Greg Rickford

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, November 1st, 2012]

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

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

[Workplace Safety, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of the member's question in response. When tragedies such as the one in Sudbury occur they affect us all, particularly when we come from large regions where mining activities are so prominent.

We are naturally concerned about the impact on the victims' families, loved ones, colleagues and the community. I can advise the member that we offered to assist the Government of Ontario in any way we could. The investigation at this point into this accident falls under the provincial jurisdiction.

According to our information, formal charges have been laid and the legal proceedings are under way.

In Canada an average of three workers are killed every working day. We seek to make our workplaces more safe. This is way too many and we are committed to working with the provinces and territories, labour organizations and the like to end these tragedies in our workplaces.

[Workplace Safety, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the MP for Nickel Belt and I share a vast region in northern Ontario with a number of major mining projects on the go. For instance, in the great Kenora riding we celebrate the fantastic contribution that it makes in terms of economic development. We also appreciate and understand the importance of workplace safety. To that end, I have had the Minister of Labour involved in a visit to Red Lake, which went very well.

We were concerned last summer, and remain concerned, when we heard about the deaths of two miners at the Vale Frood-Stobie mine complex in Sudbury.

We want to once again offer our sincere condolences to the families, friends and co-workers who were affected by this tragedy.

As the mining operation falls within the provincial jurisdiction, the Ontario Ministry of Labour is responsible for investigating this accident. We understand that the ministry has laid 15 charges against the company and one of its employees in connection with the deaths of two miners.

Although we were not directly involved, our government is committed to finding ways to prevent injury and illness in the workplace. This is an integral part of keeping Canada's labour force strong, healthy and competitive.

The labour program works with the provinces and territories as well as employer and employee organizations to promote safe and healthy workplaces across Canada. Our responsibilities are set out in part II of the Canada Labour Code, which establishes occupational health and safety requirements for federally-regulated workplaces.

Beyond the code, we are developing policies and adopting health and safety regulations to reflect the evolving realities affecting today's workplaces. However, enforcing laws is only part of the solution.

We must instill a sense of co-operation and shared responsibilities between employers and employees when it comes to addressing health and safety issues. When these issues cannot be resolved by the workplace partners, our federal health and safety officers intervene to investigate incidents and complaints in federally-regulated workplaces.

Occupational injuries can amount to significant costs to the Canadian economy in addition to the tragedies that are experienced by the workers and their families.

I can assure the member that we are doing everything we can to reduce the toll on human lives and ensure that our economic recovery remains strong.

[The Environment, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, our government fully recognizes the importance of economic growth and environmental protection. Canada has robust environmental legislation and standards, a tough safety regime and experienced independent regulators to oversee offshore activities.

The National Energy Board is a world-class regulatory body. Our government is convinced that the board has the appropriate tools to safely and effectively regulate any proposed oil and gas activity in Canada's Arctic. Our government is determined to realize the energy potential of the North, for the benefit of all Canadians.

[The Environment, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Our government is committed to ensuring that a strong and prosperous north helps shape the future of our nation. Without a doubt, the north continues to be a top priority of our government. We are carrying on with the delivery and improvement of key programs and initiatives under the northern strategy – programs and initiatives that benefit all Canadians.

The north is home to world-class resource potential, representing tremendous economic opportunity. Our government continues to encourage investment in northern communities while ensuring that investment is supported by a world-class safety and environmental protection regime in the north.

In anticipation and preparation for future investment in the north, the National Energy Board initiated a public review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements. The final report of the public review released by the board on December 15, 2011, reconfirmed that Canada’s Arctic offshore regulatory regime is one of the safest and most stringent regimes in the world.

To emphasize this finding, the report included a series of new safety and environmental protection filing requirements for Arctic offshore drilling programs. These new requirements were developed based on input received during the public review. They will contribute to the already rigorous review process that the National Energy Board undertakes when considering whether to authorize oil and gas activities in the north.

The issuance of mineral rights on crown lands is important to encouraging investment in the north. Working with northern and aboriginal governments and people, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada issues rights to prospective resource developers. The rights issuance process in the north is open and transparent and, as in other jurisdictions in Canada, is market-based. An exploration licence issued by the department gives the developer an exclusive right to explore and to drill for oil and gas.

