Debates of Oct. 9th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Before proceeding, the Chair would like to make a brief statement regarding an incident that occurred yesterday during the adjournment debate.

I have been made aware of an administrative error that led to confusion among the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and the Chair.

I now want to confirm that neither the member nor the parliamentary secretary was responsible for the confusion. The Chair has directed the House administration to contact the member to reschedule his adjournment proceeding slot on his intended topic. On behalf of the House administration, the Chair would like to sincerely apologize for this error and misunderstanding.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Clean Water Act

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

Madam Speaker, kwe kwe, waachiyaah.

I am especially pleased to speak to Bill C-37, but I do so with some regret, even a bit of bitterness, because, in my view, this debate comes far too late. For years, if not decades, the Auditor General has been issuing reports criticizing the impact of the government's inaction on the quality of life of first nations. This inaction also undermines their capacity for self-determination and has significant repercussions on the health of children, as well as on that of all first nations members.

In my view, this is clearly a fundamental right, one that is also recognized by the United Nations. In the current context, it is important to remember what has brought us to this point. The journey has been marked in particular by the pressure exerted and leadership shown on these issues by the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, and the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, or AFNQL. I want to highlight the work done by Lance Haymond, chief of Kebaowek First Nation in my riding, who is still fighting to protect water quality in the context of the nuclear waste disposal site at Chalk River and the consequences it could have on traditional lands. Indigenous peoples, first nations, Inuit and Métis have a responsibility to protect our shared territory. Their vision is rooted in a perspective that looks ahead to the next seven generations. This should also serve as inspiration in the context of Bill C-39, which seeks to fast-track project approvals without ensuring social licence and without free, prior and informed consultations with first nations.

Bill C-37 emerged in that context. However, as I was saying, it has come too late. We studied Bill C-61 during the last Parliament, which lasted nearly four years—three and a half years, to be exact. Why did the Liberals not make this a priority sooner? Why was it not debated in the House earlier, debated in committee and advanced through all the stages to be passed by the Senate? I have been thinking about that a lot.

At the time, I was the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous affairs. We did extensive work on Bill C-61, which contained a number of important distinctions compared with Bill C-37, particularly because of the co-development process. The parties concerned were brought to the table from the outset. The parliamentary work was done. I am thinking in particular of the work carried out by my former NDP colleague from Nunavut, who has now crossed to the other side of the House. Ironically, she will be voting against provisions that she herself helped improve. Bill C-37 is a watered-down version of Bill C-61. Several fundamental elements have been removed, and I will return to those shortly.

In the context of Bill C‑61, I would remind the House that we proposed many amendments and recommendations stemming from the concerns of first nations, including the AFN and the AFNQL. That work allowed us to reach a consensus. When the current Minister of Indigenous Services was appointed, the first thing I asked her to do was to reintroduce Bill C‑61 as amended by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I think that Parliament could have passed that bill quickly, yet here we are today, more than a year and a half later, with a new bill that is only at first reading, or rather, receiving its first hour of debate. How many months or years will it take for this new bill to make it all the way through the legislative process? I am worried about that. Until we have a law in place, there will be no government accountability and, obviously, no results. We see this year after year in the Auditor General's reports, as well as in her follow-up reports on earlier recommendations. This is a huge problem.

In the meantime, the communities are suffering. The government may well say that there has been some progress and that only 35 communities are still affected, but that still leaves 35 communities having to boil their drinking water on a daily basis. In Quebec, the community of Kitcisakik did not have clean drinking water, but the Quebec government handled it. That community now has access to electricity, which allows its systems to function more effectively.

If the Quebec government had not stepped in, the federal government would have also failed in its responsibility to provide clean water to first nations. That was the situation we were facing two years ago when we were examining Bill C-61 in committee. I must admit that the minister of indigenous services at the time, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, was excellent to work with. I hope I got the name of her riding right. I want to commend her for approach because it enabled us to reach a consensus that I felt was inclusive, something that we are not necessarily seeing today.

As we saw earlier in questions and comments, the government is even going so far as to justify the time the minister gave herself to hold the consultations that were never carried out. It is easy to see that this is just the government's way of wasting time. Meanwhile, the government does not have any obligation to produce results. That is the crux of the problem, which has been going on for decades. The federal government has failed to produce results when it comes to providing first nations with clean water.

Last December, the Prime Minister personally promised the Assembly of First Nations that this bill would be introduced. As first nations know, just because a bill is introduced does not mean that it will get passed. It does not guarantee results from this government. The cavalier attitude that we have been seeing in the House over the past few weeks, since the government bought itself a majority with Conservative floor crossers and the member for Nunavut, is not good for first nations. What we have been seeing since the current Prime Minister took office is the introduction of bills like Bill C-5.

What did Bill C-5 do? It eliminated the responsibility to comply with the Indian Act, which entailed the duty to consult first nations. I proposed an amendment to this bill, which I thank the Conservatives for supporting, to remove from the schedule those bills that the government is allowed to ignore when implementing its projects of national interest or similar projects. We also need to define what is meant by national interest. That remains to be determined. Taking the Indian Act out of that schedule would stop the government from circumventing the fundamental principle of consulting first nations. Although it is extremely archaic, the Indian Act does set a baseline for the rights of first nations.

Clearly, the federal government was not happy about the Indian Act being removed from the schedule, so it tried again with Bill C‑15. It removed some elements from the bill, and it is doing so again with Bill C‑39 by clearly stating that nuclear energy must be the priority. As a result, this fight is going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to once again commend Lance Haymond and the Kebaowek community for their leadership in protecting the integrity of our waterways, our lands and our biodiversity.

This time, it will be much more complicated, if not impossible, to stand up for the fundamental rights of first nations, even though one of the fundamental rights of first nations is obviously access to drinking water. The reality is that Bill C‑5 was passed with limited debate. I would remind the House that Bill C‑15 was also passed quickly and Bill C‑39 was voted on yesterday at second reading with the support of the Conservative Party. There will be a lot of work to do in committee, and it will be up to the Bloc Québécois to stand up for the rights of first nations in the context of Bill C‑39.

As for Bill C-37, it is the same story. I regret not putting more pressure on the government to ensure that Bill C-61 was the version presented to the House. Actually, no, I believe I did my due diligence on this, and I believe first nations did theirs as well. I believe it is the government's refusal to listen that has caused us to lose another year, another five years, another 40 years. It is this accumulation of delays that means first nations members are once again being penalized today.

All in all, Bill C-37 is in keeping with the spirit of continuity, and I would like to emphasize that. However, some provisions that had been included in Bill C-61 have been omitted, which is a real shame.

However, we in the Bloc Québécois recognize the relevance of the principle underlying this approach. Access to clean, safe and reliable drinking water is a fundamental goal. First nations must have the necessary resources to manage their water services and protect their resources.

It was on precisely this point that I personally took action at committee to ensure that first nations' expertise is developed. It is one thing to say that they will take care of it, but that expertise needs to be developed. All too often, we have seen consulting engineering firms like SNC-Lavalin get lucrative contracts at the expense of first nations. If something breaks, it takes months for repairs to happen, because there is no local expertise. This means that people need to be trained. It means that systems need to be updated. It means that ongoing investments need to be made. Bill C-37 does not prove that the Liberals have a long-term vision for investments in that regard.

Among other things, the bill seeks to affirm first nations jurisdiction over water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on, in and under their lands by establishing minimum standards and mechanisms for co-operation with the various levels of government. That is an important aspect because water is under provincial jurisdiction; it is Quebec's responsibility, for example. There is a desire to find better water quality, but protecting clean water is fundamental to human survival. First nations people have a vision to protect it, as does the Government of Quebec. Partnerships exist that should not be replaced. If the government does not respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, it will end up creating other mechanisms that will not solve the problem at its core.

Bill C-37 also provides for the gradual implementation of mechanisms to guarantee access to drinking water, the co-development of a funding framework and the possible creation of a first nations-led water commission. This brings me back to the debates we had in committee. Any such commission must respect both official languages. Unfortunately, when I proposed an amendment to that effect, several Liberal members and the member for Nunavut refused to support both official languages. Of course, the goal should also be to make translations available in the indigenous languages of the communities concerned, and I fully support that. However, failing to recognize French as an official language of Canada and failing to provide documents in French also has discriminatory consequences for many first nations communities in Quebec whose members are francophone. That reality was largely overlooked. I would like to point out that the committee's work ultimately resulted in a bilingual commission. Common sense prevailed, and there are mechanisms in place that have enabled us to correct what would have been a very serious error.

In its preliminary analysis, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, raised concerns that “the lack of commitment to the full achievement of the human right to water, limited definition of First Nations lands, weakened co-development and consultation provisions [and] reliance on ‘best efforts’ language”. We see a lot of that. The bill often states that the government will make best efforts. That is a problem. We do not need the government to do its best. We need it to commit to doing better. It is all meaningless without that commitment. It is just empty words.

