, because some work has already been done, but it is not finished. Clearly, the report said that an additional $4.7 billion over the next 10 years was needed to ensure that first nations communities had water and waste water systems that were up to date.

Clearly, the needs with respect to safe drinking water for first nations are not being met, unlike our needs here. Whenever we simply hold up our hand or glass, the page delivers a glass of clean drinking water, and I am grateful to the page for bringing that. We have no issue getting clean drinking water. In fact, it is almost instantaneous. Yet when first nations look for clean drinking water, it perhaps another one, five or ten years, or perhaps not in their lifetime, depending how old they are, before they can go to the kitchen, turn on the tap and drink the water.

That is somewhat incomprehensible for most of us because of where we live. The federal government must know how wrong that is since it has a treaty obligation to ensure that first nations actually get safe drinking water and a waste water system that adequately takes care of all of that grey water that needs to be disposed of and handled correctly so it does not end up polluting a river that people draw water from.

It would seem that we need to start thinking about how to correct this injustice, because it truly is an injustice of a magnitude that I think a lot of us have not turned our minds to. Perhaps that is the problem with this legislation. Perhaps what happened is one did not turn one's mind, when the legislation was drawn, to not just the complexity of it but the magnitude of it, and recognizing that, because of the complexity and the magnitude, it will require funding that is greater than what is offered by the government today.

Ultimately, all of us deserve to have clean potable drinking water and a waste water system that is effective to ensure that our kids are not sick and that our grandparents do not drink bad water because they did not boil it sufficiently. The number of boil water advisories across first nations is another unfathomable statistic.

In my community many years ago, when I was deputy mayor and acting mayor, I received a phone call, which is every mayor's worst nightmare, other than Rob Ford being tossed out by the courts, I suppose. The worst nightmare, other than the death of an employee, clearly, is from the chief engineer of the water system saying that he had just run some tests and it might be necessary to issue a boil water advisory, and that, by the way, as the acting mayor, I would need to go on the radio and make the announcement. If that does not set fear in the heart of an acting mayor, I do not know what else would. Forgetting one's anniversary might be an issue but I leave that to those who have been married for a longer time and who had forgotten an anniversary.

When that happened to me as the acting mayor, I was told that a couple more tests would be run and then I would be called back. I crossed every finger and toe I had, my arms and legs to boot, hoping that the call back from the chief engineer from the water system would be that it was okay, that it was just a bad test, that the testing procedure had failed, that it was a contaminated bottle, that they had retested three times, that everything was good and that we were in the clear.

Fortunately for me, that was the case and I did not have to go on the radio and tell the town to boil water and to boil it for the next couple of weeks until we had cleaned and flushed the entire system. That is what would have had to be done.

We do not have systems here. This is not a question of saying, “Oh, by the way, we will just flush the system out, clean it out and we will go again”. It does not exist in these communities. That is why the extent of the infrastructure money required is as high as it is. I am sure the government side is saying that it is a lot of money. The $4.7 billion investment over the next 10 years is a substantial investment but it is the correct investment. It is a just investment. It is an investment we expect in our communities to the point where we actually have it. We live in communities that expect to have good, safe drinking water.

Here in Ottawa, which provides the drinking water for most of us here, it is safe drinking water, as it is across many of the communities. This is a right we expect and, in fact, take for granted. We turn on the tap, fill up the glass or the kettle to make some tea or coffee and we drink the glass of water or give it to the grandson, son or daughter, mom or whomever, knowing it is perfectly safe, and it is.

Now we must think about the first nations people. In the summer, when it is warm and their children are asking for a glass of water, the parents need to think about whether they have boiled any water lately and, if not, will need to boil some now. The children are thinking about whether they really need to do that because they are at an age where they are precocious little things. Instead, they get their own water and now they are ill because we did not do what we needed to do, which was provide a system that provided safe drinking water in the first place.

It is our responsibility for clean water because it is still under the act for us to have those negotiations. That leads me to the second piece of the legislation when first nations are saying to us that we have an obligation to talk to them about how we would implement these systems under treaty rights. It behooves us if that is the case.

I watched intently earlier this year when the first nations came to the Hill. The Prime Minister met with them, as did the minister and the parliamentary secretary. They talked about going forward with a new spirit of co-operation, dialogue, respect and understanding of our two nations. That is admirable but it is only words if that is all it becomes because here is the test. It is a fundamental test of people, not just first nations people but people in general, to expect to have safe drinking water and a waste water system that is effective and keeps them from getting ill.

When we happen to have that jurisdiction, we then have the responsibility to talk to them under treaty rights, ask them how they want to do this and tell then that we will be a funder of it. That is our obligation and responsibility. We should do that. However, we have an obligation to talk to them about it.

One of the things I found as I researched this piece, not being an expert on first nation treaties, is that it says that any abrogation or derogation from those aboriginal and treaty rights, any infringement of those rights, must be justified in accordance with the test for justifiable infringement enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada. What do they include? They include whether a measure interferes with a preferred means of exercising a right, whether there has been as little infringement as possible in order to effect the desired results, whether in a situation of expropriation fair compensation is available and whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the measures being implemented.

When we look at the regulation part of Bill S-8, rather than being discussed with first nations and coming to agreement with first nations, it defers to provincial regulation. No one is saying those regulations are bad, albeit in Ontario we had to change our regulations after the Mike Harris debacle of Walkerton. I have seen the regulations but they actually have not been implemented in the province yet. For those who have not read them, I could provide members with a link to the website because it will probably take members about a month and a half to read them all. Even those regulations, if implemented, will put about 40% of the water systems in the province of Ontario out of business because there are not enough qualified people to meet the standards under the regulations, let alone if we imposed that on first nations across the country.

What first nations were telling to us was that we came to them with that spirit in the early part of the year but they wanted to know what happened to the consultation process when it came to the bill. What we know is that there was none.

I am surely not a legal expert, never having been a lawyer. I am not sure being a jury foreperson makes me be a legal expert but I will make a stab at it. In one of the Supreme Court's justifications, it says that whether the aboriginal group in question has been consulted with respect to the measures being implemented would be an allowable piece to let them out from underneath that. We know from the first nations and chiefs across the country that they were not consulted. That being the case, then it would seem that this is not a justifiable exemption in the sense of putting it aside and not talking to them.

It may have been well-intentioned from the minister's side when the legislation was put together to say that since the provinces have good regulations for water we should just use those. The minister should have sat down with the first nations and bargained under the treaty rights. He should have asked them what they thought about the provinces' regulations, which are pretty good and stringent, and that if the federal government provided the essential resources, the money, would they like to use the provincial standards. They may have agreed but we will never know because they were not asked. One should never assume that the answer to a question is yes if one has not asked the question. More important, one needs to discuss the issue because that is an obligation. Unfortunately, we did not do that in this case and that is what the first nations are telling us.

Here we are, at the end of 2012, albeit only a year since the last report was done, where we have 1,880 first nation homes with no water service. There is no such thing as opening the tap, filling a glass and drinking, safe or otherwise, because there is no water in the house. We know there are 1,777 homes that have no waste water. Not to try to be overly colourful, but that really means they have to bucket, because when it is -30° outside one uses the bucket. No one goes outside to the outhouse even if one has an outhouse.

The bill needs some real work. It needs to address the issues that first nations have identified. More so, it needs to address the report that the department commissioned. It received the report which outlined for the department where it needed to go and what it needed to do. Therefore, it was not a question of not being sure what to put in it. The department did its homework and found out was needed but it did not provide a solution. The solution was outlined in the report but it chose to ignore its own report that showed the path to fix the issue that has been here for a long time. If we go back to the nineties we see that 25% of the homes in first nations the drinking water issue was quite reprehensible. By 2001-02, it was 75% homes. It had actually become worse.

