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.

[Nelson Barbosa, Director General, Community Infrastructure, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thanks for the question. It's a pleasure being back.

The progressive nature of the consultation draft was substantive. To the question, where we saw the most substantive feedback from rights holders, I would certainly say it's not universal, but it is progressive. Where we saw a substantive uptake on changes included funding, which has been a significant point of conversation among rights holders since 2018. I would note that the draft bill discussed today has significant provisions related to providing the absolute best nature of funding certainty. I would also say that the proposed work of the first nations water commission was progressively raised. The language in Bill C-61 is progressive, as well.

As to our fairly significant language around substantive equality and providing services comparable to those in local municipalities, these are things that were demonstrated loud and clear for many rights holders and are entrenched in the draft bill being considered in front of this committee.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here to talk about this important topic of Bill C-61.

I just want to start off the top—and whoever wants to answer, please jump in—that there has been a lot of discussion about this legislation as being co-developed. The government has used that phrase. We've also seen in media and in comments beyond that that many first nations did not feel adequately consulted in the lead-up to this legislation.

I'm just wondering if you could speak to the consultation process that was undertaken to get to this point.

[Joanne Wilkinson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to acknowledge that we are having this meeting on the unceded and unsurrendered traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Thank you on behalf of my colleagues, as well.

I am here with you today to talk about Bill C‑61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands on first nation lands.

Thank you for giving my colleagues and me the opportunity to provide you with some information on this proposed legislation.

Everyone in Canada should have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.

First nations communities do not have legally enforceable safe drinking water protections similar to what is in place currently in provinces and territories.

In 2013 the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was created to enable the development of federal regulations to support first nations' access to clean, reliable drinking water and effective treatment of waste water.

However, first nations shared several concerns with this act, including the lack of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding; the lack of recognition of aboriginal rights; the potential infringement of aboriginal and treaty rights; the lack of protection of source water; and insufficient engagement on issues that directly affect first nations.

As part of the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Class Action Settlement Agreement, Canada committed to making all reasonable efforts to develop and introduce new proposed legislation in consultation with first nations to replace the repealed 2013 act.

Following the repeal in June 2022, Canada enhanced its engagement by working directly with first nation rights holders, including modern treaty and self-governing first nations, and first nation organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations and the first nations advisory committee that was created subsequent to the litigation settlement, to advance development of new proposed legislation.

Aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Bill C‑61 was developed through engagement that put First Nation voices at the forefront.

Since summer 2022, hundreds of engagement sessions have taken place virtually or in-person, with groups of first nations or individual first nations, based on partner preferences.

Two consultation drafts of a legislative proposal were also shared with all first nations communities and posted online to support broad public review.

Through ongoing engagement with first nation rights holders and first nation organizations, key priorities for new proposed legislation were identified including recognition of rights; sustainable funding for drinking water and waste water services; source water protection; and the need for ongoing engagement on water issues that affect first nations.

Since the summer of 2022 Canada has also engaged with provinces and territories on the multi-jurisdictional issue of source water protection, a key priority identified by first nations.

Provinces and territories expressed mutual interest in safe and clean water, while emphasizing the need for continued respect for provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

In addition, an expanded Assembly of First Nations-Canada dialogue table was created in the late fall of 2022 with the purpose of accelerating collaborative work to develop the proposed legislation.

The leadership and guidance provided by the co-leads—former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, and the newly elected grand council chief of the Anishinabek Nation, Linda Debassige—have been instrumental in advancing the legislation before you today.

This partnership continues in tandem with the parliamentary process. Bill C-61, the proposed first nations clean water act, aims to address key priorities raised by first nations by ensuring that first nations have reliable access to safe drinking water and effective wastewater services; affirming the inherent right of first nations to self-government, including jurisdiction over water, source water, drinking water, waste water, and related infrastructure on, in, and under first nation lands; ensuring consistency with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including through consultation on federal, regulatory and fiscal allocation decisions; establishing principles for decision-making, minimum national standards and a federal regulatory regime for water services on first nations' lands; and facilitating collaboration between first nations and federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments on transboundary source water protection, including through a first nations-led water commission.

