Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you for making us aware. I'm sure the committee will get to that. We'll make sure that gets distributed to committee members in both official languages.

You can proceed with your questioning. Thank you.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

In your remarks you made it clear that you have to separate management and regulation. I think we've learned this the hard way in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. You can't do both things well. One of your recommendations was to move the regulatory function within the first nation. But you said perhaps this could be kicked up to a first-nations-led regulatory body that would build capacity across Canada and share that capacity with all first nations. I would love for you to tell me how you think that would look, how long it would take. Is this something that could be done quickly?

My second question is about building capacity. The community colleges, the polytechnics, the aboriginal polytechnics—all seem to believe that governance is something they would love to be able to teach everywhere. They want to begin to build that capacity. Can you tell us where that's working, or how you would roll it out more generally?

My third question has to do with paperwork and forms. You spend more time filling out forms than doing the job. Are there some streamlining methods that would allow this important work to be done in a simpler way?

[Laura Edgar]

As to the regulator versus the operator, whether or not this should stay with the first nations will depend on the function. For example, zoning would be okay, because the first nation can get a regulator and they are regulating businesses and other such things. But when you get to things like waste water, do you want the first nation operating the treatment plan also making its own regulations? There are a number of options for delegating that authority to other bodies. It could be delegated to a tribal council or a technical body like OFNTSC. The challenge there is that the tribal councils are creations of the first nations themselves, so it's not a full separation of regulator and operator.

The other option is to go with the province. But first nations do not necessarily want to work with the provinces. That becomes a real challenge, but that is where most of the capacity for these kinds of functions resides. There could be a way of working with the provinces. That's why we made the suggestion of creating a first nations unit within a provincial government. In the shorter term, first nations would be hired and they would be building their capacity within the government. Perhaps in the longer term they could separate out and become their own regulatory entity and do the oversight.

I don't know how long something like that would take. Anything tripartite tends to take time, but these would be some of our recommendations for ensuring separations between the regulator and the operator.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

We've heard, especially in certain communities, that using provincial standards is sometimes a great problem in places where there's much knowledge but little facility in writing a written test. What about an oral test? A person might have encyclopedic knowledge of every bacteria, every emergency procedure. Could such a system be designed by first nations for first nations?

[Laura Edgar]

Sorry, we're talking about—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The certification and the regulation.

[Laura Edgar]

It's possible.

I don't know all the provincial systems that well. In Ontario, with OFNTSC, they do a lot of capacity-building work, and they have made adjustments to keep valuable people—oral testing, grandfather clauses, and things like that.

As to the broader system of certification, the provincial regulations are there. If they are incorporated into a first nation, there are challenges. There would need to be adaptations on a number of fronts to make it relevant to a first nation. But first nations expect the same quality of drinking water and environmental protection as everyone else. They expect the same things, so some of that stuff has to be there.

[Marion Lefebvre]

I would make one observation about your initial comment. It may be the case that trying to go immediately to a national structure is seeking perhaps the most comprehensive and perhaps the most useful structure, ultimately, but a lot of work can be done from region to region, province to province.

Setting the goal of looking to that kind of aggregate, in the first instance, might be a much more constructive way to build the pattern and support and knowledge of the capacity-building process to eventually lead to a national structure, because there are a number of provincial aboriginal organizations that I think are in a position to want to move very quickly in this regard.

I certainly wouldn't want to assume that the only option—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

No, I was thinking that maybe that was what Ms. Edgar had said. But you're saying you can do it step-wise.

[Laura Edgar]

Step-wise, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much. The time has expired.

Mr. Wilks, for seven minutes.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have three questions for you, and then I would like to get back to the waste water treatment that you're speaking of.

Certainly the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development officials have appeared before this committee several times, and they've advised that participating first nations are recommending an amendment to the first nations land management agreement that would eliminate the requirement for EMAs.

I have a three-part question for you.

The first one is this. In your review of the environmental protection agreement and FNLM, were any issues raised relating to the EMAs in that context?

Secondly, in your opinion, what would be the purpose and effect of eliminating EMAs required from the FNLMA? And I sound like I'm on Facebook right now—OMG.

Thirdly, and, Laura, you touched on this, do you have any concerns that eliminating the requirement of EMAs could lead to environmental protection laws that in some instances would not match the standards of provincial and/or municipal laws or regulations?

I'll let you answer those three and then we'll carry on.

[Laura Edgar]

In terms of the first question on whether the issue was raised, no, it was not during our work, but that was almost four years ago. So it could have come up since then.

In terms of the effect of eliminating EMAs, what I like about the EMA is that it is actually like a work plan: how are we going to get this done? Does it have to be that formal? Probably not, but there needs to be some framework, some sort of agreement on how we are actually going to get this implemented.

In terms of the gaps, I think the act itself covers enough in terms of requiring consistency and things like that, but the lack of an EMA on its own probably isn't going to have an impact on the environment.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Further to that, Dr. Bennett was just speaking in regard to waste water and water treatment centres, and certainly we conform to a national safe drinking water standard. The problem you have, and I'll speak specifically to British Columbia and then specifically to Interior Health.... Ms. Duncan may be able to speak to the Vancouver side of it with regard to the health authorities, as the health authorities in British Columbia then come along with a different standard. In fact, they have what they call a five, four, three, two, one, zero standard, which just about sounds impossible. Interior Health has that standard.