Currently, there is no drilling in the Arctic offshore. Any proposed activity associated with an exploration licence would require the authorization of the National Energy Board, and the review process would include public consultations. Also, before a drilling program would be authorized, the applicant would need to demonstrate that it meets the safety and environmental protection filing requirements for offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic.

Our government is committed to helping the north realize its true potential as an economically healthy, prosperous and secure region within a strong and sovereign Canada.

[Correctional and Conditional Release Act, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his great work.

Listening to the member's speech, it seems to me that the bill has a dual purpose. It is not just to do what our government has been doing, and that is making victims a top priority, but perhaps also for the offender to develop a sense of caring, compassion and understanding in the rehabilitation process for redressing the harm he or she may have caused.

Can the member tell us whether that was something he was thinking about when drafting the bill?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am always caught up in a discussion between the Liberals and the NDP on the whole idea of revenue from taxpayers. Could the member perhaps give some advice to the NDP?

In a previous session Canadians got a serious case of election indigestion with the proposed $15 billion carbon tax. Now the official opposition has changed it and has proposed a $21 billion carbon tax. I am sure the member kept that out of his speech because that is not included in our low-tax plan.

What is his advice or post-mortem going to be since he could not move any further to the left physically in the House of Commons after the carbon tax proposal in the last election? What advice does he have for the opposition? I will let them talk among themselves.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I took great interest in the member's response. I find it ironic that somebody from the NDP would use the words “morale”, “consequence” and “business” in the same response. Two words: carbon tax. Let us apply it to those three words.

What does the member have to say about the morale of Canadians, wanting them to reach into their pockets and take $21.5 billion? What is the consequence going to be on Canadians and their bottom line? What does he think the world of business thinks about this $21.5 billion carbon tax being applied in Canada?

[Regional Development, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from northern Ontario for talking about just one of a number of passions that we have in northern Ontario.

I know one thing we do not have a passion for, and that is to have a $21.5 billion carbon tax that will increase our cost of living, stifle small business and put major projects, whether it is snowmobile trails or the Ring of Fire, simply out of reach.

[First Nations, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I want to talk today about a couple of observations I have made so far in the debate. First, the spirit of both the leader of the third party and the member from this side have some kind of common objective or goal. I think everyone in the House agrees that the Indian Act does stand in the way of successes of first nations communities and continues to prevent first nations from becoming more autonomous, self-sufficient and full participants in a Canadian economy. The question is the pathway.

The motion today, in my respectful view, proposes an ill-conceived process to get rid of the Indian Act and would jeopardize current progress made by this government and first nations. Indeed, whether we talk about the Indian Act or the legislation that has been produced, going back the past couple of decades but particularly in the last six years, the motion says that we should undo all of that and recreate something in three months.

It seems a little unusual, and probably not achievable, given the number of communities across the country that are implicated in this, which raises my final point in this observation with respect to the debate so far. It appears as though the leader of the third party was using a frame of reference for a number of Inuit communities that actually are not under the Indian Act.

I hope, when the member says that he had consultations with first nations leaders or aboriginal Canadians, they were people who had a thoughtful reflection on the Indian Act.

This motion ignores the fact that the government has been engaging directly with first nations communities and organizations to conclude a number of agreements and develop legislation, tangible options that go outside of the Indian Act. There are some examples. The First Nations Land Management Act brings a community out of more than 25% of the act, read together, for example, with the substantive proposals in my colleague's private member's bill.

We are dealing with a number of important things: removing once and for all any legislative reference to the Indian residential school; dealing with the powers of bylaws at the community level; and dealing with wills and testaments. These are substantive changes that are overdue, not to mention the fact that the Conservative member who has brought the private member's bill is a first nations Canadian. He falls under the Indian Act for the purposes of his status. He brings, in the context of a private member's bill, and as I understand as a person who is generationally tied to the Indian residential school, a particularly meaningful and thoughtful perspective to incremental changes that need to be made.

