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.

[Chief Troy Knowlton, Piikani Nation]

Thank you very much for having us here today.

I am Piikani Nation Chief Troy Knowlton. It's Troy “Bossman” Knowlton, which is how the people back home know me. My traditional name is Bear Head.

I'll read a little bit here, and then I'll just add a little bit.

I'd like to thank the committee for ensuring that Piikani Nation and other Blackfoot nations have the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-61. I want to start by helping you appreciate who we are and what we have faced as first nations when it has come to water.

You have before you today three first nations that have been on the front lines of the first nation water rights in this country. My comments will be from Piikani's perspective, but I know that Siksika and Kainai have grappled with the same challenges.

As Chief Fox mentioned, the Blackfoot treaty region is one of the most water-scarce regions in Canada. From 1857 to 1860, Captain John Palliser led an expedition across the Canadian Prairies to assess the potential for the region. In his report, Palliser noted a large arid area that was likely unstable for agriculture. That area included much of the Blackfoot treaty region and became known as the Palliser triangle.

When Canada entered into the Blackfoot treaty in 1877, they knew that water was critically important to the reserve lands promised in the treaty. Even so, Canada has done little or nothing over the past century to protect the treaty water rights of the Blackfoot until Bill C-61.

When Alberta took over control of water in the province from Canada, it entrenched a system of water licensing: first in time, first in right. The system is intended to ensure that during times of drought, older or more senior water licences will not be impacted and more junior water licence-holders have to reduce water. The first in time, first in right system utterly fails to respect that the Blackfoot nations were using water in the region for thousands of years before European colonization. This is not an academic issue. The Government of Alberta has maintained that it owns and has jurisdiction over all water on Blackfoot nation reserve lands, and it has asserted that control without reference to history, our treaty water rights or the water needs of our nation. These issues led to a standoff in 1990 at the Piikani Nation over the construction of the Oldman River dam and nearly ended in violence.

When I say that it nearly ended in violence, there were shots fired. I was part of an encampment of 100 or so people who faced off against the province over the construction of the Oldman River dam that was going to decimate a lot of our ancestral territories, and it did. It was built against federal environmental statutes. Alberta did it anyway for a few millionaires who lived downstream in the agriculture belt of southern Alberta. Those millionaires are billionaires today, and they've created a lot more, whereas the Piikani Nation hasn't benefited the way we ought to have.

We had a water rights case that was put into abeyance in 1998. We negotiated a deal with Canada and Alberta over the jurisdiction of the water, put it into abeyance, and today we have problems with that. Bill C-61 may help us to alleviate some of those long-standing problems.

Although this is a touchy issue for many of us when it comes to the water and jurisdiction and ownership, we assert that we are stewards of the land and that first in time, first in rights make reference to the Blackfoot people who were there first in time, first in right.

I thank you for your time today. The chiefs, I know, have other issues that we want to talk about, but there are certain measures in here that are amenable to us that we can work with that will strengthen some of our jurisdictional issues as well as our future. However, there is still a lot that needs to be addressed in here.

I'll speak specifically for my northern brothers and sisters who lack infrastructure and who lack different water qualities. In the oil sands I have friends and families up north who are dying at an alarming rate because of water contamination. How is this going to help them? There is opposition from many first nations because of that, and it does not address a lot of their problems.

For the Blackfoot Confederacy, the Oldman River runs right through my reserve, and we're close to the headwaters. Because there are provisions in here for source water, for safe drinking water and for waste water, there are many areas that we can appreciate.

Of course, more needs to be done. I think you all can understand that when you look at the bill, at the history and at where we're going.

[James MacKinnon, Director, Engagement and Government Relations, Atlantic First Nations Water Authority Inc.]

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I'll be providing comments on behalf of the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, which I'll be referring to as the AFNWA for the remainder of my time.

The AFNWA is a first-of-its-kind, full-service water and waste-water utility that is owned and operated by its participating first nations. Currently, we provide service to 13 nations in Atlantic Canada.

The AFNWA is a not-for-profit organization led by its participating first nations, with the board comprising primarily first nation chiefs, who have carefully developed incorporation documents, governance manuals and bylaws to guide their decision-making. The AFNWA board of directors is supported and informed by our elders advisory lodge. The elders provide guidance on first nation values, cultures and knowledge, and offer advice to the board to ensure that the AFNWA is not solely a copy of a western utility model.

