OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 275 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, February 5, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 5, 2024 DEBATES No. 275 No. 275 N o 275 Volume 151 275 05 02 2024 2024/02/05 11:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayer

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business

(1105) [ English ] Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Motion

The House resumed from November 7, 2023, consideration of the motion.

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time this session to represent the people of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and to speak to the matter about which many of my constituents are passionate, and that is Motion No. 86 on a citizens' assembly on electoral reform, sponsored by the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and jointly seconded by me and 20 other members of Parliament.

The motion calls for the creation of a citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which, in turn, would determine whether electoral reform is recommended in the Canadian context and make suggestions as to how the electoral system could be improved. We must address voter apathy and lack of trust in our electoral system. When young people say that they do not vote because their vote is not going to make a difference in what the government looks like after the election, we need change.

When people in certain regions in the country feel that they are not represented because most of their elected representatives are from a party that has drastically different views from theirs, we need change. When certain groups of Canadians do not feel welcomed or able to participate in our parliamentary system, which is oppositional and largely the legacy of male white settlers and colonialists, we need change. When qualified individuals who want to help make our country a better place opt out due to the polarization and abuse fostered by our current system, we need change.

When the only way to inflict policy is to demonize and overthrow the existing government rather than to collaborate and work together to come up with the best solutions to help Canadians, we need change. We know we need change, and over 75% of Canadians agree and support electoral reform. How do we get it and why a citizens' assembly? We know that a citizens' assembly is made up of representatives of non-elected Canadians, a wide range of Canadians from across the country, who can be chosen by subgroups to represent every group across our country.

It is selected like a jury, with steps taken to ensure representation of the population. It can look at a broad range of reforms and options for reform, and the findings can either be referred to government or we can go to a referendum. There are different options, depending on how we proceed. We have already seen that trying to find consensus on election reform through the usual order of business in government procedures has failed. In 2015, it was the will of this government to implement electoral reform, but the process found consensus only on retaining the status quo.

While the intention was to create a more representative and responsive democratic process, achieving consensus on a specific alternative proved elusive. However, Canadians still want electoral reform. It may not be the most urgent issue facing us today, but it is an extremely important one to the future of our democracy and our country. There are always going to be more urgent issues. After trying to find a way to change our electoral system, the government was confronted with many challenges, including a change in the government to the south of the border, which posed many challenges to our government.

We then went into the COVID pandemic, and that took up a lot of urgent attention. Then there have been wars like in Ukraine and now the Middle East. There is the affordability crisis in the post-COVID economy. There are always more urgent issues for the government of the day to deal with, so trying to address this important issue through the normal course of business is very difficult, and we have to find another way to do it. This is one of the reasons why a citizens' assembly is the way to proceed. It would allow for the issue to be re-examined in a way that goes beyond electoral cycles and parties.

It could lead to better outcomes based on evidence. The participants would develop an in-depth understanding of the issue by listening to experts who share their knowledge with the assembly. They would aim to reach a consensus and make recommendations, either to Parliament, where negotiations and compromise could continue to reach a multiparty agreement, or through a referendum. It would provide legitimacy in making hard decisions and build trust in government and democratic institutions.

A citizens' assembly allows for ordinary Canadians to participate directly in government by discussion, which is one of the hallmarks of a parliamentary system, one that has been on the decline over the past decades, a decline that has coincided with the rise in conspiracy theories. To quote Rob Goodman in his recent book Not Here :

...the rise of the conspiracy theory to the dominant style on the Canadian right, from [the Leader of the Opposition] (“They've been following you to the pharmacy, to your family visits, even to your beer runs”) to [another member] (the World Economic Forum is “actually talking about putting microchips in our bodies and in our heads") to Maxime Bernier ("A FUTURE WORLD GOVERNMENT . . . WILL DESTROY CANADA”).

It is not a novel point to observe that these sorts of messages are delivered, without fear of contradiction, to siloed and bunkered audiences, that they grow in the dark like mold, that they couldn't bear even a minute of scrutiny. Yet they are a baroque and unreal projection of the very real fact that meaningful politics is conducted far out of ordinary earshot.

A citizens' assembly would allow discussions to be conducted in the earshot of Canadians. What better way to combat this trend than to use a citizens' assembly where ordinary citizens are engaged in discussion to tackle some of the divisive and politically difficult issues of the day, such as electoral reform? Citizens' assemblies have been used in Canada, in Ontario and British Columbia, and around the world in many countries, such as Ireland, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain to name a few, on a number of different topics.

Even though the citizens' assemblies that were in Canada, in Ontario or B.C., did not result in changes, they were very robust and well-received assemblies that brought forth some good suggestions. We can change the way these work so that we can actually act on the suggestions that come forward. With the increasing polarization and extremism in Canada, we need less confrontation and more co-operation. We need to find a way to ensure better representation of all Canadians. As Canada evolves, our electoral system must accommodate the changes to ensure a robust democracy.

Our parliamentary system, while having evolved somewhat over the years, was developed in a very different time. Since then, women and indigenous people, to name two groups, have been given the vote. However, Canada's institutions of government have not changed dramatically to accommodate these groups or facilitate their full participation. We adopted our own flag under former prime minister Lester B. Pearson. We repatriated our Constitution and adopted a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, recognizing the changing nature of our country.

Our electoral system should also change so that our government better reflects the changes in our society. While our parliamentary monarchy has served us well, we should consider whether a parliamentary public system might be better suited to the Canada of today, a natural evolution from the repatriation of the Constitution to the development of our own written charter. Would proportional representation, such as Iceland has, or a mixed proportional system, such as Germany or New Zealand have, better serve the interest of all Canadians? These questions need to be addressed.

Motion No 86 is not merely a proposal; it is a declaration of our commitment to a democracy that is inclusive, representative and resilient. By supporting the establishment of a citizens' assembly, we are taking a bold step toward a more just and equitable Canada, one where the votes of the many guide the decisions that shape our collective destiny. In our diverse and vibrant democracy, it is imperative that the voices of all citizens are not only heard but are actively incorporated into decision making.

The citizens' assembly envisioned by Motion No. 86 would serve as a powerful mechanism for fostering inclusivity, ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of background or affiliation, would have a genuine opportunity to contribute to shaping the future of our nation. To quote Ernest Naville, a Swiss philosopher and theologian, “The right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right of representation belongs to all.”

(1110) Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 86, which calls on the government to establish a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. While I appreciate the spirit in which the motion has been put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith , I am unable to support it for reasons that I will set out. I would acknowledge that a citizens' assembly can play a constructive role in making recommendations around alternative electoral systems. After all, a citizens' assembly is comprised of non-partisan private citizens who are selected randomly as part of a lottery process.

Accordingly, a citizens' assembly is well positioned to consult, to deliberate and to design alternative electoral systems. Indeed, citizens' assemblies have played precisely this role twice in Canada, in British Columbia and in Ontario, in 2004 and 2006 respectively. However, the motion does not precisely call for that.

Rather, it calls for the establishment of a citizens' assembly with a mandate to “determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.” Based on the wording of the motion, if the citizens' assembly determined that electoral reform were desirable, presumably it would go about making recommendations on alternative systems, but the wording on its face is somewhat ambiguous. It is not clear.

What is clear is what is missing from the motion, and that is any mention that there be a referendum of Canadians to decide whether to adopt any new electoral system. A citizens' assembly on its own is completely insufficient to determine any new electoral system. Likewise, I would submit it would be inappropriate for politicians to make such a determination, for example, by way of a bill introduced in Parliament, having regard for the fact that all of us have partisan political interests that would influence decisions around the design of any new electoral system. Nothing short of a referendum will suffice.

A referendum is needed in order that any new electoral system have the moral weight and legitimacy that would be needed. Indeed, anything less would likely cast doubts among segments of Canadians that certain partisan actors had taken advantage or manipulated the electoral system for partisan or ideological gain, which would undermine democracy and undermine confidence in any new electoral system. Therefore, I cannot support the motion on that basis.

I cannot support a motion that could be construed as recommending a process whereby a citizens' assembly on its own would determine a new electoral system as opposed to merely recommending alternative electoral systems. With that, I would like to make a few observations more broadly on the matter of electoral reform. Proponents of this motion make the case that this is something that Canadians want. Indeed, within the motion itself, a poll is cited that indicates a sizable percentage of Canadians would like to see a citizens' assembly.

