Debates of Feb. 5th, 2024

First Nations Clean Water Act

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands, which I will hereafter refer to as the first nations clean water act.

I want to first comment on what the minister just spoke about. She likes to hurl insults, but she is part of a government that has refused to meet with 133 Ontario chiefs, many of whom are in her own riding, to talk about relief from the carbon tax. One reason they had to move to court action was that the government would not meet with them. Talk about the height of “Ottawa knows best”. There are 133 chiefs, like I said, many of whom are in the minister's own riding. She refused to meet with those chiefs, and now, court action has started. That is peak colonialism, and the minister should be ashamed of herself.

Before I get into my speech on Bill C-61, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge my colleague and friend, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, who recently stepped down from his role as shadow minister for Indigenous Services Canada. We all know the member. He has a great vision for this file. He wears his heart on his sleeve, and he truly believes in reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada. We all know him for his soft-spoken demeanour, his sense of humour and his well-though-out and articulated positions on indigenous issues. He is someone we really want to listen to when speaking about his file.

I have learned a lot from the member. I know he has really taken this file to heart. He told me he will continue to meet with stakeholders. He values the information and knowledge he has gained from the wisdom of those stakeholders and from the experiences he has had on this file. He said that he will remember those for the rest of his life.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank the member's staff or give them a mention at least. Dion works in the constituency office but is heavily involved in this file in Ottawa quite often. Emalie and Linnae put a lot of effort into this file. Their hearts are in it. I could not be more thankful for the opportunity I have been given to work with the member and his staff.

Moving on to Bill C-61, Canada, as a whole, is blessed with clean, fresh and safe drinking water. It is home to 20% of the world's fresh water and 7% of its renewable water supply, yet safe, clean drinking water has been unavailable for many indigenous communities. The history of Canada's efforts or perhaps “challenges”, in a better word, with respect to addressing the long- and short-term boil water advisories has been one plagued with the inability to get it done.

I am not necessarily speaking to the efforts of one government or another. It is quite clear that all governments today share part of the responsibility in this failure. That is not to say that there were not earnest efforts or, in the case of the current government, are earnest efforts to address this issue, but we know that the efforts in general continue to rely on the archaic and paternalistic Ottawa-knows-best way of doing things. That is what is at the heart of the matter.

This failure is our collective fault, and the worst thing we can do is continue to rely exclusively on public servants, in some cases thousands of kilometres from the problems, to make decisions needed to solve them. It is my hope, and surely something I will be focusing on at committee, that Bill C-61 would address this approach. We look to indigenous-led solutions in partnership with surrounding communities and with all levels of government to ensure, once and for all, that safe, clean drinking water is available to indigenous communities.

The history of the indigenous water crisis is a long one that truly did not start garnering attention until after the tragedy in Walkerton or the contamination in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. In 2001, the then Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development began to survey water and waste water systems in indigenous communities across Canada “to establish a baseline of information regarding existing drinking water infrastructure”. The assessment covered “740 drinking water systems serving 691 First Nations communities, finding that nearly 30 per cent” were water systems with “potential health and safety concerns...46 per cent” were systems requiring “some repairs” and only a quarter were considered “low risk”, experiencing “minimal” issues “without any problems”.

The figures at the time estimated the problems could be fixed for approximately $1.6 billion. Based on those survey results, in 2003, “the Government of Canada announced the First Nations Water Management strategy”. It was “the first comprehensive plan to tackle drinking water in wastewater systems within First Nations communities.” The plan allocated $1.6 billion between 2003 and 2008 to address seven key areas: “infrastructure upgrades...improved monitoring and reporting...enhanced [operating and maintenance]...increased training...new water quality management protocols...enhanced public awareness; and... new standards, policies and protocols”.

While a “2009 Health Canada report noted that the strategy led to an improved understanding of the challenges plaguing [indigenous] communities...and allowed for faster and more coordinated responses to emerging water issues”, it did not, according to a 2005 report by the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, provide the same safeguards on drinking water that existed “off reserves”. The conclusion was that a lack of a regulatory regime for indigenous communities, “failure to carry out testing” and a “lack of...technical support...for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of water systems” had to be addressed if the water crisis were to be fixed.

