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.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Yes, I was just going to say that, while I definitely understand where my colleague is coming from, I would have liked more time with the panellist from our area, who is on the front lines of the fight at the Supreme Court for clean drinking water.
If we're going down this path, I would like to extend that opportunity to Chief Beardy, as well, if she is available.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Okay.
First of all, is it the will of the committee and the will of the people?
Chief Beardy and Dr. Exner-Pirot, do your schedules accommodate this?
Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Yes. I just have to get my kids off to the bus, but I'll be around.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you to our witnesses. We will suspend very quickly to get our new witnesses in. We appreciate your testimony and look forward to further conversations.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Welcome back to our second round as we continue this committee meeting.
I would like to now welcome our witnesses for the second panel.
From Neskantaga First Nation, we have Chief Chris Moonias and Darian Baskatawang. From the Okanagan Indian Band, we have Chief Byron Louis and Nathan Surkan. From Onion Lake Cree Nation, we have Chief Henry Lewis.
What we usually do is start off with a five-minute opening round for each of our witnesses.
Is Chief Moonias going to start, or is Darian starting?
Chief, it's all you. You have five minutes.
Chief Chris Moonias Neskantaga First Nation
Thank you.
My name, for those of you who don't know me, is Chris Moonias, chief of Neskantaga First Nation. If you don't know where Neskantaga is situated, it's 430 kilometres north of Thunder Bay. It's a remote, fly-in community.
Recently, I read a MacIean's article that described me as “large” and “quiet”, but it noted that I make “powerful declarations” when I do speak, so I hope my voice resonates here. Maybe it's because I was at Queen's Park last year and got kicked out of there when I shouted no to the ring of fire being proposed for my traditional territory—Neskantaga traditional territory. Hopefully that won't happen here.
Anyway, this time I have Darian Baskatawang here, our lawyer from OKT. He is representing us in our water class actions. Darian is beside me on my right.
Today marks 10,837 consecutive days that we've been under a boil water advisory—the longest in Canada. That's nearly 30 years. Come February 1, it will be 30 years, and we're likely to reach that 30-year mark. This is something that hits close to us. It impacts us deeply as Neskantaga First Nation members. Neskantaga is ground zero for a shameful story in Canada. We're hopeful about amendments related to the human right to water and about the codevelopment of a funding model that exceeds the settlement agreement commitments.
Source water protection is critical for us. The provinces don't want to play ball, threatening our water supply in the name of money and mining. That's why I shouted at Queen's Park. That's why our position is the way it is. It's to defend and protect our environment and water. We asked the province's premier to meet with us. To this day, he hasn't met with Neskantaga.
Our highest priority remains obtaining clean, safe drinking water as we approach 30 years under our boil water advisory. I urge you to remember that real lives are affected by this legislation. Failing to pass it means condemning us and communities like ours to a continued lack of essential and legal potable quality and quantity standards. That's why we launched a class action with Tataskweyak and Curve Lake. We demanded legal changes to recognize the harms caused by the government's inaction and Parliament's failure to do more than say, “may act”.
Today, people in Neskantaga suffer from severe eczema, chronic mental health issues and other health crises due to water contamination. We have people from Neskantaga who cannot go home because of the boil water advisory. We have people who are stuck in Thunder Bay because of the boil water advisory. We have people who are approved to do home dialysis, but they cannot go home because of the boil water advisory.
On January 2, I took my best friend home in a coffin because he couldn't go home. He'd been stuck in Thunder Bay. He couldn't do home dialysis because of the boil water advisory. I have an elder sitting behind me. His wife cannot go home because of the boil water advisory. That's why it deeply affects us.
The settlement we reached represents a new dawn for us. Central to this agreement are key provisions to ensure that our boil water advisory ends and new ones don't arise. That's the main reason we were in that class action. The biggest, most important thing for us is to make sure that we have a standard of water in our communities so that this doesn't happen again to us or any other first nation in Canada.
We need quality and quantity standards for drinking water so that we can cook, do dishes, shower and even wash our babies without worrying about consequences. Those things we cannot even do at home. We're given only 1.5 litres a person to do all of that. Imagine using 1.5 litres to do all that's listed here: clean, do dishes, wash yourself, wash your babies and cook.
On the actual cost for operations, maintenance and infrastructure upgrades, shift the conversation from crisis management to rights recognition. The bill makes progress, and it must ensure funding to meet the needs and standards for quality and quantity of water. It also needs to uphold source water protection, which is essential for our communities.
Parliament hasn't done enough in the past. We need to replace yesterday's “may” with tomorrow's best efforts. We can't afford just “may”, which led to three decades of hardship for Neskantaga. We need action. We need protection. We need to make sure that the legislation is there to protect us and make sure it doesn't happen again.
My message from Neskantaga is clear. Pass this bill with the amendment suggested by the first nations advisory committee. We need you to act now.
We don't need perfection. We just need your best efforts. We don't want to start over either. Don't start over. We have something we can work on. Let's move forward.