The proposed first nations clean water act represents a historic opportunity for rights recognition to address harms of the past and to help ensure that they never happen again.

With that, we are happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 114 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I want to begin by recognizing that we meet on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. As always, I 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 commencing consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Before we begin, I would like to ask that all members and other in-person participants consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures that are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, especially the interpreters.

Use only the approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

I want to thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance, I believe. There may be a couple we will have to work through, as well.

Before we turn to our witnesses, I want to address something that Dr. Powlowski brought up at the last meeting about some of the challenges we're having with the sound for interpreters. It was brought up at the Liaison Committee earlier today. I understand that it is something that the House of Commons administration is going to be looking at in detail over the course of the summer. Hopefully, we'll have some ways of remedying some of the challenges that we've experienced in the last few weeks—at least once we return in the fall.

I'm going to leave a little bit of time at the end of the meeting for us to do some important business, to pass the budget for this committee so that we can move ahead with what we need to properly do this study.

With that, I would like to turn it over to our witnesses who are here today.

From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Joanne Wilkinson, senior assistant deputy minister, regional operations sector; Paula Hadden-Jokiel, assistant deputy minister, regional operations sector; Nelson Barbosa, director general, community infrastructure; and Rebecca Blake, acting director, legislation, engagement and regulations.

From the Department of Justice, we have Douglas Fairbairn, senior counsel, legal services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services; as well as Lee-Yong Tan, legal counsel, legal services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services.

There will be up to five minutes given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed to the rounds of questions.

With that, I want to welcome you all.

First, we'll have Ms. Wilkinson to deliver a five-minute introduction.

The floor is yours.

[Daniel Wolfish]

When we did our consultations with provinces and territories over the period of 2020 to 2023, we heard similar comments. If you look at the bill that is currently before the Senate now for the creation of the Canada water agency, you'll note that the agency does not have a regulatory mandate. That's important, because we recognize the regulatory role played by the provinces and territories or that already exists and is performed well by other federal departments. We have no intention at this time of moving into a regulatory role.

The provinces have noted that they want to have opportunities for identifying projects and priorities and to have joint funding programs, and that's, indeed, what our freshwater ecosystem initiatives are about. If you look at some of our partners in Ontario, the conservation authorities are, in fact, creatures of the province. Through the St. Lawrence action plan, we provide support to Quebec. With Lake Winnipeg, we have partners that we fund jointly. In many cases, our funding has matches from provinces and other sources, so we have an opportunity to be able to work together on joint funding for projects. Through the MOU with Manitoba, the Canada-Ontario agreement and our agreement with Quebec, we're able to identify joint priorities and allow for those priorities to pattern our work.

The Canada water agency does not have an intention at this time to expand federal areas of work but rather to break the silos to coordinate. Frankly, there's enough work on our plate just doing that, bringing together a coordinated function and bringing expertise together. An example of what we've recently done in this area is that we joined as a junior partner with ISC to help support them in the co-development with the AFN of Bill C-61, which is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. That was a very early accomplishment that I feel the agency was able to undertake that shows exactly how we can bring expertise together to break down silos but not get in the way of the role of provinces and territories.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia is right. The scandals and the mismanagement know no bounds with the government.

However, an important aspect as well is the prioritization of legislation. Everything seems to be a priority for the government, but nothing actually ends up moving. As I alluded to earlier, with Bill C-61 yesterday, the government wanted to rush through to get to committee, and I am happy that we were able to pass a motion from the Conservative side to get that done, but there were 33 sitting days that the government had when it could have brought it forward, and it chose not to. When the clock starts to tick in June, all of a sudden it seems like it is a priority.

Unfortunately, we see that over and over again with legislation that pertains to indigenous and first nations peoples across the country. It is not a priority until time is running out for the government, and then it is scrambling to get it done.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today and speak, this time to Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. It is an honour to rise on this important piece of legislation. It would establish the complaints and review commission, and it would be amending certain acts and statutory instruments as well.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a brief period during clause-by-clause of this bill, so there were many important amendments put forward by all parties to help ensure that we get this bill right. That is the role of committee, and it should be the role of all parliamentarians to get those things right at committee. I appreciate, though we had some hiccups along the way as we always do, the general collaboration to get that completed.

On that note of getting the bill right, it is important that we have a fulsome debate because the bill would help foster public confidence and trust in our federal law enforcement agencies, namely the RCMP and CBSA. Public trust and confidence in all of our institutions is paramount to democracy, but particularly to institutions focused on public safety and national security. It is of the highest importance to ensure that trust is there.

A related issue we are dealing with presently in this chamber is that Conservatives are asking the government to release the names of MPs who are reported to have engaged with hostile foreign nations. However, just this morning, at the public safety and national security committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety told us, “Boo hoo, get over it.” Comments like this do the opposite of ensuring that there is trust in public institutions, when legitimate concerns are brought forward on something as serious as foreign interference and the involvement of members of this chamber, and the government says to get over it, to look the other way and that there is nothing to see.

Coming back to Bill C-20, I will note that the bill does not really seem terribly important to the government, despite its claims that it needs to be passed. This is the third attempt the government has made to pass the bill, as has been mentioned by members. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, and it died on the order of paper. In the 43rd Parliament it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called an unnecessary early election for his political gain in the middle of a pandemic. Of course, he called that election despite having voted a couple of months before the election to do just that, and I will come back to that a bit later. Clearly, the government says it cares, and its track record says otherwise. The bill has not been a priority for the government to move through.

I want to take a bit of time to talk about what the bill would actually do. It would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the public complaints and review commission, under its new name. The Commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA.

The bill would also codify timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to interim reports, reviews and recommendations of the complaints commission. There would be information sharing between the RCMP, the CBSA and the commission. The bill would also require mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to the commission's recommendations, and it would require mandatory reporting of race-based data by the commission. Lastly, the bill would create a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.

While there would be many positive changes made, there are still a number of concerns that have been raised. First, one of the concerns is that there was a lack of consultation, something that seems to be a recurring theme, unfortunately, for the government. I spoke about this just yesterday in the chamber in regard to Bill C-61.

The government continues to say that it is consulting with first nations and indigenous peoples across the country and that it has a broad-based bill that is supported and co-developed. However, at the same time, we continue to hear concerns raised by first nation leaders impacted by the bill that their voices have not been heard and that they do not want it move forward as quickly as it has been until they have their say and amendments are brought forward. We need to hear from experts on every piece of legislation.

In the case of Bill C-20, various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged a number of problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. One particular concern is having police investigate police. The National Police Federation told the committee:

First, the PCRC should end the practice of the police investigating the police. Under the current CRCC model, members of the RCMP are tasked with investigating most of the public complaints filed. It has been noted many times that our members handle these investigations of their colleagues in a professional and impartial manner. However, this does create a perception of bias and possible conflict of interest.

Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, whom I am looking forward to visiting this weekend with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, also expressed concerns about this. He noted that his community makes up 70% of the traffic at a port of entry nearby. He told the committee:

If a traveller complains about a border officer, the likelihood of them having an interaction with that officer again is very minimal, but in my community, it's very high. If somebody complains about an officer's conduct or about the service they received, the likelihood of them encountering that officer again is very high. There's no other border crossing in Canada that would be like that.

Having said that, doing this outside of the agency is definitely helpful in ensuring that it's a fair and independent process and a process where the person who is complaining—and I would argue the officers themselves—can be assured that it's more of an objective process than an internal process.

Bill C-20 would not fully address the issue, as the new complaints commission would still rely on RCMP and CBSA resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments at committee stage to increase the independence, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties.

I want to come back to the issue that I alluded to earlier in my comments, not just about Bill C-20 but also, more broadly, about the government's approach on many bills and topics that it claims to be a priority, though their actions say otherwise. One that is interconnected in some ways to this one is with first nations and Inuit policing. The government has promised for years that first nations and Inuit police services would be designated as essential and would be allocated the proper resources.

The former minister of public safety, who, we know, was rightly turfed from his position, said in 2022 that the legislation would be right around the corner and that he was working around the clock. We have seen nothing but delays and excuses since. To this point, the current public safety minister says many of the very same things, but Conservatives will believe it when we see it.

I hope that the government takes the issues in Bill C-20 on indigenous policing, the issues in Bill C-61 and many other issues seriously, and that we are able to get the important work done.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I'm glad that you spoke about water, because I just got a letter today from the Blackfoot Confederacy, talking about their support for the Bill C-61 legislation that we have just tabled and that will be arriving at INAN committee.

I would just like to read you a statement. They say:

No consultation process will ever be perfect. However, starting over two years ago all First Nations were offered a significant opportunity by Canada to be directly involved in the development of Bill C-61. Our Nations provided extensive legal and historical submissions about our Treaty water rights at the outset of the consultation process. We meet many times with Canada's Bill C-61 team to review and comment on drafts of the legislation and by the time Bill C-61 was introduced in Parliament we were able to get significant changes made including broadening the recognition of our inherent right of self-government to include all aspects of “water” in general—not just drinking water. We also secured the protections in s.15 of the rights of First Nations to sufficient supplies of water, which is critically important in many regions where water scarcity is an issue.

Our general point is that all First Nations had the same opportunity to consult with Canada about Bill C-61 over a period of more than two years. Those consultations were meaningful in our experience and resulted in real and significant improvements to Bill C-61.

To me, that is the approach I think we need to continue to take. It's truly partnership. It's challenging our systems and institutions to share power and to listen to first nations about what they want to see in the governance of not just their community but this country. They are valuable partners.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

The short answer is yes, we are. We are looking at anything that can leverage the investments of the federal government in the work of closing the infrastructure gap, including innovation and financing that is indigenous-led and supportive of deeper connections between us and the private sector, which often has capital to invest. There are many barriers to investing that capital in first nations endeavours.

I would also note that Chief Haymond was here when we tabled the water legislation, Bill C-61. He was an active participant in the co-creation of that legislation, as were many other first nations across the country. I think he is a significant leader to watch in terms of the kind of creativity we need across this country to deal with such a gap.

First Nations Clean Water Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 6:58 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 3, Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands, is deemed read a second time and referred to a committee.

Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes, sometimes old dogs learn new tricks.

It is incumbent and the collective responsibility of everyone, especially the Government of Canada, to empower first nations and indigenous communities across the country to achieve self-determination on this issue. In order to get this right, the government must listen to all first nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

One size does not fit all. That is why the consultation is important. It is critical. We need to listen to many voices across our country. Many first nations communities, like the Blackfoot Confederacy, want that opportunity to express the concerns that they have. There are several provisions in the bill on clean water in general that require clarification: the quantity of water available for use and whether this quantity would be in conflict with provincial water licences; for which purposes the sufficient quantities of water would be guaranteed and if these purposes are to be altered, and that has been mentioned earlier; the definition of a protection zone, what lands are to be included in a given zone and the process of consultation agreement for these zones to be authorized; and the long-term maintenance, training and staff funding guarantees.

The study of Bill C-61 at committee is approaching. It is my hope that all parties will allow the opportunity to hear from all first nations that the government missed in its consultations. Other affected parties are concerned with freshwater legislation, such as provinces, which should be consulted as well, so unintended consequences may be avoided.

There are many questions that need to be answered on Bill C-61. The committee stage of the bill is not the time to rush through legislation. We need to get this right. This has gone on far too long. We need to make sure the legislation is not rushed and that we get it done right. It is our duty.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise in this place as a member of Parliament.

The fact is that, in this country's history, the opinions of indigenous people and their leaders have been largely neglected. It is no secret that indigenous people have, for generations, attempted to build a bridge between those who occupy and those who seek peace and betterment for all people. That is the true nature, spirit and intent of the historic treaties that were signed. Pipes were lifted so that nations could build together.

The treaties that we often speak about are fundamental to Canada's establishment. As a matter of fact, they are more fundamental than even the mace that we honour in this place. There would be no mace, no Parliament and no members of Parliament without the consent and treaties of indigenous people. We make promises to one another, particularly to share this place, its resources and our country's mighty prosperity, but we continue to fail to meet them.

First nations have been consistent and stalwart in their message that the treaties are a path forward, not just for peace today but for peace tomorrow for the young children who are still growing up without clean water. I have many relatives, friends and family members who continue to suffer without clean water today.

I myself grew up in a small rural northern community adjacent to a reserve known as the Métis settlement, where we shared some similar realities, including the lack of clean water. I know what it is to turn on a tap and not have clean water come out. People grow up in that circumstance for so long that they do not even know the miracle of what clean water is when it comes out of a household tap. I am ashamed of that. I finally moved away from the small community where I had so much love but suffered so much poverty. When I turned on a tap at a friend's house, put a cup underneath that tap and took a drink directly from it, I was amazed.

I am still amazed that one of the wealthiest countries around the globe, Canada, a G7 country, could bear witness to such atrocities for our children. Our own children still do not have the dignity of being able to quench their thirst with clean water in the convenience of their own home. Mould, inadequate housing, a lack of infrastructure, no operations and maintenance and a lack of technical ability have all come together in what has become the worst outcome. The reserve system is largely an apartheid system, and it has driven indigenous people into a desperate reality.

They are proud people whom I have had the great benefit of learning from. I owe so much of who I am to the better good nature of those who continue to suffer. That is why I am so honoured to be in this place, so I can speak to their truths and hope I can encourage all my colleagues to rectify this immensely difficult circumstance.

We often talk about the need to pass good legislation in this place, but it is more important to listen, learn and write good legislation. These are the important pieces in making a country stronger, and this is one pathway toward a better future. When Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 tell me that the government has not fully listened to their concerns, that pains me. When I hear that the bill does not fundamentally recognize their treaty rights to water, that hurts me.

There is a Cree word, nîpîy, meaning “water”. This word is not just the noun of the thing we drink, the thing we swim in or the thing our relatives with fins live in. It is a spirit that is so deeply fundamental to who we are as humans that we could not possibly abuse it. Worse yet, to deny access to it would mean to deny access to the very fundamentals of life, of spirituality and of a nation.

It is imperative that we take the opportunity presented to us in Bill C-61 to do what is right. As a matter of fact, the history of the legislation is so mired in colonial attitudes that it is now time. Since the inception of similar legislation presented by the Conservatives in 2013, it has been litigated by first nations and taken down by the courts. The current government entered a settlement agreement to rectify some of the pains caused by that legislation. The courts have now ordered that the government table a piece of legislation in its stead. Bill C-61 stands now in its place.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us not force first nations people back to the courts to plead an injustice that we can rectify here in this place today. The consequential months that the legislation will be in committee will be important for first nations as they see their relative nîpîy, water, debated as if it were something that had not been known to us all as humans for so long. There is a fundamental right to water for all persons. We must recognize this in the legislation. We must go further to even recognize that the treaty to which this country stands has an obligation to ensure that these rights, the treaty and inherent rights of first nations to their lands, include water. We desperately need to establish a treaty table with the treaty organizations that represent Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7 and Treaty No. 8 in order for them to exercise not only their constitutional rights but also their rights as a nation to define for themselves the future for their children, because there is no future without water.

That is how fundamental this question is, and I cannot beg my colleagues more than to see that for what it means. If we say “water”, we might as well say “life”, because that is the truth. Denying water will deny life.

We can rectify this. That is why I decided to come into this place: to ensure that these fundamental truths and fundamental rights are truly adhered to. The treaty groups need to see legitimate co-development. They need to see a legitimate relationship that honours the treaty people for who they are: stalwarts of water, of land and of a better future. This is not only for first nations but also for all of us. If we protect water, particularly source water, we will do it justice for the next generation and for generations to come. That is what first nations are calling for.

First nations must see a guarantee of the protection of water off reserve. I mentioned the issue of the apartheid system, which is the reserve system; it continues to say first nations land is the small postage stamp we see on a map. All land in Turtle Island is first nations land, all of it. We must recognize that and ensure that we protect the land with protection zones, which could be large enough to ensure that the quantity of water needed to quench that thirst is truly met for generations to come. We must abandon any attempt at dump-and-run legislation that would allow corporations to continue to harm water and leave untreated, poisonous chemicals in our waters.

I will end with this: First nations see Bill C-61 as being of historical significance and national import; we must get this right. First nations are calling to our attention the opportunity, and we do not often get this. I must beg the chamber to take this piece of legislation as seriously as it takes the very existence of this country; without it, this country will fail, not just today but for generations to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand and I apologize. I am aware of that. I slipped a bit.

It is an emblematic issue because if we cannot solve this problem in conjunction with first nations, how can we have confidence that we can manage our water resources more generally in this country? It is an important issue because it involves the health of first nations, and it is an emblematic issue because it says a lot about how we can manage water in general in this country.

It is one of the most stubborn and complex issues to face any government in Canada, and it not only requires money, but also requires major investments. For example, what I have read recently is that, as we know, one of the issues in terms of bringing clean drinking water to first nations is sustainable financing for maintenance of first nations water systems. I have read somewhere that the funding requirement over a 10-year period, from 2016 to 2026, is about $430 million, yet there is only about $291 million available. Therefore, there is a need to increase funding for maintenance of first nations water systems. Now, what I have heard, on the positive side, is that since 2021, Indigenous Services Canada pays 100% of maintenance costs; whereas before, it only paid about 80%.

What has been required all along in dealing with this issue is not only the financing, but also the will to make it a priority. This is not to cast aspersions on any previous government. I do believe that there has been a serious commitment to resolving the issue by this government. I did not see this for myself, but I am told that at one point, the minister in charge at the time basically put up a map in her office and pinpointed where all the problem drinking water systems were. She would be able to see this map every day and would be reminded that this is a major government priority. Therefore, the will to do something about this problem is fundamental to solving the problem.

As I said, I intend to be a part of a committee study, and one of the issues that I hope to learn more about as we study the bill at committee is how we can better protect source water. Clean drinking water not only is dependent on the kind of system that is in place or built in a first nations community, but also is a function of the source water. As a matter of fact, the kind of system they build is a function of the source water as well. How do we protect source water?

I first became aware of the issue of source water about 10 years ago when I sat on the environment committee. It was a minority Conservative government at the time, and we undertook a study of the impact of the oil sands on the Athabasca Watershed. There were concerns downstream from the oil sands operations, basically in Fort Chipewyan, that the drinking water was being contaminated by the oil sands industry. That, in itself, is a source water problem and a source water issue.

How do we protect source water so that first nations can have confidence in their drinking water? How do we protect source water when a lot of the source water is in provincial jurisdiction and a province is managing economic development in its jurisdiction? How do we get the province to co-operate with the federal government and first nations to protect the source water? As a matter of fact, the whole issue of source water and the oil sands came up again at the environment committee when we were studying the leaks and spills at the Kearl tailings pond. Again, the first nation in Fort Chipewyan is very concerned about how the oil sands and how this particular spill could be impacting the first nation's source water downstream.

How do we protect source water? How do we manage the interface between jurisdictions to make sure that we can protect source water in the best interests of those who are downstream and are consuming that water?

I hope to learn more about this when I attend the committee study of Bill C-61. I am pleased to say that there has been progress since our government took power in 2016. There were 144 long-term drinking water advisories in place in November 2015. There are now 29 left in 27 communities. Sometimes an advisory will be lifted, but then it will recur or one will recur elsewhere in the same community.

There has been progress. I do not think we should say that there has been no progress because that does not do any good. It just discourages Canadians and governments from doing what they can to solve the problem once and for all.

The bill is very important for three particular reasons. One, it affirms the inherent right of first nations to self-government in relation to water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure. Two, it creates a legal framework for protecting source water adjacent to first nation lands, which is what I was referring to.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

I really welcome the legislation and the debate. I have been interested in the issue for some time. As a matter of fact, the House environment committee is currently completing a rather broad and lengthy study of water policy in Canada, specifically federal water policy. We did have a unit, a module if I can call it that, on the issue of first nations water. We heard great testimony, but given time constraints and the breadth of our study, in some ways we could only scratch the surface. Therefore I am really looking forward to getting to know the bill much more deeply.

I hope to attend the committee meetings. I am looking to maybe substitute for another Liberal member so I can be part of the committee study on Bill C-61. If I cannot do that, I will avail myself of my privilege as a parliamentarian to sit at committee, even without formal status and the right to ask questions.

There is one thing that makes me bristle a little in this debate generally, not just today but over time, and that is when the debate veers into certain partisanship. I just do not feel it is a partisan issue. I do not feel it is an issue that should revolve around cross-party criticisms or finger pointing. The important thing is to really work together to find a solution to a very stubborn problem that has plagued first nations and governments wanting to solve the problem for quite a long time.

It is a very important issue for a number of reasons, the main one being that clean drinking water and water for sanitation are very much fundamental to good health. It is a health issue for our first nations. Water generally is central to many things, not only human health but also the health of the environment and the dynamism of the economy, but, in this case, we are talking about the health of indigenous peoples. It is also an emblematic issue. What I mean by that is if we cannot get this right, how can we have—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour that I rise today to discuss an issue that is so important, an issue of paramount importance, an issue that cuts to the very heart of our values as a nation, and that is the necessity of clean, safe and reliable drinking water for our first nations communities. It is with this urgency that I address Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nations lands.

For decades, first nations communities have suffered under the shadow of inadequate water infrastructure and services. This is not just an issue of policy. It is an issue of basic human rights and dignity. Clean drinking water is a fundamental necessity of life. It is not a privilege but a right that should be accessible to every single Canadian, irrespective of where they live. The lack of safe water in first nations communities is a national disgrace, and it is high time that we address this issue with the seriousness and commitment it deserves. As we know, this is an issue that the NDP-Liberal government has ignored for far too long. This debate is an important step toward ensuring that all first nations communities have access to something that many of us take for granted.

l will bring us back to 2015, when the member for Papineau, at that time the gentleman that was running to be our Prime Minister and who, indeed, became our Prime Minister, stood before Canadians with a handkerchief in his hand, and dabbed away a fake tear, and said that Canada's relationship with first nations is the most important relationship of his government.

We have seen, time and again, that the government has stumbled along the way. To understand this piece of legislation, one must look at the historical context. Decades have passed with the government pouring billions into solving this crisis, yet the problem still persists. From the plan of action for first nations drinking water in 2006 to the first nations water and waste water action plan in 2008 and the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in 2013, efforts have been made, but sadly, these Liberals have fallen short of delivering concrete, sustainable solutions.

The Conservative Party recognizes that clean drinking water is a basic necessity of human life. It is essential for health, dignity and the overall well-being of individuals and communities, yet despite being in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, far too many first nations communities still do not have access to this fundamental right. This is nothing short of a national shame. It is an outrage that has persisted for far too long.

We have heard comments from our colleagues across the way, rightly so, I think, that there are successive governments on whose shoulders the blame squarely falls. Since 1995, over $11 billion has been spent on improving water quality in first nations communities. Despite these substantial investments, as of today, there are still countless first nations communities across Canada that are under long-term drinking water advisories. This means that, for years, families have not been able to drink the water directly from their taps, relying instead on bottled or boiled water just to meet their daily needs. This is unacceptable. This is shameful. It highlights a significant failure by the government to provide basic living conditions for all Canadians.

We need a new approach, a comprehensive and actionable plan that addresses both the immediate and long-term needs of these communities. I hope that Bill C-61 can be a positive step to achieving this goal. With that said, I am encouraged that Bill C-61 appears to aim at addressing this disparity. The time for half measures and temporary fixes are over.

