Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands
“I want this bill amended. An earlier version of it clearly said that people on First Nations land have a human right to clean drinking water. This new version waters that down to just a government goal. Clean water is a human right, and this bill needs to say so clearly.”
“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.”
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.