Yes.
Evidence of meeting #74 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #74 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Former Panel Member, Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, As an Individual
The challenge is to try to get everybody up to that level. I can't honestly say how long it would take to get everybody up to that level. The problems of water treatment operations are not that vastly different from the challenges you're looking at in housing and everything else that happens in remote small locations.
I think it's realistic to look at a five- to ten-year window over which you have almost everybody onside, but I'd be reluctant to say that you can guarantee everything done in that period of time.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Stella Ambler Conservative Mississauga South, ON
Right—or that it would cover every single one.
I would think—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Gentlemen, I just want to remind you that if you need translation devices, you do have them there.
We'll turn to Mr. Genest-Jourdain for the next five minutes.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Good morning, gentlemen.
You referred briefly to the consequences incorporating provincial water quality regulations or measures would have for Indian bands. Could you tell us more about the consequences this could have?
9:40 a.m.
Director, Dalhousie University, Centre for Water Resources Studies
The impact of provincial regulations in the Atlantic region would be significant. There are four provinces, so I think it would be significant. We created a regional framework to move away from provincial regulations, because the four provinces regulate quite differently.
Currently funding is more on a regional basis. The idea would be to make sure that, regionally, each first nation community was upholding the same standard regardless of whether they were in New Brunswick, P.E.I, or Nova Scotia.
That's an important point you've raised.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Gentlemen, has it been brought to your attention that funds have been invested in the preparation of plans to ensure the safety of the drinking water of first nations? Do you know if funds have been allocated to the implementation of such measures?
9:40 a.m.
Director, Dalhousie University, Centre for Water Resources Studies
I'm not aware of any. Through Bill S-8, I'm not aware of any.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Very well.
I am going on a bit of a fishing expedition with my last question. It is going to be quite brief.
I would like to know what you think of the consequences of industrial activity on the water tables that are being affected, and, ultimately, on the quality of water in first nations communities. Have you ever studied this issue? I did not see anything on that in your reports, but I'm quite convinced that you have a position on this.
9:40 a.m.
Director, Dalhousie University, Centre for Water Resources Studies
For the Atlantic region, industrial activities are quite a bit different from what they would be in Alberta. I'll answer from the perspective of the Atlantic region, and perhaps Dr. Hrudey could expand on Alberta.
Within the Atlantic region, industrial effluents don't pose a tremendous challenge for many of the first nations. There are maybe one or two communities that would be challenged. Given the remoteness and the proximity of where their surface water or groundwater systems are, the impacts might be less. But certainly in other places, in Ontario, Quebec, and certainly Alberta, challenges with impacts from industrial pollution could be significant.
9:40 a.m.
Former Panel Member, Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, As an Individual
The most important thing to understand is that the most pervasive and certain cause of illness from drinking water has nothing to do with industrial discharges; it's human waste, animal waste, wildlife. That's the source of microbial pathogens, and that's the thing that most commonly makes people ill from drinking water. That's what killed people in Walkerton. That's what made people sick in North Battleford.
Industrial contamination is very site specific. Obviously, there are circumstances in Canada where communities are located near industrial activities, and they may experience difficulties from industrial contamination. In my experience over the past 40 years, these cases are actually few and far between. They're not the dominant problem that we're trying to resolve.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Gentlemen, let's talk about radon gas. In Quebec, this is quite a problematic situation. Some communities can't even benefit from filters in homes, because they are already too radioactive. This is also related to mining exploration in some locations. Obviously, this ultimately affects the quality of water.
Can you give us some insight into your position on the effects of radon gas?
9:40 a.m.
Former Panel Member, Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water, As an Individual
I'm not aware of substantive problems with drinking water safety in Canada from radiation.
I don't know everything; there may be some circumstances that I don't know about. It's among the parameters that are looked at, but that's very rarely a primary problem.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Gentlemen, we want to thank you for coming today. We certainly appreciate your testimony, your statements, as well as your willingness to answer our questions.
Your testimony will be considered in undertaking our review of this bill. Thanks so much.
We'll suspend for a few minutes, and then we'll get under way shortly with the next panel.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I call this meeting back to order. We will continue with our next panel of witnesses.
For the second hour, we have representatives from Metro Vancouver as well as from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.
Coming from Alberta, I'm on a two-hour time difference. You guys are on a three-hour time difference. We know it's a little earlier for you this morning, and we appreciate your willingness to be here.
From Metro Vancouver, we have Mr. Daykin and Mr. Hildebrand. Thanks so much for joining us.
From Union of British Columbia Municipalities, we have Mr. MacIsaac. Thanks for being here.
We will begin with the folks from Vancouver. We'll turn it over to you for the first 10 minutes, and then we'll hear the submission from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.
9:50 a.m.
Ernie Daykin Director and Chair, Aboriginal Relations Committee, Metro Vancouver
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Committee members, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
My name is Ernie Daykin. I'm the mayor of the District of Maple Ridge in British Columbia. I'm also a director on the Metro Vancouver board and chair of the Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee.
As you mentioned, Mr. MacIsaac is with us from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Mr. Ralph Hildebrand, general manager of corporate services and corporate counsel and manager of Vancouver's Aboriginal Relations Committee.
At the local government level we fully recognize and support the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean, safe drinking water, and the proper disposal of waste water.
We're here today to present a local government perspective on Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, and represent some issues that are common to local governments not only in Metro Vancouver and British Columbia, but, we believe, across the country. In this regard I want to acknowledge the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which supports Metro Vancouver's views on Bill S-8. FCM's comments are reflected in some of the statements that are made in this presentation to the standing committee.
For everyone's benefit, I'll give an overview of Metro Vancouver. It's a federation of 24 local authorities, including one unincorporated area and one treaty first nation, the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation reached the first modern urban treaty with the governments of Canada and British Columbia in 2009, under the B.C. treaty process.
Metro Vancouver works well together and collaboratively as we deliver plans and regional services, including drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, plans for urban growth, manages a regional parks system, and provides affordable housing for our residents.
Metro Vancouver's population is currently 2.3 million, and over 50% of B.C.'s population live within the Metro Vancouver area. It's also home to 52,000 aboriginals, according to the 2011 census.
As I mentioned, I'm the chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee, which is a standing committee of the Metro Vancouver board. It's been established to provide advice on treaty negotiations and aboriginal relations within Metro Vancouver to the board and to individual municipalities.
A key part of the committee's scope of work is strengthening relationships with first nations. We are participating actively in two tables with Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh as part of the provincial negotiation team's monitoring of emerging aboriginal treaty and non-treaty related issues, and assessing their impact on regional and municipal governments.
The relationship building and day-to-day interaction between municipalities and first nations that's taking place in our urban setting presents a number of challenges that we feel are unique, including higher population densities, competing private interests, unique land use considerations, rapidly growing servicing needs, and limited available crown land for treaty settlements.
Faced with these complex realities, Metro Vancouver has committed to building effective, positive working relationships with our first nations. This will ensure alignment and achievement of our common interests.
The regional district has been successful in communicating regional interests on a number of emerging policies and legislation that have been developed by the senior levels of government, and ensuring its continued involvement in the B.C. treaty process.
With respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver has been concerned about the proposed legislation and its potential impact and implications for local governments since it passed first reading in the House of Commons in June 2012. Metro Vancouver has significant concerns about how Bill S-8 will affect its delivery of services in the Metro Vancouver area.
In response to Metro Vancouver's invitation in October 2012, staff representatives from the Vancouver offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada attended an Aboriginal Relations Committee meeting and made a presentation on Bill S-8. The federal representatives outlined a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on first nations lands, and encouraged Metro Vancouver to submit its input into the parliamentary process by appearing before your committee.
Given the commitment on the part of the federal government—as expressed by the federal delegations—to consider and address local concerns as providers of water services to local communities, including first nations, we're pleased to be here today and provide you with our perspective.
