Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes, because that just said it could be in the legislation, but that doesn't mean anything.

[Clayton Leonard]

It doesn't mean anything if you don't act on it, but I think that if the right were in the bill and the bill passed, then we would have the ability, instead of arguing whether the right exists, to go to the court and say, “Canada has recognized it does. It's in the bill, so what does that mean?”

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Getting it in the legislation provides you with the ability to proceed with legal action if you believe that that action does not happen.

[Clayton Leonard]

Yes, either the action or negotiations could then focus on what fulfilling that right means in terms of investment in infrastructure at Ermineskin and other first nations.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

One of the other things we've heard from other witnesses is that we've heard enough, that the bill should be passed as it is and that we should move on. They believe we've heard enough and we've been able to hear enough witnesses tell us what the concerns are.

What's your opinion on how many witnesses we should listen to? If that had been the case, you wouldn't be here today.

[Clayton Leonard]

I'm not a politician, so I can't answer how many witnesses you feel you should listen to.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Should we have heard your voice today?

[Clayton Leonard]

I just hope that, however many witnesses you have, you're listening to them.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Should we have heard your voice today?

[Clayton Leonard]

As I said in June when I came here, after working for almost 18 years on this issue, I'm getting pretty tired of the sound of my own voice talking about safe drinking water.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I appreciate that.

Are there any last comments? We haven't heard from—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Shields, I'm afraid you've used up your time. There will be another round.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

With that, we'll move over to our second questioner.

Mr. Battiste, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were asked a question about whether we support your right to clean drinking water. I can't speak for the government or for the committee, but I am a member of one of the first nations here that live on a first nations reserve. The intent of this legislation is to make sure that not only Ermineskin has safe, clean drinking water, but it's for all indigenous people in Canada, especially first nations on reserve. That's the intent.

In terms of saying how we got here, the amendment process and whether we're listening, we haven't gotten to the amendment process. We will get there after we hear all of the feedback. I think it's important that you know this legislation was passed by unanimous consent of all parties to get it here so that we could hear from communities.

I want to go to Dr. Wilton Littlechild first.

Willie, could you talk to us a little bit about what UNDRIP and Bill C-15 say about water in relation to this legislation? How can we improve this bill by what's in UNDRIP? What are some of the things we can do to make sure the amendments move forward?

[Dr. Wilton Littlechild, Commissioner, Commission on First Nations and Métis Peoples and Justice Reform]

Thank you very much.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

First of all, greetings in Cree, and I express my thanks for the opportunity to be here.

To go directly to your question, I want to, first of all, express my thanks to my leaders for allowing me to be here to support them on questions like that. I worked on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was finally adopted, without qualifications, after 39 years on the journey. Those four decades...actually, on behalf of my nation, Maskwacîs, as we say in Cree for Ermineskin. You all know, I think, that Canada, after 27 years of debate, voted against the declaration, and then took 12 more years after that to actually come to supporting it. During that intervening time, of course, I heard many states argue against and for the declaration.

Subsequent to that, there's the Organization of American States' declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The OAS declaration actually improves on the UN declaration, and going forward we need to look at both declarations. To go to Mr. Shields' question as well, I'm really happy that article 19 is in the bill. In its preamble.... Article 19 actually goes beyond consultation. Article 19, of course, instructs us, before legislation is adopted, that you seek to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, so it's beyond consultation. The OAS declaration supports that and, in fact, goes beyond that. For example, in treaty, it requires us to look at, as the Supreme Court of Canada also said, how do indigenous peoples understand the treaty right to water? How do they express their consent in safeguarding fresh drinking water? How do they then come to engage the spiritual elements of treaty? Those are all now in the OAS declaration.

I applaud the members engaged. I'm going to take a second, please, to applaud you for coming to the Permanent Forum this year in New York, the whole committee. I was really encouraged by the committee's appearance there, because it shows your serious intent to assist us in advancing towards reconciliation.

To answer your question directly, the question about the UN declaration, yes, it's great that article 19 is there, but there are other subsequent, very relevant articles of the UN declaration that, if incorporated into the bill, would strengthen the bill—not only strengthen the bill, but encourage us to support the bill. Right now it's short, and I've been critical about that right from the outset, from the perspective of the treaty lens and of the UN declaration lens. Let's include those articles that will improve the bill, and then we can get to a point, going forward, to advance reconciliation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Dr. Littlechild.

I'm sure that you'll probably send something that would give us a little bit of indication of how these amendments could work.

You mentioned that we were at the Permanent Forum. One of the recommendations you made, which I followed up on by tabling a motion here, is that we spend one meeting hearing from the Permanent Forum about what happened and asking questions. We didn't reach consensus on how much background information we need to move forward. I'm wondering if you could submit something to us or just answer a question. In terms of looking at the Permanent Forum and getting a discussion about what was relevant and what we should be hearing in this committee, how much background information do you think we need?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry, Dr. Littlechild, but just give a short answer, please.

[Dr. Wilton Littlechild]

I think that it's one thing to attend the Permanent Forum or the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to hear voices from around the world, especially those from Canada. However, what's lacking is an implementation follow-up mechanism.

Yes, it's great. In fact, I was there yesterday. I just came from the United Nations last night to be here. What is missing is opportunities like this. There is no committee, for example, directly on the international obligations of Canada with respect to indigenous peoples here in the House of Commons or in the Senate. It would be very important, I think, to have your committee, for example, have a standing agenda item on follow-up to the UN discussions, follow-up to the UN recommendations or advice to the Human Rights Council, for example, just last week in Geneva.

I think it's important. If you want to engage the UN declaration in Bill C-61, those discussions would help us collectively if there were a mechanism like this one this morning to share information and exchange proposals or ideas to ensure that we're working together going forward—indigenous, non-indigenous—regarding treaty relations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm very sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to step in here. I apologize for that, but there will be another round of questioning with the Liberals.

With that, we're moving on to our third questioner here.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Meegwetch, everyone.

Ms. Keleutak, how is an Inuit community affected by the insecurity around such an essential service as access to drinking water? How do these water supply issues affect your communities, and children in particular?

[Harriet Keleutak]

For children, it means that they don't wash, brush their teeth or have a clean house. They often go to school without having had breakfast.

Children and young people are often absent from school because of a lack of water in their homes, especially in some villages. We operate in 14 villages, and drinking water is available every day in most of them. However, in some communities, this isn't the case. Last winter, two communities didn't have access to drinking water or to the collection of waste water by truck for 11 or 12 days. When this goes on for too long, children must come to school without washing or brushing their teeth. This leads to dental issues and lice in our schools as well. Sometimes the essential services aren't there.

It's as if we don't have the right to access drinking water, while others around us have that right. We want the same rights as everyone else. The lack of access also results in a lack of access to education.

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

Schools have been closed because of a lack of water supply. I think that this shows the impact of this issue on children and their education.

I want to thank you for your commitment to children over many decades.

You have been critical of the Quebec government, and for good reason, particularly with regard to the proximity of Hydro‑Québec infrastructure. However, I want to hear about your expectations for the federal government. It must fulfill its obligations regarding the rights of indigenous peoples and their living conditions. What do you expect from the federal government in terms of the water supply, especially in your schools?

[Harriet Keleutak]

I expect it to stop saying that we have the right. It isn't a matter of rights. Access to drinking water is vital to life. Why does the government say that this right must be included in legislation or in an international declaration when everyone living in Canada is entitled to it?

I expect the federal government to stop telling us that we must declare that we have the right to access essential services, such as drinking water. How did people living in Montreal declare their right to water and sewer systems? Why don't the Inuit communities have the same right? What's the difference between the two? Everyone living in Canada has the right to access safe drinking water, regardless of whether this right is explicitly stated in a declaration. It's an essential service for our lives.

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

You rely on tanker trucks. This system isn't ideal. In an ideal world, what system could you implement in your community to ensure a full supply of drinking water? Who do you think should pay this bill?