Thanks again, Chair.
Again, the interest of PV-2 is bringing forward the call, from Six Nations of the Grand River specifically, to add “economic and cultural needs” to the water quantity available that this bill would prescribe.
It looks like you just ruled that this PV-2 was admissible. I heard comments from Mr. Melillo and Mr. Barbosa earlier that “economic needs“ would be out of the scope of the bill. My understanding is that when an amendment is ruled admissible, it expressly means that it is within scope. If the committee chooses to support PV-2, it would be supporting putting the “economic and cultural needs” of the first nation into this legislation.
Should the committee not support PV-2 but go for NDP-26, the committee could just subamend NDP-26 and add “cultural”. For those who would prefer to go with G-4, again, the committee could just add “economic”, and would only be increasing the needs of first nations when it comes to clean drinking water.
I live in a community where no one questions the economic need for water or the uses of water for economic needs, and I think that's the interest of Six Nations of the Grand River and, I imagine, other first nations across the country who would want to see a larger scope of their water needs considered by this legislation.
Thanks.