Bill S-2 (Historical)

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves

This enactment provides for the adoption of First Nation laws and the establishment of provisional rules and procedures that apply during a conjugal relationship, when that relationship breaks down or on the death of a spouse or common-law partner, respecting the use, occupation and possession of family homes on First Nation reserves and the division of the value of any interests or rights held by spouses or common-law partners in or to structures and lands on those reserves.

First Nations Elections Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill S-6, yet another bill that the Conservative government is putting forward about which first nations have a great deal of concern. Certainly he NDP believes it is a serious matter and that first nations voices, like on any issue that pertains to them directly or indirectly, must be heard.

I rise to speak to the bill on a very important week, a very important anniversary for first nations in Canada. Five years ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House of Commons and apologized to residential school survivors, their families and their communities and he committed to a new relationship. He committed to a new beginning in the Crown-first nations relationship. Fast forward five years later, and not only have we not seen a new relationship, we have seen the government continue to impose legislation after legislation that flies in the face of that commitment.

Bill S-6, like bills that have gone forward, misses out on the critical piece, and that is first nations consultation. What first nations raise in terms of concerns must be reflected in the bill.

We have a case now with Bill S-6 where the government is applying rhetoric regarding empowerment, the importance of fair elections and stability in first nations, concepts which are very worthwhile and sound great. However, when we scratch the surface and start looking at what was said in the Senate when the bill was being discussed and when we start hearing directly from first nations and first nations leadership, we realize the bill is not about empowerment and it does not provide the kind of stability that first nations need when they come to their electoral system.

The NDP believes strongly that as a result, the bill cannot be supported. The government must go back to the table with first nations and listen to the very concrete concerns they have raised directly with members of the government. As we know, this has been debated in the Senate and changes must be reflected in a bill that purports to deal with making first nations elections fairer to allow greater stability in the community.

The bill establishes rules for elections, apart from the Indian Act. These include an election cycle longer than two years, the ability to have a common election date, elements that have been raised by first nations and need to be addressed. We agree with the need to address these issues, but we share the serious concern that first nations have brought forward, and that is Bill S-6 gives the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development the power to order a first nation with community designed elections to adhere to the new regime.

We want to see first nations' elections improve, but this is basically tinkering around the edges of the Indian Act and does not address the extensive powers of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the right of bands to determine their own future.

In making that statement, it is very much founded on a critical concept. We have a federal government that has committed to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights, yet putting forward Bill S-6 very much disrespects that commitment. I quote from article 18 in the UN declaration which states:

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 decision-making institutions.

Unfortunately, when we turn to the legislative summary of this bill, it indicates that:

First Nations may choose to opt in to the new elections regime proposed under the legislation, or they may be brought under the new elections regime by ministerial order in some circumstances.

We in the NDP stand with first nations in expressing our complete and utter opposition to this very point, a point that challenges the commitment that the government and our country made to the UN declaration of indigenous rights. It flies in the face of the promise the Prime Minister made of a new beginning and a new relationship.

According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 240 first nations hold elections pursuant to the Indian Act, 341 first nations conduct custom or community-based elections rather than elections under the Indian Act, and 36 first nations select their leaders according to their self-government agreements.

We have heard real concern expressed from many first nations about the short term of office for first nations leadership positions, and I certainly know this from the first nations that I represent. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year term of office imposed on first nations by the Indian Act is too short to provide political and economic stability, often creating deep divisions in communities.

I have had the chance to get to know many chiefs and councillors across northern Manitoba who have struggled when that has been the case in their communities. They have brought forward ideas, a visionary approach to governing their community that perhaps differs from the approach of leaders who have come before them, but two years is not enough time to make changes and get the community on the path that they would like it go down based on the support of their community members. We agree with first nations in saying that the two-year timeline must be removed.

I would like to note that we also agree with the substantive concerns with the Indian Act elections that relate to the degree of ministerial intervention, the lack of an adequate and autonomous appeals process and the absence of flexibility to set the terms of office and determine the size of councils.

We believe it is extremely problematic and, frankly, reeks of colonialism that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would be able to interfere through ministerial order, as is clearly stated in this bill, in elections on first nations.

