Bill C-61

First Nations Clean Water Act

An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands

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, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nation lands. 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.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming all the way to Ottawa.

We've already seen a lot of closures across the country, like caribou closures. I'm from the northeastern part of British Columbia. We've seen potential closures, too, on the west coast—fishing and other closures. British Columbians are very aware of closures, because they've affected us already, personally.

Hunting and fishing organizations have a lot of questions about source water and the associated protection zones referenced in Bill C-61, as you do. According to clause 21(1), defining what a protection zone is.... It actually doesn't define it. It's whatever the minister says it is. I think that becomes the question. Meaning depends on whatever the minister sitting in that chair decides and then applies. Then people will be shut out from their ability to fish and hunt in areas they've long fished and hunted in. There's a misconception that people just do it for fun, but it's often for sustenance. You probably have a lot of friends who fill up their freezers to survive the winter, whether it's arctic char, moose or deer. It's about feeding our families.

Do you share those concerns about all Canadians' potential loss of access to hunting and fishing areas?

[Kelly Carter, Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Wildlife Federation]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the invitation to speak with you today.

I'm Kelly Carter, the chief executive officer of the Alberta Wildlife Federation.

Today, I'm a visitor speaking to you in Ottawa from the unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory. I reside and live in Edmonton, which is in Treaty 6 territory. The Alberta Wildlife Federation honours all first nations, Inuit and Métis people and their valuable contributions to this land.

The Alberta Wildlife Federation is an organization that represents over 16,000 members from diverse backgrounds who are brought together by their love of hunting, fishing and exploring the outdoors. Water is an integral part of our communities. We love to live, work and play in it.

Firstly and importantly, I want to reinforce our support for the human right of access to safe, clean drinking water and the sanitization of waste water. As a human right, it applies to all people, with no exceptions. We appreciate the effort being made to improve drinking water quality, specifically on first nation lands in Canada. This is long overdue.

After reading Bill C-61, the Alberta Wildlife Federation would like to share some thoughts and perspectives with the committee. We support the intent of Bill C-61 to address and improve drinking water for those living on and visiting first nation lands. Access to a reliable stream of safe, clean drinking water is essential.

The term “source water” appeared multiple times in the bill, but without a definition. We have some concerns about how this could be used in the implementation of the act and the resulting impact it could have on our recreational outdoor communities. This comes up in paragraph 5(1)(b), which reads, “the effective management and monitoring of all stages of water services delivery, from the protection of source water”.

What does this protection mean? There could be a wide interpretation of this, and vast consequences for those who enjoy angling in our rivers and lakes, along with all Canadians who want to explore our waterways on paddleboards, kayaks and watercraft.

Upon review of the bill, we were left unsure what a source water “protection zone” is, along with what impact it would have if one was declared. Clause 29 states that first nations law must “protect the environment as much as or more than” current regulations listed in the bill. This needs to be in collaboration with all levels of government when it impacts any water that is not located on first nation lands. The creation of a first nations water commission is good, but again, we note that it includes a section on source water protection plans. The Government of Canada, along with provincial governments, has a role to play in this responsibility when it comes to source water.

The more we read the act, the more it became evident that source water protection is a recurring theme that is broad and without definition. Why are we concerned about this? Because it commonly shuts down access for hunting and fishing and reduces opportunities.

I want to emphasize that water is for all Canadians to enjoy, access, drink and explore. Bill C-61 could present challenges if access were restricted to water bodies and if fishing opportunities were eliminated, restricted or further controlled. We want to know what guardrails are in place to protect these interests.

We are worried and concerned that the use of source water protection clauses in this act go beyond the intent of what is needed to provide safe drinking water. Any discussion involving that source water should include everyone, as we all have a stake in water management.

I want to reinforce that fishing, hunting and trapping communities contribute $13.2 billion in Canada's GDP, $18.9 billion in direct spending and 107,000 Canadian jobs with an estimated labour of $6.4 billion. That's based on a Conference Board of Canada report from 2019. In Canada, we have 2.9 million licensed anglers, and recreational fishing brings $10.3 billion to our economy. Nine in 10 Canadians support hunting, fishing and trapping, according to Nanos Research.