The foundation of AFNWA's success to date is, in large part, due to its alignment and connection of funding to treatment, monitoring and operation standards through an indigenous-informed governance framework.

The legislation being studied by the standing committee is central to the sustainability of the AFNWA and embodies many of the tenets that have been central to our progress, such as a commitment to a funding framework that is based on actual costs of operations and maintenance and is responsive to projected infrastructure needs. These themes are also embedded in the AFNWA's 10-year business plan, which was developed and approved by the AFNWA board in 2022 with the vision of strengthening programs and approaches to service delivery in the spirit of self-determination and reconciliation.

It is in this context that the AFNWA supports many elements of this legislation. However, there are key aspects of the legislation that could be improved, and I'd like to take the remaining time to outline some of these opportunities.

First nations water quality is currently unregulated. However, Bill C-61 allows for first nations to create their own regulations for water and waste-water quality, which, at a minimum, must align with the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and either the waste-water system effluent regulations or provincial standards. It's the AFNWA's opinion that future waste-water regulations must also consider environmental risk assessments to the receiving water body.

The AFNWA supports water and waste-water regulations, as a regulatory framework supports operational and design conditions for the AFNWA. However, regulations developed under Bill C-61 must be met with adequate funding. Subclause 27(5) states that the minister “must make best efforts” to begin consultations on a funding framework within six months of the section coming into force. This is encouraging. However, while there is a mandate to start the work, there is no required deadline to finish it. Communities would be well served if there was a commitment to finalize the funding framework in partnership with first nations within two years of the legislation achieving royal assent.

Further to funding, if a first nation creates standards above the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality or waste-water system effluent regulations, the funding framework must also provide adequate funding to design, install, operate, maintain and monitor the infrastructure required to meet those standards. Perhaps most importantly, paragraph 27(2)(d) identifies “enforcement” as an element to be considered in the funding framework.

Because there is no precedent for enforcing regulations regarding water services in first nations and clause 24 enables the minister or a provincial, territorial or municipal government or any public body acting under the authority of the first nation to enforce first nations laws—or preferably, a first nations-designed and -led enforcement body—it is unclear what the actual cost of enforcement will be. Laws without oversight are protocols. As we see in the present circumstance, protocols alone are insufficient.

Further to regulations, we understand that they will only be as effective as the trained professionals who work to adhere to them. As the only first nations water utility in Canada, I want to state that additional equitable and culturally appropriate opportunities for first nations personnel in the water sector are needed. Furthermore, funding support for first nations youth and water professionals is essential to fully realize water regulations in Bill C-61.

Lastly, we are encouraged to note that any standards developed will apply to both individual or decentralized systems and public or centralized water and waste-water systems. That said, decentralized drinking water systems, including individual wells and truck-to-cistern systems, are often not monitored for bacteriological or chemical safety, resulting in a poor understanding of water quality.

Decentralized waste-water systems, like water systems, receive little to no federal funding for the actual cost of operations, maintenance or replacement. This can leave aging and failing septic systems to release untreated or undertreated waste water to the environment. Where necessary, the act should explicitly mention and address the very significant challenges associated with decentralized systems and how to safeguard these systems from failure, inclusive of funding.

Bill C-61, if constructed well, would help expand the AFNWA's mission to include both centralized and decentralized systems in order to provide holistic water services to our member first nations, thereby reducing the service gap often experienced by communities.

I would like to close by thanking the committee for their invitation to appear here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill]

Okay.

The concerns we have are the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Also, funding is not addressed in Bill C-61. To meaningfully support water infrastructure, funding is required for initial development and also for the ongoing management and training required to achieve long-lasting indigenous water sovereignty.

I'll end it with this: In our Great Law, we talk about the seventh generation. Youth need to be integral and central to all the works that you do in your bill. Make sure that they are funded.

Thank you.

[Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill, Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Skä•noñh. Sekoh.

I'm honoured to be asked here today.

I'm going to talk about the Ohneganos research team, which intentionally centres indigenous knowledge in women in addressing climate change and the water crisis we're currently experiencing, which is an increasingly recognized step by international organizations and bodies to build effective mitigation approaches to these crises.

