Minimum standards not being met: MKO

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Brazeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Lang, for the second reading of Bill S-11, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on first nation lands.

Hon. Charlie Watt: [Senator Watt spoke in Inuktitut.]

Honourable senators, I thank the government for making clean drinking water for First Nations a priority. We all agree that the right to clean drinking water is important to all Canadians, and we want legislation that addresses this issue.

My concern with Bill S-11 is the impact of clause 4(1)(r) on the rights of Aboriginal peoples in this country. In particular, regulations under this act would abrogate or derogate from our constitutionally protected rights under section 35 of the Charter.

It is my role as an Aboriginal senator to bring these elements to the attention of honourable senators as we study this bill.

The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government to Aboriginal peoples must be our first consideration in determining whether the legislation can be justified. We must ensure that fair resources are available and that the Aboriginal nations in question are properly consulted at the earliest stage.

This issue of trust is a delicate matter. At the tip of the iceberg, Aboriginal leaders are wondering why this legislation is being introduced. It appears to be about water quality but the wording of it has many in the Aboriginal community questioning whether there is more to this legislation than meets the eye.

Aboriginal leaders have asked me about the justification for this bill. We are concerned by the wording of this particular bill because it takes a position that is very different from the recommendations made by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in their 2007 report titled: Taking Section 35 Rights Seriously: Non-derogation Clauses relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights.

In this report we are reminded of the scope of section 35 rights, as we are from the Sparrow decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. This report is an excellent overview of the responsibility of the Crown.

I am also concerned because this bill seems to contradict the recommendations in the 2007 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on the subject of safe drinking water in First Nations communities. In this report on the issue of resource allocation, Dr. Harry Swain, Chair of the Expert Panel of Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, said his personal conclusion is that if we want to see the completion of what has been a fairly considerable national effort to get good water on Indian reserves, then we should worry about the basic resources first and about a regulatory regime later.

On the point of consultation, the Supreme Court of Canada has elaborated on the legal requirement for this study to consult. As we consider Bill S-11, it seems that clause 4(1)(r) suggests that the Crown contemplated that the forthcoming regulations might have a negative or adverse affect on Aboriginal rights or titles protected under section 35.

Honourable senators, I am troubled by the precedent we are setting. The way I see it, the government is venturing into provincial jurisdiction and outside of parliamentary scrutiny with this bill. On the issue of section 35 rights, I again refer honourable senators back to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report, which says:

This approach appears to establish a precedent for dealing with non-derogation of Aboriginal and treaty rights as a regulatory matter rather than addressing the issue explicitly in legislation, with obvious implications for Parliamentary scrutiny.

On this note, I would like to state for the record that I have met with Assembly of First Nations representatives and received written correspondence from those who are alarmed by the actions of this government actions which seem to be forcing them into a serious agreement with a yet-unknown third party without adequate consultation.

I remind those who are new to this chamber that Aboriginal peoples have struggled for generations to achieve legitimacy at the negotiating table. We take the issue of consultation and respect seriously.

Although I do not often speak of this, honourable senators, Aboriginal leaders carry a tremendous burden; their communities and their families have paid dearly for our involvement in political life. My involvement in the repatriation of the Constitution is one of the highlights of my career; the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is the other. In both of these proceedings I was honoured to negotiate on behalf of my people, but I did so at great personal expense.

Honourable senators, although those issues may seem old news to some, the embers of those political battles still burn in the hearts of those who negotiated with the government. Some of us have lived through the bitter and violent days of negotiations. We made advancements for our people, at a cost.

Although we have achieved much, it appears that Aboriginal people still have less respect from the government and we still do not enjoy the same equality provided to other Canadians. The fact that this bill contemplates abrogating Aboriginal rights through regulation that will not be scrutinized by Parliament is an embarrassment to Canadians and it is offensive to Native leaders. Once again it seems that government is trying to out-muscle us in a publicly humiliating way.

Honourable senators, as I conclude my remarks, I would suggest that we have many potential problems with the bill in its current form. We are not working from a position of trust, we have not heard any solid justification for this bill in any of the government’s own reports, there is no provision for the resources in this bill and the consultations with the First Nations were weak. I repeat, they were weak.

Honourable senators, it is our duty to ensure that Aboriginal and treaty rights are protected. We must insist on the cooperative framework between the Government of Canada and First Nations because that is the Constitution we live with today. (On motion of Senator Mitchell, debate adjourned.)

