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.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

My question is very simple. What in Bill S-8 concerns you that the federal government will be authorized to enter into an agreement with the provincial government that will ultimately bind you? I'm looking for it in Bill S-8 and I just don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there, but I'm trying to find the basis for your concern.

I ask because I can't find it. Maybe we can come back to that after the meeting is over.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

And my friend Ms. Ambler, I think, referred to the letter, where the minister indicated unequivocally that Bill S-8 would not affect the municipality's ability to choose to pursue or not pursue municipal agreements with first nations.

You indicated in one of your answers that you're concerned about liability and you're concerned about off-loading. In your own brief you indicate in concern number two that the transfer of responsibilities is unknown. You, or whoever wrote this, states that Bill S-8 does not explicitly download duties and responsibilities onto local governments.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

So it won't be affected by Bill S-8.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Sure. That I think can take place, too, after the legislation is passed as well.

Also, in Minister Duncan's letter, a little further back in February, he did specifically say that “Bill S-8 will not affect municipalities’ ability to choose to pursue or not to pursue municipal service agreements with First Nations. As well, S-8 will not delegate powers or costs to provinces or municipalities with respect to First Nations drinking water — jurisdiction will remain with the federal government.”

In the spirit of alleviating your concerns, did that help as well? I know that both you and Mr. MacIsaac talked about financial and legal liabilities, but municipalities can choose or not choose to enter into a service agreement and include these issues in it. So I guess I just....

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to acknowledge, Mayor Daykin, the essential role that you play, as underscored when you were speaking to Mr. Bevington. I understand that Minister Valcourt assured the municipalities that you will have a strong role to play should Bill S-8 become law. It's heartening that you're working with FCM and that you're representing their views as well as the views of Metro Vancouver.

I noticed in your position paper that there are a number of open-ended questions and concerns. Words like “unknown” and “unclear” require clarification. Would you agree that a regulatory framework is what's needed? Are you relieved, and are some of your concerns assuaged by the fact that Minister Valcourt has said the department really wants your input afterwards in the development of the regulations?

[Gary MacIsaac, Executive Director, Union of British Columbia Municipalities]

Thank you, Mayor Daykin.

Good morning, Chair, vice-chairs, and committee members.

I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Gary MacIsaac. I'm the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, or UBCM. Metro Vancouver is an active UBCM member and, as you just heard, a provider of regional services, including drinking water and wastewater treatment. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee to speak in support of Metro Vancouver's position and concerns on Bill S-8, and I hope to provide additional provincial context on this matter.

The First Nations Relations Committee members, unfortunately, could not make the trip due to prior community commitments, and they send their regrets.

UBCM is a member-driven organization, with 100% local government membership in British Columbia. In addition to its 188 local government members, UBCM also represents six self-governing first nations members. UBCM's First Nations Relations Committee oversees all organizational policy development work related to first nations issues, including treaty negotiations, negotiations outside the treaty process, and governance reform. The committee's other key role is to focus on relationship-building between first nations and local governments through best practices and other initiatives.

With that brief overview, I would like to turn to Bill S-8. First and foremost, I acknowledge the real and substantial need for development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards, and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities. Access to clean drinking water is a basic need that must be provided as expeditiously as possible.

But as Mayor Daykin outlined, this bill has the potential to impact local government operations extensively, not only in the Metro Vancouver region, but across British Columbia and the nation. Yet it would appear that local government consultation was not sought in the development of this legislation. Early, meaningful consultation with local government not only allows potentially impacted local governments to raise concerns around issues such as service agreement and regulatory considerations, legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties, and potential financial and capacity implications, but it also allows for a mutually beneficial identification of issues at an early stage in the process. Local governments do not aim to obstruct the provision of necessary services; welcoming early and ongoing local government participation provides an appropriate forum for discussion and concern resolution.

The established role of local governments in aboriginal affairs has been recognized in agreements between UBCM and senior levels of government. This includes a memorandum of understanding with the Province of British Columbia on local government participation in the new relationship with first nations, which was renewed in 2012. Under this agreement, local government representatives serve as respected advisers to the province in treaty negotiations that affect their interests, and the province is committed to initiating contact with a local government when the outcome of negotiations will affect the local government's jurisdiction, operations, or provision of services. As a result of the 2005 new relationship vision document, this MOU was expanded to include consultation and information exchange with local governments on other agreements outside the B.C. treaty process, and on matters of mutual interest, including those that will have a significant impact on local government jurisdiction.

A MOU on communication and information-sharing between UBCM and the former INAC was renewed four times, and most recently in 2007—with the former INAC, now AANDC, indicating its interest in renewing the agreement in 2009. This agreement set out to improve communication and strengthen working relationships between INAC and UBCM, building on issues of common interest. In our view, this goal is critical not only to the local governments that provide on-the-ground services to first nations, but it also benefits senior government in the successful implementation of legislative initiatives.

With the importance of local government consultation in mind, Minister Valcourt's recent response to UBCM's letter expressing concerns about Bill S-8 was quite heartening. In it, Minister Valcourt indicated that Bill S-8 is an enabling bill that, if passed, would allow the Government of Canada to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop regulations on a region-by-region basis, and that local governments are welcome to participate in the process, where appropriate. We appreciate the assurance that local government input will be sought, and look forward to participating accordingly.

At the core of concerns around Bill S-8 are broader concerns around local government exposure to liability as a result of the existing regulatory gap. As you know, reserve lands are exclusively federal lands and jurisdiction, outside of local government regulatory and taxation authority. Yet reserve lands are included within local government boundaries. There is an inability for local governments to regulate utility services on reserve lands, and without effective regulatory tools, local governments are exposed to financial, environmental, and public health liability if a problem arises with the local government service provided to those lands.

As Mayor Daykin previously outlined, these concerns relate to the potential conferring of service provision provided for under subclause 5(1) of Bill S-8 and to other service agreements that local governments develop in good faith with first nations. There's a real and pressing need for provincial and federal governments in collaboration with local government and first nations to develop effective legislative tools to reduce local government exposure to financial, environmental, and public health liability.

In addressing the concerns raised today by Metro Vancouver, there is also an opportunity to examine underlying regulatory issues more thoroughly.

I appreciate your time today, and we look forward to participating in the development of regulations and implementation plan pursuant to Bill S-8 as appropriate. We hope that today's presentation has aided in opening communications regarding Bill S-8 as well as ongoing and future matters of mutual concern. Both Mayor Daykin and I welcome your questions.

[Ernie Daykin, Director and Chair, Aboriginal Relations Committee, Metro Vancouver]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

My name is Ernie Daykin. I'm the mayor of the District of Maple Ridge in British Columbia. I'm also a director on the Metro Vancouver board and chair of the Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee.

As you mentioned, Mr. MacIsaac is with us from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Mr. Ralph Hildebrand, general manager of corporate services and corporate counsel and manager of Vancouver's Aboriginal Relations Committee.

At the local government level we fully recognize and support the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean, safe drinking water, and the proper disposal of waste water.

