Billy Morin

“First Nations should decide their own future. At the meeting this week, they wanted to talk about business, land, and treaty rights. Instead, the Prime Minister brought up getting rid of the Indian Act. I want him to explain why he is bringing up an old idea that causes division.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe in self-determination and first nations deciding their own paths for themselves. At Monday’s first ministers’ meeting, first nations helped determine the agenda on economic partnership, land, and treaty rights, but the Prime Minister could not focus on that important conversation and instead resorted to speculation about abolishing the Indian Act, which was not the focus of the first nations’ agenda. Why is the Prime Minister now inviting the uncertainty and division that comes with resurrecting the Liberal Indian Act white paper of 1969?”

“The Liberals have spent billions over 11 years, but First Nations still have drinking water problems. I want to know if my colleague trusts this government to spend this new money properly to fix the problem.”

“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.”

“Quebec currently has no boil water advisories because local and provincial governments work together. Can the member share examples of these partnerships that First Nations could learn from to build water systems?”

“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.”

“We need to build this pipeline, but the Prime Minister is only using First Nations chiefs for photo ops. Photo ops are not real consultation. Why is the Prime Minister risking this major project just for good publicity?”

“Madam Speaker, let us see if we can make it three for three with the same answer. Last week, the Prime Minister smiled for another photo op with chiefs to announce a new pipeline. Conservatives know we need to unlock our resources and get this pipeline built, but announcements are not results, photo ops are not consultation and Liberals’ claiming relationships with chiefs and councils does not make it real. Chief Trevor Mercredi said that using first nation leaders in press conferences does not mean a vote of confidence. Why is the Prime Minister putting crucial major projects in jeopardy by using first nation chiefs as photo ops?”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“The government has broken its promises on clean drinking water for First Nations for 10 years. This bill is too weak. It only sets up a framework, and it will take years before anything is actually built.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great work when I sat with him at INAN. It has been frustrating to watch the last year, but it has been 10 times even more frustrating watching the last 10 years of the Liberal government. It is promise after promise broken, and at this point, I do not blame any first nation for being cynical, sad or disappointed when it comes to its record on water. This legislation talks again about a framework, and it says in there that the government is going to take another year, and it is probably going to be two more years or three more years given its record on implementing actual frameworks and actual details to change the system and get things built. At this point, the bare minimum, a watered-down version of Bill C-61, does not inspire a lot of hope going forward for first nations families or kids at all.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 30 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Tim Watchorn

“I do not support this bill. It is too weak and only does the bare minimum. The money the government promised has not reached First Nations, and communities still lack safe water. I want this law to hold the government accountable to taxpayers and First Nations.”

