Bill C-61

First Nations Clean Water Act

An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands

This enactment affirms that the inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , includes the jurisdiction of First Nations in relation to water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nation lands. It sets out principles, such as substantive equality, to guide the provision for First Nations of clean and safe drinking water and the effective treatment and disposal of wastewater on First Nation lands. It provides for minimum standards for water quality and quantity and wastewater effluent. It also provides pathways to facilitate source water protection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 115 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I want to start by recognizing that we meet on the ancestral and unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples and, as always, express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former, grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times, and when you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. I want to thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses. We have, joining us by video conference, Ms. Merrell-Ann Phare. In person, we have Chief Lance Haymond from the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, and Chief Sheldon Sunshine from the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation.

Thank you, all, for being here today. There will be up to five minutes given to you for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questioning. It might be that there is a bit of Euro Cup fever happening, but I'm going to be using this yellow card once we have 30 seconds left. Then I'll use a red card when the time has elapsed.

With that, I want to welcome you. We'll start with Ms. Merrell-Ann Phare.

I invite you to give an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That concludes our third and final panel today.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and for their testimony as we start the study of Bill C-61.

That will conclude this portion of the meeting.

We are going to go from public to in camera for the next part of the meeting, so we will briefly suspend.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I do want to believe what you are saying. I want to believe, but I've been told that Bill C-61 was tabled. You were invited by Chief Moonias. They requested the federal government to come to the Neskantaga community and present to the community on this proposed legislation. You did not go to the community to consult with the people.

We all know that Neskantaga First Nation has had to boil water for the last 28 years. They invited you to the community. You did not go to their community. I do want to believe you, but if you haven't responded to Chief Moonias, how can we believe that you will be delivering this? We need to bring back source water protection to indigenous jurisdictions.

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

Regarding the general provisions, I'd like to ask you a question about clause 37, which deals with immunity.

In light of recent research on the impact of environmental factors and lifestyles on indigenous communities, how does the government address the liability of companies and organizations responsible for pollution, the use of hazardous chemicals and other practices that may cause detrimental epigenetic changes in individuals and their descendants, in Bill C‑61? Are these responsibilities given to indigenous people, or does the government assume responsibility?

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

Does the bill respond favourably to all the preliminary remarks made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, Mr. Pedro Arrojo‑Agudo, at the conclusion of his visit to Canada, in Ottawa, on April 19, 2024? He had been highly critical of Canada on the subject of first nations. Is Bill C‑61 intended to address this international criticism of Canada?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Yes. Thanks to the funding, there has been significant investment in the water space, including in operations. That was recognized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer a few years ago. But as it relates to Bill C-61, the funding framework that we had talked about previously outlines a number of things that must be considered as part of that framework, including the actual costs and the operations and maintenance of systems. It's considered in this bill under the financing section, as are many other things.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's fine. I have one more question for you.

When it comes to drinking water management in a first nation, most of the time, the crux of the problem is the lack of adequate funding to maintain the system. This is often where the problem lies, as we've seen in the past. There has already been underfunding, due, apparently, to an equation that hadn't been updated.

How can Bill C‑61 ensure that the federal government will provide adequate funding to properly maintain the drinking water system? How can we ensure that there will be no funding gaps or shortfalls?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Did you give him an opportunity to review this Bill C-61?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chair.

Chief Chris Moonias of Neskantaga Nation said after Bill C-61 was introduced that he did not get the chance to review it before it was tabled. He said that this is colonialism at its finest. How was this bill allowed to proceed without the consultation of one of the main plaintiffs on this Bill C-61?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I appreciate that. The reason I ask is because it's one thing to say “consult and cooperate”, but then, of course, the minister, at the end of the day, does have the authority to make those regulations. We've heard already, in terms of just developing this legislation, that although the government is saying that it had an extensive consultation process—and I don't dispute that—there are still many first nations that are saying that they were not adequately consulted. It's not a great start.

It's saying in Bill C-61 that the minister will consult and co-operate, but at the end of the day, the minister has the authority to make the protection zone on their own.

Is that correct?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

From my understanding, there are over 600 communities that will be impacted.

My question is how many supported this bill, Bill C-61. Out of these 600 first nations bands, how many have you heard from, looking at first nations entities? How many have you consulted with?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for coming.

If I can, I'll start by saying this bill is geared to first nations. It's not geared to the Métis and it's not geared to the Inuit community. That is my understanding.

It will impact first nations governments. How many first nations government bodies will be impacted by Bill C-61?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for coming to inform us on this Bill C-61, which is geared towards first nations. It's not geared towards the Inuit community.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was thinking of addressing this topic a little later, but I feel I must do so now: water falls under natural resources, which is a provincial jurisdiction.

On the subject of other possible agreements, subclause 25(1) of Bill C‑61 raises a certain number of questions in terms of jurisdiction and encroachment into provincial areas of jurisdiction. The government should be questioned about the wording of clause 25, which allows Ottawa to enter into agreements directly with cities.

In my opinion, it would be inappropriate for such a thing to happen in Quebec. That said, has Quebec agreed to your bill? Does Bill C‑61 take into account the Quebec government's National Water Policy? Has the Quebec government given you the go-ahead on this?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you both for that. I appreciate that.

I want to speak about the water protection zones that are identified in Bill C-61 but not defined.

I think that's a clear distinction, and an important distinction. It's been left largely to future regulation on the part of the minister. I've heard some concern about how vague that could be.

I'm curious about whether there has been any pre-emptive consultation specifically on what that might look like—a definition of “protection zone”.