At the historic Crown-First Nations Gathering held this past January, the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to working together with first nations. He said:

—there are ways, creative ways, collaborative ways, ways that involve consultation between our government, the provinces and First Nations leadership and communities. Ways that provide options within the Act, or outside of it, for practical, incremental and real change.

The good news is that the Prime Minister has seen to it that this is already in process and we continue to bring legislation before this place that is substantive and dynamic to the extent that it incrementally chips away at the scope of the Indian Act and certainly attempts, in best efforts and good faith, to deal with those parts of that legislation that are no longer useful and that no longer apply and hold us all back as Canadians, not just first nations for the purpose of the Indian Act.

We know from past experience that proposals to significantly overhaul the Indian Act did not work and many of them came from that side of the House, from that third party. The Liberals passed attempts to overhaul the Indian Act, all of which were met with complete and utter failure and failed substantively to develop modern legislation and meaningfully dismantle the Indian Act.

In 1969, for example, Jean Chrétien published a white paper that sought to introduce measures to assimilate first nations people. That paper was overwhelmingly rejected by first nations people.

In 1996, the same party introduced the 1996 Indian Act optional modification act that attempted to introduce major changes to a number of areas, such as band governance, bylaw authority and legal capacity and the regulation of reserve lands and resources. It was also met with significant opposition and died on the order paper.

Most recently, in 2002, Bob Nault, the former MP for Kenora, from where I hail, introduced the first nations governance act, which would have involved significant changes to aspects of band governance. Many of those proposed changes were quite positive, but the bill died on the order paper.

For the past six years, in stark contrast, this government has been taking real action to provide first nations with alternatives to the Indian Act. Here I would like to expand on a series of targeted incremental initiatives that demonstrate the government's firm resolve to addressing the challenges the Indian Act presents to the political, social and economic dynamic and development of first nations communities that fall under the Indian Act. Our approach is to bring incremental change in consultation with first nations through new measures, investments and legislation that would provide alternatives to the Indian Act.

Earlier this year, we welcomed 18 new first nations to the first nations land management regime, which I referred to earlier. The regime enables first nations to opt out of more than 34 land-related sections of the Indian Act and, in the process, assume greater control over their reserve lands, resources and governance.

There are now 56 first nations operating or developing land laws under enabling legislation known as the First Nations Land Management Act. Participating first nations are better able to pursue economic activities, create jobs and have more self-sufficient communities. To improve the regime, we collaborated with the First Nations Land Advisory Board, removing legislative barriers that prevent or delay first nations from taking advantage of the benefits of assuring land management responsibility. Yet the opposition voted against these amendments.

At committee we are doing some hard work around land management and land use planning and I appreciate the collective efforts of many of my colleagues, if not all, on the standing committee for their substantive contributions to this important work. The modernization of lands management regimes helps unlock the potential of reserve lands and natural resources and frees first nations from some of the economic limitations imposed by the Indian Act.

Another example of legislative change that would unlock the potential of first nations is Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, presently awaiting second reading in the House. The objective of this proposed legislation is to ensure that first nations have the same health and safety protections for drinking water in their communities as other Canadians. It focuses on capacity, reporting, monitoring and maintenance of state-of-the-art facilities that often involve intensive management given the lands that many of the first nations communities live on in isolated and remote parts of this country. It deals with an ongoing commitment to water infrastructure. Finally, Bill S-8 is a mechanism for both governments to develop in partnership enforceable regulations to ensure for the first time that there is access to clean and reliable drinking water, the effective treatment of waste water and the protection of sources of water on first nations land.

This is about working together on a process that has led to the development of these and many other pieces of legislation. As someone who has invested the greater part of his professional life to areas where the Indian Act applies, including health for first nations communities and water and waste water treatment, for example, I would say that we are seeing across this county a collective effort and the need to continue the consultation process for legislative tools outside of the Indian Act so that communities can thrive. These are in areas of infrastructure and economic development. Here we look forward to studying my colleague's private member's bill at committee, hearing from witnesses and, as always, moving on to bigger and better things.

The motion before us now calls for a new approach, one that we cannot support, as it would jeopardize the progress being made. I encourage my hon. colleagues to reject the motion.