Stella Ambler

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because it gives me an opportunity to say that the priority of this government is for that $3 billion to go into training and infrastructure. I mentioned the circuit rider training program in my remarks. This is so that operators on first nations can be trained to do what is necessary because, as we have found, if operators are trained elsewhere or come from off site, when they come to the reserve and try to fit in, it often does not work as well as if someone from the first nation community actually learns about the process and is able to do it himself or herself. Those are the kinds of investments we are making.

I also talked about the 286 projects that are planned for 2013. These are new plans. I wish that the member had been at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when the Canadian Bar Association talked about the fact that funding was needed for this. In my question to the witness from the CBA I was able to outline, because I happened to have the numbers right in front of me, all of the funding that has gone into this topic for the last seven years. I am so proud of what this government has done to support clean water on first nations reserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member opposite may not have heard all of my comments.

The $330 million committed was simply over two years, and that was in budget 2012.

Between 2006 and 2014, the Government of Canada will have invested approximately three billion—that is billion with a B—dollars to support delivery of drinking water and waste water systems in first nations.

While there is no mention of funding in this legislation, that is simply because this is enabling legislation. It is about the regulations ensuring that those Canadians who live on first nations have access to the same standards that the rest of us Canadians know we can rely on for safe drinking water every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House about Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, a piece of legislation that deserves the full support of this House.

The proposed legislation is a crucial component of an integrated plan to resolve an issue that has persisted for far too many years and that threatens the health of tens of thousands of Canadians. Until regulations and standards are in place, the safety and quality of the water in first nations communities will remain at risk, posing a significant health risk.

I call on the opposition to stop stalling and to vote in support of this important legislation.

The long-term plan to improve the quality of drinking water in first nations communities is based on three pillars: capacity-building and operator training; investments in water and waste water infrastructure; and enforceable standards and protocols, which would be this legislation. Each of these pillars is designed to contribute in a specific way to the larger goal, which is access to safe drinking water for all first nations communities.

Improving operator training and community capacity is a case in point. One of the key problems identified in several studies on drinking water in first nations communities was the lack of capacity to operate and maintain water and waste water treatment facilities. In many case, there are simply not enough trained operators available to keep facilities running properly. Without trained and certified operators, any water system, regardless of where it is located, is unlikely to produce safe drinking water over the long term. The challenge is even greater when the system is in a remote part of the country, as so many first nations communities are. It is notoriously difficult to attract qualified workers and to retain them in these remote communities. This is true for a wide range of occupations. The remoteness of a community also contributes to delays in obtaining supplies, replacement parts and qualified repair technicians, which in turn can cause the system components to wear out more quickly.

The best way to address these challenges is to train and employ community residents, because they have a personal stake in ensuring the availability of safe, clean and reliable drinking water in their own communities. This is precisely what the circuit rider training program does.

Under this highly successful program, trainers travel to first nations communities and provide system operators with on-site, hands-on training on how to operate, maintain and monitor water and waste water systems. To increase the number of trained and certified operators, our government invests approximately $10 million each year in this program. Thanks to the circuit rider training program, there are now more trained and certified system operators than ever before.

In 2011, the national assessment determined that operators with the appropriate level of certification managed only 51% of first nations' water systems and 42% of first nations' waste water systems. One year later, annual performance inspections of the same systems concluded that these numbers had increased to 60% and 54% respectively.

Obviously, systems operated by properly trained and certified staff are more likely to consistently produce safe drinking water.

Less obvious, perhaps, are two other important benefits. First, properly trained operators are better able to ensure that facilities function effectively throughout their expected service life, maximizing the value of the infrastructure investments. Another benefit is that trained and certified operators will be better able to ensure that their systems can meet future regulatory standards.

Even the best qualified operators would struggle to consistently produce safe drinking water if they had to work with outdated or unserviceable equipment. That is why investments in water system infrastructure represent the second pillar in the Government of Canada's strategy to improve the quality of drinking water in first nations communities. Between 2006 and 2014, our government will have invested approximately $3 billion in water and waste water infrastructure in first nations communities. Economic action plan 2012 included more than $330 million over two years to build and renovate water and waste water infrastructure.

In this 2012-13 fiscal year alone, this investment supported some 286 major water and waste water infrastructure projects in first nation communities across the country. The government would continue to provide funding so that first nations could improve the quality of their water system infrastructure.

To get the full value of infrastructure investments, however, water systems must also be supported by enforceable regulations. That is what we are talking about today. These regulations would specify treatment standards, testing protocols, allowable levels of contaminants and all of the other factors that help define safe drinking water.

Regulations would foster accountability and provide community residents with the assurance they need to trust the water that comes out of their tap. Delivering safe drinking water on a consistent basis would require a chain of interventions: sources must be protected, for instance; and water must be filtered, treated and tested. Although these processes may vary, based upon the quality of the source water and the size of the distribution network, they must all be solid. Also, like all chains, the one that safeguards drinking water is only as strong as its weakest link.