Another concern raised by the AFN was “uncertainty regarding the interaction between the right to water supply [provided for in the bill] and existing provincial water allocation regimes.” What happens if the source of drinking water is not on reserve territory? As we know, reserve boundaries were drawn so as to enclose as little area as possible, which is a problem for growing populations.

Often, as is the case in my riding, first nations occupied the land well before we did. They lived near waterways, which is only natural, particularly for the Anishinabe. However, most reserves are inland, far from first nations' ancestral lands. Some land flooded when dams were built, as was the case for the Long Point nation and the Kitcisakik community. All of this affects their direct access to water, to river water sources. Today, we are dealing with additional costs to supply water to these reserves, and we need to take that into account, but collaboration is also needed.

Several of the criticisms of Bill C-61 were addressed through a co-development process. I want to point that out. Although it was imperfect, it was a step forward that was not replicated in the process for Bill C-37. To me, that is a major risk. I would like to echo the remarks of Francis Verreault-Paul, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. He believes that Bill C-37 no longer explicitly recognizes access to drinking water as a human right. He, too, is adding his voice to the discussion. He also believes that certain elements of the bill represent a step backward compared to Bill C-61.

When I asked the minister that question earlier, she proudly stated that she is investing money and looking ahead. These problems will not be solved. If we refuse to acknowledge the nature of the problems and the setbacks we are facing, we are dooming ourselves to repeat the same mistakes. If we doom ourselves to repeat the same mistakes, in the end, everyone loses. It will cost taxpayers more, and first nations will not have access to the safe, high-quality drinking water to which they are entitled. These are no trivial matters.

I talked about Bill C-5. I talked about the fact that we need to establish collaborative mechanisms between governments, especially provincial governments, and the jurisdictions involved. Funding is a key issue. We have to consider what is good for communities when it comes to maintaining, renewing and upgrading infrastructure. We have to consider skills development, consultation mechanisms, joint management, the coordination of regulatory regimes, long-term funding and the meaningful authority that first nations will have with respect to concrete protection measures. We need predictable, long-term financial resources, along with a clear and respectful relationship. All of that is there.

I will return to Bill C-61. It established a clearer definition of protection zones. Based on what I see in Bill C‑37, that concerns me. This aspect will have to be updated in committee. The bill talks about “best efforts”. We could change that to “commitments to do better”. That is essential.

I would like to revisit the Auditor General's findings so that we have a clear understanding of the situation we are starting from as we discuss this issue. Based on her report tabled in 2021, she stated in 2025, “Although the number of [long term drinking water advisories] has declined, 35 advisories remained as of April 1, 2025.” Nine of those drinking water advisories were issued in the following fiscal year. Clearly, this remains a problem today. We need long-term solutions, yet we are still far from certain that the areas of progress identified by the Auditor General will deliver any results. Quite frankly, that is deeply disappointing.

I sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In that context, I wanted to ensure that these challenges could be addressed. A report adopted by the committee in June will have to be tabled in the House so that we may one day debate it.

Before the debate even begins, we have to look at the government's shortcomings. I am thinking of Bill C-10, which establishes a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This position is only needed because the government has failed to live up to its obligations with respect to first nations. Do we need to do the same thing here, that is, appoint a drinking water commissioner to finally ensure that someone can actually access the inner workings of the government, particularly within the Department of Indigenous Services, to get the information needed to hold this government to account?

Bill C‑37 raises a lot of questions. It will need to be improved in committee, but it would have been so simple and so much more efficient to build on the former Bill C‑61, which had consensus and could have been passed very quickly.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, when watersheds are shared, the legislation provides a framework for collaboration that allows first nations, provinces, territories and the federal government to work together while respecting existing jurisdictions.

Does my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue see this approach as beneficial and likely to ensure that the law stands the test of time?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the great challenge. If the past is any indication, the trust that first nations themselves place in the government on this fundamental issue is low. The government has a responsibility to demonstrate consistency, predictability, leadership and the most fundamental form of respect, which is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I have concerns in that regard, because the mechanisms have not been agreed upon in advance by first nations members themselves. All of this is already set out in the first draft of the bill. Now that the government has a majority, what we are essentially being told is that the government is unlikely to change anything and we will have to work with what has already been decided. That is not how it works.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that right now in Quebec, there are no boil water advisories. It is a region that maybe other regions can learn from, with collaboration between municipal governments and provincial governments.

