“I agree with the member. The government is violating the rights of Indigenous people and helping billionaires instead. I want the member to say more about the government's corporate agenda.”

“Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my hon. colleague. The government claims to be the new Liberal government. I absolutely believe that. It is no wonder that former prime minister Stephen Harper called this, in the news, our Prime Minister’s ideological error. One thing I noticed is that the Liberals are completely in violation of the rights of indigenous peoples. I do not really see a difference, in terms of their corporate agenda for the billionaire class, with the fast-tracking of Bill C-39 at the same time as they are fast-tracking Bill C-37. Could my hon. colleague expand on that?”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It weakens Indigenous rights instead of protecting them. It only lets First Nations protect water on reserve lands, not the outside lands where water flows from. It also waters down the human right to clean water. I want First Nations, unions, and environmental groups to oppose this bill, along with two other government bills that attack Indigenous and worker rights.”

“Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act. This represents another attempt by the Liberal government to erode indigenous rights while trying to disguise it as progress. Alongside the violations to the clean water rights in this bill, we are seeing similarly shocking rights violations in Bill C-39, which completely undermines the constitutional duty to consult and accommodate indigenous peoples, along with other critical environmental protections and workers’ charter-protected right to strike. That is why Bill C-39 was getting push-back just yesterday, in fact, from whole regions; whole indigenous peoples and first nations, including the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the Chiefs of Ontario, the APNQL, the BCAFN and the NAN; along with unions like CLC, CUPE and Unifor; and countless environmental organizations. Water is life. It carries our stories and nourishes our lands. It sustains our children and gives us the future we owe to the next generation. Just today, I was joined by indigenous youth who have never in their lifetime had access to clean drinking water, which is a basic right and dignity, and Bill C-37 continues to violate their basic human right to clean water. Without clean water, there is no health, no dignity, no sovereignty and, in fact, no future. Access to clean drinking water is a fundamental human right protected under international law and confirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly article 25, which confirms the right of indigenous peoples to “maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned [or] used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas”. In spite of mentioning many articles in the United Nations declaration, it is no coincidence that the Liberal government has conveniently left that article out, nor is it any coincidence that even in the time since this legislation was tabled, first nations continue to be fought in courts to dispute their right to clean, safe drinking water. Lawyers have claimed that the backtracking of commitments to first nations in Bill C-39 and Bill C-37 is another deliberate attempt to support the fight against first nations in courts. I would like to remind the Canadian public that the Liberals only tabled Bill C-37 due to a legally binding court order. However, after years of broken promises, and ongoing shame felt by folks across the country about ongoing boil water advisories in first nations, the government has produced a bill that weakens indigenous jurisdiction instead of strengthening it. In fact, the bill denies first nations the tools needed to guarantee safe water by limiting the authority to protect water sources only on reserve. As we all know, water does not stop at the reserve boundary. It flows. It moves through watersheds, across territories and through lands where our treaty and aboriginal titles exist. Bill C-37 does not respect aboriginal title and treaty lands, in fact, defining “First Nation lands” as “lands of a First Nation that are referred to in Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and includes water and source water on, in and under those lands.” Bill C-37 is clear in stating explicitly that the lands it considers under first nations’ jurisdiction “do not include lands over which Aboriginal title is claimed by a First Nation or has been confirmed by a court.” This limitation obliges first nations to negotiate with municipalities, provinces, territories and the Government of Canada over source water protection outside the reserve boundary. Are we going to see more crises like in Grassy Narrows and Attawapiskat, whose water was contaminated by industries that were located outside Indian Act reserves? Yes we will. Treaty and aboriginal title are protected under subsection 35(1) and subsection 35(3) of the Constitution and affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our rights extend beyond the boundaries of the reserve and are connected to our lands, territories, waters and resources. By excluding aboriginal title and treaty lands, this legislation would leave first nations responsible for the safety of our waters while denying us our inherent jurisdiction to protect the sources that sustain our communities. This is where the connection between Bill C-37, Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 becomes clear. Last year, the Liberal government tabled Bill C-5, which was rushed through Parliament to create a so-called framework for fast-tracking so-called projects of national interest. Bill C-39, in fact, goes even further, attacking all environmental protections, indigenous rights and workers’ rights, and giving king powers to ministers for overriding constitutional protections. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the government’s current approach does not even satisfy the prior requirement of free, prior and informed consent. International standards are clear that indigenous peoples must be meaningfully consulted before major projects are made. When the federal government unilaterally determines a project that is in the so-called national interest and then only initiates consultation, a foundational decision has already been imposed. This is not about whether we support development or not. This is about upholding the right to free, prior and informed consent. Bill C-37 would also remove explicit recognition of the human right to safe water contained in an earlier ideation of this legislation, replacing it with “progressive realization” of that right. Lawyer Michael Rosenberg has confirmed that the use of this term has everything to do, in his words, “to continue to fight First Nations in court and stand up and say, ‘There is no right and we have no obligations.’” When the Minister of Indigenous Services talks about progressive realization when it comes to the human right to clean water, does that mean nations that have been left impoverished will potentially have to wait until they have the capacity while the Canadian government and big corporations get rich off our lands, territories and resources? I wonder if the Liberal government would be so bold if it was Winnipeg or Calgary or Ottawa to so-called progressively realize that right? The Canadian charter guarantees the rights and freedoms of all peoples regardless of race, national or ethnic origin. We do not have a right to a comparable right under the charter. We have an equal right to clean drinking water, just as any other human being in the country. I say to every first nation, Inuit community, Métis government, ally, labour organization, environmental movement and Canadian who believes in justice that now is the time to stand together. Now is the time to act. We must defend our lands, waters, territories and resources. It is not for ourselves, but for the youth who have joined me today in the House of Commons and for every generation to come, because water is life. Life is not negotiable and neither are indigenous rights.”

