Evidence of meeting #116 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-61.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I don't want to challenge your authority.
Ms. Martin‑Hill, should a system be set up to log water quality in real time? Should it be available to the public? In other words, should there be data transparency?
Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual
Yes, our community has been doing extensive work with all stakeholders, including just widespread community engagement, and they all want access to data. We've been developing sensors with our engineers. We have different teams working on tap water sensors, free chlorine as well as data from the Grand River.
The Grand River Conservation Authority did not put any sensors along Six Nations—surprise, surprise—so we have zero data on the Grand River, which is our source water. We're developing sensors and we're connecting them through computer engineers at McMaster to a live mapping system that we have been developing with the Amazon Conservation Team, who are also mapping their rivers in the Amazon.
We're trying to get real-time data and sensors that are meaningful to our people, especially mothers who want to know whether they can go in the water, whether they can eat the fish, etc. They want to be able to open up an app or access a technology and just be able to see it colour-coded.
We want access to data. All data is relevant, and my understanding is that we're willing to share it, because the goal is to improve water quality, and not just for indigenous people. As our elder said, in what we're producing I have to always consider our neighbours under the Two Row, so that all mothers and all children have access to clean water, because we all know with climate change and algal blooms that are going to be more pervasive, water can become quite dangerous and toxic, without other contaminants.
Real-time data is going to become important, and not just to indigenous people. Right now I'm scrambling to find a grant here and there to fund all of this, when it feels like I'm doing the government's job. Thank you.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Ms. Martin‑Hill, I want to ask you the same question that I put to the officials last week.
In light of recent research on the impact of environmental factors and lifestyles on indigenous communities, how should 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 indigenous individuals and their descendants, for example, as part of Bill C‑61?
NDP
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Maybe the translators can quickly just say a few words in English?
I have it now, everyone.
Could you start not from the beginning, but just state your question?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I would be delighted to do so, Mr. Chair.
In light of recent research on the impact of environmental factors and lifestyles on indigenous communities, how should 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 indigenous individuals and their descendants, for example, as part of Bill C‑61?
Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual
I think the research that we've been exposed to anyway suggests that, again, epigenetics is being impacted. There are changes not only to female fish turning into male fish and male fish turning into females, but it's complicating genetics not just for aquatic life but also human life. We see that in stats, lowering how many girls are born, and when you look at mitochondrial DNA, it becomes even more complex and quite fearsome in what we're seeing with the maternal study that we did. We're reporting young men who are now sterile at higher rates, so we're seeing a real impact on health and well-being. The future of our people is in peril, so how would we address this?
Health needs to get involved. The work of public health started in Canada because of water and airborne diseases, and for some reason, they have disconnected those things. I've been advocating at the tri-council level policy with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research that we need to do far more to prepare the population, to have them aware of what is happening and what the dangers are to their health and well-being, including epigenetics.
I would suggest that when we have an authority of women.... The first thing that women did was say we need to look at maternal health, which I would have honestly probably not looked at, but they wanted birthing centres to pull data together, which is what they did and what they found was quite alarming. We need to include health. That's how I would be addressing this, because if you can do what you did for COVID as a country...and you know that was a crisis. You know that was a looming crisis, yet with climate change and what we're seeing, the evolution of the types of diseases that are going to be released, the heat that is going to be taking lives....
Not even cities are prepared. First nations are most vulnerable. The United Nations has asserted that. We need to be able to have a holistic approach to the way that we would manage water, understanding that it's inextricably tied to human health and well-being. That's how I would manage it if I could dream it up. We would have a health authority working with the water authority, and Six Nations is already doing this. Our biggest supporters have been Six Nations Health Services in all of this work. Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Mr. Lemire, you have about a minute left. There's a bit of an issue when you're asking your questions. You're going a bit too fast. If you can slow it down a touch, our interpreters will be able to get that message through. Thanks.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you for pointing this out, Mr. Chair, and for supporting the work of the interpreters. I've tried to be mindful, but I'll strive to take even more care.
In closing, do you think that we could better recognize the responsibility of polluters and incorporate the polluter pays principle into the bill?
Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual
There are cases in Italy and other places that are in fact holding companies liable for the damage that they've done, or the climate disasters that will be coming our way. This bill doesn't touch any of that. In fact, it kind of strays from being very direct in that the liability for the damage and death caused by development is not in there.
I'll give you one example, Nestlé, one of the biggest companies in the world. They're taking our aquifer water. It's blue gold. It's worth more than oil, and for some reason our governments are giving it away at $500 per permit. Then our people go without water and have to go up to Caledonia to buy Nestlé bottled water. It's insanity, from where I sit as a Mohawk woman but also as researcher.
We evaluated how much they take. It's 3.6 million litres a day, every single day, for the last eight years. If you look at one dollar per litre, which we all know is not what it costs, they've made almost $1 trillion.
What have we received out of that $1 trillion that Nestlé has made on our waters that are on our treaty lands? This is a very low-cost kind of production, and the United Nations has been clear that no aquifer, no groundwater should be touched.
You see what's happening in California; it's on fire. When you drain the veins of Mother Earth, which is an aquifer, you're going to have death and destruction. We're now looking at things happening with the boreal forest because of the fracking and so on. Aquifers should be the most protected water on the planet, which is what the UN wants us to see. I don't see any of those things in this bill. It would be incredible if Canada stood up to be a leader under this first nations water act to demonstrate what we should be doing, not what we're looking at in the past. Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much. That was your time.
