Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 121 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste-water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for the first panel. From the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services, we have Chief Rupert Meneen of the Tallcree First Nation; Chief Sheldon Sunshine of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation; Vaughn Paul, chief executive officer of the First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group; and Norma Large, policy adviser, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group. We also have, from the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Chief Joe Miskokomon. By video conference from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, director of natural resources, energy and environment. As well, we have Chief Taralee Beardy, who is online.

It's great to see our witnesses.

We will start with opening comments. I don't know who from the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services wants to go first, but we will kick....

Is there a problem?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Thomas Bigelow]

The screen behind us is not on.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Okay.

Hang on for two seconds.

It just looks like the screens are off behind me. Ignore that. The screens are on. We are doing the television feed.

Who would like to go first?

We have five minutes for the opening statements.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services]

Thank you, Chair.

Tansi, honourable members of Parliament. On behalf of our chiefs committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-61.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking on the unceded land of the Algonquin people.

With that, I will get right to it.

For the past year or so, we in the appointed Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services regarding water and water management in Alberta have monitored the progress of Bill C-61. As a committee, we have watched this bill progress from afar, since we were not engaged in the process, regrettably and unacceptably—not until the bill was already written. This bill does not meet our needs or expectations. We know we are not alone in this position. We have many regional issues in Alberta respecting water that need to be addressed and incorporated into this legislation. Without meaningful inclusion, this bill will fail first nation governments and peoples.

We must state here on the record that the Assembly of First Nations is being used to manufacture consent. This must not be allowed. At the recent AFN July session, a resolution to support Bill C-61 garnered the support of only 100 out of 600-plus first nations, yet Canada has asserted a position of strong engagement and support from first nations throughout the development of the bill, at every opportunity. This is false. Canada continues to hide behind the AFN to manufacture consent to pursue the very things we want to talk about with you today.

Please note that our committee will be submitting a substantive assessment of our concerns, which will include additional issues about specific aspects of the proposed legislation. We understand that the line-by-line work is still to come through this committee.

Today I want to spend some time expanding on our deep concerns over how Bill C-61 ignores unfinished business related to treaties. Bill C-61 does not meaningfully consider or incorporate our inherent and treaty rights to water in its framework for addressing water and water management issues. The treaty relationship is being ignored in this law. This is unacceptable to us as treaty nations.

Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 nations have inherent jurisdiction over water within their territories. We hold sacred, spiritual and cultural connections to water. The health and protection of water for the current and future generations are paramount to our well-being. Canada cannot continue to fail our peoples with this, but if the bill stays in its present form, it will. There is a slight reference in this bill to self-governing and modern-day treaty agreements, but not a single reference to our numbered treaties. We want to know why.

This goes to an issue that appears to be the elephant in the room: Canada, through this legislation, is continuing to deny our inherent and treaty rights to water. This is a fundamental flaw in the legislation as currently drafted. Canada is boastful about protection zones—concepts set out in this legislation. In theory, this can hopefully be an improvement over the status quo, but only—and I emphasize “only”—if you have a willing government partner. This is a bit of fantasyland thinking. There is nothing binding in this concept. It has no legal obligations and no teeth.

What happens if you don't have a willing government partner? First nations in the Alberta region have been left out of significant water planning initiatives in the province of Alberta, and Bill C-61 and the addition of protection zones provide no assurance of this changing. This is our current reality in Alberta, which, as you have been told by our colleague leaders from Treaty 7, continues to assert that it owns all water in what is called the province of Alberta. We are here today to remind parliamentarians that Alberta is an incorporated entity that has no sovereignty. In fact, it was created well after our treaties were made in 1876, 1877 and 1899. At no point in time did we cede or surrender our inherent rights and territories, and this includes over water.

What has happened over time has been a gradual and complete interference in our way of life. Successive governments in Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, continue to disrespect and dishonour our treaty rights and make a mockery of our treaty relationship. We are asking you to reconsider this. If you don't, realize that you will be complicit in the continuation of the situation.

What is at stake here is the honour of the Crown. We expect, as Canada's own UN declaration action plan states, that it will give its good-faith dealings under the treaties.

With that, I will end and take questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Chief. Actually, that's perfectly on time.

Next up, we have Chief Joe Miskokomon.

[Chief Joe Miskokomon, Chippewas of The Thames First Nation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Chief Joe Miskokomon. I come from the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation. I'd also like to introduce a councillor of ours and a youth representative, Kingson Huff.