Regulations would represent a key component of the overall process. They would specify science-based standards for quality testing, treatment protocols and other factors. Regulations would also assign responsibility for specific tasks. The organizations, such as municipal utilities, that supply water to the public must abide by these regulations.

Without regulations, there could be no assurance of the safety of drinking water in first nation communities. Regulations would provide the overarching framework of a drinking water system and guide the efforts of everyone involved in the system.

Bill S-8 would include a mechanism to establish regulatory regimes concerning the drinking water systems in first nation communities. This it the third pillar of the plan. The regimes would include rigorous standards and protocols and promote the accountability necessary to ensure that first nation communities have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

To develop regulations, the legislation calls for a collaborative, region-by-region approach. In each region, first nations, the Government of Canada and other stakeholder groups would, together, design a regulatory regime tailored to local circumstances. The regulations used in nearby communities, such as provincial regimes, would serve as valuable guidelines.

I believe there is a tremendous value in this approach, because existing regulations are typically informed by the real-world challenges of producing water in a particular part of the country—challenges such as geography, weather and the quality and availability of water sources.

All three pillars must be in place to ensure that residents of first nation communities can access safe drinking water on a consistent and reliable basis. Operators must be properly trained; facilities must be functional; and standards, guidelines and protocols must be backed by regulations that must be in place.

Considerable progress has been made on all of these during the past seven years. The legislation now before us would support further progress.

Bill S-8 would be an essential part of a sensible, practical and balanced plan to improve the quality of drinking water and protect the long-term health of tens of thousands of Canadians.

Currently, laws are in place to protect the safety of drinking water accessed by every other Canadian, except for those living on reserve.

I call upon the opposition to stand up for first nations across this country and support Bill S-8.

[Telecommunications Industry, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal Party's industry critic criticized our government's decision to promote competition so Canadian consumers could benefit from more choices and lower wireless prices.

Frankly, this is not surprising. After all, the Liberal leader does not have to look far to find inspiration in the 1970s era Liberal monopolies that hurt the economy and Canadians.

By contrast, will the Minister of Industry explain to the House how our government's decision will benefit consumers?

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have talked about this and I know how much the member cares about the issue and wants it to be resolved. I am so pleased that he will be supporting the bill.

I want to thank him for that question because I want to say that this is about respect. It is respect for first nations to be able to develop their own laws on this subject.

However, it also means that this government, through this bill, is respecting cultural differences and respecting any social traditions or cultural traditions that first nations want to incorporate into their own legislation. It does that as well. It is because we recognize that there is diversity among first nations that we would have this 12-month transition period, for example, so that they can do exactly that and implement the best law for their own communities.

However, I mainly want to tell the member about Rolanda Manitowabi, who came to the status of women committee and said:

...my son and I were thrown out of the house. I had no place to go. I was in a crisis. ... This legislation would have helped...and it would have considered the impacts on my son. I hope it's available to help other women and children on reserves.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think 20 or 25 years to debate an issue like this one, which would grant aboriginal women the same rights that I and the member opposite have and take for granted, is too long.

That said, there has been a lot of consultation on the bill. I could tell members about the consultation that began in 2005 and consisted of four phases, including national consultation, consensus-building and engagement on draft legislation. Organizations were provided with over $8 million in total to conduct these consultations, but more important, I think, is that many people on reserve—many first nations leaders and many aboriginal men and women—support the legislation. I will tell members more about them if I get a chance to answer the next question.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to speak in support of Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

The legislation before us has been crafted to meet the specific challenges presented by the fact that over two decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that provincial or territorial matrimonial real property does not apply to first nations reserve lands.

I feel particularly proud as a member of both the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. That is the committee that was fortunate enough to hear about this bill in detail and to hear from some of the victims and those people who supported the bill. We also heard from those in opposition to the bill. I want to address some of those comments, which I am hearing today from the opposition as well.

I find it shameful that there are people in this House who would not vote for this bill. It addresses a long-standing legislative gap with regard to matrimonial property rights. As the Minister of Health just stated, this is long overdue.

I want to talk about a mechanism in the bill that would provide for courts of law to apply matrimonial real property laws on reserve where there are none.

Specifically, I want to talk about the fact that first nations could develop their own laws if they so wish. They could do that while meeting the specific needs of their communities. First nations could determine the content themselves with the help of their councils and leadership. What they would need to do is earn the majority support among eligible members in a public vote. This process is public and out in the open. That is a very important provision in the bill.

Another important provision is the 12-month transition period that was added in direct response to a request from first nations to have it built in. We know that many first nations are quite advanced in developing their own laws, so this allows them a 12-month period to do so before the provisional federal rules would take place. If that is the case, 12 months after Bill S-2 comes into force, the provisional federal rules would come into effect so that those communities that had yet to enact a law of their own under Bill S-2 or some other legislation such as the First Nations Land Management Act would also have a law on this subject. All first nations citizens would have access to the same protections and rights as I and other Canadians have, regardless of where they live in Canada. This is the right thing for us to do.

