Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2026

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is that a yes or no?

The reason I ask is that—we have limited time—you spoke about the progressive right as being within international law, and I just want to clarify the meaning of that. The standard in international law was designed to take into account the difference between rich and poor countries so wealthy countries could be able to do it right away.

Is Canada considered a wealthy country globally? Give me yes or no.

[Nelson Barbosa]

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the question on Bill C-37, but I'm happy to speak about progressive realization as it's written in the bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Regarding progressive realization, in your prior testimony, you referred to it being in international law. I was defining how that's defined in international law, because we also have a charter. Article 15 of the Canadian charter states specifically that:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In the bill, it specifically uses the word “comparable”, which violates the charter and it also violates international law.

Going back, does your department and certainly the minister, because you're giving a technical briefing...? Does the Liberal government or your department—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're running—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

—agree with the statement that the right to clean drinking water is a human right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That's time. That's over time.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That's over two and a half minutes, so we have to conclude our meeting.

I would like to thank everyone for being....

Do you have a point?

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak to a comment that was made, which named me, and to say to you how disappointed I am. We come here as committee members, and we don't play politics. We work hard for Canadians on issues that are very important to Canadians. That's why I sit here. Are there gestures across from each side that may contain a smile? Absolutely. That's the camaraderie that we have as we work hard for Canadians.

I am deeply offended by the comment that was made because my friend and I engaged with another member of this committee, who I won't name, in a gesture of happiness. Sometimes the subject matter here is deep enough, and it is that smile—I'll call it love—that gets us through the deep topic. I am deeply offended by the comments that were made about me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[An hon. member]

That was well said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

No, that's it. I have made my decision. We are going to move to adjourn. We're over time right now, so we're concluding with the....

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

Don't we have 10 minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I'm sorry about that. We do. I'm sorry, but the point of order got to me. The love in the room got to me very much.

We're going to move now to MP.... There's the laughing again. Again, in my ruling, I didn't see anything that was brought up. MP Hanley has also spoken on record. MP Earle has also personally said that what was happening was not pertaining to what was raised earlier, so we are moving on. Thank you very much.

Let's get back to finishing this up. We have two rounds of questions.

Thank you very much, Vice-Chair, for bringing that up. Who will proceed for the...?

Go ahead, MP Schmale.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, officials, for coming in.

I want to follow up on what I was...because I thought the minister was going to be here. The departmental plan for this year...and my friend and colleague Billy Morin pointed this out. When I was mentioning the percentage of first nations adults living on reserve who reported being in excellent or very good health, it was 37.8%, as reported from 2022 to 2024-25. Is that not right? The numbers have not changed. They remain the same. I think that 40% of those saying, “I'm in excellent or good health”, seems pretty low to me, but...okay.

Then we look at the footnote. The results that I just quoted were from 2015, and were cut and pasted for the last four years. It also reads, “The current cycle has been significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” That's interesting. It goes on, “The next set of survey results are expected to be made available by the First Nations Information Governance Centre...in 2027.”

I guess the question is this: Considering the fact that we're dealing with water advisories that have been around 30-plus years, the fact that we've spent more money than ever in indigenous departments and the fact that the bureaucracy has grown to double the size, has anyone in the department followed up and said, “Can we get these numbers?” Why don't you have them on your own?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Thank you for the question.

I'm happy to talk about results. From an infrastructure and water context, I could point to a 6% increase in indigenous water systems where their risk ratings have improved. I could point to waste-water systems that have seen a 7% increase in the last three years. I could point to—

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

Does anyone have any information as to why the departmental plan is using the results from 2015?

It gets worse. Some of them, when we're talking about infrastructure here, are stats that are based on 2021. They're expected to be updated at some point in the future, and the list just goes on and on. When are we expected to get accurate results? Is there anyone who is working on this? It seems like the departmental plan is just cut and pasted and mailed in here. Why do we have stats from 10 or 11 years ago?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Thank you for the question.

The stats that I'm giving you right now are live stats. As I'm sure you've read the entire departmental plan, there are a myriad of hundreds of data points. I can allude to and point to some of the ones that are, maybe, more pertinent to this conversation here today, like a 7% increase in contaminated sites improving. I would also point out that 95% of first nations have water systems that meet or exceed Canada's minimum guidelines.

The point is taken that there is sometimes a data lag, but I would also like to underscore that as part of our previous conversation on operator and on capital, there are successes and those are valid and worth highlighting as well.

Thank you for the question.

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

Thank you.

I hope that data lag situation improves, because I can't believe nothing has been done after 11 years, that it's just a cut and paste in the departmental plan. It also begs this question: What the heck are the real numbers if we don't know what's going on here? Does the minister know? In her words, she doesn't run the department—that's new.

I want to put that on pause if I can in order to do a notice of motion. I'll read it into the record and we'll deal with it later, obviously. It is as follows:

That, given that the notice of meeting indicated that the Minister of Indigenous Services would appear before the committee for two hours regarding Bill C-37, but the Minister appeared for only one hour, the committee immediately invite the Minister to return for an additional hour of testimony at the earliest opportunity, to fulfill the two-hour appearance originally scheduled; and that the Clerk be instructed to communicate this invitation to the Minister without delay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

It's been read into the record, so we'll move on.

Next up, we have Jaime for five minutes.

Go ahead.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First nations water is one of the most important things we can discuss at this committee. As a young boy, I grew up in the community of Eskasoni, but my grandmother lived in the community of Potlotek. Every Sunday, my family would have to bring her water. We'd take it in gallons. I've reflected on that. I think about how many first nations communities still don't have good drinking water. I think everyone in this committee can agree that this is something that should take precedence. This is something important.

One of my proudest moments as an MP was having the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority created, which has helped that community ensure that they have water and that no one has to take them water anymore. I think about my aunt, who's a residential school survivor living in that community. For so many years, she didn't have good water. A lot of that was about capacity within the community. To know, because of the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, the whole community is now able to have that water.... That was one of the prouder moments because we were able to give them long-term funding for five years to ensure that this was something they could plan for in the future.

One of my biggest regrets as a member of Parliament is this: We did all that work on Bill C-61. I thought this committee did some absolutely extraordinary work among all parties, talking about how we could get that through line by line. I know the members on the other side. I had great conversations with them. They were very co-operative. We did this together as a committee. We got through it line by line in a way that we could have gotten it passed. Unfortunately, when I stood up in the House of Commons to get unanimous consent, there were parties that shouted no. It was one of the most difficult moments—accepting that there are people in the House who play politics with first nations water. I would never say that anyone in this room made that decision or said that.

It's a challenge we can correct now, with this bill.

My question for the department is this: What is the biggest challenge right now for these communities that have boil water advisories? We hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment coming or that we've put towards this. What is the biggest challenge right now that prevents us from doing something about these communities' long-term boil water advisories, and how does this legislation address that?

[Curtis Bergeron]

Thank you very much for the question.

Out of the 39 existing long-term drinking water advisories, 17 are as a result of operations. They have infrastructure in place capable of producing clean drinking water, but operations or other challenges exist. That could be anywhere from monitoring and reporting to having an operator or backup operator—or all those things combined.

In terms of how this bill would support that, it essentially commits to co-developing a funding framework. That funding framework could look at capital costs, operation costs, actual needs and monitoring—all those things. It would also bring into place standards and regulations, closing the only water regulatory gap there is in Canada, and that gap is on reserve.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

What will this legislation's passage—assuming that we finally get this legislation through—mean for the first nations communities that are not currently able to have the clean water that this legislation will bring? How will it ensure that this is something that never happens in the history...? How do we make sure that we put the funding in there, but that we also have the oversight to ensure that when people need the help of the federal government, we're there for them?

[Curtis Bergeron]

What this does is bring forward the affirmation of rights. That includes a law-making ability for water, waste water and source water on, in and under first nation lands. With that ability to create laws could also come the enforcement of those laws. That could be done by first nations. They could also request for that to be done by the provinces or the federal government. Essentially, it supports the control of water services under first nations.

It also commits to this funding framework that's really to be co-developed with partners and includes all of the things I listed before. The first nations-led water commission could do a number of things. Part of that could be supporting first nations in drinking water advisories and, maybe, infrastructure projects. It could also support operations and the maintenance of those things.

I want to reiterate that when the minister introduced this legislation, at the same time, she also introduced $4.6 billion in funding to support communities. That's going to change people's lives.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That brings us to the end.

Thank you very much to the department for providing some very important technical information for us as we begin our journey on this important study.

We're done.