A UN economic and social affairs policy brief from 2021 states:

Indigenous people are stewards of the world's biodiversity and cultural diversity. Although they account for only around 5 percent of the world's population, they effectively manage an estimated 20-25 per cent of the Earth's land surface [including water]. This land coincides with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet's biodiversity and about 40 per cent of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes. Indigenous peoples therefore play a key role in efforts to protect the planet and biodiversity.

Focusing on the role of traditional knowledge and indigenous women in mitigating climate change, the report notes “the importance of upholding the rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined in international law and full respect for the right of indigenous peoples decision”.

My community of Six Nations has led a project, Ohneganos, which means “water” in our language. It's a research project with the Six Nations of the Grand River of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, in the largest populated indigenous reserve in Canada. The Six Nations community has been engaged in efforts to achieve sustainable ecosystems, health and well-being directly tied to the state of water. As a Kanienkehaka—Mohawk—woman and a scientist living in my community, it is important to acknowledge the laws that our people upheld long before colonial laws of the Crown.

The research undertaken centres on the Haudenosaunee Great Law and responsibility to care for the water. This is embedded in our creation stories and the thanksgiving—or Ohenton kariwatehkwen—address. The constitution of the Haudenausonee states that whenever the confederacy leaders “shall assemble for the purpose of holding a council, the [leaders] shall open it by expressing their gratitude to...and offer thanks to the earth where men dwell, to the streams of water, the pools and the lakes”.

Secretary to the Haudenausonee Confederacy and sub-chief Leroy Hill tells us how the Great Lakes were formed, and the fresh water that the Creator gave us to live on earth. The landscape of this region is literally tied to our creation story.

The Great Lakes are collectively the third-largest body of drinking water globally. When Europeans arrived, they marvelled at the abundance of pure, sweet drinking water. In less than 200 years, the sweet water of the Great Lakes has been contaminated and, in some cases, is highly toxic. These numbers are expected to increase and are exacerbated by climate change and population growth.

Our study found that, in my community, only 10% to 12% of Six Nations residents have access to treated water piped into their homes. Nearly 30% of home and tap water sampled had unsafe levels of heavy metals and E. coli bacteria. The majority of residents are required to purchase their water, both trucked and bottled, and must pay for waste removal, causing undue economic, physical and social hardships. Our health surveys found that over half of the residents were found to have daily levels of water insecurity anxiety, impacting mental health significantly, especially for the new mothers and our elders.

Only less than 0.5% of the water on this earth is usable and available fresh water, and climate change is dangerously affecting this. Only 2.6% of the world's freshwater supply is available to southern Canada, where most of the population lives, in contrast to the continental U.S., which has a 3.7% freshwater supply available for its use. Canada has a relatively high amount of fresh water available per capita; however, this availability of fresh water varies dramatically by region.

One in four Canadian municipalities experienced water shortages between 1994 and 1999. Shortages were attributed to increases in consumption, drought or infrastructure constraints. Consequently, changes in river flows, climate or land use can have significant impacts on the water available to individual households.

Climate change, population growth and increasing water scarcity will put pressure on our food supply, as most of the fresh water used—about 70% on average—is used for agriculture. It takes between 2,000 to 5,000 litres of water to produce a person's daily food. As part of our project Ohneganos, we identified numerous threats to the ongoing illegal extraction of groundwater by Nestlé, and now by BlueTriton, on our traditional lands as outlined indigenous lands, leading to advocacy for indigenous water governance.

Our study documents that the water insecurity of Six Nations is further exacerbated by the selling of our sacred aquifer to corporations, which will eventually devastate our ecosystem.

In response to Bill C-61, there is a positive duty on states to observe UN agreements, treaties, declarations and norms, including indigenous rights under UNDRIP and rights to territorial integrity and resources therein.

Canada has an obligation to uphold UNDRIP articles 21 and 26. I won't go over them, but article 26, paragraph three, states:

States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We are continuing our discussion of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste-water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Of course, we have the housekeeping measures. They talk about audio feedback. I'm sure you have a note on that. For anyone in the room, please remember your earpiece as we keep going.

I'm going to get right into it because we don't have much time. I believe there is agreement amongst the parties to consolidate the two panels that we have into one.

Everyone gave the thumbs-up here, so we are good to go.

Why don't we start right away with Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill?

You have five minutes, Dr. Hill.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Phare, you recommended improvements to Bill C‑61 in three areas. Since we don't have much time, I think it would be very germane to the study if you could send them to us in writing. That way, we could examine them closely. Thank you.

Mr. Haymond, the justice department officials said that the first nations water commission had limited powers.

How might those limited powers prevent the commission from effectively fulfilling its mandate of providing support and managing water issues affecting first nations?

I asked the question given the limitations on another commission preventing it from properly fulfilling its role of protecting and consulting first nations like yours. I'm talking about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, of course.

Should this be seen as a limitation or a red flag? Thank you.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That leads me to my next question.

You said that you've built up capacity. Do you think that Bill C-61 would allow communities outside of Quebec to build up that capacity, especially since it references, if I'm not mistaken, the creation of a first nations water commission? Would that not, in a sense, be replicating what you've accomplished in Quebec?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Again, I won't speak for all of the other regions in the country. I'm here representing the interests of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador.

For all intents and purposes, even with the shortcomings that have occurred in terms of the process, as I've indicated, our chiefs are amenable to Bill C-61, predominantly because we don't have a lot of the same issues related to safe drinking water and access to water that a lot of other first nations do across this country. It's predominantly because we've set up strong support mechanisms, such as tribal councils and circuit rider programs, which ensure that we are working collaboratively with our federal partners at Indigenous Services, and for housing with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation representatives, to address the issues being raised by and for first nations in Quebec.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

That's okay. Maybe I'll come back to it in just a second.

I need to quickly deal with this motion—and I do apologize to our witnesses—that was put on notice last week.

We're pushing through on Bill C-61, this piece of legislation, but we've also heard from a number of indigenous leaders in the past few weeks talking about the ongoing housing crisis in first nations and Inuit communities. We've now had our fourth straight Auditor General report talking about the failing state of housing for indigenous communities, first nations and Inuit, and I think it's important for us to continue that work right through the summer, if need be. It's something that I think these leaders are calling for, and it's something our committee should be looking at and taking seriously.

I will reread the motion. I move:

That, given the large workload and expansive mandate of this committee, the committee hold five meetings for a duration of 2 hours each between July 8 and September 13, to address housing on First Nations and produce a report with policy proposals to build more homes and solve chronic housing challenges on First Nations communities.

Thank you, Chair.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for this very important discussion.

Chief Sunshine, just to pick up where you left off, you were talking about the challenges that you're dealing with in your community, most of them, if not all, created by the “Ottawa knows best” approach. Now we've heard, through testimony in this meeting and others before it, about Bill C-61 and the challenges it imposes on you, in many cases, as a leader in your nation. Specifically, the consultation piece has been mentioned a few times, but also what can be described by many in this committee, through testimony, as the power that the minister would have under this legislation. Would you like to expand upon that?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

That's a multitude of questions in one question.

Starting off, I think that the whole issue of nuclear waste and Chalk River is an important element to discuss, primarily because developing laws in our interest is really about protecting the water in the long term. The current project that's been approved by CNSC causes us great concern and heartburn in the fact that down the road, in a couple of hundred years, the mound will degenerate and in all likelihood, from everything we've seen, poison the water.

We're not clear whether or not Bill C-61 will have any major implications as, of course, there are other ministries involved. It could help, but it will also require the ministry of natural resources and the ministry of the environment to take into consideration our concerns around what's happening at Chalk River.

I'm sorry, but it's common sense. I don't think you need to be a nuclear scientist to recognize that building a nuclear waste dump at the edge of an important water source like the Ottawa River is probably not a very good idea, for the very fact that potential leaching could impact the drinking water supply for millions of people in the future.

Again, I'm not sure Bill C-61 will have major implications in terms of what's happening at Chalk River, but it will most certainly help communities like mine potentially use and argue that some elements of UNDRIP need to be taken into consideration prior to the government making decisions.

Again, when projects like the nuclear NSDF—the nuclear dump at Chalk River—come to bear, I think we should always opt for erring on the side of caution rather than simply moving ahead with projects that have the potential to impact our water supply.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

There are a few examples.

