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

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise today to speak to Bill C-61, the first nations clean water act, at second reading.

Upon its introduction to this House on December 11, 2023, Chief Logan of Lheidli T’enneh First Nation said that its introduction was “huge for our nation to see a light at the end of the tunnel.” That day, I was joined by first nations partners and federal colleagues to present a bill that reflects the collective vision for a future of safe drinking water and first nations communities, which is work that began with our government's commitment in 2015.

Today, we take an important step forward to ensure that all first nations will have clean drinking water in their communities for generations to come. This bill honours our commitment, not only to first nations but to all Canadians. It would bring us even closer to reaching parity of access to clean drinking water in first nations and non-first nations communities and it would ensure that first nations are in control of their water and their future.

First, let us remember where we came from. Last year, the government officially repealed the 2013 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. First nations across the country had been asking for this since before the bill was even introduced. Why? The members of the Harper government never considered including the voices or perspectives of first nations when it drafted that legislation. To them, this was a problem to be solved, an issue to be managed.

The Conservative bill set rigorous water quality standards for first nations communities, but then allowed the Harper government to systemically ignore and underfund water systems for a decade. It enabled the Harper Conservative government, including the current leader, to put the blame on first nations for failing to deliver on a promise that they never agreed to in the first place. This kind of anti-indigenous racism has been baked into our institutions since they were established. First nations saw the Harper-era legislation for what it was: cynical, political and useless.

This kind of approach changed when we ran in 2015 because we made a promise to first nations and to all Canadians that we would do things differently. We committed to repealing and replacing the Conservative water bill, legislation so hated by first nations that partners called for its repeal before it was passed; and we committed to creating new law to protect water for first nations in true nation-to-nation partnership.

Since 2015, we have met extensively with first nations leaders and communities. We have listened to concerns and priorities and we have shared in this work with partners, with class action litigants, with rights holders and with first nations communities from coast to coast to coast. The AFN stated that, “The bill is the first of its kind to be introduced since the passage of the UN Declaration Act.” Article 19 of the declaration requires states to consult and co-operate with indigenous peoples before adopting legislative measures that affect them. It requires us to do things differently and to deeply consider what consultation and co-operation actually mean.

Hundreds of consultations were held with first nations communities and partners to shape this proposed law and address key priorities identified by first nations. The work of consultations began in 2018 and it consisted of multiple engagements in a variety of approaches. These formal conversations led to the extensive work on the bill we see today. This is reflected in feedback like we have recently heard from the Blackfoot Confederacy chiefs and Treaty 7, who have said recently, “The government clearly listened to the concerns of the Blackfoot Nations regarding the final consultation draft of the legislation and made significant changes to [the bill].... It is for this reason that our nations support...Bill C-61.”

As we are often reminded by elders, knowledge-keepers and many people across the country, water is life. Water is the foundation of community well-being and health. As we all know, we need to do more to protect first nations' water sources.

Some partners shared with me how powerful it was to see their words, their feedback, reflected in our way forward. On the day the bill was tabled, Chief Erica Beaudin of Cowessess First Nation said, “I believe today is historic; not only because the bill has been introduced, but because it is the start of that day where our children will be born with the regulations that are needed.” This is truly a historic moment for law development in Canada.

Throughout this consultation and in my visits to first nations, I have heard the many ways first nations people have suffered through imposed law that undermines their safety, their culture, their connection to the land and water, and the deep sorrow and damage to their ancestors and children as a result, but Canada has committed to do better, to be a better partner in protecting this land, this water and this country together. It will be by working together like this that we advance legislation that restores power, self-determination and tools of equity for healing to occur and for the true potential of all people of this land to prosper. With the newly passed United Nations declaration act, there will be many more opportunities to use and improve on collaboration in law making in the future.

The Assembly of First Nations led the call for the repeal of the Harper bill, and through its extensive work it identified five key issues that would need to be included in any new legislation. They are as follows: Affirm first nations' inherent rights to manage their water systems; create the tools first nations need to protect their source waters; hold governments accountable to invest the funding needed for water infrastructure; codevelop minimum standards for clean drinking water; and support the creation of a first nations-led water institution. Each of these five areas is significantly addressed in this bill, and the AFN now says it is confident that the proposed legislation addresses one of the most critical priorities of first nations: ensuring safe and clean drinking water and adequate waste water.

Bill C-61 recognizes and affirms the inherent right of first nations to self-government, including jurisdiction in relation to water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on, in and under first nations lands. The proposed legislation would also establish rights-based regulatory pathways to protect water and source-water adjacent to first nations lands. This would be done in consultation and co-operation with first nations, other federal ministers, provinces and territories to protect drinking water sources that flow onto first nations lands. It would commit the federal government to working with first nations to ensure they have the tools they need to protect the lakes and the rivers that feed water systems.

Bill C‑61 supports the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, including by applying the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

The bill would strengthen funding commitments to providing adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nations lands comparable to services received in non-first nations communities. The bill would establish minimum national standards for drinking water and waste-water services on first nations land based on the choices of first nations themselves. It would help ensure that first nations have reliable access to drinking water and waste-water services on first nations lands in a manner that is comparable to services available to those living in non-first nations communities. It would also ensure that first nations are involved in making the decisions related to their drinking water and waste-water services. The government would have to consult and co-operate with first nations when making funding allocation decisions and developing federal regulations.

Federal regulations governing drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands would ensure that all first nations have effective regulations for their drinking water.

At the same time, the bill would support first nations in exercising their inherent right to self-government by making first nations law paramount over federal regulations under the bill, should first nations choose. The bill would also facilitate water agreements, including transboundary source water protection agreements and bilateral financial agreements between first nations and Canada to support the exercise of first nations jurisdiction on first nations land. The bill would also require Canada to be an active partner in the creation of a first nations water commission that would support first nations in exercising greater control over drinking water and waste-water services on first nations land.

In short, the bill would put first nations in the front when it comes to making decisions on clean drinking water. First nations peoples have always known the importance of protecting the lakes and rivers that give life to us all. They should be the ones making these important regulations to protect water for their communities. They should have the power to develop clean drinking water standards, and they should have the funding they need to do this work along with the tools that enable it to be done.

It is not one thing that will protect water for generations; it is many. This bill addresses the key elements first nations have identified that they need to do this work. It is also why the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority is supportive of its introduction. As Chief Wilbert Marshall said, it is a unique opportunity for first nations to control their service, critical to the socio-economic and environmental well-being of their communities.

Aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this legislation was developed through engagements that put first nations voices at the centre. In fact, we shared two draft versions of the bill with every community across the country to get their feedback. We also posted it online. With the extensive feedback through many sources, it has been first nations voices that have led the process, pushing the federal government to examine itself and its ways to evolve toward true partnership in law creation.

This is a first for Indigenous Services Canada. I would like to thank everyone who reviewed the bill, provided their feedback and helped us develop and strengthen it.

Even though many first nations partners have expressed their support for Bill C-61, the process of review and debate is important to ensure the law is as strong as it can be to achieve its goal of clean water access for generations to come. This stage of the legislation process is equally important, and we will debate this bill. We will hear from first nations voices in committee, and we will be ready to make amendments, guided first and foremost by the voices and experiences of first nations partners.

It is with this spirit that I hope all members will debate this bill: through the lens of self-determination and honour of the commitments Canada has made to first nations people and communities, yet has often failed to meet. Right now, first nations do not have the power or resources to protect or monitor the water flowing into their communities, and the result has been generations of loss, damage, illness, grief and even death.

Last year, I visited with Tataskweyak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba. I met with elders, educators and members of the Tataskweyak to hear about their love for Split Lake, a body of water that almost entirely surrounds their community. I heard about their history of playing, drinking and enjoying the lake in the past, and their deep grief and anger about the poisoning of the water through decades of industrial pollution. The water is so damaged that it now cannot be used to bath with and swim in, let alone drink. The community routinely sees dead animals in the lake, adding to the grief and distress they feel living so close to a once vibrant and alive body of water.

We have worked hard with the community to find an alternative water source at a neighbouring lake, which has meant building a 44-kilometre water pipeline to the nearest clean source of water. However, even with this new source, members are distrustful of the safety of their water supply, and they worry about the spread of contamination to the wildlife in the region, which is an important food source and part of the circle of life. No people should have to live with such fear of their water and such grief of the loss of this most essential element of life.

While the provinces and territories have laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water, there are no similar regulations for first nations on first nation lands.

When the federal Liberal government took office in 2015, there were 105 long-term boil water advisories in effect. Sadly, given the decade of neglect under the Harper Conservatives, this was not surprising. Indeed, funding for operations was significantly below provincial levels, making it hard for communities to train and retain water operators.

Since then, the federal Liberal government has increased funding for water infrastructure by 150%, and the number of long-term water advisories has gone down by 73%. We have also worked together to prevent hundreds of short-term advisories from becoming long-term. Today, 96% of first nations communities do not have a long-term water advisory.

Even still, as Chief Moonias just recently told me from Neskantaga, trust of water is hard to find when a person has lived their whole life without confidence in its safety. We must continue our efforts to improve long-term access to clean drinking water for first nations. We can see a light at the end of the tunnel with the majority of long-term advisories on a clear path to a lift.

We can never go back to an arbitrary and opaque system of first nations water protection. First nations have the inherent right to clean water, like we all do, and this bill would enshrine the tools needed to ensure Canada honours its commitments as a true partner in protecting drinking water for future generations to come. It is the first law in our country to be developed in such a collaborative way with first nations. I truly believe the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the development of law will mean better outcomes for all Canadians.

I look forward to each member's reflections on how to continue this inclusion as we debate this bill together, and I call on all parties to join me in moving forward with the first nations clean water act, because as Chief Beaudin said, “Indigenous people, indigenous children deserve to be conceived, born and die drinking clean water.”

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois applauds the introduction of this bill.

It is pretty unbelievable, not to say absurd, that in 2024 we still need to pass legislation to ensure that first nations across Canada have access to clean drinking water. Canada is not a developing country. It is a G7 country. Nearly 20% of the world's freshwater reserves are in Canada. It is extremely surprising that in 2024 more has not been done about this.

The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act has been criticized ever since it was adopted in 2013 and even before that, as the minister said. I wonder why it has taken so long for the government, which came to power in 2015, to introduce this bill.

In 2017, water was tested in certain communities across Canada. In the community of Listuguj, back home, the water tested positive for lead. Indigenous Services Canada's suggestion was to let the water run.

What will this bill do to ensure that first nations have access to clean water?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her passion for clean water. I share her dismay that this country, in many ways, has led to discriminatory policy and funding for first nations. In fact, that is why we are here today.

Discretionary funding for water safety has been part of the government's shameful legacy, and we are changing that with this legislation. In fact, not only would this legislation install tools and protection for first nations that are enforceable; it would also create the capacity and partnerships with provinces and territories that play a huge role in protecting the water that feeds first nations.

