“While investments and efforts over time have resulted in improvements to water conditions in First Nation communities, much more remains to be done,” states the committee’s report on Bill S-8, Safety of Drinking Water on First Nation Lands.
“It is clear that a federal regulatory regime is required to establish transparent and enforceable water standards on First Nation lands. It is equally clear that the federal government and First Nations need to work together in the development of such water standards. Closing the legislative gap is, however, only part of the solution to the problems surrounding water quality on-reserve,” says the report.
Bill S-8 was first introduced in the Senate on Feb. 29. It is the federal government’s second attempt to address water safety. The first bill, S-11, died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. The Senate is currently debating the bill at report stage.
Although the Senate committee reported the bill back without amendments, it included observations and stated that the government should do meaningful consultations with First Nations and provide the resources they need to implement the bill.
The bill allows the government to impose regulations on drinking water on First Nation lands including with respect to training and certification, protecting drinking water sources from contamination, the creation and elimination of drinking water systems and the collection, treatment, monitoring, handling and reporting of waste water testing.
Guy Latouche, a consultant with the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, agreed with the committee, saying that if this framework is to work, the government must consult with First Nations when crafting the regulations and be fully involved in the process.
“We need to not only fill the legal void, but we have to make sure that First Nations are informed and consulted, and also that they have the appropriate capacity, that they have the means to contribute to reaching the goals that underpin the act and the entire process that arises out of it,” he said, adding that this means pre-emptively upgrading treatment plants and providing the appropriate training and budget to maintain the drinking water and waste water treatment plants.
Eric Morris, regional chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations said that his organization was not consulted before the bill’s development.
“The process was started without our involvement from the very beginning,” Mr. Morris told the Senate Aboriginal Peoples Committee last month. “If you come to us with a plan in hand that is being developed already, prior to our involvement, then it is not going to be acceptable. … When we are not involved, that is when trouble happens; and we do not like it at all.”
He said while the council ultimately supports the bill, consultation and resources are key. “It is interesting that many no-money bills land here. That is almost disrespectful,” he said.
Quebec Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau said, however, that he is “surprised” and “taken aback” by the allegations of the lack of consultation. He said former Aboriginal Affairs minister Jim Prentice began consultations in 2006.
“At the end of this year, close to $2.5-billion will have been spent on this. I am a bit surprised when I hear there was no consultation when the fact remains that for six years there have been ongoing discussions between departments and willing First Nations communities,” Sen. Brazeau said at the committee last month. “The offer was always there on the table and money was always there on the table. I think that [saying there is a lack of consultation] is doing a disservice to First Nations citizens because all we want at the end is clean and safe drinking water.”
In addition, Sen. Brazeau said that negotiating the money involved in implementing the legislation does not start until the bill is passed and regulations are drafted. He said the bill was amended from Bill S-11, which shows the Conservative government listened to stakeholders.
“We can talk about money; we can talk about dollar figures all we want. However, until this bill is passed and the commencement of the drafting of regulations takes place, we will not get anywhere,” Sen. Brazeau said. “I do not think that any government that wants to bring clean and safe drinking water, regardless of political stripe or colour, would initiate a system to fail. All I am suggesting is that we need to get to the drafting of the regulations to get to the point where we all want to be.”
The government has three other bills on the Order Paper in the House and the Senate related to First Nations:
Bill C-27, Financial Accountability and Transparency of First Nations Bill
Conservative MP Kelly Block (Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Sask.) first introduced this bill in the last Parliament as a private member’s bill, C-575, with the same goals. It passed second reading and was referred to the House Aboriginal Affairs Committee, but died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.) introduced Bill C-27 on Nov. 23, 2011, but it has yet to be debated in the House.
The bill aims to provide more “transparency and accountability” when it comes to First Nations governments’ salaries and expenses.
“The bill builds on our government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring First Nations have strong, transparent and accountable governments. It will also lead to decreasing the reporting burden for First Nations,” Mr. Duncan said when introducing the bill.
First Nations are already required to submit and publicly release salary information, but the bill adds detailed expense reports and First Nations’ audited consolidated financial statements to the list of disclosures. The figures would be posted on the Aboriginal Affairs departmental website as the information is received. Under the bill, First Nations are required to provide the information upon request to its members within 120 days and maintain the information on its website for 10 years.
If First Nations governments fail to meet the act’s requirements, members and “any person, including the minister” are able to go to court to obtain the information. The bill allows the Aboriginal Affairs minister to withhold or terminate funds to First Nations.
“This bill will mean more accountability of First Nation leaders to our people,” said Darcy Bear, chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, in a press release. “Transparent and accountable First Nation governments support a strong environment for investment leading to greater economic development.”
In a preliminary analysis of the bill, however, the Assembly of First Nations said that the standards in this bill “surpass those for elected officials in many other jurisdictions” and the consequences are “overly punitive.”
“In addition, the requirements do not take into account capacity or existing reporting burdens faced by First Nation governments,” the AFN said. “Implementing provisions in Bill C-27 could endanger the provision of key and core services to First Nation citizens if the information required is not provided.”
In a backgrounder, the federal government said the bill was necessary because of “complaints from community members and recent media attention” to the “lack of availability of financial information in some First Nations.”
Bill S-2, First Nations Matrimonial Real Property Rights Bill
The federal government previously introduced three bills on the same subject matter, to a wide range of opinion. The bill aims to give First Nations on reserves the same rights as other Canadians when it comes to property after a marriage or conjugal relationship breaks down. Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.) said at the Senate committee studying the bill that this legislation “is the right thing to do” for a number of reasons.
