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

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario]

My apologies, members of the committee, for being a few minutes late.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening. I'm Abram Benedict. I'm the Ontario regional chief for the Chiefs of Ontario, which is an organization here in Ontario that represents 133 first nations. Prior to being the Ontario regional chief, I was the chief of the Mohawk community of Akwesasne for nine years and was a member of the council there for nine years as well, so I have 18 years in community leadership. I've had the privilege and honour of being elected the regional chief for the communities in Ontario.

The important issue that you're speaking about today is the legislation around clean drinking water. Unfortunately, of the boil water advisories that exist in this nation, 72% of them are in Ontario, so we are the region most impacted by a historic failure to provide clean drinking water to our communities.

These persistent issues not only jeopardize the health and well-being of our people but also undermine our right to self-determination, our governance and the future of our communities. As you can imagine, water is fundamental to existence and also to prosperity for many of our nations across Turtle Island, but more specifically to the ones who have boil water advisories in Ontario.

There are entire generations who have been unable to get clean drinking water from their taps. I recently had an opportunity to visit Neskantaga, which is one of the communities that has had a boil water advisory for 30 years. To put that into context, there are children there who have been born and raised and now are adults and still have to live with boil water advisories. In today's context, that is extremely chilling and unacceptable.

I'm here to deliver a simple message today that Bill C-61 is not perfect, but we do support it. It must come to fruition and pass. This bill is a step forward in recognizing the first nations' inherent and treaty rights that exist. It unambiguously states that the water in and under first nations land is first nations' jurisdiction, which is extremely important to our people. It recognizes the essential role of women, elders and knowledge-keepers as water protectors and stewards of our water. We have seen time and time again our people undertaking either marches or water walks across this beautiful land we cohabit for the rights and the recognition of the importance of water.

Since the tragedy at Walkerton, the rest of Ontario has had high drinking water standards, but first nations have unfortunately been left behind. This legislation does fill an important gap for us to be able to create binding regulations and standards for clean drinking water.

While we support this legislation, we believe it must be strengthened in four critical areas: predictable and sustainable funding, the creation of protection zones, addressing urgent water and sanitization issues for Ontario first nations and addressing the real liability issues that exist.

Our recommendations are to ensure that this bill can achieve its intended impact, so funding must be provided at sustainable levels to address the historical underfunding that has created so many challenges in our communities. This includes not only initial capital investments but also long-term operation and maintenance supports to ensure the viability of the water systems in our communities. Chronic underfunding has historically plagued water infrastructure in first nations communities. Temporary or project-based funding is not sufficient to ensure the ongoing maintenance of water systems in our communities.

Beyond infrastructure, there is a need for funding that supports capacity building within first nations communities. This includes training local water operators, developing governance structures for water management and ensuring communities have the knowledge and resources to manage their water systems effectively. This is true nation-building, and this legislation will promote and bring that forward.

Canada has recently settled a class action lawsuit that recognizes the urgent need for more funding. However, there have not been new investments to date, and this must be fixed.

We believe that “protection zones”, as currently outlined in this bill, lack clarity. What is meant by “is adjacent to the First Nation lands of a First Nation”? Let's resolve this ambiguity using a rights-based approach.

The absence of defined limits and protection could lead to conflicts between federal, provincial and first nation jurisdictions. There are so many areas where we have seen this conflict happen between the federal government and provincial governments in our communities. This is an opportunity to clarify that.

Bill C-61 must clearly define protection zones to strengthen first nations' self-determination, which in our view includes recognition of the importance of first nation knowledge systems in establishing and managing protection zones. Our people have been protecting the resources that are extremely important to everybody sitting in this room since time immemorial. We need this legislation to be able to continue to support that.

Many first nations face issues related to source water and groundwater quality. Algae blooms and industry spills might not be fully predictable, but we can guarantee that they will happen, and they will happen again. We need rapid-response funding and technical assistance to address urgent water issues in our communities in this region. We need flexibility in funding and regulatory approaches to accommodate urgent issues.

The final issue is around the uncertainty of liability for our communities, particularly in cases where they may lack the resources or capacity to manage water systems independently. We urge the committee to amend Bill C-61 to clearly define and fairly allocate the liability. We must ensure that the liability is fair and reasonable for our communities and shared with the federal government. The legislation should explicitly protect first nations from liability for historic contamination and infrastructure failures that occurred before the implementation of Bill C-61. First nations should not be held liable for Canada's historic failure to properly fund infrastructure, maintenance, operation and training, nor should first nations be held accountable for future failures or underinvestment by the government.

Bill C-61 should explicitly state the liability of third party contractors involved in building or maintaining water infrastructure, ensuring that first nations are not held liable for contractors' errors and negligence. I want to clearly highlight that our communities will, reasonably, accept the liability, but will not take on broken and underfunded systems and be expected to be held liable for the federal government's lack of action on their end.

We do not want a scenario where first nations' energies and limited funding go to lawsuits instead of maintaining the integrity of water systems. We do not want to be in the courts any more than any person in this room. Let's make those changes now in this legislation and ensure that we don't have to use those avenues.

We urge the committee to consider these recommendations. The Chiefs of Ontario and I would be pleased to answer any questions, and follow up and provide any additional information this committee would like.

Niawenko:wa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

With that, we'll move back into our first round of questioning.

Mr. Battiste, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with Chief Beaudin, because we just saw each other in the Treaty 4 territory for the 150th anniversary celebration of Treaty 4. It was one of the most magnificent celebrations I have ever seen. All of the headdresses were up front—it was an amazingly powerful statement—with such beautiful beadwork on all of them. It was very amazing.

You had talked a little bit about the trouble with collaboration with the provinces that is implied in this legislation. I'm wondering if you think that formal recognition of a first nation's inherent right over water would strengthen your position when dealing with provinces, if recognized in this legislation.

[Chief Erica Beaudin]

Thank you for the question and for recognizing the 150th anniversary of the signing of Treaty 4.

The short answer is that it absolutely would.

Our experience right now is with a dam restructuring project. It is time to build a new dam. When we talk about jurisdiction, we're also talking about legal protections to assist first nations, which, hopefully, are in this bill. This will give us more leverage and the ability in our tool box to—I don't want to say fight or to have to fight—assert that jurisdiction that we never gave up. We have the inherent right, as well as the treaty rights, to all of our traditional waters, as well as our waterways and shorelines.

Currently, we are in a deadlocked position with the Province of Saskatchewan. If we do not agree to sell our traditional lands to the province, so that it can rebuild our dam structure, in fact, it will not build the dam. That is essential. We are now in a position where we are contemplating court action, which is very expensive.

The Cowessess Nation is strong and proud. However, the monies that we have from own-source revenue should be going to the people. We should not be fighting what is already inherently ours. Our hope, with Bill C-61, is that this will give us another tool, so that we wouldn't have to go into that type of a legal fight.

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

Thank you, Chief.

Regional Chief, I'm going to come to you with a question.

You had stated earlier that 72% of the boil water advisories are coming from Ontario. Do you think that a regional approach, because I know of a lot of different...?

I'm from a first nations reserve myself of about 5,000 people. We have different capacity levels for being able to deal with the oversight, operations and maintenance of water. It's a very technical thing. You talked about it in your speech.

Do you think we should be thinking about a national first nations-led water authority that would help with better outcomes, especially around the operation and maintenance of water?

In asking you this—because I know there are different levels of trust in government—do you think it would be better to do this as first nations, or regionally-based in Ontario? How do you think that could work, if possible?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

There are a couple of things related to that.

In some cases, you know, regional approaches work. In the case of clean drinking water, it's pretty technical on the ground, right? You can have all the regional bodies you want that either work through regulations or do inspections. The most important part is that the capacity is on the ground. When we see regional approaches around supporting communities, there are inspections for houses or engineering services. I'm not sure that a regional technical body would be able to support the technical operation of water facilities in a community. If there is a regulatory body that would support them, I would say yes.

At the end of the day, the resources are needed to operate the facilities. A regulation in the technical aspect is one approach. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but you really have to think about that one. We need trained and qualified water operators that have the resources to do their jobs, and a regional body is not necessarily going to do that for them.

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

I know I don't have much time left.

For the communities that don't currently have boil water advisories, do you think that capacity is a problem in terms of the training that's needed to ensure clean water and consistency in keeping that water clean?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

I think, ultimately, in many cases, it's about resources to ensure that they are trained and that they are able to do their jobs. When you have communities that are remote and fly-in, we have to bring the members out of the community, train them and support them in that aspect—and that's a whole educational aspect—then bring them back into the community to do their jobs. We need adequate resources to be able to do that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to turn to the Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek Nation.

Ms. Debassige, I would like to hear your thoughts on the concept of protection zones, particularly when it comes to federal legislation.