“The government did not properly consult First Nations leaders on this clean water bill. Consulting Indigenous peoples is not optional. It is a constitutional requirement, and Indigenous people deserve the same basic right to clean water as everyone else.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly cannot speak on behalf of all first nations people in the country. What I can say as a legislator is that the Liberal government is treating the duty to consult and accommodate and free, prior and informed consent as optional constitutional rights. These are not options for the government. It has done that certainly with this bill, where there has been a very clear indication from first nations and indigenous leaders, particularly in this case of the water bill for first nations leaders, that they were not consulted on this bill. I do not know any first nations leader or person, including me, who accepts that I have a comparable right to other people in this country to drink clean water. That is violent. It reeks of ripping from indigenous people the most basic dignity in this country: the right to clean water.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 93 of 100

  Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“A court ordered the government to spend that money. First Nations leaders say it is still billions of dollars short of what is needed to give communities clean drinking water. The government should not use children's right to water to score political points.”

“Madam Speaker, that is how sneaky the Liberals are. I want to remind the member across the way that it is a court-ordered amount that the government is obliged to spend. I would also like to remind the member that first nations leaders, including the AFN, have been very clear that it is billions of dollars short to equate the cost of ensuring the right to clean drinking water on first nations. I say shame on the government. It is politicizing the right of our kids to clean drinking water.”

“The government does not spend enough on First Nations services. Still, I want the Conservatives to support this bill so First Nations can protect their own water.”

“Madam Speaker, what I can say is we know that the funding is inadequate. The fact is that the government has put cutbacks on Indigenous Services Canada. We know we have not even recovered from the time of Paul Martin when he put a 2% cap on first nations. I do not want to talk about budget cuts, but I will say is that I hope my Conservative colleagues will support the right and recognition and confirm aboriginal title that has been confirmed even by the court to make sure that first nations have a right to protect source waters and aquifers as waters flow into our nations.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 35 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 47 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →