Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2024

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to address this question to all four witnesses today to answer it, please.

On source water and protection zones, what's the definition that you need to see for what source water and protection zones are?

[Irving Leblanc, Advisory Consultant, First Nations Safe Drinking Water, Chiefs of Ontario]

I can try.

I can start that based more on a technical viewpoint. You delineated what is source water and what is source water protection.

The approach that first nations have looked at is more that of a watershed protection area. I think it really points to the discussion on protection zones. As some of the witnesses have said, we have jurisdiction over protecting the watersheds.

I think the definition is really problematic, and I think everybody has pointed that out. I have listened to these committee meetings over the last several weeks, and it's been raised as a question. Nobody's come up with a definition of “source water protection zones”. That is going to be, I think, a major activity, major work that has to be done here. I think it's a very important part of it. The federal government has to come in there—and I know this was mentioned—to make sure that provinces work collaboratively with first nations in establishing these protection zones, because water doesn't end at the boundary. Water has no boundaries, so I think it's going to be one major area that will need to be looked at clearly. It's not clear in the legislation.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I will go to the next one. You have said that it needs to be a coordinated agreement between all three levels then, and you said to use “watershed” as a term that may be synonymous with that.

[Irving Leblanc]

I think that's a very good place to start. Are you in our watershed? What's in our watershed? Who else is in our watershed? It doesn't matter whether there are boundaries within that watershed. It has to be approached, and in order to protect that for the environment, for everybody, those three levels of government have to work together.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Good, thank you.

Next is Grand Chief Benedict.

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

I don't want to take too much time on this. I know that Grand Chief Debassige wants to speak to it.

The only thing that I would say about source water relates to an experience in my community, the community of Akwesasne, an hour south of here. It borders Ontario, New York and Quebec. I can tell you that an EPA project was happening in Massena, New York, where they were issuing water advisories and “don't consume the fish” advisories. That was for a river flowing into the St. Lawrence. There was no reciprocal agreement happening with Canada.

The problem with that is that you can't eat the American fish, but you can eat the Canadian fish because there are no PCBs or mercury in them. When we look at source water for the international line, there has to be a connection there as well because contaminants can come down. They are not going to stop at the international line and those intakes will be on both sides of the international line.

There needs to be collaboration that occurs for the safety of all of our people.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Grand Chief Debassige.

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

Thank you for the question.

I believe that Canada needs to recognize, again, the inherent and treaty rights of first nations and to take the lead in bringing together the orders of government, both provincial and federal.

It's really about aligning laws and recognizing first nations laws so that water is protected at its source and so that our inherent rights holders are also on equal footing at those different tables.

Irving spoke about the watershed, those kinds of territorial areas, and I believe that an exercise does need to happen. I can't speak for any treaty nations on my own. I believe that we have to take the time to build that, but I do believe it is possible, and this really is a first step.

We can argue all day long about who did what and who didn't do what. I believe, again—and I'm going to say this again because I was a bit saddened that we're trying to make this into a partisan issue— that first nations absolutely have a right to clean, safe drinking water. Our children, our babies, our elders, everybody. We have been without that for far too long, and that's because of the colonialism.

Again, Canada does have an opportunity to recognize those and to bring the legal order or the government partners together to have those discussions in proper spaces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Mr. Saunders, I know you have your hand up, but we're through with this round. There will be another round of questions.

With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Hanley. You have five minutes for questions.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank all of the witnesses today for the really in-depth testimony.

Chief Beaudin, I have a couple of questions for you. I'm a public health physician, so I was interested when you brought up social determinants of health and how they relate to access to safe drinking water. Social determinants of health are things like education, employment, income and the presence of historical trauma.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how access to safe drinking water, particularly as enshrined in legislation, relates to social determinants of health in general.

[Chief Erica Beaudin]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think you could speak about the social determinants of health without the foundation being clean drinking water. I think every aspect, from bathing to consumption to....

Also, when I'm talking about consumption, I'm not speaking only about drinking the clean water. We just had a question about source water protection. We have the birds we eat and the fish we eat. We call the animals we eat “four-leggeds”. When they do not have clean drinking water and we consume them as food, our bodies become sick.

If we don't have complete balance in physical health and the ability for us and our animals to access clean drinking water, that leads down the pathway for kids to not go to school. When we talk about poverty, it's not only financial poverty, but also the poverty of education. With regard to mercury and other things in the drinking water, we also don't have the access to physicians for the different types of medical needs we have.

We're all interconnected, whether we're human or, like I said, the swimmers, the ones flying in the sky or the four-leggeds. We're all interconnected. Water is life. When we talk about the social determinants of health, if our animals aren't healthy and the water is not healthy, we won't be healthy. Therefore, we cannot contribute to our nation and to society—or what is now Canada.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I'm going to leave you for a minute. I may not get to come back to you.

Deputy Grand Chief Achneepineskum, you talked about trust. I was intrigued when you said people have difficulty drinking water after an advisory has been lifted, which speaks to the trust citizens have, either in the advice that's being provided or in the integrity of the water itself.

I wonder how you see this legislation helping to support rebuilding that trust.

[Deputy Grand Chief Anna Betty Achneepineskum]

Thank you for that question.

Can you imagine being born and raised in a community where you've never been able to go freely to the tap and drink the water? You grow up in that community and are raised with that mindset, and then one day, you're told you're able to drink the water. That's very troubling for us to adjust to, so trust is a big issue.

