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.

First Nations Clean Water Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I very much enjoy working with my colleague.

The reality for first nations, Métis and Inuit, as I was asked about earlier as well, has been unfair. There have been inequities, such as a lack of investments, resulting in many social issues that are beyond what we see for Canadian standards.

The indication that the Liberal government is not showing a true commitment to reconciliation can be seen in this bill. If this bill sought to have true reconciliation with indigenous peoples, it would have shown a willingness to uphold indigenous human rights, international human rights and access to water. It would have included provisions to uphold first nations treaty rights, for example, by making sure that first nations have authority for source water protection and providing an absolute guarantee that funding is sustainable and consistent, so first nations have ongoing access to safe drinking water.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member expressed some concerns with regard to people she feels were not consulted and should have had more direct input. I know the department has put a great deal of effort into reaching out. The bill will go to committee, and I would encourage the member to look at the potential for changes to the legislation and to work with others at committee.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the importance of the committee itself?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I said during my speech, it is very important to get the bill to committee. The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs consists of very committed MPs, who are trying to make sure that we do better for all indigenous peoples. The committee just completed a study on another bill that required members to think about how we can be united in ensuring that we respect all indigenous peoples, whether first nations, Métis or Inuit.

Getting the bill to committee will be important, as the committee can hear from all first nations and others to make sure we do better for first nations, especially in the area of safe drinking water.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again thank my colleague from Nunavut for her intervention.

Of course, first nations themselves will have to invest considerable sums of money as a result of this bill. We have found that, since 2015, the government has invested about a third or a quarter of the sums needed, so there is a cost to investing.

I wonder if my colleague can talk about the cost of not investing enough. What are the consequences for people living in communities and first nations without access to drinking water? What are the real consequences for people who do not have access to drinking water?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I thank the member for his very important question on what the costs of not getting this done will be.

I think some of the bigger costs could include Canada's being seen as not upholding international human rights laws regarding water and as not upholding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At the community and ground level, first nations will continue to have to boil their water before they brush their teeth. They will have to continue to make sure they are given funds to buy bottled water.

We will continue to see first nations struggling to provide source water, as we have seen in Neskantaga, which is experiencing a 30-year boil advisory and may not get the resources it needs to no longer receive boil water advisories.

The Liberal government promised to make sure that boil water advisories would be eliminated, but we still have far too many, and they are causing everyday consequences for indigenous people. We suffer with the highest suicide rates. We suffer the highest rate of mental health issues. There are too many who are addicted and engaging in substance abuse.

We need to do better at ensuring that first nations, Métis and Inuit can have access to water. It is at the core of doing better for first nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to such an important piece of legislation. Earlier today, in the form of a question, I talked about important legislation that this legislature deals with, and I cited two pieces. One is the one that is up for debate right now, Bill C-61 and the issue of water; and later this afternoon we are going to be debating in third reading the issue of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. As we go through the coming days and the weeks ahead, we are going to be debating substantial pieces of legislation that will have a profound impact in all the different regions of our country. We would hope that the Conservatives in particular will look at the legislation for what it is and ultimately, whether they vote in favour of it or against it, at least allow for that debate to occur.

When I posed a specific question about Bill C-61 to the Conservative critic, he said that it was the government that sets the agenda, as he tried to pass the buck. The member is correct that we do bring forward the legislation, but we are very dependent on opposition members to work with the government in trying to get it out of second reading in order to get things to a debate. The Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is a good example of that.

As I said, I look forward to that debate, but the reason I asked the question in regard to Bill C-61 is that I would also like to see the Conservative Party take a proactive approach to seeing this substantive legislation ultimately pass. It is really important for us to recognize that there is a very limited amount of time in which we can actually debate on the floor of the House of Commons, and we would like to see that this legislation actually gets to committee.

It is important to recognize that it is codeveloped. This is something on which a great deal of consultation and work with the first nations communities was done in order to be able to have what I believe is and what the minister refers to as codeveloped legislation. It would have a very real and tangible impact in terms of water supply.

I have had, if not directly first-hand, an indirect first-hand experience in terms of dealing with the issue of water, and that is with Shoal Lake. With respect to the history of Shoal Lake and how Winnipeg ultimately came to receive the water we receive today, which is virtually untreated, that water comes from Shoal Lake. The Ojibway were protecting that water and had accessed and resourced that water for thousands of years. The City of Winnipeg is actually responsible for ensuring now that we are able to get water, and we turn to Shoal Lake. First Nation No. 40 provides us some of the best water in the world out of Shoal Lake, and at the same time, indigenous people, in particular the Ojibway and others, were at times under a water advisory.

Let us think of that: Shoal Lake provides healthy, clean water to the city of Winnipeg, but people who are living around Shoal Lake were at times under water advisories. For decades, they had attempted to get infrastructure built. I was so pleased when we as a government, a few years ago, committed to Freedom Road, making a connection that ultimately assisted a first nation community.