“Madam Speaker, this bill is, as first nations leaders have said, the bare minimum. The Liberals are going to take best efforts to do the bare minimum, and it is a watered-down version of Bill C-61. When the member talks about standards, those standards already exist in the policies implemented. When it comes to the funds, the Liberals announced big funding. For the first nations, the funding announcements and the billions of dollars go over their heads because they are still suffering from water shortages, hepatitis A outbreaks and kids and families going without. When it comes to money, I would like to see the government be more accountable. Maybe this legislation could be more empowered to keep the government accountable to taxpayers, to first nations and to those kids and families who are suffering the most.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals broke their promise to end boil water advisories, and they only introduced this bill because First Nations sued them. The bill uses weak language, does not guarantee long-term funding, and the government is still fighting First Nations in court over water rights. I want this bill sent to committee anyway, so First Nations leaders can speak out and hold the government accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals said no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. On October 2015, the Liberal government promised to end boil water advisories on first nations by March 31, 2021, which was in approximately 2,000 days or six years. Like so many things with reconciliation, the Liberals never lived up to their word. Since their deadline came and passed, an additional 2,018 days, or nearly six years, have come and gone. Now it has been over 11 years, over 4,000 days, since they promised to deal with clean water on first nations. There are still boil water advisories on first nations. There are still first nations wondering when the Liberals will live up to their word. The Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, must fulfill Canada’s obligations and implement Canada’s commitments set out in the Settlement Agreement, I highlight the words “settlement agreement”, which of course refers to a 2021 class action lawsuit regarding first nations’ clean drinking water, a lawsuit started in 2019 by several first nations that were, and still are, tired of the government’s negligence on water. This legislation is not derived from Liberal government leadership to do right by first nations people or water, but by the first nations seeing no other alternative but to take the government to court and force action for clean drinking water. Again, that is not the end of this. As we note today, the Liberal government continues to fight first nations in court to deny Canada has a legal duty to ensure they have safe drinking water on reserve, even as the Liberals advance this legislation. Shamattawa First Nation v. Canada was launched in court in 2022. The outstanding action by first nations is still arguing in court to this day that the government still fails in its obligations to provide safe drinking water. After failing to pass clean water legislation last Parliament as a priority, their third as the government, for the third consecutive time, it took the Liberals over a year on the last day before summer break to reintroduce their clean water legislation, much of it basically the same as Bill C-61, their previous bill in the last Parliament. That is how the Liberals treat what is, according to them, their most important relationship in the country. That is the Liberal record on reconciliation. I ask them, is this the Liberal way of keeping their word? Let us also not forget why this legislation is here in the first place. It talks about it right in the legislation itself. Section 33 of this bill says: It is no wonder that first nations like Shamattawa, St. Theresa and others in rural northern Manitoba feel they have no other option but to fight in court. Since April 2025, at the same time that the Liberal government was re-elected, those nations have been devastated from an ongoing hepatitis A outbreak, exacerbated by long-standing challenges such as a lack of clean drinking water, adequate sewage and plumbing systems. In 2025, the court sided with those first nations and the Liberals immediately appealed and are still fighting first nations in court today over clean, safe drinking water. In the appeal filing, the Liberal defence via government lawyers denied that first nations have distinctly indigenous interest in the drinking water. They asserted that first nations’ interest in their own reserve land does not include water because water is not attached to the land, but flows around it and under it. I am not sure what to make of that argument. The draft of the Liberals’ Bill C-37, which we are discussing here today, in section 6 says, “jurisdiction of First Nations...[is recognized over] water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, related infrastructure on, in and under First Nation lands.” The Liberals propose to recognize first nations jurisdiction in and under first nations lands, but are in court at this moment saying first nations’ interest does not include water on their land because it is not attached to the land. Where are the principles of the government? At what point are the Liberals going to put in the real work to do right by first nations and clean drinking water? They should stop going around in circles wasting money on endless conflicting dialogues. They should stop fighting in court and go beyond the bare minimum ordered by that court to have kids and families gain access to life’s basic necessity. What does this legislation actually do? How will it lead to them keeping their promise and how will it get the kids and families that life-giving necessity? How will it help end a boil water advisory for Neskantaga, which has been under a boil water advisory now for 30-plus years? Entire generations of a community know no reality of what it means to turn on a tap and drink safely. First, this bill says that first nations should have substantive equality, which means they should have the same accessibility to clean, safe drinking water as non-first nations communities. That is a good thing, but when you consider the policies that Indigenous Services Canada has implemented today, those policies already acknowledge that Health Canada standards, such as for effluent quality and waste-water treatment, and federal guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality apply. Will turning a policy into legislation regarding standards actually change anything the government is doing? No. As many first nations leaders have said already regarding this bill, it is a watered-down version of the previous legislation that says it will make best efforts to do the bare minimum. After 11 years, this is the best the Liberals can do to an already long-time policy and say it is now legislation. Next, this legislation has the government’s favourite word to give first nations to imply the government is actually doing something when it is really not. It is “framework”. First nations wanted to be empowered yesterday on upskilling more clean water and waste-water operators. They want to know their new and old systems will be adequately supported by the fiduciary responsibility of the government. They want to know if they can enforce accountability in the system. Remote communities want to build faster and more effectively. They want testing capacity. They want adequate, predictable funding beyond two-year ISC contribution agreements and/or beyond one government budget cycle. In the case of northern Manitoba rural first nations, they want things in place to stop a hepatitis A outbreak. A framework does not do that. Kids and families cannot drink or bathe in frameworks. Saying a policy is now legislation will do nothing to stop their hepatitis A outbreak. Finally, the government told first nations and Canadians it is committed to meaningfully implementing UNDRIP, including the aspects of clean water. Evidence shows that, just like its promise in 2015, this was all just political talk with no real intention of ever living up to its word. When it comes to Liberals keeping their promises of ending boil water advisories, this legislation now says the government will make best efforts. When it comes to implementing UNDRIP, this legislation now says it is “guided by”, key words distinctly different from “according to our direct implementation record”. This reflects their 2026 report on the implementation of UNDRIP, Bill C-15, where the government said it would make all laws compatible with UNDRIP. With its fifth report, which was just released a few months ago, we now know that 125 of 181 action plan items the government developed alongside a handful of just a few first nations people are either paused, not started or incomplete. The Liberals know they say UNDRIP just because they think it is politically convenient and advantageous to say so, but their rhetoric is catching up to them, and it is becoming more divisive, especially in B.C., for all Canadians. Take, for instance, the funding announced. This is not statutory funding, by the way, as part of this legislation. The Liberals announced this alongside the bill as part of the budget. The minister said it was the largest historic investment in water, but the immediate reaction of first nations was that they had heard this before, in fact a number of times. How many consultants who exploit first nations have been made rich off these Liberal money announcements while families on reserve go without? What the Liberals do not seem to understand is that it is not just about a podium announcement, consultations or money contributed. First nations are focused on the results and accountability. First nations are no longer judging the government by its fake photo ops and announcements. As Chief Mercredi warned them last week, first nations leaders at announcements does not mean a vote of confidence. I will come full circle. I stand here speaking not for all first nations, but as one first nations person in this House holding the government accountable. My voice reflects the disappointment, frustration and lack of hope many first nations feel regarding the Liberal government on its record on reconciliation and water. Conservatives believe first nations deserve respect, clean drinking water and a government that keeps its word. Too much time has passed. There are still crises 30 years old regarding water. Despite the shortcomings of this bill, we would like to see it get through this House to the next stage at committee, where first nations voices again will help us keep the government accountable.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “On behalf of the Government of Canada.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“I want everyone to agree to let me share my speaking time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.”

“Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.”

“A court ruled against the government over clean drinking water for First Nations, and the government appealed it. I want the minister to explain why they are still fighting First Nations in court.”

“Madam Speaker, the government appealed a 2025 ruling against it when it came to its failures on first nations clean drinking water. The Liberals immediately appealed the decision. Can the minister explain why they appealed and why they are still fighting first nations in court regarding clean drinking water in first nations?”

“The government has been in power since 2015 and promised back then to end boil-water advisories. I want the minister to answer yes or no: will the government keep that promise?”

“Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the minister’s work on the file. It is a very difficult file. She referenced the work that has been done by the Liberal government since 2015. I have a quick comment about the work done by government. In the House, just this week, when asked about affordability, the Prime Minister said, “I just got here.” In 2015, the Liberals promised to end boiled water advisories. The fact is that they did not just get here. I am wondering if the minister can confirm, yes or no, if they are going to keep their promise to end boil water advisories.”

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“I do not support this bill. The government needs to fix the negotiators inside its own departments, not create a new office that is set up to fail.”

“Madam Speaker, the government’s principal direction with this legislation is a little misguided, or a lot misguided. There are commissioners negotiating and treaty negotiators within the departments themselves. I just visited a nation this summer that said it was insulted by the government sending a young, first-time public servant, and I feel sorry for that public servant, but it was an insult to those nations. I think the government should be concentrating on the department negotiators themselves, rather than a mechanism it knows is set up for failure to ultimately hold it accountable, which is going to go nowhere.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Grant Jackson

“I oppose this bill. Existing treaty commissioners do nothing to help the government keep its promises, which has led to record numbers of land claims and lawsuits. This new office will not be any different.”