The present government was not in power then. It has made a stab at making it better but it could have fixed it if it had followed the report. The report outlined how to do that but the government chose not to. That is what this side takes great umbrage with. It is not the official opposition saying that the government should spend the money. We are simply saying that this is what the report said is the fix. However, first and foremost, it said to speak to the first nation leaders and ask them if this is the fix that they require and want so that in the end they will say how we can fix this issue together.

Would that not be a wonderful result if, at the end of the day, the government could say a few years from now that it fixed this issue? Finally, a Canadian government that said it would fix it and you could stand up and take the congratulations along with first nation leaders for accomplishing it together. That would have been a great feather in your cap but, unfortunately, you let it slide away.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all hon. members to address their comments to the Chair rather than to their colleagues individually or collectively.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke of the results of the national assessment and the need for action. Following the release of the national assessment results, the Government of Canada committed to taking concrete action to support first nation communities in improving access to safe, clean, reliable drinking water. On-reserve water and wastewater issues have been identified as a priority.

The work being done in response to the national assessment has focused on three pillars in order to reduce the overall risks to first nations: enhanced capacity building and operator training, enforceable standards and protocols, and infrastructure investment. Over the last 12 months the federal government delivered in each of these areas. We agree that much more work needs to be done, which is why we are moving forward with this bill.

Why is the member opposite standing in the way?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats would never stand in the way if the government actually proposed how it intended to fix the system. It has found a leaky pipe and is trying to put a band-aid over the leak hoping that will fix it instead of cutting that section of pipe out and putting a new piece in place. One of the things I learned at the municipal level is that if we keep patching an old road, eventually someone will go down a sinkhole.

Yes, the government is going to spend $330 million over the next couple of years. The report asked it to spend $470 million per year over the next 10 years. I will do the arithmetic: $330 million over two years is $165 million a year. The report asked for $470 million per year. The government is off by $305 million a year and has a ways to go to make it up. We should ask the other side if someone else wants to find the additional money to actually fix the system as we go forward in the 21st century, when we still have people who do not have safe drinking water, running water or wastewater systems in their homes. That is reprehensible and what needs to be fixed.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Welland for outlining some of the serious flaws in this bill and the serious inaction on the part of the government. We are talking about a very serious issue, drinking water in first nation communities. It is an extremely serious issue. Everyone should be entitled to good potable water.

Like him, I also maintain that the government has a Walkerton mentality. It does not listen and does not notice the warning signs. There are four ministers sitting on the front bench who were involved in the Walkerton tragedy: the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board and the House leader. One would think that after these many years, they would recognize the warning signs, listen and take action.

I ask the member for Welland if he sees this as a concern, that it is the same old crew that is not recognizing the warning signs and that what the government is really all about is sending a message to the rest of the country that it is doing something when it is really doing as little as possible just to get by and not dealing with the real problem.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have learned in life is that if one does not learn from past mistakes, one is bound is to repeat them in the future.

Indeed, there are members of the Conservative government who were in the Ontario government during the 1990s when we had that great tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario, which many of us remember so well. Lessons were learned in the province of Ontario about that tragedy and we went forward from that. One would have thought we would look at those particular solutions and decide to make them part of this. Walkerton's municipal water system failed, under folks who people thought knew what they were doing. One would hope we would look at this whole piece and say let us not let it happen again, and this is how we should remediate it.

There was a review that went on for a number of years and we finally came up with more regulations. At the end of the day, many of them have been implemented, but some have not yet been.

Clearly, not only does that history lesson have to be learned by the government side that has some experience around it, but the government should have a road map in place. It asked for it be drawn, it was drawn, and now it simply has to put itself on the road map and follow it. It is no more difficult than that.

The government then has another party it has to talk to, which can sometimes be more difficult than the implementation. Unfortunately, in this case, not only did the government not meet its obligation to talk to the other party, the first nations, but it did not actually follow the road map when it came to resources. The government cheaped out on this aspect.

The government needed to follow the road map and then bargain a relationship with first nations, because that is what it said it would do. The government said it would do that in the spring. It said it would turn its mind to a different way of talking to first nations. The government said it would be inclusive, progressive, consultative and respectful of treaty rights with first nations. However, with its first opportunity, the government failed, which is unbelievable.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 in my great riding of Sudbury, the Canadian Red Cross, the City of Greater Sudbury and the administration all rallied around to support the community of Kashechewan. Residents were evacuated from their community and taken throughout the north. Many of those individuals ended up in Sudbury.

At the time, I was the executive director of the United Way, and we were called upon to provide some support where we could. Other charitable organizations were doing the same.

When I got to meet some of the families who were staying at one of the hotels, it was very interesting to watch some of the teenagers and even the adults turning the water on and off, grabbing a glass of water and being able to drink that glass of water. This is something that we all take for granted. We can walk outside of this House to the water fountain and grab a quick sip of water. They cannot do that in Kashechewan.

To look at some of the facts and figures, in April 2011, the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs released the national assessment on first nations water and waste water systems; the national roll-up report. The results show that 1,880 first nation homes are reported to have no water service and 1,777 homes are reported to have no waste water service.

In this day and age in a country like Canada, which is so wealthy, it is shameful that we still have to say this statistic. Have we not learned anything from what happened years ago and what is happening on a daily basis?

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sudbury for highlighting what happened with the Kashechewan First Nation when it was split up across the entire province of Ontario. Not only was the community broken up but families were broken up.

The member for Sudbury gave an apt description of the amazement of young adults and youngsters alike turning a tap on and off for the first time. They were amazed that water came out of a tap. They had not experienced this in their own homes because they did not have any running water. They were amazed that they could fill up a tumbler with water from a tap and drink it safely, something we do every day of our lives without a second thought. This was something they did not get to do until a great tragedy beset their own community so that they had to go south to places such as Sudbury to find out that there is such a thing as safe drinking water inside a house.

That was a wake-up call for all of us. It needs to change, so let us change it. Let us amend the bill and fix it. Let us go forward and let no first nation ever again have unsafe drinking water, let alone no water at all.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-8, an act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands. Specifically, Bill S-8 would provide for federal regulations to govern drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities. These regulations would set out new criteria regarding provisions including: the training and certification of operators of drinking and waste water systems; source water protection; the location, design, construction, modification, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of drinking water systems and waste water systems; drinking water distribution by truck; the collection and treatment of waste water; the monitoring, sampling and testing of waste water and the reporting of test results; and the handling, use and disposal of products of waste water treatment.

As an elected representative from northern Ontario, I recognize the importance of ensuring that first nation communities have access to clean drinking water. I am certain that there is not a member of the House who would oppose the goal of ensuring this basic right.

I spoke about it earlier to my colleague from Welland. We all remember the crisis in Kashechewan First Nation in 2005, when the community was forced to evacuate due to a contaminated water crisis that left some community members extremely sick and stranded others in communities such as Sudbury for an extended period of time.

I talked about my previous role as the executive director of the United Way and there were many great organizations in Sudbury that provided support to the first nations people from Kashechewan. I had the opportunity to meet some of the families who were staying in a hotel in Lively. The amazement of teenagers, children and even the adults who were there, turning the water taps on and off, is something that has burned into my brain because they had never had that opportunity before. To see them sit there and drink a glass of water out of the taps, it made me think how we take our drinking water for granted. However, in a country like Canada, we need to ensure that our first nations have those same standards.