We're here today to present a local government perspective on Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, and represent some issues that are common to local governments not only in Metro Vancouver and British Columbia, but, we believe, across the country. In this regard I want to acknowledge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which supports Metro Vancouver's views on Bill S-8. FCM's comments are reflected in some of the statements that are made in this presentation to the standing committee.

For everyone's benefit, I'll give an overview of Metro Vancouver. It's a federation of 24 local authorities, including one unincorporated area and one treaty first nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation reached the first modern urban treaty with the governments of Canada and British Columbia in 2009, under the B.C. treaty process.

Metro Vancouver works well together and collaboratively as we deliver plans and regional services, including drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, plans for urban growth, manages a regional parks system, and provides affordable housing for our residents.

Metro Vancouver's population is currently 2.3 million, and over 50% of B.C.'s population live within the Metro Vancouver area. It's also home to 52,000 aboriginals, according to the 2011 census.

As I mentioned, I'm the chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee, which is a standing committee of the Metro Vancouver board. It's been established to provide advice on treaty negotiations and aboriginal relations within Metro Vancouver to the board and to individual municipalities.

A key part of the committee's scope of work is strengthening relationships with first nations. We are participating actively in two tables with Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh as part of the provincial negotiation team's monitoring of emerging aboriginal treaty and non-treaty related issues, and assessing their impact on regional and municipal governments.

The relationship building and day-to-day interaction between municipalities and first nations that's taking place in our urban setting presents a number of challenges that we feel are unique, including higher population densities, competing private interests, unique land use considerations, rapidly growing servicing needs, and limited available crown land for treaty settlements.

Faced with these complex realities, Metro Vancouver has committed to building effective, positive working relationships with our first nations. This will ensure alignment and achievement of our common interests.

The regional district has been successful in communicating regional interests on a number of emerging policies and legislation that have been developed by the senior levels of government, and ensuring its continued involvement in the B.C. treaty process.

With respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver has been concerned about the proposed legislation and its potential impact and implications for local governments since it passed first reading in the House of Commons in June 2012. Metro Vancouver has significant concerns about how Bill S-8 will affect its delivery of services in the Metro Vancouver area.

In response to Metro Vancouver's invitation in October 2012, staff representatives from the Vancouver offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada attended an Aboriginal Relations Committee meeting and made a presentation on Bill S-8. The federal representatives outlined a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on first nations lands, and encouraged Metro Vancouver to submit its input into the parliamentary process by appearing before your committee.

Given the commitment on the part of the federal government—as expressed by the federal delegations—to consider and address local concerns as providers of water services to local communities, including first nations, we're pleased to be here today and provide you with our perspective.

To clearly formulate our interests and concerns with respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver drafted a position paper on that bill, the safe drinking water for first nations act. That was drafted and presented to the board in November 2012. Based on the interest articulated and the issues identified in the position paper, local governments believe that it is at the community level that the effectiveness of this bill will be tested—including funding, improvements, and the need to execute and sign servicing agreements.

As such, the Metro Vancouver position paper identifies the following issues with respect to Bill S-8. One of the primary concerns expressed in the position paper is the transfer of responsibilities. From our interpretation of Bill S-8, an obligation to provide utility services and enforcement regulations could be imposed upon local governments if the federal government and respective provincial governments enter into an agreement under which the provincial governments are obliged to compel local governments to provide water and wastewater treatment services to first nation communities. Provincial governments may create or amend legislation to impose duties and responsibilities on local government as provincial bodies established by a provincial act.

Local governments do not want to be put in this position. There's a long history in B.C. of reaching agreements for services between local governments and first nations, as evidenced by the 550 servicing agreements between local governments and nearly 200 first nations.

Level of service is another concern. It's not clear whether Bill S-8 and the regulations passed pursuant to Bill S-8 will impose new requirements on local governments, and whether a regional authority such as Metro Vancouver will be required to provide water services to all municipalities to meet the obligations imposed, or whether Metro Vancouver will be required to increase its level of service to accommodate all growth and development within first nation lands.

Local governments in Metro Vancouver are compelled to comply with a regional growth plan. The projections for population growth and development are coordinated within the planning and development of regional services, such for the supply of drinking water and disposal of waste water. The imposition of requirements to provide drinking water and wastewater services to first nation lands that are developed outside of our regional planning principles could create, or will create, an imbalance between water and sewage plans and the regional growth plan.

Another concern that was expressed is bylaw regulation and enforcement. It is our understanding that Bill S-8 would permit local governments to apply their bylaws and regulations to first nations' lands to enforce and regulate the use of water and wastewater services to first nation communities. However it is not clear how the federal government will facilitate the enforcement of local government bylaws on reserve lands regarding the provision of utilities and other services to first nations. This includes first nation lands that are subject to future applications for additions to reserves.

Another closely related concern is regulatory authority. Bill S-8 is not clear on how the federal government proposes to protect local governments regarding environmental and public health liabilities related to servicing agreements for first nation lands when local governments have no regulatory authority over reserve lands and Indian bands do not have natural persons powers to enter into contractual agreements with local governments.

The financial liabilities are another concern that have been highlighted in the position paper. Regulating drinking water on Indian reserves would have significant capacity and resource related implications for local governments. It is not immediately clear how Bill S-8 will protect local governments that provide utility services to first nations against financial liabilities when local governments do not have taxation authority over first nation lands that are serviced.

In addition to undefined financial liabilities, there are also undefined legal liabilities presented by Bill S-8. For example, with section 13, the bill appears to remove the Government of Canada from legal liabilities associated with the regulations to be developed and implemented under the act.

In this regard, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked us to seek clarification from the standing committee as to what person or body the legal liability will reside with for the regulations developed and implemented under the act.

In addition, there is a concern with funding capacity. It is not clear whether the federal government and first nations across Canada have the proper funding capacity for the proposed infrastructure improvements on Indian reserves under Bill S-8.

The national assessment report, released in July 2011, estimates that over the next 10 years the combined projected capital and operating costs to meet the water and wastewater servicing needs of the communities of the 618 individual first nations across Canada will be approximately $4.7 billion, plus a projected operating and maintenance budget of $419 million annually.

The report further notes that in 2009 the water and/or wastewater systems of 153 of B.C.'s 203 first nations were considered to be high-risk systems. As indicated in the 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, released by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, local governments across Canada also face major challenges while maintaining and managing decaying water and wastewater infrastructure to meet current public needs and minimum performance standards. The substantial infrastructure deficit is of great concern to municipal and local governments.

The upgrading and replacement of drinking water and wastewater systems will require considerable investments in many communities across Canada. Consequently, the capacity of local governments to expand the provision of water and wastewater systems and services may be limited. The infrastructure capacity gap for both local government and first nations must be closed to ensure that all Canadians have access to clean and safe drinking water.

We agree that the process needs increased funding to be successfully implemented. Bill S-8 outlines a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on Indian reserves, but still lacks an adequate implementation plan, such as detail and substance required to improve water resource management on first nations' lands.