I would like to refer back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and some of the recommendations they made back in 1996. The Senate committee on aboriginal peoples said:

With respect to elections, a key proposal was to develop community leadership selection systems and remove the application of the Indian Act as a preliminary measure to re-establishing traditional forms of leadership. To accomplish this, the following steps were suggested: community level development of custom codes; community development of local dispute resolution procedures; regional first nations capacity and advisory bodies.

Again, some of the elements that were recommended back in 1996 are not present or appropriately resourced under the current legislation.

We have referenced a sticking point under subclause 3(1), which states that “The Minister may, by order, add the name of a First Nation to the schedule...” of first nations participating in the new election system.

The other problem with this legislation is the regulations in clause 41. The clause provides for the Governor in Council to have broad and general powers to make regulations with respect to elections.

We have had the chance to hear from many leaders and people involved in aboriginal governance who have expressed their opposition to the current iteration of Bill S-6, and I would like to read into the record their voices.

Before I do that, I want to also acknowledge that we have seen a very problematic pattern by the government in bringing in closure on debate regarding first nations bills. We saw it with Bill S-2 and we saw it with bills that came forward prior to Bill S-2.

For us in the NDP, it is absolutely fundamental that first nations voices be heard in committee in order to best shape legislation or to give us the opportunity to challenge legislation on their behalf.

Unfortunately, my experience has been that the Conservative government has done everything in its power to muzzle the voices of first nations and to silence them when it comes to speaking out on bills that have everything to do with their communities. That is unacceptable, and it once again reflects the colonial approach that we have seen from the current government time and time again.

Having said that, I would like to read into the record some of the messages we have heard from first nations people when the bill was at the Senate committee.

I would like to start with a quote from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Derek Nepinak. He said:

This proposal does not fulfill the recommendations put forth by the AMC. It appears to be an attempt by the Minister to expand governmental jurisdiction and control the First Nations electoral processes that are created pursuant to the Indian Act or custom code. I am hopeful that Canada will engage in meaningful consultation with First Nations in Manitoba in order to fix some of the problems, instead of unilaterally imposing a statutory framework that will greatly affect the rights of First Nations.

There are a number of key messages here, including the reference to the need for meaningful consultation. He acknowledges that there are problems, and that one of those problems is the unilateral imposition of this framework that would greatly affect first nations.

I would also like to quote Jody Wilson-Raybould, the B.C. Regional Chief from the Assembly of First Nations. She spoke to the problems with clause 3. She said:

These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire.

Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.

Tammy Cook-Searson, Chief of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, noted:

My main objection to this bill is the lack of positive change from the old Indian Act. Neither the Indian Act nor Bill S-6 incorporate the constitutional principles of the inherent right to self-determination and governance. The authority in this bill remains with the cabinet and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada instead of moving towards a greater responsibility with First Nations for our governance.

Aimée E. Craft, chair of the national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, came to the Senate committee on February 29 and presented, saying:

[D]ealing with the level of ministerial discretion to include First Nations in the schedule of participating First Nations, this changes the opt-in nature of the legislation. It continues minister discretion to exercise control over First Nations governance and it would result in some First Nations being subjects of the act rather than participants. In addition, the bill lacks clarity as to the standard that the minister will apply in making determinations about what constitutes a protracted leadership dispute that has significantly compromised the governance of a First Nation.

These are first nations leaders, and Aimée Craft is a specialist when it comes to the legal aspect of the bill. They all express serious concern about a number of points in Bill S-6.

It was also noted that:

Ultimately, how attractive this legislation will be to any First Nation will depend greatly on what is, or what is not included or provided for within the Regulations. However, it should be kept in mind that Regulations are designed and intended to be amended easily and quickly. Therefore, while a First Nation may opt into the First Nations Elections Act on the basis of what it considers to be attractive Regulations, there is no guarantee that the Governor in Council will not change those Regulations to something that a First Nation may find less appealing.

There are a number of concerns. What I find extremely problematic here is the Conservative government's continued approach in imposing legislation and refraining to hear from first nations on very serious matters that have everything to do with their capacity to be self-determining for their own people, yet the Conservatives turn around and use broad-sounding language that may sound great to a lot of Canadians but that certainly hides the true facts.

I think of the first nations that I have the honour of representing and the kinds of challenges that I have heard from people when it comes to their election systems and the barriers they face when it comes to the Indian Act.