“Madam Speaker, today’s discussion primarily revolves around modern treaties, but I actually come from the historic treaties. It is Treaty 6’s 150th anniversary this year. In fact, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they have treaty commissioners. I understand there was some minimal engagement with the design of those offices, but today those offices do nothing themselves to serve the treaty obligations in terms of meaningful impact. We are seeing historic record numbers of land claims, historic record numbers of lawsuits against the government, because of a lack of actual substance in these commissioners’ offices. I do not see anything different with this one, despite a lot of the work that has gone into it.”

In response to a question from Doug Eyolfson

“I support passing this bill because First Nations worked hard on it. But it only does the bare minimum. It should go further and create less bureaucracy.”

“Certainly, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the years of work from those nations that have gone into this. However, I think that after 11 years of Liberal government, they have been beaten down so much that the bare minimum actually sounds great to a lot of people. We can look at the water legislation. It has come back to the table, as was indicated earlier, and their latest complaint is that the legislation has completely ignored first nations’ consultation over the last year. For this one, just to get it over the finish line, I get where the nations are coming from, but it could go further. It could go to a lot less meaningless bureaucracy at the end of the day.”

• Echo ×25

  A repeated line

  “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

  Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

  Every time it was said →

“I support modern treaties and Indigenous self-government, but I do not support this bill as it is written. It creates another Ottawa office that writes reports without the power to fix problems. The government already ignores reports on drinking water and health care. This new commissioner cannot handle 30 different treaties alone. Unless we change this bill to force the government to actually take action and follow through on treaties, it should not pass.”

“Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. I rise today to speak on Bill C-10 and the important question of how Canada honours its modern treaties and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples. Let me begin by making something very clear. Conservatives support modern treaties and self-government agreements. We believe these agreements can provide certainty, establish clear legal relationships, recognize indigenous jurisdiction and create stronger foundations for economic development and self-determination. For generations, the relationship between first nations and the federal government has been shaped by the Indian Act. It has created dependency, bureaucracy and a system in which too many decisions affecting indigenous communities remain concentrated in Ottawa. Modern treaties and self-government agreements offer a different path. They can establish defined rights and responsibilities between indigenous governments and the Crown. They can provide greater certainty for communities, governments, investors and Canadians. They can support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs. From our perspective, that is the direction we should be working toward: less dependency on federal bureaucracy, greater Indigenous self-government and legally defined relationships that deliver results. The question before us is whether Bill C-10, as designed, would meaningfully advance those objectives, or would it create another federal office, another reporting structure and another process that does not adequately address the root causes of the problems? In my opinion, this legislation does nothing more than create more ineffective processes posed as solutions in Ottawa, away from the communities that have been waiting for the government to fulfill the spirit and intent of treaty-making. The government has told us that the legislation is intended to create a credible, effective, sustainable and independent oversight mechanism. This is an important objective, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask whether the proposed powers will be sufficient to achieve it. The bill would give the commissioner the discretion to conduct reviews and performance audits, establish priorities and prepare reports. The commissioner would have to submit final reports to the Speakers of both Houses, and those reports would be referred to a parliamentary committee. As a first-time MP, I have now witnessed multiple Auditor General reports on the shortcomings of indigenous relations with government. The government response is the same: minuscule and meaningless. That raises a serious question. Will this office have the power to drive results, or will it primarily document failures and report them to Parliament? Reporting is important, and transparency matters, but reporting alone does not guarantee that a treaty obligation will be fulfilled. The historic treaties that are over 150 years old can attest to this. We have seen this challenge in other areas of indigenous services. Consider the Auditor General’s work on access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. In 2021, the Auditor General reported that Indigenous Services Canada was not on track to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, which is another failed Liberal promise. The audit identified concerns involving support to communities; funding for infrastructure, operations and maintenance; and the non-existence of an appropriate regulatory framework. Only five years later, after striking out on Bill C-61 because they called an election, are the Liberals addressing these concerns with legislation that is “watered down,” according to chiefs. These are clearly not the actions of a government that takes accountability reports seriously. In 2025, the Auditor General’s follow-up examined the implementation of recommendations from six earlier audits covering programs including primary health care, emergency management and safe drinking water. The follow-up found that Indigenous Services Canada made poor progress on many recommendations, even getting worse on some measurements. These reports demonstrate why Parliament must distinguish between accountability processes and the achievement of outcomes. The lesson is not that audits have no value but that audits must lead to action. When a government department receives recommendations, Canadian and indigenous communities deserve to know what will change, who is responsible and when the work will be completed. The same principle should apply to modern treaty implementation. If the commissioner identifies a recurring failure, what happens next? Will the responsible department be required to produce a corrective action plan? Will the minister be expected to explain delays? Will Parliament be able to follow up on unresolved findings? These are not abstract questions. They go directly to the credibility of the proposed institution. This raises more questions on how this legislation lacks real teeth. How would this legislation and the commissioner’s office deal with the diversity and complexity of modern treaties? I seriously fear that the legislation would set up a parliamentary institution to fail because it lacks the foresight and legitimacy to deal with the root issues. The government has indicated that the co-development process involved all 30 indigenous modern treaty partners. That is good, but that demonstrates the breadth of the relationships that the proposed office would need to understand. Modern treaties are not identical documents. They reflect different histories, negotiations, geographical circumstances, governance structures and arrangements between indigenous governments and the Crown. Some contain detailed provisions regarding lands and resources. Others include self-government arrangements and distinct institutional responsibilities. The bill gives the commissioner discretion to establish their own priorities and determine the number and frequency of reviews, performance audits and briefings conducted annually. This would create a practical challenge. How could one commissioner meaningfully determine the priorities across such a wide range of treaty obligations and indigenous governments? Which treaty partner would receive attention first? How would competing concerns be evaluated? What would happen when a matter is urgent to one indigenous government but is not identified as a priority by the commissioner? What would happen when overlapping interests in land between indigenous communities comes into conflict? Would the commissioner’s office be able to intervene on such things? Modern treaties operate on the principle of cross-ministry implementation. How can one ill-defined commissioner’s office meaningfully navigate a 345,000-member public service system across dozens of ministries and hundreds of departments? That is a recipe for failure. The legislation would do little to to ensure that this discretion does not undermine treaty-specific arrangements or leave important implementation problems without timely attention. A strong oversight framework needs transparent criteria for establishing priorities. It should also provide meaningful opportunities for treaty partners to identify concerns and request reviews. Conservatives believe in a strong future for first nations and indigenous peoples. We believe in self-government. We believe in modern treaties. We believe that clear legal relationships between indigenous governments and the Crown can provide certainty, support economic development and strengthen self-determination. We believe that the Indian Act should not be the permanent foundation of Canada’s relationship with indigenous peoples. The goal should be to support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs with legally defined relationships and practical mechanisms for resolving disputes and fulfilling obligations. Bill C-10 should be evaluated against those objectives. If Parliament is going to establish an oversight office, it should ensure that the office has a clear and effective mandate. That includes transparent criteria for selecting review priorities, meaningful involvement of modern treaty partners, public reporting on unresolved implementation problems, clear expectations for the government’s responsive and corrective action, and regular review of the office’s effectiveness and costs. These are measures that could help strengthen accountability while respecting the distinct legal arrangements established by modern treaties. Let me conclude by returning to the principle that should guide this debate. Modern treaties are about relationships, rights, responsibilities and the future of indigenous nations and Canada. They are not simply administrative agreements to be reviewed by federal officials. They are legal commitments that require serious implementation. Support for modern treaties must also mean demanding that the federal government honour its obligations. Bill C-10 provides insufficient accountability on whether its proposed commissioner could effectively address the diversity of modern treaties and whether the office would produce meaningful results for treaty partners. Let us in this House continue to work toward a relationship between indigenous nations and Canada built on respect, certainty, responsibility and self-government, not one based on, arguably, the bare minimum in legislation that actually takes time and energy away from doing the work of building up the implementation of treaties. We cannot measure success simply by the number of audits completed or reports tabled. We must measure success by whether the treaty commitments are fulfilled by the government and treaty negotiators themselves.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →