44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 5, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is with deep humility and a great sense of responsibility that I take up the torch today for indigenous relations and the development of the north and its regions within the Bloc Québécois.
First, I would like to salute my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for her outstanding dedication and hard work on behalf of the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada over the years.
I am committed to working closely with indigenous communities in the years to come and making progress in strengthening their rights and autonomy while fostering equitable nation-to-nation relations, and I am committed to following in the footsteps of my colleague from Manicouagan.
Before turning to the bill at hand, I also want to give a shout-out to the participants of the second edition of the First Nations Expedition, who are, as we speak, about to set off from Témiscaming or Kebaowek. The participants will cover a total of 3,250 kilometres by snowmobile on their way to Wendake, passing through Mashteuiatsh, Rouyn‑Noranda, where they stopped the day before yesterday, Maniwaki, Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, and many other places.
I went to Témiscaming yesterday to meet up with them. Politicians from Témiscamingue of all stripes, so to speak, came out to salute the courage of the participants in this second edition. Participants were selected based on their heightened awareness of the indigenous causes supported by the expedition, as well as their thirst and curiosity to learn more about indigenous nations.
I want draw attention to the two men who came up with the idea. The first is Christian Flamand, an Atikamekw man who spoke passionately yesterday about his commitment and the depth of his convictions. The second is Derek Jeremy Einish, a Naskapi man. Both are motivated by the principles of reconciliation, friendship, respect, solidarity and courage.
The aim of the expedition is to pay tribute to children who attended residential schools, missing and murdered indigenous women, Joyce Echaquan, whose name has come up several times, and children who were taken from their families at birth.
To segue into my thoughts on the bill, I will start by saying hello to a representative of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Billy Shecanapish. We met yesterday and he told me that he has spent his life advocating for water and working with water in indigenous communities. I think that is the perfect segue. I want to say hello to Billy and all those participating in the First Nations Expedition.
For indigenous communities, water is not just about staying hydrated, nor is it simply a commodity or resource. Water is considered sacred, because it is a source of life, knowledge and rights. Water is considered a living entity, with a spirit of its own. Human beings have a responsibility to protect and care for this vital resource from mother earth. In short, water is a symbol of indigenous sovereignty.
That is why I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. After first reading of this bill, I think it is too soon to give my opinion on it, since the first nations are not all in agreement. We still have a lot of questions about the consultations that were held with first nations and about many of the bill's provisions.
When all of that is put together, it may not have the original intended effect. By way of observation, the notion of co-development, when the government and its main partners are not in agreement, says a lot about the current process. With all due respect, this also happened with Bill C-53, so perhaps the government needs to review the mechanism it uses for consulting with first nations in order to make it truly inclusive and have a real dialogue.
On the surface, Bill C‑61 may appear to be a long-awaited response to the ongoing equality issues related to access to water for indigenous people in Quebec and Canada, but the devil is in the details.
I want to talk about the basics of the right to drinking water. Access to a safe, clean source of drinking water is fundamental to life. Unfortunately, many first nations communities across the country face significant barriers to accessing safe drinking water. Since 1977, the government has been promising to provide reserves with water and sanitation services comparable to those available in the majority of similar non-indigenous communities. However, these promises have often gone unfulfilled.
First nations continue to endure a disproportionate share of the consequences of poor water management, water insecurity and lack of access to good quality drinking water, a situation that would be considered intolerable for anyone living off the reserves. For most people living in a G7 nation, it would be frankly unthinkable.
The consequences of water insecurity require no explanation. However, since we are still here debating a bill on water, in the House, in 2024, I will nonetheless speak to the link between water insecurity and the high rate of suicide in many indigenous communities. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that water insecurity and the loss of traditional water-related practices contribute to feelings of anxiety, depression and loss of cultural identity. These factors, in turn, can significantly affect the risk of suicide. In short, access to safe, clean drinking water is essential not only for the physical health of indigenous nations, but for their mental health and cultural vitality as well.
One of the clearest examples of this chronic inequality is the never-ending drinking water advisories on first nations reserves. Despite Canada's fiduciary commitments to provide potable water to first nations, its repeated promises to eliminate these advisories and its international obligations recognizing potable water and clean water as a human right, these advisories have been in place for decades.
It is odd that Canada, a country where water is abundant and easily accessible, is still unable to offer adequate infrastructure for drinking water access and waste water management. Unlike developing countries, Canada is not dealing with a water shortage, seeing as it possesses 20% of the world's freshwater reserves. It is not deficient in resources or dealing with the instability of an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The current situation should be blamed on successive Canadian governments and their chronic negligence toward first nations. The federal government's lack of interest in first nations is obvious when we look at the limiting and discriminatory situation imposed on these communities, leaving them stuck with poor sanitary conditions.