I know that the Conservative government has also jumped on the bandwagon of critiquing the Indian Act, yet it is ironic that so many first nations point to the Indian Act as being a colonial tool that oppresses first nations further.

Is imposing legislation on first nations not a sign of further oppression? Is that not a sign of that spirit of the Indian Act that sets out to impose systems and attitudes from the outside upon first nations?

The imposition of legislation without proper consultation, without heeding the calls for changes to this legislation, speaks to the attitude that the federal government somehow knows better than first nations, that somehow it can intervene and fix what is happening.

If there is anything that we have learned from history, it is that such an attitude will not get us anywhere, that it will further marginalize and disempower first nations. That is something I hope would cause some real concern among government members and would cause them to think twice about what they are doing on bill after bill.

Many government members, as was evident in the debate around Bill S-2, represent first nations. What are they hearing from their members? There are repeated messages of repealing the Indian Act and putting an end to the kind of oppression that has been imposed by a history of federal governments, by the Crown, but this is not the answer.

First nations must be at the centre of the future that they carve out for their communities. First nations must be at the forefront. The issues of governance and elections are fundamental to first nations' capacity to determine their own future. Instead of imposing legislation, the Conservative government ought to sit down with first nations and make changes that reflect their needs and their voices.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that kind of attitude from the federal government. Instead we see a continued attack against first nations in bill after bill. These bills fly in the face of respecting first nations' treaty and aboriginal rights and they fly in the face of the UN declaration on indigenous peoples. They disregard the serious concerns that first nations are bringing forward as they demand that the federal government step up and take leadership.

On the issue of elections, I have heard a lot of concern from first nations that they simply do not have the capacity to put forward the kind of governance plan that they would like. That lack of capacity is fundamentally tied to the lack of funding and the cutbacks that we have seen by the federal government, building on cuts by previous Liberal governments when they froze funding to first nations at 2%. Now we are seeing cuts to advocacy organizations that also are involved with service delivery in education, training, housing and health.

First nations have always extended a hand out. They want to work with the government. They want to make change in their communities. We in the NDP are proud to stand with them in opposition to Bill S-6. We call on the government to change course and truly begin a new relationship with first nations people in this country.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably paragraph (c).

We have two choices here: the paternalistic Indian Act, or Bill S-2 that includes more transparency, more accountability and a better chance for Indian band councils to do long-term planning on their own terms. That is what we are doing here.

If those members want to go to the bad old ways of the Indian Act, good for them. That is why the people of Canada, in their own wisdom, have chosen members on this side to be government.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are trying to put together a positive approach to their relations with first nations, but they will not change course and refuse to engage in nation-to-nation dialogue.

Earlier in the House, during the debate on Bill S-2, we saw that this Senate bill could have been a real opportunity for this government to do something positive for aboriginal women.

Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the concerns of these groups of women and the bill does not have the support of the people it is trying to help. It is absolutely ridiculous that this government is attempting to appeal to women.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite a question. We know that the Conservatives do not always address the real governance problems by choosing to ignore the flaws of the Indian Act.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to listen to the legitimate concerns of first nations groups?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Second reading

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do. When a government puts a budget together, there are choices to be made. Sometimes these are difficult choices, but they have to be made. We are dealing with some rather significant public safety challenges, so perhaps now is not the time to be reducing public safety budgets, including the RCMP's, among others.

This takes more than legislation. It takes means. I know that my colleague opposite supported Bill S-2. The fact remains that there are no resources for creating women's shelters on reserves for victims of spousal abuse.

Having legislation is one thing, but at some point we need to have the necessary resources to ensure that the legislation produces positive, tangible results.

Bill C-56—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to clarify something on this side of the House, as we have done for several other bills in recent weeks. What we want to tell this government is that some bills introduced many years ago have been delayed for reasons that are quite clear.

For example, in September 2008, the Prime Minister decided to call an election. At that time, no one was expecting an election. Obviously when this happened, everything slowed down and we were forced to start from scratch.

I will use the example of Bill S-2, which was first introduced as Bill C-47. The Conservatives were forced to reintroduce it as Bill C-8. What happened to Bill C-8? In December 2009, Parliament was prorogued, so we had to start again.

These are the kinds of delays caused by this government. This bill was then replaced by Bill S-4, and the Conservatives sat on their hands for seven months. In May 2011 it was reintroduced as Bill S-2. Two years went by while the Conservatives did nothing. Suddenly, in June 2013 it became absolutely urgent to pass this bill because it had been on the order paper for so long.