I would respectively fully question whether this is something that Canadians want, and I question it not on the basis of a poll but on the results of votes of Canadians in seven referendums held over the past 20 years in three provinces. In five out of seven referendums, Canadians, given the choice, have voted against electoral reform and in favour of the status quo, first-past-the-post system.

(1115) The only referendum in which a clear majority of voters elected to adopt a new electoral system was in the 2005 referendum in British Columbia in which 57% of voters gave the green light for electoral reform, but it did not meet the threshold for implementation. There were two subsequent referendums in British Columbia in which more than 60% of voters opted for the status quo. Although it may be unfashionable to say, perhaps the reason voters have opted for the status quo is that the first-past-the-post electoral system has served Canadian democracy well.

There are many merits to the first-past-the-post electoral system, including that it is straightforward. It can best be summed up as this: the candidate with the most votes wins. What could be more straightforward than that? It is also inherently democratic. It is based on the premise that each voter is equal; one person, one vote with each vote weighted equally. That is in contrast to alternative systems where some votes count more than once, based on second and third ballot choices for example.

As former prime minister, the current secretary of foreign affairs in the United Kingdom, David Cameron observed in a column he wrote in The Telegraph in 2011, the first-past-the-post system produces winners

whereas alternative voting systems, in some instances, produce winners out of losers, in the sense that candidates who, in some instances, placed second or third out of first-ballot rankings end up winning. Further, first past the post is efficient and transparent. It tends to produce decisive results. Canadians learn, more or less, on election night what kind of government they are going to get. That is in contrast to many European countries where governments are formed weeks, sometimes months, after election night. That is not efficient. That is not transparent and, I would submit, it is not democratic.

First past the post ensures accountability; it is heavy on accountability. When Canadians decide that it is time for a change, time to change the government, first past the post tends to produce such an outcome, and it provides accountability by connecting members of Parliament with their electors and their constituents. That is in contrast to other electoral systems where, for example, members are elected based on being on a party list. Those are just some of the many reasons the first-past-the-post system is a system that has worked.

I would submit that it is not by accident that Canada is one of the most stable and strong democracies in the world. I do not think it is an accident that we have seen, for more than 150 years, the peaceful transfer of power. Very simply, if the system is not broken, then there is no need to fix it.

(1120) [ Translation ]

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 86. We have been talking about electoral reform for a long time. Many political parties have pledged to reform the electoral system in all sorts of ways, or said, before forming government, that they were going to undertake public consultations leading up to this reform. Unfortunately, for reasons we need not go into here, this never happened. Several parties abandoned this electoral promise, among many others, after getting elected.

The motion proposes an original approach that may lead us down a different path from the one we have taken in the past, which has led us nowhere since we are still having the same debate. It is about creating citizens' assemblies that would prompt reflection and bring forth a proposal for electoral reform. It is a very democratic way of bringing citizens together to propose solutions. There are elements of the motion that I would like to talk about. First, it says that election results often do not reflect the will of the voters.

All anyone has to do is look at the election results we often get in Canada, the provinces and Quebec, to realize that the party that got the majority of the power did not get the majority of the votes. Some people say, and I have heard this in my riding, that they did not vote for that, and that the government does not deserve that much power, since most of the population did not support it. That is something to think about. Voter turnout is in decline.

When we talked about Chinese interference last year, the opposition parties agreed, followed by the Liberal Party later that summer, that civic engagement is important and that the Chinese interference problem had had an adverse effect on voters' confidence in the electoral system. The Bloc Québécois said that it was extremely important to eliminate this sword of Damocles that is Chinese interference in order to build people's confidence in the electoral system. It is by building confidence in the electoral system that we will improve voter participation in the electoral process.

The motion lauds citizens' assemblies, saying that they are independent, non-partisan and representative. That means that they will be inclusive. Obviously, we are talking about the voting system. Within this process, we are encouraging people to think about electoral reform and to propose solutions, which is an important step. We need more than people just saying that we need to do something different: We need people to propose alternatives. We find this approach interesting. I am therefore announcing right now that the Bloc will vote in favour of the motion. I heard my Conservative colleague's speech.

The debate is interesting and we need to keep it going precisely because we are parliamentarians, representatives of the people, and not everyone agrees on electoral reform. I heard my Conservative colleague say, in short, that we would need a referendum, that people would have to really participate in the debate by indicating their agreement or disagreement. We agree. However, my colleague said that that was simple, that it was an extremely simple process. It is true that it is simple. However, just because something is simple does not mean that it is the best option.

That is why we are giving this further consideration. The Bloc agrees with this way of doing things, and we think that the advantage of this approach is that it takes things out of the hands of politicians, because, historically, that has never worked. The motion proposes that this study and reform be put into the hands of citizens, those who we seek to represent and who we want to be properly represented by our electoral system. We are therefore inviting these people to hold a citizens' assembly on changes to the electoral process.

(1125) The motion also talks about diversity, and I agree with that, but there is one small problem. Actually, the Bloc Québécois thinks it is a big problem. The motion talks about all sorts of factors to consider when it comes to ensuring that the citizens' assembly is inclusive, but nowhere does it mention that the Quebec nation must be represented on a pro rata basis to its demographic and political weight. There is nothing in the motion about that.

We are therefore asking our colleagues to make sure that the Quebec nation is properly represented so that the Bloc Québécois can consider this approach to be successful. As I mentioned, this is a sensitive issue because the voting system is the cornerstone of democracy, so this is an extremely important study. There is no perfect electoral system. For example, France has a completely different system from ours and the French are not necessarily more satisfied with their system. There will always be plenty of critics, and that is also the case in other countries. What is the solution?

It is important to note that, when political parties take office, they completely switch gears. Here is what this government said in the 2015 throne speech after taking office:

...the Government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

This is an example of how, unfortunately, none of the political parties can be trusted. The Bloc Québécois is perhaps the one exception. That said, we will never be at the helm in this Parliament. We can hardly afford to leave it in the hands of political parties. After the throne speech, a special committee on electoral reform was formed: 57 meetings were held, 196 witnesses appeared and 567 participants took part, only to achieve absolutely nothing. Given that impasse, it is worth considering a citizens' assembly. It could be a solution.

However, the Bloc Québécois does not want to see this happen all willy-nilly. Obviously, we want there to be a referendum, as my Conservative colleague proposed. We also want Quebec to maintain its political weight and we want the Quebec nation recognized, as the House voted in favour of by a large majority. All these criteria must absolutely be met for the Bloc Québécois to eventually support a bill that would lead to this possibility. That was the Bloc Québécois's overall thinking on citizens' assemblies.

(1130) [ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to stand today and speak in support of Motion No. 86. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the member for Elmwood—Transcona before her have done vitally important work to ensure that electoral reform is a discussion we are having in the House. We all know why we are in this place right now talking about this. It is because of the failure of the current government to live up to the promises it made to Canadians before being elected.

I read somewhere that the current Prime Minister had mentioned over 1,600 times during the election campaign that he was going to fix our electoral system. Of course, he did not do that. As soon as he had that taste of power, he chose a different route. I think that is why electoral reform is so important. It is to prevent this constant back and forth where we see Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, without having to have a majority of votes. I am hearing a few heckles from the Conservatives.

I actually want to touch on that, because, of course, I have been listening to my colleagues from the Conservatives talk about electoral reform, how it works and whatnot. I know that some of the members speaking are being a little disingenuous. For example, if one were to look at how Conservatives elect their own leaders, one would find that they do not believe that first past the post is the best way to do that. They use a form of electoral reform to elect their own leaders within their party. That is their party politics.

One will often hear them talking in this place about how there is a “coalition” between the New Democrats and the Liberals. Of course, they know very well that there is no coalition, that this is not what is happening. More importantly, we should recognize that coalitions are meant to be part of our electoral system and our parliamentary system. I know that this is not the culture in Canada to date, but that is the system within which we are working. If anyone ever says that coalitions are illegal, they do not reflect the will of the people or any of that, this is actually incorrect.

While we do not have a coalition, I would say that coalitions are part of our electoral system. Moreover, in fact, we have seen many times that the Liberals and the Conservatives work very well together. My main thinking on this, in terms of why we need electoral reform, is that I feel our politics are becoming so much more divisive, so much more pushed to the sides. The problem is that the vast majority of Canadians do not live on the outside edges. Most Canadians are centrists. They want to see common sense. They want to see their politicians work together.

They want to see us working on the things that matter to them. However, because of our political system, things are moved to the side. Things are moved to the edges. It is very dangerous. We are seeing this across the country. I would be remiss if I did not raise the issue of what is happening in my province of Alberta. This weekend, I was at a rally to protect trans kids, because Premier Smith, and perhaps we should call her “Marlaina” Smith, has decided to make an attack on trans kids. I have to say that the reason she is doing this is fully political.

