The significant difference is really in NDP-51. It has many more details in terms of qualifying the provision of safe drinking water and on what terms. It's more constrained than open-ended in the other amendment, PV-4.
I would also note that all these efforts would be implemented through funding, which could create some considerations for Parliament when allocating funds, just so folks are aware. There is also the consideration around self-determination, as the spirit of this bill is really to support first nations in advancing their visions of self-determination. This would provide a more active role for the minister versus a less active role for the minister in a first nation-determined vision.