Finally, this law would enshrine the right for first nations people to have equitable funding, like that of non-indigenous communities, for the protection of their water sources, something that has been sorely lacking. First nations partners would have the ability to develop those funding models, together with the Government of Canada, to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has been in power for eight years. It is shameful that there are still indigenous communities without access to clean drinking water.

Also, February 6 is the one-year anniversary of the tailings ponds leak that impacted northern indigenous communities, first nations and Métis communities. It has been one year, and we know that Imperial Oil knew for years that there was leakage. There have been no charges and no accountability. Indigenous leaders have come to testify at the environment committee, and they have been calling for accountability for Imperial Oil and big corporations that pollute our waters.

When will the government stop letting big polluters like Imperial Oil off the hook, start listening to indigenous communities and protect their inherent right to clean water?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that this legislation would establish the inherent right to clean water, and it would do more than that.

What it would also do is provide first nations with the tools to be able to monitor the source water that feeds their drinking water systems. That is work that we must do together with provinces and territories. This is collaborative work with multiple levels of jurisdiction that sets first nations on a pathway to have the tools to better detect when their water sources are polluted.

I too have met with the first nations deeply affected by the Imperial Oil spill. Part of the dismay is the worry, concern and fear that the water systems were contaminated for far longer than they knew about. This bill would make sure that situations like that are a thing of the past.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the minister here this morning talk about water advisories, the previous Conservative government left eight and a half years ago, and there are still over 100 water advisories on first nations. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I have seen reserves burn down water treatment plants because the Liberal government has done little or nothing. She can talk about the previous Harper government, but the current government has done very little in the last eight and a half years. I would like her to comment on the situation.

The other thing is that there needs to be education provided for people on reserve to operate these water treatment plants, which is part of the problem we have seen with the government over the last eight and a half years.

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

Madam Speaker, trust a Conservative member to blame first nations people for burning down their own water treatment plants and for not being smart enough to be able to understand how to operate those plants. That is the kind of paternalism that led to 105 long-term boil water advisories. They were just not worth investing in, I guess.

First nations people have the dignity, the ability and the intelligence to be able to operate complex water systems. I have met water systems operators from across this country. One thing we had to change was the discriminatory funding for water operation in first nations left by the previous Conservative government. Of course, that meant as soon as people got training, they often left for better opportunities to support their families.

We changed that as a Liberal government. We actually created equity in the way water operators are funded on first nations compared to off first nations. However, there is more to do to combat attitudes like that across this country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for Bill C-61. Ever since it was tabled in December, I have been looking forward to this debate to learn more about the bill. Certainly, as I read it in black and white, it recognizes sovereignty over infrastructure and the right to clean drinking water.

I do not say this in any way, shape or form to suggest that this is not properly thought through, but I am keen to know how we avoid, with training, infrastructure and all the benefits of settler culture privilege, what happened in Walkerton when the provincial government shut down the testing facility, and the water contained E. coli. It did not raise the alarm and people died.

We know that having safe, clean drinking water is the right of indigenous nations. How would the Liberal government ensure this process is adequately funded?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say that I have travelled across this country and visited with first nations people in every province and territory. Universally, the conversation has always started with a deep recognition that water is indeed life, and in fact, water itself has life and is an important element of being custodians and protectors of this planet we all call home.

I want to acknowledge the member's long-standing work on protecting the environment. I am glad she is looking at the bill so closely in her usual fashion.

I will say that the second important element of the five elements in the bill actually commits the Government of Canada to ensure that first nations have the resources and the funding they need to maintain and to operate their water systems, which would be inclusive of recruiting and training new water operators on an ongoing basis. The work on determining how to do that funding would be done and developed with first nations so that it would be truly a collaborative process, rather than one that would be dictated by the federal government to first nations.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the minister on her work and the speech she shared with us today.

I think some of the important work that has taken place over the last eight years comes from the separation of what was formerly known as Indigenous and Northern Affairs into Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, as well as Indigenous Services Canada.

I also appreciated the minister's comments with respect to recognizing the value and importance of a nation-to-nation relationship and having first nations and indigenous peoples as part of the decision-making, because the way we move forward really has to come from a better recognition of what we have done in the past, and I think we have to recognize that we have not always done it well.

I would like to hear her comments on some of the publicly available data when it comes to water advisories, as well as the importance of seeing this legislation thoroughly debated and moving it forward as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that Canadians are seized with the need for all first nations to have access to clean water. That is why we have a transparency tracker on the Government of Canada website that can delineate all the remaining 28 long-term boil water advisories and at what stage they are in terms of the work needed to deliver clean water. Most projects are either in the construction stage or waiting for the comfort of chief, council and community to lift that advisory. There are a few who are still determining the best approach.

I would say that it is important to understand the difference in the attitude about sovereignty and indigenous inherent rights between our government and the Conservatives. We heard the member opposite and his shameful comments just a few moments ago. That reflects the overall comment that many people have about the opposition party right now.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands, which I will hereafter refer to as the first nations clean water act.

I want to first comment on what the minister just spoke about. She likes to hurl insults, but she is part of a government that has refused to meet with 133 Ontario chiefs, many of whom are in her own riding, to talk about relief from the carbon tax. One reason they had to move to court action was that the government would not meet with them. Talk about the height of “Ottawa knows best”. There are 133 chiefs, like I said, many of whom are in the minister's own riding. She refused to meet with those chiefs, and now, court action has started. That is peak colonialism, and the minister should be ashamed of herself.

Before I get into my speech on Bill C-61, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge my colleague and friend, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, who recently stepped down from his role as shadow minister for Indigenous Services Canada. We all know the member. He has a great vision for this file. He wears his heart on his sleeve, and he truly believes in reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada. We all know him for his soft-spoken demeanour, his sense of humour and his well-though-out and articulated positions on indigenous issues. He is someone we really want to listen to when speaking about his file.

I have learned a lot from the member. I know he has really taken this file to heart. He told me he will continue to meet with stakeholders. He values the information and knowledge he has gained from the wisdom of those stakeholders and from the experiences he has had on this file. He said that he will remember those for the rest of his life.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank the member's staff or give them a mention at least. Dion works in the constituency office but is heavily involved in this file in Ottawa quite often. Emalie and Linnae put a lot of effort into this file. Their hearts are in it. I could not be more thankful for the opportunity I have been given to work with the member and his staff.

Moving on to Bill C-61, Canada, as a whole, is blessed with clean, fresh and safe drinking water. It is home to 20% of the world's fresh water and 7% of its renewable water supply, yet safe, clean drinking water has been unavailable for many indigenous communities. The history of Canada's efforts or perhaps “challenges”, in a better word, with respect to addressing the long- and short-term boil water advisories has been one plagued with the inability to get it done.

I am not necessarily speaking to the efforts of one government or another. It is quite clear that all governments today share part of the responsibility in this failure. That is not to say that there were not earnest efforts or, in the case of the current government, are earnest efforts to address this issue, but we know that the efforts in general continue to rely on the archaic and paternalistic Ottawa-knows-best way of doing things. That is what is at the heart of the matter.

This failure is our collective fault, and the worst thing we can do is continue to rely exclusively on public servants, in some cases thousands of kilometres from the problems, to make decisions needed to solve them. It is my hope, and surely something I will be focusing on at committee, that Bill C-61 would address this approach. We look to indigenous-led solutions in partnership with surrounding communities and with all levels of government to ensure, once and for all, that safe, clean drinking water is available to indigenous communities.

The history of the indigenous water crisis is a long one that truly did not start garnering attention until after the tragedy in Walkerton or the contamination in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. In 2001, the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began to survey water and waste water systems in indigenous communities across Canada “to establish a baseline of information regarding existing drinking water infrastructure”. The assessment covered “740 drinking water systems serving 691 First Nations communities, finding that nearly 30 per cent” were water systems with “potential health and safety concerns...46 per cent” were systems requiring “some repairs” and only a quarter were considered “low risk”, experiencing “minimal” issues “without any problems”.

The figures at the time estimated the problems could be fixed for approximately $1.6 billion. Based on those survey results, in 2003, “the Government of Canada announced the First Nations Water Management strategy”. It was “the first comprehensive plan to tackle drinking water in wastewater systems within First Nations communities.” The plan allocated $1.6 billion between 2003 and 2008 to address seven key areas: “infrastructure upgrades...improved monitoring and reporting...enhanced [operating and maintenance]...increased training...new water quality management protocols...enhanced public awareness; and... new standards, policies and protocols”.

While a “2009 Health Canada report noted that the strategy led to an improved understanding of the challenges plaguing [indigenous] communities...and allowed for faster and more coordinated responses to emerging water issues”, it did not, according to a 2005 report by the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, provide the same safeguards on drinking water that existed “off reserves”. The conclusion was that a lack of a regulatory regime for indigenous communities, “failure to carry out testing” and a “lack of...technical support...for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of water systems” had to be addressed if the water crisis were to be fixed.

In 2006, “the Government of Canada launched the Plan of Action for First Nations Drinking Water”. The plan of action was built on the first nations water management strategy “and committed an additional $60 million between 2006 and 2008 to...address the findings of the 2005 Commissioner's report.” The plan of action included the creation of an “expert panel”, which found a number of issues that had yet to be addressed by Canada, including that “adequate resources — for...training...operations and maintenance — are more critical to ensuring safe drinking water than is regulation alone” and that a gap existed “between the federal government's cost estimates and the actual amount of funding needed to bring First Nations drinking water systems up to...standard”.

The next step forward came in 2008 with the introduction of the first nations water and wastewater action plan...An additional $330 million was allocated to support [the action plan], which reinforced the [2006 plan] while adding new objectives, including a commitment to consult with [indigenous communities] on new legislation as well as the commissioning of a national engineering assessment of the status of First Nations water systems across the country.

The resulting report, released in 2011, demonstrated that, while Canada had a much better understanding of the water issues in indigenous communities, only marginal progress had been made since 1995.

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

According to the Office of the Auditor General...“[b]etween 1995 and 2003, the federal government spent about $1.9 billion to help First Nations communities provide safe drinking water and wastewater services.” A further $600 million was committed in Budget 2003 to support the [plan]...between 2006 and 2014 the federal government “invested approximately $3 billion towards water and wastewater infrastructure and related public health activities to support First Nation communities in managing their water and wastewater systems.” From 2015 to the present, the federal government has spent over $5.7 billion “to build and repair at least 123 new water and wastewater plants, repair or upgrade 658 others, and support the effective management and maintenance of water systems.”

As I mentioned before, this is an issue that has been the responsibility of successive governments from both sides of the aisle. Clearly, the issue is not spending money, with over $11 billion having been spent by successive government to address the problem. As I alluded to earlier in my speech, we have to look at the way we have been doing things that address the issue. It is time for a new approach.