In terms of this legislation, the issue of reconciliation should not be lost. Never before, at least in the last many years, have we seen a prime minister who is so committed to reconciliation that it is not just words; it is tangible dollars and substantial legislation.

We can talk about the hundreds of millions of dollars and the building up of infrastructure and supporting of infrastructure development, whether it is the social infrastructure of health care, schools and education, or whether it is streets and bridges and roads. As a national government under this Prime Minister, we have had genuine, sincere, tangible investments going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to support indigenous leaders and their communities. The leadership is there; it is very real and it is making a difference. It is making Canada a healthier nation. We are working with first nations in order to be able to achieve that.

What I like about Bill C-61, as I pointed out in the form of a question, is that for me, personally, it does a couple of things. One, it deals with one of those life ingredients, if I can put it that way, that being water, in a very tangible way, whereby it can be regulated and it can be protected going into the future. It is first nations who are going to be leading Canada on that particular file, I would suggest.

We need to support that. That is why, for the first time, we actually have legislation to deal with that. Unlike previous governments, this is a government that has literally worked in such a way that this is being said to be co-operative or co-sponsored legislation, if I can use that term.

The impact that the AFN and others, whether directly or indirectly, have had on this legislation is considerable. It would not be what it is today if that consultation, if that working together, had not occurred.

As I said in my question to the member who just spoke, there are always going to be concerns. We recognize that. That is one of the reasons I indicated, at the beginning of my comments, that we want to see this legislation ultimately be allowed to go to committee. The sooner it can go to committee, the better.

In good part, it is going to be the Conservative Party that has to work with the government and the opposition to allow this legislation to go to committee, so that we can hear from all of the different stakeholders. In particular, and I would not classify them as a stakeholder but as a partner, we want indigenous first nations to be able to provide their ongoing thoughts and, where they can, provide their support for many of the things that are incorporated in many aspects of the legislation, which are there because, in fact, they requested that they be put into the legislation.

That is the reason I think it is really important, when we take a look at the legislation as a whole, that we recognize that this is something that has, in fact, been worked on for five-plus years. What we need to do is take it to the next step.

We have heard from all opposition critics. We have heard from the minister, and we have heard the explanation. There is the opportunity, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, to actually see the debate conclude and allow the legislation to ultimately pass to the committee stage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is time for Statements by Members.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-61 today. The types of responses we have been getting from virtually all sides of the House and the general goodwill toward the legislation are really quite encouraging.

It is important to highlight that there was a very tangible commitment made back in 2015 to deal with this important issue. It goes well beyond reserves. It is about, in essence, the fact that everyone deserves to have access to clean and safe drinking water. This is something the Prime Minister has been talking a great deal about, and I believe that as a government, we are on the right track to achieve just that.

In the discussions that have been taking place, I was quite encouraged. I will start off by quoting one of my colleagues, who I know is very proud of the legislation before us today. He has often talked with our caucus colleagues about the issue. Just a couple of days ago, this is what the member for Sydney—Victoria said in the chamber when he raised the issue of Bill C-61:

Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month in Canada. It is a month to celebrate indigenous culture and indigenous contributions to our country. As we celebrate National Indigenous History Month, all parliamentarians could indeed make history by sending the first nations clean water act to committee for study.

Bill C-61 would recognize first nations' inherent right to water, ensure that there are minimum standards for first nations' clean water and protect first nations' water sources from pollution and contamination now and into the future. This historic and crucial legislation would ensure that first nations have the funding and self-determination to lay the groundwork for a water institution led by first nations.

All Canadians would expect access to clean water. Surely on this, the first sitting week of National Indigenous History Month, parties from all sides of the House can agree to support first nations' need for clean water. Let us turn the page on this shameful legacy in Canadian history and give unanimous consent to get the important legislation to committee.

It was very encouraging and, a bit later that day, we were able to do just that. An official opposition member rose in his place on a point of order and said, “There have been discussions among the parties, as you suggested earlier, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion”, and the member then read the motion.

That brings us to today. That motion is allowing us to not only debate the legislation but do what the member for Sydney—Victoria was suggesting: recognize National Indigenous Heritage Month and get Bill C-61 to committee.

The Conservative member then proposed the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be called for debate at second reading on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, and at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Bill C-61 be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

That is what I mean by the goodwill that has been demonstrated by all political parties in the chamber on what is such a very important issue.

It reminds me of a couple of things. One is more of a personal story that many Winnipeggers often talk about, and that is Shoal Lake. Shoal Lake has been supplying the city of Winnipeg for over 100 years through an aqueduct, using the basic law of gravity, and we have benefited from that water. A first nation was very strongly and negatively impacted by that many years ago. It was literally cut off. For over two decades, Shoal Lake 40 has been under a boil water advisory.

Thinking about it, just outside their windows, the first nations members could look out and see this beautiful, pristine lake, Shoal Lake. That lake was providing the city of Winnipeg its drinking water, yet the reserve itself was on a boil water advisory. I think that highlighted the issue for many Manitobans and, I would suggest, for all Canadians. Liberals made a commitment back in 2015 to rectify it. Some of our critics will say it was supposed to be done a whole lot quicker.

At the end of the day, we put the issue of boil water advisories on the front burner. For generations, nothing was done until the Prime Minister and this government made the financial commitments. I would suggest it was even more than that and indicate that there is a moral responsibility. As a result, we did see a tangible commitment, not only for the water treatment facility, but also on Freedom Road.

I can say that if we take a look at Shoal Lake, in particular individuals like Chief Erwin Redsky and other band members, we will be impressed with how the community drove the issue. Ultimately, as a government, we responded to it. As I say, for over two decades it was a problem. Today, anyone who goes there will see a pristine, well-constructed water treatment facility.

When I say that, I do not say that lightly, because that particular facility has been recognized for its architecture and the manner in which it was constructed. It was built on time and on budget. What I would like to highlight, when we think about that, is that it was the indigenous leadership that ultimately pushed to make the project take place in the first place. If we take a look at the labourers, the contractors and the individuals who were directly involved in the building of the facility itself, it was all indigenous-led.

A couple of weeks back, I was on Parliament Hill and I met with Sharon Redsky, someone I classify as a dear friend. She was talking to me about Shoal Lake and some of the things that have taken place. There is a sense of pride there as a direct result of this. For the first time in generations, Shoal Lake has water it can drink. The same water that has been providing for the city of Winnipeg is there now for Shoal Lake. Opportunities have been created as a direct result of the construction of the water treatment facility and, in fact, the construction of Freedom Road. This has had a profoundly positive impact on the lives of many, so it even goes beyond the important issue of water.

This is one of the reasons it is so critically important that, as a government that is committed to getting rid of the long-term boil water advisories, it is not just the federal government moving in and saying that this is the way it has to be, this and that, and then a few years later say “Oh, look, we did the job”, but that we recognize the important role of indigenous leadership driving these programs and supporting them wherever we can.

I would suggest, when we take a look at some of the numbers, that what has been accomplished is very impressive. In partnership with communities, the government has lifted over 73% of long-term boil water advisories since 2015, which works out to approximately just over 140 facilities. There is now clean water in more than 96% of first nations.

To conclude, suffice it to say that we have gone a long way, and we will continue to move forward on this very important legislation and issue.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary across the way. In particular, he mentioned quite a bit about Shoal Lake, which is in my riding. I had the opportunity to visit the community recently and see some of the infrastructure improvements.

I want to ask the member a bit about the process of the bill and how we got to this point. He mentioned that there is broad support for the bill and the ideas set out in it, but that does not mean there is unanimous support for the bill from all stakeholders and all first nations across the country by any means. We have heard some public concerns being raised by some first nations that do not feel that they have been adequately consulted or that have questions about the vagueness of certain aspects of the bill, which I will speak to in more detail later.

However, we see a trend with this government bringing legislation pertaining to indigenous communities towards the end of the spring, and it seems that there is always a rush to pass it. Why did it not bring this forward sooner so that we could have a more fulsome debate and get it passed through committee sooner?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I get a very good sense of the legislative agenda. If we take a look at the legislative agenda and factor in things such as budget debates, we will find that there is a very limited number of days and a substantial legislative agenda.

I would welcome the opportunity for more time, and it is one of the reasons I constantly advocate for changing the Standing Orders. For example, Friday could virtually start at eight in the morning and end at midnight, as far as I am concerned. Members would be able to speak endlessly on important pieces of legislation, which I think would help facilitate more debate.

I think that the issue of getting more debate on legislation so that we could actually see more legislation being passed needs to rest, in good part, on reforming our Standing Orders, and if we are successful—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is on behalf of the people of Treaty 6, 7 and 8 who have been stalwarts and champions in the protection of clean water for generations and, before the treaty, for thousands of years.

My question is directly pertaining to the lack of this government's ability to properly consult with those who are directly affected by this legislation. We know, for example, that the minister herself has claimed that she is meeting and co-developing this legislation, but first nations themselves have said to me that is not the case. When will the minister meet with Treaty 6, 7 and 8 members to ensure that they establish a bilateral treaty table on water?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the legislation is a significant step forward. The member talks about consultation; I can assure him that it has been a number of years, I believe it is close to five years now, that this legislation has been worked on. The consultations have been taking place for about five years, and without that consultation, we would not have the legislation that we have before us today.

As the previous questioner said, it is not like the bill is unanimously supported; not all stakeholders and parliamentarians are behind the legislation. I think that a vast majority see the true value of the legislation, which is at a state that is good to go to committee. Hopefully, the committee is able to deal with it in a timely fashion so that we can get it back to the House.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is part of a government that promised in its 2015 electoral campaign to end all drinking water advisories by 2020. Here we are in 2024, and there are still countless long-term drinking water advisories. Why has the government been so slow to act on something so critical as water?