Meegwetch.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much, Chief.
Chief Louis, I believe you are next. You have five minutes.
Chief Byron Louis Okanagan Indian Band
Good morning.
My name is Byron Louis. I'm the chief of the Okanagan Indian Band.
First of all, I'm a member of the Syilx Okanagan Nation, which is located in British Columbia. The majority of our people are located in Washington, Idaho and Montana.
We have numerous leased lands. We've been leasing lands for probably the last 120 years. We've been leasing our lands for income and for the benefit of our people. We have a number of communities and reserves. The main reserve is IR#1. It amounts to about 25,000 acres, I believe. We've made numerous purchases of additional lands off reserve, which bring the number close to about 31,000 or 32,000 acres.
We have a number of non-residents based on leasehold interest, other types of...and modular home parks and commercial leases along the Okanagan Lake. Our reserve lands have been able to provide a modest level of support for our communities for quite some time, and that's one of the issues we'd really like to talk about.
One of the issues that must be understood is aboriginal rights. The government always concentrates on the social aspects of an aboriginal right. When you look at ISC policy, it is all about this social aspect, which creates limitations on what exactly is considered a use and benefit to aboriginal peoples, but what must be made clear is that aboriginal rights also include the economic component of a right. When you're looking at formulas or policy, you can't have these policies that address simply one issue, which is the economic component.
As an example, each household under ISC policy has a little over 700 litres per day, yet in the neighbouring communities, each household has anywhere from 2,800 to 3,600 litres per day. When you look at that, it does not provide economic benefit to our people, and I think that needs to be taken into consideration.
We've been without access to clean water to meet our needs. That's without a doubt, and it's been spoken about by others. We're not a remote community, so that is not a reason to have this problem of no access to proper infrastructure, water and waste-water treatment. We have aging and inadequate infrastructure, based on the formula I have described, and inadequate water treatment solutions proposed by ISC.
If we go back to Walkerton and the reasons why that happened in Ontario, you have the same formula for disaster. That type of disaster exists on virtually every reserve across Canada—even ours.
Source water is not protected from agriculture, agriculture runoff, unregulated septic systems and other sources of contamination. Even our most populated reserve, IR#1, has had at least one drinking water advisory on community systems in all of the years since 2004.
Numerous drinking water advisories exist on private systems because, based upon the formula, not all lands actually have sources of potable drinking water. When you're drilling for water, whether or not you'll have contamination all depends on the soils and the conditions of those soils.
We still have many members in the community who have no water services at home or drilled wells by their home. As an example, my father passed away about a year ago when he was 88 years old, and he was hauling water from about the early eighties right up to the time he passed.
We have very high rates of cancer on our reserve. We have had incidents of 90 individuals with cancer, and 30 of them were fatalities. We actually lost these members. Each and every one of them can't be based upon genetics, because in some of the households, you have a husband and wife. In one case, a man's wife came from the Stswecem'c Xgat'tem, which is about 400 kilometres away from us, and both he and his wife died of cancer. He died of throat cancer and she died of brain cancer. An individual less than 300 feet away, downstream from them, also died of cancer.
When you're looking at this, it's much more than just inadequate water and water supplies. The only common denominator out of these 90 people who lived in various locations on our reserve was the water systems.
With these losses, we're talking about people, in a place where we have a very low population, who still retain our traditional nsyilxcən language. When we lose them, it's like losing a library. It's like going downtown or going into Library and Archives Canada and burning a whole section, because that's the equivalent.
Economic development is limited by inadequate water supplies. Again, this gets back to the issue that it is not just the social consideration of an aboriginal right. It's an economic component that is equally important as that social consideration. Ours are the only communities in Canada that are only given social considerations in developing our societies, while every other community in Canada develops based on social and economic considerations. One pays for the other. What this does is it just continues to create that dependence on government largesse, for lack of a better term—and that's all you can describe it as, because it's at the mercy of the government, which has not been friendly to our people.
I think I'm getting close.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
It's over, but I didn't want to cut you off because you had some important things to say. We probably will get to expand on them during the question time.
Next up is Chief Henry Lewis.
Chief Henry Lewis Onion Lake Cree Nation
First of all, I'm very grateful to sit here today addressing the Senate on such a delicate topic. My name is Okimaw Lewis and I am the chief of Onion Lake Cree Nation. I speak on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe and Algonquin nations.
We entered into Treaty 6 with the British Crown in 1876, before Alberta or Saskatchewan existed. Our ancestors would not have imagined these new levels of government or the impacts we see now when they entered into treaty. Our treaty guarantees our ability to continue our way of life—we in our canoes and settlers in their ships—without interference. Our treaty is unique. Two provisions are important for the discussion here today: the medicine chest provision and the famine and pestilence provision. These confirm the Crown's continued obligation regarding our health and our protection from starvation and disease.
