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

[Harriet Keleutak]

The federal and provincial governments should foot the bill. If the people farther north in Greenland can have a sewage system and underground infrastructure, what's the issue here in Canada? What's the issue in Quebec? We have a community called Kuujjuarapik. Half the community, called Whapmagoostui, is inhabited by Cree people, and they have a sewage system. However, 13 of our communities don't have one. What's the issue for these 13 communities? The other communities farther north have sewage and water systems.

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

I want to thank you for your testimony and for your decades of commitment to Inuit children.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Next, we have Ms. Idlout for six minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to see you here. It is very important, this safe water.

First, I'd like to thank you for mentioning Inuit when you asked what Inuit do on this policy. Are they included in this bill's protection?

[Harriet Keleutak]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I'm not aware that they are included. We don't know what goes on with policy-makers, but when they talk about safe water and waste water and hygiene ideas, we should be immediately involved in the discussions when a problem is identified. It has to be in the policy that we are immediately involved as equal partners right at the beginning. I need to see a policy that indigenous people will be immediately involved in the discussion of the issue.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for replying. I'm very happy to hear that.

I will ask other people. I will ask Clayton.

Regarding Bill C-61 when it was introduced, I thank you wholeheartedly, because you consulted with us right away and gave us the outline and the problems identified, and what needed to be added and what needed to be amended in the policy, because the rights of indigenous people had to be in conformity with everything. The rights that we had were taken from indigenous people. We knew how to run our own affairs, but that was taken away from us.

Bill C-61 wants to return the rights of the indigenous people regarding water management. What else do you have to amend if indigenous people are going to be governing and running this management and policy?

[Clayton Leonard]

I'm going to surprise the chair and be very brief.

We submitted a written submission from the Ermineskin and Blackfoot nations in June that set out, in detail, the amendments that we believe are necessary to the bill, including the addition of four UNDRIP articles.

I can speak about those, if anybody likes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I apologize. I don't think my intervention was properly interpreted into English. I was asking about jurisdiction.

I shared that I very much appreciated how, when Bill C-61 was first tabled, your office and the first nations you work with reached out to us—all MPs—right away and provided very tangible recommendations, as I understand, to improve the bill. These improvements will help make the lives of first nations healthier.

One of the recommendations that were made to us was about the fact that there are concerns regarding jurisdiction. I wonder if you could share with us the importance of jurisdiction, especially knowing that jurisdiction was stolen from first nations. Bill C-61 is looking to return that jurisdiction to first nations, yet it doesn't ensure there's full implementation of the allowability for actual jurisdiction.

If you could speak about that, I would very much appreciate it.

[Clayton Leonard]

I think Ermineskin has spoken in support of the broad recognition of the right of self-government over water on reserve lands.

One of the more difficult parts of the bill is in answering the question of what the role is of first nation governments in the management of watersheds they're in, because that involves a number of other levels of government—provincial, federal and even sometimes U.S. federal and state governments. I don't have a whole suite of amendments on that issue, but I think the section of Ermineskin's submission prepared by Dr. Littlechild highlights the importance of article 32.2 of the UN declaration.

It says:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

I think that would provide a benchmark in the bill for what it means for first nations to be involved in watershed management and source water protection.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

I invite anyone from the panel to respond to this question.

I know there has been criticism that legislated minimum standards are not strong enough. I wonder if anyone can provide us with recommendations on how these minimum standards for the recognition of rights must be clear, measurable standards to ensure that water will actually be safe and usable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

They are going to have to be very brief answers, because we're running over time. I gave Ms. Idlout a bit longer for her time because of translation issues.

[Clayton Leonard]

I'll point the committee to page 2 of Ermineskin's written submission. It discusses the core amendment, which is the amendment regarding first nations' right to safe drinking water. Then, in the following paragraph, it suggests where other changes in the bill need to be made in order to be consistent with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That concludes our first round of questions.

We're moving on to the second round. As we are a bit over time, it's going to be an abridged second round. We're going to reduce it pro rata, so it will be four minutes, four minutes, two minutes, two minutes, four minutes and four minutes for questions, starting with the Conservative Party.

Mr. Melillo, you have four minutes. The floor is yours.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to all of the witnesses for being here on this important discussion.

I'll go to you, Mr. Leonard.

Both you and the chief mentioned the language of “best efforts” and how vague that is. Throughout the bill, we also see many mentions of the minister having to “consult and cooperate”. However, the minister has the power with this legislation, in many cases, to unilaterally make regulations after consulting and co-operating.

Do you have any views on how vague that language is and how it is still giving a lot of control to the minister, rather than to the first nations?

[Clayton Leonard]

My understanding of the bill is that first nations' ability to pass their own laws regarding water would supersede the regulations passed by the minister. I think the non-derogation clause also supports first nations' assertion of their right of self-government over water in a way that goes beyond the four corners of the bill as well.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay.

[Clayton Leonard]

At least the non-derogation clause would ensure that the bill can't be interpreted as to interfere with that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Understood. I do believe the language of “consult and cooperate” should be more explicit in the bill to include consent.

[Clayton Leonard]

One of our criticisms is that the preamble mentions article 19 and then, pardon the pun, waters it down in the bill.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

That's right, because it's one thing to put something in the preamble, and it's a whole different thing to have it in the legislation. Can you explain that difference, just for folks who could be watching?

[Clayton Leonard]

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to understand what consent means.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm talking about the difference between having something in the preamble of the text versus having it in the body of the legislation.

[Clayton Leonard]

The preamble provides guidance and spells out the intention of the Crown, but it doesn't create enforceable law. One of the core issues we've pointed to is that UN Resolution 64/292, the UN resolution on the right to safe drinking water, although it's not actually referenced directly, is referenced in the preamble, and then it's not in the bill.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

With the limited time left here, I would like to ask you this, Mr. Leonard: In your view, within the context of this bill, what is a protection zone?

[Clayton Leonard]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear the last part.