The issues I have just mentioned outline the difficulties that will be faced as a result of Bill S-8. At the local government level, when enacting plans, bylaws, and regulations that affect residents and businesses in the region, we seek input and consultation, and have other processes to ensure that we obtain a broad vision of ramifications of our actions and to ensure that we can practically address the concerns and avoid the law of unintended consequences.

Here, unfortunately, local government input in the enabling legislation is lacking. With Bill S-8, local government interests were not considered in the drafting of the legislation. Adequate communications and meaningful consultation with local governments are necessary, as local governments, we believe, will be impacted by Bill S-8.

In summary, I'd like to reiterate that local government recognizes and fully supports the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean water and to wastewater disposal. To achieve this goal, senior governments must first make provisions for appropriate funding to first nation communities.

As local governments, we feel we have a unique perspective on this issue, its implementation, and potential implications. We remain hopeful that the regulations to be drafted for Bill S-8 will address the following requirements: reliable certification of water and wastewater treatment operators; binding and consistent water standards; clear oversight and reporting responsibilities; clear delineation of the roles of health, environment, and water officials, including first nations officials and their governments; clear and comprehensive monitoring and testing of drinking water; clear delineation of responsibility for responding to adverse events; opportunities for public involvement, disclosure, and transparency; opportunities for receiving expert third-party advice; available resources and funding mechanisms; and proper capital and infrastructure planning over time.

The tasks at hand are very large and challenging for any level of government, including first nations; therefore, all parties need to work together. There are significant investments that the federal government and first nations have made on this issue.

I think it's important to note that at the local government level we have also made significant investments. That needs to be acknowledged. Local governments request some clarity on cost recovery and the liability issues identified earlier, and which appear in Metro Vancouver's position paper.

Bill S-8 has potential implications for local governments. Given these issues identified, local government seeks a commitment from the federal government that Bill S-8 will be amended in consultation with local government and first nations.

Further, local government would like acknowledgement from the Government of Canada that local governments will not be affected by Bill S-8, and further, a commitment from the Government of Canada that local governments will be kept apprised and engaged in the process of developing the regulations for Bill S-8.

That concludes my remarks.

Thank you.

I'm going to pass it off to Mr. MacIsaac.

[Prof. Graham Gagnon]

I'm not aware of any. Through Bill S-8, I'm not aware of any.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

Well, that's what I'm pointing to: the simple addition of a preamble that focuses on the water safety plan approach. And then amongst the regulatory options that are outlined—because it is broadly enabling—I point out that this broad framework should be reflected throughout any options that are adopted.

That, I think, would be true to what the expert panel heard and wrote in our report. We were afraid of simply imposing a detailed regulatory structure with “meet these numbers or go to jail” and nothing else. Well, Bill S-8 isn't that, but the criticism is.

What else is it? It could be effective in the sense that it enables a whole bunch of things to happen, but it doesn't have the guiding principles, and that's what I'm advocating.

[Dr. Steve Hrudey]

I'll respond briefly in terms of the expert panel's expectations in 2006. I think we recognized in those nine meetings across Canada, and in the 100-plus submissions, that this was not a homogeneous problem. There's a lot of diversity among first nations in Canada, a lot of different views. The challenge in coming up with federal legislation on this topic is, how do you accommodate all of that diversity?

The way I see Bill S-8 is that, essentially, it's only enabling legislation. The test would be in how it's implemented.

I think it is fair criticism that there are no financial obligations associated with Bill S-8. From my point of view—I'm not speaking for the panel here—I would like to see commitment to the operational training part. From all the experience I've had, my view is that's the most critical element.

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

It still leaves the communities in a position where they don't have trained operators on the ground.

I want to move on quickly here because I only have seven minutes, including your answers.

In the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development from 2005, there was an indication that the success of a first nation water management strategy depends on INAC’s and Health Canada’s addressing the management weaknesses. There were a whole bunch of management weaknesses.

Mr. Gagnon once again pointed out that Bill S-8 clarifies roles and responsibilities, but we've just recently had the case of Kashechewan, where the community recommended there be storm sewers and backflow limiter valves for each house after the flood of 2008, and the government refused. The storm sewers would have helped contain the flash flood. Instead, the sewage lifts were quickly overrun. There was no way of stopping the backup of raw sewage into the homes, and now 38 people are homeless.

This kind of situation is not unusual in first nation communities, and the community is well aware of it, but we’ve got governments…. This is not a partisan remark. It's not only this government but decades of governments that have not responded to community needs. It's the community that bears the direct brunt of this.

Do you think Bill S-8 will clean up situations like this?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hrudey and Mr. Gagnon.

I don't think anybody sitting around this table would disagree that first nation communities should have access to safe drinking water.

Part of what we've heard, either through testimony here or through written correspondence, is that there are a number of concerns about whether Bill S-8 will deliver safe drinking water. Part of the concern raised is the fact that a regulatory process will be developed that is not clear. Although the language in the proposed act says “working with first nations”, it's not clear that actual regulatory processes will actually be developed in full partnership with first nations. We've seen a long history of that not happening, so that's concern number one.

Concern number two, which you have both spoken to in one way or another, is resources, whether those be capital infrastructure costs or the ongoing operations and maintenance costs and training costs.

The third issue that's been identified—and Mr. Gagnon did address this somewhat—is around where the liability will rest and whether chiefs and councils will actually have the capacity to own that liability. Then there are the issues around operational gaps.

I quickly want to touch on a couple of points. In the report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, you indicated that the federal government must close the gap. But there were some concerns about putting in a regulatory regime, because creating and enforcing a regulatory regime would take time, attention and money that might be better invested in systems, operators, management, and governance.

I think you spoke to that, Mr. Hrudey. Is that correct?

[Dr. Steve Hrudey, Former Panel Member, Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and standing committee members, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to give evidence concerning safe drinking water for first nations in Canada.

I have previously testified with Grand Chief Stan Louttit to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on March 1, 2011, and with Dr. Harry Swain, on May 15, 2007, concerning our findings in the 2006 Expert Panel on the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations report.

Our report speaks for itself. I don't need to repeat the details of the report here today. My views have not changed. I choose to focus my evidence today on my scientific and professional judgment, based on our research about what makes drinking water unsafe, to allow for understanding of what must be done to keep it safe.

This evidence is conditioned by practical experiences, such as serving Justice Dennis O'Connor on the Research Advisory Panel to the Walkerton inquiry and considering submissions from over 100 parties at hearings held at nine locations across Canada in 2006 while preparing our expert panel report. I have also included a bio at the end of my written submission that covers my other experiences.

I will focus my evidence before you on two matters: what is safe drinking water and how can it be assured, and the vital importance of operational competence in assuring safe drinking water.

Regarding the first matter, Bill S-8 is titled An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, but safe drinking water is not defined in Bill S-8, nor is it found in the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act or the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act. This should be a clue for parliamentarians about a major challenge regarding this topic.