It is because, in Alberta, the centre, the vast majority of Albertans, are not controlling what our political parties do. Right now, in Alberta, the far right is controlling what our premier does. We saw this with Jason Kenney. He was not brought down by Albertans; he was brought down by the far right, extreme views of some Albertans, which do not represent the majority of people who cast a ballot in Alberta. Danielle Smith does not have to protect herself from the centrists. She needs to protect her job by actually going as far right as she can.

Who cares about the most vulnerable minority groups in our provinces, who require real leadership from their premier? Who cares about kids who could lose their lives? As long as one keeps one's job, as long as one is able to do that, then one is in good shape.

(1135) When I hear the Conservatives in here trying to heckle me and saying that first past the post is the most effective, I think we can see in our country that this is not what is happening. We even see it within the Conservative Party. Erin O'Toole was not brought down by the centrists within the party. He was brought down by the far right. The Leader of the Opposition has to keep the people on the far right happy or lose his job. This is a problem with our electoral system. I spend a lot of time talking in schools. I used to be a teacher before I was elected.

I love meeting with students and talking about our electoral processes. I always talk to them about this idea that we need representation. Our Parliament needs to look like our country. We need to have the same makeup and diversity that makes Canada so wonderful and so strong. It needs to be represented in our Parliament. The problem is that the current system makes it much harder to ensure that what happens in this House reflects what happens in our beautiful country of Canada. We do not see enough women or minority groups represented in politics. We do not see that diversity of age, ethnicity and language.

All those pieces are missing when we have a first-past-the-post system. When I speak to young people, I always think that they should all be thinking about politics as a potential career, every one of them. We need more people who want to get engaged. We need more women and more diversity within our House of Commons. However, in the back of my mind, I always think it is really hard for women to engage. It is really divisive and hateful. We make it difficult for minority groups to participate, raise their concerns and raise their voices. I always use child care as a perfect example of that.

I mean no offence to my colleagues who are older white men, but if we filled this place with old white men, would they care as much about child care as a young woman with small children would? Do we not think that there is some recognition that a 16-year-old who is going to be living on this planet a lot longer than me, or any other member, would care more about climate justice and climate change than somebody who is wrapping up their career?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Heather McPherson: I am not naming names. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important. I want to end by quoting something we heard from the Edmonton

chapter of Fair Vote Canada, which is “really worried about how toxic and divisive our political discourse is becoming. Many people we talk to don't even want to get involved because of it. There is more that holds us together than divides us, but our winner-takes-all voting system is holding us back from solving problems together. A non-partisan citizens' assembly is a way to bring Canadians into the conversation about making our democracy stronger.

A Citizens' Assembly can engage Canadians across the country in a conversation about improving our democracy.” Canadians want this; as representatives of Canadians, we should be making sure that we are moving forward on it. I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all her important work on this.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, there is an elephant in the room, and there is a mouse, but we are talking about the same thing. The elephant is some people's desire to see a reform of Canada's electoral system that would bring it closer to what is known as proportional representation. What is happening is that the elephant is trying to hide by disguising itself as a mouse in the hopes of going unnoticed.

Indeed, this motion is an attempt to leave the door open on a file that did not come to fruition about six years ago because of differences of opinion among the parties in the House concerning the system that should replace the current first-past-the-post system, as well as a lack of public interest in such a reform. I will explain. In 2016, the Prime Minister asked me to chair the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, whose mandate was to do an in-depth study of the issue. That is one of the reasons I am so interested in today's debate.

The committee held a series of hearings in Ottawa before touring the country to meet with Canadians where they live. We crossed the country, stopping in every province and territory. In all, we visited 18 cities in three weeks, moving on to a new city each morning to hold hearings in the afternoon and evening, and starting again the next morning. Unfortunately, the hearings were not standing room only. Sometimes we heard enthusiastic and even passionate testimony in favour of reform. Sometimes people read prepared and almost identical texts, a sure sign of a well-coordinated campaign behind the scenes.

In Victoria, the hall was full. In Quebec City, it was not. I was able to reconnect with some of my former NDP colleagues, who had clearly come to present briefs in favour of proportional representation in support of their party's official position. The committee did a remarkable job. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of its members, including the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands , Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston and Joliette , as well as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is currently a minister in the B.C. government. They worked with diligence and zeal.

We produced an exceptional report, which provides a list of electoral systems from which a democracy can choose based on its political culture. The report is even used today as a political science textbook. Two weeks ago, I was hosted at Concordia University by Professor Donal Gill, an outspoken supporter of electoral reform. He told me that he used the committee's report in class. (1140) [ English ] Unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a replacement for the current first-past-the-post system. Conservatives preferred the status quo. The NDP and Greens wanted PR.

Liberals have always favoured the preferential ballot. One practical issue that arose is that any major reform of the voting system would necessarily require a national referendum. I say in jest that, if one really loves this country, one does not wish a national referendum on it. If one has lived through two Quebec referenda, one has developed a healthy aversion to plebiscites on existential matters.

In a country as vast as Canada, with a great diversity of deeply held regional perspectives, a referendum on a national scale on such a fundamental question can only lead to divisive results that further challenge national unity. No thanks. Also, a national referendum would require a singular focus by the government when so many urgent issues of importance to Canadians abound and demand attention. One must remember that, at the time the committee released its report, a major development was suddenly monopolizing the government's energies: the election of Donald Trump, who was bent on tearing up NAFTA.

There are priorities. The problem with our politics, in my humble view, is not the electoral system. Therefore, engineering it will not lead to the democratic renaissance we hope for. Further, proportional representation is not a panacea for all that ails our politics. The real problem is the sad state of political discourse. We are losing the capacity to dialogue and reason with one another, because we cannot agree that a fact is a fact and because we judge the merits of people's views on whether they resemble us ideologically.

It should not matter whether I like someone when it comes to recognizing the value of their experience or the merits of their argument. That it does is the tragedy of our present-day politics, and I am not sure the splintering of voices in Parliament that could accompany proportional representation is the solution we are looking for. Big-tent politics that has flourished under our present system, a system that requires compromise, has its advantages. Last, I do not believe that proportional representation is the solution to low voter turnout, especially among young people.

Millennials can still be excited by a candidate and get out to vote in large numbers, regardless of the electoral system. We saw that in 2015. Rather, I suspect that low voter turnout is the product of a more and more individualistic and atomized culture. These days, personal agency seems a stronger value than collective action. Added to this are the facts that many problems seem too complex and intractable, and that big corporations and technologies, especially digital ones, seem more powerful and faster moving than governments.

When it comes to motivating young people to vote, I find that the traditional appeal to duty is no longer as effective as it was with older generations, especially those who have seen and lived through the sacrifice of war. When I speak to young people about voting, I speak of a different kind of duty, a duty to self. The ethos of personal authenticity that prevails today has in some ways become the highest value, whether we are talking about musical artists expressing themselves through their own compositions, or people broadcasting their views on every little thing on social media.

What I say, especially to younger people, is that if they really live by the credo of personal authenticity and view it as the highest form of personal integrity, then to be true to themselves, they must express their views at the ballot box, whether it changes the electoral result or not. I understand and respect the views of the member who has sponsored the motion in good faith and out of real concern for our democracy. However, I do not believe we need to revisit electoral reform at this time.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the principal analysts from the Library of Parliament who were assigned to the committee and who produced such an incredible report, which, as I said before in my speech, is still being used today as a textbook in political science classes. I am speaking of Dara Lithwick and Erin Virgint, who were really exceptional. (1145) [ Translation ] I would also like to commend Christine Lafrance, clerk of the committee, for her unsurpassed professionalism. She is an outstandingly effective and experienced clerk. With Ms.

Lafrance at the helm, it was smooth sailing all the way.

[ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, proportional representation is fundamentally about ensuring Parliament reflects how people voted. It is about upholding each citizen's right to equal treatment under election laws and equal representation in our democracy. Unfortunately, our current electoral system, first past the post, is outdated and unfair.

It does not accurately represent how people voted; creates false majorities results in barriers to participation for women, racially marginalized and other equity-deserving groups; and results in worse outcomes for everyday people, including on things like the environment, the economy, health and tackling inequality. At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and when we are witnessing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis and increasingly divisive politics, we need to ask whether our current system serving Canadians. I would say no.