Unfortunately, it goes to the NDP now, or I guess, fortunately for them, it goes to the NDP now.
You have six minutes, Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Chair.
First, I would like to thank you for coming here and giving us your presentation regarding good, safe water. It is very important to us. We know how important it is and how it affects our well-being.
It's too bad that we do not have more time. There are many other things that you would like to tell us about clean water or the lack of it. If you want to continue to raise issues that you didn't get a chance to speak about, I would like you to feel welcome to write to us with the rest of the presentation—you may not have had enough time to present here—so that this bill will serve the people when implemented and passed.
The Auditor General, the justice system and indigenous people have told us how many are working with the federal government. They were told 634 indigenous self-governments. We were told that only 181 have clean water. Clean water is very important to us. We need more clean water in all the reservations. The bill as proposed will have to address all the issues and address the 634. We need to protect clean water.
I would like to ask you all, maybe starting with James, to respond.
I'm very concerned about clean water in indigenous communities. The right belonged to indigenous people and was then taken away from them. Now they are trying to give it back to us under Bill C-61. What is it that we have to look at to ensure clean water and that we have the proper resources to have clean water on our reservations? That means money and infrastructure, everything that we need.
Director, Engagement and Government Relations, Atlantic First Nations Water Authority Inc.
Thank you very much for the question.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm so sorry. I heard the tail end of the translation, and that's not what I was asking.
Given that first nations had authority and jurisdiction over water before colonialism, through this bill, that jurisdiction is to be handed back to first nations after it was stolen from first nations.
My question to you guys is this: What are your recommendations to improve this bill to make sure that the jurisdiction is handed over with the resources that you will need to exercise your jurisdiction?
We need to make sure, with strong language from each of you. How you will know if your jurisdiction is respected through this bill?
Director, Engagement and Government Relations, Atlantic First Nations Water Authority Inc.
I would say that there are a few important things from the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority's perspective that we would recommend. The bill allows for first nations' governing bodies to be enacted, and it sets forth regulations. From a regulatory standpoint, I think first nations or first nations' governing bodies having the ability to develop these regulations is incredibly important. In fact, I think regulations and funding are connected. One has to come before the other. We don't know how much money we need until we develop our regulations. With those regulations, we can then set forward how much money we need and what our long-term strategic vision for that infrastructure would be.
Would that be other utilities across Canada, much the way the AFNWA is set up? Maybe, or maybe it's on an individual first nation basis. I think having the flexibility within the funding to achieve what you want is incredibly important.
I'll give an example. Some of our communities in Cape Breton border the Bras D'Or Lake. That's a very sensitive receiving body for waste water. Right now, ISC would approve funding based on the waste-water systems effluent regulations, but the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment would recommend a higher level of treatment. If first nations want to achieve that higher level of treatment, I think flexibility in the funding framework would be required so they can meet those discharge objectives.
NDP
Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual
What I put in here is that an independent committee will need to be established—in consultation and co-operation with first nations governing bodies—and required to produce annual reports as the result of consultation and collaboration, as well as a five-year review report on the provisions and operation of the act. While the bill invokes the principle of substantive equality, it does not explicitly recognize a human right to safe drinking water. This omission is considered inconsistent with Canada's support for the right to safe drinking water as a human right at the United Nations.
The bill requires the federal government to use “best efforts” to produce the sufficient funding for water and waste-water services. However, this language is seen as providing a loophole that could allow the government to avoid ensuring that first nations have access to clean and safe drinking water. Implementing the bill's provision effectively requires a significant collaboration and coordination among federal, provincial and territorial first nation governments. The complexity of water governance and the need for integrative datasets and a shared decision-making mechanism pose challenges.
Although the bill requires decisions to be guided by free, prior and informed consent—which is central to this argument—it does not mandate that the decision-makers align their choices with the first principles of free, prior and informed consent. This needs to include more than the full recognition and meaningful implementation of FPIC, which many first nations see as essential.
The bill allows different minimum standards for different locations to address local circumstances. This provision could lead to lower standards for first nation communities compared to non-first nation communities. The bill aims to address long-standing issues of underfunding and regulatory gaps that have resulted in inadequate water infrastructure on first nations' land. These gaps have contributed to social and health disparities in first nations communities, so I suggest that a separate autonomous authority be the oversight of what's happening across the country, and none of that is in this bill.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much to our witnesses. That was some great testimony—and some fantastic questions too. Unfortunately, we are out of time, and that will conclude this meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to get that information.
I see a hand up from Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we adjourn, I move a motion to resume debate on a previously moved motion by one of our colleagues, and I'll just briefly read the motion again—
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
I would like to dismiss the witnesses. We're more than happy to have them stay if they want, but if they choose to go on with their days—
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Very quickly, can we ask the rest of the witnesses to provide us their responses in written form, because they didn't have a chance to answer my question?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Yes, that goes without saying. If there's anything you want to add, in addition to what you gave in testimony, please feel free to submit that in written form.
Again, witnesses, you're free to go if you will, and then we'll discuss some internal business here.
I have Jaime next, and then Lori.