Now I turn to Bill C-61. We should ask ourselves if this is the new approach we need. I can assure members that that will be the fundamental question that will need to be answered, and in the affirmative, by indigenous leaders at committee if this bill is to succeed. Bill C-61 looks to do a number of things, including affirming and recognizing “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” and setting our principles and provisions to address issues related to first nations clean and safe drinking water, and waste-water treatment and disposal on first nations.

The bill also seeks to create a new first nations-led water commission, as promised, that would monitor water in communities, help them obtain legal advice and make recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial governments where required. As well, subject to the wishes of a first nations governing body, drinking water quality and waste-water effluent would at least need to meet the federal guidelines and regulations, or the standards of the province or territory where the first nations lands are located, and seek to provide pathways to facilitate water protection by creating water protection zones for first nations, provinces and territories to come together to protect, manage and preserve water and source water.

In 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada in a proposed class action suit on behalf of all members of first nations and member resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for at least one year since 1995. On December 22, 2021, the Federal Court and the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba issued a joint decision approving an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

The terms of the settlement agreement were announced on July 30, 2021, and included the following: “$1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund...a renewed commitment to Canada's Action Plan for the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories...the creation of a First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water; support for First Nations to develop their own safe drinking water by-laws and initiatives; [and] a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves”. A plan of “modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation” is included in that as well.

Bill C-61 specifically requires the Government of Canada to provide funding that, at a minimum, meets the expenditures set out in the 2021 settlement agreements. This commitment is $6 billion to be spent between June 20, 2021, and March 31, 2030, to address short- and long-term water advisories. As of May 2023, there were officially a total of 31 long-term drinking advisories in Canada, impacting 27 indigenous communities. This number, of course, has fluctuated over the years and, in some cases, communities have gone off only to be put back on a short time later.

One of the most glaring deficiencies in Canada's approach to safe water for indigenous communities has always been a proper identification and capture of the full picture with respect to unsafe water sources in indigenous communities. Part of the problem is the exclusion of public water systems that the federal government has not given funding. It also does not account for long-term advisories in the territories. A full accounting, taking in these omissions from the official numbers, brings the current total across Canada as high as 55. The lack of consistent and transparent data collection regarding water advisories makes it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the extent of the problem across the country.

For those who may be listening who may not understand what a water advisory is and why it is so fundamentally important to the health of communities, advisories can be issued by a local government, first nation or public health authority when drinking water quality has been or may have been compromised to the point where its consumption poses a risk to public health. Water quality can be adversely impacted as a result of a number of factors, including such conditions as contaminated groundwater or aquifers supplying wells, the presence of bacteria such as E. coli, unacceptable concentrations of harmful chemicals or pesticides, problems with inadequate filtration or malfunctioning equipment or failing to meet the clean drinking water guidelines in Canada.

Numbers can be misleading, and as I mentioned just a few moments ago, many communities continue to hop on and off these water advisories. For instance, five of the 90 first nations communities in which long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted since 2015 have had new long-term drinking water advisories issued since 2019. Two of those communities have had their previous long-term drinking water advisories in place for over 15 years. An additional 12 long-term drinking water advisories are in effect in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick for first nations water systems that are not subsidized by the federal government, along with 10 long-term drinking water advisories in British Columbia. Also, we cannot forget the north where the Northwest Territories and Nunavut each have one long-term drinking water advisory in effect.

If Bill C-61 is to be successful, there will have to be a complete review and overhaul of how we account for water quality advisories. One of the other concerns about Bill C-61 that must be addressed at committee is the government's approach to consultation on the bill.

Many first nation leaders, including the AFN, were involved in the process to develop the legislation and will support it. I believe it has been a long time coming, yet not all first nations leaders agree, and there seems to be a growing chorus of voices from first nations communities opposed to the legislation, mainly stating that it was not co-developed or does not have their support. It will be important to hear from those leaders to hear and address the concerns they may have with Bill C-61.

Furthermore, there are a number of other questions that must be explored at committee, including that some communities face extensive barriers to long-term access to safe drinking water, barriers that are unfortunately not solved by money alone.

What are those barriers and how can we partner with indigenous communities to overcome them? Keeping in mind the close spiritual and historical connection with the land, is relocation an option for communities in extreme conditions where no matter of money will provide a long-term solution? If that is an option, what does that look like for an indigenous community? How do we solve the issue of transparency and ensure data is current and relevant and provides a real picture of the water situation?

Long-term operation and maintenance continues to be an ongoing impediment to safe water access. A limited number of trained staff, and in some cases no trained staff, for remote locations beg the question of how we solve critical staffing issues. Perhaps there is potential to explore regional solutions, or shared water management systems that provide a sharing of personnel and resources.

We must also look at the aggravating or mitigating factors limiting access to clean drinking water, such as remoteness, overcrowded communities and areas with poor to no access to water. We need to understand one solution does not always fit all in these situations.

Lastly, what role can technology play? Are remotely operated plants an option? Do we have that kind of technology or the infrastructure available in Canada? We need to hear from witnesses who can speak to those potential solutions.

Conservatives agree clean drinking water is a basic necessity of life. We must work with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to develop a real solution with an agreed upon timeline to deliver access to safe drinking water to all communities.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating substantial legislation dealing with water. I wanted to highlight that, as a legislature, we often have substantive pieces of legislation before us. This morning, the focus is on Bill C-61, and later this afternoon we will be debating at third reading the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, both of which are substantial pieces of legislation. There is a finite amount of time and a desire to see good legislation pass in a timely fashion, so we are hoping the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement will pass this afternoon. We are also hoping to see the Conservatives put a high priority on this legislation. I am wondering if the member can give a clear indication of what sort of time frame he would like to see before this bill goes to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this piece of legislation, Bill C-61, is an important step forward and something that has support from organizations such as the AFN. Others do have some questions they would like asked, and we will get to that in the committee process.

As for the actual time schedule, it is the government that controls the agenda in the House. We are at its mercy. It is really up to its members and their priorities. I notice something with other pieces of legislation, such as the indigenous-led legislation we just finished up in committee today, Bill C-53. That legislation, on self-governance concerning Métis in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, was promised for months and brought in at the dying days of the session before the break in June.

This piece of legislation, Bill C-61, was again promised for months. I do not know what the delay was on the government's side. I do not know what it was. I believe the delay has been over six months, when we could have been discussing this or even bringing it to committee, and perhaps even passing it at third reading. Again, it is the government putting up these roadblocks. We would like to see what timetable it has in mind.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Bill C‑61 is important. The Kitcisakik reserve, which is in my riding, does not even have clean drinking water. I recently visited Kuujjuaq. It has no water that is safe to drink. The reservoir is very old, even in Nunavik. The government therefore needs to take action on principle, considering that there is a lot of water, but no adequate infrastructure.

What does the government claim to be doing, and what does my colleague think about it?

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

Madam Speaker, it is still shameful that this kind of situation still goes on in our country. I know the member shared a story of a long-term boil water advisory in her riding. The riding of Kenora has had the longest boil water advisory in history, for well over 10,000 days now. It has been in effect since 1995.

That was the heart of my speech. The Ottawa-knows-best approach is clearly not working. With all the technology and brainpower available, we still have boil water advisories. The fact that we are able to solve this and we have not is not beyond me. This tells me that the structure and the status quo itself is not working. If we can address that symptom, I think then, with more indigenous-led solutions, we can actually get this problem fixed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate what the member has to share. I also appreciate that he did list some of the court case settlements. However, I want to ask about source water protection and who has the authority. I know that there have been discussions about whether first nations should have the authority to discuss source water, be it municipal, provincial or federal.

I wonder if he could share his thoughts on what this would mean and why it should be discussed in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I take it that INAN committee has wrapped up, because the member for Nunavut is in this place continuing to work hard for her constituents.

This is one of the things I wanted to highlight, and I should have focused more time on it. Those discussions need to take place. We address it, and Bill C-61 does touch on it, by including those voices and those conversations, especially when the bill talks about source water. I spoke about it a bit. I will make a note to speak on it a little more, but one of the things we will address in committee are issues like that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague highlighted the fact of the timeline on the bill. The government has promised and floated the bill for a long period of time. It is troubling because this is part of the track record of the government, of talking about something and then putting it on everyone else when it has failed to schedule the time.

The member highlighted some organizations in some communities. I know some first nations are quite concerned about the bill, about the fact that they were not consulted and what that means for them. I am wonder if you could highlight what you are hoping to achieve through committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, for her work with first nations and Métis communities in her riding. She is a tremendous champion for those voices, and I know those communities appreciate all her knowledge and willingness to continue to learn on this file. It is not a file that should be taken lightly. I know she takes it very seriously and really digs in, and I appreciate that.

She could not be more bang on with her comment. The government, like with many other pieces of legislation, waited until the last second to bring this in. The legislation, as she mentioned, was promised for six months and counting. Bill C-53, the Métis self-government legislation, was brought in during the dying seconds of the sitting before we adjourned in June. We could even go back to the Whitecap Dakota treaty, which was also brought in during the dying days.

Again, it is a growing concern. On the one hand, the government says that the indigenous file is the most important relationship. However, on the other hand, it drops these pieces of legislation at the last second or in the dying days of Parliament.

First nations communities deserve more than that. We should be promoting them front and centre. Unfortunately the government says one thing and does the other.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I could not quite decipher between the lines on whether he would vote for the legislation at second reading to get it to committee. Would he know if this would be the position of his caucus?

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

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that we will be voting in favour of this at second reading.

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

Madam Speaker, I am concerned with many of the comments the member made about the lack of consultation. In fact, there have been considerable consultations, even representations from AFN at today's introduction of the legislation itself.

Could he provide his comments as to why the government should not work with AFN and the many different chiefs and others to ensure that we get it right? We are confident in the legislation today because of all the inputs in consultations?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not catch the whole segment of the member's question. It was about the AFN. I think I did say that there should be consultation within all groups.

The AFN, as I did point out, was in favour. However, at the same time, if we want to listen to the AFN, we should also listen to it when it talks about the carbon tax and the 133 chiefs of Ontario who want relief from the carbon tax. The Northwest Territories premiers are now calling for a break from the carbon tax. Let us start listening to those indigenous voices and axe the tax.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with deep humility and a great sense of responsibility that I take up the torch today for indigenous relations and the development of the north and its regions within the Bloc Québécois.

First, I would like to salute my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for her outstanding dedication and hard work on behalf of the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada over the years.

I am committed to working closely with indigenous communities in the years to come and making progress in strengthening their rights and autonomy while fostering equitable nation-to-nation relations, and I am committed to following in the footsteps of my colleague from Manicouagan.

Before turning to the bill at hand, I also want to give a shout-out to the participants of the second edition of the First Nations Expedition, who are, as we speak, about to set off from Témiscaming or Kebaowek. The participants will cover a total of 3,250 kilometres by snowmobile on their way to Wendake, passing through Mashteuiatsh, Rouyn‑Noranda, where they stopped the day before yesterday, Maniwaki, Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, and many other places.

I went to Témiscaming yesterday to meet up with them. Politicians from Témiscamingue of all stripes, so to speak, came out to salute the courage of the participants in this second edition. Participants were selected based on their heightened awareness of the indigenous causes supported by the expedition, as well as their thirst and curiosity to learn more about indigenous nations.

I want draw attention to the two men who came up with the idea. The first is Christian Flamand, an Atikamekw man who spoke passionately yesterday about his commitment and the depth of his convictions. The second is Derek Jeremy Einish, a Naskapi man. Both are motivated by the principles of reconciliation, friendship, respect, solidarity and courage.

The aim of the expedition is to pay tribute to children who attended residential schools, missing and murdered indigenous women, Joyce Echaquan, whose name has come up several times, and children who were taken from their families at birth.

To segue into my thoughts on the bill, I will start by saying hello to a representative of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Billy Shecanapish. We met yesterday and he told me that he has spent his life advocating for water and working with water in indigenous communities. I think that is the perfect segue. I want to say hello to Billy and all those participating in the First Nations Expedition.

For indigenous communities, water is not just about staying hydrated, nor is it simply a commodity or resource. Water is considered sacred, because it is a source of life, knowledge and rights. Water is considered a living entity, with a spirit of its own. Human beings have a responsibility to protect and care for this vital resource from mother earth. In short, water is a symbol of indigenous sovereignty.

That is why I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. After first reading of this bill, I think it is too soon to give my opinion on it, since the first nations are not all in agreement. We still have a lot of questions about the consultations that were held with first nations and about many of the bill's provisions.

When all of that is put together, it may not have the original intended effect. By way of observation, the notion of co-development, when the government and its main partners are not in agreement, says a lot about the current process. With all due respect, this also happened with Bill C-53, so perhaps the government needs to review the mechanism it uses for consulting with first nations in order to make it truly inclusive and have a real dialogue.

On the surface, Bill C‑61 may appear to be a long-awaited response to the ongoing equality issues related to access to water for indigenous people in Quebec and Canada, but the devil is in the details.

I want to talk about the basics of the right to drinking water. Access to a safe, clean source of drinking water is fundamental to life. Unfortunately, many first nations communities across the country face significant barriers to accessing safe drinking water. Since 1977, the government has been promising to provide reserves with water and sanitation services comparable to those available in the majority of similar non-indigenous communities. However, these promises have often gone unfulfilled.

First nations continue to endure a disproportionate share of the consequences of poor water management, water insecurity and lack of access to good quality drinking water, a situation that would be considered intolerable for anyone living off the reserves. For most people living in a G7 nation, it would be frankly unthinkable.

The consequences of water insecurity require no explanation. However, since we are still here debating a bill on water, in the House, in 2024, I will nonetheless speak to the link between water insecurity and the high rate of suicide in many indigenous communities. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that water insecurity and the loss of traditional water-related practices contribute to feelings of anxiety, depression and loss of cultural identity. These factors, in turn, can significantly affect the risk of suicide. In short, access to safe, clean drinking water is essential not only for the physical health of indigenous nations, but for their mental health and cultural vitality as well.

One of the clearest examples of this chronic inequality is the never-ending drinking water advisories on first nations reserves. Despite Canada's fiduciary commitments to provide potable water to first nations, its repeated promises to eliminate these advisories and its international obligations recognizing potable water and clean water as a human right, these advisories have been in place for decades.

It is odd that Canada, a country where water is abundant and easily accessible, is still unable to offer adequate infrastructure for drinking water access and waste water management. Unlike developing countries, Canada is not dealing with a water shortage, seeing as it possesses 20% of the world's freshwater reserves. It is not deficient in resources or dealing with the instability of an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The current situation should be blamed on successive Canadian governments and their chronic negligence toward first nations. The federal government's lack of interest in first nations is obvious when we look at the limiting and discriminatory situation imposed on these communities, leaving them stuck with poor sanitary conditions.

Questions remain. Given these realities, Bill C-61 represents a first step in the right direction.

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.... 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.

However, as I mentioned earlier, it has not gone unnoticed that we are debating legislation in 2024 to give communities decent access to clean drinking water and proper infrastructure. This bill may seem like a step in the right direction, but it is simply not good enough.

Let us start with the fact that the government's main partners on this bill, the first nations themselves, disagree with the statement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services that the legislation she was working on was the closest the federal government had come to co-developing law with first nations.

The lack of consultation could explain why the bill seems to view free, prior and informed consent, as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a mere suggestion or guiding principle rather than a strict requirement applicable to all aspects of the bill.

How can first nations trust that the government will consult them on the provisions of this bill, if the government cannot even consult them when the bill is first drafted?

This bill does confirm that water on, in and under first nation lands is part of first nation lands, providing a strong bulwark against provincial land claims. Subclause 6(1) of Bill C‑61 explicitly recognizes that first nations have an “inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” with respect to “water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nations lands.”

The terminology in this section, which refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly establishes that first nations' right to self-government over water on reserve lands constitutes recognition of a constitutionally protected right, not simply authority conferred by law. The fact that the words “water” and “source water” are added means that first nations have complete control over water of any kind on their reserve lands.

The protection of source water is crucial to ensuring that first nations have access to quality drinking water, which supports economic development and helps preserve indigenous rights and cultural practices. Although the bill talks about protecting source water, it does not lay out any specific requirements for protecting it.

On the contrary, both the control and protection of source water remain vulnerable in the provincial and federal agreements required by paragraph 6(1)(b). This does not provide adequate authority to first nations for protecting water sources. First nations will have limited jurisdiction over source water, given that this jurisdiction depends on the agreement between the federal government and the respective provincial or territorial government for coordinating the enforcement of first nations legislation. This is problematic, because water protection varies considerably from one province to another. Also, this bill could always serve as a way for the federal government to shirk its responsibilities to its indigenous partners. Giving first nations considerable power perpetuates concerns about a somewhat disengaged federal government.

Bill C‑61 does not even recognize the basic human right to clean drinking water. Meanwhile, the bill cites the principle of substantive equality in paragraph 5(2)(a) which states that “the distinct needs of First Nations for reliable access to water services must be addressed in a way that respects First Nations rights and their access must be comparable to that in non-Indigenous communities”. Substantive equality is not, in itself, a right to good-quality drinking water. In fact, Canada's refusal to recognize the right to safe drinking water goes against its stated commitment in favour of the right to safe drinking water as a fundamental right within the United Nations.

I want to talk about Kitcisakik, which is located in the riding of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would like to talk about a community in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This indigenous community has been without running water and electricity for years now. Thanks to Quebec's recent commitment, the community will finally be connected to the power grid over the next three years. Unfortunately, the community of Kitcisakik will remain without access to water. Because the water table is too high, it is impossible to dig on site and build the necessary infrastructure, making access to running water impossible. Only the communal showers and the band office have access to this precious blue gold.

Moreover, Kitcisakik has dreamed for the past 30 years of building its new village, Wanaki, which means “land of peace” in the indigenous language. In this way, it could finally acquire modern facilities and infrastructure. This brings me to a key aspect of this issue. To develop water management infrastructure requires considerable, recurring and predictable funding. Historically, this has never been the case. From 2015 to 2018, $146 million was allocated annually to fund this type of infrastructure. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2017, it would have taken $361 million a year to fund and maintain first nations' drinking water and waste-water systems. The government covered only 40% of the estimated needs.

Once again, I will talk about my region to demonstrate the impact. Maintenance and construction costs are much higher in the regions, and that forces communities to make heart-wrenching decisions. In February 2021, the Abitibiwinni nation on the Pikogan reserve near Amos reported that it was finding it difficult to allocate the funds needed to maintain and run its water and waste-water systems. It is difficult for a community to have to choose between maintaining its infrastructure, water and waste-water systems and roads, and fostering economic and social development when the envelopes are simply not there. We should keep in mind that, in remote regions, the cost of every repair is higher because of the distances involved, the labour shortage and the competition from mining companies in the construction sector.

From reading the bill, we get the impression it seeks to tackle inadequate funding. However, the language used is superficial, requiring only that the government provide “funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures” set out in the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Settlement Agreement.

The funding provisions in the bill simply do not go far enough to guarantee sufficient funding for first nations. According to clause 26 of this bill, the Government of Canada is content to make “best efforts” to provide adequate funding for water services and to offset the actual costs to first nations of water and sanitation services.

That is a gateway to inaction. The term “best efforts” allows the government to shirk its responsibility to provide First Nations with real access to clean, safe drinking water.

If the minister can simply claim to have done their best to make sure a community has access to water, and the community still does not have access to drinking water, that is legal under the terms proposed by this piece of legislation. That is unacceptable. It is a shirking of responsibility toward our indigenous constituents, and we cannot tolerate such negligence.

I will remind members that the investigation conducted by the Institute for Investigative Journalism at Concordia University revealed that Indigenous Services Canada funded only 33% of the needs of the community of Kebaowek, located in my riding, while the federal government should have contributed 80%. No matter the infrastructure, if the federal government does not do its part, it is unrealistic to think that first nations will be able to meet expectations.

The drinking water problem is also affecting non-indigenous communities. Take, for example, the municipality of Laverlochère-Angliers in the Témiscamingue region. Its inhabitants do not have access to drinking water because it is just too expensive for a community of about 300.

Some 30% of the population of Abitibi—Témiscamingue gets its water from private wells. A study conducted by the Direction régionale de santé publique showed the presence of arsenic in the private wells. It validated the hypothesis that the contaminated wells were associated with a certain type of rock often found near gold deposits. Some of the private wells were dug in gold deposits, so their water contains arsenic. It is important for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities to understand the geology of our region so as to reduce the risk of contamination.

It is also important to remember that, according to a survey conducted by the Abitibi—Témiscamingue public health directorate, four out of five households had not cleaned or disinfected their wells in the past five years.

This is another important point that needs to be included in this bill. How can we fund prevention if indigenous communities opt to dig their own wells? These are important things to think about.

In conclusion, I would say that we are at a crucial point in time and that we must seriously consider the future of access to drinking water in Quebec and Canadian indigenous communities. Although imperfect, Bill C-61 is an attempt to do something about the persistent inequalities experienced by indigenous peoples when it comes to access to drinking water.

However, despite its good intentions, it fails to address basic concerns. The issue of a real and meaningful consultation of first nations is still up in the air, casting a shadow on the legitimacy of this legislative measure. In addition, the funding provisions fail to guarantee sufficient resources to adequately meet the needs of indigenous communities.

