Evidence of meeting #107 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-69.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I don't hit the gavel. I don't really want to cut you off, but I've given you almost double, again another five minutes. I do want to leave some time for the other chiefs.
Your point is well made. We have the presentation and you've made some remarks. How about we get into the details as we go through our questions?
5:35 p.m.
West Moberly First Nations
Did somebody write down my question? That's a question I'd like to get an answer to.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Absolutely. Got it.
I hate to cut you off, because we respect that you're here, and we want to hear from you.
Who would like to come up next?
April 25th, 2018 / 5:35 p.m.
Chief Harold St-Denis Wolf Lake First Nation
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have asked for a bit more time than the 10 minutes just because we know that the committee members haven't seen our brief. We did submit a written brief before the deadline, but I guess it hasn't been translated yet.
5:35 p.m.
Wolf Lake First Nation
No one has a copy of the document I'm going to read, so we'll take our time to try to make sure that we get all our points across.
First, I would thank to thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the invitation to speak to the standing committee on making amendments to Bill C-69.
My name is Chief Harry St-Denis, and I'm from the Wolf Lake First Nation. I'm here today with Chief Lance Haymond from the Kebaowek first nation. Today we represent two Algonquin first nations in Quebec.
We have provided a written brief as per the deadline, as I mentioned, with a number of recommendations and amendments for your review. I understand you haven't had time to read our brief due to the rushed timeline surrounding this push towards legislation, and as such, I will provide you with some background.
The Algonquin nation is made up of 11 distinct communities recognized as Indian Act bands. Nine are located in Quebec, and two are in Ontario. The Algonquin nation has never given up the aboriginal title to our traditional territory. This includes all the lands and waters within the Ottawa River watershed on both the Ontario and Quebec borders. Aboriginal title is held at the community level within the Algonquin nation. Our two first nations, along with the Timiskaming first nation, assert un-extinguished aboriginal rights, including title under section 65 of the Canadian Constitution.
Inherently, our lands and waters are part of the Anishinaabe Aki, a vast territory surrounded by the Great Lakes in North America. For centuries we have relied on our lands and waterways for our ability to exercise our inherent rights under our own system of customary law and governments known as Ona'ken'age'win. This law is based on our mobility on the landscape, the freedom to hunt, gather, and control the sustainable use of our lands and waterways for future generations.
That is how Europeans discovered us, as a well-established society in control of the Ottawa River watershed. We had a vast trade network supported by our own economy that included levying tolls on canoe flotillas that descended the Ottawa River from Morrison Island. We were not only the gateway to the continent but the technology provider of the only craft that could navigate the rivers ahead. In no other part of the world have water and the canoe had such a huge influence on both Algonquin culture and the development of its history post-European contact.
What we once knew and shared on our territories under treaties of peace and friendship with Europeans has been abused. Our ancestors never contemplated our territories to be industrial, nor has government legislation ever adequately protected us from industrial development. We continue to regard ourselves as keepers of our lands and waterways, with seven generations' worth of responsibilities for livelihood, security, cultural identity, territoriality, and biodiversity. This sentiment has been expressed by many other first nations to your committee.
These responsibilities stem from a history of traditional knowledge and governance on the land that provided our Anishinaabe identity as opposed to how we have been recreated by crown governments through such legislation as the Canadian Indian Act.
In response to your task of gathering information for Bill C-69 that ensures that environmental assessment legislation is amended to enhance our consultation, engagement, and participatory capacity in protecting our lands and waterways, one of our guiding recommendations is for your committee to look beyond the act itself and take into account other pieces of legislation and policy that further weaken aboriginal peoples' capacity to participate in the resource development review process, including and not limited to the federal comprehensive claims policy.
I am concerned here that various pieces of legislation, including this current proposal to combine previous legislation under an impact assessment act, will come together as an assault on indigenous sovereignty and protection of our land, air, and water. This cumulative policy effect could intentionally strip environmental protections across the country as resource development proceeds and colonialism completes itself.
Therefore, our nations are here today to seek a different but joint legislative approach with your government that provides a strong foundation for recognition, protection, and reconciliation of our inherent and constitutional rights and interests that is consistent with the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, now adopted by your government.