I wish to acknowledge, first of all, that we are on the land and territory of the Algonquins of the Anishinabe. I also wish to acknowledge that our ancestors and our natural life, lands and waterways exist here. I also wish to acknowledge the government and the representatives at this table for undertaking this arduous task towards clean, safe drinking water and infrastructure for first nations.

I'd like to begin my conversation by first of all supporting the delegation from the Chiefs of Ontario and their representation in terms of the critical need to advance this issue in a way that has sustainable funding. I want to delve into funding for a bit.

There are actually no new suggestions for turning jurisdiction over to first nations in order to create economic modelling so that, as either individuals or collectives, we'll be able to design our own economic models that would be reasonable and sustainable within a local geographical area. I think it's important to empower not only the proposed water commission but also first nations in not only recognizing but also promoting ways to create sustainable water solutions within their regions.

It's no longer good enough for ISC to simply come to the table and say, “Because you're close to the city of London, you should be able to connect to the Huron pipeline. It's more affordable.” In fact, we have gone through 20 years of looking for solutions to solve the water problem at Chippewa. All that has happened is that we've had to do study after study for some 20 years. At this point, when the government comes to us and says, “Well, you can connect to the municipal pipeline,” no one even knows whether that pipeline can sustain the growth of the regional economy within the city of London. No one has done that study. We are one of the fastest-growing regions in Canada, with proposed high-speed rail coming in the near future. Growth has been exponential within the city of London.

Let me give you an example of how, in fact, some of that growth has impacted us. We're monitoring the Thames River or the Deshkan Ziibi that flows past our community. Seven million litres of partially treated or raw sewage have overflowed into that river over the past five years.

Let's put that into perspective, ladies and gentlemen. That is equivalent to 537 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The impact on that river.... We can no longer get sustenance from that river. It is far too polluted, regardless of whether or not it's within the environmental guidelines of Ontario. There is a cumulative effect in that river. The amount of damage ecologically and environmentally that has taken place over my lifetime is pronounced, to say the least. That is where one of our major sources of water comes from—the aquifer of that river.

We have band-aid solutions to water filtration systems. We have a 35-year-old distribution system in the community that is unsustainable. At this point, we're operating at 115% and breaking down almost on a daily basis. When there is a power surge or outage, the system goes down. We're on the brink of collapse over any length of time.

While, in fact, this is an opportunity to look at new legislation, I challenge you to say that it is also an opportunity for you to look at new possibilities for first nations. How can we, situated as close as we are to the city of London, partake in the economic growth that is currently going on in our region, when in fact we do not have reliable, sustainable or affordable infrastructure to offer industry?

We are not in a natural resource-based area. We are in a manufacturing and production area that requires labour reform, economic reform and infrastructure reform. The price of land and housing, as we all know, is a critical element. It is going up in our area, and we cannot sustain it.

I would ask you to look at this very critical issue. View it from this point: If there is an economic region that can come forward with new ideas for sustainability, affordability and development, give us the opportunity and back us with a long-term financial solution. We're not coming here for upfront money. We're coming here for brokerage money in order to invest in our communities so that we can invest in the economy and, therefore, coordinate and collaborate with the municipalities around us on that economic and sustainable growth.

I thank you very much, Chairman, for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Chief, for those words.

Next up is Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

You have five minutes.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for hearing my testimony.

My interest here is not to question the rights of indigenous peoples to clean drinking water or the jurisdiction that first nations have over water on reserve. Like almost all Canadians, I find the lack of access to clean water experienced in many of our indigenous and northern communities to be a source of embarrassment. I understand it is a complex technical and political issue, and I applaud any good-faith efforts to address it.

My interest, rather, is as a policy analyst with expertise in resource development and indigenous affairs. While I applaud the motivation behind this legislation, it is poorly drafted. The bill uses broad language and is ambiguous in its interpretation and application. If left unimproved, it will create unnecessary uncertainty and likely conflict for first nations, landowners, industry stakeholders and other levels of government. It will be left to the courts, at great public and private expense, to try to interpret what is intended in the legislation. This is not in the best interest of either first nations or Canadians in general.

I will endeavour to be more specific.

First, many key concepts are underdefined or ill defined in the bill. This circularity is best illustrated in the definition of “protection zone”. In the definition section, the bill states that “protection zone has the meaning assigned by regulations made under subsection 21(1)”, but subsection 21(1) says, “The Minister must make regulations defining 'protection zone' for the purposes of this Act.” Evidently, there is not, as of yet, a definition of “protection zone”. This seems backwards and unhelpful, especially considering the affirmations made about first nations jurisdiction over protection zones and their prominence in the text.

Similarly, the bill uses the terms “adjacent” and “source water” without defining them, though they could be interpreted as meaning a lot of different things and have very important connotations in the bill.

It consistently uses the term “First Nation lands”, which is ill defined in Canadian law, instead of using terms that are well defined. To me, there's a world of difference between “reserves” or “Lands reserved for the Indians”—as described in class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, and which the definition section refers to—and “First Nation lands”. The latter is often used interchangeably with “first nations territories”, which is often understood to mean most of Canada, barring Inuit lands. The spirit and intent of a term such as “First Nation lands” creates expectations that I don't believe the government has any intention of meeting and, in the case of conflict with other levels of jurisdiction, any authority to meet. I think it’s better to be specific throughout.

Other areas of uncertainty are as follows.

First, the bill provides for a first nations law to prevail “to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict, over a provision of an Act of Parliament”, but it does not say what happens if two or more first nation laws conflict with each other.

Second, the bill provides that “The quantity of water available on the First Nation lands of a First Nation must meet the drinking, cooking, sanitation, hygiene, safety, fire protection and emergency management needs”, but it does not say what happens if the water available isn’t adequate.

Third, it commits the Government of Canada to taking “traditional knowledge into account in all decision making regarding water services on First Nation lands, including with respect to measures related to water services on First Nation lands that can mitigate climate change”. It’s not at all clear what measures this could be referring to—how water services could either exacerbate or mitigate climate change.

I won’t further belabour the ambiguous drafting of the bill, and I will submit my questions to the committee in written form so they are easier to respond to. I’m not a lawyer, and I expect the government has lawyers it can ask to tighten up the language.

However, I want to finish by making this point: There is widespread consensus, even from this government, that we need to reduce regulatory barriers and improve permitting certainty in order to get things built in this country. We need major projects and infrastructure simply to maintain our quality of life—things that most Canadians take for granted but that are starting to be compromised—as well as basic infrastructure and development that many indigenous communities are still waiting to enjoy.

However, our lawmakers continue to pass legislation and advance policies that further add to this uncertainty, keep investment at bay and ensure the courts will need to be involved at some point in the future, at great time and expense. Poorly drafted legislation does not benefit first nations, but it does apply costs to all Canadians.

I support many of the tools introduced in this bill to ensure clean water on reserve, including expanded jurisdiction, higher standards and more funding, but I would respectfully request that this committee apply its talents to ensure this bill is clear, constructive and implementable from day one.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Next up, for five minutes, we have Chief Taralee Beardy online.

[Chief Taralee Beardy, Tataskweyak Cree Nation]

Good morning.

I'm Taralee Beardy. I come from Tataskweyak Cree Nation in Split Lake, Manitoba. We live in a community that is 900 kilometres north of Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have about 2,500 residents. Our community lies on the banks of Split Lake, which is fed by Manitoba's two largest rivers, the Nelson River and—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Chief Beardy, I'm sorry to interrupt.

The interpreters are having a tough time hearing you. Do you mind moving your microphone?

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Perfect. Let's try that.

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

I come from the community of Split Lake, which is 900 kilometres north of Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have about 2,500 residents. Our community lies on the banks of Split Lake, which is fed by Manitoba's two largest rivers—the Nelson River and the Churchill River.

These rivers have expansive watersheds that include Lake Winnipeg and extend west to the Rockies and east to northern Ontario, including the English River system, which is polluted by mercury. So many pollutants in these systems will find their way to Split Lake.

For centuries, the water in Split Lake, the Nelson River and the Churchill River was the lifeblood of our people. It contained all the resources we needed—water for drinking, fish and wildlife for food, and medicine plants.

Fish was one of the mainstays—

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

Mr. Chair, I apologize for interrupting the witness, but there isn't any French interpretation right now.

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

—of our diets, present at every meal.

However, starting in the 1960s—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Chief, I'm sorry to interrupt you again.

We're just having a tough time hearing you.

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Maybe we can suspend for a couple of minutes while we do another sound check with you, Chief Beardy.

We'll suspend momentarily.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

All right, we call the meeting back to order.

We have the technical issues figured out.