In 2006, “the Government of Canada launched the Plan of Action for First Nations Drinking Water”. The plan of action was built on the first nations water management strategy “and committed an additional $60 million between 2006 and 2008 to...address the findings of the 2005 Commissioner's report.” The plan of action included the creation of an “expert panel”, which found a number of issues that had yet to be addressed by Canada, including that “adequate resources — for...training...operations and maintenance — are more critical to ensuring safe drinking water than is regulation alone” and that a gap existed “between the federal government's cost estimates and the actual amount of funding needed to bring First Nations drinking water systems up to...standard”.

The next step forward came in 2008 with the introduction of the first nations water and wastewater action plan...An additional $330 million was allocated to support [the action plan], which reinforced the [2006 plan] while adding new objectives, including a commitment to consult with [indigenous communities] on new legislation as well as the commissioning of a national engineering assessment of the status of First Nations water systems across the country.

The resulting report, released in 2011, demonstrated that, while Canada had a much better understanding of the water issues in indigenous communities, only marginal progress had been made since 1995.

In 2013, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was created by the government to support the development of federal regulations to improve first nations' access to clean, reliable drinking water and effective treatment of waste water.

According to the Office of the Auditor General...“[b]etween 1995 and 2003, the federal government spent about $1.9 billion to help First Nations communities provide safe drinking water and wastewater services.” A further $600 million was committed in Budget 2003 to support the [plan]...between 2006 and 2014 the federal government “invested approximately $3 billion towards water and wastewater infrastructure and related public health activities to support First Nation communities in managing their water and wastewater systems.” From 2015 to the present, the federal government has spent over $5.7 billion “to build and repair at least 123 new water and wastewater plants, repair or upgrade 658 others, and support the effective management and maintenance of water systems.”

As I mentioned before, this is an issue that has been the responsibility of successive governments from both sides of the aisle. Clearly, the issue is not spending money, with over $11 billion having been spent by successive government to address the problem. As I alluded to earlier in my speech, we have to look at the way we have been doing things that address the issue. It is time for a new approach.

Now I turn to Bill C-61. We should ask ourselves if this is the new approach we need. I can assure members that that will be the fundamental question that will need to be answered, and in the affirmative, by indigenous leaders at committee if this bill is to succeed. Bill C-61 looks to do a number of things, including affirming and recognizing “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” and setting our principles and provisions to address issues related to first nations clean and safe drinking water, and waste-water treatment and disposal on first nations.

The bill also seeks to create a new first nations-led water commission, as promised, that would monitor water in communities, help them obtain legal advice and make recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial governments where required. As well, subject to the wishes of a first nations governing body, drinking water quality and waste-water effluent would at least need to meet the federal guidelines and regulations, or the standards of the province or territory where the first nations lands are located, and seek to provide pathways to facilitate water protection by creating water protection zones for first nations, provinces and territories to come together to protect, manage and preserve water and source water.

In 2019, legal action was initiated against Canada in a proposed class action suit on behalf of all members of first nations and member resident on reserves that had a drinking water advisory for at least one year since 1995. On December 22, 2021, the Federal Court and the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba issued a joint decision approving an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

The terms of the settlement agreement were announced on July 30, 2021, and included the following: “$1.5 billion in compensation for individuals deprived of clean drinking water; the creation of a $400 million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund...a renewed commitment to Canada's Action Plan for the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories...the creation of a First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water; support for First Nations to develop their own safe drinking water by-laws and initiatives; [and] a commitment of at least $6 billion to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserves”. A plan of “modernization of Canada's First Nations drinking water legislation” is included in that as well.

Bill C-61 specifically requires the Government of Canada to provide funding that, at a minimum, meets the expenditures set out in the 2021 settlement agreements. This commitment is $6 billion to be spent between June 20, 2021, and March 31, 2030, to address short- and long-term water advisories. As of May 2023, there were officially a total of 31 long-term drinking advisories in Canada, impacting 27 indigenous communities. This number, of course, has fluctuated over the years and, in some cases, communities have gone off only to be put back on a short time later.

One of the most glaring deficiencies in Canada's approach to safe water for indigenous communities has always been a proper identification and capture of the full picture with respect to unsafe water sources in indigenous communities. Part of the problem is the exclusion of public water systems that the federal government has not given funding. It also does not account for long-term advisories in the territories. A full accounting, taking in these omissions from the official numbers, brings the current total across Canada as high as 55. The lack of consistent and transparent data collection regarding water advisories makes it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the extent of the problem across the country.