As has been said, the bill is not a perfect bill. We still have questions regarding that. To that end, Conservatives believe that the federal government must work in collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities and first nations to develop a solution that is guided by a clear and agreed upon timeline. Conservatives also commit to working closely with indigenous communities to ensure that these investments are both sustainable and effective.

Furthermore, we understand that the lack of safe water for first nations communities is a complex issue that cannot be resolved with a one-size-fits-all approach. Each community has its unique challenges, circumstances and needs. There are over 630 first nations communities across our nation.

Therefore, it is vital that the solutions to safe water are led by first nations themselves. We must support their autonomy and provide them with the resources and authority to develop and implement water management plans that are suited to their specific needs. By prioritizing first nations leadership and knowledge, we can ensure that the solutions are not only practical, but also culturally appropriate and locally targeted.

In addition to addressing water safety, it is also necessary to acknowledge the broader context of reconciliation and health and safety for first nations communities. I have said this before: Under the current government, I believe “reconciliation” has become a buzzword. The government has pitted first nation against first nation, and first nation against non-first nation. It has picked winners and losers. It says it has consulted, yet there are still many first nations that have said they have not been invited to the table.

Reconciliation is not a single act but an ongoing commitment to understanding, healing and partnership. It requires acknowledging the historical injustices faced by indigenous peoples, including inadequate access to essential services. Unfortunately the current government has categorically failed when it comes to reconciliation. The government purports to be there for indigenous peoples, but it did not accomplish a single TRC call to action in 2023. In fact there are 94 calls to action, and 81, which is the vast majority, are still unfulfilled.

I want to also mention that many first nations communities continue to face significant barriers to accessing comprehensive health care services, including mental health care, especially in rural, remote and northern communities. The lack of access is a critical issue that directly impacts the well-being and quality of life of indigenous individuals. The disparities in health care services contribute to higher rates of chronic illness, mental health challenges and lower life expectancies in these communities. It is crucial to invest in health care infrastructure and services that are responsive to the needs of first nations communities. This includes culturally competent care that respects and integrates indigenous knowledge and practices.

Mental health care is a particularly urgent need. The trauma experienced by indigenous peoples due to historical injustices like residential schools has long-lasting effects on mental health. The link to Bill C-61 is that health and access to safe drinking water are fundamental human rights. Ensuring that all Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, have access to these necessities is a moral and ethical obligation. Failure to ensure access is a failure of governance.

On that note, let me take a moment to talk about Grassy Narrows First Nation, a community that has been suffering from mercury contamination for over five decades. The recent lawsuit filed by Grassy Narrows against the federal government underscores the severity of the crisis. For more than 50 years, the people of Grassy Narrows have endured the devastating health impacts of mercury poisoning. The contamination has caused significant neurological damage, economic hardship and the loss of cultural practices tied to the river and its resources.

Conservatives are supporting Bill C-61 to get it to committee. We are happy to get it to committee where we can hopefully have a great working relationship with our colleagues across all parties, but we do have concerns.

My hon. colleague from Kenora mentioned that the bill, with respect to consultation, says that the minister is to make best efforts to consult. What does that mean? Does it mean dialing the phone once and leaving a voice message? True consultation is not about just ticking a box; it is about making sure that we have indigenous leadership and indigenous representation at the table when we are discussing the bill and when we are developing it. It means truly understanding. It does not mean talking, but it means listening. Only through listening will we truly understand the needs of indigenous communities.

If the legislation is truly to succeed, the government must undertake a thorough review and overhaul of its approach to managing water quality advisories. There is no getting around it. The current system is not working, and it is time for a real change. We need to hear from all stakeholders and address their concerns head-on if we want Bill C-61 to actually achieve its stated goals.

That is not the only challenge we face. At the committee level, we need to dig deeper into several pressing questions. Some communities face barriers to long-term access to safe drinking water that money alone cannot solve. What are these barriers? How can we partner with the indigenous communities to overcome them?

We need to put away all of our biases and our political stripes when we come to the committee. We need to work in good faith to try to make sure that we can collectively end the boil water advisories.