I gather that the federal government wants to remain vague about the definition of a protection zone. Right now, this obviously falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Protection zones are established by the provinces under the water resources protection legislation. Ontario uses the term “protection zone”, while Quebec refers to a “protection area”. We can see that the regulations are similar.

A protection zone may include wellheads, surface water intakes, highly vulnerable aquifers and major groundwater recharge areas. It's a complete documentation of the territory and the main features of water sources.

According to a map of Ontario's protection zones, the Anishinabek Nation around the Great Lakes is significantly affected. Are you participating with Ontario in the process of establishing the protection zone that affects your nation?

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

Thank you for the question.

I believe that's a complex question that has complex responses and answers. Starting through the treaty-making processes, treaties were only for land, and those treaties did not contemplate land under water or water itself. Where Canada has failed, where the Crown has failed, over time, even in the division of powers, from the federal responsibility to the provincial responsibility, through that period of colonization, is that first nations people were not considered a people and were simply savages. Our first nations people were given the authority by the Creator to protect, for future generations, what did not belong to us.

When you speak to the Province of Ontario, the province really doesn't need to consult with first nations. It will say that first nations are that of a federal jurisdiction, and the provincial jurisdiction does not prevail. The provincial laws that are created don't go far enough to recognize the treaty and inherent rights, even to resources for that matter. Therefore, the protection zones that have been described by the Province of Ontario were described with no consultation with, or consideration of, first nations people. It was in those spaces that the context of that legislation was created without any opportunities for us. That again becomes that provincial jurisdictional imbalance, and both, I think, are equally responsible in not recognizing the inherent rights and jurisdictions of first nations people.

Thank you.

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

Meegwetch.

What should be done to establish a sustainable protection zone when two provinces are affected? For example, how can both sides of the Kitchissippi River, known in English as the Ottawa River, be protected?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

Is that to any member?

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

The question was for the Grand Council Chief, but you can comment afterwards if you would like to.

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

I think this is about the aligning of laws. First nations should have law-making powers, and that needs to be recognized at all levels of government. For far too many years we've been left out of discussions, and even up until the 1960s we were not able to vote. As we evolve as first nations, as treaty evolves and as government evolves, I think there is a tremendous opportunity to work together to recognize the inherent rights and jurisdiction of first nations and to support those moving forward.

When there is a will, there is always a way. I think history has told us that when there is political will, things can happen. However, when it comes to first nations people, the political will has always been to eradicate us and to assimilate us and to exert control over us. This is an opportunity for Canada, from a non-partisan perspective, to come together with us.

Meegwetch.

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

You expect that the wording of this bill will clearly establish a protection zone according to a process that obviously involves consultation with the first nations concerned. The goal is to better protect the most important waterways, especially for the Anishinabek Nation.

[Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige]

Absolutely. While I represent the Anishinabek Nation as a political and territorial organization, the rights belong to our people and to our nations that existed prior to treaty. Those have to be defined by them through proper mechanisms, but it should also be stated that this is not something that should be used to delay the opportunities for first nations to have clean, safe drinking water and wastewater services.

Meegwetch.

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

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

I'll now give the floor for six minutes to Ms. Ashton, who is taking part in the meeting by video conference.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to begin by sharing my condolences for the family of Johnson Redhead in Shamattawa First Nation, here in our region. I know many members of the committee are aware of the tragic situation of a six-year-old boy who was missing for a number of days and was unfortunately found deceased. I'm sure that all of our thoughts are with his family and first nation at this time.

One thousand, three hundred and two—that's how many days have passed since the Liberals were supposed to end every single long-term boil water advisory in Canada. Here in northern Manitoba, in my constituency, Mathias Colomb Cree Nation has been without clean running water for more than four years. It's been almost six years for Shamattawa First Nation. We can't forget that this Prime Minister's preferred method of dealing with communities that don't have clean drinking water is to fight them in court. This piece of legislation only came about after the Liberals lost a class action led by a number of first nations, including Tataskweyak Cree Nation in our region. This shows the extent to which he has failed to get the job done. This is not a Prime Minister or political party that intends to lift first nations out of poverty. This is a government that will only do the right thing when it's forced to, like the $57 billion in this year's budget for first nations that is court-ordered money. It's shameful.

I recently spoke with Chief Hill of Shamattawa First Nation and his team, following his cross-examination by Canada's lawyers. For those who don't know, Shamattawa and 59 other first nations are fighting the Liberal government over its missed deadline to deliver clean drinking water.

