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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member opposite. We did have a good working relationship on Bill C-61. I thought there was a lot of good discussion as we moved through that piece of legislation. It was good to see the member come from a different committee and add a bit of a different perspective. That is always appreciated.

In terms of his question, I think, overall, competitiveness is lacking in this country. If we look at where investment is and where it is not, that becomes very clear. We continue to have more lumber mills in British Columbia start to close, and small towns being deeply affected by the mills closing. We have indigenous communities that have interests in lumber mills that are not able to move their product because of the competitiveness, the lack of a softwood lumber agreement. It goes on to oil and gas, to mining and so on. This country is just not as competitive. It is unfortunate, because we have the resources to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recently had a chance to substitute onto the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the study of Bill C-61 and I appreciated sitting with the hon. member, whose interventions were quite thoughtful. In his speech, he mentioned the need to improve the competitive environment, to improve competition. That is exactly what the government did through Bill C-59. Those changes were, in many ways, aimed at increasing competition in the grocery sector.

I would like to know what the member thinks of those changes in Bill C-59. If he liked them, why did he and his party vote against it?

Indigenous Affairs

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Northwest Territories for his tireless advocacy and his leadership. We introduced the first nations clean water act to ensure clean drinking water for generations to come and give first nations the tools to manage their own drinking water infrastructure.

It was shameful that, in the presence of chiefs gathered from across the country, members of the Conservative Party voted to refuse to send that bill to the Senate. They stood against us sending Bill C-61 to the Senate. Shame on them. We need to solve drinking water for generations to come.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting with my hon. colleague on the INAN committee during the revisions of Bill C-61. Today we are not here to talk about that; we are here to talk about, certainly, the member for Edmonton Centre and what is looking like identity fraud, and about the Conservatives' using the whole situation to look like they are friends of indigenous people, when they are the farthest from that.

I would say I am deeply troubled by some of the positions the Conservatives have taken, even around the crisis and the ongoing genocide of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, which the former prime minister, Harper, said was not even on his radar.

I find it a form of violence, the usurping of our identities, for political points. I am wondering what my honourable colleague thinks about that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, in relation to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see so many questions on indigenous priorities in this House. I want to thank the member opposite and hope that she will work with her party to ensure the safe passage of Bill C-61, a clean drinking water act for first nations, which was co-developed with first nations in this country. There are many opportunities for the party opposite to support indigenous priorities, and that is certainly one of them.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to give a round of applause to my colleague, the member for Edmonton West Edmonton Mall, as he often says, for an excellent speech.

I am thankful to participate in this debate because this is what Parliament is all about. It is about debating these very important issues. I am very proud to come here, not only as a representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland but also as a representative of a number of indigenous communities, including the Enoch Cree Nation and the Alexander First Nation, as well as the area that was traditionally occupied by members of the Michel Band. Sadly and unfortunately, in the 1950s, the Michel Band was enfranchised under some suspicious circumstances; to this day, people are still fighting to get the recognition they deserve.

My region, which is in Treaty 6 territory, has been a region of significant settlement for indigenous and Métis peoples. I am very proud not only to be a representative of Sturgeon River—Parkland but also to represent these peoples.

I am rising to speak today on the issue of indigenous procurement programs. For those of my constituents who are watching, I want to provide a bit of background on what we are talking about today. We know that, over the time period of Canada being a country, and even before, indigenous peoples were disadvantaged in many ways by policies that were carried out by the government, racism and a number of other things. I could talk about those things at length, but I am going to focus on indigenous procurement.

We know that these issues have really disenfranchised first nations, indigenous and Métis people, as well as others, from participating in the economy. The ability to participate in the economy is the ability to free oneself to really take charge of one's own life financially. When programs are set up, such as an indigenous procurement program, it is a recognition by government that marginalization has taken place. This needs to be addressed by a special program, with the hope that marginalized communities and entrepreneurs from these communities will have the opportunity to bid on government contracts. They will then be able to build their capacities to provide the services that the government is contracting for, and this will provide economic opportunity for people in their nations across Canada.

What has happened is a symptom of a government that has let its hand get off the wheel of governing and has really taken a laid-back approach to accountability and transparency. What should be a good program to increase capacity and support indigenous peoples with developing their economic capacity has been taken advantage of by unscrupulous actors who are exploiting a weakness in government. They are exploiting a lack of accountability and transparency to access these programs.

We are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in funds that have been misappropriated. We know that there is this recent phenomenon of pretendians. I am sure it has been a long-lasting phenomenon. Here, people who have no indigenous heritage and no status with any indigenous community claim indigenous heritage through the government's indigenous procurement program. They are trying to give themselves a leg up when seeking out government contracts. We have seen this pretendianism manifest itself in many ways, but this is a very specific example of how it can be financially beneficial.

The member for Timmins—James Bay asked if this was the ultimate grift. This is an example of grift, where we see people taking advantage of a program that is meant to empower marginalized people, and the people who are doing this are very empowered in the first place.

A case in point example is when we are talking about the Minister of Employment and his business partner, Stephen Anderson. I do not think anyone in the House would argue that these are marginalized people. These are people who are at the pinnacle of political and economic power in this country. The Minister of Employment was a Rhodes Scholar. He is a very privileged person, yet he and his business partner are checking the box, claiming their indigenous heritage, in order to benefit from a government program. This program is meant to build capacity and support people in marginalized indigenous communities so that they can empower themselves, build their businesses and be successful.

I pray that some day in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later, we will live in a country where there is no need for programs like this because indigenous people will be on an equal footing with all other people in terms of their success and their capacity to build their own businesses and to succeed in the marketplace. I know there are many great indigenous companies that are already succeeding. There are indigenous companies in my riding that are participating, particularly in the oil and gas sector in my province, and are succeeding massively.

There was a recent agreement made under the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, which was set up under a Conservative government in Alberta, where we saw indigenous communities such as Enoch Cree Nation in my constituency partner on a new power plant project, the Cascade power plant just outside of Edson, Alberta. This power plant was built on time, on schedule and on budget and is now providing power for the people of Alberta, including many of these first nations communities, and first nations have a tangible ownership stake in this company. That is to show just how successful indigenous people can be when these programs are built correctly and yet, under the current Liberal government, we have seen transparency and accountability really go by the wayside.

There have been research findings revealed by Global News and first nations universities that have uncovered fraudulent schemes where consultants are paying indigenous people to front companies so that they can apply for this program. We are seeing shell company operators who have been abusing loopholes for years while Indigenous Services Canada is just standing by. We had witnesses who came to the government operations committee who said very clearly that this is harming indigenous peoples because it is not only taking away financial economic opportunities that indigenous people should be given priority to access, but it is also undermining the very programs themselves. When people see that this fraudulent activity is taking place, it undermines the public support for these very important programs. Therefore, we need to ensure that these programs are targeted. We need to ensure that officials are doing the background checks necessary so that the people these programs have been designed to help are being helped. That is when we will see Canadians continue to firmly support these programs.

Talking again about the Minister of Employment, a colleague of mine during question period today made a very interesting point, which is that when the first indigenous justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, stood up to government corruption, she was removed from cabinet and yet, we have another Liberal minister who pretended to be indigenous to try to get government contracts when he was in the private sector and he is still standing on the front bench. It speaks volumes that we have a Prime Minister who allows this to happen under his leadership. Leadership comes from the top down, and when people in the Liberal Party see what their Prime Minister is getting away with, I guess they just take it as an example of what they think that they will be allowed to get away with themselves.

I just want to say that I am incredibly proud to represent so many wonderful indigenous, first nations and Métis peoples in my region. I have been speaking to leaders in the community and they are absolutely furious that these programs have been exploited by bad actors in order to enrich themselves while indigenous business owners who are very deserving have been left out, either from a lack of information or a lack of funding. These funds are going to companies that do not have the right to access these funds. It is really a slap in the face to reconciliation for the government not to take action immediately to solve these issues.

I would like to move a subamendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended, in paragraph (c), by adding the following: “(iii) given priority to this study, subject only to its order of referencing Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands; and (iv) have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, subject to any special orders previously adopted, for the studies referred to in subparagraph (iii)”.

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member. It is an honour and a privilege to hear Inuktitut spoken in the House. I thank her for her efforts.

I want to assure the member that we are absolutely committed to seeing Bill C-61 passed in the House, reflecting the wishes of our partners. We are working collaboratively with all parties of the House. I would hope that the NDP would join us in that. We are working to ensure that we enshrine a human right to drinking water in this country, which we were successfully able to do with government amendments.

It is quite a surprise to receive the member's question today because, again, it is going to take all parties in the House to make sure that the bill passes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur visited Canada and said that the government is not upholding the basic human right to clean drinking water for indigenous peoples. He urged profound changes.

Now, Liberals and Conservatives are teaming up together. They will not give first nations their autonomy and proper funding. They are rejecting amendments to Bill C-61 that came directly from first nations.

When will the government stop working with Conservatives against first nations?

[English]

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for agreeing to share his time with me. I especially thank my colleague from Repentigny for her leadership, her vision of a more pristine Quebec and Canada, and her commitment to bringing this debate forward today.

I rise to speak to the issue of nuclear waste and the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on this topic. This is not the first time I have raised the issue of nuclear power here in the House. I have asked various ministers questions but none of them have offered us any answer about the botched consultations with first nations on establishing a near surface nuclear waste disposal facility along the shores of a vital waterway that supplies drinking water to cities like Gatineau and Ottawa, among others.

Last night, as I was leaving Témiscamingue, after taking part in the Remembrance Day ceremony, I drove back along the Ontario highway that goes through the Chalk River site where construction of a near surface nuclear waste disposal facility is planned, at the same location and in close proximity to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, or CNL.

First, I cannot get over the fact that anyone can accept taking such a risk with drinking water. It makes no sense. It is a completely illogical decision. Why even consider burying nuclear waste near our drinking water source, which is so dear to our lives? Putting it at risk for highly toxic waste that we know can cause irreversible damage to our health and our environment is an absurdity that we cannot ignore. Neighbouring areas are home to precious biodiversity that could be irreparably damaged by this initiative. What a foreseeable mess. It is shameful.

The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is currently studying Bill C‑61, a bill on first nations water. I hope someone will put an end to this very risky project and that the ministers will stop being wilfully blind and start committing to respecting the will of the Anishinabe and their land where they practice their culture. In fact, they came to committee to oppose the Chalk River project and I asked them whether they had any concerns about the drinking water.

Having said that, there is also the issue of false indigenous claims, because that is what we are talking about here as well. In the pre-consultations, the government made room for “pretendians”. The government's actions have seriously harmed the Anishinabe people. It is inconceivable that, in 2024, no one is acknowledging this and we are still on the wrong track. The Algonquins of Ontario have no legitimacy to speak. These are Métis groups that are not currently recognized by law, and referring to them to build social licence is highly questionable.

Furthermore, as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories seeks to reassure the public that its storage mound will be secure, it is vital to remember that intermediate-level waste, while accounting for less than 2% of the volume, remains a major concern. This is waste that can last thousands of years, well beyond the promised monitoring period. We cannot afford to play games with the safety of our environment and our health for a project that, despite the technical promises, could have long-term consequences for our precious river. It is our duty to question and denounce this short-term vision, because the future of our region and its resources is at stake. We are talking about a one-million-cubic-metre reservoir of waste that they want to store right next to the Ottawa River, the Kichi Sibi, the rivière des Outaouais, which flows, let us not forget, just below Parliament Hill. This affects us directly.

Second, it is in violation of UNDRIP. This declaration emphasizes the need for informed and respectful consultation with communities affected by such projects. We know that there has not been adequate or sufficient consultation. I was there in August 2023 when they opposed the project. More importantly, I was at the Supreme Court when they challenged the decision, precisely because they had not been consulted. I would like to commend the leadership of the Anishinabe community of Kebaowek, in my riding, whose ancestral lands include the Chalk River territory, and its chief, Lance Haymond.

There is a very worrisome pattern of overlap between the roles of the government, the private sector and the lobbyists. I would like someone to explain that strategy to us. People who were appointed by the Liberals and who worked for ministers under this government are the ones who are on the ground right now campaigning for the nuclear industry. I am talking about former Liberal candidates and advisers to the justice, environment, indigenous affairs and industry ministers.

The former commissioner is currently in Europe lobbying for her company. The chair of a ministerial advisory committee was appointed as president of the commission. What is more, he is the owner of a nuclear company. Today, Lou Riccoboni, a former Liberal ministerial adviser and public servant, is introduced on the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories website as the vice-president of corporate affairs and vice-president of business development at CNL.

How much of taxpayers' money is being used to lobby ministers? He is a partner at Prospectus Associates, where he brags about assisting with procurement captures in the defence and nuclear sectors, including the first-ever government-owned, contractor-operated, or GoCo, management of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. That is not all. He is also the president of Nexus Government Services, a lobbying firm described on its site as assisting international companies pursue, position, capture, and execute significant federal government procurements. Looks like this is a small world with many close friends.

We have to ask questions and get to the bottom of things. The committee report is just the prelude to another scandal. The federal government is paying a consortium big bucks to manage its nuclear facilities, and the same consortium is lobbying the government to have its contract renewed. How much public money has been used to pay the salaries of these private industry executives so that they can lobby for big money? Did they disclose it on the lobbyist registry? No, they did not. When will there be real transparency? Honestly, the jig is up.

I am certain the Auditor General of Canada would be interested in Chalk River labs' contract renewal. Also, why is there such contempt for indigenous people? Why is hazardous material being moved to their land without notification? I would like someone to explain that to me. I look forward to seeing who is condoning everyone's actions in the House. On this side of the House, we have a talent for getting to the bottom of things and we will continue to do so.

We must question the transparency around this project. The contract for this waste site is about to be renewed without thorough review or open discussion in the House of Commons. This raises basic questions about the responsibility and diligence of our elected representatives. How could there have been no public discussion or democratic debate on an expense that exceeds the entire CBC/Radio-Canada budget, a considerable amount? It violates the very principle of transparency, whose implementation is long overdue.

Considering the recent declaration of bankruptcy by Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, which was also involved in an ambitious SMR project at the Chalk River lab, how much has the government already invested in this project and what financial risks did it take in pursuing its strategy of partnering on nuclear projects with the private sector? I hope the House gets some answers to these questions.

In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues to reflect deeply on these troubling issues and facts. The Anishinabe people are not the only ones paying the price for political decisions designed to separate them from their ancestral territory at a time of reconciliation with indigenous peoples. There is nothing encouraging about this project, whether in terms of transparency, good governance or management of public funds. Above all, there are environmental questions that arise, and I am still convinced that there is no such thing as zero risk. Waste will not just appear there. It will be transported, and there will be risks at every stage of transportation. We know that water has already leaked from the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories site. In this case, the incident was not made public because the laws are too lax.

I thank my colleagues for their attention and commitment to this fight for our future.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I just met with the chief from Tataskweyak a few hours ago. We talked about the importance of Bill C-61 and the work that Tataskweyak and the other communities have done on the legislation to ensure that we never go back to a time when well over 145 communities were suffering through long-term boil water advisories.

That is the work the government will continue to do in partnership with first nations leaders. I hope the NDP will see that this is important legislation that needs to get through the House and give it their full support.

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

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have lifted 145 long-term boiled water advisories together with first nations. We are going to continue until we get the job done. As a matter of fact, that member opposite has an opportunity to help make sure we never return to the situation that we found ourselves in 2015.

With Bill C-61 at committee, nearing study, I hope we will see a safe passage of that legislation through the House so that no first nations person ever lives without clean water again.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for her work on access to safe drinking water.

In 2015, the Liberal government completely discarded Stephen Harper's paternalistic approach. Now, we listen to indigenous leaders and work closely with them. We have lifted 144 long-term drinking water advisories, and we are not stopping there.

We also introduced Bill C-61, the first nations clean water act, to make sure things never go back to how they were.