Evidence of meeting #118 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.
Conservative
Lawyer, Ermineskin Cree Nation
A protection zone.... I don't know. It seems to be after consultation at the discretion of the minister, and it doesn't seem to have any connection to how effective watershed management protection actually works.
Siksika gave a great example when they were here in June. They're 100 kilometres after every tributary of the Bow River basin comes to one point, so they will literally feel the impact from anything done in that watershed. The protection zone, effectively, for a nation like that, would be the entire watershed.
There's just nothing in the bill that seems to be connected to how that's actually done in Canada and other places in the world.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Right. Rather than not having that defined in the bill and leaving it up to the minister to determine through regulation, do you have a suggestion on how that could be more appropriately dealt with at this point?
Lawyer, Ermineskin Cree Nation
I'm not shrugging off the question, but it can't be dealt with in a two-minute answer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Leonard. If you could submit that to the committee, I am sure that all members would be very interested in seeing that.
With that, we're moving to our second questioner in the second round.
Mrs. Atwin, you have four minutes.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today.
Right off the top, Chief Mykat, I absolutely believe in the inherent right to clean drinking water. That's one of the reasons I ran to be involved in politics. It was 2019 when I first got here. Sadly, it's taken this long to get to this point, but I am so excited as well to get to the amendment process, because we have heard incredible testimony from incredible leaders like yourself. Your voices will be heard and will be represented in this bill because it's about you and your people.
Also, I just want to thank our witness as well who's online. The pictures of the children behind you really remind us what this is about. We can't necessarily go back in time for those who have been dealing with this for far too long, but we're going to fix this for the children, moving ahead.
I wanted to ask this, through your counsel today. In a letter sent to our committee, the Alberta environment minister, Rebecca Schulz, encouraged us as a committee “to consider the roles provinces and territories have as leaders, collaborators, and stewards of water that they own and regulate, as it works through its mandate.” The letter goes on to say, “The federal government's role should complement—not conflict with—provincial responsibilities. Bill C-61's provisions on source water generally and source water protection zones must be carefully considered to avoid exceeding the federal power to legislate as well as jurisdictional conflicts.”
Would you say that Alberta's government's actions to protect source water are those of “leaders, collaborators, and stewards”?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you.
She also told us that “Alberta has not been meaningfully engaged in the development of Bill C-61.”
Has Minister Schulz reached out to you to discuss new water legislation, either before or after it was introduced?
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Have you seen any interest or involvement from Minister Schulz when it comes to working with first nation communities?
Liberal
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
We've also invited Minister Schulz to appear as part of this study. Should she choose to accept our invitation, what should we keep in mind when asking her questions?
Lawyer, Ermineskin Cree Nation
It's my understanding that what is consistent with Alberta's formal position, particularly on first nations' water rights and first nations' jurisdiction over water, is that if first nations ever had such rights, they were extinguished, so the water in and under reserve lands is the property of the Government of Alberta, and the Water Act applies to first nations. They don't reference any legal foundation for that position.
It's my understanding that, should the bill pass, Alberta may bring a legal challenge to the recognition of first nations' right to self-government over water on reserve and the ownership of water in and under reserve by first nations.
I'd just leave the committee with some knowledge that Alberta has entered into agreements with at least four nations in the province, which contain provisions that prevent the province from raising those issues in a court of law so long as those agreements are valid and still in place. I'm happy to share the clauses of each one of those agreements with the committee.
I don't think Alberta is at liberty to challenge the bill, because of those agreements.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'm very short on time.
Just quickly, what does the relationship between your communities, Alberta and Canada need to look like to protect that source water piece?
Lawyer, Ermineskin Cree Nation
Alberta's protection of source water is largely done through a voluntary mechanism. There are watershed groups that are funded by the province and they develop watershed management plans that are more guiding policy than enforceable under Alberta's Water Act.
One suggestion we made to Canada during the engagement on this bill was that, if there is a major project upstream from a first nation, there would be something in this bill that couples it with a trigger under the Impact Assessment Act. For example, the premier of Alberta and the cabinet are about to have a decision to make on a brand new dam on the Bow River between Calgary and Cochrane. That impacts the only first nation that's downstream, which is Siksika.
I think similar issues would apply to every first nation. If they're making water management decisions or deciding on projects that affect the source water of a first nation, then there should be a full federal review involved in the project.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
With that, we're moving to our next questioner.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Leonard, I'll ask you my question, which can also be answered by a chief.
When it comes to privatizing services, cities and municipalities face pressure from the private sector, including lobbying. As a result, the bill's wording doesn't rule out the privatization of service delivery on indigenous land.
We know that you have reservations about this topic. I think that we must take proactive steps and support first nations in developing the management of this jurisdiction in terms of drinking water and waste water treatment by and for indigenous communities. Drinking water and waste water systems must also remain the property of first nations and no exclusivity clause should be granted to private companies. This would ensure healthy competition in development and entrepreneurship by and for first nations.
Do you have any concerns about the fact that the bill doesn't exclude non‑indigenous companies from the privatization of service delivery, and that it lacks dispute resolution mechanisms in the event of a conflict or a failure to provide services?
Ermineskin Cree Nation
Again, thank you for allowing me to be here and for taking the time to meet with us. I know I'm short of time.
For one thing—and I'm going to be blunt again—I always think of treaty. When the visitors, when Canada first came here, our hearts gave for our visitors to make sure your women, your parents and you were safe. Water is life. If you can look at anything.... Even my elder here, a respectful man.... We looked at everything, and everything involves water.
To make a long story short, I think our treaty needs to be respected to this day, no matter how far we go back. I want what's best for my people the way I want what's best for your people and you and your families. There shouldn't be anybody left behind when it comes to water. I don't know your big political words, but I know where my heart and my mind are. I don't think anybody in this world should be suffering without water.
As you can see, our water is so bad that I'm drinking a lot of your water because I don't have clean water back home. I wish I could have brought water here to show you and say, “Have a drink.” Would you bathe in it? Would you put your children in it? Would you put your elders in it—each and every one of you?
I want my people to be safe, just as much as I want each and every one of you to be safe and your families to be safe. I can go on and on. I'm sorry but I'm not sorry. That's where I stand. I believe we need to be respected—and not just Ermineskin Cree Nation. I may not have the right to speak for the rest of the nations, but we are all one.
I would say that I think respect needs to be given both ways. We shouldn't have to answer for something and ask for something that we shared with.... When visitors first came, we offered our land and our waters. We never surrendered anything.
I'm going to stop there for now.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will ask you.... It says that you will receive.... There are two restrictions we are thinking about, and we're looking for the best solution. If you have to negotiate with the policy-makers or the committee regarding the jurisdictions that you're responsible for....
[English]
I'm going to switch to English, because it's not being interpreted correctly.
My question is for the chiefs. Bill C-61 will allow you to negotiate with provinces regarding source water. My question to you is this: What do you foresee will be the challenges to negotiate with provinces on source water?