Unfortunately, although it is one of the most egregious examples of the contaminated drinking water, the case of Kashechewan First Nation is not an isolated incident. Rather, it is part of a systemic problem that affects first nation communities right across Canada. In fact, Health Canada has reported that as of October 31, 2011 there were 124 first nation communities across Canada under a drinking water advisory. These are often issued in remote or isolated northern communities. From my perspective, this is unacceptable in a country with as much wealth as Canada. This is reinforced by the fact that many of these communities are situated in close proximity to resource development projects that net huge gains to mining companies and the government through tax revenues, but often do not provide any assistance to communities living within arm's reach of these projects.

Although ensuring access to clean drinking water for first nation communities is a laudable objective, I am afraid that the legislation would leave much to be desired in terms of the process to achieve the desired outcome. For instance, the regulations put forward under Bill S-8 may incorporate provincial regulations governing drinking and waste water in first nation communities, thereby overriding the regulations set out in the bill. Here, the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations expressed concern about using provincial regulations since that would result in a patchwork of regulations that would lead to some first nations having more stringent standards than others. Obviously, this would be inherently problematic.

If the intent would be to ensure equitable access to clean drinking water, then implementing a patchwork system, which would have different thresholds for provinces, runs counter to what the legislation would try to achieve. Put simply, a provincial regime of regulation does not do enough to protect first nation communities and appears to be a derogation of the federal government's responsibility to provide basic services to first nation communities.

The derogation of responsibility is underscored by the component of Bill S-8 limiting the liability of the government for certain acts or omissions that occur in the performance of their duties under the regulations. As the federal government is meant to be the primary provider of services to first nation communities, it seems odd that the legislation is attempting to limit the liability of the federal government in situations where it has failed to properly address its constitutional mandate. If the government actually believed that the regulations provided for in the legislation alone would ensure equitable access to safe drinking water in first nation communities, then why is there a need to limit the government's liability when there is a failure in this regard?

This bring us to the most problematic aspect of the paternalistic approach that the Conservatives continue to take when providing services to first nation communities. The crux of the problem with the legislation is that the government thinks that regulation alone will solve the water crisis in first nation communities, yet we know this is not true. In addition to a regulatory overhaul, these communities require crucial investments in human resources and physical infrastructure, including drinking water and sewage systems, and adequate housing.

Supporting this call for increased funding is Dr. Harry Swain, chair of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. Dr. Swain told the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, in 2007:

This is not, in other words, one of those problems in Aboriginal Canada that will persist for ever and ever and ever. This is one that can be solved and it can be solved with the application of a good chunk of money for a limited period of time.

Further, in 2011, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada commissioned an independent assessment on first nation water and waste water systems. The report clearly states that a significant financial commitment to infrastructure development will be necessary, and that it will cost $4.7 billion over 10 years to ensure the needs of first nation communities regarding water and waste water systems are met. Yet, while the department has called for substantive investments to improve water and waste water systems in first nation communities, the Conservative government has only contributed to these improvements by committing $330 million over two years in 2010 and nothing in 2011.

I would challenge my Conservative colleagues on this shortfall, and although I do expect the inevitable finger-wagging and shouts, I would like to point out that a proactive approach with more substantive upfront investments in clean drinking water would likely be more cost effective than taking a reactive approach in which the government is forced to respond to an urgent public health crisis resulting from the failure to make these investments.

As is most often the case, the Conservative government continues to take a penny-wise and pound foolish approach, which fails to take the cost savings of pursuing a proactive approach into account when making the always difficult choices about what to prioritize in terms of government spending.

In summation, New Democrats agree that the poor standards of water systems in first nation communities are hampering people's health and well-being. It is also causing economic hardships for people living in these communities. This is not a difficult problem to solve. It just requires the political will and necessary investments to get us where we need to be.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment of $330.8 million over two years was through the economic action plan. This was to help sustain progress that was made to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserves. Between 2006 and 2014, the Government of Canada has invested approximately $3 billion to support the delivery of water and waste water services in first nations. This was all done after a comprehensive assessment was done. Independent engineers inspected 1,300 drinking water and waste water systems. This was more than 800 wells and 1,900 septic systems. A more rigorous and comprehensive independent assessment surveyed 97% of drinking water and waste water systems on first nation lands.

I do not see how the member can even suggest that the government has not made a priority of water and waste water on first nations and reserves. I do believe the government has been consistent, while the New Democrats have been very inconsistent in the way they vote. The NDP never demonstrated any will to help these people when it came to voting on the economic action plan investment.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was spouting a lot of numbers, but here are two very important numbers that maybe the minister should listen to: 1,880 first nation homes have no water service, and 1,777 homes have reported having no wastewater service.

We have talked about the $4.7 billion needed over the next 10 years to ensure that we address that problem. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not hearing that, announcing $330 million in 2010 but making no further announcement in 2011.

While the Conservatives are talking about numbers, first nation families are going without drinking water. That is shameful. The bill does not cut it. Let us send it back, let us fix it, let us do this correctly so that no first nation family has to go without drinking water.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the member's point, it is critically important that families have access to clean running water.

The vast majority of Canadians, 95% plus, as was pointed out, can go to the kitchen and turn on the faucet or go to the washroom, and whether with the toilet or the bathtub, they can turn on the taps and the water will flow.

A good percentage of our population would be surprised that there are hundreds, and actually well into the thousands, of people residing here in Canada who do not have that access to clean running water. It is one of the reasons that politicians tend to want to talk about it. We passed the resolution.

The leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion last November with all-party support, pointing out the specific situation on reserves and calling on the government to work with first nations leaders to resolve the issue, because a good percentage of those who do not have clean running water live on reserve. There was all-party support for that motion, with the government actually supporting it.

When we look at priorities in meeting the suggestions in that motion, does Bill S-8 really do the job that is necessary?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things my colleague mentioned that really ring true.

I mentioned the Kashechewan First Nation crisis from 2005. My community of Sudbury really stepped up and supported many of the people who were evacuated from that community. In Sudbury we all learned a very valuable lesson that day, that not everyone has access to the drinking water and the wastewater systems we take for granted.

As I mentioned, those young kids and adults turning the tap on and off really burned an image into my mind that we had to stop just talking about this. We need to make the investments in infrastructure to ensure that we are supporting our first nation communities.

I do not believe Bill S-8 would address this in the way that we need to support our first nation communities. We need to fix this. We need to fix it now and I think we have the opportunity to do so, but it is not through Bill S-8.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

Before I get into the bill, the title of it would have one believe that the Conservatives are actually going to do something about safe drinking water for first nations. It uses the word “respecting”. To me, respect is listening to the very people that this legislation is going to impact. Respect is to listen to their concerns and implement some resolutions to those concerns as part of the solution for creating a better environment for clean water and waste water systems for first nations. This bill would not do any of that.

We have heard debate in the House on this bill, we have heard testimony in committee and we have heard from experts that the government is not listening to first nations. It has, in fact, failed to consult the very people who are going to be impacted by this particular legislation. The word “respecting” is very misleading, because the government is not respecting the very people who would be impacted by this legislation.

We in the House all agree on the need for clean water and water systems accessible to first nations. A fundamental right of Canadians is to have access to free and clean drinking water. In fact, after Russia and Brazil, we have the third largest supply of clean water in the world. Yet first nations are having difficulty accessing clean and safe water for their drinking needs, and that is not acceptable to Canadians. In this day and age, we need to provide clean water for first nations. It is doable. We have heard in the House that we can provide safe, clean water, but it needs a commitment from the government to invest in first nations so they have access to clean water.

This issue of clean water has been boiling for the last 10 or 15 years, as far as I know. The Liberals tried to fix it and I know the Conservatives have tried a piecemeal strategy to address the needs of first nations, but over a period of time they have failed again and again because there was no substance in previous bills, or even this one, to help them get clean water. In fact, this particular bill does not provide the investment for first nations to build the infrastructure needed for access to clean water.

Having clean water is a fundamental right. Not only that, but it helps first nations build their economy and improves their health. If they do not have good health, it is going to impact the economy. If the Conservatives are truly worried about building an economy and providing jobs to first nations youth, it is important for government to step up to the plate. It has been saying for many years that there is going to be clean water for first nations, but their words are hollow.

All this legislation would do is provide for a regulations framework. That is all it would do. It would not provide the infrastructure or investment that is needed. All it would do is provide for additional regulations that will be put on first nations. The government did not even consult first nations, the very people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. In order to put a system in place that provides clean water for first nations, it is very important to consult those people. Yet the Conservatives failed to do that.

The Prime Minister talked about building a new relationship with the first nations. What I believe he meant was to consult with first nations. It is our duty to consult first nations when bringing in legislation that would impact them. I believe his words were hollow when he said that we would build a new nation by consulting first nations. Clearly, this legislation would not do that at all.

Not only do we need infrastructure and additional investments in our communities to provide them with clean water, but also for waste water that ends up in our lakes and streams. The government is focused on cutting the very regulations that help protect our lakes, rivers and oceans. Not only is it not providing the infrastructure needed to treat the waste water that would be released into our lakes and rivers, it is gutting the environmental regulations that we have in place to ensure that Canadians across the country have adequate access to clean safe water.

Over the years, we have seen the numbers. Hundreds of first nations communities across the country have been under boil water advisories. In Ottawa and back in Surrey, we take it for granted that we can turn on the tap and drink the water. However, hundreds of communities across the country do not have access to clean water and are under a Health Canada boil water advisory. This is happening in the 21st century. We are trying to build that new relationship that the Prime Minister so often talks about but the government is not delivering on its promises of trying to help the first nations.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen legislation brought in by the government, whether it is the transparency act or matrimonial land rights, without any consultation with the first nations people. The courts have told us that it is our fiduciary duty to consult with first nations on any legislation brought into the House that concerns them. We need to hear their views. Not only must we consult with first nations, we must also work with them toward addressing the concerns that they have brought forward.

This is a hollow bill that fails to address the very things that need to be addressed. Over and over again, the Conservatives are failing to address the very needs of the first nations. They never talk about housing or education for our young people. They never talk about investing in young people so that the cycle of poverty in our first nations can be broken.

The government talks about spending millions of dollars and investing in first nations but its own report called upon the government to implement a strategy over a period of time wherein additional investments into drinking water for first nations would take place over 10 years. The government has not only failed Canadians but also first nations by not investing and providing the infrastructure that is needed for clean water and waste water management. The bill would not address any of the concerns that the first nations have brought forward, and Canadians are aware of some of those issues as well.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the investments that this government has made. I would like to remind him that the member for Medicine Hat spoke earlier of our government's commitment of $3 billion so far on the issue of water and wastewater standards on first nations land across this great country.

However, investments themselves do not suffice. That is why our government is moving forward with a three-pronged plan focused on investments, enhanced capacity and legislation to ensure that drinking water and wastewater standards on first nation land are comparable to standards enjoyed by all Canadians.

Could the member opposite speak to that, recognizing that money itself is not the only thing this government is focused on? We are focused on trying to fix the entire problem.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all the Conservatives have been doing over the last number of years in government is talk. Talk is not going to resolve the very issues that are affecting our first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve the housing issues in first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve education issues in first nation communities. Talk is not going to resolve the problem of creating jobs for young first nations people.

The government's own study pointed to investing in first nation communities so they can have access to clean water and water systems in place to clean waste water. The Conservatives have clearly failed on that. They have a piecemeal strategy in place that has not worked for our first nations. It is shameful that they keep saying that they have invested money and do not need to invest more money.

As Canadians, we can do this. Let us work together in the opposition, the NDP and Liberals, and all parties together and solve this issue of having clean drinking water in first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's last comment on working together. There are significant issues facing our first nation communities and clean drinking water is ranked high up. Many leaders within our first nation communities are very keen in wanting to deal with this issue. In fact, they are open to working with the Government of Canada and provinces and even municipalities to try to fast-forward the work that needs to get done. The government has not recognized how important it is that stakeholders support the strong leadership within our first nations today, which wants to deal with this issue.

Could my colleague comment on how we can assist the first nation leadership in pushing forward with this important issue in a timely fashion?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to start by consulting first nations. We need to bring them to the table and talk to them. We need to look at their needs and address those needs in a collaborative way, with the government and the opposition sitting at the table.

However, this bill would basically unload federal responsibility onto first nations. We have seen this with other legislation in the House, which has off-loaded federal responsibilities onto provinces and then further onto municipalities.

I had a chance to talk to officials of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities last week. They commissioned a study in 2007 showing that municipalities back then had a deficit of $31 billion in infrastructure for clean water systems.

The Conservative government has not lived up to its responsibilities. If it is going to create regulations via this bill, then it needs to provide resources, whether for first nations or municipalities and cities across this country. We need to provide those resources.

Let us not set up first nations for failure. If there is no funding and no investment to go along with this legislation, then we are setting up first nations for failure. Clearly, the Conservatives do not have a long-term strategy to address the fundamental need for clean water and wastewater systems for first nations.

Bill S-8—Time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have a 30-minute question period.

The hon. Minister of National Defence has a point of order.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very brief point of order.

In question period, in response to a question, due to time constraints I referred at the end of my question to soldiers only, as opposed to soldiers, sailors and airmen. I would like the record to reflect that.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will now have the 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Skeena—Buckley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. I would like to highlight for the government and for Canadians that the Conservatives have suddenly invoked time allocation and closure on this bill, breaking the record even further still, as though they are somehow in a panic. Having just introduced the bill, they want to shut down the debate on it.

This bill was first called before Parliament on November 26. If it were so important, we wonder what they were doing all that time, from November until now, that suddenly they are in such a panic. They have said that it is about safe drinking water. However, we know this is legislation that imposes safe drinking water responsibilities on first nations without any of the resources to ensure that the water is safe.

It is not us alone who are concerned with this. The Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations stated in its report, “Regulation”, which is what this is, “without the investment needed to build capacity may even put drinking water...at risk by diverting badly needed resources into regulatory frameworks and compliance costs”.

In the three years that this legislation has existed in one form or another, the Conservative government has never once identified where those resources would be for first nations. All it has done is brought in legislation. It has now brought in a hammer to shut down debate because it knows debate reveals the truth, which is that this legislation is flawed without the resources to help keep drinking water safe on first nations reserves.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of the same. Again we hear the New Democrats opposing a measure that would fill a gap that exists only on first nation lands in this country. They oppose a bill that would ensure we finally have the legislative framework that allows for the adoption of regulations that would be developed in co-operation and partnership with first nations in order to ensure they have access to safe water and a safe waste water system.

This bill is crucial to ensuring that first nations have the same health and safety protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment that are currently enjoyed by other Canadians.

It has taken seven years for us to get to this point. Again, we cannot get the co-operation of the opposition parties to pass this important legislation and its closure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that never before in the history of Canada have we seen a government use time allocation as frequently as the current government has. This is a Reform-Conservative majority government that thinks nothing of abusing the rules in order to ram through legislation.