LINK: http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/DEB-E/057db_2010-10-20-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#36

SENATE DEBATE ON BILL S-11 PDF

This is a must read; from front to back. It’s frightening. It throws open the doors to loss of rights, punishment and water privatization. First Nations are going to have a heck of a time meeting the standards in this bill, and if they don’t “any person” can come in and “seize and detain things, and apply for a search warrant” and/or “require a first nation to enter into an agreement for the management of its drinking water or waste water system in cooperation with a third party.” Just like that, the Crown can send whoever they darn well please, to come in and seize, detain and/or privatize.

This bill also says in paragraph 4 (1)(r) that the Crown can: “provide for the relationship between the regulations and aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the extent to which the regulations may abrogate or derogate from those aboriginal and treaty rights.”

Abrogate and derogate are pretty scary words. Abrogate means to do away with. Derogate means to deviate or detract from. Can they abrogate and derogate treaty rights? I think that’s what this bill is saying they can do. I need some clarification on this point.

The Hon. Patrick Brazeau talks about” targeted” and “informed investments” and “protecting investments” and wants to” expedite this legislation.” This bill is setting First Nations up to fail, and when they do, there will be punishment and significant penalties and strangers on their land selling them back their water. We all want clean safe drinking water for our communities, but at what price? We can not “expedite this legislation” until we understand the ramifications to such an action, and so far it’s not looking good.

Please take the time to read the whole thing. It’s enlightening and scary. We need to understand Bill S-11, and we need to start referring to it when we mail in our Empty Glasses for Water to the PM. As I learn and understand more I will share.

Miigwech, joanne

By SooToday.com Staff
SooToday.com
Tuesday, June 15, 2010

NEWS RELEASE

ALGOMA UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS’ UNION

*************************
SAULT STE MARIE, ON – (June 15, 2010) – Students at Algoma University have responded to the proposed First Nations Water Legislation (Bill S-11), saying that while the efforts are long overdue, it is a small step in the right direction, with more work needed for the bill to carry any long-term viability.

“It’s concerning that the bill will create legislation, but will fail to implement adequate skills training and resources to First Nations communities to meet the regulations,” says Katie Yakasovich, vice-president, external of the Algoma University Students’ Union (AUSU). “It’s also disheartening that the government would spend $1.9 Million to create a fake lake in downtown Toronto, but will not invest in the health and sustainability of our communities.”

AUSU, in solidarity with the Shingwauk Anishnaabe Students Association (SASA), continues to work towards enlightening the federal government on the issues with the over 120 First Nations communities that do not have access to clean drinking water.

Algoma U graduate Joanne Robertson and supporters are actively working on the Empty Glass for Water campaign to raise awareness with the federal government that the number of water advisories is a problem that only the federal government working with our First Nations leaders can address.

“Bill S-11 provides no guarantees that drinking water infrastructure will be improved in our communities. One in six of our communities is on a boil water advisory,” says Robertson.

“We have support from across Canada to continue the efforts to ensure fair access to resources,” Yakasovich says. “Over 600,000 students have endorsed the campaign, and we will take that support to the next level as we force the decision-makers to be accountable, and ensure our message is heard. This was an issue that was raised when Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff was here for a town hall meeting. We need Ottawa to understand that leaving communities behind is never an option. The electorate will not have it.”

Algoma University students and people from across the country are encouraged to collect empty glasses to send to the prime minister’s office to send the message, and promote all communities to send an empty glass with a message to the prime minister, asking for fair access to a safe, clean drinking water.

About Algoma University Students’ Union

Algoma University Students’ Union represents over 1,000-full and part-time students in Sault Ste. Marie and Brampton ON, and is Local 82 of the Canadian Federation of Students.

About Algoma University

Algoma University offers a wide variety of liberal arts and sciences degree options including programs in psychology, computer science, business administration, fine arts, community economic & social development, and biology.

As the Canadian home of the internationally recognized M.Sc. CGT from the University of Abertay Dundee, Algoma University is at the forefront of computer games technology education.

Algoma University also offers accelerated second degree programs in business administration and computer science on its Brampton campus.

As a partner with Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, Algoma U is committed to respecting Anishinaabe knowledge and culture.

To learn more about Algoma University, visit here.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=46998