To clearly formulate our interests and concerns with respect to Bill S-8, Metro Vancouver drafted a position paper on that bill, the safe drinking water for first nations act. That was drafted and presented to the board in November 2012. Based on the interest articulated and the issues identified in the position paper, local governments believe that it is at the community level that the effectiveness of this bill will be tested—including funding, improvements, and the need to execute and sign servicing agreements.
As such, the Metro Vancouver position paper identifies the following issues with respect to Bill S-8. One of the primary concerns expressed in the position paper is the transfer of responsibilities. From our interpretation of Bill S-8, an obligation to provide utility services and enforcement regulations could be imposed upon local governments if the federal government and respective provincial governments enter into an agreement under which the provincial governments are obliged to compel local governments to provide water and wastewater treatment services to first nation communities. Provincial governments may create or amend legislation to impose duties and responsibilities on local government as provincial bodies established by a provincial act.
Local governments do not want to be put in this position. There's a long history in B.C. of reaching agreements for services between local governments and first nations, as evidenced by the 550 servicing agreements between local governments and nearly 200 first nations.
Level of service is another concern. It's not clear whether Bill S-8 and the regulations passed pursuant to Bill S-8 will impose new requirements on local governments, and whether a regional authority such as Metro Vancouver will be required to provide water services to all municipalities to meet the obligations imposed, or whether Metro Vancouver will be required to increase its level of service to accommodate all growth and development within first nation lands.
Local governments in Metro Vancouver are compelled to comply with a regional growth plan. The projections for population growth and development are coordinated within the planning and development of regional services, such for the supply of drinking water and disposal of waste water. The imposition of requirements to provide drinking water and wastewater services to first nation lands that are developed outside of our regional planning principles could create, or will create, an imbalance between water and sewage plans and the regional growth plan.
Another concern that was expressed is bylaw regulation and enforcement. It is our understanding that Bill S-8 would permit local governments to apply their bylaws and regulations to first nations' lands to enforce and regulate the use of water and wastewater services to first nation communities. However it is not clear how the federal government will facilitate the enforcement of local government bylaws on reserve lands regarding the provision of utilities and other services to first nations. This includes first nation lands that are subject to future applications for additions to reserves.
Another closely related concern is regulatory authority. Bill S-8 is not clear on how the federal government proposes to protect local governments regarding environmental and public health liabilities related to servicing agreements for first nation lands when local governments have no regulatory authority over reserve lands and Indian bands do not have natural persons powers to enter into contractual agreements with local governments.
The financial liabilities are another concern that have been highlighted in the position paper. Regulating drinking water on Indian reserves would have significant capacity and resource related implications for local governments. It is not immediately clear how Bill S-8 will protect local governments that provide utility services to first nations against financial liabilities when local governments do not have taxation authority over first nation lands that are serviced.
In addition to undefined financial liabilities, there are also undefined legal liabilities presented by Bill S-8. For example, with section 13, the bill appears to remove the Government of Canada from legal liabilities associated with the regulations to be developed and implemented under the act.
In this regard, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked us to seek clarification from the standing committee as to what person or body the legal liability will reside with for the regulations developed and implemented under the act.
In addition, there is a concern with funding capacity. It is not clear whether the federal government and first nations across Canada have the proper funding capacity for the proposed infrastructure improvements on Indian reserves under Bill S-8.
The national assessment report, released in July 2011, estimates that over the next 10 years the combined projected capital and operating costs to meet the water and wastewater servicing needs of the communities of the 618 individual first nations across Canada will be approximately $4.7 billion, plus a projected operating and maintenance budget of $419 million annually.
The report further notes that in 2009 the water and/or wastewater systems of 153 of B.C.'s 203 first nations were considered to be high-risk systems. As indicated in the 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, released by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, local governments across Canada also face major challenges while maintaining and managing decaying water and wastewater infrastructure to meet current public needs and minimum performance standards. The substantial infrastructure deficit is of great concern to municipal and local governments.
The upgrading and replacement of drinking water and wastewater systems will require considerable investments in many communities across Canada. Consequently, the capacity of local governments to expand the provision of water and wastewater systems and services may be limited. The infrastructure capacity gap for both local government and first nations must be closed to ensure that all Canadians have access to clean and safe drinking water.
