Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With amendment NDP-1, what we're doing is actually turning clause 3 into a true non-derogation clause by removing this line: “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands”.
I want to refer back to the brief provided by the Canadian Bar Association. I want to read into the record their statement on this. They say:
We believe that the qualification “except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of [the] drinking water on First Nation lands” is in itself an explicit abrogation or derogation of existing Aboriginal or treaty rights pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The qualification in section 3 of Bill S-8 does not, in our view, ameliorate the constitutional problems identified in our earlier submissions on Bill S-11.
We have been unable to find any precedent or explanation for this proposal which would still, in our view, abrogate or derogate from section 35 rights under the Constitution Act, 1982 in order to provide safe drinking water to First Nations. This provision raises two key issues:
[I]s it necessary to implement the objectives of the bill?
[I]f so, is it constitutionally valid? Can Parliament use its legislative power under section 91(24) to abrogate or derogate unilaterally from the rights protected by section 35?
The attempt to abrogate and derogate aboriginal and treaty rights by statute or regulation would set a dangerous precedent and should not slip by without full explanation and discussion.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all members to support this amendment.