Sébastien Lemire

“This bill steps into areas that Quebec controls. The group the minister made to work on it has no members from Quebec, so our people have no voice.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the day that the bill was introduced, the minister announced that he was going to work with the Soil Conservation Council of Canada to create an agricultural soil health strategy. That is nice, but the council he created includes no representatives from Quebec. Not only is he introducing a bill that encroaches on Quebec’s jurisdictions, but there are no Quebeckers to make their voices heard in Ottawa. Is there a problem?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill steps into areas that belong to the provinces. If we care about soil health, we should fund university research instead of creating a federal plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was so long that we thought she was filibustering. We are accustomed to it. I serve with her on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and I recognize her patience. I was pleased to hear from her today. One of the things our regions have in common is the academic work done there. The University of Guelph is renowned for its work on soil. The same is true of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Institut de recherche en agriculture et agroalimentaire. In that context, yes, there are collaborations. For anyone really interested in soil health, would it not have been more appropriate for her to speak out, as my colleague suggested, against the cuts to science and research, and to propose investments in our university research chairs so that more data could be gathered, rather than encroaching on provincial jurisdictions?”

“This bill turns the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation. This means watchdogs like the procurement ombud cannot check on its work. I want to know if my colleague is worried about this loss of oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which was, I must say, forceful and very firm. We know that transforming the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation means that certain watchdogs, such as the procurement ombud, will not be able to scrutinize its activities. Is that a concern of my colleague’s?”

“This bill creates a defence agency that the Auditor General cannot fully check. The government is using this setup to avoid public oversight and reward friends with top jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his foresight and for urging everyone to open our eyes so that everyone understands what is going on here. This is no ordinary approach, and he has rightfully denounced a form of collusion or, at the very least, proximity, which is the key factor in securing a “prestigious” position. As a taxpayer, I am concerned. There is a fundamental function in this Parliament: that of the Auditor General. However, we know full well that an agency like this cannot be thoroughly audited by the Auditor General. The AG does not have access to the same information as she would if the agency fell under the responsibility of the department, as it should. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on any other possible ways the government might be able to pull a little stunt like this and avoid being accountable to the public, which will benefit the Prime Minister’s friend.”

“Transparency is a big issue in this debate. An agency is not held accountable the same way a minister is. I want senior officials to give us a briefing to explain the differences, and I want to hear my colleague's thoughts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague speak about the lack of transparency. This issue has come up frequently, and it is important because it goes to the heart of the debate we must have as members of Parliament. We must remember that an agency would not be subject to the same standards of accountability. I believe the government should provide us with a briefing on this matter. It would be useful to hear senior public servants outline the differences between having an agency and having a minister responsible for public expenditures. This is clearly a major concern for my colleague. I would like to hear her views on the matter.”

“This bill promises a lot of money, but government funds are limited. My region could benefit from defence work, but handing this work to a new agency is undemocratic. It will make it harder for Parliament to track spending and keep the government accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, judging by this bill’s generosity, one would think Christmas had come at Halloween. It seems to have goodies for absolutely everyone. The reality, however, is that there is only so much money to go around, unless the government increases the deficit even more. It is true that, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there are opportunities to be seized in the defence sector, whether in rescue training, ballistic defence system development, ammunition or weapon disposal, or military equipment repair. The region has a lot to offer. However, I think that handing this responsibility over to an agency is undemocratic and reduces transparency. As members of Parliament, how can we ensure that such an agency will be accountable when we know very well—as my time on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has shown me—that this type of structure serves to curtail accountability?”

“I want to know what the member thinks about the bill using the phrase 'best efforts'. The government promises to try its best, but it makes no real promises. Can we trust them?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her comments. I would like to know what she thinks of the phrase “best efforts”. It keeps cropping up in the bill. How much confidence does she have in this oil-friendly government, which says it will do its best without any concrete commitment from the minister?”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Safe drinking water is a human right. We must work directly with First Nations to fix this, because the government has wasted too much time. This problem should have been solved decades ago, and we need to act now.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Billy Morin

“I want the committee to watch this water bill carefully and listen to First Nations. They will be the ones who have to carry out this law. The government must not use tours to hide that this bill is weaker than the old one.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Tim Watchorn

“This bill does not do enough to train workers. It also needs to make sure the government shares water quality data with First Nations. Band councils need this information to protect their people's health and manage their own water.”

“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.”

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“The government promises billions of dollars to First Nations but never actually spends it. This happens because the government ignores local knowledge and band councils. The government needs to respect and build up the expertise of First Nations communities.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 92% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Billy Morin

“First Nations must be in control of their own communities. Quebec has worked with the Cree people for fifty years, and it works. They got funding, built up their own skills, and improved their infrastructure while keeping control of their own future.”

“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.”

• 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 Jacques Ramsay

“First Nations do not trust the government on this issue. They did not agree to the details in this water bill beforehand. The government has a majority and says it will not change the bill, but it must be open to making changes.”

“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.”

“I agree that First Nations need clean drinking water, but this bill is too weak and comes far too late. It is a watered-down version of an earlier bill that First Nations groups already agreed on. It takes away the clear promise that water is a human right, weakens protection zones, and only asks the government to make its best efforts instead of making firm commitments. We must send this bill to committee and fix it so it actually guarantees clean water and respects provincial powers.”

“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.”

“The government took decades to act on clean drinking water for First Nations. There are still 35 communities under boil water advisories, down from 60 in 2021. This long delay harmed people's health and lives. I want the member to tell us if that delay was justified.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sincerely standing up for his constituents, particularly those in indigenous communities. The Liberal Party, which forms the government, has waited decades before taking action, despite successive reports from the Auditor General. It has allowed disputes with first nations, who have been calling for this right, to drag on for decades. I would remind members that the Auditor General said that, in 2021, there were still 60 boil water advisories in effect in first nations communities. Today, we are happy to hear that, in 2025, that number has gone down to 35. There has been some progress. However, some people have been affected by this for decades. Now the government is saying that this is great and that it will be able to fix the problem. However, it is mainly the Liberal government’s lack of action that led to this situation, particularly when it comes to health, and which is affecting the quality of life of generations of first nations members who live in these communities. Can my colleague tell us whether this delay is justified?”

“This bill is a step backward and ignores work we already did. The government's funding promises are unrealistic. We lost a year that could have been spent fixing First Nations water systems and training workers. It took decades of reports to show the government failed to deliver clean drinking water. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, meegwetch to the member for Edmonton Northwest. It was refreshing to have him here and at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where I had the chance to sit with him for a little while. Let us talk about Bill C-37. Obviously, a great deal of work had been done on Bill C-61, yet what we are seeing now is a step backward on the part of the government. All things considered, I find there is something naive about the government telling us it is going to provide funding. How does my colleague view this naivety? Does he feel that we have lost a year, a year during which those funds could have been invested in concrete solutions for first nations and in building the expertise and workforce needed to properly manage drinking water systems? Should it also not have taken years and years of reports from the Auditor General, over the course of virtually decades, before this government’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities regarding safe drinking water for first nations was finally called into question? I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.”

“The new water bill is worse than the old one. First Nations leaders say it no longer calls clean drinking water a human right. I want the minister to tell us what else the government took out of this bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the House of the leadership shown by the former minister of indigenous services, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, on this issue. She held consultations to build a strong consensus among the parties. From what I understand from the answer that the minister just gave us, the only difference between Bill C-61 and Bill C-37 is that more money is going to be invested. That is not true. Unfortunately, that is a bogus excuse. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Francis Verreault-Paul, is of the opinion that Bill C-37 no longer explicitly recognizes access to drinking water as a human right, a right recognized by the United Nations, and that some aspects of the bill represent a step backward compared to Bill C-61. My question is simple. What has the minister backtracked on?”