We don't need the law to implement a treaty. We need recognition of treaty jurisdiction. That was already done in the Constitution Act of 1982. What we need is what the courts have been calling for in B.C. and Ontario, and even the Supreme Court. We need the court to honourably and diligently implement the promises. Implementing treaty does not mean creating neocolonial legislation like Bill C-61, which tells us what we need to do.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I appreciate that.

You mentioned that even with amendments, you would not support this legislation going forward. Could you highlight that a bit more?

A number of issues have been identified in Bill C-61. We hope to be able to fix and amend those things. You're still saying that even if it is amended, it's not going to be good enough. Did I understand you correctly?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Tansi. Honourable members of Parliament, I'm Sheldon Sunshine. I'm the chief of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 8 territory.

Thank you for this invitation to speak about Bill C-61.

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm speaking on the unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation has over 3,800 members. We are one of the largest first nations in Treaty 8 territory. Our ancestors entered into Treaty 8 in 1899 with the imperial Crown. At that time, and until 1905, Alberta was not a province, and our people did not conceive that we would ever have dealings with a province. Our treaty is a nation-to-nation, international, sacred covenant that provides the legal foundations of this country.

Since time immemorial, our territory has been surrounded by water. We rely on Smoky River, Iosegun River, Goose Lake and Sturgeon Lake. The Smoky originates in the Rocky Mountains near Jasper and then feeds the Peace River, a navigable river under federal legislation. We depend on these waters to harvest fish and large game, which sustain our people. Our lands are home to endangered species such as bull trout and woodland caribou.

Our territory is located in the northwestern part of what is now known as Alberta. Many parts of our territory are now industrialized and surrounded by mining in Grande Cache, forestry near Fox Creek, and conventional oil and gas projects, including abandoned, orphan wells. All of this development is near, on or in the water we rely on to continue our way of life and our livelihood and to exercise our treaty and inherent rights. We are experiencing unmitigated cumulative effects in our territory and in our waters, which is a breach of Treaty 8.

Before getting into Bill C-61, I'd like to tell you about the water in our treaty. At the time of the treaty, we were a matriarchal society, and our women were the water keepers. They were not included in treaty negotiations, so water was not discussed. We did not treaty our water. Water was non-negotiable for our ancestors, as it is for us today.

Since 1899, the time of the treaty, the government has encroached on our treaty jurisdiction over water. For example, through their interpretation of the Constitution of 1867, the Crown has said that the province has jurisdiction over water, based on words like “local works” and “property”, for example. Like our treaty, this is not explicit. Unlike our treaty, it makes no sense. For example, there is no property in water under any law.

Bill C-61 is the latest attempt to encroach on our inherent authority over water. The government is using legislation to override our treaty promises—their treaty promises. This is the fundamental problem with Bill C-61 and why we will not accept it, even with amendments.

I want to be crystal clear today that we do not need legislation to recognize and affirm our treaty. We need the space and the capacity to develop our own laws. This requires positive action by the federal government, given the effects of decades of neglect.

However, Bill C-61 does not just infringe on our jurisdiction. It also creates a two-tier water system where the first nations will continue to be denied the human right to water, and it downloads federal liability to the nations.

Some of the most serious issues we have identified in Bill C-61 are the following.

First, the legislation does not recognize the human right to water recognized in the legislation. There is no guarantee for safe drinking water. Instead, it creates a different set of rules for first nation lands. Calgary, through the water main break, recently learned what we go through on a daily basis. We still have boil water advisories, and we need a new water treatment plant, but the cost is estimated at around $50 million.

Second, this legislation will do nothing to affect the billions of litres that are removed from our waters through provincial water allocation licences by the province in violation of Treaty 8.

Third, this legislation will do nothing to protect our water and our treaty rights from the ongoing threats of contamination. For example, last year, the CST coal mine near Grand Cache released more than one million litres of toxic water directly into Smoky River. We were never notified. This is 200 kilometres upstream from us, much like what is being faced by those communities downstream from the Imperial Oil Kearl spill and seepage. This is one example. Bill C-61 will do nothing to stop this poisoning of our water and the fish we depend on to exercise our treaty and inherent rights.