I am wondering if my colleague can highlight some of the principled partnerships that he has seen that first nations can learn from in order to create great utilities and critical infrastructure, like water in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are doing a good job; I just want to acknowledge that.

I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Northwest for his comments and for his work in strengthening first nations' capacity for self-determination. This is a principle that the Government of Quebec has recognized and put into practice for many years. Take, for example, the Cree community. The Minister of Indigenous Services was once their grand chief. This community has benefited from the peace of the braves. It has benefited from agreements with the government for some fifty years. Those agreements have brought investment into the community, but more importantly, they have helped build local capacity. I had the opportunity to visit Chisasibi this summer. What struck me was the tremendous amount of work being done to modernize infrastructure while ensuring that the community remains in control of its own development. That is they key to success and strong relationships.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend on his excellent speech. He clearly knows his subject well. He is passionate about it. We learn a lot from him. I think he paints a clear picture of the challenges and everything that needs to be done.

He was referring to the last Parliament and traced all of this back some 40 years. I would like to go back about 10 years instead. At the time, I was the Bloc Québécois finance critic. During discussions about our budget requests with then minister of finance, Bill Morneau, I asked him to address the issue of access to safe drinking water in all first nations communities across Canada. He assured me that this was in line with their priorities, and that if we were committed to it, his government would resolve the situation. When I reviewed his budget, I could see that the money was there. However, at the end of the year, when I looked at the lapsed appropriations, the money was still there; it had not been spent, and nothing had been resolved.

How is it that, 10 years later, even though the government has announced the necessary funding and expressed its willingness to take action, the issue still has not been resolved?

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan and the indigenous communities in her riding.

In this context, my colleague is right. That is what the Auditor General's many reports have shown, year after year, indeed decade after decade. One of the first things that fascinated me when I arrived in the House of Commons was this tendency to congratulate ourselves on a budget, to pat ourselves on the back for being so generous, yet a year later, balanced budgets often end up resting on funds that were never spent, effectively at the expense of first nations. All the while, they continue to be promised tens of billions of dollars.

Why is that money not being spent? It is because local expertise is not being taken into account. Expertise on the ground is not being developed. The government is not respecting the expertise of band councils. The government thinks that all it needs to do is put money in a budget and everything will be fixed, but that is not the case. The same is true for housing. The same is true for so many files. The government needs to develop the expertise of first nations in a respectful manner.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has an excellent grasp of the issues we are discussing.

I would like him to talk a bit more about workforce development. When it comes to drinking water and waste water in municipalities, they are already struggling to find enough skilled staff to manage these systems.

I would like him to talk about how Bill C-37 will help increase the workforce in first nations communities so they can manage their own drinking water and waste water systems.

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

Mr. Speaker, for me, this is one of the blind spots. It is one of the aspects that I do not have much confidence in. It is also one of the most fundamental aspects that we worked on in committee back when we were examining Bill C-61. We looked at how to develop this workforce because it was not part of the spirit of the bill, and that is why I wanted to push to use the version of Bill C-61 that was passed as a starting point.

We also introduced concepts such as epistemological data to ensure that first nations have access to the information that the federal government has but that the band council does not. If something is affecting water quality and is making people sick and one community is affected more than another, health care professionals and the federal government both know about it, but the community itself does not and cannot take action. That is one example of how we need to work together to establish data-sharing mechanisms that will help with first nations self-determination.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister earlier and the Liberals have made so many announcements worth billions of dollars and have done many things. This bill coincided with an announcement of multiple billions of dollars to tackle this issue, but the issue still remains after 11 years of broken promises.

I wonder if my colleague feels confident that the Liberal government will spend that money effectively on behalf of first nations and taxpayers in order to solve the root cause of this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am counting on my colleague from Edmonton Northwest to be the watchdog on this issue when witnesses come before the indigenous and northern affairs committee to speak on these issues. Access to a source of drinking water will also be a major issue.

My colleague has a responsibility, as do all the members in the House, to think about first nations as well, because they will be the ones responsible for implementing this. There is a fundamental duty to listen. A ministerial tour that serves merely to conceal the step backward from Bill C‑61 to Bill C‑37 is not enough. There is a duty of vigilance, and I am counting on my colleague to uphold it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that struck me in my colleague's speech. He said that Bill C‑37 did not take into account the work that was done on Bill C‑61 in committee, where improvements were made. My colleague gave us a lot of examples of that. Why does he think the government did not keep these improvements? Is it just complacency? Is it because the government is not doing its homework?