Before getting into politics, I taught political sociology at the University of Victoria. I also lectured in political science classes on the topic of electoral reform, and I co-hosted a television program called Voting for Change? , which brought experts, elected officials and community leaders on to discuss proportional representation. It is clear to me that proportional representation is more fair, more effective and a more engaging democratic system. Canadians would benefit from this change.

However, regardless of which electoral system one prefers, the process of engaging Canadians in a citizens' assembly is one that everyone should be able to get behind. Of course, the Liberal Party does not want this, because it reminds people that the Prime Minister failed to deliver on his promise to reform our electoral system. He made a firm and unequivocal commitment, which he and his team repeated over 1,800 times, telling Canadians that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. Canadians believed this promise, and it would have been the right thing to do.

However, it was one of the first of many promises to Canadians that he would break. Over the past eight years, the Liberals have shown that they are more interested in maintaining power and the status quo than in ensuring that every vote counts. Canadians deserve leaders who follow through on their promises, leaders who have a sense of integrity and leaders who are willing to listen to the voices of Canadians.

Instead, we have a Prime Minister whom Canadians no longer trust and a party that has broken their trust so many times that people now joke that the worst thing for a policy is to be an explicit Liberal commitment; policies have a much better chance if they are unspoken vested interests of wealthy Liberal insiders. Trust has been broken, and this is why a citizens' assembly is such an important tool. A citizens' assembly has legitimacy and public trust because it is independent, non-partisan and a representative body of citizens.

Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians support the idea of striking a non-partisan, independent citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which is not surprising when Canadians are feeling disheartened by the polarization of politics. They are concerned about the health of Canada's democracy, and we are witnessing low voter turnout, as well as voter disengagement. Citizens' assemblies have been used successfully in Canada and in other countries around the world to tackle difficult issues through nuanced public deliberation.

While 90% of Canadians want a Parliament that reflects how people voted, a citizens' assembly on electoral reform would give citizens a leadership role in building consensus on the specific model for electoral reform for Canada. To me and to the majority of Canadians, it is clear that proportional representation is a fairer and more democratic system. It ensures that every vote counts and that all voices are heard. It would lead to a more representative government that truly reflects the diversity of our country; the research backs this up.

Proportional systems have better representation of women, racialized groups, 2SLGBTQ+ folks and other equity-seeking groups. Canada has an embarrassingly low percentage of women in Parliament, and the House has never reflected the diversity of our country. However, there is an abundance of research showing how proportional representation increases representation of marginalized groups, creating new avenues of political power for groups traditionally denied fair access to power and representation. Representation matters.

A true democracy is not just a system that represents the majority but also one that represents, upholds and protects the rights of minority folks.

(1150) Right now, when trans kids are facing such intense discrimination and hate from right-wing elected leaders, it is important we ensure that their voices are represented in Parliament. I want to tell trans kids that we see them, we hear them and we will stand with them. Proportional representation also encourages parties to work together. Since no single party is likely to win a majority of seats in the legislature, it leads to more cooperation and compromise. Parties' being forced to work together leads to more inclusive policy-making.

As they are forced to consider the views of other parties and their constituents, and enact more representative policies that reflect the needs and interests of a broader range of citizens, we get better policy. It also helps governments avoid policy whiplash. Under the first-past-the-post system, we typically oscillate between two parties that frequently win false majorities. Policy whiplash happens when, in a polarized system, party A comes in and undoes the majority of policies of party B in order to start its own agenda. Then, when it is defeated, party B comes in and undoes all of the work of party A.

This happens back and forth, to the detriment of citizens. It wastes bureaucratic resources and stalls progress that would support Canadians. Proportional representation forces parties to work together, which helps reduce political polarization and gridlock. It can lead to more stable and effective governance as parties are less inclined to undo the work that has gone on before, when they were included in creating it. There is greater continuity because it requires greater consensus. Overall, proportional representation can help create more inclusive, representative, and effective democracies.

We have seen a glimpse of that when we have had minority parliaments in Canada. We would not have health care in Canada if it were not for a minority government forcing Lester B. Pearson to work across party lines with Tommy Douglas. We would not be rolling out dental care for the first time in Canada if New Democrats had not used our power in a minority government to force the Liberals to provide dental care. We get better policies when we work together. I think one of the most compelling arguments for proportional representation is that people want to vote for what inspires them.

They want to vote for the candidate who best aligns with the vision they have for the future. Unfortunately, our current system requires them often to vote for what they do not want. People want to see their vote count. It is part of the reason proportional representation increases voter turnout. Many people are strategically voting, but it is demotivating. Under our current first-past-the-post system, many Canadians feel that their vote does not matter. Proportional representation would ensure that every vote counts. It would allow a more diverse range of voices to be heard in Parliament.

It would also encourage greater voter turnout, as people would feel their vote actually matters. The Liberal government has claimed that proportional representation would lead to unstable minority governments. This is simply not true. Many countries around the world use proportional representation, and they have stable governments. In fact, the vast majority of OECD countries use the proportional system. Proportional representation can lead to more stable governments as parties are forced to work together.

I think we have all seen very clearly how our current first-past-the-post system has an incredible amount of divisive politics in it. Just look down to the United States to see, to put it mildly, an example of a majority system with divisive politics. When designing a made-for-Canada proportional system, we also have the opportunity to make it more difficult for extremist parties to gain power, as we could set thresholds requiring parties to win a significant portion of the vote in order to gain seats in Parliament.

It is time for the Liberal government to stop making excuses and start listening to the voices of Canadians. We need a government that is committed to democratic reform and that is willing to take action to ensure that every vote counts. That is why I am joining the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith to call for a citizen’s assembly on proportional representation. It is time for people to get on board and understand that Canadians deserve a voice. The government needs to listen. Proportional representation is the future of democracy in Canada.

Let us put in place a fairer system where Parliament truly reflects how people voted. Join me in calling for a citizen’s assembly on proportional representation. Together we can create a more just and fair Canada.

(1155) The Speaker :

The time has come for the member's right of reply. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has the floor.

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it has been such an honour to bring forward Motion No. 86 in the House of Commons and to have this vitally important debate around electoral reform. Now more than ever we need all members of Parliament to work together to strengthen Canada’s democracy to ensure those elected are representative of our communities and to encourage members of Parliament to work together to implement real solutions at the pace required to meet the emergent needs faced by Canadians. People are struggling across this country like I have never seen before in my lifetime.

An affordable, safe and adequate place to call home is out of reach for so many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across the country. Too many are unable to provide for their families, seniors are unable to retire with dignity and people living with disabilities do not have anywhere near the supports they need to make ends meet. To make matters worse, the impacts of the climate crisis are here, with extreme weather continuing to devastate communities across the country.

I could continue listing the problems faced by Canadians for my entire speech, but because of limited time, I will say that for all these reasons we cannot keep doing things the way they have always been done. We cannot allow the ever-increasing rise in divisive and adversarial politics we are seeing here in this very House to become the norm. This is not representative of who we are as Canadians. [ Translation ] That is not what Canadians want.

Now more than ever, Canadians from coast to coast to coast tell me they want their elected representatives in Ottawa to collaborate with members from all the parties, engage in respectful debate when disagreements arise, and find solutions that serve the best interests of Canadians. That is what a true democracy looks like. [ English ] However, to get there we need to see representation that matches our communities. As I have discussed in this House before, we have only 30% women elected in this House when women account for over 50% of the general population, and this is at the highest it has ever been.

The same applies to Black Canadians, who make up only 2.6 % of those elected but 4.3% of the general population. Indigenous people, whose lands we are on today, hold 3.3 % of seats but make up 5% of the Canadian population. This needs to change, and soon. To make positive changes, we need to ensure the votes cast by Canadians are truly represented by those elected in the House of Commons. Instead, we have seen a government have 100% of the power with just over 30% of the vote in the last election.

We all watched as the Liberals campaigned on a commitment to move forward with electoral reform time and time again, which has collected cobwebs ever since, with little movement and no action taken to date. This inaction has been met with silence on the issue by the Conservatives. It is not too late for all parties to come together and do what is right. It is time we give Canadians the tools required to move forward in a positive direction, to take partisanship out of the equation and to see solutions put forward that are not based on the next election but the long-term best interest of everyday Canadians.

Canadians across the country are reaching out to their members of Parliament asking for the implementation of a national citizens’ assembly on electoral reform. Canadians are asking for the work to be done by an independent, non-partisan and representative body of citizens to bring forward real, made-in-Canada solutions to ensure Canada’s democracy is strong and those elected are representative of the vibrant diversity that makes our country the incredible place it is. Canadians are sharing with me that the debate we are having today and the vote to follow on electoral reform has given them hope.