Today, in our presentation, Chief Haymond and I intend to give you a quick profile of our communities and our experiences related to environmental legislation on our territory, and briefly outline the problems we still have regarding Bill C-69. Specifically, we are asking the committee to make amendments to Bill C-69 concerning the following items: reconciliation; implementing indigenous institutions and a nation-to-nation relationship; troubleshooting provincial environmental legislation rather than simply relying on it; strengthening protection over our traditional waterways; and implementing indigenous knowledge and impact assessment.
Chief Haymond will now speak on three items, and then I will conclude.
5:45 p.m.
Chief Lance Haymond Chief, Kebaowek First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation
Thank you very much, Chief St-Denis, for the introduction.
Good evening, Madam Chair and distinguished committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss this important matter.
As chief of my community, Kebaowek, I represent approximately 1,000 Algonquin members. Although our reserve lands are in Quebec, our traditional territory lies on both sides of the Ottawa River basin, where our members live, work, and exercise aboriginal rights including title in both Ontario and Quebec. Our jurisdiction is transborder.
Before starting, for the record I would like to address some procedural concerns in regard to this hearing. The short time frames, short notices, insufficient funding, and very tight timelines for aboriginal communities like my own have made it very difficult to present comments.
For your reference, Kebaowek and Wolf Lake first nations did prepare comments on all environmental and regulatory environmental act reform requests by your government and participated in two expert panel sessions. We also fully participated in the AFN's technical review of Bill C-69, and we give our full support to its 25-page submission and clause-by-clause recommendations for amendments.
Regardless of our combined effort, Bill C-69 appears to have not included our key messages and resorted to a matter of tweaking CEAA 2012 over modernization. In our view, true modernization of the act does require reconciling the wrongs of previous legislation and policies that have worked against indigenous people in Canada.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Can I just interrupt you for a minute? We're going to stop the clock.
I have to get agreement from the committee that we're going to continue as we did before. Five minutes before votes, we'll go back to the House.
Thank you. Sorry for the interruption.
5:45 p.m.
Chief, Kebaowek First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation
As part of true modernization of the act, we ask you to revisit the act's original sources and acknowledge how the act's evolution over the past several decades has materialized against us. Stronger language in amendments pertaining to ecological and first nations rights protection is imperative. Otherwise, we appeal to this committee that this bill is a failed attempt at meaningful consultation with first nations communities and at modernized legislation as set out by this government.
I conclude these introductory remarks with no disrespect to your committee. Your work is both urgent and critical to all first nations in Canada. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations has a special assembly next week in Gatineau on this topic. I would urge you in all of your work leading to your final amendments to Bill C-69 to be resolute and determined that this piece of future legislation does operationalize first nations' perspectives, consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Modernized legislation must not further disparage or trivialize our assertion of territory, our environmental knowledge, our constitutional rights, and the implementation of UNDRIP.
Clearly, there is a strong link between reconciliation and environmental assessment and the protection of our rights on our territories, a link that is becoming clearer to us every day. We see our youth interested in environmental science, and Algonquin socio-ecological knowledge is growing. We see the need to develop an Algonquin institute for environmental assessments on our territory. However, our terms for reconciliation must be supported in writing in this legislation and policy.
The problem is that government is defining what reconciliation relations are as a priori to extinguishment of rights and title under a planned federal legislative framework to transition bands currently under the Indian Act into self-government agreements, or into comprehensive claims agreements or modern treaties, which the government regards as self-determination. First nations' rights and title cannot be undermined by the colonial interpretation of reconciliation.
Reconciliation should be a stated purpose within the legislation, and it should further Canada's commitment to implement UNDRIP, including our right to our own interpretations of self-determination on our territories.
Furthermore, the legislation must be consistent with the protection of aboriginal rights and title recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
In terms of our second item, implementing the Algonquin institutions and the nation-to-nation relationships, we view that our nations' values, interests, and needs can be marginalized on a regional environmental assessment table or board where our constitutional rights and interests are diluted and/or ignored by the more dominant actors. Our constitutional provisions are unique and should be treated as such.
In our presentation to the expert panel, we introduced the concept of an Algonquin institution to encourage Algonquin involvement in Canadian environmental assessments in order to pay more careful attention to the matters that are of Algonquin concern. This is desirable not only to combat the development biases of proponents and government agencies that we have experienced under CEAA 2012, but also to explore the greater role that indigenous institutions can play in the economics of environmental impact assessment and ecosystem service planning, including evolving markets for project monitoring and other environmental services.
We request that Bill C-69 be amended to authorize nation-based indigenous institutions as a governing body to exercise powers or perform duties or functions in relation to impact assessments under this act, not excluding Indian Act bands with indigenous jurisdiction over unsurrendered title territories.
In terms of troubleshooting provincial environmental legislation, rather than relying on it for assessments and information gathering, I would like to bring your committee's attention to the Government of Quebec's recent reform of its Environment Quality Act by way of the adoption of Bill 102 on March 23, 2017. You should be concerned that, for a bill having potentially such an important impact on our aboriginal title and aboriginal rights, first nations in Quebec were not consulted. Furthermore, the new consolidated version of the EQA makes no reference whatsoever to the rights of first nations in Quebec.
This is shocking to us, that 35 years after the recognition of our rights in the Constitution of Canada and after years of jurisprudence, no reference is made to our rights, nor to the need to consult and accommodate, and in some cases, obtain our free, prior, and informed consent, despite the fact that we are often the main communities impacted by damages done to the environment.
We have aboriginal rights applicable in Quebec and that needs to be reflected in legislation and any directives, in order for our meaningful participation in environmental impact assessment and review processes in Quebec.
In closing, I advocate for legislating clear and mandatory protection and enhancement of section 35 rights in both federal and delegated review processes.
Chief St-Denis will now conclude with a couple of items.
Thank you.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Can I interrupt you briefly?
Chief, just before you get going, I have given an additional four minutes.
Is it the will of the committee to continue with the witness. I know that we're taking it away from the time we have for questions.
Is it the will of the committee?
5:50 p.m.
Wolf Lake First Nation
It will be just about another four or five minutes.
5:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:50 p.m.
Wolf Lake First Nation
I would like to discuss strengthening the protection over our traditional waterways within Bill C-69. Wolf Lake First Nation is a non-reserve community and, like many first nations communities, assigns great importance to the protection of our waterways.
The 2012 amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act affected first nations from coast to coast to coast. As I mentioned earlier, the free and unencumbered use of the waterways on our territories is critical to our culture and ability to exercise a range of section 35 rights, and for other important economic purposes like running our tourism businesses.
Recently, in your parliamentary standing committee hearings, Kelly Block asked the honourable Transport Minister Garneau to provide an example post-2013 where navigation was negatively impacted due to the Navigation Protection Act being in place, and said that not one witness throughout the regulatory review hearings in 2016-17 was able to make a comment.
What Ms. Block outlined in our view was the failure in consultation and setting adequate timelines for the legislative process. Both Kebaowek First Nation and Wolf Lake First Nation were not aware of the hearing opportunity, but did describe, in our written comments on reforms to CEAA 2012 and the Navigation Protection Act, how navigation was impeded on not one, but two, locations on our territory since 2013.
These cases were not on unprotected waterways, but even worse, were on an actual scheduled waterway under the new Navigation Protection Act, namely the Ottawa River, the main highway of our nation.
The following examples demonstrate that this new idea of scheduling waterways really provides no protection for navigation under the act.
Our first example is a three-metre chain-link fence installation on the historic La Cave portage by Ontario Power Generation, while they conducted minor maintenance activities at the Otto Holden Generating Station. Here, the OPG took the liberty to install a permanently locked fence installation on our historic portage. This was without consultation or notice, and was followed by OPG's subsequent refusal to grant continued access for our community members or our canoe business clients navigation without the presentation of a third party insurance. The gate remains in place, and the issue is unresolved.
The second incident was at the Public Works Timiskaming Dam Complex replacement project on the upper Ottawa River at Long Sault Islands where Wolf Lake First Nation operates a branch of our Algonquin Canoe Company outfitting business. Here, in 2013, without the federal government acting as it should have on a major project's interprovincial project designation provisions within the legislation, and the Minister of Environment at the time refusing our request for project designation, the Public Works real property branch refused to engage in a framework for consultation and accommodation to guide decision-making regarding this development. Subsequently, all access to the lower river was impeded for portage for Algonquins and non-Algonquins alike, for over a year.
Furthermore, the Public Works-led environmental effects evaluation under CEAA 2012 completely scoped both our first nations communities and threatened lake sturgeon species completely out of the process, as Transport Canada, NEB, and DFO issued authorizations without consulting us. Once again, the watershed and our rights were impacted by this development.