Water is also critical to our tourism industry, which requires access to water for recreational purposes as well. Think of all the rafting tours, fishing guides and hikers who want to experience this vast natural resource.

I paint this picture because access to outdoor areas to participate in these activities is essential. It comes back to the impact of protecting source waters and what that means for implementation. How this bill will be interpreted and the economic risks that could result concern us. We need federal guardrails in place to protect these interests. Anything to do with source water or the protection of source water must be done in a collaborative manner that respects provincial authority and the interests of all Canadians.

In summary, we respect the human right to safe, clean drinking water and the sanitization of waste water. We are concerned by the use of the term “source water” throughout the bill and its inclusion in a first nations water commission regarding how it could impact recreational communities, and we are concerned by the lack of guardrails within the bill.

Thank you for your time today and for allowing me to address the committee on this important matter. I hope all first nations communities are able to access healthy, safe and clean drinking water as soon as possible.

[Chief Sherri-Lyn Hill, Six Nations of the Grand River]

Nia:wen. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill C-61.

My name is Sherri-Lyn Hill. I am the chief of the 59th elected council of Six Nations of the Grand River territory. It's the most populous first nation in Canada and is located a short drive from Toronto, Ontario.

Please note that a written submission was prepared in support of my commentary. I will refer to my community as SNGR or Six Nations from this point forward.

It blows my mind that in 2024, in a G7 country, legislation is required to provide safe drinking water for first nations, but here we are.

With respect to water equality, there are different standards in this country. First, the Canada Water Act manages water resources for the benefit of all Canadians. This act is binding on His Majesty. Second, Ontarians have access to drinking water with source and tap protections and legally binding test standards. Then we have Bill C-61, which introduces non-binding legislation that promises “best efforts”.

This is a slap in the face. No wonder first nations often turn to the courts to pursue federal accountability for their issues. SNGR has fought for access to safe drinking water for decades without success. Most of the Haudenosaunee of Six Nations have relied on unprotected ground-source drinking water since the lands were granted to us by the Haldimand Treaty in 1784.

The federal government has had knowledge of unsafe water at Six Nations for decades. The first community water system, which serviced 11% of households, had contamination issues that led to boil water advisories in 1990. In 2022, Six Nations Health Services released a report on water testing from 2003 and 2022, which revealed that water safety issues remain an ongoing problem. It will take 30-plus years to provide water services to on-reserve members.

Access to safe drinking water is a necessity for all life. No human, plant or animal can survive without it. The lack of access to safe drinking water profoundly impacts quality of life. Nearly 2,000 elderly members living on my reserve have spent most of their lives hauling water for their families. Some of them, in their eighties, continue to climb trucks at a fill station.

It was hoped that Bill C-61 would go beyond the status quo.

The Auditor General of Canada said, in a 2021 report that “Indigenous Services Canada did not provide the support necessary to ensure that First Nations...have ongoing access to safe drinking water.” Furthermore, the report noted that ISC “had not amended the operations and maintenance funding...for First Nations water systems since it was developed 30 years ago.”

There are many aspects of this legislation that are concerning. The repeat use of the phrase “best efforts” does not bind the Government of Canada to action. To successfully achieve the purpose of the bill, several amendments are necessary.

Firstly, consultation must comply with first nations consultation and accommodation policies. Next, the definition of “First Nation governing body” must reference the legally recognized government.

Bill C-61 must ensure that first nations are guaranteed access to safe drinking water that meets all current and future needs. Bill C-61 must require the achievement of outcomes. It must also provide for quantities of water that meet economic and cultural needs. It requires Canada to provide adequate funding for water services and it must ensure all first nations have access to binding dispute resolution.

There are other areas that require strengthening to ensure the inherent rights of first nations are upheld—the rights, I add, that first nations never gave up.

Again, nia:wen. Thank you for the opportunity.

[Grand Chief Cody Diabo, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

Shé:kon sewakwé:kon!