I'd like to quote a message I received from Chief Hill that highlights the rank hypocrisy of the Liberals. They may say nice things on one side, but it's what they're doing in court—where they hope Canadians aren't paying attention—that really matters.

Chief Hill shared this with me: “This litigation has been painful. Canada has decided to defend the case rather than come to the table as nation-to-nation partners. The cross-examinations were long and painful. My cross-examination took place over three days, and the lawyers for Canada went through the minute details of Shamattawa's finances. I was asked questions that sought to blame me and my band council for our long-term drinking water advisory. Rather than look in the mirror,” he went on to say, “Canada is pointing the finger at first nations for the entirely predictable consequences of its own actions. This is what happens when first nations take a stand. Canada says that it cares about reconciliation, but through this litigation, it has made clear that first nations are just an inconvenience. Canada's decision to fight first nations over access to clean drinking water is a national embarrassment. They are treating first nations like we aren't even human beings. It is no wonder why our members are the sickest, die the youngest and experience the highest suicide rates in the country.”

What's even more shocking is what the lawyers hired by the Liberals are saying in court, hoping no one pays attention. They argue that first nations don't have a right to clean drinking water. They'll argue that it's first nations themselves that are to blame for the lack of clean drinking water.

My first question is for the Chiefs of Ontario.

Do you feel like the government is doing enough for your first nations? Do you agree with this government's lawyers that first nations do not have a right to clean drinking water?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

Well, thank you for the question.

I would say that it is obviously disappointing when we have to resort to the courts to see action. While there has been, as you outlined, a commitment to end the boil water advisories, that has not happened. Therefore, we had to work with the Assembly of First Nations to support a lawsuit for bringing that to an end. We are disappointed by the process that exists. Progress has been made; communities have come off boil water advisories. However, more progress needs to be made.

Do we like being in the courts? Absolutely not. Do we know there are solutions that can be found if we're sitting at the table? Yes. Have we had those conversations? Yes. Is it happening fast enough? Absolutely not. I described in my testimony how a 30-year boil water advisory in a community is not acceptable.

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

Thank you for sharing that.

Building on that, I want to read some of the things that Canada's lawyers are arguing when they are in court fighting first nations' access to clean drinking water.

They've said, “Canada does not owe any legal obligations or duties to operate and maintain the plaintiffs' water”, referring here to first nations' water systems. Moreover, “Canada has provided First Nations with extensive funding and support to operate and maintain community water systems.”

They say that Canada is doing what it should because “the great majority of First Nations have water that is safe to drink and meets the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality”, knowing full well that so many communities are under long-term boil water advisories.

They've said that “Canada denies it has any legal obligations or duty to the plaintiffs", meaning first nations, when it comes to a responsibility to provide or fund water infrastructure on reserve.

They deny there is a legal obligation to clean drinking water to first nations.

I find those statements absolutely chilling. It's particularly disgusting that they are being argued by our federal government as it actively fights first nations on the very basic issue of clean drinking water.

To other witnesses on the panel, I'm wondering how you feel about these statements.

Do you agree with any of them? Do you find issue with any of them?

[Chief Erica Beaudin]

I will be the first to respond to that.

First of all, sitting here as first nations, as the indigenous, original peoples of this land, everything that you have reported in the last six minutes we have been born into. We know all of these statistics. We live it every day.

In the legal system, people will say what they need to say in order to win. That is the type of legal system we have. It is not a justice system; it is a legal system.

As the original peoples of this land, what we have been told through treaty—and I'm speaking from a treaty perspective—is that with this covenant, which has been there from the newcomers or the Crown and the original peoples, as well as the Creator, we must work together.

We acknowledge that we were born into genocidal policies. We still are subjected to them. We still bury so many children and many more people than any other Canadian or people who live in what is now Canada. We know this because we go to the wakes and funerals. We understand the chronic underfunding.

What we do state here today, at least for myself, is that while this is going on, we have an opportunity with this bill, even if the government is currently faced with having to do the right thing. Yes, we acknowledge that the court has stated that they do the right thing, but we must still work together to ensure that the death toll goes down, that we have safe drinking water, that we have adequate funding and that there are legal tools in our tool box with the provincial, federal and first nations jurisdictional fight.

Thank you for the question. I don't think you'd need to have one without the other, or that only one is the right way to go. I think that the time is now for us to act and work together to get this legislation passed.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ashton.

That completes our first round of questioning. We're moving to our second round, which is the five-minute round

I believe that we will be turning it over to Mr. Shields.