What we have found with first nations and municipalities...and I'll speak to the municipality where I was the former mayor, which was Sparwood. We've never had a problem with any form of turbidity, with any form of anything. We test our water once a day. It's sent to an independent laboratory in Calgary. But IHA doesn't recognize the national drinking standard; they fall to the provincial standard.

So my question is, if first nations determine that they wish to go on their own, we do have a federal standard in place that they could follow for safe drinking water? Would your recommendation be that they follow the national standard? Or do we convolute the problem and bring in the provincial standards?

[Laura Edgar]

Oh, that's a question....

The institute has done a considerable amount of work on drinking water. I don't know about B.C. specifically, but again, I'll just say that there are national drinking water quality standards.

There is not an effective regulatory regime for drinking water at the national level. There is one at the provincial level, along with all the support systems that requires. Again, if first nations were to incorporate by reference provincial ones, changes would need to be made. It's not a wholesale “here you go”, but to me it makes the most sense for a first nation to have the same drinking water requirements and all of that as all of its neighbours do. That just makes sense to me.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Further to that, and Dr. Bennett alluded to it as well, with regard to waste water treatment systems, depending on the system, it depends on how they get training and at what level they are. As operators, they can be at either level 1 or level 2. The ones I'm familiar with are level 2 operators. It takes about seven years to get trained to be a level 2 operator. For level 1, you can be there after around one year.

The problem with level 2 operators is that.... Let's use the Nisga'a as an example, because that's at around 1,500 people, or maybe fewer than that, not including Greenville and Canyon City. But if we used New Aiyansh as an specific example, they would require only a level 1 operator, but it would be the optimum for them to have a level 2 if they wanted to go to a system in years to come. The problem is that you have to send that level 2 operator out to a larger centre, such as Prince George or Kelowna, and then we fall into the provincial system again, which some are very standoffish about entering into.

I do get a little concerned when I hear that we want to try to create something specific to first nations on waste water treatment, because there is a standard law that comes along with that. I'm quite concerned that if we didn't follow the provincial standard, we could run down a road that we don't want to run down.

My question, then, further to what Dr. Bennett said, is with regard to waste water treatment. Where first nations are standoffish with regard to dealing with the province, how do we get by that hurdle? It is really difficult to say, “You're going to be able to do this, but the rest of the province has to do that.”

[Marion Lefebvre]

I think that's an issue that eclipses this particular topic.

What I think from our institute's point of view is that it's not looking at it as a measure that undermines the jurisdiction and authority of the individual first nation, but as a measure that starts to reinforce for that individual first nation the opportunity for growth, for economic diversity, and the opportunity for an expansive service arrangement, if there is compatibility, in the actual application of the jurisdiction they're exercising, with neighbouring jurisdictions. So it's creating the environment, let's say, in which you can present this material as something that will generate opportunities as well as quality of life for reserve citizens, as opposed to looking at it as a prohibition on the exercise of their individual jurisdiction.

It's as basic as trying to present that information as clearly and non-judgmentally as possible, I think, because you've pointed out exactly what it implies: more costs up front and a longer delay in having the actual technical capacity to operate in their own domain. But if you're building a regulatory regime, you're doing it for the very long haul, for very long-term benefits. In our view, this is the goal that offers the most long-term benefits for the most.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Duncan, for five minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to follow up from the questioning.

I sat on the board of ECO Canada for seven years. That is the environmental careers organization; it's the environmental sector table of the federal government. After the problems with contamination of water, including in first nations communities, to its credit the federal government established, through ECO Canada and through community colleges, the BEAHR program—specific training at a level where there might be a literacy problem. Are you aware of that? I don't know how far spread that is, but I know certainly in the Prairies there are partnerships, and I'm thinking also in B.C., so that first nations members are going to be running waste water and safe drinking water facilities. Actually, you can go to specialized training. My understanding is that the tribal colleges would also like to do this, but they just had all their federal funding cut.

[Marion Lefebvre]

I think you're referring to the circuit rider program?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No. The circuit rider program is where they send in a federal official, or a provincial person in some jurisdictions, supposedly to teach but they end up just solving the problem. There has been a program to train first nations people in community colleges, but maybe you're not aware of that.

[Marion Lefebvre]

I'm aware just in terms of the subject matter, not more than the subject matter.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

Go ahead Jonathan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Ms. Edgar and Ms. Lefebvre, good morning.

I have a brief question, but first of all I want to give you some context.

I worked as a lawyer for two years for my band council of the Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam nation. In the course of my work, a situation was brought to my attention concerning a gas station that had been in business in my community for about 20 years. There had been no environmental analysis of the site or of the condition of the station's tanks.

What resources are available to communities, both those who are signatories to the First Nations Land Management Act, or function in compliance with it, and those who are not? What resources are available to deal with that type of situation, which could have serious environmental repercussions?