I am Grand Chief Cody Diabo with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake thanks the committee for the invitation to make submissions regarding Bill C-61, the first nations clean water act. We thank you for this opportunity, since the consultation process—like so many consultations, stating it frankly—are quite abysmal.

The MCK stands with indigenous peoples across the land who struggle for clean water. However, we oppose Bill C-61, which reproduces Canada's flawed positions on the inherent governance rights of indigenous peoples and limits Kahnawake's right to govern waters in our own backyard. The Kanienkehaka of Kahnawake have been self-governing since time immemorial. We exercise our inherent right to self-government in accordance with Haudenosaunee law, not with any delegated authority.

The watersheds of the St. Lawrence Valley have always sustained our community and our people. We fish, hunt and trap, harvest food and medicines, camp, canoe and raise our families on these waters. We have a deep connection to them. They are an integral part of our culture and our society.

It is the Kanienkehaka of Kahnawake, and no one else, who protect the waters that sustain us and who decide how our water treatment services will be managed.

Our main objection to Bill C-61 is that it pretends to affirm our inherent right of self-government in relation to water while attempting to subordinate our laws to federal legislation. The primary mechanism for this is clause 8 of the bill, which is offensive for two reasons.

First, clause 8 reinforces Canada's paternalistic posture by subjugating indigenous jurisdiction to a generic suite of federal laws. This is unacceptable. Indigenous jurisdictions are not based on or constrained by Canadian law. It cannot be artificially limited to areas of jurisdiction that are considered integral to distinct indigenous cultures. The MCK did flag this in the very limited consultation that took place before the bill was tabled—like so much other legislation that is out there that we provide comment to.

Second, to add insult to injury, when we saw the next draft of the bill—the one that's before you—the MCK was outraged to see that additional laws had been added to clause 8 without any consultation whatsoever. The Canada Marine Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act have huge implications for governance of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which runs directly through our territory.

Including these laws in clause 8 seems to single out Kahnawake and attempts to severely limit our ability to govern our own waters. It is wildly contradictory with Bill C-61's stated purpose to recognize that protecting the waters we drink requires recognizing our rights to protect those waters ourselves.

The MCK has actively called out the exclusion of Kahnawake from any participation in the governance and stewardship of the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway. In the context of Parliament's consideration of Bill C-33, we ask you to amend the Canada Marine Act to include the recognition and protection of our rights—on your end, that is. The MCK has also repeatedly requested changes to Seaway governance to honour our right to participate in governance of these crucial waters that are firmly within our territory. Our concerns have been met with total silence, as I pointed out, like so many others have.

True reconciliation requires Canada to stop trying to govern over us and over all aspects of our territory. The sooner Canada realizes that it does not have jurisdiction over first nations peoples, the sooner we can have true reconciliation.

While the MCK fully supports ensuring all indigenous people have access to clean water, we oppose the inclusion of Seaway-specific legislation in Bill C-61 and strongly caution Canada against a piecemeal approach to extracting itself from what is rightfully our jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 122 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

As always, I want to start by recognizing that we are gathering on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and I want to express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste-water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Just so colleagues know, we have invited a number of different governments to present to our committee, but we've been unable to find a time for them to attend. Rest assured we have sent invitations to six different governments, and I think we will be getting some briefs.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses here today.

From the Alberta Wildlife Federation, we have CEO Kelly Carter. From the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, we have Grand Chief Cody Diabo, joining virtually, along with Katie Spillane, legal counsel. In person, from the Six Nations of the Grand River, we have Chief Sherri-Lyn Hill here with us, along with Mr. Greg Frazer.

With that, we're going to go to the opening round of statements. Each witness will have five minutes for an opening statement, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions. We'll start online with Grand Chief Cody Diabo.

With that, I'll turn the microphone over to you for five minutes or less.

[Norma Large]

No, Bill C-61 creates the legislative basis for the off-load planned through the ISC act of 2019. The devolution pathway that Canada began in 1961 is being delivered through successive legislative mechanisms. On water, waste water and related infrastructure, we are talking about Bill C-61.

You cannot separate those two things, sir, with all due respect.

[Norma Large]

Hold on a minute. I'm answering your question.

If you look at the ISC act of 2019.... We were told by the department—by Minister Hajdu—that it intersects with this law, and that the intention, as the chief just said, is for a gradual transfer of all programs and services, which include water, waste water and related infrastructure.

When you look at Bill C-61—relative to how it intends to build indigenous governing bodies like the first nations water commission—and the ISC act in tandem, you can see what we're concerned about. It's that there is—

[Chief Henry Lewis, Onion Lake Cree Nation]

First of all, I'm very grateful to sit here today addressing the Senate on such a delicate topic. My name is Okimaw Lewis and I am the chief of Onion Lake Cree Nation. I speak on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe and Algonquin nations.

We entered into Treaty 6 with the British Crown in 1876, before Alberta or Saskatchewan existed. Our ancestors would not have imagined these new levels of government or the impacts we see now when they entered into treaty. Our treaty guarantees our ability to continue our way of life—we in our canoes and settlers in their ships—without interference. Our treaty is unique. Two provisions are important for the discussion here today: the medicine chest provision and the famine and pestilence provision. These confirm the Crown's continued obligation regarding our health and our protection from starvation and disease.

Our access to a healthy abundance of water is essential. It is tied to those obligations and does not end at the reserve boundary. Our territory extends throughout the entire Treaty 6 area. Our reserve straddles the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, which creates additional challenges for my nation. Onion Lake has approximately 7,000 members and occupies approximately 156,000 acres of territory.

To be clear, we reject Bill C-61 in its entirety.

I will focus my discussion on five issues.

First is the breach of treaty and inherent rights. Water is sacred and essential to everything. Our relationship to water is not granted through federal legislation or agreements with provinces. This bill assumes that our authority over water is only on, inside or under our reserve lands. This bill downloads federal responsibility and liabilities under the treaty in the guise of self-government. It requires us to forgo our rights to source waters.

Second is the flawed consultation process. Several court cases deal with the duty to the Crown when consulting. Onion Lake Cree Nation has protocols outlining consultation and what requirements governments and industry must follow when engaging us through our own process. This has not been followed. Federal representatives from ISC and the DOJ were at this committee on June 12 describing the process that was used. They said they consulted with modern treaty, self-governing first nations and the AFN.

Onion Lake Cree Nation is an independent nation. We are not involved with the corporate body of AFN or any tribal council, nor do they speak on our behalf. AFN and other corporate bodies are not rights holders. They are corporate bodies. That modern treaty and self-government first nations will not be affected by this bill, so it doesn't make sense that they were consulted. Sending an email does not equate to adequate consultation.

Third is the jurisdictional problem. This bill is aspirational. Language like “reliable” and “assist First Nations in achieving the highest attainable standard” in clause 4 is meaningless. We do not need this two-tiered “let's try to do better” system that only transfers liability and responsibility to the nations using terms like “self-government”. We see the issue of dumping and contaminants in the water from development. This bill will not compel the province to do anything. Canada already has powers under the Canada Water Act, but it has failed to use them. The proposed commission and lack of details are scary. We are unsure about what authorities the commission will have, and whether it will make decisions related to the discharge of nuclear waste and other effluents in our water bodies and tributaries.

Fourth are the protection zones. The protection zones are also aspirational. They have no teeth, and we are not convinced these zones will be created according to our needs, or in time. They must be adjacent to the reserve. We hunt, fish, trap and gather in our territory. Animals, plants and fish do not stay in the reserve boundary.

These zones require agreements with provinces. They do not compel provinces or ministers to do anything. Protection zones and other legislation have not worked. Nations continually have to take Canada to court or wait 15 or more years for action.

Finally, water is a human right. The UN has recognized that water is at the core of sustainable development and critical to socio-economic development, energy, food production, healthy ecosystems and human survival. Water is also at the heart of adaptation to climate change. As the population grows, there is an increasing need to balance all the competing commercial demands on water sources so that we have enough for our own needs.

The bill does not recognize that right, nor does it include the World Health Organization's guidelines for water quality. The bill does not guarantee the protections and principles established under article 19 of the United Nations declaration.

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

I really hope they do. It's very essential for our health and wellness. We signed treaties that haven't been honoured, so I'm hoping this government makes an effort to help our first nations, especially in remote locations like Split Lake, Shamattawa and other communities that are affected, because our people are getting sick.

We really need them to step up and honour the treaties. They said they would help our people, which is not happening to this day. I agree with what the chief said. We should be at the top, leading on Bill C-61.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be back at the INAN committee to discuss Bill C-61. However, it's not lost on me that next week, in Ottawa, a team of Liberal government-hired lawyers will be sitting in a courtroom fighting 59 first nations, including the Shamattawa First Nation here in my riding, on the very issue of clean drinking water.

It's very important that we are clear there's hypocrisy in the very fact that first nations here in our region—like Shamattawa, the TCN and others—have suffered under long-term boil water advisories. For years and decades, they have fought for access to clean drinking water and have had to pursue legal action against Canada to be able to realize that very fundamental right.

I also think it's hypocritical that the Liberals keep pointing to Bill C-61 as the be-all and end-all while they fight first nations like Shamattawa in the Supreme Court, which we will be seeing next week. Shamattawa and other first nations have asked to simply work with the federal government in real terms to be able to deliver clean drinking water for their first nations. Instead of working with them and instead of collaborating with them, the federal government has chosen to fight them at the Supreme Court.

That's something I think is shameful for Canada in the year 2024. It's shameful in a country as wealthy as ours. Any Canadian would be shocked to know that our basic human right of access to clean drinking water is not being made available to first nations. Instead of working with them to find solutions, the federal government is choosing to fight them in court.

I want to direct my first question to Chief Beardy of Tataskweyak Cree Nation here in our region.

Chief Beardy, the Tataskweyak Cree Nation is no stranger to fighting this federal government. Your community, along with the Neskantaga First Nation and Curve Lake First Nation, took on the Liberal government and won. In fact, your community took your fight all the way to the United Nations, which was something I was proud to support.

In your statement, you spoke of how profoundly the government has failed your community and how the water in your community made and continues to make people sick. When ISC officials came to TCN and Split Lake, they initially denied that the water was unsafe. They refused to test for the specific contaminants that were harming your members. At the time, they claimed that your water continued to meet approved guidelines, and that was that. This is typical of a government that shows more respect for guidelines than it does for first nations.

It got so bad that TCN was forced to hire its own analysts to convince the federal government to act. It shouldn't take that much effort.

Three years ago, the Auditor General pointed to the various ways the federal government was failing TCN and first nations on clean drinking water. There was a lack of funding to retain staff. The funding formula to train people at water treatment plants hadn't been updated in over 15 years. There was a consistent refusal to update the list of contaminants.

We hear now that a new water treatment plant is in the works, but you've pointed to the ongoing lack of clean drinking water. Have you noticed a change in the last three years since the Auditor General released this information, when it comes to access to clean drinking water in your first nation?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, like you, I wonder whether Bill C‑61 is as robust as people claim. The Canadian government often shows a certain level of complacency. As the saying goes, we don't always walk the talk.

To ensure true economic reconciliation, we must also address the real issues facing the first nations and the impact of certain matters.

For example, Chief Miskokomon, what do you think about the fact that Bill C‑61 doesn't address natural resource management or energy transition decisions?

Do you want to be involved in the decision‑making process and be part of the solution?

How does this affect your water and land management rights?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like many of you, I'm wondering whether Bill C‑61 is as robust as people claim. Often, when it comes to keeping promises, particularly concerning indigenous communities and economic reconciliation, there's a sense of complacency. In many cases, we don't walk the talk, as the saying goes. We need to address this issue properly. As a result, I wonder whether Bill C‑61 will give us the opportunity to do so.

Chief Miskokomon—

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services]

Thank you, Chair.

Tansi, honourable members of Parliament. On behalf of our chiefs committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-61.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking on the unceded land of the Algonquin people.