The great watershed of the Kitchissippi River is an ancient trade and travel route throughout the Algonquin nation, as are the shores, islands, and portages along the route. We ask this government, why was our navigation impeded under the Navigation Protection Act on a scheduled waterway? What navigation protection assurances do we really have in the scheduling of waterways?
Furthermore, it is unclear to us whether the working group of ministers will ensure the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights within this new legislation and ongoing regulation, to provide innovative, effective, enforceable, and specific indigenous and environmental protections to the Ottawa River.
For example, Akikodjiwan is a key sacred site to our peoples. Here in Ottawa, it is also known as Chaudière Falls. Akikodjiwan was, and continues to be, a site of prayer, offerings, ritual, and peace. These activities are important work for us as custodians of our waterways and communities, as we redefine and reconcile the interrelationship between our people and the river.
We have closely examined the threats to Akikodjiwan and the Ottawa River watershed and have made recommendations to both the National Capital Commission and the Canadian Heritage minister,Mélanie Joly, that a much higher priority must be given to recognize and preserve Akikodjiwan as a key healing point for Algonquin peoples and all cultures here in the national capital region.
Therefore, as Algonquin leaders, we are together exploring all possible options that can address the legislative shortcomings impacting the protection of our sacred waterways and jurisdiction, including but not limited to the pursuit of separate legal rights for the waterways.
Wolf Lake and Kebaowek introduced a resolution at the AFN national assembly to give legal recognition for the Kitchissippi River, the Ottawa River, that explores the concept of legal identity for the watershed as a means of protection. It's attached for your reference later.
In terms of our recommendations, Bill C-69 remains overly politicized, with the minister making final decisions on the scheduling of waterways or designation of projects, and the cabinet making final project decisions after a full impact assessment process. Based on our experience, this would leave little incentive for us to participate. Similar to what we are discovering within this process to date, why put all this work into it if the government already has its mind made up?
Prime Minister Trudeau specifically promised to return lost protections to waterways in this country. That is not necessarily going to happen and is entirely at the discretion of the minister in scheduling new waterways for protection. We are requesting that the act guarantee in writing that it will schedule any waterway that first nations request to be scheduled. Without this amendment, we have little choice but to pursue legal identity for the Ottawa River watershed, because as far as we are concerned, in our view all protections have effectively been lost.
We support the opportunity that the impact assessment act is to “take into account” indigenous knowledge, along with scientific information and community knowledge. However, only “traditional” knowledge is a required factor to be considered in the environmental assessment, and the act does not go far enough to require that assessments and decisions be based on the broader scope of indigenous social, ecological, and cultural knowledge.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm just mindful that we do have votes very soon. I've given you almost 12 minutes over your 10-minute time.
6 p.m.
Wolf Lake First Nation
There are another couple of pages, but I will end it there, Madam Chair.
6 p.m.
Wolf Lake First Nation
Okay.
I would just like to finally say that when the Right Honourable Prime Minister addresses the national assembly, he opens his presentation with the same words every time: I would like to thank the Algonquin Nation, on whose traditional territory we are gathered. I want to thank them as the past, present, and future protectors of this land.
Well, Madam Chair, I think this legislation would be the perfect legislation to give life to those words and to give life to UNDRIP. I think this would be the perfect legislation for this government to prove that once and for all it's serious about reconciliation and about working with the first nations peoples.
Thank you.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
For the record, I want to make something clear, because I did see in your testimony that you were very concerned about the conduct of this hearing, as you mentioned.
For the record, the committee adopted a process right at the beginning that would be setting its operation for speaking times and speaking orders. That is applied to all of our committee work. There is nothing unique about what we have done here. We have been consistent. But as you can see, we are very generous with the time when it's required to hear from witnesses, so please do not see that as a barrier. We also do not fund apart from paying for travel, and that's consistent across all the work of committees. I apologize if there was any misunderstanding there.
I will open it up. We have 13 minutes until we have to be sitting in our chairs. We will have three minutes, and then three minutes, and then we will have to go. That doesn't give Linda anything. Let's do two minutes and see if we can....
Go ahead, Mike.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Meegwetch for allowing us to have these meetings on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. It is so important for us to have you present here today to share your words and your thoughts and your concerns with us on this important bill.
Will and I sit on the indigenous affairs committee and are studying Bill C-262 on UNDRIP. I understand from what you're saying that the rights and recognition framework, the tables, and FPIC should be recognized and embedded within this bill. Would you agree with that?