I also want to talk to you about the First Nations Water Commission, which is referred to in clause 39 of the bill.
When we work with certain commissions, we run into problems related to the very mandate granted to these commissions. Obviously, the devil is in the details. Will the First Nations Water Commission be structured like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for example?
We know that it's possible to set up a commission that doesn't have the power to propose solutions or other possibilities. This was in fact the case with the Chalk River site for nuclear waste. It's probably one of the worst places to store nuclear waste, especially since it's at the top of a mountain, upstream from the Ottawa River, or Kitchissipi, as the Anishinabe call it. There are already contaminants in the water. Now, this site will further compromise the quality of drinking water in the surrounding area.
Are we making sure we apply the precautionary principle to waterways that are upstream of cities, as is the case with the Chalk River site? Indeed, the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, which are located barely 200 kilometres from the Chalk River site, take their water from the Ottawa River.
Indigenous knowledge of whether water is alive has also been ignored. Even consultation with indigenous people was botched. These Anishinabe communities even sued the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission over its favourable recommendations.
It is in this context that I ask whether the First Nations Water Commission will follow a model similar to that of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.