Although it is clearly central to the purpose of Bill S-8, legislators elsewhere provide no assistance in defining safe drinking water. The problem is that “safe” as applied to drinking water is not a simple yes or no, black or white, determination. The drinking water at Walkerton, that killed 7 people and made over 2,000 ill, was clearly unsafe. It was black, not white. Most of the conditions that allowed that failure had been in place for almost 22 years before May 2000, when disaster struck.

In hindsight, the Walkerton drinking water supply was unsafe for 22 years because those responsible for assuring its safety failed to recognize and understand the risks to that supply. If they had recognized and understood the risks, and taken some relatively simple measures in response, the Walkerton disaster need not have happened.

Yet, those measures cannot have assured zero risk of drinking water contamination. Rather, safe drinking water must be assured by achieving negligible risk of consumers becoming ill, and by negligible I mean risks too small to worry about or to justify changing personal behaviour. Negligible risk will not be absolutely pure white on the inherently grey scale of safety, but negligible risk is close enough to white for all practical purposes.

While drinking water quality criteria, as captured by tables of water quality criteria numbers, provide an essential reference, such numbers, legislated or otherwise, cannot and do not assure safe drinking water. If those responsible for Walkerton's drinking water had simply satisfied the very limited guidance that was in place for treating Walkerton's water, that tragedy could have been averted. This disaster arose from a failure to do what needed to be done operationally, not from a lack of stringency of water quality criteria.

So how is negligible risk for drinking water achieved? I would suggest four steps: first, by recognizing and understanding what are the threats to a drinking water system; second, by understanding what are the capabilities and limitations of the treatment and monitoring processes available or that drinking water; third, by assuring that the treatment system operates to its capabilities for dealing with threats at all times; and fourth, by assuring that treated water is delivered to consumers without being contaminated during distribution.

These elements are key features of a “know your own system” approach to assuring safe drinking water that has become international best practice since first being proposed in 2004, almost simultaneous by the World Health Organization and the Australian drinking water guidelines. This approach calls for every water system to develop its own water safety plan.

In Canada, some provinces have addressed many elements of this approach. Ontario requires an operational plan and satisfying the quality management standard, but I find the Ontario approach to be too onerous for the smaller systems that invariably face the greatest risk. So far, only Alberta has made adoption of drinking water safety plans mandatory, and its program was intentionally designed to be practical and effective for small systems. Because drinking water systems for Canada's first nations are essentially all small systems, and many also face additional challenges of being remote, the drinking water safety plan approach is inherently the best available option for assuring that drinking water does not become unsafe.

Bill S-8 could, in one modestly bold step, reflect international best practice by making an absolute commitment to addressing a drinking water safety plan approach as its guiding principle.

The second issue in terms of the vital role of operational competence in assuring safe drinking water is that drinking water safety plans cannot assure safe drinking water unless those who are operating the plant possess the necessary operational competence—the training, knowledge, public health awareness, commitment, and functional capacity. The smaller and more remote the entity charged with providing drinking water, the more challenging it becomes to assure competence.

Consider the following image to illustrate my point about competence. Would you be comfortable as a passenger travelling in a plane flown by a pilot being paid minimal wages with minimal training and limited technical support? I wouldn't. Yet in many small communities in Canada, including first nations, we place responsibility for delivering safe drinking water on personnel who are often under-trained, mostly underpaid and generally under-supported for the enormous public health responsibility they must discharge. A serious operational mistake can make an entire community ill.

Evidence that we heard during our hearings in 2006 confirms my belief that even if physical treatment facilities are less than optimal, a well-trained, responsible operator will be able to protect the safety of a community much better than an inadequately trained operator, even if equipped with the best possible treatment facilities when the system is challenged. Providing safe drinking water is a knowledge-intensive undertaking, and must have a support system that equips and supports operators in taking on that challenge.

So I have to ask, how difficult is to recognize where the real problems lie? Canada has made major investments in upgrading water treatment facilities for first nations, with some excellent improvements to show for that investment. Yet to date, the emphasis has been on funding facilities without sufficiently increased emphasis on tackling the more challenging task of training and supporting competent, responsible operators for every facility.

Given the high unemployment that exists in many remote first nation reserves, an emphasis on creating skilled employment should be an obvious priority, even without the vital role that competent operators play in assuring safe drinking water. Above all else, our focus must be on assuring operational competence.

Small and isolated communities in Canada universally face challenges in achieving the necessary level of competent operations, but some communities have been successful in investing in their operators. Several first nation communities have benefited from circuit rider programs that provide regional support for isolated operators, but these programs are too often over-subscribed and underfunded.

Lack of leadership is a major problem for assuring safe drinking water in Canada. Bill S-8 provides a unique opportunity to fill this leadership void with benefits for Canadians in all small communities, not only first nations. After all, who can credibly disagree with the merits of managing our drinking water to the international best practice of adopting a drinking water safety plan and a know your own system approach?

Thank you.

[Prof. Graham Gagnon, Director, Dalhousie University, Centre for Water Resources Studies]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members, for providing me an opportunity to address clean drinking water in first nation communities in Atlantic Canada, and the potential impacts of Bill S-8.

The Centre for Water Resources Studies at Dalhousie University was established in 1981 to address water issues facing Atlantic Canada through applied research. The objective of our centre is to address real challenges faced by water communities and to provide a platform for the development and appropriate application of water technology, water quality analysis, and advancement.

As director of this centre, I'm also a professor and NSERC chair in water quality treatment in the Faculty of Engineering.

Over the past five years, the centre has worked with organizations such as Alberta Environment, New Brunswick Department of Health, Nova Scotia Department of Environment, and the Government of Nunavut, to evaluate and develop risk-based water and wastewater strategies.

Through the research chair program I've also had to opportunity to work with water utilities, engineering consulting firms, and technology firms in Atlantic Canada and beyond to investigate and provide solutions to emerging water quality challenges.

Since 2009, our centre has worked in partnership with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs on advancing knowledge in clean water and developing a path forward for safe drinking water and wastewater systems in first nation communities.

The APC recognizes the challenges of their current water practices. The APC sees opportunities for improving health and safety in first nation communities. One would be through the passing of Bill S-8.

Bill S-8 defines lines of responsibilities between the owner and the regulator of water assets, which was seen as a critical step forward in providing safe water in the report on the Walkerton inquiry, written by Justice O'Connor in 2002.

The state of drinking water and waste water in first nation communities is a recognized challenge in Canada.

In 2006, an independent expert panel for safe drinking water for first nations provided recommendations to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada on water treatment and management strategies for first nation communities. The expert panel identified 16 elements of a proposed regulatory system, and suggested that a national-level first nations water commission take on the roles of regulation, enforcement, and accountability.

Since that time, national studies have been conducted by several independent organizations. Notably, Neegan Burnside conducted a system assessment report of water and wastewater treatment, and the related costs and risks in first nation communities.