With that, I will get right to it.

For the past year or so, we in the appointed Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services regarding water and water management in Alberta have monitored the progress of Bill C-61. As a committee, we have watched this bill progress from afar, since we were not engaged in the process, regrettably and unacceptably—not until the bill was already written. This bill does not meet our needs or expectations. We know we are not alone in this position. We have many regional issues in Alberta respecting water that need to be addressed and incorporated into this legislation. Without meaningful inclusion, this bill will fail first nation governments and peoples.

We must state here on the record that the Assembly of First Nations is being used to manufacture consent. This must not be allowed. At the recent AFN July session, a resolution to support Bill C-61 garnered the support of only 100 out of 600-plus first nations, yet Canada has asserted a position of strong engagement and support from first nations throughout the development of the bill, at every opportunity. This is false. Canada continues to hide behind the AFN to manufacture consent to pursue the very things we want to talk about with you today.

Please note that our committee will be submitting a substantive assessment of our concerns, which will include additional issues about specific aspects of the proposed legislation. We understand that the line-by-line work is still to come through this committee.

Today I want to spend some time expanding on our deep concerns over how Bill C-61 ignores unfinished business related to treaties. Bill C-61 does not meaningfully consider or incorporate our inherent and treaty rights to water in its framework for addressing water and water management issues. The treaty relationship is being ignored in this law. This is unacceptable to us as treaty nations.

Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 nations have inherent jurisdiction over water within their territories. We hold sacred, spiritual and cultural connections to water. The health and protection of water for the current and future generations are paramount to our well-being. Canada cannot continue to fail our peoples with this, but if the bill stays in its present form, it will. There is a slight reference in this bill to self-governing and modern-day treaty agreements, but not a single reference to our numbered treaties. We want to know why.

This goes to an issue that appears to be the elephant in the room: Canada, through this legislation, is continuing to deny our inherent and treaty rights to water. This is a fundamental flaw in the legislation as currently drafted. Canada is boastful about protection zones—concepts set out in this legislation. In theory, this can hopefully be an improvement over the status quo, but only—and I emphasize “only”—if you have a willing government partner. This is a bit of fantasyland thinking. There is nothing binding in this concept. It has no legal obligations and no teeth.

What happens if you don't have a willing government partner? First nations in the Alberta region have been left out of significant water planning initiatives in the province of Alberta, and Bill C-61 and the addition of protection zones provide no assurance of this changing. This is our current reality in Alberta, which, as you have been told by our colleague leaders from Treaty 7, continues to assert that it owns all water in what is called the province of Alberta. We are here today to remind parliamentarians that Alberta is an incorporated entity that has no sovereignty. In fact, it was created well after our treaties were made in 1876, 1877 and 1899. At no point in time did we cede or surrender our inherent rights and territories, and this includes over water.

What has happened over time has been a gradual and complete interference in our way of life. Successive governments in Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, continue to disrespect and dishonour our treaty rights and make a mockery of our treaty relationship. We are asking you to reconsider this. If you don't, realize that you will be complicit in the continuation of the situation.

What is at stake here is the honour of the Crown. We expect, as Canada's own UN declaration action plan states, that it will give its good-faith dealings under the treaties.

With that, I will end and take questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 121 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste-water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first panel. From the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services, we have Chief Rupert Meneen of the Tallcree First Nation; Chief Sheldon Sunshine of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation; Vaughn Paul, chief executive officer of the First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group; and Norma Large, policy adviser, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group. We also have, from the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chief Joe Miskokomon. By video conference from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment. As well, we have Chief Taralee Beardy, who is online.

It's great to see our witnesses.

We will start with opening comments. I don't know who from the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services wants to go first, but we will kick....

Is there a problem?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

As a public health physician, you clearly have familiarity in provincial legislation and working with regulations, both in interpreting and in helping to enforce regulations. How do you see the benefit of having this overarching federal legislation, Bill C-61? You urged us to pass this quickly. How do you see federal legislation as being helpful in ultimately enabling clean water in first nations communities?