I start by thanking the committee for making time and paying attention to our submissions on Bill C-61. I'm here as a legal counsel to the Blackfoot nations so, of course, I have to speak in support of the amendments they're seeking, but before I get into those points I'd like to speak from a personal perspective.

I had my first file about unsafe drinking water at a first nation 20 years ago, and there's been a constant flow of those issues ever since. I shouldn't be in front of this committee, 20 years after the fact, asking Canada to do the right thing on first nation drinking water. I'm not indigenous, and like most Canadians I have the good fortune to turn on the tap in my home or office and not give a second thought to the water that comes out of the tap.

However, I spent a lot of time in first nation communities, hearing from people who live first-hand with water that threatens their well-being on a daily basis. I saw elders in tears as they recounted having to struggle physically to get bottled water into their homes. I saw dirty, smelly water coming out of a fountain in a first nation school, and perhaps one of the most shocking moments to me was seeing a billboard that was pretty much permanent, warning people in the community that there's a do-not-consume order.

Just imagine that for a moment. We all focus heavily on drinking water advisories and boil-water advisories. That community, literally every day, gets up and they can't boil the water. They can't drink it or they'll get sick, and that's been in place for a number of years.

The unsafe drinking water in first nation homes, schools and community buildings is among the worst kind of discrimination our country has inflicted on first nation peoples. It's a disregard for their humanity. I'm happy that Canada took steps to address this over the last few years, but it's not enough and more has to be done. Bill C-61 is a good start, but it asks first nations, despite Canada's legacy, to trust that new best efforts will be enough to ensure safe drinking water in their communities. With Canada's legacy of discrimination against first nations in general, and particularly with regard to unsafe drinking water, it's irrational and indefensible to ask first nations to trust that.

This is why Bill C-61 needs at least one very critical amendment. It's time to stop with half measures. Do the right thing by expressly recognizing that first nations people living in their communities have a human right to turn on the tap and face no risk to their human health or well-being. Nothing less is acceptable. The proposed amendment recognizing that first nations have a right to safe drinking water is critical to reconciliation as well and is consistent, as Chief Crowfoot pointed out, with over a dozen AFN chiefs and assembly resolutions from 2011 to 2023, which I provided to the clerk of the committee.

The amendment will address what's a very common—the most common—criticism from first nations about the bill: It doesn't do enough to ensure that first nations will be assured access to safe drinking water. Canada endorsed the UN resolution 64/292 on the human right to safe drinking water. Did it mean it or not? It references that resolution in the preamble, which means it's within the scope of the bill, but it's lip service if it's not in the body of the legislation.

Funding is also fundamental. It's been about 18 years since the expert panel on safe drinking water concluded that resources, a lot of them, are needed before regulation happens. As we know, that was the key failing of the first crack at this kind of legislation: It wasn't backed by resources for first nations.

While the $6-billion commitment—now—that accompanies the bill will finally address this, I think it's important to note that the funding commitment, although it flows from the class action, the minister has clarified, in writing, to a number of first nations that the funding is for all first nations in Canada.

However, there's still a serious funding issue with the bill. There will be a two-tiered level of access to the $6 billion in water infrastructure funding. The 271 nations under the class action will have access to a binding third party resolution process. This means that, if one of those communities, for example, gets an engineering assessment done of their system that identifies a $10-million need and ISC says, “No, here's $7 million,” the community has recourse under sections 9.06 to 9.08 of the settlement agreement to bring that to a binding dispute resolution process and compel ISC to fund the full $10 million.

This is a critically important funding mechanism that will not be available to 348 first nations across the country; 60% are going to be left behind and at the the mercy of ISC in making decisions. I think it's really critical—