Within the Atlantic region, the centre, in partnership with the APC, has conducted several research projects related to water and wastewater systems in first nation communities. These projects fall under the umbrella of a clean water initiative for first nation communities. The overall purpose of this clean water initiative is to provide public health and safety for first nation communities in Atlantic Canada.

The main activities undertaken by the centre have included a regulatory assessment and regulatory benchmark development for the Atlantic region, a water asset analysis and cost assessment for the Atlantic region, and the development of a framework for a first nations regional water authority.

Mr. Chair, our centre has developed a regulatory benchmark for first nation water and wastewater operations in Atlantic Canada. These were based on the 16 elements defined by the expert panel. They're also benchmarked against the regulations from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

These regulatory benchmarks have been reviewed by AANDC and have been reviewed by several key experts in the water field.

To test the implementation of these regulatory benchmarks, members from our centre conducted pilot trials with four first nation communities in Atlantic Canada. The results of the pilot trials suggest that there is potential for a high level of compliance with drinking water and wastewater quality. However, there are significant operational gaps identified that require investment of both human and financial resources to meet the standard on a day-to-day basis.

Going forward, the benchmarks offer an opportunity to develop a regulatory structure in the Atlantic region. It's been noted that the enforcement and compliance aspects of this regulatory structure would require funding resources and a full review with various first nation stakeholders, going forward.

Mr. Chair, the centre has also provided a peer review of the data presented in the 2011 national engineering assessment, conducted by Neegan Burnside. The centre specifically focused our efforts on first nation communities in the Atlantic region. The centre's review showed that only 50% of the systems had an operator with adequate certification, only 11 systems also had a source water protection plan, and 15% had groundwater assessment plans. These source water protection plans and ground water assessment plans are viewed as a critical step for water security, which has been outlined in the report of the Walkerton inquiry.

Within the context of waste water, the national engineering assessment revealed that a mere 35% of the wastewater systems in Atlantic Canada met the 1976 federal guidelines for wastewater quality. This was viewed as significant, as the wastewater system effluent regulations were promulgated in 2012, and therefore the 2012 wastewater regulations specify significant changes for first nations systems.

Based on a review of the national engineering assessment data and the pilot trials, it is apparent that there is a gap between the current practice and future regulation for water and wastewater systems.

We have evaluated the economic gap in regulation and engineering practice by working with an engineering firm called CBCL Limited. CBCL is an engineering firm with over 60 years of design experience in Atlantic Canada. They were asked to conduct a drinking water and wastewater asset assessment of first nation communities. The asset assessment developed class C and class D cost estimates for water treatment, water distribution, wastewater collection, and wastewater treatment. The cost estimates focused on the gap between the current state of conditions and those proposed in the regulatory benchmarks.

The asset assessment consisted of individual community visits, evaluation of background materials and documentation, and using costing models for regional water systems of similar service size. A summary of all first nation communities in Atlantic Canada was prepared along with detailed individual reports for each participating community.

It was estimated that a complete replacement of all existing water and wastewater infrastructure would total approximately $250 million in the Atlantic region, whereas the estimate to bring systems into compliance with the proposed regulatory benchmarks would cost, at the low end, $70 million, and at the high end, $100 million. Operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be approximately $7 million per year among the participating communities in the Atlantic region.

Finally, our centre has a history of working with the water industry, and we have recommended that a regional first nations water authority be established. To its credit, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs has recognized that addressing water challenges through a coordinated regional approach is required. Implementation of a first nations regional water authority would enable coordinated decision-making, maximize efficiencies of resource allocation, and establish a professionally based organization that would be in the best position to oversee activities related to drinking water and wastewater disposal. This would, on a day-to-day basis, transfer liability away from chiefs and councils, and pass it to a technical group. Examples of similar organizations include water utilities, power companies, and post-secondary educational institutions in Canada.

The APC is evaluating options for a water authority structure. Potential structures include a water authority as a crown agency, as a private company, or as a corporation through a federal private act. In partnership with McInnes Cooper, a law firm based in Atlantic Canada, our team evaluated all three options and determined that incorporation through a private act would be the most desirable option for the proposed water authority. Incorporation through a private act would enable the water authority to maintain a greater level of autonomy and transparency, and most important, a defined scope of activity and responsibility.

The proposed water authority structure is consistent with the 2006 “Report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations”. It's also consistent with the spirit of Bill S-8, in that a regional entity would be a body upon which the power to own and operate drinking water and wastewater systems in the Atlantic region could be conferred.

In conclusion, the Centre for Water Resources Studies has had the privilege to work with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs to identify safe drinking water and wastewater disposal practices for first nation communities in Atlantic Canada. Through this partnership, the team has worked on three main activities: a regulatory benchmark framework, a water asset analysis, and the development of a framework for a regional first nations water authority. There is a significant opportunity to improve health and wellness for first nation communities. The provision of safe drinking water and wastewater disposal has been a significant barrier for many communities in Atlantic Canada.

Within the Atlantic region, the first nations chiefs have been highly supportive in developing innovative solutions to address water quality challenges in Atlantic Canada. The path forward proposed by the Centre for Water Resources Studies is therefore consistent with Bill S-8 and with the 2006 expert panel report. To that end, it is recognized that these activities will require resources in collaboration with the federal government. However, these resources will be used to provide sustainable communities and a legacy of safe drinking water for generations.

Thank you.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about being here. However, I am here because we need to stand up to this government, which believes that Parliament exists only for its benefit and that it is just a place concerned with the government's problems and accountability.

It is almost as if a new party came into the House today, as we listen to the Conservative House leader speak. It certainly is not the party that moved prorogation and killed legislation time and again. This new Conservative Party is suddenly interested in not defeating legislation. It could not be the same Conservative Party that has shut down debate in the House of Commons more than any party in Canadian history. It could not be a member of the same party who was speaking here today, talking about opening up debate. The Conservatives have invented a new world for themselves that is fascinating.

I am reflecting on my friend from Langley, who sought to speak in this House on what they call an S. O. 31 statement, which happens just before question period. It is a statement that lasts for about a minute. Usually members of Parliament get up and make a statement about their ridings about some issue that is important to them. My friend from Langley, who sits in the Conservative Party, was a parliamentary secretary, I remember, for the Minister of the Environment, a chair, a well-respected member of Parliament, and a friend. He sought to stand up and speak to something he thought was important to his constituents.

It was the old Conservative Party that shut down that member of Parliament and every other one who tried to get up and speak, because this new Conservative Party talks about wanting people to speak in the House and wanting to have debate.

While it is refreshing to hear it, I do not believe it, and I do not think Canadians are going to believe that suddenly accountability and democracy have broken out within the Prime Minister's Office. It is the office of this particular Prime Minister who, rather than face any uncomfortable questions from the media or the official opposition members today, or for the rest of this week, has decided that going to South America to sit with other trading partners from other countries we already have established trade deals with to talk about trade deals that already exist is much more important than asking questions about the Senate.

It must be a new Conservative Party that suddenly has on its agenda a legislative directive that the members need to sit longer hours and work hard on something that might be quite topical today, something such as the reform of Canada's Senate, which has been long overdue and long called for by Canadians and New Democrats who said that the place was fundamentally broken. There is no accountability. Unelected and under investigation is the new Senate.

I remember the old Reform Party. You probably do as well, Mr. Speaker. It came in riding from the west, from my part of the world.

I see a member across the way, who was one of the founding members of the Reform Party, calling it a beautiful thing. While I disagreed fundamentally with many of its positions, certainly its social positions, there was something on which I could see some common ground. That was to make Parliament more accountable and to reform the Senate.

The current government has now been in power almost seven long years. Is that right? The time goes slowly. In those six or seven years, the Prime Minister made a promise as one of his fundamental commitments to Canadians. Commitments should be treated sacredly, I believe.

We all get up at elections. We have party platforms and promises we make to Canadians. If we win, that platform and those promises become our agenda. That is what we would seek to do in office. It is simple. One of his promises, one of his agendas, one of his reforms was on the Senate. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they would see those Liberal senators down there taking their money, not really representing anybody, going on trips and maybe even defrauding taxpayers. Who knows? The Reform movement came in and said it was wrong and anti-democratic.

For a party that decided to put “democratic” right in the middle of our name, we take these questions seriously. We feel that it is accountability to the people we on the orange team represent. In a sense, we are watching this Prime Minister now play victim to what is going on in the Senate with senators he appointed exclusively and explicitly to raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. Now this same Prime Minister claims victimhood and wonders how this happened. How did his chief of staff, who sits to his immediate left every day and knows his deepest, darkest secrets, whom he put in charge of major trade files and negotiations with other countries, cut a $90,000 cheque to a senator he appointed? However, obviously, the Prime Minister's hands are clean, and he has nothing to say about this. He believes that his hands are so clean that he is not going to answer any questions about it. He is going to go to South America to be in trade talks with countries we already have trade deals with. That is the new Conservative Party, which is the old one, the same one that has forgotten its roots.

Dear Mr. Manning is still with us, so he is not spinning in his grave, but he is definitely spinning. He was asked recently whether the Conservatives have lost their principles. He said, no, they have maintained their priorities. It is an interesting dodge of a question. Mr. Speaker, you have been around politics a bit. You know when a question is put directly and someone answers it indirectly.

I find it incredible that we have before us a motion that continues to abuse Parliament. This motion is designed simply to restrict debate and demonstrate to members of the House of Commons that the only reason Parliament exists is so that the government can do what it wants.

I remember a comment made by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. When we were debating a time allocation motion, he said that their intention was not to put an end to debate or to censure it, but just to control Parliament.

It is incredible that a minister is admitting that the Conservatives just want to control the Parliament of Canada. It also reflects the Conservatives' esprit de corps. They want to control everything, not just the opposition and Parliament, but their members, as well as the media and the public.

The current vision of the Prime Minister and the government leaves the public with no choice and no voice. It is all about the kind of country that the Prime Minister wants to build.

We see a government moving this extraordinary thing, which will see, big deal, members of Parliament sitting until midnight.

New Democrats have been known, sometimes to our detriment, to be willing to force the calendar to the very last minute and sit all night, such as when the government moved anti-worker legislation against a very profitable Canada Post, which, I might add, in a parenthetical way, then lost money.

After the lockout by Canada Post, the government imposed wage contracts on those workers that were less than what the company was willing to offer. Then it said that it needed to shut down Canada Post offices around the country, as Canada Post was losing money because of the lockout it allowed them to do. The logic is inherently twisted on that side.

Remember the omnibus debates and the voting we had. I remember my friend from the Green Party moving a certain number of amendments to the bill, which forced the House to sit all night and vote, hour after hour. I remember some of my friends from Surrey who stayed in their seats for 22 hours.

No one has ever accused New Democrats of not being willing to come to work and work on behalf of our constituents. We may do some things wrong. We may sometimes fall short in some areas, but hard work has not ever been one of those things.

There is such irony in hearing a Conservative House leader who, with his Prime Minister, has prorogued Parliament, shut it down, and killed their government's own legislation time and time again, say to the Speaker that the problem is that they cannot get their legislation through.

It had been there for 12 months. After eight months, they killed it themselves and prorogued the House.

One prorogation was quite notable. The government looked to be in a bit of trouble. It was in a minority position. The world was entering into a very deep recession. The Minister of Finance, who claims to be the best in the world, ignored the recession and introduced what the Conservatives called an austerity budget at the very moment when the rest of the world, realizing that the economy was coming to a virtual standstill, was introducing budgets that did the opposite.

The finance genius we have sitting in the chair said, “Never mind what the rest of the world thinks about what is going on in the global economy; we know that Canada is not going into recession”, even as we were in the midst of a recession. He introduced an austerity budget to cut back billions in job creation, in grants and in all the things the Conservatives take credit for, such as unemployment insurance for a bunch of Canadians who were just being thrown out of work.

The opposition said that it was not a very good budget and suggested that we vote against that budget. The government panicked and prorogued. Canadians got a civil lesson in how Parliament works. They had never heard the word “prorogation” before. Then we got to learn.

The Prime Minister had to go to the Governor General. He sat there for a number of hours, perhaps being lectured about how undemocratic it was, when facing a non-confidence vote, to head down the road to the Queen's representative to ask for permission to shut it all down before he was thrown out of office. He was more worried about his job that day than about Canadians. That is for sure.

That is a government that killed its legislation in order to save itself, and did it time and time again.

Here is the trend that we worry about with today's motion. For a government that has broken the record by shutting down debate more times than any government in Canadian history, it has refused 99.3% of all the amendments that the opposition has brought to its legislation.

Let us look at that for a moment. The way a bill is supposed to work is it comes into the House and gets debated. There is a pro and con and the real coming together or clash of ideas to improve the legislation because no one is perfect. The drafters of legislation do not get it right. They are sometimes hundreds of pages long and very complicated. The House is meant to debate that. Then we send it to committee and hear from experts, not just members of Parliament who are not often experts in these areas, but people who work in the field. They are the social workers, the financial experts, the crime experts and the police. We hear those suggestions and write amendments based on those ideas. That is the way this place is supposed to work.

However, the government is saying that in 99.3% of those cases those experts are wrong and the government is right. It will not change a period, a comma, not a word in any of the legislation. Then lo and behold, time and time again, the legislation is challenged in the courts successfully. The legislation does not fix the problems identified and costs Canada and Canadians billions.

We all remember well Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill that would allow the state to look in on the Internet searches and emails of Canadians without any warrant. The government decided in its vigour for its tough on crime agenda that it would pass a law that said that at any point, at any time, Canadians anywhere could have their BlackBerrys and iPhones tapped by the government, that web searches on home computers could be looked at by the government and the police. There is no country in the world, outside of Iran and North Korea, that would even consider doing this. The Conservative government thought it was a fantastic idea. In trying to argue the case, it said that if we were not into exposing our Internet searches and our emails then we must be in support of child pornography.

Has any more offensive or stupid an argument ever been made on the floor of the House of Commons? It is offensive to basic civil liberties and decency, to the role of members of Parliament trying to do our jobs and to the Canadians who said that they were not sure they wanted the government looking at their email?

I look at the member for Yukon right now. I do not know what he is searching and I do not want to know. It is his privacy to look on his computer and do as he sees fit. That is a civil liberty I am sure he defends as well, but not his government.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, was the flagship. The government rammed it all into one bill and said that it was such important legislation it would shut down debate on it too. Then whole sections of the bill were taken out. Why? It was because they were unconstitutional.

Now we know where that all comes from. Canadians actually pay for a service. Many members of Parliament may not know this, but when a government introduces a bill it goes to constitutional legal experts to determine if the new legislation goes against our constitution, our foundation as a country? If it does, it is a good idea to modify the law to ensure it does not get challenged in the courts, which costs upwards of $3 million to $5 million to taxpayers every time there is one of those challenges. The government did not check on Bill C-10. We know that because the people who work for the Government of Canada, who do this work, are no longer receiving references from the government.

The government is not even asking anymore. It is choosing ignorance. This is incredible. It is saying that it does not want to know whether the laws it writes are constitutional, whether the laws it writes as a government are for or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is incredible. This is not a mistake. It is by intention. Therefore, we have these lawyers sitting in their offices, being paid every day, waiting for the government to refer the bills it introduces here to ensure they can survive a constitutional challenge. The government does not ask anymore.

Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill and Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, were both challenged in the courts as unconstitutional. First nations are challenging it. I need to address this because the government House leader mentioned two bills that are being moved, so-called, on behalf of first nations. They are Bill S-2 and Bill S-8. One is matrimonial property rights. It sounds pretty innocuous. Most Canadians would say that matrimonial property rights for first nations women on reserve maybe protects their rights. Who is opposed to it? It is not just us in the opposition, but aboriginal women, every first nation women's group in the country. My friend across the way shakes his head, but I can show him the testimony that says the bill is no good for aboriginal women.

However, the Conservatives know better. With their shameful record on aboriginal rights and title in the country, suddenly they know better than aboriginal women, than first nations women. Bill S-8 is a bill to help first nations have clean drinking water because the record has been shameful.

Government after government has failed first nations communities. Thirty-five per cent of the people I represent in northern British Columbia are in first nations communities. The water conditions there are incredibly bad. We have to do something about it. There are fixes and there are ideas coming from those communities.

Instead the government moves the bill, handing all responsibility down to first nations in terms of cleaning up their own water mess, but none of the resources to do it. Are first nations supportive of it? No. Nor would any municipality or any province in Canada be supportive of legislation that rams down responsibility without any of the support, money or help to get that done.

Most of these first nations communities are living in abject poverty. Where does the government think they are going to get the money from? The government will not settle treaty with them in the west. First nations are having mining, oil and gas exploration and pipelines put everywhere and are receiving none of the royalties, none of the compensation and the government will not move treaty forward.

I was just in Gitxsan territory, speaking with the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, talking about basic child services, kids who are being abused in their homes and setting up a program that the federal government said that we should enact 20 years ago to allow first nations more rights and responsibilities to rescue those kids and help them kids integrate back into their communities.

Who is not coming to the table? The Conservative government. This is the government that on Bill S-2 and Bill S-8 suddenly said that it had first nations rights and title and priorities at heart, when it did not.

The place can work. Members can sense a certain amount of frustration in my voice, because Parliament can work. It is actually designed to work. I love our system. It is so superior to many other systems I have studied around the world, that have consistent congressional gridlock on legislation and on budgets. We can make things happen here.

However, with the power that is afforded a majority government, which is a lot, comes a certain amount of responsibility to use the power wisely and not abuse it. Yet time and again we have seen the government House leader and other ministers get up and say that they are not looking to limit the debate; they just want to control it. They reject virtually 100% of all the amendments and all the changes and suggestions they hear at committee because they know better and they have the votes to push it forward.

It is at such a point that the control has extended deeply into the government's caucus. Some of the more socially conservative members of the Conservative caucus are no longer free to speak, or are only free to speak on certain things, in certain ways, if the Prime Minister's Office allows for it.

In a small program that we run in northern B.C., initiated a number of years ago, I hold a conference call with all the detachment commanders from all the RCMP outposts that exist in my riding. It is a very large riding facing a lot of tough, difficult situations with policing. Once every two or three months I get on the phone with 12 detachment commanders and we talk about what is going on. We talk about what is happening in crime, what the drug use is like, what legislation is moving through the House that will help or hinder these hard-working, hard-serving officers.

I am not allowed to have that conversation with these RCMP officers anymore. I am not supposed to talk to them. As a sitting member of Parliament, I am not supposed to go to them. A number of them have come to me because they are friends and we have known each other for years. They offer good, on-the-ground advice about what is happening.

They say that they are sorry, that they cannot talk to me. They tell me that I have to phone the Prime Minister's Office in order for them to talk to me about what is going on in Prince Rupert, or what is going on in Dease Lake or Bella Coola.

It is insane. This is wrong. Government officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who I have known for years and who I phone just for an update to see what is going on with our fish on the west coast, tell me that I am a member of Parliament from the opposition and that I need to phone the people in the Prime Minister's Office and that they will give me permission as to whether they can tell me what is going on in Canada's fishery.

This is not their government. This is not a Conservative government. This is Canada's government. We pay for these civil servants. We pay their salaries to do work on behalf of Canadians. Whether it is silencing scientists, shutting down access for members of Parliament to basic conversations, or shutting down debate in Parliament, the consistent voice from the government is that it will not be held to account.

This is bad. This is not just about the privilege all members of the House need to do their job. The government says there is some urgency, but there is not. There is no urgency when it comes to the government's mandate or agenda.

It is very strange for the government to say it is very open, when we see what is going on in the Senate.

We have senators like Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau. All current senators have potentially stolen money from Canadians. These are the same senators that the Prime Minister says are very good people. These are the same senators using money from the Canadian people to travel during an election and raise money for the Conservative Party. That is the new Conservative Party. I do not understand.

I remember the Reform Party of Canada and some reforms that Mr. Manning wanted to make. With the current party, it is the same story as with the Liberal Party and the Gomery commission and all the rest. I am both angry and sad.

The majority of Canadians did not vote for this government, which has a majority, but does not have the majority support of Canadians. Close to 60% of Canadians voted against this agenda, against this sort of arrogance. They voted not to have the kind of government that now uses brutal tactics, not against the New Democratic Party, but against Parliament.

Lastly, I think we need to have a referendum, which may not happen until the next election.

It bears some comment, not only with respect to the Senate scandal but even the motion today.

I watched the government House leader and the Prime Minister on television earlier. He actually allowed the media into his caucus room for a second, which was bizarre. The bully turns into the victim, that somehow this is put upon them, that they are somehow being victimized here.

What frustrates me is not just the work that we have to do as parliamentarians that is constantly thwarted by the government at committee stage, and my friend laughs, but how can it be possible that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected? The evidence is clear.

My friend can shake his head and laugh and treat this with disdain treat this with disdain or heckle out what seems to be a favourite tactic of some of my friends who cannot win the debate, but can simply sit in their seats and heckle, yell and try to put down a comment that hurts a little too much, that being that 99.3% of all amendments were rejected, that the witnesses were all wrong, that the government was always right and that the courts must be wrong too. Soon the Conservatives will call them activist courts like the Republicans do in the states. Members should watch for it because it is coming.

We believe this motion is fundamentally flawed in its abuse of this place and of all members. I do not speak just for the New Democrats or the folks down the way. I speak for the backbenchers who have been rubbing up against some of the limitations. What is sad about most of it and is most concerning is those who are not agitating against the Conservative government's control over its backbench and accepting it. I lament the most for those who are so comfortable reading the script from the Prime Minister's Office and repeating it like robots, feeling that is their work and whose expectations of what it is to be a member of Parliament are so diminished that they simply accept it, not those the media have called rebels who have stood up and stated that they want to have their own statement but the Prime Minister's Office has shut them down. They run under the blue banner, which is their choice.

I lament for those who seem so happy to get up and repeat the mindless dribble that is put to them by the Prime Minister's Office day after day. When they first ran for office, I wonder if they said that they wanted to be a member of Parliament to represent people and get to Parliament to speak with a strong voice of conviction on behalf of the people they represent and that in order to do they would read whatever was put in front of them by the Prime Minister's Office, written by a 24-year old intern who types out some sort of nonsense and makes up policies that the NDP does not have, making personal attacks on a regular basis as a substitute for honest and sincere debate? Was that really their expectation?

I wish I had some video evidence from some of those early debates because I know that is not what those members ran on. I know their nomination meetings did not look like that, nor did any of the debates they attended during the campaign. That is not what they said. They said that they would speak on behalf of their constituents, fight for them and still raise their voice, even if that meant it was contrary to what their government suggested.

I am sure that is what my friends across the way said. They are very nice people. I know a lot of these folks, as we have spent some time together. I know some of their inner thoughts about the way Parliament ought to be, and some of them lament it. However, it is the ones who do not who worry me. They are the ones who so comfortably slip into that straitjacket day after day. Maybe they just get used to it, but they are able to rationalize that there is some larger agenda that is more important than their having an independent and free voice.

They can keep yelling and you can allow them to if you wish, Mr. Speaker, but the truth often hurts, and the truth of the matter is that with a majority government, this member and his colleagues have chosen to vote for closure more than any government in Canadian history. With a majority, the Conservative government has refused the evidence, has refused the science time and time again, and that government is bad government.

The Conservative government appointed senators, and I am sure some fundraising went on for some of my friends. Maybe Ms. Wallin, Mr. Duffy or Mr. Brazeau came by and raised a few dollars, shook a few hands and got a few votes for my friends. Maybe there is a little bit of a tarnish on my colleagues, which is why they are calling out and why they are worried. It is because their base hates this. They hate the idea of entitlement and of an insider's game that goes on in Ottawa all the time, and that friends of the Prime Minister's Office get some sort of special treatment.

Talking about special treatment, how about a $90,000 personal cheque just cut off the back and handed over to somebody who may have defrauded taxpayers? Where is the Reform Party now? Where are the original Conservative intentions now? They are gone, bit by bit, eroded piece by piece. That is where it has gone, and it has all been subjugated to some idea that there is a better and bigger cause, that this grand scheme they are involved in somehow makes all of it justifiable.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what these guys would sound like if the roles were reversed? If it were a Liberal government with senators getting cheques from the Prime Minister's chief of staff or a New Democratic government acting the way the Conservatives act, could you imagine the hue and cry and the calls for resignations every second minute? They would be losing their minds.

Now the Conservatives play the victim, saying that these senators were put upon them, that they didn't know what they were doing, that it is terrible. They only have a majority, both here and there. The Prime Minister has appointed more senators than any Prime Minister in Canadian history. How many did he say he would appoint? None, but he had to appoint some, and then it had to be justified. These are small and slow slippages, and this motion is a continuation of that.

This motion says that Parliament matters less and that those Canadians who have grown cynical about the role of MPs are justified in their cynicism. We say that is wrong. How do we turn to the young voters coming up? How do we turn to people who come to us and say that they might want to run for office one day? How can we say that their voices will matter when the government moves motions like this time and time again, shutting down debate?

As my friend the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development said, the Conservatives do not want to shut down debate; they just want to control it. Is this is how one entices people into a life of politics? Is this how one encourages young people to vote? Do we say, “Welcome to Parliament, where we are going to control debate and shut it down time and time again”? This is the Conservatives' call to action.

It is not a call to action, but a call to inaction. It is a call to cynicism. It is calling to people, “Do not look over here; nothing is happening here in government. Go on with your lives and other things that are more important and distracting.” The government is counting on people to have an attention deficit rather than realize that the decisions we make here in Parliament every day affect Canadians in every way.

If members of Parliament cannot do their work, as this motion suggests, and hold the government to account, it is bad government. It is bad government when it cannot find $3 billion that may be under a mattress or in a banana stand or wherever it happens to be, and when senators rip off taxpayers with no consequence whatsoever. We think the RCMP might have a role to play here.

What would happen if any of the Canadians in our gallery today or watching on TV defrauded the Canadian government of $500? They would get charged. However, if it is a Conservative senator, what happens? Oh, they just recuse themselves from caucus. Wow. They still get paid, they still have all of their privileges, but they cannot go to caucus meetings on Wednesday mornings.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that maybe that punishment is a little severe? I mean, having to recuse oneself from a two-hour meeting on Wednesday morning for defrauding taxpayers—boy, that seems pretty harsh.

Why the double standard? We used to call that the culture of entitlement. I remember a colleague of mine in this place, Ed Broadbent, asking a former Liberal minister who became head of the mint and was claiming packets of gum and coffee on his receipts, “Are you entitled to your entitlements, sir?” This person took a moment of authenticity and said, “Yes, I am entitled to my entitlements.”

The Conservatives railed at the Liberal entitlement, the culture of entitlement, the Gomery inquiry and all those terrible things that went down.

History repeats itself if one is not a student of history, and it seems that the Conservative Party has not looked at the history of this place or of other parliaments.

The fact of the matter is that debate in and of itself is not a bad thing. The exchange of ideas is not in and of itself a bad thing. Being wrong from time to time is not of itself a bad thing; learning happens in those moments, and the government needs to learn, because I can read off the list of the bills it had so fundamentally wrong that it had to withdraw them. The Conservatives had to say that they got it so badly wrong because they listened to none of the amendments that they have to fix it now, at the very last minute, or wait until it gets to the Senate and let the unaccountable, unelected and under investigation senators deal with it. That is no form of democracy worth defending, and the Conservatives know it. They know it better than most.

I will move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Fridays” and replacing them with the following: “(b) when oral questions are to be taken up pursuant”—