Chief Beardy, we apologize to ask you to do this, but do you mind starting from the top of your remarks?

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you.

We'll start the five minutes over, and the time is yours.

[Chief Taralee Beardy]

Good morning. Tansi.

My name is Taralee Beardy. I'm the chief of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation. I come from the community of Split Lake, which is 900 kilometres north of Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have about 2,500 residents on reserve.

Our community lies on the banks of Split Lake, which is fed by Manitoba's two largest rivers: Nelson River and Churchill River. These rivers have expansive watersheds that include Lake Winnipeg and extend west to the Rockies and east to northern Ontario, including the English River system, which is polluted by mercury. So many pollutants in those systems will find their way to Split Lake.

For centuries, the water in Split Lake, Nelson River and Churchill River was the lifeblood of our people. It contained all the resources we needed. It had water for drinking, fish and wildlife for food, and medicine plants. Fish was once a mainstay of our diets and present in every meal, but starting in the 1960s, our water changed. Where we once had perfect, clean drinking water right in front of our community, our water became murky and dirty. Our lake was flooded. River banks eroded and our beaches disappeared because of the artificial regulation of the lake by Manitoba Hydro.

Our elders noticed that the water quality had changed, and they didn't understand why. It was because Manitoba Hydro had built a hydro dam at Kelsey without our knowledge or consent.

This caused a lot of health impacts to our people. People have eczema, gastrointestinal upsets and cancers. There's a lot of diabetes and kidney and neuromuscular ailments. H. pylori was common among our people. A lot of people had stomach ulcers. We didn't allow our children to swim in the lakes anymore because they were getting skin rashes and sores.

Our people no longer fish in Split Lake. They have to travel further north to the northern lakes to get some fish for our elders and community members. There's an absence of country foods from our diets. We're depriving people of recreational opportunities like just playing in the water, allowing the kids to swim and boating. Things like that have been taken away from our people.

The other concern we have is the infrastructure. The infrastructure is not there. Of all the homes in our Split Lake community, 138 have water tanks. We need funding for more water infrastructure. We have about four neighbourhoods that don't have access to fire protection. If a fire breaks out, we don't have any fire hydrants. It's operated by water truck, and oftentimes, our water trucks are down. We then have to hire a water truck from Thompson, Manitoba, to come and service our community. We have 138 houses on water tanks, and even this is an added cost. We have to pay for a service truck because the infrastructure in our community is not good.

I feel that Canada needs to do better, especially when it comes to water. Life is water. Water is life. Everything we depend on has to do with water.

As you are aware, in 2019, Split Lake had a lawsuit against Canada because of that. We had to fight for our right for clean drinking water, and to this day, we still do not have clean drinking water. I'm very grateful that we're getting a new water treatment plant to another source from another lake, Assean Lake. However, we're still drinking bottled water.

There are times when we have to get bottled water delivered to our community. There are times when we run out of water, because there's not enough to go around. We have to provide water to the schools, the offices and the health centre. For years, the nursing station always brought their own bottled drinking water, but not for our community. Thankfully, we now have bottled drinking water, because our current water treatment plant can't clean the water to make it safe enough for us to cook or bathe our children. Our children are still having skin issues to this day.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to express the issues we are facing in our community of Split Lake.

Again, I want to say that our community is located north of the 56th parallel, and we're west of 96°, so we're up in northern Manitoba. It's quite remote. Luckily, we have a road, but there are other communities that do not, such as Shamattawa. They're located more northerly. We're supporting Shamattawa as well, because they still do not have clean drinking water at this time.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you, Chief, for those comments. We'll have more time to expand on what was said during the rounds of questioning.

We will start with the first round for six minutes.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for appearing.

My questions will be for Dr. Exner-Pirot.

Does the lack of northern water infrastructure pose a risk to our Arctic sovereignty? I know that you have expertise in the north. I'm going to quote from your article entitled “NORAD Modernization and the North—A Primer”. Some will ask how this relates to water. It very much does. The bill we're talking about says, “An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands”.

Your article says:

The base infrastructure grid—the network of transportation, communication, power, and water lines that southerners take for granted—does not extend into Canada’s Arctic. Many Inuit [and indigenous] communities, small by southern standards, are entirely off the grid and not connected to the rest of Canada by road, rail, fibre optic cable, power line, or water supply.

My first question is this: How important are water and related infrastructure to our Arctic sovereignty and security?