We agree that the process needs increased funding to be successfully implemented. Bill S-8 outlines a legislative framework for managing drinking water and waste water on Indian reserves, but still lacks an adequate implementation plan, such as detail and substance required to improve water resource management on first nations' lands.
The issues I have just mentioned outline the difficulties that will be faced as a result of Bill S-8. At the local government level, when enacting plans, bylaws, and regulations that affect residents and businesses in the region, we seek input and consultation, and have other processes to ensure that we obtain a broad vision of ramifications of our actions and to ensure that we can practically address the concerns and avoid the law of unintended consequences.
Here, unfortunately, local government input in the enabling legislation is lacking. With Bill S-8, local government interests were not considered in the drafting of the legislation. Adequate communications and meaningful consultation with local governments are necessary, as local governments, we believe, will be impacted by Bill S-8.
In summary, I'd like to reiterate that local government recognizes and fully supports the need for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to have access to clean water and to wastewater disposal. To achieve this goal, senior governments must first make provisions for appropriate funding to first nation communities.
As local governments, we feel we have a unique perspective on this issue, its implementation, and potential implications. We remain hopeful that the regulations to be drafted for Bill S-8 will address the following requirements: reliable certification of water and wastewater treatment operators; binding and consistent water standards; clear oversight and reporting responsibilities; clear delineation of the roles of health, environment, and water officials, including first nations officials and their governments; clear and comprehensive monitoring and testing of drinking water; clear delineation of responsibility for responding to adverse events; opportunities for public involvement, disclosure, and transparency; opportunities for receiving expert third-party advice; available resources and funding mechanisms; and proper capital and infrastructure planning over time.
The tasks at hand are very large and challenging for any level of government, including first nations; therefore, all parties need to work together. There are significant investments that the federal government and first nations have made on this issue.
I think it's important to note that at the local government level we have also made significant investments. That needs to be acknowledged. Local governments request some clarity on cost recovery and the liability issues identified earlier, and which appear in Metro Vancouver's position paper.
Bill S-8 has potential implications for local governments. Given these issues identified, local government seeks a commitment from the federal government that Bill S-8 will be amended in consultation with local government and first nations.
Further, local government would like acknowledgement from the Government of Canada that local governments will not be affected by Bill S-8, and further, a commitment from the Government of Canada that local governments will be kept apprised and engaged in the process of developing the regulations for Bill S-8.
That concludes my remarks.
Thank you.
I'm going to pass it off to Mr. MacIsaac.
10:05 a.m.
Gary MacIsaac Executive Director, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Thank you, Mayor Daykin.
Good morning, Chair, vice-chairs, and committee members.
I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Gary MacIsaac. I'm the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, or UBCM. Metro Vancouver is an active UBCM member and, as you just heard, a provider of regional services, including drinking water and wastewater treatment. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee to speak in support of Metro Vancouver's position and concerns on Bill S-8, and I hope to provide additional provincial context on this matter.
The First Nations Relations Committee members, unfortunately, could not make the trip due to prior community commitments, and they send their regrets.
UBCM is a member-driven organization, with 100% local government membership in British Columbia. In addition to its 188 local government members, UBCM also represents six self-governing first nations members. UBCM's First Nations Relations Committee oversees all organizational policy development work related to first nations issues, including treaty negotiations, negotiations outside the treaty process, and governance reform. The committee's other key role is to focus on relationship-building between first nations and local governments through best practices and other initiatives.
With that brief overview, I would like to turn to Bill S-8. First and foremost, I acknowledge the real and substantial need for development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards, and the disposal of waste water in first nation communities. Access to clean drinking water is a basic need that must be provided as expeditiously as possible.