I just wanted to add some comments on social determinants. We've had some individuals with very serious skin rashes. It's mostly children who have been affected. We also have citizens who are unable to get home dialysis because of the quality of the water. They have move to an urban centre in order to access dialysis—even home dialysis.

Something that everyone takes for granted is not taken for granted in many of our first nations communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hanley.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Grand Chief Benedict, we see some continuity in the government's approach to developing the various pieces of proposed legislation, including Bill C‑38, Bill S‑16 and Bill C‑53. That said, none of these bills have been passed into law yet.

Before I go on, I would like to say that I sense that the witnesses feel somewhat uneasy about the bill. We feel the same. I think that all the political parties share this view. Government officials must be able to clearly describe what constitutes a protection zone. The definition isn't clear in the bill. I have the impression that this aspect is currently missing from the bill. It seems that our proceedings would benefit from sorting this out. I would like to ask the Indigenous Services Canada officials to provide the definition of a protection zone.

Grand Chief Benedict, since the committee's first meeting on Bill C‑61, I've always kept in mind the organizations created by the government and the province of Ontario, such as the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Algonquins of Ontario. These organizations operate on the ancestral lands of the Anishinabe people and claim rights to their territories.

As we can see, Bill C‑53 has been set aside for the time being. The minister didn't want to raise this issue specifically to define their rights. He was told about the territorial overlap issue. Discussions are under way about subsection 12(1) and how it might be interpreted.

Do you think that much greater clarity is needed when it comes to determining what rights the first nations have to their territory, which first nations are recognized and who can speak on behalf of the first nations in this situation?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

It is clear to me that this legislation only deals with first nations people and first nations people on reserve lands. The Métis do not live on first nation lands, so the legislation in its present form, which we are supportive of, does not affect Métis nations.

There is some language in clause 12 around modern treaties and self-government, but there is a policy that the department has under the inherent right policy. There are a number of communities that are negotiating self-government agreements, which are mechanisms that, for all intents and purposes, acknowledge the jurisdiction that has always been there for communities. If a community wants to develop legislation around safe drinking water, then that would be a vehicle under this legislation for that.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, in my community of Akwesasne, if it were devolved to the provinces, they would be relying on Quebec legislation and Ontario legislation to govern their water. Imagine having two systems, depending on where that water treatment facility is, and how you're going to do that. Also, having two sets of rules that your people must be trained on is not practical. Therefore, having mechanisms and legislation that recognize self-government agreements or modern treaties is a positive. This is not in relation to Métis rights, though.

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

Thank you, meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Next we have Ms. Ashton for two and a half minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you.

We all know that the crisis of clean drinking water is directly related to the housing crisis on first nations. It recently came out that on housing the federal government has shortchanged first nations in the prairie provinces by a total of a quarter billion dollars. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have fundamentally ruled out reimbursing first nations in the prairie provinces from whom they stole that money.

In my riding, remote first nation communities like Garden Hill and Island Lake first nations, face one of the most acute housing crises in the country. Also, we know that for a community like Garden Hill, the lack of proper housing has meant that by the time water gets to them, it often becomes contaminated.

I imagine there are similar connections in communities across your region. The lack of climate-resistant infrastructure is also a real problem, when we're talking about water treatment plants, water systems, etc.

I know this makes it clear that resolving the clean drinking water issue means resolving the housing crisis. I'd like to open it up to whomever might want to share how the lack of adequate housing and adequate infrastructure affects your community's ability to have clean drinking water.

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

I've been delegated to speak to this question. Can you repeat your question succinctly, please?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Sure. How is the lack of adequate housing and adequate infrastructure connected to the crisis of clean drinking water?

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

I don't believe Bill C-61 speaks to the solution to the housing crises and the infrastructure crises. I'm actually a trained civil engineering technologist. I am educated and experienced in that. Although there are, I would say, connections to the drinking water crisis, I believe all three need their own respective legislation.

Today we're talking about clean, safe drinking water. Reports commissioned by the Assembly of First Nations have been provided to the Government of Canada—and MPs have access to those—in relation to closing the gap. There's also a housing and homelessness report. There were also Senate committee reports back in the mid-2000s, I think, that started to talk about how all of these were interrelated and what needed to be done.

At this point in time, we're studying Bill C-61, which is a step in the right direction. Bill C-61 will not solve the housing crisis. Bill C-61 will not solve the infrastructure aspect either; nor should we put them all together. They all have their own individual streams.

However, certainly, when it comes to clean, safe drinking water, we can't go very long. Not one of us, no matter what skin colour we have and what political party we represent, can live without water.

It's the social determinants of health question. When communities don't have access to clean, safe drinking water, what else are they drinking? They're drinking pop and processed things available to their community that also trigger other diseases that are common amongst first nations people.

I believe that when we get to the point of studying the actual bill for the water, we need to remain focused on that. Although there are other related infrastructure pieces that are all part of the whole, I think the suggestion that this act will solve the water crisis or the infrastructure crisis due to years and decades of colonialism since contact is unfair to this process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ashton.

That wraps up our second round today.

With that, I just want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. The testimony you've provided will absolutely be helpful for the work we're doing. I know that many recommendations were brought up in your testimony today. However, if there are further things you would like to submit in writing, please do that. Those will continue to inform our work.

With that, do I have the will of the committee to adjourn?

The meeting is adjourned.