Fourth, the legislation imposes a federal framework by which we can create our own laws, but we don't need legislation to do so. And if we don't pass our own laws, the legislation says that we will default to the federal regulations. The federal regulations are at the whim of the minister in place. This is not an opt-in. It is not self-government.

Fifth, the legislation will download federal responsibility onto us, with no guarantee of funding backstop. The federal government has fiduciary responsibilities to us. We will need them to live up to these duties. We don't need their attempts to give us self-government without any guaranteed capacity funding. We will be held liable for the issues that are within the federal government's fiduciary responsibility to us right now.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and Treaty 8 territory are firmly against this legislation, as we see a grave infringement on our jurisdiction and rights. We ask that you reject Bill C-61 in its entirety.

I thank you for your time.

[Chief Lance Haymond, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador]

Good morning. Kwe. Hello. Bonjour.

My name is Lance Haymond. I'm currently the chief of the Algonquin community of Kebaowek, but I'm here today representing the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, where I am the portfolio holder for housing, infrastructure and water.

As it's been mentioned, I'd like to acknowledge and welcome everybody to our ancestral territory. As I've mentioned on several occasions, it's always good to see you conducting your business, and we're grateful to have you here so that we can have this opportunity.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share the AFNQL's point of view on Bill C-61.

I've been involved in this process since 2009, when the Quebec region had its first engagement session on water on Bill S-11, before it was introduced and eventually died on the Order Paper with the calling of the election. I was also around when Bill S-8 received royal assent in 2013 and was repealed in 2022. Canada then committed to the co-development of new legislation, and we're currently discussing Bill C-61.

I've heard much criticism about this bill, about what's not in it and what's missing, but in criticizing it, we overshadow the important and significant progress we have made since seeing the first draft of this legislation, and it further diminishes the hard work, sacrifices and important contributions made by the team from the water secretariat at the Assembly of First Nations on this legislation. I think about former director Irving Leblanc, Kerry Black, Madame Phare, who just presented, legal counsel Stuart Wuttke, Ogimaa Kwe Linda Debassige, former chief Phil Fontaine, and our regional technicians and water coordinators, who were instrumental in getting important changes and additions to the legislation before it was tabled.

We are quick to criticize, because it's easy, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I want to acknowledge and thank Minister Hajdu for tabling this important legislation, and thank her team for working with the Assembly of First Nations and all stakeholders to get this far.

There will never be a perfect piece of legislation, but this is a far cry from where we started. I now believe that we have a chance to address the gaps, some of which were identified by Madame Phare. Our chiefs in Quebec are not opposed to the adoption of Bill C-61 and the eventual regulatory framework.

We did and continue to have concerns about the process. I've been around for a long time and can therefore say that a lack of consultation with first nations has often characterized previous attempts, whether it was Bill S-11 or Bill S-8. That lack of real co-development was undoubtedly a major concern for chiefs across this country regarding the development of Bill C-61.

Furthermore, in Quebec, we were put at a disadvantage a year ago, in February 2023, when we had organized and booked our engagement session for February 15 but weren't able to speak to the legislation because it wasn't officially tabled until the 17th. You can imagine it. We had signed an NDA—me, the water technician and the coordinator. We had a session with over 100 participants, but we couldn't actually talk about the contents of the legislation because it had not yet been officially tabled.

We've come a long way from those early disadvantages. We are now in a situation where, as I mentioned, we are agreeable to Bill C-61.

As for the bill itself, although it was not co-developed as planned, the text still evolved compared to previous versions. This is the first time I've seen our input included in its entirety in some areas, and the government going farther than expected in other areas. Despite an inadequate process, we have still made progress on the main gaps, which are inherent rights, funding, governance, standards, transboundary water sources and immunity.

For example, there is now a reference to the existence of the inherent right of first nations to self-government. The concept of free, prior and informed consent has been added to the principles section. There are some substantial additions to the government's obligations, such as doing its best to provide funding that is “adequate, predictable, stable, sustainable” and “needs-based”.

On the issue of transboundary waters, there is a mechanism for off-reserve collaboration regarding provincial, federal and first nations territorial jurisdiction. There are also added provisions related to the immunity of first nations employees.

These are a few examples of the progress made, but important issues remain. Important steps are ahead, and past mistakes have us very concerned. The issue of real co-development remains a great preoccupation as we take major steps in the implementation of Bill C-61—