It has given them hope that, as Canadians, we can come together and agree that strengthening our democracy is the responsibility of each of us and hope that we can envision and create a better future. Canadians have spoken, and have said loudly that this is a priority. Bringing this motion forward and seeing the response from Canadians across the country has been incredible as I watched floods of volunteers knocking on doors, making phone calls and getting signatures on petitions and bringing them forward to members of Parliament seeking their support on this motion.

Much of this work was made possible through FairVote Canada, its tireless volunteers and so many volunteers across the country. I want to thank all those who have participated and continue to contribute to this important work. To quote Helen Keller, “Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.”

(1200) [ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The question is on the motion. [ English ] If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron :

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

(1205) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. Division on motion deferred

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] First Nations Clean Water Act

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)

moved that Bill C-61,

an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-61. Second reading She said: Madam Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise today to speak to Bill C-61 , the first nations clean water act, at second reading.

Upon its introduction to this House on December 11, 2023, Chief Logan of Lheidli T’enneh First Nation said that its introduction was “huge for our nation to see a light at the end of the tunnel.” That day, I was joined by first nations partners and federal colleagues to present a bill that reflects the collective vision for a future of safe drinking water and first nations communities, which is work that began with our government's commitment in 2015. Today, we take an important step forward to ensure that all first nations will have clean drinking water in their communities for generations to come.

This bill honours our commitment, not only to first nations but to all Canadians. It would bring us even closer to reaching parity of access to clean drinking water in first nations and non-first nations communities and it would ensure that first nations are in control of their water and their future. First, let us remember where we came from. Last year, the government officially repealed the 2013 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. First nations across the country had been asking for this since before the bill was even introduced. Why?

The members of the Harper government never considered including the voices or perspectives of first nations when it drafted that legislation. To them, this was a problem to be solved, an issue to be managed. The Conservative bill set rigorous water quality standards for first nations communities, but then allowed the Harper government to systemically ignore and underfund water systems for a decade. It enabled the Harper Conservative government, including the current leader , to put the blame on first nations for failing to deliver on a promise that they never agreed to in the first place.

This kind of anti-indigenous racism has been baked into our institutions since they were established. First nations saw the Harper-era legislation for what it was: cynical, political and useless. This kind of approach changed when we ran in 2015 because we made a promise to first nations and to all Canadians that we would do things differently.

We committed to repealing and replacing the Conservative water bill, legislation so hated by first nations that partners called for its repeal before it was passed; and we committed to creating new law to protect water for first nations in true nation-to-nation partnership. Since 2015, we have met extensively with first nations leaders and communities. We have listened to concerns and priorities and we have shared in this work with partners, with class action litigants, with rights holders and with first nations communities from coast to coast to coast.

The AFN stated that, “The bill is the first of its kind to be introduced since the passage of the UN Declaration Act.”

Article 19 of the declaration requires states to consult and co-operate with indigenous peoples before adopting legislative measures that affect them. It requires us to do things differently and to deeply consider what consultation and co-operation actually mean. Hundreds of consultations were held with first nations communities and partners to shape this proposed law and address key priorities identified by first nations. The work of consultations began in 2018 and it consisted of multiple engagements in a variety of approaches. These formal conversations led to the extensive work on the bill we see today.

This is reflected in feedback like we have recently heard from the Blackfoot Confederacy chiefs and Treaty 7, who have said recently, “The government clearly listened to the concerns of the Blackfoot Nations regarding the final consultation draft of the legislation and made significant changes to [the bill].... It is for this reason that our nations support...Bill C-61 .” (1210) [ Translation ] As we are often reminded by elders, knowledge-keepers and many people across the country, water is life. Water is the foundation of community well-being and health.

As we all know, we need to do more to protect first nations' water sources. [ English ] Some partners shared with me how powerful it was to see their words, their feedback, reflected in our way forward. On the day the bill was tabled, Chief Erica Beaudin of Cowessess First Nation said, “I believe today is historic; not only because the bill has been introduced, but because it is the start of that day where our children will be born with the regulations that are needed.” This is truly a historic moment for law development in Canada.

Throughout this consultation and in my visits to first nations, I have heard the many ways first nations people have suffered through imposed law that undermines their safety, their culture, their connection to the land and water, and the deep sorrow and damage to their ancestors and children as a result, but Canada has committed to do better, to be a better partner in protecting this land, this water and this country together.

It will be by working together like this that we advance legislation that restores power, self-determination and tools of equity for healing to occur and for the true potential of all people of this land to prosper. With the newly passed United Nations declaration act, there will be many more opportunities to use and improve on collaboration in law making in the future. The Assembly of First Nations led the call for the repeal of the Harper bill, and through its extensive work it identified five key issues that would need to be included in any new legislation.

They are as follows: Affirm first nations' inherent rights to manage their water systems; create the tools first nations need to protect their source waters; hold governments accountable to invest the funding needed for water infrastructure; codevelop minimum standards for clean drinking water; and support the creation of a first nations-led water institution.

Each of these five areas is significantly addressed in this bill, and the AFN now says it is confident that the proposed legislation addresses one of the most critical priorities of first nations: ensuring safe and clean drinking water and adequate waste water. Bill C-61 recognizes and affirms the inherent right of first nations to self-government, including jurisdiction in relation to water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on, in and under first nations lands.

The proposed legislation would also establish rights-based regulatory pathways to protect water and source-water adjacent to first nations lands. This would be done in consultation and co-operation with first nations, other federal ministers, provinces and territories to protect drinking water sources that flow onto first nations lands.

It would commit the federal government to working with first nations to ensure they have the tools they need to protect the lakes and the rivers that feed water systems. [ Translation ] Bill C‑61 supports the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, including by applying the principle of free, prior and informed consent. [ English ] The bill would strengthen funding commitments to providing adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nations lands comparable to services received in non-first nations communities.

The bill would establish minimum national standards for drinking water and waste-water services on first nations land based on the choices of first nations themselves. It would help ensure that first nations have reliable access to drinking water and waste-water services on first nations lands in a manner that is comparable to services available to those living in non-first nations communities. It would also ensure that first nations are involved in making the decisions related to their drinking water and waste-water services.

The government would have to consult and co-operate with first nations when making funding allocation decisions and developing federal regulations. [ Translation ] Federal regulations governing drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands would ensure that all first nations have effective regulations for their drinking water. [ English ] At the same time, the bill would support first nations in exercising their inherent right to self-government by making first nations law paramount over federal regulations under the bill, should first nations choose.

The bill would also facilitate water agreements, including transboundary source water protection agreements and bilateral financial agreements between first nations and Canada to support the exercise of first nations jurisdiction on first nations land. The bill would also require Canada to be an active partner in the creation of a first nations water commission that would support first nations in exercising greater control over drinking water and waste-water services on first nations land. In short, the bill would put first nations in the front when it comes to making decisions on clean drinking water.

First nations peoples have always known the importance of protecting the lakes and rivers that give life to us all. They should be the ones making these important regulations to protect water for their communities. They should have the power to develop clean drinking water standards, and they should have the funding they need to do this work along with the tools that enable it to be done.

(1215) It is not one thing that will protect water for generations; it is many. This bill addresses the key elements first nations have identified that they need to do this work. It is also why the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority is supportive of its introduction. As Chief Wilbert Marshall said, it is a unique opportunity for first nations to control their service, critical to the socio-economic and environmental well-being of their communities.

Aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this legislation was developed through engagements that put first nations voices at the centre. In fact, we shared two draft versions of the bill with every community across the country to get their feedback. We also posted it online. With the extensive feedback through many sources, it has been first nations voices that have led the process, pushing the federal government to examine itself and its ways to evolve toward true partnership in law creation. [ Translation ] This is a first for Indigenous Services Canada.

I would like to thank everyone who reviewed the bill, provided their feedback and helped us develop and strengthen it. [ English ] Even though many first nations partners have expressed their support for Bill C-61 , the process of review and debate is important to ensure the law is as strong as it can be to achieve its goal of clean water access for generations to come. This stage of the legislation process is equally important, and we will debate this bill.

We will hear from first nations voices in committee, and we will be ready to make amendments, guided first and foremost by the voices and experiences of first nations partners. It is with this spirit that I hope all members will debate this bill: through the lens of self-determination and honour of the commitments Canada has made to first nations people and communities, yet has often failed to meet. Right now, first nations do not have the power or resources to protect or monitor the water flowing into their communities, and the result has been generations of loss, damage, illness, grief and even death.

Last year, I visited with Tataskweyak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba. I met with elders, educators and members of the Tataskweyak to hear about their love for Split Lake, a body of water that almost entirely surrounds their community. I heard about their history of playing, drinking and enjoying the lake in the past, and their deep grief and anger about the poisoning of the water through decades of industrial pollution. The water is so damaged that it now cannot be used to bath with and swim in, let alone drink.

The community routinely sees dead animals in the lake, adding to the grief and distress they feel living so close to a once vibrant and alive body of water. We have worked hard with the community to find an alternative water source at a neighbouring lake, which has meant building a 44-kilometre water pipeline to the nearest clean source of water. However, even with this new source, members are distrustful of the safety of their water supply, and they worry about the spread of contamination to the wildlife in the region, which is an important food source and part of the circle of life.

No people should have to live with such fear of their water and such grief of the loss of this most essential element of life. [ Translation ] While the provinces and territories have laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water, there are no similar regulations for first nations on first nation lands. [ English ] When the federal Liberal government took office in 2015, there were 105 long-term boil water advisories in effect. Sadly, given the decade of neglect under the Harper Conservatives, this was not surprising.

Indeed, funding for operations was significantly below provincial levels, making it hard for communities to train and retain water operators. Since then, the federal Liberal government has increased funding for water infrastructure by 150%, and the number of long-term water advisories has gone down by 73%. We have also worked together to prevent hundreds of short-term advisories from becoming long-term. Today, 96% of first nations communities do not have a long-term water advisory.

Even still, as Chief Moonias just recently told me from Neskantaga, trust of water is hard to find when a person has lived their whole life without confidence in its safety. We must continue our efforts to improve long-term access to clean drinking water for first nations. We can see a light at the end of the tunnel with the majority of long-term advisories on a clear path to a lift.

(1220) We can never go back to an arbitrary and opaque system of first nations water protection. First nations have the inherent right to clean water, like we all do, and this bill would enshrine the tools needed to ensure Canada honours its commitments as a true partner in protecting drinking water for future generations to come. It is the first law in our country to be developed in such a collaborative way with first nations. I truly believe the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the development of law will mean better outcomes for all Canadians.

I look forward to each member's reflections on how to continue this inclusion as we debate this bill together, and I call on all parties to join me in moving forward with the first nations clean water act, because as Chief Beaudin said, “Indigenous people, indigenous children deserve to be conceived, born and die drinking clean water.”

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois applauds the introduction of this bill. It is pretty unbelievable, not to say absurd, that in 2024 we still need to pass legislation to ensure that first nations across Canada have access to clean drinking water. Canada is not a developing country. It is a G7 country. Nearly 20% of the world's freshwater reserves are in Canada. It is extremely surprising that in 2024 more has not been done about this. The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act has been criticized ever since it was adopted in 2013 and even before that, as the minister said.

I wonder why it has taken so long for the government, which came to power in 2015, to introduce this bill. In 2017, water was tested in certain communities across Canada. In the community of Listuguj, back home, the water tested positive for lead. Indigenous Services Canada's suggestion was to let the water run. What will this bill do to ensure that first nations have access to clean water?

[ English ]

Hon. Patty Hajdu :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her passion for clean water. I share her dismay that this country, in many ways, has led to discriminatory policy and funding for first nations. In fact, that is why we are here today. Discretionary funding for water safety has been part of the government's shameful legacy, and we are changing that with this legislation.

In fact, not only would this legislation install tools and protection for first nations that are enforceable; it would also create the capacity and partnerships with provinces and territories that play a huge role in protecting the water that feeds first nations. Finally, this law would enshrine the right for first nations people to have equitable funding, like that of non-indigenous communities, for the protection of their water sources, something that has been sorely lacking.

First nations partners would have the ability to develop those funding models, together with the Government of Canada, to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has been in power for eight years. It is shameful that there are still indigenous communities without access to clean drinking water. Also, February 6 is the one-year anniversary of the tailings ponds leak that impacted northern indigenous communities, first nations and Métis communities. It has been one year, and we know that Imperial Oil knew for years that there was leakage. There have been no charges and no accountability.

Indigenous leaders have come to testify at the environment committee, and they have been calling for accountability for Imperial Oil and big corporations that pollute our waters. When will the government stop letting big polluters like Imperial Oil off the hook, start listening to indigenous communities and protect their inherent right to clean water?

(1225) Hon. Patty Hajdu :

Madam Speaker, I would say that this legislation would establish the inherent right to clean water, and it would do more than that. What it would also do is provide first nations with the tools to be able to monitor the source water that feeds their drinking water systems. That is work that we must do together with provinces and territories. This is collaborative work with multiple levels of jurisdiction that sets first nations on a pathway to have the tools to better detect when their water sources are polluted. I too have met with the first nations deeply affected by the Imperial Oil spill.

Part of the dismay is the worry, concern and fear that the water systems were contaminated for far longer than they knew about. This bill would make sure that situations like that are a thing of the past.

Mr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in listening to the minister here this morning talk about water advisories, the previous Conservative government left eight and a half years ago, and there are still over 100 water advisories on first nations. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I have seen reserves burn down water treatment plants because the Liberal government has done little or nothing. She can talk about the previous Harper government, but the current government has done very little in the last eight and a half years. I would like her to comment on the situation.

The other thing is that there needs to be education provided for people on reserve to operate these water treatment plants, which is part of the problem we have seen with the government over the last eight and a half years.

Hon. Patty Hajdu :

Madam Speaker, trust a Conservative member to blame first nations people for burning down their own water treatment plants and for not being smart enough to be able to understand how to operate those plants. That is the kind of paternalism that led to 105 long-term boil water advisories. They were just not worth investing in, I guess. First nations people have the dignity, the ability and the intelligence to be able to operate complex water systems. I have met water systems operators from across this country.

One thing we had to change was the discriminatory funding for water operation in first nations left by the previous Conservative government. Of course, that meant as soon as people got training, they often left for better opportunities to support their families. We changed that as a Liberal government. We actually created equity in the way water operators are funded on first nations compared to off first nations. However, there is more to do to combat attitudes like that across this country.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for Bill C-61 . Ever since it was tabled in December, I have been looking forward to this debate to learn more about the bill. Certainly, as I read it in black and white, it recognizes sovereignty over infrastructure and the right to clean drinking water.

I do not say this in any way, shape or form to suggest that this is not properly thought through, but I am keen to know how we avoid, with training, infrastructure and all the benefits of settler culture privilege, what happened in Walkerton when the provincial government shut down the testing facility, and the water contained E. coli. It did not raise the alarm and people died. We know that having safe, clean drinking water is the right of indigenous nations. How would the Liberal government ensure this process is adequately funded?

Hon. Patty Hajdu :

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say that I have travelled across this country and visited with first nations people in every province and territory. Universally, the conversation has always started with a deep recognition that water is indeed life, and in fact, water itself has life and is an important element of being custodians and protectors of this planet we all call home. I want to acknowledge the member's long-standing work on protecting the environment. I am glad she is looking at the bill so closely in her usual fashion.

I will say that the second important element of the five elements in the bill actually commits the Government of Canada to ensure that first nations have the resources and the funding they need to maintain and to operate their water systems, which would be inclusive of recruiting and training new water operators on an ongoing basis. The work on determining how to do that funding would be done and developed with first nations so that it would be truly a collaborative process, rather than one that would be dictated by the federal government to first nations.

(1230) Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister on her work and the speech she shared with us today. I think some of the important work that has taken place over the last eight years comes from the separation of what was formerly known as Indigenous and Northern Affairs into Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, as well as Indigenous Services Canada.

I also appreciated the minister 's comments with respect to recognizing the value and importance of a nation-to-nation relationship and having first nations and indigenous peoples as part of the decision-making, because the way we move forward really has to come from a better recognition of what we have done in the past, and I think we have to recognize that we have not always done it well. I would like to hear her comments on some of the publicly available data when it comes to water advisories, as well as the importance of seeing this legislation thoroughly debated and moving it forward as quickly as possible.

Hon. Patty Hajdu :

Madam Speaker, I would say that Canadians are seized with the need for all first nations to have access to clean water. That is why we have a transparency tracker on the Government of Canada website that can delineate all the remaining 28 long-term boil water advisories and at what stage they are in terms of the work needed to deliver clean water. Most projects are either in the construction stage or waiting for the comfort of chief, council and community to lift that advisory. There are a few who are still determining the best approach.