The fact is that this situation is a direct result of their delays—

Aboriginal Affairs

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in a remote aboriginal community, when it is the middle of the night and it is 30 degrees below zero, and a woman has been violently assaulted, it is absolutely necessary that she receive the same protection as all other Canadians. That is exactly why our government introduced Bill S-2, which will allow enforcement emergency protection orders, but yesterday, the Liberal leader shamefully whipped his caucus to vote against it.

Can the Minister for Status of Women please update this House on the difference between our government's position and the Liberals'?

Ethics

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I agree with the first half of the first rendition of his question, where he said our government has indeed answered these questions.

What is also important to note is that when the House does rise, our government will be very proud not only of the questions we have answered, but the actions we have delivered for Canadians. Just yesterday, we passed Bill S-2 to provide aboriginal women with equal rights to non-aboriginal women in this country. That was reported equally last week. That is great news for all Canadians. It was reported last week by Statistics Canada that the Canadian economy has created over a million new jobs since the recession.

On all these questions and on all these answers, we are proud to go into summer standing up as—

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage of Bill S-2, an act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

Bill S-17—Time Allocation Motion

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that strikes me in this debate on a time allocation motion is that the government seems to forget that Canadians elected us not just to represent them in this august chamber, but also to provide good governance for all Canadians. We must work for all Canadians in the House of Commons and the committees, the institutions that are here on Parliament Hill.

In the current context, it is very difficult to convince the majority government that it is not necessarily taking the best approach. This time allocation process prevents us from making adjustments to certain bills, which should not be discussed at this time and are not in the interest of Canadians. That is why this process is being used.

I get the impression that we are again being prevented from debating a bill that has some serious flaws. We were supposed to debate Bill S-2 earlier, but the agenda is being changed again today. This is one of many examples that illustrate that there are flaws. The government just seems to want to leave as soon as possible and not correct the flaws that exist in a number of bills.

Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Churchill, who gives her all every day defending aboriginal peoples, among others. She is the NDP caucus leader at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We just came from our review of Bill S-2, and she was able to share her vast knowledge on the subject.

Earlier, the hon. member talked about the importance of information. This concept was also raised this morning by the hon. member for Mississauga South. In her speech, she said that since we do not have enough trained people to do the work in the communities, such as installing sewers and water systems, which requires rather technical skills, we would train people there, either aboriginals or other people.

One of the challenges we are dealing with in the committee studying Bill S-2 has to do with money. People on site are being given responsibilities, but not the means to carry out those responsibilities.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to a very important bill and a very important issue for the people I represent in northern Manitoba. I am honoured to represent the people of Churchill. That includes 33 first nations, first nations that are diverse, young with tremendous energy and tremendous opportunity. However, immense challenges exist on these first nations. Nowhere is that challenge more evident than the lack of access to safe drinking water, water services and sewage services on first nations.

When the reference to third world conditions is made, it is made because of the lack of access to safe drinking water that exists on many first nations in northern Manitoba. I think of the Island Lake community, four first nations that are isolated on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. I think of St. Theresa Point, Garden Hill, Wasagamack and Red Sucker Lake. All of these communities are growing, like many first nations, at a high rate. There are a lot of young people and young families. Overcrowding and lack of housing are very serious issues.

However, what is evident in these communities is the impact of the lack of safe drinking water in terms of health outcomes, in terms of broader indicators of quality of life, in terms of the mortality rate that unfortunately among first nations remains lower than the Canadian average. That mortality rate is connected to a number of factors, but the fundamental lack of access to safe drinking water is key.

It is unacceptable that in the year 2013, in a country as wealthy as Canada, that first nations, simply because they are first nations, lack access to a basic right, the right of clean water and access to safe drinking water. They lack access to the kind of infrastructure that would ensure a healthier lifestyle in line with that which all Canadians enjoy.

While members from the governing party have spoken to the disastrous indicators, what they fail to speak to is their own failure to uphold their fiduciary obligation to first nations, their own failure to live up to the treaties, to respect aboriginal and treaty rights in ensuring that first nations, no matter where they are, have access to safe drinking water.

