Evidence of meeting #121 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 infrastructure.
A video is available from Parliament.
Associate Lawyer, Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, Neskantaga First Nation
Broad can actually be good, because it allows more ability for the government and the communities to define what that looks like on a nation-by-nation basis. Requiring too much consent can put too much strain on the communities, where they may not have the capacity to do so.
Therefore, when we think about how we create structures or funding mechanisms, or whatever the regulations may look like, we need things to be broad so that they can be figured out later on on a nation-by-nation basis.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you.
Meegwetch, wela’lioq and hay hay for your testimonies today. It's been really interesting hearing from you today.
I live in the Mi’kmaq community of Eskasoni, which is the largest Mi’kmaq community in the Atlantic. Your testimony today very much reminds me of my grandmother, because I can remember growing up and living in Eskasoni when she was in another community called Potlotek. Every Sunday, we'd go to Sunday dinner with her and we would fill up these big, blue containers of fresh water to take to her.
The reason I'm reminded of her is that her name before marriage was Annie Lewis, which is like Chief Lewis, but in the residential school, they changed her name to Louis. Seeing both of your last names reminds me of the story my aunt just shared with me this week about going through the records.
Chief Moonias, you spoke very passionately and strongly, and you said in a few words what I think a lot of first nations are feeling across this country when it comes to this legislation: Act now. How many more generations have to fill up water bottles for their grandmothers? You also said, “Don't start over”, because we need to get this across.
I look at some of the things within the purpose of this legislation and I see it recognizing the inherent right within paragraph 4(a). I also see it talking about the need for sufficient, adequate, safe and quality drinking water. Moving forward, I would recognize UNDRIP in here, also saying that there should be minimum national standards and that we should be closing the infrastructure gap and protecting source water protections. These are all of the things we keep hearing from first nations communities and witnesses.
It feels like there may be a disconnect, or there isn't that trust in government for 300 years' worth of reasons. We're celebrating our 300th treaty in our nation next year. There are all kinds of reasons.
Chief Moonias, the first question for you is this: Instead of having the government implement this, should we have a first nations authority—maybe a regional authority—doing this work on behalf of first nations, because there's no trust in the government from first nations? That's the starting question.
Neskantaga First Nation
I think that, a lot of times, especially when things are happening in our territories and homelands, we want to make sure we are part of it, as far as taking the leading role and making sure.... We know what we want. We know how we live. We've known for many years—since time immemorial—what our community needs.
It wasn't until we hired an engineering firm that the government believed we required a brand new water plant. My community has been saying that we need a new water plant since 1995. It wasn't until we made that demand, after we were evacuated.... We said that the only way we were going home is.... We need a table so that we can have those positive discussions and work off them. Those things didn't happen for a while. Of course, one of our demands was to get what actually happened: an investigation about a water plant. Since then, science proved that Neskantaga needed a water plant. That's when the government started saying, “Yes, you guys do need a water plant.” We've been saying that all along.
It's almost the same thing. We need to take the leading role. We need to work in partnership too. There are unlimited things we can do if we work together.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Chief.
Chief Lewis, you said this legislation “downloads” liability to first nations.
I've read through the document. Can you show me where that exists? Where does it say that we're off-loading our responsibilities on water to first nation communities?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
No, it's Chief Lewis who said that.
I'm sorry, Chief Louis. I got you all mixed up. It's very close.
Onion Lake Cree Nation
I wish my technician was here for that question. You know, I have technicians who look after these matters for me.
When it comes to delegated authority, it's very evident. It's being off-loaded to the provinces. We have proof of that.
I delegate the question itself to my technician.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
My reading, Chief, is this: It says that the purpose of this is to ensure there's collaboration among first nations and federal and provincial organizations in terms of source water protection. We've seen how the Province of Alberta failed that. I agree with you. As a first nations person, I would never want to be seen off-loading responsibility to a first nations community when provincial and federal governments should be on it.
However, I need to be specific in terms of amendments. Where do you see that, and how do we clarify it to make sure this is not the intention, moving forward?
Bailey Komarnicki Director, Operations, Onion Lake Cree Nation
Good afternoon. Chief Lewis has tapped me to answer that.
We're not here to discuss amendments. We're here to outright reject this bill in its entirety.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
You're rejecting something based on a premise I've heard many times, but I can't seem to find that premise within this document.
You're saying that we're doing something. As a first nations MP who is in favour of acting now and strengthening it, I need to see where this is and how we can fix it.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Okay, we'll get a quick answer. Then we'll have to move on to our next questioner.
Policy Advisor, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group Inc., Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services
If you look at the ISC act of 2019—
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
We're talking about this legislation. I need to see it here.
Policy Advisor, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group Inc., Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services
Hold on a minute. I'm answering your question.
If you look at the ISC act of 2019.... We were told by the department—by Minister Hajdu—that it intersects with this law, and that the intention, as the chief just said, is for a gradual transfer of all programs and services, which include water, waste water and related infrastructure.
When you look at Bill C-61—relative to how it intends to build indigenous governing bodies like the first nations water commission—and the ISC act in tandem, you can see what we're concerned about. It's that there is—
Policy Advisor, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group Inc., Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services
No, Bill C-61 creates the legislative basis for the off-load planned through the ISC act of 2019. The devolution pathway that Canada began in 1961 is being delivered through successive legislative mechanisms. On water, waste water and related infrastructure, we are talking about Bill C-61.
You cannot separate those two things, sir, with all due respect.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Therefore, it's not in this legislation. It's in another legislation.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
—so I'm going to have to move on to the next line of questioning.
However, there is a point of order.
Ms. Ashton.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Yes, it's simply to say that we are clearly over time.
I'm very concerned that witnesses who clearly disagree with the government are being treated this way. We should respect what they have to say without going back at them.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Okay, Ms. Ashton. That's understood.
Now we're going to our next line of questioning. It's by the Bloc Québécois.
You have six minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Exner‑Pirot, first, thank you for your flexibility. I'm sorry about the inconvenience for your children. I hope that you still managed to get to the bus.
I was quite curious to hear more about your views on specific amendments. You spoke about the lack of clear definitions and roles for commissions, particularly in terms of who ultimately regulates water.
I want to ask you an open‑ended question and let you respond based on what you heard today. We're almost at the clause‑by‑clause stage of the bill. What specific changes are needed to make it clearer?