We cannot overlook how unacceptable it is that, in 2024, we still have to stand here and talk about the need to ensure access to clean drinking water and decent infrastructure. This highlights the government's ongoing failure to deliver on its commitments to indigenous nations.

As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that every citizen has equitable access to an essential part of life, namely drinking water. Bill C-61 is an opportunity to improve the situation, but it needs to be strengthened and adjusted to truly meet the needs, demands and rights of first nations.

We must take urgent action and firmly resolve to put an end to this unacceptable situation. Access to clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right, and we must not tolerate any further delay in making that a reality for everyone. The House's commitment to reconciliation and to indigenous peoples requires that we take bold action to ensure that every indigenous and non-indigenous community has a future and can thrive with dignity and fairness.

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

Madam Speaker, personally, I see two strong aspects of Bill C-61.

First and foremost, I appreciate and value all the work and contributions from the minister and indigenous leaders throughout the country. They brought this legislation forward through consultation and hard work.

Second, we talked about the UN declaration, in terms of how we bring forward legislation. Again, we see that the legislation is being driven not just by the minister but also by indigenous leadership.

It is so important that we continue to work hand in hand with indigenous people in order to protect mother earth, as it is often referred to, particularly when dealing with water. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his commitment to first nations and for his question.

I will answer it by pointing out that the Minister of Indigenous Services was asked to release a list of the first nations and organizations that were consulted about the bill. That request went nowhere, and instead the minister stated that all first nations had received the bill, as well as a second one based on consultations with communities.

We obviously need to ensure that consultations have indeed taken place, in a spirit of consultation, not simply sharing information.

Take the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, as an example. Its members must be able to take part in the process and have their say, particularly when it comes to first nations located in Quebec. That is what nation-to-nation dialogue is all about. It is an interesting principle, but the government needs to walk the talk.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, a lot of the thoughts the member shared are quite similar to what I have analyzed as well.

I would like to hear from the member what his thoughts are on the current Liberal government's attitude toward indigenous peoples, and what it means that it introduced this bill that would not meet international human rights laws.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her comments and question.

She was already one of the members of the House I most respected. When I had the chance to get to know her better on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I grew to admire her and her genuine commitment to the first peoples even more.

Obviously, in this context, the government must do something toward reconciliation as part of a nation-to-nation dialogue that is as inclusive as possible. When one informs people of something, that is not a dialogue. If I sent someone an email, I obviously cannot say that we had a dialogue. That is key. We have seen the government taking the first nations for granted in too many bills. They have been taken for granted since the Indian Act. That has done a lot of harm.

Now, we need to take action. I think that we can demonstrate a new openness in 2024. That means being proactive, reaching out, and accepting that there may be different ways of seeing things. We are talking here about a fundamental right, access to water. We have to get this right.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his recent appointment as our party's critic for this very important file.

Earlier, I was trying to tell the Minister of Indigenous Services that, in 2017, water testing was done back home, in the community of Listuguj. The tests found that there was a certain level of lead in the water that did not meet the acceptable or recommended limit set by Health Canada. When the community reported this to Indigenous Services Canada, the department told those people that the problem would be solved if they let the water run for a while prior to consuming it, instead of simply helping the community invest in replacing the plumbing, for example. These tests were carried out in a day care centre. The children were drinking this water. We know that consuming lead or a certain concentration of lead in water has an ill effect on health. It affects children's brain development.

I hope the bill will ensure that, when communities ask for help, the government and Indigenous Services Canada will respond and that the necessary funding will be available.

Does my colleague think this will be the case, or does he still have concerns, especially with regard to funding?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say a special thank you to my colleague for her leadership with the community of Listuguj. She clearly knows every detail of that community's needs.

It is unacceptable that a day care does not have drinking water. What happens as a result of a situation like that? The same entity, be it the municipal or local administration or the day care itself, will have to make choices: repair the pipe, or invest the money in education, in preserving the language? In many cases, the health emergency must take priority and the pipe must be fixed. That is a problem because the federal government should be taking on this responsibility. As we have seen over the years, the amounts are simply insufficient.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech and also for his response to the question from our colleague from Nunavut. I was amazed by the question she asked. It is so clear to me that this bill must be garbage if our colleague from Nunavut thinks it does not respect human rights.

Could my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue say a few words about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her remarks, as well as for her genuine commitment to first nations.

I will give an example concerning water quality. She accompanied the Kebaowek First Nation here so that its members could speak at a House of Commons news conference on a fundamental issue, namely the quality of water in the Ottawa River, which borders their territory. A nuclear waste treatment and storage facility is going to be built in Chalk River. This project is vehemently opposed by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and many others, including myself.

The possibility of a leak poses a risk to water quality in the region. We are experiencing numerous climate change-related disasters, and it is possible that a tipping point could be reached. In addition, the facility is located on top of a hill from which water runs off into the Ottawa River, six kilometres away. The consequences will be felt not so much in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as farther south, where the water flows down to Ottawa-Gatineau, as well as Montreal and Quebec City. The consequences could be devastating for both indigenous and non-indigenous residents. We need to be extremely vigilant when it comes to protecting our water. I am making a personal commitment to address this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has time for a brief question.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can be brief.

What an absurd situation. I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I cannot get over it. First nations account for 5% of Canada's population. We are debating a bill that seeks to give 5% of the population of this country access to drinking water. It is mind-boggling to contemplate.

I would like to raise another issue with my colleague. I visited his region to talk about housing. Lac‑Simon alone is short 300 housing units. The statistics on housing for first nations are devastating. They are overrepresented when it comes to unsanitary and overcrowded housing.

What does my colleague think should be done to get this issue dealt with here? What can we do not only about drinking water, but also about housing, so that first nations truly have access—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I asked the hon. member to be brief and he took more than a minute to ask his brief question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has 30 seconds to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, it was an excellent brief question because it leads me to point out the importance of first nations self-governance. Funding is key, but it must be significant, recurring and predictable.

Let us talk about Quebec's water policy. Quebec made that policy a fundamental law. Based on my discussions with first nations back home, I would say that if the federal government wants to take meaningful action, it should allow first nations to be subject to the provincial legislation, which is already very progressive. If the government stopped encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, that might help Quebec protect water.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member did a great job. That was just one second over, which is not bad.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am privileged to represent Nunavut in the House. I am sorry I missed the Minister of Indigenous Services's speech as I was in committee. Our committee was concluding the study of the Métis self-government bill. I am glad I am able to at least find out what her statements were and to respond to them later.

I appreciate that before July 1, 1867, Inuit, first nations and, later, the Métis, governed these lands. Before Canada, they had laws regarding wildlife, marine and terrestrial environments, ecosystems and relationships with each other. Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands is a particularly important one to remind us of the existence of indigenous peoples before colonialism. Before colonialism, indigenous peoples protected water and the land, and they used the environment for sustenance, acknowledging the limits. Therefore, protecting and preventing future damage was at the core of being sustained by the environment, especially water.

I take this opportunity to remind Canadians that Canada’s colonial efforts to “remove the Indian from the child” remain active. There are more indigenous children in foster care than there were in residential schools. There are more indigenous people who are homeless, in overcrowded housing situations or living in substandard housing. First nations, Métis and Inuit have the largest infrastructure gap. Indeed, the NDP found that the first nations infrastructure gap is at $350 billion. The Liberal government made cuts to MMIWG funding.

Therefore, when this bill was introduced, I put on my oppressed lens and sought where it could be familiar to me. I found familiarity in asking these questions: Why, in this legislation, are human rights and treaty rights not on par with what other Canadians have as rights? Why does the bill not align with international human rights laws regarding water? Why does the bill provide only a guide regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Before I go deeper into this analysis, I want to share what is included in Bill C-61 according to the Government of Canada website. The key elements of the bill include the recognition and affirmation of 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; rights-based regulatory pathways to protect water and source water adjacent to first nation lands, in consultation and co-operation with first nations, other federal ministers, and provinces and territories, to help protect drinking water sources flowing onto first nation lands; and minimum national standards for the delivery of drinking water and waste water services on first nation lands, based on first nations choice.

Other key elements include a federal commitment to make best efforts to provide adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nation lands comparable to services received in non-first nations communities; a requirement to provide funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures set out in section 9.02(2) of the settlement agreement; a requirement for all decisions made under the proposed act to be guided by the principle of free, prior and informed consent; and a commitment for Canada to support the creation of a first nations water commission that would support first nations in exercising greater control over drinking water and waste water services on first nation lands.

To go back to my analysis of the continued lack of commitments toward first nations, as well as the impacts this continues to have on indigenous peoples, unfortunately, Bill C-61 falls short on respecting human and indigenous rights. According to an analysis by JFK Law:

Overall, Bill C-61 provides First Nations with a strong foundation to assert control over their water resources and jurisdiction over water occurring on First Nations land. However, the legislation fails to expressly recognize a human right to drinking water or a guarantee for substantive equality for access to water services on and off First Nations lands. Critically, the legislation fails to include provisions for effective source water protection, which is necessary to ensure First Nations have enough clean water flowing onto their lands and territories to meet their needs.

The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations stated, “the first public draft released by Canada in February was developed in secret by Indigenous Services Canada without any direct input from First Nations, a fact that has been raised by the Assembly of First Nations and several regional First Nations organizations over the course of 2023”. Other first nations, such as those represented by treaties 6, 7 and 8 and Neskantaga said early on that they had been kept in the dark about the legislation and did not see it before it was tabled.

I note that, in addition to another bill tabled by the Liberal government, Bill C-38, an act to amend the Indian Act on new registration requirements, Bill C-61 has been introduced on the basis of a court case. In November 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada on behalf of all members of first nations and members resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for at least one year since 1995. Terms of the settlement agreement were previously announced on July 30, 2021. While they have been mentioned by others in this House, I repeat that they include the following: $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; the creation of a $400 million first nations economic and cultural restoration fund; a renewed commitment to Canada's action plan for the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories; the creation of a first nations advisory committee on safe drinking water; support for first nations to develop their own safe drinking water bylaws and initiatives; a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves; and the planned modernization of Canada's first nations drinking water legislation.

We have heard that Bill C-61 was co-developed with first nations. While I appreciate the effort by the Minister of Indigenous Services, I know that more could have been done. The Assembly of First Nations is an important national first nations organization. However, it does not represent all first nations. There are indigenous nations in Canada that are not represented by AFN. During committee, we will need to ensure that as many first nations as wish to be heard, are heard. As parliamentarians, we must incorporate indigenous ways of working together. We must ensure that first nations people who feel ignored are afforded the opportunity to speak to this bill. In this way, we can make sure that Bill C-61 is improved and truly co-developed.

In 2018, the Assembly of First Nations held an engagement regarding safe drinking water. The concerns shared at the time included a lack of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding; a lack of recognition of indigenous rights; potential infringement of indigenous and treaty rights; a lack of protection of source water; and insufficient engagement on water issues that directly affect first nations. When Bill C-61 goes to committee, it must seek to answer all these concerns.