“It enables First Nation communities to design and implement matrimonial real property laws tailored to their own cultures and traditions,” he said. “The immediate and concrete solution articulated in Bill S-4 is informed by considerable research and consultation conducted by independent groups, including national aboriginal organizations.”
British Columbia Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer, at third reading debate before the Upper Chamber passed the bill, said that she worried the bill’s aims won’t be realized because of the lack of resources for First Nations on reserve.
“Although in principle this bill aims to provide safeguards to aboriginal peoples, it is my fear that it will be unable to achieve its intended effects,” she said.
Sen. Jaffer said the government needs to look at the “bigger picture,” and put into place the resources needed for the legislation to be effective. “For example, Bill S-2 relies heavily on provincial courts, which are not meeting current needs, let alone future ones created by this bill,” she said.
Quebec Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau said there is a “disconnect” among aboriginal peoples who are affected by the lack of legal clarity on matrimonial real property and organizations that do consultations in limited communities.
“Many of the aboriginal women who I have spoken to during my working on this issue who have been affected by the lack of an MRP regime on-reserve are generally supportive of having a piece of legislation to fill the vacuum. Yet, when you talk to some aboriginal leaders, some of them—not all—tend to oppose any attempt at trying to do the right thing to protect the rights of aboriginal women and children,” he said. “There is sort of a difference of opinions with respect to what should be done.”
In his committee appearance on the bill, Mr. Duncan called the legislation “fair and balanced” and said the government’s “best approach [is] to close the legislative gap.” He said he’s “amazed” by the bill’s opponents but that he’s “confident” they will in the end support the bill. “Bill S-2 is about rights and protection for people who need them,” he said.
Betty Ann Lavallée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, told the Senate committee that the bill is important because it is about a person’s dignity.
Ms. Lavallée noted that when marriages or common law relationships breakdown, some women are forced to leave reserves with their children because they have no legal entitlement to the property. She said Bill S-2 is a “positive and significant step” for aboriginal peoples.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada said while the bill is a good step forward, the organization is “not completely convinced” it will address ongoing concerns. “We see there are deficiencies,” said Michèle Audette, second vice-president of NWAC and president of Quebec Native Women.
Ms. Audette also said that the bill is “too prescriptive” and “does not support the native legal system.”
“My deepest desire,” she said, “is to see our nations, our communities, our aboriginal governments, develop our own systems that are consistent with our traditions and cultures while respecting human rights and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
The Senate passed the bill on Dec. 1, 2011. It was introduced in the House on Dec. 8, but has yet to be debated.
Bill S-6, Election and Term of Office of First Nations Chiefs and Councillors
This bill reforms First Nations elections, specifically lengthening chiefs’ and councillors’ terms from two years to four and allows elections to be contested in a court. Penalties for breaching the act are also included and allows First Nations governments to opt out of the new law if they set out their own written code and rules regarding elections of members to their council.
Nunavut Conservative Senator Dennis Patterson supported the bill, saying that there will be improved governance. “Corrupt practices such as vote buying occur during First Nations elections, but there is no regulatory deterrent to counter this phenomenon because the existing legislation, the Indian Act, does not set out penalties. Bill S-6, which clearly describes these activities and sets out penalties for offences, will deter criminal practices and will allow the courts to punish offenders,” he told the Senate at third reading.
Ontario Liberal Senator Jim Munson inquired, however, whether the Aboriginal Affairs minister would have too much power under a provision which states that the minister could intervene in an election if there were “protracted” disputes in an election.
“I know that the Atlantic aboriginals like clause 3(1)(b), but why would the government not agree to remove it when at least four delegations of witnesses said they did not like it?” said Sen. Munson, who sits on the Senate Aboriginal People’s Committee.
In response, Sen. Patterson, who also sits on the committee, said although there were concerns about the possible paternal and colonialist approach if a minister intervenes, the minister cannot do so “at a whim.” He noted that the minister already has this power to intervene at his discretion. The change that Bill S-6 makes is that a new election would be done under the new law, instead of the Indian Act, which Sen. Patterson said “is full of flaws and it is a bad process. In the rare case of a protracted election dispute, clause 3(1)(b) would give the minister the power to order an election to proceed under Bill S-6, which everybody agrees is progressive.”
Liberal Northwest Territories Senator Nick Sibbeston, who also sits on the committee, said although the bill is an improvement over the Indian Act’s elections provisions, it is not perfect. “There are still paternalistic elements,” he said. “The government does not understand the need for a stand-alone, First Nations-led elections commission and tribunal.”
Jody Wilson-Raybould, British Columbia regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations, told the Senate committee that the AFN supports the bill as it is an incremental step toward eliminating the Indian Act. At the same time, however, she said she opposes the provisions that allow the minister to interfere in an election.
“These provisions essentially give the minister the ability to impose core governance rules on a First Nation, which, if ever used, would be resented by that First Nation, would not be seen as legitimate in the eyes of that nation, and would probably add fuel to an already burning fire,” she said. “Ultimately, each nation must, and will, take responsibility for its own governance, including elections.”
Aimée E. Craft, chair, national aboriginal law section of the Canadian Bar Association, noted that changes to the Indian Act should not be made in a piecemeal fashion and also argued for a tribunal.
“Further, the CBA supports the protection and preservation of autonomy, self-governance and the preservation and enhancement of internal political structures of governance of indigenous people in accordance with Canada’s Constitution and international obligations,” she said.
The Senate passed the bill on April 24. It was introduced in the House on May 4, but has yet to be debated.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Bea Vongdouangchanh
No comments:
Post a Comment