For those who may be listening who may not understand what a water advisory is and why it is so fundamentally important to the health of communities, advisories can be issued by a local government, first nation or public health authority when drinking water quality has been or may have been compromised to the point where its consumption poses a risk to public health. Water quality can be adversely impacted as a result of a number of factors, including such conditions as contaminated groundwater or aquifers supplying wells, the presence of bacteria such as E. coli, unacceptable concentrations of harmful chemicals or pesticides, problems with inadequate filtration or malfunctioning equipment or failing to meet the clean drinking water guidelines in Canada.

Numbers can be misleading, and as I mentioned just a few moments ago, many communities continue to hop on and off these water advisories. For instance, five of the 90 first nations communities in which long-term drinking water advisories have been lifted since 2015 have had new long-term drinking water advisories issued since 2019. Two of those communities have had their previous long-term drinking water advisories in place for over 15 years. An additional 12 long-term drinking water advisories are in effect in Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick for first nations water systems that are not subsidized by the federal government, along with 10 long-term drinking water advisories in British Columbia. Also, we cannot forget the north where the Northwest Territories and Nunavut each have one long-term drinking water advisory in effect.

If Bill C-61 is to be successful, there will have to be a complete review and overhaul of how we account for water quality advisories. One of the other concerns about Bill C-61 that must be addressed at committee is the government's approach to consultation on the bill.

Many first nation leaders, including the AFN, were involved in the process to develop the legislation and will support it. I believe it has been a long time coming, yet not all first nations leaders agree, and there seems to be a growing chorus of voices from first nations communities opposed to the legislation, mainly stating that it was not co-developed or does not have their support. It will be important to hear from those leaders to hear and address the concerns they may have with Bill C-61.

Furthermore, there are a number of other questions that must be explored at committee, including that some communities face extensive barriers to long-term access to safe drinking water, barriers that are unfortunately not solved by money alone.

What are those barriers and how can we partner with indigenous communities to overcome them? Keeping in mind the close spiritual and historical connection with the land, is relocation an option for communities in extreme conditions where no matter of money will provide a long-term solution? If that is an option, what does that look like for an indigenous community? How do we solve the issue of transparency and ensure data is current and relevant and provides a real picture of the water situation?

Long-term operation and maintenance continues to be an ongoing impediment to safe water access. A limited number of trained staff, and in some cases no trained staff, for remote locations beg the question of how we solve critical staffing issues. Perhaps there is potential to explore regional solutions, or shared water management systems that provide a sharing of personnel and resources.

We must also look at the aggravating or mitigating factors limiting access to clean drinking water, such as remoteness, overcrowded communities and areas with poor to no access to water. We need to understand one solution does not always fit all in these situations.

Lastly, what role can technology play? Are remotely operated plants an option? Do we have that kind of technology or the infrastructure available in Canada? We need to hear from witnesses who can speak to those potential solutions.

Conservatives agree clean drinking water is a basic necessity of life. We must work with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to develop a real solution with an agreed upon timeline to deliver access to safe drinking water to all communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating substantial legislation dealing with water. I wanted to highlight that, as a legislature, we often have substantive pieces of legislation before us. This morning, the focus is on Bill C-61, and later this afternoon we will be debating at third reading the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, both of which are substantial pieces of legislation. There is a finite amount of time and a desire to see good legislation pass in a timely fashion, so we are hoping the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement will pass this afternoon. We are also hoping to see the Conservatives put a high priority on this legislation. I am wondering if the member can give a clear indication of what sort of time frame he would like to see before this bill goes to committee.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this piece of legislation, Bill C-61, is an important step forward and something that has support from organizations such as the AFN. Others do have some questions they would like asked, and we will get to that in the committee process.

As for the actual time schedule, it is the government that controls the agenda in the House. We are at its mercy. It is really up to its members and their priorities. I notice something with other pieces of legislation, such as the indigenous-led legislation we just finished up in committee today, Bill C-53. That legislation, on self-governance concerning Métis in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, was promised for months and brought in at the dying days of the session before the break in June.

This piece of legislation, Bill C-61, was again promised for months. I do not know what the delay was on the government's side. I do not know what it was. I believe the delay has been over six months, when we could have been discussing this or even bringing it to committee, and perhaps even passing it at third reading. Again, it is the government putting up these roadblocks. We would like to see what timetable it has in mind.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Bill C‑61 is important. The Kitcisakik reserve, which is in my riding, does not even have clean drinking water. I recently visited Kuujjuaq. It has no water that is safe to drink. The reservoir is very old, even in Nunavik. The government therefore needs to take action on principle, considering that there is a lot of water, but no adequate infrastructure.

What does the government claim to be doing, and what does my colleague think about it?

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

Madam Speaker, it is still shameful that this kind of situation still goes on in our country. I know the member shared a story of a long-term boil water advisory in her riding. The riding of Kenora has had the longest boil water advisory in history, for well over 10,000 days now. It has been in effect since 1995.

That was the heart of my speech. The Ottawa-knows-best approach is clearly not working. With all the technology and brainpower available, we still have boil water advisories. The fact that we are able to solve this and we have not is not beyond me. This tells me that the structure and the status quo itself is not working. If we can address that symptom, I think then, with more indigenous-led solutions, we can actually get this problem fixed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate what the member has to share. I also appreciate that he did list some of the court case settlements. However, I want to ask about source water protection and who has the authority. I know that there have been discussions about whether first nations should have the authority to discuss source water, be it municipal, provincial or federal.

I wonder if he could share his thoughts on what this would mean and why it should be discussed in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I take it that INAN committee has wrapped up, because the member for Nunavut is in this place continuing to work hard for her constituents.

This is one of the things I wanted to highlight, and I should have focused more time on it. Those discussions need to take place. We address it, and Bill C-61 does touch on it, by including those voices and those conversations, especially when the bill talks about source water. I spoke about it a bit. I will make a note to speak on it a little more, but one of the things we will address in committee are issues like that.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague highlighted the fact of the timeline on the bill. The government has promised and floated the bill for a long period of time. It is troubling because this is part of the track record of the government, of talking about something and then putting it on everyone else when it has failed to schedule the time.

The member highlighted some organizations in some communities. I know some first nations are quite concerned about the bill, about the fact that they were not consulted and what that means for them. I am wonder if you could highlight what you are hoping to achieve through committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, for her work with first nations and Métis communities in her riding. She is a tremendous champion for those voices, and I know those communities appreciate all her knowledge and willingness to continue to learn on this file. It is not a file that should be taken lightly. I know she takes it very seriously and really digs in, and I appreciate that.

She could not be more bang on with her comment. The government, like with many other pieces of legislation, waited until the last second to bring this in. The legislation, as she mentioned, was promised for six months and counting. Bill C-53, the Métis self-government legislation, was brought in during the dying seconds of the sitting before we adjourned in June. We could even go back to the Whitecap Dakota treaty, which was also brought in during the dying days.

Again, it is a growing concern. On the one hand, the government says that the indigenous file is the most important relationship. However, on the other hand, it drops these pieces of legislation at the last second or in the dying days of Parliament.

First nations communities deserve more than that. We should be promoting them front and centre. Unfortunately the government says one thing and does the other.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I could not quite decipher between the lines on whether he would vote for the legislation at second reading to get it to committee. Would he know if this would be the position of his caucus?

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

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that we will be voting in favour of this at second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned with many of the comments the member made about the lack of consultation. In fact, there have been considerable consultations, even representations from AFN at today's introduction of the legislation itself.

Could he provide his comments as to why the government should not work with AFN and the many different chiefs and others to ensure that we get it right? We are confident in the legislation today because of all the inputs in consultations?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I did not catch the whole segment of the member's question. It was about the AFN. I think I did say that there should be consultation within all groups.

The AFN, as I did point out, was in favour. However, at the same time, if we want to listen to the AFN, we should also listen to it when it talks about the carbon tax and the 133 chiefs of Ontario who want relief from the carbon tax. The Northwest Territories premiers are now calling for a break from the carbon tax. Let us start listening to those indigenous voices and axe the tax.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with deep humility and a great sense of responsibility that I take up the torch today for indigenous relations and the development of the north and its regions within the Bloc Québécois.

First, I would like to salute my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for her outstanding dedication and hard work on behalf of the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada over the years.

I am committed to working closely with indigenous communities in the years to come and making progress in strengthening their rights and autonomy while fostering equitable nation-to-nation relations, and I am committed to following in the footsteps of my colleague from Manicouagan.

Before turning to the bill at hand, I also want to give a shout-out to the participants of the second edition of the First Nations Expedition, who are, as we speak, about to set off from Témiscaming or Kebaowek. The participants will cover a total of 3,250 kilometres by snowmobile on their way to Wendake, passing through Mashteuiatsh, Rouyn‑Noranda, where they stopped the day before yesterday, Maniwaki, Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, and many other places.

I went to Témiscaming yesterday to meet up with them. Politicians from Témiscamingue of all stripes, so to speak, came out to salute the courage of the participants in this second edition. Participants were selected based on their heightened awareness of the indigenous causes supported by the expedition, as well as their thirst and curiosity to learn more about indigenous nations.

I want draw attention to the two men who came up with the idea. The first is Christian Flamand, an Atikamekw man who spoke passionately yesterday about his commitment and the depth of his convictions. The second is Derek Jeremy Einish, a Naskapi man. Both are motivated by the principles of reconciliation, friendship, respect, solidarity and courage.

The aim of the expedition is to pay tribute to children who attended residential schools, missing and murdered indigenous women, Joyce Echaquan, whose name has come up several times, and children who were taken from their families at birth.

To segue into my thoughts on the bill, I will start by saying hello to a representative of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Billy Shecanapish. We met yesterday and he told me that he has spent his life advocating for water and working with water in indigenous communities. I think that is the perfect segue. I want to say hello to Billy and all those participating in the First Nations Expedition.

For indigenous communities, water is not just about staying hydrated, nor is it simply a commodity or resource. Water is considered sacred, because it is a source of life, knowledge and rights. Water is considered a living entity, with a spirit of its own. Human beings have a responsibility to protect and care for this vital resource from mother earth. In short, water is a symbol of indigenous sovereignty.

That is why I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. After first reading of this bill, I think it is too soon to give my opinion on it, since the first nations are not all in agreement. We still have a lot of questions about the consultations that were held with first nations and about many of the bill's provisions.

When all of that is put together, it may not have the original intended effect. By way of observation, the notion of co-development, when the government and its main partners are not in agreement, says a lot about the current process. With all due respect, this also happened with Bill C-53, so perhaps the government needs to review the mechanism it uses for consulting with first nations in order to make it truly inclusive and have a real dialogue.

On the surface, Bill C‑61 may appear to be a long-awaited response to the ongoing equality issues related to access to water for indigenous people in Quebec and Canada, but the devil is in the details.

I want to talk about the basics of the right to drinking water. Access to a safe, clean source of drinking water is fundamental to life. Unfortunately, many first nations communities across the country face significant barriers to accessing safe drinking water. Since 1977, the government has been promising to provide reserves with water and sanitation services comparable to those available in the majority of similar non-indigenous communities. However, these promises have often gone unfulfilled.

First nations continue to endure a disproportionate share of the consequences of poor water management, water insecurity and lack of access to good quality drinking water, a situation that would be considered intolerable for anyone living off the reserves. For most people living in a G7 nation, it would be frankly unthinkable.

The consequences of water insecurity require no explanation. However, since we are still here debating a bill on water, in the House, in 2024, I will nonetheless speak to the link between water insecurity and the high rate of suicide in many indigenous communities. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that water insecurity and the loss of traditional water-related practices contribute to feelings of anxiety, depression and loss of cultural identity. These factors, in turn, can significantly affect the risk of suicide. In short, access to safe, clean drinking water is essential not only for the physical health of indigenous nations, but for their mental health and cultural vitality as well.

One of the clearest examples of this chronic inequality is the never-ending drinking water advisories on first nations reserves. Despite Canada's fiduciary commitments to provide potable water to first nations, its repeated promises to eliminate these advisories and its international obligations recognizing potable water and clean water as a human right, these advisories have been in place for decades.

It is odd that Canada, a country where water is abundant and easily accessible, is still unable to offer adequate infrastructure for drinking water access and waste water management. Unlike developing countries, Canada is not dealing with a water shortage, seeing as it possesses 20% of the world's freshwater reserves. It is not deficient in resources or dealing with the instability of an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The current situation should be blamed on successive Canadian governments and their chronic negligence toward first nations. The federal government's lack of interest in first nations is obvious when we look at the limiting and discriminatory situation imposed on these communities, leaving them stuck with poor sanitary conditions.

Questions remain. Given these realities, Bill C-61 represents a first step in the right direction.

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.... 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.

However, as I mentioned earlier, it has not gone unnoticed that we are debating legislation in 2024 to give communities decent access to clean drinking water and proper infrastructure. This bill may seem like a step in the right direction, but it is simply not good enough.

Let us start with the fact that the government's main partners on this bill, the first nations themselves, disagree with the statement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services that the legislation she was working on was the closest the federal government had come to co-developing law with first nations.

The lack of consultation could explain why the bill seems to view free, prior and informed consent, as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a mere suggestion or guiding principle rather than a strict requirement applicable to all aspects of the bill.

How can first nations trust that the government will consult them on the provisions of this bill, if the government cannot even consult them when the bill is first drafted?

This bill does confirm that water on, in and under first nation lands is part of first nation lands, providing a strong bulwark against provincial land claims. Subclause 6(1) of Bill C‑61 explicitly recognizes that first nations have an “inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” with respect to “water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nations lands.”

The terminology in this section, which refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly establishes that first nations' right to self-government over water on reserve lands constitutes recognition of a constitutionally protected right, not simply authority conferred by law. The fact that the words “water” and “source water” are added means that first nations have complete control over water of any kind on their reserve lands.

The protection of source water is crucial to ensuring that first nations have access to quality drinking water, which supports economic development and helps preserve indigenous rights and cultural practices. Although the bill talks about protecting source water, it does not lay out any specific requirements for protecting it.

On the contrary, both the control and protection of source water remain vulnerable in the provincial and federal agreements required by paragraph 6(1)(b). This does not provide adequate authority to first nations for protecting water sources. First nations will have limited jurisdiction over source water, given that this jurisdiction depends on the agreement between the federal government and the respective provincial or territorial government for coordinating the enforcement of first nations legislation. This is problematic, because water protection varies considerably from one province to another. Also, this bill could always serve as a way for the federal government to shirk its responsibilities to its indigenous partners. Giving first nations considerable power perpetuates concerns about a somewhat disengaged federal government.

Bill C‑61 does not even recognize the basic human right to clean drinking water. Meanwhile, the bill cites the principle of substantive equality in paragraph 5(2)(a) which states that “the distinct needs of First Nations for reliable access to water services must be addressed in a way that respects First Nations rights and their access must be comparable to that in non-Indigenous communities”. Substantive equality is not, in itself, a right to good-quality drinking water. In fact, Canada's refusal to recognize the right to safe drinking water goes against its stated commitment in favour of the right to safe drinking water as a fundamental right within the United Nations.

I want to talk about Kitcisakik, which is located in the riding of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would like to talk about a community in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This indigenous community has been without running water and electricity for years now. Thanks to Quebec's recent commitment, the community will finally be connected to the power grid over the next three years. Unfortunately, the community of Kitcisakik will remain without access to water. Because the water table is too high, it is impossible to dig on site and build the necessary infrastructure, making access to running water impossible. Only the communal showers and the band office have access to this precious blue gold.

Moreover, Kitcisakik has dreamed for the past 30 years of building its new village, Wanaki, which means “land of peace” in the indigenous language. In this way, it could finally acquire modern facilities and infrastructure. This brings me to a key aspect of this issue. To develop water management infrastructure requires considerable, recurring and predictable funding. Historically, this has never been the case. From 2015 to 2018, $146 million was allocated annually to fund this type of infrastructure. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2017, it would have taken $361 million a year to fund and maintain first nations' drinking water and waste-water systems. The government covered only 40% of the estimated needs.

Once again, I will talk about my region to demonstrate the impact. Maintenance and construction costs are much higher in the regions, and that forces communities to make heart-wrenching decisions. In February 2021, the Abitibiwinni nation on the Pikogan reserve near Amos reported that it was finding it difficult to allocate the funds needed to maintain and run its water and waste-water systems. It is difficult for a community to have to choose between maintaining its infrastructure, water and waste-water systems and roads, and fostering economic and social development when the envelopes are simply not there. We should keep in mind that, in remote regions, the cost of every repair is higher because of the distances involved, the labour shortage and the competition from mining companies in the construction sector.

From reading the bill, we get the impression it seeks to tackle inadequate funding. However, the language used is superficial, requiring only that the government provide “funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures” set out in the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Settlement Agreement.

The funding provisions in the bill simply do not go far enough to guarantee sufficient funding for first nations. According to clause 26 of this bill, the Government of Canada is content to make “best efforts” to provide adequate funding for water services and to offset the actual costs to first nations of water and sanitation services.

That is a gateway to inaction. The term “best efforts” allows the government to shirk its responsibility to provide First Nations with real access to clean, safe drinking water.

If the minister can simply claim to have done their best to make sure a community has access to water, and the community still does not have access to drinking water, that is legal under the terms proposed by this piece of legislation. That is unacceptable. It is a shirking of responsibility toward our indigenous constituents, and we cannot tolerate such negligence.

I will remind members that the investigation conducted by the Institute for Investigative Journalism at Concordia University revealed that Indigenous Services Canada funded only 33% of the needs of the community of Kebaowek, located in my riding, while the federal government should have contributed 80%. No matter the infrastructure, if the federal government does not do its part, it is unrealistic to think that first nations will be able to meet expectations.

The drinking water problem is also affecting non-indigenous communities. Take, for example, the municipality of Laverlochère-Angliers in the Témiscamingue region. Its inhabitants do not have access to drinking water because it is just too expensive for a community of about 300.

Some 30% of the population of Abitibi—Témiscamingue gets its water from private wells. A study conducted by the Direction régionale de santé publique showed the presence of arsenic in the private wells. It validated the hypothesis that the contaminated wells were associated with a certain type of rock often found near gold deposits. Some of the private wells were dug in gold deposits, so their water contains arsenic. It is important for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities to understand the geology of our region so as to reduce the risk of contamination.

It is also important to remember that, according to a survey conducted by the Abitibi—Témiscamingue public health directorate, four out of five households had not cleaned or disinfected their wells in the past five years.

This is another important point that needs to be included in this bill. How can we fund prevention if indigenous communities opt to dig their own wells? These are important things to think about.

In conclusion, I would say that we are at a crucial point in time and that we must seriously consider the future of access to drinking water in Quebec and Canadian indigenous communities. Although imperfect, Bill C-61 is an attempt to do something about the persistent inequalities experienced by indigenous peoples when it comes to access to drinking water.

However, despite its good intentions, it fails to address basic concerns. The issue of a real and meaningful consultation of first nations is still up in the air, casting a shadow on the legitimacy of this legislative measure. In addition, the funding provisions fail to guarantee sufficient resources to adequately meet the needs of indigenous communities.

We cannot overlook how unacceptable it is that, in 2024, we still have to stand here and talk about the need to ensure access to clean drinking water and decent infrastructure. This highlights the government's ongoing failure to deliver on its commitments to indigenous nations.

As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that every citizen has equitable access to an essential part of life, namely drinking water. Bill C-61 is an opportunity to improve the situation, but it needs to be strengthened and adjusted to truly meet the needs, demands and rights of first nations.

We must take urgent action and firmly resolve to put an end to this unacceptable situation. Access to clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right, and we must not tolerate any further delay in making that a reality for everyone. The House's commitment to reconciliation and to indigenous peoples requires that we take bold action to ensure that every indigenous and non-indigenous community has a future and can thrive with dignity and fairness.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, personally, I see two strong aspects of Bill C-61.

First and foremost, I appreciate and value all the work and contributions from the minister and indigenous leaders throughout the country. They brought this legislation forward through consultation and hard work.

Second, we talked about the UN declaration, in terms of how we bring forward legislation. Again, we see that the legislation is being driven not just by the minister but also by indigenous leadership.

It is so important that we continue to work hand in hand with indigenous people in order to protect mother earth, as it is often referred to, particularly when dealing with water. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his commitment to first nations and for his question.

I will answer it by pointing out that the Minister of Indigenous Services was asked to release a list of the first nations and organizations that were consulted about the bill. That request went nowhere, and instead the minister stated that all first nations had received the bill, as well as a second one based on consultations with communities.

We obviously need to ensure that consultations have indeed taken place, in a spirit of consultation, not simply sharing information.

Take the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, as an example. Its members must be able to take part in the process and have their say, particularly when it comes to first nations located in Quebec. That is what nation-to-nation dialogue is all about. It is an interesting principle, but the government needs to walk the talk.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, a lot of the thoughts the member shared are quite similar to what I have analyzed as well.

I would like to hear from the member what his thoughts are on the current Liberal government's attitude toward indigenous peoples, and what it means that it introduced this bill that would not meet international human rights laws.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut for her comments and question.

She was already one of the members of the House I most respected. When I had the chance to get to know her better on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I grew to admire her and her genuine commitment to the first peoples even more.

Obviously, in this context, the government must do something toward reconciliation as part of a nation-to-nation dialogue that is as inclusive as possible. When one informs people of something, that is not a dialogue. If I sent someone an email, I obviously cannot say that we had a dialogue. That is key. We have seen the government taking the first nations for granted in too many bills. They have been taken for granted since the Indian Act. That has done a lot of harm.

Now, we need to take action. I think that we can demonstrate a new openness in 2024. That means being proactive, reaching out, and accepting that there may be different ways of seeing things. We are talking here about a fundamental right, access to water. We have to get this right.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his recent appointment as our party's critic for this very important file.

Earlier, I was trying to tell the Minister of Indigenous Services that, in 2017, water testing was done back home, in the community of Listuguj. The tests found that there was a certain level of lead in the water that did not meet the acceptable or recommended limit set by Health Canada. When the community reported this to Indigenous Services Canada, the department told those people that the problem would be solved if they let the water run for a while prior to consuming it, instead of simply helping the community invest in replacing the plumbing, for example. These tests were carried out in a day care centre. The children were drinking this water. We know that consuming lead or a certain concentration of lead in water has an ill effect on health. It affects children's brain development.

I hope the bill will ensure that, when communities ask for help, the government and Indigenous Services Canada will respond and that the necessary funding will be available.

Does my colleague think this will be the case, or does he still have concerns, especially with regard to funding?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say a special thank you to my colleague for her leadership with the community of Listuguj. She clearly knows every detail of that community's needs.

It is unacceptable that a day care does not have drinking water. What happens as a result of a situation like that? The same entity, be it the municipal or local administration or the day care itself, will have to make choices: repair the pipe, or invest the money in education, in preserving the language? In many cases, the health emergency must take priority and the pipe must be fixed. That is a problem because the federal government should be taking on this responsibility. As we have seen over the years, the amounts are simply insufficient.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech and also for his response to the question from our colleague from Nunavut. I was amazed by the question she asked. It is so clear to me that this bill must be garbage if our colleague from Nunavut thinks it does not respect human rights.

Could my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue say a few words about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and her remarks, as well as for her genuine commitment to first nations.

I will give an example concerning water quality. She accompanied the Kebaowek First Nation here so that its members could speak at a House of Commons news conference on a fundamental issue, namely the quality of water in the Ottawa River, which borders their territory. A nuclear waste treatment and storage facility is going to be built in Chalk River. This project is vehemently opposed by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and many others, including myself.

The possibility of a leak poses a risk to water quality in the region. We are experiencing numerous climate change-related disasters, and it is possible that a tipping point could be reached. In addition, the facility is located on top of a hill from which water runs off into the Ottawa River, six kilometres away. The consequences will be felt not so much in Abitibi—Témiscamingue as farther south, where the water flows down to Ottawa-Gatineau, as well as Montreal and Quebec City. The consequences could be devastating for both indigenous and non-indigenous residents. We need to be extremely vigilant when it comes to protecting our water. I am making a personal commitment to address this issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has time for a brief question.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can be brief.

What an absurd situation. I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I cannot get over it. First nations account for 5% of Canada's population. We are debating a bill that seeks to give 5% of the population of this country access to drinking water. It is mind-boggling to contemplate.

I would like to raise another issue with my colleague. I visited his region to talk about housing. Lac‑Simon alone is short 300 housing units. The statistics on housing for first nations are devastating. They are overrepresented when it comes to unsanitary and overcrowded housing.

What does my colleague think should be done to get this issue dealt with here? What can we do not only about drinking water, but also about housing, so that first nations truly have access—