Bill C-61 requires scrutiny to make sure that inherent treaty rights and human rights obligations are met. As a G7 country, Canada must show that it treats the original inhabitants with the utmost respect.

We have generations of first nations that have grown up without access to tap water. They probably think it is normal to drink bottled water. We have first nations who probably think that it is normal to boil water before it is safe to drink. It is 2024, and we must ensure that first nations do not continue to think it is okay to have to do this in order to drink water.

Bill C-61 requires a lot of work. I hope that we, as parliamentarians, do this work with the lens that first nations have inherent treaty rights and human rights and that we must all do what we can to ensure that their rights are respected.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare from the Chiefs of Ontario stated, “The process of this bill is more than consultation. It reflects co-operation and true co-development, a two-way collaborative process.” Could the member comment on what he said?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I shared earlier, I know that the Minister of Indigenous Services has worked really hard with organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations. However, they do not represent all first nations. There are way too many first nations that were not included during this consultation process. In terms of those who were consulted, I appreciate the sentiment, but that does not extend to all first nations.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nunavut for her commitment and her speech.

I would like to ask the member a question in light of where she is from. What is the drinking water situation in her community? As I understand it, the territorial governments provide safe, clean water in communities, including first nations and Inuit communities. It is my understanding that this is basically the territory's responsibility.

Have the territories been consulted? Do they approve of the elements included in this bill? What are the needs in first nations communities?

I am wondering wether the issue of drinking water was a factor in her decision to get into politics in 2021 and her commitment to improve conditions in first nations communities.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's question is an important one.

As an Inuk, as I said earlier, I had to really scrutinize the bill based on my experience as an indigenous person who has experienced oppressive and genocidal policies most of my life. This is why so much in the bill is familiar in terms of those kinds of oppressive policies. The reason I felt compelled to run to sit in Parliament is that this is the place where we can help make those changes. As parliamentarians, we can make sure that we are always fighting to uphold indigenous people's inherent rights. We are fighting to uphold human rights for all Canadians, including first nations, Métis and Inuit.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nunavut for the outstanding work she does on this file every day and every week.

Arguably, fresh water is our most precious resource. In Canada, we are lucky to have one of the largest reserves of fresh water anywhere in the world. Many Canadians, including me, take it for granted that, when we turn on the tap, fresh, clean drinking water comes out. However, for so many first peoples, this reality does not exist. That is a shame in a country as wealthy as Canada.

The gist of my question comes from the fact that I have sat in this House of Commons now for just over eight years, and this has, supposedly, been a very important priority for the Liberal government. However, my colleague talked about the infrastructure gap that exists and the fact that there are still boil water advisories, and it is only now that we are seeing this legislative framework come into play in debate, in the form of Bill C-61.

What would the situation be like if the Liberal government had been a little more proactive on the legislative front? If we had seen legislation like Bill C-61 introduced not in the previous Parliament, but the one before that, where might we be now and what difference might that have made for people?

[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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I do not believe the government has been negligent at all on the issue. It has demonstrated its intentions virtually from the get-go, with the Prime Minister talking about establishing a new relationship with indigenous people and the Government of Canada, one of mutual respect, and that takes time. It has to be done properly.

We were very ambitious, in 2015, in making these commitments and they are materializing, maybe not in the exact time frame we had said back then, but I truly believe we have made significant progress. There is still more to come, but it is tangible, it is there and it is happening. Ultimately, I think that is where we are having an impact in a very positive way.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are some very good things in Bill C‑61, that the member presented in his speech.

The bill promotes first nations' right to self-determination and self-government. Perfect, we are on the same wavelength.

However, there are some problematic things going on. I am not talking about what happened 10 or 15 years ago. I am talking about what is happening right now. There are problems with the Kearl mine in Alberta. What is more, 40 out of 41 first nations reject the Chalk River project and the government is not stepping in. This involves drinking water. The first nations are calling for the Chalk River development to be stopped and they are demanding their voices be heard.

I am all for easing our conscience, but maybe it is time to put words into action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize the fact that indigenous leadership has been stepping up in a very significant way, and where it can, the government is enabling and empowering that leadership with positive results. For example, I just received a text with respect to Shoal Lake 40. I am very proud of the fact Ontario Public Works has awarded the Shoal Lake 40's water treatment facility, and the opportunities it provides for local procurement and employment, the 2022 project of the year for small municipalities and first nations award.

I am suggesting we have to make sure it is done right, with a lot of consultation. Working with and supporting indigenous communities and leadership is really important on this issue and we will continue to do so in the years ahead.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, treaties have been the foundation of Canada's attempt to take unceded land from indigenous peoples since the onset of the historic treaties. First nations feel as though these treaties are important and sacred when they are followed, but when not followed they pale in comparison to the desperate situation so many are facing.

Why has there been no recognition of the inherent treaty rights to water for the first nations in Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Manitoba represented by treaties 6, 7 and 8?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight what the member for Sydney—Victoria did.

This is National Indigenous History Month, which affords members, and all people of Canada, a better understanding and appreciation of history and the important role we all have to play when it comes to issues such as truth and reconciliation and clean drinking water. Although there are still drinking water advisories out there, we have advisory committees working to get rid of them.

The government, over the last number of years, has put Canada on the right track by supporting and enabling indigenous leadership to deal with this very serious problem, and we are getting closer to the finish line.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to rise and talk to such an important issue as drinking water on first nations, dealing with Bill C-61. Before I get too far into my remarks, I would like to let members know that I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George. I look forward to hearing his comments on this very shortly.

This is obviously an important topic. It is one that, unfortunately, we are still talking about as a Parliament all these years later. We have seen the current government make a lot of big promises and announcements of a lot of big spending, and, unfortunately, most recent information from the government indicates that there are still 29 drinking water advisories that remain in 27 first nations across the country, 10 of which are in the Kenora district that I am representing. Those are namely Fort Hope, Neskantaga, Nibinamik, Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake, Muskrat Dam, North Caribou Lake, Sandy Lake, North Spirit Lake and Deer Lake, all still living under long-term drinking water advisories.

We know this is unacceptable. We know that it is a shame for Canada nationally and internationally to have this issue continue to plague us, and I am glad that we are here today finally debating Bill C-61. I do want to address that right off the hop, because we have heard the Minister of Indigenous Services and some other voices on the government side criticizing Conservatives, saying that we are blocking Bill C-61, which is absolutely ridiculous.

In fact, as the previous Liberal speaker mentioned, we passed a Conservative motion to expedite the passage of the bill to get it to committee, where we can do some important work on it and move it through the parliamentary process. It was a Conservative initiative to do that, but unfortunately, it has not been prioritized by the governing Liberal Party.

This is a trend we see every June, really. The government, at the last minute, tries to rush through legislation that pertains to first nations or indigenous peoples across the country. Consultation has not been adequate, the government has not gone through the proper steps, and it expects Parliament just to stamp it so the government can check a box before we rise for the summer. This is a very concerning trend. In fact, the government has had, by my count, 33 sitting days where the government has steered the agenda, and it has had the opportunity to bring this forward. Of course, this is not counting opposition days, even though some of those opposition days have been extended to include Government Orders. The government has had ample opportunity to bring this legislation forward.

Nonetheless, we are happy that we are here debating it today. As mentioned, there is some broad support for the aspirations and the intent of the legislation, but there is not unanimous support from stakeholders, first nations communities, leaders and groups right across the country.

I want to share some of the comments that have been made publicly in that regard. Chief Rupert Meneen of Tall Cree First Nation in Alberta has said that Bill C-61 “does not address existing needs and gaps in services, infrastructure, and monitoring on First Nations”. The chief goes on to say that as treaty peoples, they do not accept it.

Chief Bobby Cameron from Saskatchewan said, “As it stands, the federal water act announced today is not true reconciliation, it is an attempt to legalize the status quo”. Our first nations need more time. Don't rush this so quickly. It's as simple as that.

I will share one more that is out there. This is from a policy adviser to the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services, representing 47 first nations in Alberta. Policy adviser Norma Large said it pretty simply: “The bottom line is that this bill is not meeting the mark”.

We have the government, on one hand, saying that it has co-developed this legislation, that there is support for it and that we need to rush it through the House of Commons with as little debate possible to get it through committee as quickly as possible, and I think there is goodwill on all sides of this House to expedite this legislation.

We have to make sure that we are addressing the concerns that are being raised. We cannot overlook or ignore the concerns of first nations peoples across the country. It is my hope that all members of the committee from all parties would ensure that we have the proper time and resources to do that, so we can bring first nations leaders to the table and share some more specifics about this legislation.

We also see some vague terms and things that are being kicked down the road in Bill C-61. There is a lot of work, and important work, that needs to be done that is not being addressed by this legislation that would be put off to future regulations. One example of that is the protection zones. The definition of a protection zone would be determined through future regulations as set out in this legislation. Of course, there should be collaboration with first nations, and territorial and provincial governments, to ensure that it is done right, but that work should already be under way. We need to have first nations leaders come to the committee to share their thoughts on what that should be and what that looks like for them in their communities so that we can get a jump on that important work and ensure that we are addressing those needs.

To quote from Bill C-61, the minister is to “make best efforts” to begin required consultation, which sounds great. That is a good sentiment, and I think everyone would share the sentiment. Yes, the minister should make best efforts. However, what does that mean? What is the tangible effect of making best efforts? That is at the very core of the concerns that we have heard, as has been raised by other members of the House during this debate already. We are just getting going in this discussion. The bill has not even been to committee yet, and we are already hearing of first nations who do not feel that they have been consulted with, so it is certainly not a good start in that regard.

With the time I have remaining, I just want to speak more to the bill specifically. The process is one thing. I hope that we will all agree to move this forward, and move it forward in a way that brings in voices from first nations and ensures that proper debate can happen.

To the bill itself, much of it is very simple and straightforward, including things such as ensuring that the quality and quantity of water on the first nations will, at the very least, meet provincial and territorial standards if nothing else. That is something that, when folks read it, they would question why that would not be the case already. Unfortunately, we have seen this, not just when it comes to drinking water, but also with housing as well. There are concerns that houses on first nations have not been built up to code in the area of jurisdiction, and this is just another example of first nations communities being shortchanged and overlooked by the government.

Simply, Conservatives recognize that clean drinking water is a necessity of human life and that the government must work with all first nations and indigenous communities to develop adequate, safe, clean drinking water for all communities. As I mentioned off the top, the lack of drinking water has really been a national shame for far too long.

This ties in with consultation. More important, we have to recognize that a one-size-fits-all solution, this top-down approach from Ottawa, is not going to work. That is why a consultation and the boots on the ground work. It means a meeting with first nations leaders to understand the unique circumstances and needs in the communities, ensuring that those voices are being heard so that we can develop solutions in partnership that work for those first nations.