A minister can stand up and defend why it is that ultimately the Conservative government would like to see the bill pass, but it is wrong for it to continue to bring in legislation time and time again using time allocation. It disrespects the institution. The government needs to rethink its approach in terms of democracy and how things should work inside the chamber.

My question to the government House leader is this. Why does the government continue to want to use time allocation on so many pieces of its legislation? It has almost made it a natural part of processing legislation through the House of Commons.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if it were only up to the members of the opposition to support any bills in this House, I think Canadians would be disappointed because not much would happen. There is not a single bill that these parties are ready to support. They must believe that somehow it is political capital-building to oppose that things get done in this country.

Even in November of 2011, the Liberal Party submitted a resolution to this House calling for the government to take action to address drinking water safety for first nations communities. This motion was unanimously adopted by the House and yet the member stands there and opposes the legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members that during this 30-minute debate most of the questions and preference are given to opposition members. We will do our best, of course, to accommodate all members. However, I remind all hon. members to keep their interventions to about one minute, and the same for responses.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Why does the government not want to hear stories like I would want to talk about during a full debate of the bill?

In my riding, the Pacheedaht First Nation went forward with a proposal to create a safe water system. However, the bureaucracy of Indian Affairs said that it had to get outside consultants to study it. The department spent more on the consultants than the project would have cost. In the meantime, the government also spent more on buying bottled water for the first nation than the project would cost. This is the problem with the bill coming before us. In the end, the first nation had all kinds of bureaucratic regulations and studies, but it still did not have safe drinking water.

Is that what the minister is afraid of hearing about in this debate?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very used to hearing the doom and gloom from the other side of the House. Those members never talk about the successes.

I would never hear that member tell the House and Canadians that since 2006 this Conservative government has invested over $3 billion for waste water systems and water systems on reserve in Canada. I would challenge any of them to point to any previous government that has invested so much for water for first nations in this country. It just has not happened. They should follow the leadership of this government and get first nations the treatment they need.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for seven consecutive years we have been working closely with first nations to address the current legislative gap for safe drinking water on reserve. Our government has been engaging with first nation partners since coming to government in 2006, and we continue to engage with first nations on the proposed legislation every step of the way. In fact, engagement has never stopped.

After the last iteration of Bill S-11 died on the order paper, we took action to address some of the concerns that have been raised by first nations and other important stakeholders, by making a number of amendments to the current iteration of the bill that members have before them.

Can the minister please explain how he has continued to elicit the first nations to address the concerns throughout this process, in particular the opt-in provision?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his question. It is an important one.

As a matter of fact, from the former iteration of the bill to this one, we have incorporated some 10 amendments that had been requested by stakeholders and first nations across the country.

Over the last several months, as members may know, concerns have been raised by various stakeholders regarding the opt-in provision in Bill S-8 for self-governing first nations and those who have already concluded land claim agreements. Specifically, it was suggested that this provision could create jurisdictional challenges and impacts for ongoing and future land claim agreements, among other issues.

As a result, I will be recommending to the committee that will be studying this bill clause by clause that there be removal of this provision from the bill, which will be good news for the land claims coalition and for those self-governing nations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, rising as we are now to debate time allocation, I want to preempt the usual response from government members who say, “What a shame, the member has raised a process question rather than on the substance of the bill”.

This is a moment to debate process on a time allocation motion, and I am on topic.

At the time allocation motion on Bill C-60, I made the point that members of the House who are not members of large political parties in this place never get an opportunity to speak to a bill when time allocation is applied. I have never been given a speaking opportunity on any bill once time allocation is applied. Last time, on the Bill C-60 debate, the minister said, “Why don't you just go to committee?”

I will make the point. I have never been allowed to speak at committee due to objections from other parties.

This is an anti-democratic process of constantly imposing time allocation. It is unfair to members in this place and I regard it as a violation of the basis of democracy.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I note the opinion of the member, Mr. Speaker.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Another time allocation motion, Mr. Speaker. First nations are not in favour of time allocation and they are not in favour of Bill S-8.

I have a resolution here from the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising in which they talk about the fact that first nations have the inherent right to self-government as recognized by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, which includes independent jurisdiction.

The resolution also says that the Conservative government has not consulted with them in order to pass these bills. The resolution says:

Therefore be it resolved that; the UCCMM First Nations categorically reject the following assimilation and termination Bills, Acts, policies and procedures used against our citizens;...Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water...

Could the minister tell us why he is trying to pass this legislation as quickly as possible without consulting first nations and without the proper input of first nations and their members?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, It is obvious that the hon. member is not really aware of what has taken place for the bill to come before the House.

Engagement with first nations and stakeholders across Canada started back in 2006. Knowledgeable people, those who cared to inquire about the facts, would realize that this engagement includes an expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations. The panel held hearings in nine locations across Canada with first nations and other stakeholders from June to August 2006.

A joint workshop was held between federal officials and the Assembly of First Nations technical water expert group in 2007. Meetings with first nations organizations and provincial and territorial officials were held in 2008 to share information on the proposed legislative framework. From February to March 2009, the government launched a series of 13 engagement sessions across the country at which 544 first nations individuals were present. From early 2009 to early 2010, the government met with regional first nations chiefs and first nations organizations to discuss specific regional issues. Between October 2010 and October 2011 the government engaged--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Perhaps the hon. minister will get a chance to add to that comment at the next round.

Questions. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians access to safe drinking water is taken for granted. This is not the case for many first nations communities. Bill S-8 is crucial to ensuring first nations have the same health and safety regulations and protections concerning drinking water and waste water treatment that are currently enjoyed by other Canadians.

It has taken seven years to get to this point, seven years of continuous dialogue with first nations, including formal engagement sessions and implementing measures to accommodate the concerns of first nations. The legislation before Parliament today is the result of hard work and collaboration. Now is the time for action.

Could the minister explain how time allocating Bill S-8 would help fulfill this long-standing legislative gap and enhance access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water for first nations communities?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous question on the issue of consultation was important, and I could have gone on and on.

Members may remember Bill S-11 in the previous Parliament. That legislation was also the subject of debate in the House and in the Senate. The legislation has been debated a lot since 2006.

In answer to the question from my learned friend, the Government of Canada and first nations have shared the goal of ensuring that first nations communities have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water. Progress and improvements have been made to address the provision of drinking water, especially with the investment of close to $3 billion since 2006.

This legislation would enable the development of regulations, in partnership with first nations and stakeholders, that would increase the level of capacity of first nations to provide their membership with the kind of water that all other Canadians enjoy.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I have been listening to the debate going back and forth. The minister is making two different points here, and they are contradictory.

On the one hand, he is saying that the government has been consulting for six years and has been trying to work this problem through. On the other hand, he is saying the Conservatives are now going to ram this legislation through, that they are going to use closure and not allow proper debate. Those are two contradictory points.

One that I also want to add is that I think Canadians all want safe drinking water. First nations want safe drinking water.

I held town hall meetings in my riding. When I consulted with the mayor and council of the City of Coquitlam, they were very concerned about this bill and the impact it would have on their city, working with the local first nations. Of course, we all want to them have safe drinking water, but they were concerned about the standards, the funding and the implications on the city. Where is the funding that would accompany what this bill is talking about? That is of grave concern, not just to us in terms of the opposition members who want to talk about this, but also to cities across this country.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member taken the time to read the bill, he could have explained to the mayor in question that the proposed legislation itself would have no impact whatsoever on non-first nations governments. As such, Bill S-8 and subsequent regulations would not force municipalities to provide drinking water services to first nations, nor delegate powers or costs to municipalities. Furthermore, Bill S-8 would not affect municipalities' abilities to choose to pursue or not municipal service agreements with first nations.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the minister's responses regarding the consultations he held.