Questions remain. Given these realities, Bill C-61 represents a first step in the right direction.
This enactment affirms that the inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, includes the jurisdiction of First Nations in relation to water.... It sets out principles, such as substantive equality, to guide the provision for First Nations of clean and safe drinking water and the effective treatment and disposal of wastewater on First Nation lands. It provides for minimum standards for water quality and quantity and wastewater effluent. It also provides pathways to facilitate source water protection.
However, as I mentioned earlier, it has not gone unnoticed that we are debating legislation in 2024 to give communities decent access to clean drinking water and proper infrastructure. This bill may seem like a step in the right direction, but it is simply not good enough.
Let us start with the fact that the government's main partners on this bill, the first nations themselves, disagree with the statement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services that the legislation she was working on was the closest the federal government had come to co-developing law with first nations.
The lack of consultation could explain why the bill seems to view free, prior and informed consent, as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a mere suggestion or guiding principle rather than a strict requirement applicable to all aspects of the bill.
How can first nations trust that the government will consult them on the provisions of this bill, if the government cannot even consult them when the bill is first drafted?
This bill does confirm that water on, in and under first nation lands is part of first nation lands, providing a strong bulwark against provincial land claims. Subclause 6(1) of Bill C‑61 explicitly recognizes that first nations have an “inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” with respect to “water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nations lands.”
The terminology in this section, which refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly establishes that first nations' right to self-government over water on reserve lands constitutes recognition of a constitutionally protected right, not simply authority conferred by law. The fact that the words “water” and “source water” are added means that first nations have complete control over water of any kind on their reserve lands.
The protection of source water is crucial to ensuring that first nations have access to quality drinking water, which supports economic development and helps preserve indigenous rights and cultural practices. Although the bill talks about protecting source water, it does not lay out any specific requirements for protecting it.
On the contrary, both the control and protection of source water remain vulnerable in the provincial and federal agreements required by paragraph 6(1)(b). This does not provide adequate authority to first nations for protecting water sources. First nations will have limited jurisdiction over source water, given that this jurisdiction depends on the agreement between the federal government and the respective provincial or territorial government for coordinating the enforcement of first nations legislation. This is problematic, because water protection varies considerably from one province to another. Also, this bill could always serve as a way for the federal government to shirk its responsibilities to its indigenous partners. Giving first nations considerable power perpetuates concerns about a somewhat disengaged federal government.
Bill C‑61 does not even recognize the basic human right to clean drinking water. Meanwhile, the bill cites the principle of substantive equality in paragraph 5(2)(a) which states that “the distinct needs of First Nations for reliable access to water services must be addressed in a way that respects First Nations rights and their access must be comparable to that in non-Indigenous communities”. Substantive equality is not, in itself, a right to good-quality drinking water. In fact, Canada's refusal to recognize the right to safe drinking water goes against its stated commitment in favour of the right to safe drinking water as a fundamental right within the United Nations.
I want to talk about Kitcisakik, which is located in the riding of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would like to talk about a community in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This indigenous community has been without running water and electricity for years now. Thanks to Quebec's recent commitment, the community will finally be connected to the power grid over the next three years. Unfortunately, the community of Kitcisakik will remain without access to water. Because the water table is too high, it is impossible to dig on site and build the necessary infrastructure, making access to running water impossible. Only the communal showers and the band office have access to this precious blue gold.
Moreover, Kitcisakik has dreamed for the past 30 years of building its new village, Wanaki, which means “land of peace” in the indigenous language. In this way, it could finally acquire modern facilities and infrastructure. This brings me to a key aspect of this issue. To develop water management infrastructure requires considerable, recurring and predictable funding. Historically, this has never been the case. From 2015 to 2018, $146 million was allocated annually to fund this type of infrastructure. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2017, it would have taken $361 million a year to fund and maintain first nations' drinking water and waste-water systems. The government covered only 40% of the estimated needs.
Once again, I will talk about my region to demonstrate the impact. Maintenance and construction costs are much higher in the regions, and that forces communities to make heart-wrenching decisions. In February 2021, the Abitibiwinni nation on the Pikogan reserve near Amos reported that it was finding it difficult to allocate the funds needed to maintain and run its water and waste-water systems. It is difficult for a community to have to choose between maintaining its infrastructure, water and waste-water systems and roads, and fostering economic and social development when the envelopes are simply not there. We should keep in mind that, in remote regions, the cost of every repair is higher because of the distances involved, the labour shortage and the competition from mining companies in the construction sector.
From reading the bill, we get the impression it seeks to tackle inadequate funding. However, the language used is superficial, requiring only that the government provide “funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures” set out in the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Settlement Agreement.
The funding provisions in the bill simply do not go far enough to guarantee sufficient funding for first nations. According to clause 26 of this bill, the Government of Canada is content to make “best efforts” to provide adequate funding for water services and to offset the actual costs to first nations of water and sanitation services.
That is a gateway to inaction. The term “best efforts” allows the government to shirk its responsibility to provide First Nations with real access to clean, safe drinking water.
If the minister can simply claim to have done their best to make sure a community has access to water, and the community still does not have access to drinking water, that is legal under the terms proposed by this piece of legislation. That is unacceptable. It is a shirking of responsibility toward our indigenous constituents, and we cannot tolerate such negligence.
I will remind members that the investigation conducted by the Institute for Investigative Journalism at Concordia University revealed that Indigenous Services Canada funded only 33% of the needs of the community of Kebaowek, located in my riding, while the federal government should have contributed 80%. No matter the infrastructure, if the federal government does not do its part, it is unrealistic to think that first nations will be able to meet expectations.
The drinking water problem is also affecting non-indigenous communities. Take, for example, the municipality of Laverlochère-Angliers in the Témiscamingue region. Its inhabitants do not have access to drinking water because it is just too expensive for a community of about 300.
Some 30% of the population of Abitibi—Témiscamingue gets its water from private wells. A study conducted by the Direction régionale de santé publique showed the presence of arsenic in the private wells. It validated the hypothesis that the contaminated wells were associated with a certain type of rock often found near gold deposits. Some of the private wells were dug in gold deposits, so their water contains arsenic. It is important for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities to understand the geology of our region so as to reduce the risk of contamination.
It is also important to remember that, according to a survey conducted by the Abitibi—Témiscamingue public health directorate, four out of five households had not cleaned or disinfected their wells in the past five years.
This is another important point that needs to be included in this bill. How can we fund prevention if indigenous communities opt to dig their own wells? These are important things to think about.
In conclusion, I would say that we are at a crucial point in time and that we must seriously consider the future of access to drinking water in Quebec and Canadian indigenous communities. Although imperfect, Bill C-61 is an attempt to do something about the persistent inequalities experienced by indigenous peoples when it comes to access to drinking water.
However, despite its good intentions, it fails to address basic concerns. The issue of a real and meaningful consultation of first nations is still up in the air, casting a shadow on the legitimacy of this legislative measure. In addition, the funding provisions fail to guarantee sufficient resources to adequately meet the needs of indigenous communities.
We cannot overlook how unacceptable it is that, in 2024, we still have to stand here and talk about the need to ensure access to clean drinking water and decent infrastructure. This highlights the government's ongoing failure to deliver on its commitments to indigenous nations.
As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that every citizen has equitable access to an essential part of life, namely drinking water. Bill C-61 is an opportunity to improve the situation, but it needs to be strengthened and adjusted to truly meet the needs, demands and rights of first nations.
We must take urgent action and firmly resolve to put an end to this unacceptable situation. Access to clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right, and we must not tolerate any further delay in making that a reality for everyone. The House's commitment to reconciliation and to indigenous peoples requires that we take bold action to ensure that every indigenous and non-indigenous community has a future and can thrive with dignity and fairness.
3014 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 1:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his commitment to first nations and for his question.
I will answer it by pointing out that the Minister of Indigenous Services was asked to release a list of the first nations and organizations that were consulted about the bill. That request went nowhere, and instead the minister stated that all first nations had received the bill, as well as a second one based on consultations with communities.
We obviously need to ensure that consultations have indeed taken place, in a spirit of consultation, not simply sharing information.
Take the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, as an example. Its members must be able to take part in the process and have their say, particularly when it comes to first nations located in Quebec. That is what nation-to-nation dialogue is all about. It is an interesting principle, but the government needs to walk the talk.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 1:28:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was an excellent brief question because it leads me to point out the importance of first nations self-governance. Funding is key, but it must be significant, recurring and predictable.
Let us talk about Quebec's water policy. Quebec made that policy a fundamental law. Based on my discussions with first nations back home, I would say that if the federal government wants to take meaningful action, it should allow first nations to be subject to the provincial legislation, which is already very progressive. If the government stopped encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, that might help Quebec protect water.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Under-18 Curling Championships kick off this week, and the riding of Jonquière will be represented in Ottawa by the Fortin-Lafrance team from Kénogami.
