Kyle Seeback

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a full 20 minutes to talk about this exceptional piece of legislation, but I will accept the six minutes we have left here today.

This is another great bill. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, is another great piece of legislation on an issue that concerns first nations Canadians. It is another great bill, much like the bill for safe drinking water we recently passed in the House. It goes back to things such as Yale, which was recently passed by the House, and the northern jobs and growth act. We have brought forward a suite of legislation designed to assist first nations in moving forward on many fronts.

When we talk about this particular piece of legislation, the first nations elections act, it is very important to note that this is, by definition, truly a grassroots bill. Why would I say that? It is because it was actually initiated and brought forward by two groups in this country: the AMC and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. They were looking at ways to reform the election process as it exists under the Indian Act.

What does that mean? They decided that they wanted to have a broad-based and significant consultation on how we could design some electoral reforms that would assist first nations in their governance. What did they do? I can tell the House that they had extensive consultations with first nations. For example, between January and March 2010, then-grand chief Ron Evans travelled to almost every first nation in Manitoba that holds elections under the Indian Act. At the time, there were 37. He held engagement sessions with these communities to find out the kinds of things they would like to see in this legislation.

A similar format was followed by the Atlantic Policy Congress. They had the same kinds of discussions in their own region. They went from community to community and spoke to chiefs. They asked what they would like to see to reform elections for first nations that have their elections governed by the Indian Act. That is the critical thing we have to look at when we look at this particular piece of legislation. This has been driven by first nations communities themselves. By far, the vast majority of the things in this piece of legislation are things brought forward and asked for by first nations communities.

When the first set of recommendations came forward, the AMC and the APC were asked to partner on a national engagement effort to present their recommendations to first nations across the country. Then-grand chief Ron Evans met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He also wrote to every chief and council in Canada elected under the Indian Act. When we talk about the kind of input and consultation that took place with respect to this particular piece of legislation, we can see that this is an enormous amount of consultation.

The other thing that is important when we talk about this particular piece of legislation is that it is opt-in legislation. The difference between that and another piece of legislation is that first nations communities can choose if they want to opt in to this particular piece of legislation. When we combine the fact that it is opt-in legislation with the fact that there was extensive consultation with first nations communities, I can say that this is an exceptional piece of legislation that is going to do a lot of good for first nations communities.

Of course, one of the things they looked at in the legislation was moving the election from every two years to every four years. That just makes sense. Here in the House of Commons, when there is a majority government, there is an election around every four years. For first nations communities that have their elections operate under the Indian Act, it is every two years. We can think about the kinds of things that become difficult when we look at a two-year horizon versus a four-year horizon. It is much more difficult for them to make some of those longer-term plans that are so necessary for good governance, because they end up in a cycle of having another election so soon after the previous one and they need to start thinking about re-election.

This will be a significant step forward for first nations communities. It will also allow a new, modern and transparent electoral regime for first nations. Why is that important? One has to look at the things one needs, which are good governance and good elections. That will lead to stronger communities. First nations will have a better sense of how their communities will be governed and they will know when elections will take place. It will, in my view, increase accountability and transparency.

I wish I had more time and look forward to perhaps speaking to this legislation in the future.

[The Economy, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not immune to global economic challenges from beyond our borders, especially from our most important trading partners like the United States and the European Union.

In economic action plan 2013, we have continued our commitment to grow the economy and create jobs. For example, the Canada jobs grant is going to train more Canadians for skilled jobs. We also have the largest federal investment ever in job creating, infrastructure and new tax relief.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update the House on the government's actions to grow the economy and create great jobs for hard-working Canadians?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that question shows the complete misunderstanding of this legislation. It is the same thing we faced at committee. People came to the committe“ and said this legislation would do that. It actually says they ”may” incorporate by reference provincial regulations. It does not say “we will”. It says “we could”. It is one of the options that is on the table. That is why I say this is enabling legislation. It would put the whole host or suite of options before the government when it chooses to regulate. No, it would not download to provincial responsibility. It would not cost the provinces money. We are not there.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has quite clearly pointed out the differences with what my colleague here was suggesting in this bill. We have to have the regulations. I keep going back to that, and I know I am, because we have to have the design of what the program would be before deciding what the funding envelope would have to be. That is exactly what we do.

I keep going back to this over and over again. I say it when we are going through this at committee. This is enabling legislation. It would enable us to go forward and put forward regulations to regulate waste water and drinking water. Again we would do that constructively with first nations, and once we had that, we would then be able to figure out what costs we needed to go forward with. Of course we would continue the investments we have made with respect to building infrastructure and building capacity. Then we would go forward with regulations.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see it as hypocritical at all because we are talking about an important issue with first nations drinking water. If we are going to do it we are going to do it right. We have to know what the regulations are before we say what it is going to cost. This is a very simple thing.

We are not coming up with, as she was talking about, an amorphous national strategy. What we are saying is we are going to develop specific regulations. Once we know what those specific regulations are and what standards are going to have to be applied, then we can determine what that is going to cost. We cannot put the cart before the horse, and we are not going to do that.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill S-8 today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, so I am very familiar with this legislation. It is important legislation, necessary legislation, and legislation that I am proud to stand here and support.

One of the things that often gets lost in this debate, and I have heard over and over again at committee, is the misunderstanding of what this legislation actually is designed to do. We often hear from members on the opposite side of the House who say that the bill does not do this or does not do that.

It is not designed to be a panacea. It is not designed to solve every single problem. It is designed to solve one specific issue that was raised by the expert panel, and that is the need for regulations to set safe drinking water standards. The panel recommended other things as well, but that was one of the key issues that the experts said needed to be moved forward. That is why this legislation is so important. It would give the authority to enact regulations to ensure we have standards consistent to allow for safe drinking water. Safe drinking water is important, and we know that. It is a huge issue.

The issues that we have with first nations communities are varied and many. We have geographical challenges and different circumstances. They are complex. We have to find ways to filter water to remove contaminants, and we have to find ways to deal with waste water.

A lot of these issues are faced by non-aboriginal communities across Canada, and what is the number one tool that they will use to ensure that they have safe drinking water? It is a system of regulation that is designed to ensure that treated water is up to certain standards, and that is why this legislation is so important. Right now, there are no legally enforceable standards to regulate both water and waste water on most first nations communities. There are some self-governing first nations that do, and they have established and enforced water quality regimes, but they are the exception and not the rule. Bill S-8 would help to turn that exception into the rule.

People have come to the committee and said that the legislation could do this or that, and it might transfer some liability to first nations. I remind them that is because this is enabling legislation. The legislation does not say “it shall” do this or that. What it says is, here is a list of things that may end up being regulated. It would give the authority to engage in a comprehensive discussion with first nations communities with respect to regulations that need to be in place to suit each community. We always have to remember that this is enabling legislation.

We have a strategy on safe drinking water, and there are three pillars: continuing investments in water and waste water infrastructure, developing enforceable standards and protocols, and enhancing capacity building and operator training. We just heard the member for Winnipeg North ask a question about capacity. Of course, we have invested a significant amount in capacity through the circuit rider training program, which is a fantastic program that is making big differences.

When we talk about some of the issues surrounding capacity, we can say that seven years ago only a small minority of first nations had water systems that had trained and certified operators. There were very few. The progress is clear. By 2011, the national assessment found that operators with the appropriate level of certification managed 51% of first nations water systems and 42% of first nations waste water systems. Therefore, we have gone from a few to 51% and 42%. That is a significant increase.

A year later, annual performance inspections of the same systems had determined that these percentages had increased to 60.1% and 53.9%. Yes, it is not 100%, we want it to be at 100%, but we are getting there. Properly trained operators will ensure that the systems comply with regulations and consistently produce clean and reliable drinking water.

We are looking at all of these things. They do not operate in a vacuum; we have to have the regulations. That was raised by the expert panel. We have to have skilled operators. We are making those investments. We also have to have investments in the infrastructure that is necessary to produce the safe water and the drinking water and the waste water. That is why we have invested close to $3 billion in waste water and drinking water systems since 2006. Those investments are making a real difference.

However, not only are we making those investments, we are making the right investments. Why are we doing that? It is because we went forward with the most comprehensive review in the history of our country to look at water and waste water systems. It is a review that was not done by the previous government. We did that. We wanted to know which systems needed to have those investments. Systems are rated as high risk, medium risk and low risk. Therefore, we can prioritize where the investments need to be. Look at the high-risk ones. Let us work on those first. We look at this as a multi-faceted approach, one that is going to make a significant difference.

When we look at the regulations, we want time to do that. We are saying we are going to take time and develop them in consultation with first nations to make sure that we have the right regulations to ensure we have safe drinking water and properly treated waste water.

Some people have said “Wait a minute, where is the money? We cannot impose these regulations without money.” Well, I say, how does one build a house without knowing what the designs are? Someone does not just go up and say, “I want a house. Here's the money.” They have to actually design the house. That is what the regulations do. They are designing. They are saying these are the regulations that need to be in place. Once they know what those regulations are, then they can figure out what it is going to cost to implement those regulations. That is exactly the process we are following. We are going to develop the regulations, in consultation with first nations, and then we are going to figure out what, if any, funding arrangements need to change.

Seven years ago, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed to work together on drinking water. Today, the House has the opportunity to support this collaboration by endorsing Bill S-8. Surely, residents of first nations communities have waited long enough to have these regulations brought forward and put in place. We want to move forward with this and I am hoping that we are going to have the support of all parties in the House to make sure that we can move forward with regulations that will help bring safe drinking water and waste water to first nations communities.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I am happy to be able to speak today with respect to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders).

I am proud to support this bill. It is another great piece of legislation that has been brought forward either by our government or members of our government who bring forward what I like to describe as, in many cases, common sense and practical solutions to some of the issues that are facing our criminal justice system today.

It reminds me of a couple of other pieces of legislation that we have brought forward, for example, when we brought forward the issue with victim surcharges. Part of the problem in that case was that judges were not imposing the surcharge, and when they did not, they were supposed to give written reasons. We found out that 90% of the time that surcharges were not imposed, the judges did not actually give written reasons. We made it mandatory that those victim surcharges would be put in place.

This bill would continue to support our agenda to make sure that our streets and communities are safe for all Canadians. It does it in a couple of meaningful ways, and I will go into that as I speak about it.

In a quick summary, the bill would ensure that sentencing courts and parole boards more regularly impose conditions when appropriate to prohibit specific types of contact between offenders and their victims. It proposes that such conditions be imposed to protect witnesses and other individuals who need similar protection.

Again, I say these kinds of things that are being brought forward just make sense. If we asked the average person if there should be conditions to prohibit types of conduct between offenders and victims, people would say, “Yes, that makes sense”.

I am not surprised that in many instances the opposition and opposition members would suggest this bill is not necessary, because the current law already provides that this could take place, but that is the problem. These conditions are not being put in place in many circumstances.

That is the same issue as the victim surcharge issue. For example, in this case, prohibition orders always include three mandatory conditions. These conditions are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, of course the promise to appear when required, and to notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, or any change of employment or occupation.

A sentencing court may also impose any of the optional conditions that are set out in subsection 732.1(3) of the Criminal Code, which includes drug and alcohol prohibitions, restrictions against travel, weapon prohibitions, requirements to support dependants and community service conditions.

The list of mandatory and optional conditions does not include conditions that restrict contact between offenders and victims. This is what I go back to when I say these reforms are such common sense things. One would think that would be at the top of the agenda, restricting contact between the perpetrator of a crime and the victim of a crime. Sentencing courts are also not required to provide reasons when they do not choose to do that. I would submit that makes absolutely no sense when we take a moment to think about it.

Lastly, subsection 732.1(g.1) provides a residual condition under which a court may impose reasonable conditions that are desirable for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into the community. It is only pursuant to this residual provision that a sentencing court has the authority to impose a condition that would limit contact between the victim and the offender, or prevent the offender from moving across the street from the victim. It is a residual provision.

This is why a reform like this is so absolutely necessary. There are some examples in the case law where sentencing courts have imposed conditions restricting contact between offenders and their victims. For instance, in the case of R v. Horton, the offender, a G20 demonstrator, was made subject to a condition of non-contact with a named police officer who was a victim of the offender's actions.

That said, the appellate decision on the use of this provision underlined the problems with respect to its use in limiting contact between offenders and their victims. Specifically, the courts may refuse such conditions if by their nature they act against the successful reintegration of the offender. This is upside down. This is topsy-turvy. This is what we are talking about. We are putting the rights of the person who perpetrated a crime ahead of the rights of a victim. These imbalances need to be addressed in our justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada stressed that in order for the probation order conditions to be lawful, they must not offend the objectives of protecting society or the successful reintegration of the offender. It is saying both are important and have to be given due consideration. Two Supreme Court of Canada cases, R. v. Proulx and R. v. Shoker, were very clear about this principle. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed, the offender's behaviour, the protection of society and the successful reintegration of the offender into society. We are trying to reinstitute that balance to make sure that the victim and protection of society is going to be back in that equation. However, as I said, the offender's interests supersedes the rights of the victim and the protection of society, and that is exactly what we are going to address with this legislation.

A good example of this can be found in the decision of R. v. Rowe, where the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a condition directing a repeat domestic violent offender to stay out of the province of Ontario for the duration of the probation order would be an obstacle to the successful reintegration of the offender, a repeat domestic violent offender. That kind of an order is an obstacle to reintegration. What about the obstacle to the victim? That is what we are trying to put back into focus. This is a problem that makes relying on the existing provision difficult and why we need this reform.

As I stated before, the courts are not required to provide reasons for not imposing such conditions, so we do not even know if that condition was considered by the judge or why the judge considered it and did not impose it. These are the kinds of problems that we have with the existing legislation. As a result of this, non-contact conditions simply fall through the cracks, and victims are asking why no one thought about them, why are they falling through the cracks? These are important reforms.

Bill C-489 proposes a real sound solution to the problem that we are talking about. I go back to this again. What I say often is that it is common sense. When explained to average people on the street that we are making this kind of a change, they are shocked that the law did not provide for this before. They cannot believe it. The justice committee is studying some of the changes to not criminally responsible, and we let them know what some of the changes are. People cannot believe that the changes that we are proposing are not already in existence now.

Bill C-489 proposes to amend the probation provisions to make it mandatory for the courts to impose non-contact conditions, unless there are exceptional circumstances not to do so or unless the victim or other individuals mentioned in the order consent. This is going to give more protection, more mental protection as well, to victims. Imagine that a perpetrator continues to be in contact with a victim of domestic violence. The victim will ask why some kind of prohibition order was not put in place.

Many of the concerns I have identified are applicable to other orders. This is why Bill C-489 proposes that the same types of conditions be mandatory for conditional sentence orders imposed by sentencing courts and for all conditional releases imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.

This bill would also require courts to consider imposing such conditions in all child sex offender peace bonds. This just makes sense. It is a reform that we absolutely need to move forward with.

Victims, their families and witnesses need the protection of the courts and parole authorities when an offender is released into the community. We have to get this done; it is going to provide more safety and ensure that witnesses and victims are protected.

This legislation is consistent with our government's commitment to putting victims' rights back on the agenda. That is why I am proud to support the bill.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course I thank the member for Mississauga South for the question. She is a hard-working member of Parliament.

I will say that many people are supportive of this legislation. I would be doing a disservice to them if I named one and did not name them all. Dozens of organizations support this bill. It received great support at committee. Quite frankly, it is another piece of legislation that is part of the great number of pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward to try to make our streets and communities safer. It is another important tool that we would use to accomplish that goal.

There is a great team on that side of the House, which I am part of, even though I am over here. We make a great team, much like the great team that defeated the parliamentary press gallery in hockey tonight, six to four.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Yes, absolutely, it was a comment. That is the wonderful thing about this place. The member might think that a certain piece of legislation is important to debate, and we might think this is an important piece of legislation to debate. It takes a multitude of people to constitute the House. We are happy to debate this bill; other members might not be happy. That is fine; that is democracy.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

I am still trying to find the question, Mr. Speaker. It seems like—