He brags that he consulted a number of first nations. However, the Assembly of First Nations strongly opposes this bill.

Had the Conservatives consulted the Assembly of First Nations, the assembly would have told them what amendments should have been made to this bill. I can think of a lot of them. I will not rattle them off for you the way the minister does for the groups he supposedly consulted.

Consulting groups is not enough; we must listen to them as well. When groups ask us to make amendments, we need to do it. That is why we want to continue debate on Bill S-8. The government has obviously not done its job. It has not made the necessary amendments.

Introducing legislation on safe drinking water is not enough. That needs to be done, but funding must be provided too. That is what the Assembly of First Nations is asking for, but that is not in Bill S-8. That is why we want to continue the debate, to explain all the good amendments and changes to be made to the bill.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government has had a number of meaningful discussions with the first nations regarding the proposed legislation, and we will continue to do so.

Just like the Liberals, the NDP member is always talking about throwing money at problems. We are trying to establish a legislative framework so we can adopt regulations regarding the quality of drinking water and waste water services on first nations land.

All other Canadians and all other municipalities have this right. This initiative cannot be completed overnight. This is not smoke and mirrors. By working with the first nations, the regions and stakeholders from the communities, we can develop regulations to bring first nations drinking water and waster water services to a level and quality equal to or comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the reserves across Canada are remote and most of the reserves in northern Ontario are remote. This is not only an important issue to them. Many of them have dysfunctional water systems now, but building water systems in those remote areas is complex and way more expensive than in urban areas of Canada.

I would just like to add my voice on their behalf in asking for a more full and complete discussion of this bill before we go ahead with it because it has such huge implications for cost, complexity and a number of first nations.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, indeed, that in remote communities it is a particular challenge. As a matter of fact, I visited the Kashechewan community not long ago and saw firsthand a water system in which this government had invested and from which the community benefits. I also visited with Chief Naveau and his community in northern Ontario and he showed me with pride the water system that the serious investment of this government allowed his community to get. The chief was telling me the problem is that they needed trained people to protect the system. This is what these regulations would achieve.

I do not understand why opposition members are arguing that instead of improving the system, we should sit and talk about it. That is all they do: talk about it.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced this bill so first nations have the same access to drinking water as all Canadians. To me, it is incredible how anybody could even consider not supporting that because many of the communities, as we all know, have waited too long for safe, clean, reliable drinking water and yet, shockingly, opposition members have continually tried to draw out and prolong debate and continue to vote against this initiative.

As the preamble states, the government will work with the first nations to develop federal regulations. Passing this bill is just the beginning. Much work remains to be done.

Could the minister please tell the House how long it will take for regulations to be put in place and why we need to take action now, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month but now, in moving this legislation forward?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, developing federal regulations will take time and will be implemented over a number of years. Regulations will be developed on a region-by-region basis and phased in over time. As I said earlier, this phased-in approach will help to ensure that first nations and system operators are prepared for the coming into force of the regulations.

During this time, the government and first nations will continue to work together to bring in drinking water and waste water infrastructure, monitoring activities and capacity to the level required to meet future federal regulations. That is how we will do it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed because I am thinking about many of the first nations communities I represent and how they would find that the shutting down of a conversation would be fundamentally disrespectful, even with those who happen to disagree.

However, let me read a quote by the Minister of Public Safety when he was in opposition. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada swung an axe across the throat of parliament. While committee members had an opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, members of all parties in parliament lost the ability to express the concerns of Canadians.

If the bill was the right thing to do, why did the Prime Minister do the wrong thing by invoking closure?

If the minister will not listen to the words of the opposition or first nations, maybe he will listen to the words of his own colleagues, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, who have all said that using these draconian tactics in Parliament is fundamentally undemocratic and also leads to bad legislation, which his government has done time and again on something so important as drinking water on first nations reserves. Would it not be right to get it right?

The minister recently said something wrong. Many of these water integration systems are integrated with the non-aboriginal, non-reserve communities. The fact that he does not know that or does not seem to care raises so many fundamental concerns with his ability to do the job that he is meant to do. Shutting down debate is wrong and he knows it.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, and Canadians must know this, this motion does not shut down debate. It controls the debate.

From here, the bill will go to committee where every section of the bill can be debated and questioned. If members have ideas as to how to improve a bill, they can make their case at committee. Then the bill will come back to Parliament where the people who were elected will vote on it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say that it does not close debate.

I do not think he understands what time allocation is. What the government has proposed is that all members of the House of Commons will be unable to participate in the debate on this very important issue. This is an allocation. It does close debate. It prevents members from being able to contribute their thoughts, ideas and reflections from their constituents to the debate.

Maybe the minister might want to reconsider his statement and reflect on what the government has proposed to do this afternoon.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing to do is end the spinning of wheels. This has been going on for seven years. For seven years now people have been talking and talking. We say that it is time for action.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what ignorance from that side of the House.

The fact is that for more than seven years, the governments, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, have not respected their treaty obligations.

Again, here is a quote from April 29, a resolution of the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations. It says:

UCCMM First Nations has the right to free and prior and informed consent on anything that affects us. We have not given out free, prior or informed consent on any of the legislation passed by this sitting of the legislature.

Again, one of the bills is Bill S-8. There is no first nation that does not want fresh, clean water.

The minister spoke about the places he had seen where the government had invested in clean water, where there was water that people could actually drink. He is not talking about the ones where they cannot drink it. The minister is forcing first nations to have legislation that they cannot even afford to put a system in place.

First, will the minister put money with that? Second, will he agree that all first nations should be heard, especially the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP is arguing that first nations have veto rights on every piece of legislation or regulation that can be made, I respect its position, but then the NDP members can explain that to all Canadians.

The fact is that this is an enabling legislation that will allow the government to develop, in partnership with first nations, a regulatory system that will ensure the provision of safe water for first nations members.

This is what the bill is intended to do. This is not a finance bill. This is a bill to provide a regulatory system that will allow first nations to get the same level of clean water as other Canadians enjoy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have reached the end of the period allowed.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #677

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to questions on the order paper, Questions Nos. 1254 through 1259 inclusive.

The House resumed from November 26, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Second Reading

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I start today, I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I fully support Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, and I encourage my hon. colleagues to endorse the proposed legislation.

Bill S-8 is an important piece of a larger initiative that will have a tangible, practical and positive impact on a long-standing problem: unsafe drinking water in first nations communities.

More than seven years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development conducted an in-depth study of first nations drinking water. The report concluded that a large part of the problem is that responsibility for the various tasks involved in the treatment and delivery of drinking water on first nation lands is shared among many groups.

Here is a definitive statement from the report:

Until a regulatory regime is established that is comparable with the one that is in place in the provinces, INAC and Health Canada cannot ensure that First Nations people living on reserves will have continuing access to safe drinking water.

The same conclusion was reached in every other authoritative report on the matter, including most recently in the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, published in July 2011.

The national assessment was the most rigorous, comprehensive and independent evaluation of on-reserve water and waste water systems ever undertaken by a federal government. The report is full of valuable information that can help point the way toward further progress. It highlights the variations in the quality of drinking water in first nations communities and the diverse reasons for successes and challenges. The report also recommends the “establishment of a regulatory framework for water and waste water systems”.

Bill S-8 alone, of course, will not ensure access to safe drinking water in first nations communities, but it would create a legislative framework to enable the government, together with first nations and other stakeholders, to develop enforceable standards, the chains of accountability that are absolutely necessary to support progress.

Let me remind the House of the tragic examples of water contamination in communities across the country.

In North Battleford, Saskatchewan, in 2001, over 7,000 people became sick because there had been a failure to properly treat the drinking water. I too drank the water and was also sick at that time.

In Walkerton, Ontario, in 2000, seven citizens died and more than 2,500 became sick. In the aftermath of the Walkerton tragedy, the Ontario government developed one of the most stringent drinking water regulatory regimes in Canada.

In order to avoid a tragedy like Walkerton happening in first nations communities, we need regulations. This is what Bill S-8 would enable the government and first nations to do.

To address the other factors that contribute to unsafe drinking water, this government, in partnership with first nations and first nation organizations, has taken a long list of actions. From 2006 to 2014, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately $3 billion, including $330.8 million in economic action plan 2012, in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations.

These investments supported more than 400 projects, such as the construction and upgrade of treatment systems, the protection of water sources and the installation of piping networks and holding tanks. More than 40 projects were completed last year alone. Actions were also taken to train and certify hundreds of operators and to publish and distribute treatment protocols and operational guidelines.

The combined effect of these actions has been significant, but much more remains to be done.

The establishment of regulatory regimes would support further progress in a number of ways. Practically speaking, Bill S-8 would enable the development of regulations to protect sources of drinking water located on first nations lands from contamination. The regulations stemming from Bill S-8 would help strengthen oversight and clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved, including private companies operating drinking water and waste water systems on first nations lands.

During the discussions that took place over the last six years to develop this legislation, numerous first nation public works specialists expressed the need to have tools to do their work properly and to have access to appropriate safeguards to provide clean, safe and reliable drinking water to fellow community members. While protocols and guidelines exist to help operators in first nations communities, these documents lay out no enforceable standards. Regulations will offer a mechanism by which standards will be clearly stated, realistic and tailored to the circumstances of first nations. They will also provide a mechanism through which an enforcement body can support the work of these operators and guide them in their important work.

This government recognizes that partnership can be a powerful force, and the process to develop regulations will be key in bringing this commitment to reality.

Incorporation by reference of provincial and territorial drinking water legislation, with the adaptations to reflect the needs and circumstances of first nations communities, will foster collaboration in many ways.

First, regulatory development will enable the government and first nations to work together to develop the regulations that are essential to the health and safety of first nations children, women and men.

Second, incorporation by reference with adaptations will allow for comparable standards to be established between on- and off-reserve communities. Future regulations would extend the possibility of first nations, provinces, territories and municipalities working together to deliver safe drinking water and waste water services on first nations lands, exchange best practices and possibly strengthen partnerships that are already in place.

For instance, first nations and neighbouring municipalities sometimes share drinking water services through municipal-type service agreements, as in British Columbia, where the community of Kwakiutl receives drinking water from the neighbouring town of Port Hardy. We hope that having comparable standards on and off reserve would facilitate these partnerships.

Bill S-8 and future regulations would help support first nations communities by bringing their drinking water and waste water services to a level and quality of service comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians living in communities of similar size and location.

The bill is a crucial component of this government's numerous actions over the years to improve the safety of drinking water on reserve. It would have a significant and tangible impact on first nations communities.

Ultimately, Bill S-8 would enable first nations to work with federal and regional officials to develop regimes tailored to their circumstances while respecting science-based standards for health and safety.

I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill S-8.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what we have heard from first nations across the country, and in view of the devastating report on the state of potable drinking water and waste water systems across the country from July, 2011, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to do what I said in the letter I wrote to the minister in the fall of 2011.

In the letter, I said that as the Liberal Party, we would not be able to support any legislation unless there were resources to go with it to actually fix this appalling situation with three-quarters of the water systems within the country. This piece of legislation will do absolutely nothing unless there are resources for first nations to fix these problems.

Will the member tell us where the money is coming from to fix this situation in the first nations across the country?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite hypocritical to hear that from the Liberal member over there.

For 13 years they were in government, and for 13 years they did not get anything done. They keep talking about it, but they never put in any legislation. In the past, all they wanted to do was put motions forward.

What we are seeing here right now is legislation to help first nations individuals in first nations communities. Being first nations myself, I hear the rigmarole of what is being said across the floor, and it is atrocious knowing what she is saying. That is what I find appalling.

I look back at November 2011. The Liberal member for Toronto Centre put forward a motion calling on the government to urgently address first nations' access to safe drinking water. Here is another motion. It is not legislation. All she does is talk about it.

Now, more than a year and a half later, we are hearing debate on Bill S-8, now in second reading for the fourth time. This is the second iteration of the bill. We believe that now is the time to move forward.

I hope that my hon. colleagues opposite will put aside their partisanship and support the bill.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in hearing the member give us some indication of what he thinks and how he feels about an issue that is so important to all of us.

I do not think there is anyone here who does not recognize the fact that there needs to be some action to deal with the desperate need for fresh, clean, safe drinking water in first nations communities. The problem is that bringing in legislation that would make first nations responsible for it, without properly ensuring that there would be funding in place, just compounds an already difficult situation.

Could the member please comment?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out what the federal government has done since the Conservatives became the government in 2006.

There was $333.8 million in 2006-2007. In 2007-2008, we had $333.2 million for first nations water and waste management. In 2008-2009, the federal government put in $340.8 million and in 2009-2010 an additional $412.7 million. In 2010-2011, it was $427.4 million and in 2011-2012, it was an additional $343.4 million. In 2012-2013, it was $374.8 million. Now, in 2013-2014, under Canada's economic action plan, there would be an additional $374.7 million.

That is a grand total of over $3 billion assigned to address first nations water and waste water.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the important issue of the health and safety of all Canadian citizens, and, in particular, on Canada's first nations and their right to have access to the same safe, clean, reliable drinking water that other Canadian citizens enjoy.

Bill S-8, safe drinking water for first nations act, will enable the government to develop regulations with first nations to provide access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water to men, women and children living on first nations lands.

My support for Bill S-8 is further founded on two facts: the proposed legislation has been developed in collaboration with first nations; and, upon royal assent, regulations will be developed on a region-by-region basis in collaboration with first nations, provinces, territories and other stakeholders.

Bill S-8 proposes a mechanism to resolve another complex problem: the lack of a regulatory foundation to protect the quality of drinking water available in first nations communities.

This proposed legislation is the product of years of engagement, consultation and collaboration with first nations. There have been formal and informal meetings, town hall sessions, without prejudice discussions and workshops. Hundreds of people, including representatives of the Assembly of First Nations and associations of first nations chiefs, along with residents of first nations communities, have participated in these sessions. Their input has shaped the contents of the legislation now before us in several significant ways.

Bill S-8 calls for this collaboration to continue. Governmental officials would work alongside their first nations counterparts on a region-by-region basis to establish a series of regulatory regimes. Under this process, the parties would craft regimes that could draw on existing provincial, territorial or first nations regimes and adapt them to the particular circumstances of first nations. This is entirely appropriate, as a one-size-fits-all approach could never hope to accommodate the social, economic and geographic diversity of first nations communities. A regulatory approach that works for a remote community in northern Manitoba, for instance, might not work for a first nation in urban British Columbia.

Of course, every regime would have to satisfy minimum standards for safety, the same standards required by the provincial and territorial laws that protect drinking water quality off reserve. Under the regimes established through Bill S-8, drinking water would have to be sampled and tested in accordance with established methods and standards, and contamination thresholds would have to be based on scientific evidence.

This co-operative approach would ensure that those who would be subject to the regulations would have a role in creating them. This would help promote a greater understanding of the new regimes as well as ensure that these regimes are reflective of the diverse needs of each region.

