Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to highlight the exceptional work of water system operators in indigenous communities. In fact, I'm floating the idea of having a provision in the bill to recognize the essential work they do. Too often, we take the water we drink for granted. It's a very precious resource.

If we indicated in clause 3 that drinking water and waste water services are essential, just like police services, would that guarantee first nations that services would be funded equitably, compared to services provided to non-indigenous communities?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Just so I understand the question clearly, if it's about recognition of the important work that operators do, I agree with you. Are you asking how we entrench that recognition in terms of a funding commitment?

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

It's more the drinking water and waste water treatment services that we could recognize as essential. Consequently, this would allow us to ensure that funding is equitable and comparable to services given to non-indigenous communities.

[Nelson Barbosa]

Yes. That's a great question. I think some of those provisions are enumerated in the funding commitment section. I think they're covered, but they're open to views, absolutely. Thank you.

[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?

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question.

In the preamble of the bill, there is recognition and an acknowledgement of the United Nations' work in terms of the special rapporteur and his mandate. I will note, however, that the visit occurred after the introduction of the bill in Parliament, so we didn't have the benefit of that direct input at that time, but there is a reflection in the preamble.

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

Clause 2 of the bill defines first nations lands as lands reserved for first nations, but “They do not include lands over which Aboriginal title is claimed by a First Nation or has been confirmed by a court.”

Why make this distinction in a bill?

[Nelson Barbosa]

For clarity, on the technical side.... I understand what you're saying. Certainly, we've heard that consistently. I would just say that the parameters of this bill are clear, and they speak only to what are called section 91(24) lands, which are reserve lands for first nations. Those are the parameters to which this law would apply.

[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?

[Nelson Barbosa]

This legislation fits in a fabric of laws that exist in current-day Canada, and fills a gap that we've talked about before in terms of a regulatory gap on reserve and the recognition of rights. It's about the alignment of those things.

I think you're right. We all have a duty, as Canadians, to pass water that is both clean and safe on to future generations. A previous question was about enforceability. First nations could pass laws that create stricter and enforceable measures to protect the waters under their purview in, on and under their lands. That is a very opaque zone right now, and this legislation would knit that up.

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

I have one last question.

Would it be possible, from a first nations economic development perspective, for them to negotiate nation-to-nation, internationally, the ownership rights of water? Could they export water?

[Douglas Fairbairn]

This bill doesn't contemplate the export of water. There is federal legislation that deals with the bulk transport and export of water. This bill does not address that.

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

Thank you, meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

We'll go to our last questioner for the round and for the day today. We'll be passing the mic over to Ms. Idlout for five minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairperson.

I have a question regarding source water protection.

I have a concern, because we all know the system tried to eradicate indigenous people. Before colonialism came, we ran our own systems. We ran our water. This was all taken from us. I recognize this. We need to give this back to the people. There need to be more consultations regarding source water protection. This is my concern.

For example, if municipalities or provincial governments in Ontario or Manitoba don't want to let go of their jurisdiction regarding fresh water, how will this bill respect giving back this jurisdiction to indigenous communities? This is all part of reconciliation efforts.

[Joanne Wilkinson]

Maybe I'll start.

I will also acknowledge that this is a colonial tool in a colonial system. It will never be perfect in acknowledging what you're raising here. We heard that very loud and clear as well through the consultation and engagement processes.

The minister certainly has talked at length as well about this legacy and how it is embodied within a colonial system. That's part of why we worked very hard to break some of the traditional practices in government around the sharing of drafts, for example. That had not been done before—certainly in our department—in sharing drafts online, sharing those in advance of a bill's coming to Parliament, the sharing of those consultation drafts.

Certainly that consultation and engagement will be ongoing. We've talked a little bit about some of the clauses that say that the minister must consult, must engage and must co-operate with nations to move this work forward.

I hope that helps to answer the question.

[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.

[Joanne Wilkinson]

Thank you.

I can assure you we have not been invited to Neskantaga and not gone. I have not been invited and not gone. Our officials and the minister meet regularly with Chief Moonias. Certainly we continue to be open to having discussions with any chief and any expert, any individual who wants to continue to have these conversations.

Our team does meet on a very regular basis with Neskantaga on the water advisory and the connected issues within the community. It is a holistic approach that is needed there and that the department has responded to through Trust the Tap and those types of initiatives with the community.

I'm not aware of an invitation that has not been responded to. Certainly we'll go back and and check with our officials to make sure that, if there is any outstanding correspondence or invitations, we respond immediately.

Thank you.

[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]