I would say that it is important to understand the difference in the attitude about sovereignty and indigenous inherent rights between our government and the Conservatives. We heard the member opposite and his shameful comments just a few moments ago. That reflects the overall comment that many people have about the opposition party right now.

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-61 ,

an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands, which I will hereafter refer to as the first nations clean water act. I want to first comment on what the minister just spoke about. She likes to hurl insults, but she is part of a government that has refused to meet with 133 Ontario chiefs, many of whom are in her own riding, to talk about relief from the carbon tax. One reason they had to move to court action was that the government would not meet with them. Talk about the height of “Ottawa knows best”.

There are 133 chiefs, like I said, many of whom are in the minister's own riding. She refused to meet with those chiefs, and now, court action has started. That is peak colonialism, and the minister should be ashamed of herself. Before I get into my speech on Bill C-61 , I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge my colleague and friend, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River , who recently stepped down from his role as shadow minister for Indigenous Services Canada. We all know the member. He has a great vision for this file.

He wears his heart on his sleeve, and he truly believes in reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada. We all know him for his soft-spoken demeanour, his sense of humour and his well-though-out and articulated positions on indigenous issues. He is someone we really want to listen to when speaking about his file. I have learned a lot from the member. I know he has really taken this file to heart. He told me he will continue to meet with stakeholders. He values the information and knowledge he has gained from the wisdom of those stakeholders and from the experiences he has had on this file.

He said that he will remember those for the rest of his life. I would also be remiss if I did not thank the member's staff or give them a mention at least. Dion works in the constituency office but is heavily involved in this file in Ottawa quite often. Emalie and Linnae put a lot of effort into this file. Their hearts are in it. I could not be more thankful for the opportunity I have been given to work with the member and his staff. Moving on to Bill C-61 , Canada, as a whole, is blessed with clean, fresh and safe drinking water.

It is home to 20% of the world's fresh water and 7% of its renewable water supply, yet safe, clean drinking water has been unavailable for many indigenous communities. The history of Canada's efforts or perhaps “challenges”, in a better word, with respect to addressing the long- and short-term boil water advisories has been one plagued with the inability to get it done. I am not necessarily speaking to the efforts of one government or another. It is quite clear that all governments today share part of the responsibility in this failure.

That is not to say that there were not earnest efforts or, in the case of the current government, are earnest efforts to address this issue, but we know that the efforts in general continue to rely on the archaic and paternalistic Ottawa-knows-best way of doing things. That is what is at the heart of the matter. This failure is our collective fault, and the worst thing we can do is continue to rely exclusively on public servants, in some cases thousands of kilometres from the problems, to make decisions needed to solve them.

It is my hope, and surely something I will be focusing on at committee, that Bill C-61 would address this approach. We look to indigenous-led solutions in partnership with surrounding communities and with all levels of government to ensure, once and for all, that safe, clean drinking water is available to indigenous communities. The history of the indigenous water crisis is a long one that truly did not start garnering attention until after the tragedy in Walkerton or the contamination in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

In 2001, the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began to survey water and waste water systems in indigenous communities across Canada “to establish a baseline of information regarding existing drinking water infrastructure”. The assessment covered “740 drinking water systems serving 691 First Nations communities, finding that nearly 30 per cent” were water systems with “potential health and safety concerns...46 per cent” were systems requiring “some repairs” and only a quarter were considered “low risk”, experiencing “minimal” issues “without any problems”.

(1235) The figures at the time estimated the problems could be fixed for approximately $1.6 billion. Based on those survey results, in 2003, “the Government of Canada announced the First Nations Water Management strategy”.

It was “the first comprehensive plan to tackle drinking water in wastewater systems within First Nations communities.” The plan allocated $1.6 billion between 2003 and 2008 to address seven key areas: “infrastructure upgrades...improved monitoring and reporting...enhanced [operating and maintenance]...increased training...new water quality management protocols...enhanced public awareness; and... new standards, policies and protocols”.

While a “2009 Health Canada report noted that the strategy led to an improved understanding of the challenges plaguing [indigenous] communities...and allowed for faster and more coordinated responses to emerging water issues”, it did not, according to a 2005 report by the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, provide the same safeguards on drinking water that existed “off reserves”.

The conclusion was that a lack of a regulatory regime for indigenous communities, “failure to carry out testing” and a “lack of...technical support...for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of water systems” had to be addressed if the water crisis were to be fixed. In 2006, “the Government of Canada launched the Plan of Action for First Nations Drinking Water”.

The plan of action was built on the first nations water management strategy “and committed an additional $60 million between 2006 and 2008 to...address the findings of the 2005 Commissioner's report.” The plan of action included the creation of an “expert panel”, which found a number of issues that had yet to be addressed by Canada, including that “adequate resources — for...training...operations and maintenance — are more critical to ensuring safe drinking water than is regulation alone” and that a gap existed “between the federal government's cost estimates and the actual amount of funding needed to bring First Nations drinking water systems up to...standard”.

The next step forward came in 2008 with the introduction of the first nations water and wastewater action plan...An additional $330 million was allocated to support [the action plan], which reinforced the [2006 plan] while adding new objectives, including a commitment to consult with [indigenous communities] on new legislation as well as the commissioning of a national engineering assessment of the status of First Nations water systems across the country.

The resulting report, released in 2011, demonstrated that, while Canada had a much better understanding of the water issues in indigenous communities, only marginal progress had been made since 1995. In 2013, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was created by the government to support the development of federal regulations to improve first nations' access to clean, reliable drinking water and effective treatment of waste water.

According to the Office of the Auditor General...“[b]etween 1995 and 2003, the federal government spent about $1.9 billion to help First Nations communities provide safe drinking water and wastewater services.” A further $600 million was committed in Budget 2003 to support the [plan]...between 2006 and 2014 the federal government “invested approximately $3 billion towards water and wastewater infrastructure and related public health activities to support First Nation communities in managing their water and wastewater systems.” From 2015 to the present, the federal government has spent over $5.7 billion “to build and repair at least 123 new water and wastewater plants, repair or upgrade 658 others, and support the effective management and maintenance of water systems.”

As I mentioned before, this is an issue that has been the responsibility of successive governments from both sides of the aisle. Clearly, the issue is not spending money, with over $11 billion having been spent by successive government to address the problem. As I alluded to earlier in my speech, we have to look at the way we have been doing things that address the issue. It is time for a new approach. Now I turn to Bill C-61 . We should ask ourselves if this is the new approach we need.

I can assure members that that will be the fundamental question that will need to be answered, and in the affirmative, by indigenous leaders at committee if this bill is to succeed. Bill C-61 looks to do a number of things, including affirming and recognizing “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, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nation lands” and setting our principles and provisions to address issues related to first nations clean and safe drinking water, and waste-water treatment and disposal on first nations.

(1240) The bill also seeks to create a new first nations-led water commission, as promised, that would monitor water in communities, help them obtain legal advice and make recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial governments where required.

As well, subject to the wishes of a first nations governing body, drinking water quality and waste-water effluent would at least need to meet the federal guidelines and regulations, or the standards of the province or territory where the first nations lands are located, and seek to provide pathways to facilitate water protection by creating water protection zones for first nations, provinces and territories to come together to protect, manage and preserve water and source water.

In 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada in a proposed class action suit on behalf of all members of first nations and member resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for at least one year since 1995. On December 22, 2021, the Federal Court and the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba issued a joint decision approving an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

The terms of the settlement agreement were announced on July 30, 2021, and included the following: “$1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund...a renewed commitment to Canada's Action Plan for the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories...the creation of a First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water; support for First Nations to develop their own safe drinking water by-laws and initiatives; [and] a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves”.

A plan of “modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation” is included in that as well. Bill C-61 specifically requires the Government of Canada to provide funding that, at a minimum, meets the expenditures set out in the 2021 settlement agreements. This commitment is $6 billion to be spent between June 20, 2021, and March 31, 2030, to address short- and long-term water advisories. As of May 2023, there were officially a total of 31 long-term drinking advisories in Canada, impacting 27 indigenous communities.

This number, of course, has fluctuated over the years and, in some cases, communities have gone off only to be put back on a short time later. One of the most glaring deficiencies in Canada's approach to safe water for indigenous communities has always been a proper identification and capture of the full picture with respect to unsafe water sources in indigenous communities. Part of the problem is the exclusion of public water systems that the federal government has not given funding. It also does not account for long-term advisories in the territories.

A full accounting, taking in these omissions from the official numbers, brings the current total across Canada as high as 55. The lack of consistent and transparent data collection regarding water advisories makes it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the extent of the problem across the country.

For those who may be listening who may not understand what a water advisory is and why it is so fundamentally important to the health of communities, advisories can be issued by a local government, first nation or public health authority when drinking water quality has been or may have been compromised to the point where its consumption poses a risk to public health.

Water quality can be adversely impacted as a result of a number of factors, including such conditions as contaminated groundwater or aquifers supplying wells, the presence of bacteria such as E. coli, unacceptable concentrations of harmful chemicals or pesticides, problems with inadequate filtration or malfunctioning equipment or failing to meet the clean drinking water guidelines in Canada. Numbers can be misleading, and as I mentioned just a few moments ago, many communities continue to hop on and off these water advisories.

For instance, five of the 90 first nations communities in which long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted since 2015 have had new long-term drinking water advisories issued since 2019. Two of those communities have had their previous long-term drinking water advisories in place for over 15 years. An additional 12 long-term drinking water advisories are in effect in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick for first nations water systems that are not subsidized by the federal government, along with 10 long-term drinking water advisories in British Columbia.

Also, we cannot forget the north where the Northwest Territories and Nunavut each have one long-term drinking water advisory in effect.

(1245) If Bill C-61 is to be successful, there will have to be a complete review and overhaul of how we account for water quality advisories. One of the other concerns about Bill C-61 that must be addressed at committee is the government's approach to consultation on the bill. Many first nation leaders, including the AFN, were involved in the process to develop the legislation and will support it.

I believe it has been a long time coming, yet not all first nations leaders agree, and there seems to be a growing chorus of voices from first nations communities opposed to the legislation, mainly stating that it was not co-developed or does not have their support. It will be important to hear from those leaders to hear and address the concerns they may have with Bill C-61 .

Furthermore, there are a number of other questions that must be explored at committee, including that some communities face extensive barriers to long-term access to safe drinking water, barriers that are unfortunately not solved by money alone. What are those barriers and how can we partner with indigenous communities to overcome them? Keeping in mind the close spiritual and historical connection with the land, is relocation an option for communities in extreme conditions where no matter of money will provide a long-term solution? If that is an option, what does that look like for an indigenous community?

How do we solve the issue of transparency and ensure data is current and relevant and provides a real picture of the water situation? Long-term operation and maintenance continues to be an ongoing impediment to safe water access. A limited number of trained staff, and in some cases no trained staff, for remote locations beg the question of how we solve critical staffing issues. Perhaps there is potential to explore regional solutions, or shared water management systems that provide a sharing of personnel and resources.

We must also look at the aggravating or mitigating factors limiting access to clean drinking water, such as remoteness, overcrowded communities and areas with poor to no access to water. We need to understand one solution does not always fit all in these situations. Lastly, what role can technology play? Are remotely operated plants an option? Do we have that kind of technology or the infrastructure available in Canada? We need to hear from witnesses who can speak to those potential solutions. Conservatives agree clean drinking water is a basic necessity of life.

We must work with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to develop a real solution with an agreed upon timeline to deliver access to safe drinking water to all communities.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today we are debating substantial legislation dealing with water. I wanted to highlight that, as a legislature, we often have substantive pieces of legislation before us. This morning, the focus is on Bill C-61 , and later this afternoon we will be debating at third reading the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, both of which are substantial pieces of legislation. There is a finite amount of time and a desire to see good legislation pass in a timely fashion, so we are hoping the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement will pass this afternoon.

We are also hoping to see the Conservatives put a high priority on this legislation. I am wondering if the member can give a clear indication of what sort of time frame he would like to see before this bill goes to committee.

(1250) Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this piece of legislation, Bill C-61 , is an important step forward and something that has support from organizations such as the AFN. Others do have some questions they would like asked, and we will get to that in the committee process. As for the actual time schedule, it is the government that controls the agenda in the House. We are at its mercy. It is really up to its members and their priorities. I notice something with other pieces of legislation, such as the indigenous-led legislation we just finished up in committee today, Bill C-53 .

That legislation, on self-governance concerning Métis in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, was promised for months and brought in at the dying days of the session before the break in June. This piece of legislation, Bill C-61 , was again promised for months. I do not know what the delay was on the government's side. I do not know what it was. I believe the delay has been over six months, when we could have been discussing this or even bringing it to committee, and perhaps even passing it at third reading. Again, it is the government putting up these roadblocks. We would like to see what timetable it has in mind.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Bill C‑61 is important. The Kitcisakik reserve, which is in my riding, does not even have clean drinking water. I recently visited Kuujjuaq. It has no water that is safe to drink. The reservoir is very old, even in Nunavik. The government therefore needs to take action on principle, considering that there is a lot of water, but no adequate infrastructure. What does the government claim to be doing, and what does my colleague think about it?

[ English ]

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, it is still shameful that this kind of situation still goes on in our country. I know the member shared a story of a long-term boil water advisory in her riding. The riding of Kenora has had the longest boil water advisory in history, for well over 10,000 days now. It has been in effect since 1995. That was the heart of my speech. The Ottawa-knows-best approach is clearly not working. With all the technology and brainpower available, we still have boil water advisories. The fact that we are able to solve this and we have not is not beyond me.

This tells me that the structure and the status quo itself is not working. If we can address that symptom, I think then, with more indigenous-led solutions, we can actually get this problem fixed.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate what the member has to share. I also appreciate that he did list some of the court case settlements. However, I want to ask about source water protection and who has the authority. I know that there have been discussions about whether first nations should have the authority to discuss source water, be it municipal, provincial or federal. I wonder if he could share his thoughts on what this would mean and why it should be discussed in committee.

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, I take it that INAN committee has wrapped up, because the member for Nunavut is in this place continuing to work hard for her constituents. This is one of the things I wanted to highlight, and I should have focused more time on it. Those discussions need to take place. We address it, and Bill C-61 does touch on it, by including those voices and those conversations, especially when the bill talks about source water. I spoke about it a bit. I will make a note to speak on it a little more, but one of the things we will address in committee are issues like that.

(1255) Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my colleague highlighted the fact of the timeline on the bill. The government has promised and floated the bill for a long period of time. It is troubling because this is part of the track record of the government, of talking about something and then putting it on everyone else when it has failed to

schedule the time. The member highlighted some organizations in some communities. I know some first nations are quite concerned about the bill, about the fact that they were not consulted and what that means for them. I am wonder if you could highlight what you are hoping to achieve through committee.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member. The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake , for her work with first nations and Métis communities in her riding. She is a tremendous champion for those voices, and I know those communities appreciate all her knowledge and willingness to continue to learn on this file. It is not a file that should be taken lightly. I know she takes it very seriously and really digs in, and I appreciate that. She could not be more bang on with her comment. The government, like with many other pieces of legislation, waited until the last second to bring this in.

The legislation, as she mentioned, was promised for six months and counting. Bill C-53 , the Métis self-government legislation, was brought in during the dying seconds of the sitting before we adjourned in June. We could even go back to the Whitecap Dakota treaty, which was also brought in during the dying days. Again, it is a growing concern. On the one hand, the government says that the indigenous file is the most important relationship. However, on the other hand, it drops these pieces of legislation at the last second or in the dying days of Parliament. First nations communities deserve more than that.

We should be promoting them front and centre. Unfortunately the government says one thing and does the other.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock . I could not quite decipher between the lines on whether he would vote for the legislation at second reading to get it to committee. Would he know if this would be the position of his caucus?

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that we will be voting in favour of this at second reading.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am concerned with many of the comments the member made about the lack of consultation. In fact, there have been considerable consultations, even representations from AFN at today's introduction of the legislation itself. Could he provide his comments as to why the government should not work with AFN and the many different chiefs and others to ensure that we get it right? We are confident in the legislation today because of all the inputs in consultations?

Mr. Jamie Schmale :

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not catch the whole segment of the member's question. It was about the AFN. I think I did say that there should be consultation within all groups. The AFN, as I did point out, was in favour. However, at the same time, if we want to listen to the AFN, we should also listen to it when it talks about the carbon tax and the 133 chiefs of Ontario who want relief from the carbon tax. The Northwest Territories premiers are now calling for a break from the carbon tax. Let us start listening to those indigenous voices and axe the tax.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

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.

(1300) 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.”

(1305) 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.

(1310) 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-indig