This team was named Curling Québec's team of the year for the 2021-22 season and are sure to do our region proud. This year is particularly special for the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and me, because the two teams representing Quebec in Ottawa are from our magnificent region, which just goes to show how much talent we have back home. We are so proud to see these young athletes come here to represent Quebec and showcase the next generation of athletes from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
I would like to close by wishing Jolianne, Megan, Mégane, Emy and their coach Brandon the best of luck in this tournament, on behalf of myself and everyone in Jonquière. Congratulations to the team. They have our full support.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:25:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to asylum seekers, the Liberals are laughing at Quebeckers.
Not only has the Liberal government yet to reimburse the $470 million it has owed Quebeckers since 2021, but to top it off, it plans to give Toronto $143 million to house future asylum seekers while allocating only $100 million for the whole of Quebec.
This file has been nothing but one injustice after another. Ottawa is not reimbursing what it already owes Quebec, and now Quebec will not even get its fair share for the future.
Enough is enough. The Liberals have made fools of Quebeckers long enough.
Where is our $470 million?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:25:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is the only one who thinks that $70 million, $50 million and $100 million is just small change. That money is very important to the asylum seekers who will end up in Quebec.
As the member knows full well, we have a good relationship with the Government of Quebec. We are going to act the way a responsible government should and work with them. Quebec's finance minister will speak with Canada's Minister of Finance today. Our great relationship will carry on.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that great relationship exists only in his imagination.
Toronto got $143 million to house future asylum seekers, but all of Quebec got only $100 million.
On top of that, none of Quebec's demands have been met: The $470 million debt has not been repaid, there is no plan to distribute newcomers across the provinces, and there is no visa requirement for Mexicans, no promise to process claimants' files more quickly, no commitment to approving work permits within reasonable timeframes, no one answering the call when the Liberals are asked to do their job. They are always there to lecture, but never there to work.
When are they going to wake up?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:26:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members are acting like back-seat drivers, as they often do.
Quebec received $50 million, along with another $100 million to house asylum seekers, and that is this year alone.
The Bloc Québécois picks any old statistic it likes and draws whatever conclusion it chooses. The Bloc Québécois is just a bunch of back-seat drivers.
In the meantime, we will work with the Quebec government to do our job, and we will do that job of meeting the needs of asylum seekers properly and responsibly.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:34:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition will have the opportunity to vote on a Conservative motion to cancel the April 1 carbon tax increase.
With 800,000 Quebeckers lining up at food banks every month, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals think it is a good idea to raise taxes. What is worse, the Bloc members want to drastically increase the carbon tax, which has a direct impact on the cost of groceries in Quebec.
Who will have the courage to vote against the Bloc-Liberal ideology this afternoon in order to leave more money in the pockets of families and reduce the lineups at food banks?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:35:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because the Quebec government has had a cap-and-trade system in place for over a decade. If he wants to speak with Premier François Legault, I would be happy to give him his contact information. This is not federal pricing
Let us talk about what the Conservatives are doing. Last month, they voted against the climate action fund to support sustainable agriculture, against the dairy innovation and investment fund and against funding to help supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg farmers. That is what the Conservatives have done.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:39:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I would like to remind her that this was not the first but the second extension that we gave to all businesses, and that there is no business that cannot get support from the government. If they cannot pay back their loan, we will guarantee that loan for three years at an interest rate of 5%, which means that they have to reimburse about $250 a month.
Not only that, but Canada Economic Development is looking to the future. I just made announcements in Drummondville, Sherbrooke and a number of regions in Quebec. We will continue to support businesses in making the much-needed green transition.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:55:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Americans are still unfairly attacking our softwood lumber industry. Just last Thursday they officially announced plans to increase their illegal tariffs to almost 14% starting next summer.
Obviously, Ottawa needs to stand up for Quebec's forestry industry, but it will take more than mere words to end the crisis. Ottawa has to provide a loan and loan guarantee program sufficient to cover the amounts unfairly withheld by Washington.
Will Ottawa agree to our proposal, to protect our businesses and our workers?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 2:56:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the time for talk is over. We need loans and loan guarantees to cover the illegal duties. We need to better oversee the CUSMA litigation process to prevent unfair delay tactics. We need to demand a tax exemption for private forests that have nothing to do with the Americans' allegations. We also need to obtain recognition from Washington that Quebec's forestry system is in compliance with free trade requirements.
We are willing to work with the government, but it will have to take action. What is it waiting for?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:49:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to echo my colleagues' most recent comments, I think it is a shame to see the Conservatives sending such a negative message not only to Canada and Quebec, but also to the world by saying that we are not unanimous in our support of Ukraine.
This is a very simple agreement. In fact, it updates a temporary agreement that was already in place. It implements some important things, including procedures to combat corruption, which is a significant improvement. We know that there is corruption in that corner of the world too. Post-war reconstruction will be massive. It is important that this be implemented.
I would like my colleague to tell us about it.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