It is important to recognize that Bill S-2 would not require first nations to enact laws that are identical to the federal rules. To do so would essentially defeat much of the collaborative work that has gone into the proposed legislation, which is years of analysis, consultation and engagement.

Through these collaborative efforts, a clear consensus emerged that first nations must be able to develop their own laws on the issue if they so wish. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this provision. First nations could enact laws tailored to their needs and cultural traditions. As an example of how a first nation could personalize the law, it could grant a role to a council of elders to resolve disputes.

In the case where a first nation does not pass its own laws related to matrimonial real property, the bill would provide for the application of provisional federal rules. That would be fine too. First and foremost, these federal rules are designed to protect individuals who have far too often been victimized by the lack of relevant law, particularly women and children. The federal rules would provide spouses or common-law partners with an equal entitlement to occupy the family home. Should the relationship end, each spouse or partner would be entitled to equal shares of the value of all matrimonial interests and rights, including the family home.The rules would also ensure that the family home could not be sold or remortgaged without the consent of both spouses or partners.

These provisions would prevent a scenario that has become all too common in recent years: one partner or spouse sells the family home and keeps the proceeds, leaving the other partner or spouse impoverished and homeless.

We heard this situation time and again in the status of women committee. It was heartbreaking to hear these women. Their lives will never be the same. Some of them are still paying their fair share of this family home that they have been thrown out of by their former partners. It is shocking. It really is.

I want to talk about two other provisions in the bill that would do much to protect family members when there is violence as well.

The first involves emergency protection orders. We have heard the Minister for Status of Women talk about these provisions often, because she knows how effective they would be in dealing with this issue. Specifically, the order would be issued by a court and would be enforceable by police or peace officers. It would exclude a spouse or common-law partner from the family home for up to 90 days, with the possibility of an extension if necessary. The orders would be made in urgent situations when violence has occurred or is imminent.

A second and similar instrument would be the exclusive occupation order, also in the bill. This would again be fully a enforceable court order that excludes a spouse or partner from the family home for a specified term.

In both cases, the excluded spouse or common-law partner would be able to contest the order in court.

Also, the federal rules proposed in Bill S-2 would address the often difficult issue of who can occupy the family home after a spouse or common-law partner passes away. As unfair as it seems, there have been cases in which a widower has been forced out of the home upon the death of his wife. Therefore, under this proposed federal regime, the surviving spouse or common-law partner could remain in the home for at least 180 days.

The government believes that what has been proposed would also balance individual rights and interests with collective rights of first nations. Bill S-2 stipulates that a first nation would have the right to make representation to the court on its collective rights on its reserve land as well as on any relevant cultural, social or legal matters not relevant to a case heard under the federal rules. This provision would not apply, however, in cases involving emergency or confidentiality orders, which I believe is entirely appropriate, given that emergency orders can sometimes involve life-threatening situations.

I believe that there is built into this bill respect for the collective rights of first nations. For example, non-members would not be allowed to acquire permanent interests in reserve land, nor would they be able to benefit from the value or appreciation of that land.

There would be one exception, which is that if a non-member has contributed to the improvement of the land that he or she held together with a former spouse, that person may be entitled to some compensation. That entitlement would apply only to improvements, not to the original value of the land.

Finally, this is the fourth version of a bill that has come before Parliament on this issue. Bill S-2 includes amendments, making the previous bills even better, and of course extensive consultation took place.

I echo the words of the Minister of Health when I say that it is time to stop debating this issue and time to take action. It is time to pass this bill.

The legislative gap has hurt families and entire communities, and there have been individuals on first nations for more than 25 years without the same rights that I and other members enjoy. Let us stop the pain and suffering caused by this legislative gap. This pain and suffering can often lead to homelessness and poverty. Again, this measure is long overdue. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to join me in supporting this legislation, Bill S-2.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Brampton West. I am wondering if he knows of any outside organizations that are supportive of these amendments and if he could tell us what some of the third party stakeholders and organizations have said about these changes.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague across the way does not like debating things that we all agree on, then maybe she will vote for the next time allocation motion. That way we can go home at 11 o'clock tonight instead of midnight.

In the meantime, I want to tell her what Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto Police Services had to say about Bill C-51. Toronto is in close proximity to my riding of Mississauga South. He said:

In Toronto, we have seen the fear caused by intimidation and the threat of retaliation in gang investigations. Witnesses with valuable information are deterred from coming forward. We support the government's initiative as a valuable step in protecting public safety.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that on March 19 at committee meeting 76, Dr. Mukherjee, president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, said that both he and his colleague support the principle of the legislation.

I think the hon. member's concerns regarding resources are unfounded. In fact, the RCMP Assistant Commissioner of federal and international operations, Assistant Commissioner Todd Shean, said,

[w]ith the changes this bill brings about, the RCMP is comfortable that we have the resources within our existing resources to run an effective witness protection program

He also said,

It's not a question of resources; it's a question of the assessment that's done. Once the assessment is completed...during the assessment process the person may decide that they dodo not want to enter into the program...or...that they are not suitable for the program.

However, the RCMP has clearly said that resources are not the issue.