That is the vision that the Conservative Party has. I think it is one that is shared by members across party lines in the House. We stand ready to work to expedite this along. Of course, we are hoping that, at committee, our colleagues from the other parties will work with us to ensure that all first nations are heard before this bill gets passed.

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

Madam Speaker, the member referred to the consultation process and had questions about it. I just want to amplify that, over the last five years, there has been a great deal of consultation that has taken place. One of the questions he had was in relation to treaties nos. 6, 7 and 8 first nations. Earlier this year, I know the minister had the opportunity to tune into what it was those first nations were saying about the legislation and the issue of getting rid of the boil water advisories.

We all understand and appreciate, as well as respect, the important leadership role that first nations are playing on this file, and we are working to enable and support that leadership. I believe that the minister has clearly demonstrated just how important that fact is. It might have potentially slowed down some projects more than others, but I think that is by far the best way to go.

Would the member not agree that working in consultation is so critically important?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree that working in consultation is the best way forward, but I would disagree with the level of consultation that the member claims the minister to have done. I do not doubt that there has not been any consultation, but when we hear that this is not true reconciliation and that communities do not accept this, it is clear that many nations have been overlooked in this process so far. They do not feel as though their voices are being heard.

It is very important that we have the time at the indigenous and northern affairs committee to bring all voices to the table to ensure that we get this legislation right.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, at one point, my colleague said that it was important to think about both the quantity and quality of water. I completely agree with him.

Here is an example. In Nunavik, which is in northern Quebec, there are 14 communities where homes are not supplied with water, for example, from underground aqueducts. However, the situation is getting even worse there because, in addition to that, the melting permafrost is complicating everything.

Does my colleague agree with me that the issue of water quality is also linked to climate change?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree that there are a number of factors, including changing conditions, that do impact that. We have seen in my riding that a number of communities are facing very different seasons, such as shorter winter seasons, for example, that are impacting a number of things, including drinking water.

I think that the member rightly recognizes that it is about quantity and quality, ensuring that there is an adequate level of both of those things when it comes to clean drinking water. It is important, overarching, that the government works with each community to understand what that looks like for their community.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I often find it ironic to hear in this place criticism from the Conservatives of the Liberals, and vice versa, when so many times both parties have failed indigenous people. As a matter of fact, this legislation, Bill C-61, comes to this place because of a litigation of a Harper-era piece of legislation known as Bill S-6, which failed indigenous people, so much so that they had to take their concerns to court, have the Conservatives defeated, and then have this legislation be able to stand. This is better than what the Conservatives have tabled, for sure.

Would the member have anything to say to the many nations that had to litigate against his party's former legislation?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not a member at that time, so I cannot speak specifically to how that played out, but I can share the concern with the member that this was brought forward at the end of litigation. It even took the government a year longer than it was supposed to take to table this legislation to address that.

The current government has been dragging its feet. I am sure that we can agree that it needs to do better.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the member concludes with a remark about all of us coming together at committee, and I really and truly hope that does take place.

His critique of the current government is interesting. In 2015, there were actually 105 boil water advisories, and as a government, we have actually ended 144 long-term boil water advisories. Think about that and then think about the legislation the Conservatives under Stephen Harper brought in. I was provided an interesting quote about Stephen Harper's legislation: “This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.” This is from Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Confederacy of Treaty 6. It was recorded in Hansard in 2013.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but trying to give a false impression does a disservice when there is a government that is actually taking action that is moving us forward on this very important file.

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

Madam Speaker, the question to my hon. colleague across the way is this: Why did it take nine years to accomplish this? Why did it take first nations' having to take the government to court for it to do anything?

We will take no suggestions or advisement from the gentleman across the way on first nations relationships. All we know is that the current government needs to act. Its members need to stop talking and start acting in solving the boil water advisories.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would find it hilarious if this were not such a sad topic. The member actually cited the legislation that the Conservative government of the day put in place and that was litigated against, as a record of good benefit to his party. What irony it is that he mentions Bill S-8 as one of the best things that the Conservatives ever did.

I do not have a question, but I am going to inform the member: That legislation was litigated against as being paternalistic and as being legislation that breached the rights, the charter rights, of first nations people. We need to actually have truth and facts in this discussion. Does the member recognize that in order for us to solve the problem, you have to first recognize that you have done harm yourself? On behalf of the party, can he apologize to the first nations that had to take him to court?

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

I hope the hon. member is not thinking that I have done harm.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Madam Speaker, if the hon. colleague had been listening to my speech, he would have heard that I said there was enough blame to go around successive governments.

[An hon member]

He said that.

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

I did say that. If my hon. colleague wanted to cast aspersions against me and my speech, he should probably have listened to what I had to say to begin with.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the bill, funding is a key element of this whole issue. The construction, administration and maintenance of water management infrastructure requires significant, recurring and predictable funding.

Does the member feel that this bill seriously addresses the issue of funding? In his opinion, is the language in the bill still somewhat superficial with regard to funding, or is something really significant being proposed that would enable adequate funding to be put in place?

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize to our hon. colleague as I am not sure whether she is asking my point of view or whether she is asking whether the language in the text of the bill is confusing. We do definitely have concerns with some of the language within the bill. These are things I hope our colleagues are able to raise, and I hope they can get amendments at committee.

[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—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach is rising on a point of order.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of courtesy to first nations, the Speaker made a ruling in relation to the use of possessive language when speaking of indigenous people. I would request that you intervene to clarify that, please.

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

I did not hear what the hon. member said, but I would invite him to retract it.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not remember, to be honest, but I will retract anything that could be heard as offensive.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am referring to the use of possessive language such “our” or “my”. In this case, it was the use of “our first nations”.

[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.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting. I think he is suffering from extreme optimism. Canada, which has the largest supply of drinking water in the world, is unable to provide its citizens with safe drinking water. My colleague said that progress has been made and we should be happy with that.

The Liberal Party's promise in 2015 was to provide clean drinking water to indigenous communities. It has not been able to keep that promise. It is all well and good to say that progress has been made, but why is it that, after nine years in power, the government introduced a bill saying that more action is needed? There is a lack of seriousness, much like there was with the electoral reform promise the Liberal Party made in 2015.

I would like my colleague to explain, as optimistically as he likes, what legislation needs to provide, nine years down the line, in order to give people access to a resource as basic as clean drinking water.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that I was being overly optimistic. I was very clear and I said that the challenges were enormous. The fact remains that there are far fewer boil water advisories than there were in 2015. The situation is far from perfect.

Additional funding is required to solve all these issues. There are systems that are on the verge of being operational. In 1% of cases, a feasibility study is under way. We have made quite a bit of progress, but the purpose of the bill is to consolidate the progress that has been made so far. The bill is not going to correct the situation entirely. Funding will.

We are getting on with the job. As for this bill, it will create a framework for the future while consolidating the progress that has been done so far.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment to see this through to committee stage and to hopefully see some meaningful amendments. I also want to thank the member not only for retracting his statement in my point of order earlier, but also for dividing his time. It really means a lot to me to be able to speak to this important issue. In regard to the definition of first nations lands in the legislation, I am told by treaty organizations that the definition is too narrow and that it does not fully acknowledge treaty rights and interests that extend those colonial boundaries, also known as reserve lands.

Would the member be amicable to seeing amendments to the definition portion of this legislation, particularly when it comes to the definition of first nations lands beyond just the narrow description provided by the Indian Act, which is reserve lands?

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

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, from my point of view. I think this is a major problem. We have oil sands operations on Treaty No. 8 land, yet somehow we cannot control the damage that is being done to those treaty lands. There is a problem somewhere. The member knows much more about this than I do. If the problem is in the definitions, and if there is a way to expand those definitions, then I would be in favour of that.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts about the relationship that has been established and the general commitment the government has made, with regard to boil water advisories. At one point, when we first took office, there were 105 boil water advisories. We have actually gotten rid of over 140.

What are the member's thoughts about the general movement, in terms of the government recognizing the issue, and about actually putting financial resources and things like today's legislation in place to protect the water?

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

Madam Speaker, we have invested more over a long period of time.

The other point I would like to make is that the government actually created a department to deal specifically with indigenous services. It reorganized government so that it could better attack this problem, and I think that is important.

[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 will go back to the issue of source water and what I was saying before in my speech about the community of Fort Chipewyan. The community is concerned in terms of the quality of its water and the impact that water might be having on the health of members of the community.

Alberta Health Services has the data to be able to do a longitudinal study of cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan. It was recommended by the environment committee many years ago that it be done, yet it has not been done. How should we go about getting the Alberta government to do that? If it will not do it, is there a way for the federal government to do it?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.

When it comes to the direct impacts of the lack of good-quality water on first nations communities, they are huge. Indigenous people in Canada are far more likely to suffer chronic illness, disease and even things as terrible as cancer because of the lack of very basic necessities, such as water. It is imperative, and I would recommend, that the federal government use its immense power under section 91(24) of our Constitution, which grants this place an immense amount of power to come into force on laws and agreements with first nations and that could see to it that provinces can no longer ignore their legitimate rights.

I will add one more piece, because this question is so important. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms the inherent treaty rights of first nations people. Those rights are rights to water, health, justice, self-government and so many more. We must honour it. We must use our powers in this place for good and to make sure that first nations, Métis and Inuit are protected and their rights affirmed.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am feeling a bit intimidated given my new status as a water warrior. I figure I really need to ask a question that lives up to my title.

I would like to thank my colleague from the neighbouring party here. He is raising awareness about the fundamental issues surrounding access to water. We share the exact same position.

I would like him to discuss the urgent and unacceptable nature of the fact that we are still discussing the need to provide first nations with access to water. Countless people still do not have access to drinking water in first nations communities. I would like him to comment on the fact that this is taking so long.

We should not be talking about this anymore. Everyone should have access to water in this extraordinary land that is home to 20% of the world's drinking water reserves. This is a disgrace. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this has taken so long and we are still—

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

I have to give a member time to ask another question.

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, kinana'skomitina'wa'w to the hon. member. I am thankful for that question, and I want to recognize the member's status as a water warrior.

It is really important that we lift up those who protect water; women, particularly in many indigenous cultures across Turtle Island, are revered as water protectors. They have the power to bring life into this place and are from the very same source as water, and they protect it.

It is important not only that we protect water but also that we protect people's access to it. The member has allowed me the very good opportunity to speak to the urgency of this issue. When we do not do this, it directly harms those in the next generation. They will grow up knowing that their governments and others do not care for them. They will be dehumanized by that truth.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton Griesbach for his absolutely brilliant speech and deep wisdom on the bill before us.

You have raised a couple of concerns about the bill, and one is proper consultation. It seems that, with indigenous people, we are always given candies and are supposed to be glad and joyous about it. I sense that you have a different perspective on the lack of consultation. Could you expand on what needs to happen for support?

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

I would remind the hon. member that I cannot expand on it, but the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach will.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to lift up the member for Winnipeg Centre's advocacy and work in relation to this important piece of legislation.

It is critical that we get not only the consent but also the input and consultation of indigenous groups. They have been so helpful. They have offered a place for us to discuss this issue by way of establishing a bilateral treaty table. If we could establish that today, before the bill goes to committee, we can imagine the power that would have. We could even summon and bring in some of those chiefs, and even better than that, meet them where they are and truly reignite the flames of co-operation and participation that the treaties speak of.

Let us recognize this place, Parliament, the Government of Canada, the Crown, and our deep need to become true treaty partners in the relationship we attempted to forge all those years ago. It is never too late to do the right thing.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in our House of Commons to debate topics, and tonight we have an incredible topic to discuss.

Before I start, I have to recognize the Brooks Bandits in my community for winning the cup this season.

When we talk about water, it is life. We have heard that said tonight. Rain is the critical piece because, without it, we do not have fresh water where we need it. Rain is the critical start to it. Since humans evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago, the use of fresh, clean water has been vital. Human migration has led to sources of fresh water. People always move to where they can get fresh water, such as rivers, lakes and freshwater sources, because it is so critical.

As migration began to settle into specific areas, water was also conserved. Where people did not have running water and lakes, they looked for springs. Then they learned how to drill or dig wells. Part of the culture was to always look for fresh water to survive.

The Romans understood that they needed to build aqueducts to catch rain, which carried water through towns and cities. The longest aqueduct in the ancient world was over 400 kilometres long.

Modern advances in sanitation, industrialization and sanitation-based practices have led to an explosion of the use of water, and with it, a growth in populations. As populations grew, people moved into rural and remote areas, where they always experienced difficulty finding water. However, indigenous people in this part of the world knew where fresh water was. It was essential not only to their survival as human beings, but also to their spiritual needs.

In the world I live in, in recent times as a municipal leader, regional water was an issue because we had communities on boil water advisories. The consultations we held in a small area of communities did not happen overnight. It took months. It took years for people to understand that, to get rid of a boil water order, we needed to have hours of consultation.

I will mention that I will be splitting my time today with the member Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Consultation is so critical. At one point in time in our regionalization, we had a water treatment plant in the city I was the mayor of, but we needed to give that resource up to become part of a regional water system. I remember that the editor of the local newspaper never forgave me for giving up what he said was a resource for one community to be used regionally. It took a long time for that consultation process to happen. It took three years before those communities would no longer have any boil water advisories. That takes consultation, something that has been missing in this situation and something we need more of.

The recent government's history is that, in 2001, the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began surveying water and waste water systems in indigenous communities across Canada to establish a baseline of information on existing drinking water infrastructure. That was just over 20 years ago. However, we knew the situation had existed for a long time, not just for over 20 years.

In 2003, the Government of Canada announced the first nations water management strategy and allocated $1.6 billion between 2003 to 2008 to it. It launched a plan of action for first nations drinking water, which was built on the first nations water management strategy, and it allocated an additional $60 million between 2006 and 2008 to address the findings of the 2005 report of the commissioner of the environment. That was only 20 years ago.

In 2008, the government introduced the first nations water and waste water action plan. According to a summary of the investments, “An additional $330 million was allocated to support the FNWWAP, which reinforced the PAFNDW while adding new objectives, including a commitment to consult with First Nations on new legislation as well as the commissioning of a national engineering assessment of the status of First Nations water systems across the country.”

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

I did not see anything, in all those dates that I read, about consultation. What I referred to in our communities and our municipalities took years, but I am not hearing about consultation. From 2015 to the present, the federal government spent $5.7 billion. Over $11 billion was spent between successive governments, and we are still facing the same problem: the boil water orders, unsafe drinking water in a developed G7 country.

It took the Liberal government nine years to introduce the legislation to protect clean water for first nations. In the press conference when the minister announced the proposed bill, she referenced a first nation that she says would benefit from the bill, without having met with it enough for consultation.

I say that, because I have met with the Blackfoot Confederacy chiefs who say they did not get consulted at any significant level on the proposed piece of legislation. What little they had suggested, they believed the minister had ignored. Those are not my words. They came from the chiefs of the Blackfoot Confederacy, which is a huge part of southern Alberta.

Canada is blessed with clean, fresh and safe drinking water. It is home to 20% of the world's fresh water. We have rain. We have 7% of the world's renewable water supply, yet safe clean drinking water has been unavailable for many of our indigenous communities.

This is not acceptable. An effort to provide fresh clean water for indigenous communities across the country—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have a point of order.

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

I was expecting that.

I will just remind the hon. member for Bow River that the possessive language is highly offensive in terms of first nations.

The hon. member for Bow River has the floor.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Please object if I make a mistake with that.

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

The hon. member for Edmonton—Griesbach is rising on a point of order.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a point of order on the use of possessive language, and I just want to invite the member to reflect on it. I know it is likely not purposeful or malicious, so I just wanted to reflect that it does harm to indigenous persons who are pursuing their sovereignty and their independence.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it may not be the last time—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You will learn. You will get it.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to recognize the month of June as National Indigenous History Month, and recognize the significant movement forward on such an important piece of legislation. I think all members would reflect positively on those two things.

In regard to the issue of consultation, I do not know how many times the Prime Minister has been to Winnipeg. More often than not, meeting with and talking to indigenous leaders is a priority. Ministers who have come through the city of Winnipeg, and outside Winnipeg, are doing consultations.

I mentioned Shoal Lake 40 First Nation. The current Minister of Immigration was at the announcement of the water treatment plant. Shoal Lake 40 First Nation is the type of example we could lift up. Hopefully its members will get invited to the committee to have further discussions on the important piece of legislation before us.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his statement on this particular issue. I am not indigenous, but I know consultation and I know how important it is in the experiences I have had.

Oftentimes, people in this country put groups of people together as one. We cannot treat all indigenous people in this country as one group. We have to listen to the variety of voices and cultures to understand how critical the issue is to them. It is not just about the physical survival of water; it is also about the spiritual value of water, which has many connotations in many different parts of our country.

Consultations and listening to those expressions is important in order for indigenous people to be heard. They need to be heard and we need to give them the opportunity. It has taken a long time to get the bill to where it is. We must take the time to make sure all those voices are heard.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is currently studying the Auditor General's report 2 on the housing situation on reserves. Now we are talking about drinking water. These are obviously two necessities that are not privileges, but should be rights. We therefore agree with the principle of this bill.

Yesterday, the former clerk of the Privy Council, who was also the deputy minister of indigenous affairs for several years, told us that he thought that one possible solution was to create a Crown corporation that would solve all the problems on reserves.

Does my colleague really think that the solution is still in the hands of the federal government, when, year after year, it has proven that the solutions are in the hands of first nations and that they must be given self-determination so they can finally meet their needs?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not, because I have seen innovation with housing on Siksika Nation. Its people contracted a construction company from Ontario. It builds cement houses in 30 days. They are beautiful homes from start to finish, and they are turnkey.

Siksika Nation is innovative; it knows how to find solutions. We need to get out of the way and not build bureaucracy, because it has great innovation skills and can do a lot of things. We just get in its way. We want to see beautiful houses built, and the company is building phenomenal housing with cement in 30 days. It is incredible. Siksika Nation did not need us to do it; it did it itself.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were last in power, they pushed through a very unpopular bill about first nations drinking water that was not well thought out, Bill S-8. It eventually had to be repealed as a result of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit.

Can the member assure the House today that the Conservatives will help make sure the bill will not go down the same path?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it seems as though everybody wants to sue the government in power all the time. However, I want there to be legislation that is as good as it can be so that it limits the possibility of such a challenge happening.

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

Madam Speaker, it was in the 2015 election that the Liberal Prime Minister made a promise that he was going to end drinking water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021. He was very specific. He gave a date and a timeline.

Then, in 2020, as the government was approaching that self-imposed deadline, the former minister of indigenous services said that “by spring 2021, the number of [communities under long-term drinking water] advisories...could [amount] to 12”. It is three years after that promised deadline, and we have 29 long-term drinking water advisories. Twenty-seven indigenous communities across Canada do not have access to clean drinking water.

I do not understand how a government that said this issue was so important and gave it a timeline to be resolved could have failed so poorly. It changed its goalpost and still has not met its goalpost. We live in a country that is blessed to be the home of 20% of the world's freshwater supply, yet the Liberal government continues to drag its feet on its fundamental obligation to indigenous communities.

While reflecting on this bill, I actually realized that I have had to live under some short-term water advisories, in my time, due to natural disasters. The first time was after the 2016 forest fire that tore through Fort McMurray. Much of the community was under a boil water advisory for about a month and a half. For some some people the advisory lasted a few months. Then again, in 2020, when we had massive floods in the Fort McMurray area, we were under a boil water advisory. While it was only for a month, it was a month when people had to think twice before they brushed their teeth or before they opened their mouth in the shower. That is what people have had to live with in indigenous communities across Canada for generations as a direct result of failures from successive governments.

The Neskantaga first nation, in Ontario, has had a boil water advisory since 1995. For almost 30 years, generations of children have had to grow up in that community not knowing what it was like to be able to open the tap and drink water. Those children have become adults who have taken that memory with them as they go forward. This is a failure of our country, Canada, where we have had Liberal governments, Conservative governments and a Liberal government again.

The government can blame everything it wants to on all the previous governments, but the Liberals have been in power for the last nine years, and there is a community that, for almost 30 years, has not had clean drinking water. The Liberals have sat on their hands, and to me, that is not acceptable. I was in elementary school when that community last had clean drinking water. We can do better, and we must do better. That community deserves it.

I sit here as a mom, and I cannot imagine the amount of extra work and stress a mother would have to go through, having to sterilize bottles simply so that she can feed her child because they happen to live under a boil water advisory. She cannot just wash her bottles in the sink. She has to instead boil the bottles to sterilize them to make sure that they are safe. Those extra steps have to be taken because the government has failed these people. It is about time that we stop and truly realize that this has been a failure. There have been a series of failures. We must do better. We can do better.

Indigenous people from across Canada share stories where they have had to go through all kinds of extra trials and tribulations as a direct result of boil water advisories. In doing research about this, I read stories about people like Rebecca Wynn, a grade school teacher who has to take medication before her showers to combat the extreme skin irritation she gets from the unsafe amount of chlorine that is injected into her town water supply. She has to take pills before she showers. That is something that no person should have to do, but they have been subjected to it because the government has failed to make sure that clean drinking water is available to them.

There are children who go to school and worry about whether they are going to be safe and whether it is safe to drink the water. I hope all parties can agree that this is something we can, must and should do. We cannot allow this bill to be delayed, like we have seen from the Liberal government up to this point.

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