But as Mayor Daykin outlined, this bill has the potential to impact local government operations extensively, not only in the Metro Vancouver region, but across British Columbia and the nation. Yet it would appear that local government consultation was not sought in the development of this legislation. Early, meaningful consultation with local government not only allows potentially impacted local governments to raise concerns around issues such as service agreement and regulatory considerations, legislative and jurisdictional uncertainties, and potential financial and capacity implications, but it also allows for a mutually beneficial identification of issues at an early stage in the process. Local governments do not aim to obstruct the provision of necessary services; welcoming early and ongoing local government participation provides an appropriate forum for discussion and concern resolution.
The established role of local governments in aboriginal affairs has been recognized in agreements between UBCM and senior levels of government. This includes a memorandum of understanding with the Province of British Columbia on local government participation in the new relationship with first nations, which was renewed in 2012. Under this agreement, local government representatives serve as respected advisers to the province in treaty negotiations that affect their interests, and the province is committed to initiating contact with a local government when the outcome of negotiations will affect the local government's jurisdiction, operations, or provision of services. As a result of the 2005 new relationship vision document, this MOU was expanded to include consultation and information exchange with local governments on other agreements outside the B.C. treaty process, and on matters of mutual interest, including those that will have a significant impact on local government jurisdiction.
A MOU on communication and information-sharing between UBCM and the former INAC was renewed four times, and most recently in 2007—with the former INAC, now AANDC, indicating its interest in renewing the agreement in 2009. This agreement set out to improve communication and strengthen working relationships between INAC and UBCM, building on issues of common interest. In our view, this goal is critical not only to the local governments that provide on-the-ground services to first nations, but it also benefits senior government in the successful implementation of legislative initiatives.
With the importance of local government consultation in mind, Minister Valcourt's recent response to UBCM's letter expressing concerns about Bill S-8 was quite heartening. In it, Minister Valcourt indicated that Bill S-8 is an enabling bill that, if passed, would allow the Government of Canada to work with first nations and other stakeholders to develop regulations on a region-by-region basis, and that local governments are welcome to participate in the process, where appropriate. We appreciate the assurance that local government input will be sought, and look forward to participating accordingly.
At the core of concerns around Bill S-8 are broader concerns around local government exposure to liability as a result of the existing regulatory gap. As you know, reserve lands are exclusively federal lands and jurisdiction, outside of local government regulatory and taxation authority. Yet reserve lands are included within local government boundaries. There is an inability for local governments to regulate utility services on reserve lands, and without effective regulatory tools, local governments are exposed to financial, environmental, and public health liability if a problem arises with the local government service provided to those lands.
As Mayor Daykin previously outlined, these concerns relate to the potential conferring of service provision provided for under subclause 5(1) of Bill S-8 and to other service agreements that local governments develop in good faith with first nations. There's a real and pressing need for provincial and federal governments in collaboration with local government and first nations to develop effective legislative tools to reduce local government exposure to financial, environmental, and public health liability.
In addressing the concerns raised today by Metro Vancouver, there is also an opportunity to examine underlying regulatory issues more thoroughly.
I appreciate your time today, and we look forward to participating in the development of regulations and implementation plan pursuant to Bill S-8 as appropriate. We hope that today's presentation has aided in opening communications regarding Bill S-8 as well as ongoing and future matters of mutual concern. Both Mayor Daykin and I welcome your questions.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Gentlemen, thank you very much.
I will begin our rounds of questioning with Mr. Bevington for the first seven minutes.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you for your presentations here today. As an ex-mayor myself and a member of the FCM, I understand your basic concerns about how this is going to impact on your business, which is the provision of services.
As it stands now, would you say that the cost of the provision of water and wastewater removal in British Columbia is a cost-escalating business?
10:10 a.m.
Director and Chair, Aboriginal Relations Committee, Metro Vancouver
Yes, past and present. Metro Vancouver did a significant upgrade to the Capilano-Seymour watershed in the range of $800 million over the last number of years that's just being wrapped up. We have two wastewater treatment plants, one on the North Shore and one in the Richmond area, that are primary treatment plants now but that are going up to that secondary treatment level. It costs in the range of $1 billion-plus to put those two pieces of infrastructure into service Metro Vancouver. So it is a challenge, yes.