Does my colleague believe that all the work done in committee on Bill C‑61 will have to be redone and repeated for Bill C‑37?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and for his consistent sensitivity to these issue, particularly as reflected in his close relationship with the Atikamekw nation. He raises an important point, namely the work that went into the legislation. I also want to bring the concern of the Assembly of First Nations into the discussion. The gradual implementation of the human right to safe drinking water must absolutely be recognized. That is fundamental. We cannot achieve the desired outcome if we do not include first nations, if this project is not developed in partnership with them. We failed to do so in the budget implementation. We have wasted time, which means first nations are not seeing the results they deserve. This should have been resolved decades ago. It still has not been. Urgent action is needed.

Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question of privilege raised earlier this week.

Data and details from Bill C-40 were leaked. For those listening, what does that mean? Bill C-40 relates to national defence. To begin with, we should recognize that this is an important matter. However, journalists were granted privileged access to parts of this bill even before it was introduced here in the House, so before members of Parliament, who were elected by the public, had a chance to review it.

Paragraph 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states as follows:

The premature disclosure of bills which have not yet been read in the House may be a breach of privilege. There is a well-established convention of parliamentary practice whereby members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures.

It seems to me that it is essential to ensure that the members elected by Canadians are able to be the first to analyze the issues that are presented in the House, such as motions and bills, so we can be the eyes, ears and voices of our constituents and ensure that we can at least give them correct information. Our role is to analyze and share information with Canadians and represent them.

The Prime Minister is showing signs of a trend. He seems to be on roll when it comes to his House of Commons attendance, to say the least. This week, he rose in the House to tell us that he is new here and not familiar with the rules. That is no excuse. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for not following them. According to a long-standing code, members must be the first to know what goes on in the House of Commons because what we do here matters. Failure to follow these procedures undermines democracy.

We live in a time where people are starting to have less and less confidence in our institutions and where there are more autocracies in the world than democracies. I think that we should at least be able to expect the Prime Minister and his team to show some respect for democracy. It is not right for the government to give inside information to certain journalists to shape public opinion and get a bit of head start so that the opposition does not have time do its work.

We know that and it happened again recently. I will close with this. The Prime Minister walked away from the negotiations with the United States. We were never told why. We do not know what was left on the table and we parliamentarians have no say in the matter. The Prime Minister is building closer ties with the European Union and, at the end of last month, he went to Montreal to make an announcement about potential agreements with the EU. No one in the House knows what is going on. He said that his members are just there to vote and, unfortunately, he did not realize that he was being recorded at the time. The independent commissioners are beginning to sound the alarm and saying that he is becoming less and less transparent.

I think that someone on the other side should remind him that this is not Canada Inc. and he is not the CEO of a company. He must show respect for democracy. That is supposed to happen in the House. I think we need to get back to the basics.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is the parliamentary secretary rising on the same question of privilege?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was concerned about it being commentary rather than a clear demonstration of a violation, but it looks like the member is done, so I will withdraw my comment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix for his comments on this question of privilege. The Chair will take them under advisement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Clean Water Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is an enormous honour for me to split my time with a member of another party, but I want to stop for a moment and just say that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, with whom I will be splitting my time, is a champion for indigenous rights. I am honoured to share my time with her.

I am rising now to speak to Bill C-37, the bill that, as we know, is under debate today, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nations lands. If this sounds familiar and reads as a familiar piece of legislation for those of us who served before the last election, that is because it is virtually identical to what initially came before the House as Bill C-61.

Bill C-61 received its last reading on December 2, 2024, and it had at that point been amended. It had gone through committee and was ready at report stage. It was ready to go, in other words. First reading was far before December 2. By December 2, it had already gone to committee and come back to us. It was one of those pieces of legislation that unfortunately, as the expression goes, although it is not an expression but the technical terminology, died on the Order Paper. That was on January 6, 2025, when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued the House. All the bills, of course, as a result of that, died.

Bill C-61 was so far along and so important, along with Bill C-33, on port safety and railway safety. There were a number of other bills, such as Bill C-3, which we had come back to. Bill C-33 seems to be gone forever, but we need to bring it back.

I wrote a letter to the new Prime Minister to say that there were bills that died on the Order Paper that had substantial cross-party support, and asked him to please bring them back soon. One of the ones I mentioned was this one, Bill C-61, which was called the safe drinking water act for indigenous peoples and first nations, as well as Bill C-33. We put a lot of work into that, and that was also ready at report stage.

It took a while, obviously. March 9, 2025, was when he became Prime Minister. I wrote and said that these bills should come back soon, and that if they came back soon, we could get back to them soon. They have already gone through committee. They have already gone through study, etc.

Here we are. It is October, more than a year later, in 2026, and in many ways, an identical bill has come back to us now as Bill C-37. However, it is not entirely identical. There are some changes, and that is where I see a slipping away, an erosion, of respect from the new government toward indigenous rights, indigenous peoples and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP.

Here is the change that occurs. The other erosion of respect for indigenous rights, which we were already debating this week, is in Bill C-39, and last year, in June 2025, in Bill C-5, which fundamentally undermine indigenous rights in terms of free, prior informed consent.

This bill is a little different, and it is worth noticing the only place I have found in which the two pieces of legislation differ. In Bill C-61, clause 3.1 looks very similar to what we find now in clause 3. Clause 3.1 of the former bill, which died on the Order Paper, Bill C-61, said clearly:

It is recognized and affirmed that it is a human right of every individual on First Nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water in accordance with this Act.

It is the same in French.

This bill still has this clause. If one were reading fast, one could say it is in there. In Bill C-37, clause 3 is in regard to the “Right to Clean and Safe Drinking Water”. Here is the little change:

It is declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water, as protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

It is interesting how quickly a right can disappear. In December 2024, the government was prepared to recognize that it is a human right of every individual on first nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water. Poof, there goes the right. Now, it would be “the policy of the Government of Canada”, and what kinds of weasel words these are, “to further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water”.

It so happens that I have practised law, but I think one does not have to have practised law to notice that having a human right to something is a clear, definitive statement of a right they can exercise. It is not a teeny difference to say that we have a policy “to further the progressive realization”.

Clean and safe drinking water is a fundamental human right recognized globally. For first nations people in Canada, it is part of our shameful history that we are the sole federal jurisdiction yet to ensure that indigenous people of our country have safe drinking water, and we failed abysmally. That is not a story. It is a litany of failures that I need to repeat, including those such as Grassy Narrows and northern Alberta.

I remember that, before I was in the Green Party or even belonged to any political party, as a lawyer I attended the environmental assessment hearings on the extension of Jackpine Mine. I was at Fort McMurray. I will never forget hearing a first nations witness say that they used to go in the bush and were able to put a kettle in a stream, bring it back, put it on a campfire and make tea. They were not able to do that anymore, because the water did not taste good.

That is a result of the oil sands operations in that region: the continual daily leak of tailings ponds and the polyaromatic hydrocarbons and other bitumen-related residues that got into not just the water but the ecosystem of that entire region. I will never forget the evidence of that witness. He also said that if a deer goes into the bush there, it has to pack a lunch. In terms of drinking water, he could not make tea from the stream on the land.

I really support Bill C-61 as it then was, and I think we need to amend Bill C-37. I am sure we will hear detailed suggestions from my friend, the member for Winnipeg Centre, in a moment.

How can members of the House just accept what changed between one Parliament and another? These are not slight wording changes. I am so deeply distressed by the government, which, as far as our friends in the Conservative Party see it, is an uninterrupted Liberal government that we have had for 11 years. I feel as though we have had two different parties in this place. There was something in the past that seemed to be more committed to reconciliation.

Its commitment to climate action may have been performative, but I have to say I kind of miss the words. I also miss the policies. There has been a sharp difference, and perhaps the difference between Bill C-61 of 2024 and Bill C-37 of 2026 is the sharpest proof of difference with the person the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North, keeps telling us is the newly elected Prime Minister. I keep being pedantic and pointing out that we do not elect prime ministers in this country but elect individual members of Parliament.

However, this is not only a different government. I think it is a different party, and I lament the difference.

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

Madam Speaker, the issue of water quality has been at the forefront in many ways, including when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have had a long relationship with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Cindy Woodhouse, who has been a very strong advocate in dealing with water, so I am somewhat familiar with the urgency of the issue. Before us today, we do have legislation that would be a significant step forward.

I am hoping that it will ultimately go to committee, and I am sure the member will be able to continue to express her thoughts in regard to the issue she has raised today once it gets to committee. I would like get her thoughts in regard to whether the Green Party would see fit to support the legislation itself.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to quote a former Liberal environment minister and former Liberal federal member of Parliament, the Hon. Clifford Lincoln, a strong Liberal who cared about rights. When he resigned his seat in the Bourassa cabinet, he gave a speech in the Assemblée Nationale du Québec, where he said, “rights are rights are rights”.

This is a scandal.