We can expect that the federal regulations governing drinking water in a given first nation would be similar to the regulations governing the drinking water of nearby communities. Complementary regimes would open the door to further collaboration, such as joint training and certification programs or shared treatment and distribution facilities. This would, in turn, inspire co-operation on other common issues and opportunities.

Ultimately, of course, the goal is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, can access safe drinking water. Access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water is an important determinant of health and a driver of socio-economic development. Yet the truth is that most first nation communities do not have regulations in place that safeguard water quality.

The current regime comprises a tangled web of protocols and funding agreements that are not legally enforceable. As a result, standards are not clear and it is impossible to hold anyone accountable for substandard and unsafe drinking water.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Bill S-8 is the product of a lengthy and collaborative process. Seven years ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development called on the Government of Canada to address the regulatory gap related to drinking water in first nations communities. Since then, two other authoritative bodies—an expert panel and a standing committee of the other place—studied the matter and made similar recommendations.

Even the Liberals, back in November 2011, put forward a motion calling on the government to improve first nations' access to safe drinking water. The House fully endorsed that motion. I hope that now my hon. colleagues opposite will put aside their partisanship, honour their noble commitment to improving access to safe drinking water and back this important legislation, which goes far beyond the words of that motion.

The collaboration that inspired Bill S-8 began in 2006, when the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations announced a plan of action on first nations' drinking water. This joint undertaking, the plan of action, called for a number of measures, including the development of appropriate regulations. From the outset, the government has directly involved various first nations organizations in the development of legislative options.

In 2007, the expert panel created under the plan of action met with first nations representatives and technical experts from all over the country and subsequently recommended the development of safe drinking water legislation. Departmental officials met with the Assembly of First Nations technical water experts group to discuss options for this legislation. Then, in 2008, the government began to meet with representatives of first nations groups.

The following year, the government released a discussion paper based on the option of incorporation by reference of provincial and territorial standards and held a series of 13 engagement sessions. It heard from more than 500 members of first nations. Although a consensus emerged about the need to address health and environmental concerns, there remained concerns about the proposed approach to legislation.

After the engagement sessions, the government held a series of meetings with regional and national organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations. These discussions involved a range of concerns about the proposed legislation.

The Government of Canada then introduced into the Senate an earlier version of the legislation, Bill S-11. The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples began to review the proposed legislation and heard from more than 40 witnesses before the previous Parliament was dissolved.

Rather than simply reintroduce the same legislation, our government chose to collaborate further to identify and incorporate improvements. In particular, officials from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada held without prejudice discussions with first nations groups. Invites were sent to first nations organizations from all over Canada, and some first nations organizations were willing to work with the government to improve the legislation, in particular those from Alberta and the Atlantic.

During these discussions, new ideas emerged to address specific concerns with the previous version of the bill. Several changes were made, and as such, I am proud to say that first nations organizations directly influenced the contents of Bill S-8. As a result of this collaboration, the legislation now before us is stronger.

Thousands of people residing in first nations communities lack regulations that safeguard the quality of their drinking water. Bill S-8 would provide authority for the government to draft and implement appropriate regulations, working with first nations. These regulations would help protect the health and safety of first nations men, women and children.

This important legislation fully deserves the support of the House. I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill S-8.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the issue of funding remains paramount. In fact, the expert panel on safe drinking water for first nations, which was an initiative of the federal government, I believe, concluded that it is not credible to go forward with any regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

My second question has to do with the kind of regulations and standards that could be imposed on first nations. My understanding is that it would be possible to impose provincial regulations, provincial standards, but in some cases, provincial standards are lower than federal standards.

Does the member not agree that our first nations people deserve the highest federal standards?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, most first nations communities do not have regulations in place that safeguard water quality at all. As we have heard, access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water is an important determinant of health and a driver of socio-economic development.

Bill S-8, safe drinking water for first nations act, will enable the government with first nations to develop the regulations that the member is referring to, to provide that access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water to men, women and children living on first nations lands. As I stated in my remarks earlier, the goal of this legislation is to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, can access safe drinking water.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation puts responsibility on the government for providing safe, clean drinking water to first nations communities, but it does not ensure that the funding will be available. When I asked the hon. member's colleague this same question, I got in response a list of all of the funding that has gone in this direction in the past seven years. The problem is, it has not done the job, and the question still remains.

I ask the member, is she not as concerned as I am that with the legislation there needs to be the adequate resources directed?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague answered the question that since forming government, we have invested almost $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure.

If that member was as concerned as he says he is, he would have supported the $192.7 million that was included in last year's budget.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. It is simple. First nations should have access to safe drinking water and those types of measures, the same things that every other Canadian enjoys in Canada, including every member in this House. My understanding is that this legislation before us today has been seven years in the making. There has been continuous dialogue between the Government of Canada and first nations. Some of the concerns first nations brought to the table have been incorporated into Bill S-8.

The member mentioned consultations with first nations. Could she elaborate and provide this House with more information regarding those consultations between first nations and the government, and also, after seven years, why it is so important to move this legislation forward?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an important point: engagement has been ongoing for seven years. The Government of Canada has been involved in extensive engagement since 2006, and we continue to engage with first nations on this proposed legislation and regulatory development.

I would like to highlight the following. In the summer of 2006, an expert panel held public hearings across Canada, at which time they heard from over 110 presenters, and received more than two dozen submissions.

In February and March of 2009, a series of engagement sessions were held with first nations communities, regional first nations organizations, and provincial and territorial officials. There were 700 participants, of whom 544 were first nations.

In the fall and winter of 2009 to 2010, government officials met with first nations chiefs and organizations to discuss specific regional issues raised during the engagement session, and from October 2010 to October 2011, without prejudice discussions with first nations—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Unfortunately, we have reached the end of the period permitted for questions and comments.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has three minutes to speak.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for me to speak to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.

We too often disregard the importance of water in Canada. We have more than two million lakes and the largest supply of fresh water in the world, so we often take water for granted. Even though this resource is essential to life, the environment and our economy, water is not immune to contamination.

Protecting the quality of our water is extremely important to everyone, whether we live in an urban or rural area, or on a reserve.

Unfortunately, it is clear to me that the Conservatives do not care much about protecting our water.

My Motion No. 400 was designed to restore balance between urban and rural areas. This motion, which received unanimous support on the opposition side, aimed to develop a reasoned and comprehensive solution to a problem that affects water quality and public safety.

However, the government has decided not to take action. It claimed that the provinces were responsible for regulating septic tanks, thus shirking any responsibility. If the government had had the political will to take action, we could have worked with the provinces, as stated in the motion, and respected their jurisdictions.

Today, we can see that the government's reaction to my motion was ill-advised and narrow-minded. The same could be said for Bill S-8.

I do not think that the solution offered in Bill S-8 is reasoned or comprehensive. There are many problems with this bill: it does not respect first nations' ancestral rights, it does not include the necessary investment, there was no consultation, and the bill is not compatible with provincial laws.

I will talk about these issues more another time, since they are recurrent problems with this government's aboriginal affairs legislation, especially when it comes to violating rights and failing to consult.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding today I want to say that I have heard the comments made today by members in the House that we do not have to consult when we put forward legislation. However, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People states that we do need free, prior and informed consent when we are talking about first nations legislation. This is something that the government has failed to do again and again. It is not a choice that we have. It is about rights and something that the international community is begging us to do.

I am looking forward to speaking more about this next time.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #678

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the results from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to proceed in this way, and we will vote against the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote no.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North agrees to apply and will vote no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply and votes no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #679

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)