Instead of recognizing that failure and investing in the kind of infrastructure that is necessary, investing in the kind of training that is necessary for first nations to be able to provide access to safe drinking water, the government has chosen to uphold its pattern of imposing legislation on first nations. Not only has it imposed legislation in this case, Bill S-8, but it has done so without consultation, without recognizing the tremendous concerns that first nations have brought forward with respect to previous iterations of the bill. Fundamentally it is disrespecting its commitments under the treaties, under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which it signed. Even more reason for concern is the fact it is putting first nations in even greater danger than they are already in.

We know that Bill S-8 provides no funding to improve water systems on reserve. This is shameful because, given the rhetoric that we hear from the government about commitments to first nations, the reality is that when it comes to making a difference for safe drinking water, the need for investment in infrastructure and investment in capacity building is extremely serious.

I was there in February this year, but I remember being in Little Grand Rapids a couple of years back where the water treatment plant operator talked to us about how the chemicals he needed to be able to make sure that the water was safe for his community to drink were going to run out halfway through the year. I have spoken to water treatment plant operators who have talked about the lack of access to training programs so that they can improve their skills, so they can have the knowledge and skill set to be able to provide safe drinking water for their community members.

I have heard from water treatment plant operators, sewage treatment plant operators and leaders in communities who have expressed real concern about their inability, with the little they are given from this federal government, to provide what is a basic standard of living to their people. That onus falls entirely on the backs of the federal government.

Unfortunately, this is a result of years of neglect by the previous Liberal government, the imposition of the 2% cap that was halted, and has frozen in many cases, the kind of funding that is necessary for first nations to operate, and has been very much continued by the Conservative government.

We have seen that first nations that are continuing to grow, where their needs are continuing to grow, are turning to a federal government that is not only not prepared to make the investments in infrastructure, but is actually imposing its colonial agenda to boot.

We are very concerned in the NDP that on Bill S-8, like previous bills, Bill S-2, and so many others that impact first nations, Bill C-27, the government has insisted on shutting down debate on these very important bills, preventing members of Parliament from speaking out on behalf of their constituents who would be negatively impacted as a result of this legislation. We believe that by doing so, it is also silencing the voice of the first nations in this House.

This practice has unfortunately also been applied to committees where the facts have not been heard because of the government's attempt to muzzle those who oppose its agenda.

We in the NDP also stand in solidarity with first nations that have decried the government's continued pattern in which bills affecting first nations also include a clause, and we see it in Bill S-8, that gives the government the ability to derogate from aboriginal rights. The clause says, “Except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on first nations land”.

It is unconscionable that a federal government that is charged with a fiduciary obligation to first nations, that is there to honour the treaty relationships it is party to, would go so far as to derogate from aboriginal rights, to be able to break that very commitment it has to first nations. That is a failure on the part of the government. First nations have risen up against this failure, through the Idle No More movement, and through activism and leadership that first nations have consistently shown, saying that they are opposed to the government's agenda, and Bill S-8 is one of those reasons if we look at it clearly.

We are also very concerned about the pattern of unilaterally imposing legislation. We recognize that the AFN, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, a series of representative organizations of first nations have been very clear in their opposition to Bill S-8.

The reality is that the government is trying to change the channel on its own failed rhetoric around accountability and transparency, words that it cannot take to heart, given the recent scandals that have emerged. The government is trying to change the channel and put the blame on first nations.

When it comes to something as serious as access to safe drinking water, there is no room for these kinds of political games. The government should stand up, and instead of changing the channel, instead of imposing legislation, instead of breaking its commitment under the treaties and disrespecting aboriginal rights, it should work with first nations in partnership to make the investments that are necessary and obvious to ensure that safe access to drinking water exists in first nations communities the way it exists in communities across the country.

For the people of Island Lake, for first nations across this country, for all Canadians, we deserve better from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

She spoke in particular about the consultation process. Conservatives often say that they held broad consultations that cost so many millions of dollars. Yet, oddly enough, first nations, among others, often say they were not consulted as they would have liked.

In committee, while studying Bill S-2, for example, I heard the Conservatives say totally absurd things. They said they had talked to their husbands, their sons or their sisters. This was the kind of comment that kept cropping up. There seems to be a need to define what constitutes real consultation.

I would like the member to talk about this. If she is saying that there has not been enough consultation while the Conservative Party says the opposite, there may be a misunderstanding. Could the member tell us more?