Our access to a healthy abundance of water is essential. It is tied to those obligations and does not end at the reserve boundary. Our territory extends throughout the entire Treaty 6 area. Our reserve straddles the Saskatchewan-Alberta border, which creates additional challenges for my nation. Onion Lake has approximately 7,000 members and occupies approximately 156,000 acres of territory.
To be clear, we reject Bill C-61 in its entirety.
I will focus my discussion on five issues.
First is the breach of treaty and inherent rights. Water is sacred and essential to everything. Our relationship to water is not granted through federal legislation or agreements with provinces. This bill assumes that our authority over water is only on, inside or under our reserve lands. This bill downloads federal responsibility and liabilities under the treaty in the guise of self-government. It requires us to forgo our rights to source waters.
Second is the flawed consultation process. Several court cases deal with the duty to the Crown when consulting. Onion Lake Cree Nation has protocols outlining consultation and what requirements governments and industry must follow when engaging us through our own process. This has not been followed. Federal representatives from ISC and the DOJ were at this committee on June 12 describing the process that was used. They said they consulted with modern treaty, self-governing first nations and the AFN.
Onion Lake Cree Nation is an independent nation. We are not involved with the corporate body of AFN or any tribal council, nor do they speak on our behalf. AFN and other corporate bodies are not rights holders. They are corporate bodies. That modern treaty and self-government first nations will not be affected by this bill, so it doesn't make sense that they were consulted. Sending an email does not equate to adequate consultation.
Third is the jurisdictional problem. This bill is aspirational. Language like “reliable” and “assist First Nations in achieving the highest attainable standard” in clause 4 is meaningless. We do not need this two-tiered “let's try to do better” system that only transfers liability and responsibility to the nations using terms like “self-government”. We see the issue of dumping and contaminants in the water from development. This bill will not compel the province to do anything. Canada already has powers under the Canada Water Act, but it has failed to use them. The proposed commission and lack of details are scary. We are unsure about what authorities the commission will have, and whether it will make decisions related to the discharge of nuclear waste and other effluents in our water bodies and tributaries.
Fourth are the protection zones. The protection zones are also aspirational. They have no teeth, and we are not convinced these zones will be created according to our needs, or in time. They must be adjacent to the reserve. We hunt, fish, trap and gather in our territory. Animals, plants and fish do not stay in the reserve boundary.
These zones require agreements with provinces. They do not compel provinces or ministers to do anything. Protection zones and other legislation have not worked. Nations continually have to take Canada to court or wait 15 or more years for action.
Finally, water is a human right. The UN has recognized that water is at the core of sustainable development and critical to socio-economic development, energy, food production, healthy ecosystems and human survival. Water is also at the heart of adaptation to climate change. As the population grows, there is an increasing need to balance all the competing commercial demands on water sources so that we have enough for our own needs.
The bill does not recognize that right, nor does it include the World Health Organization's guidelines for water quality. The bill does not guarantee the protections and principles established under article 19 of the United Nations declaration.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much to our witnesses. I appreciate the testimony so far. We are going to be tight on time to end the meeting relatively on time. We will probably go over, but I'll be a little more strict in terms of time for the questioning.
We'll start the first round for six minutes with Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of the chiefs here for taking part in this important discussion and for the testimony.
Chief Moonias, it's good to see you. I really appreciate what you shared already, and I thank you for sharing the suggested amendments as well. I do appreciate that.
I want to go into one other question around future regulations, and it was just alluded to. Much of this bill is left to future regulations to be determined by the minister. Of course, there's an expectation the minister would consult and co-operate with first nations in making those regulations, but there is the ability for the minister to move forward in defining regulations for things like protection zones, as an example, without the consent of a first nation.
I'll ask the question of Chief Louis, but, Darian, if you want to jump in from a legal perspective, please feel free to share the time as you wish. I want to ask if you have concerns about many of these things being defined in future regulations, potentially without the consent of the first nations impacted.
Darian Baskatawang Associate Lawyer, Olthuis Kleer Townshend LLP, Neskantaga First Nation
Thank you, Chief, for appointing me to take this answer.
In our minds, the most important part of what this bill does is set out that the government has to make best efforts on the parts that Chief Louis just mentioned, on standards for quality and quantity. Start with that. If you want to do more, we'll do the rest later, but we don't want to wait another decade for one act to come and another one to go. Let's start with this now. Then, of course, if we want to do more on future regulations, let's consult, but for now we don't want to see the opportunity pass.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Chief Louis, Did you want to jump in on that question? It looked like you wanted to.
Okanagan Indian Band
Yes. You know, when we're looking at undefined regulations, I think it's very important that first nations are actually considered in there. When you look at the constitutional order under the government, you're talking about section 91, which clearly gives that role to the federal government, but it's a trusteeship role. I think that needs to be clearly understood.
The other component of that, under the British Columbia Terms of Union, under section 13, is that it was very clear in the wording for that, “The charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed by the Dominion Government”. It is clear that, constitutionally, in British Columbia, when you're coming there, you do not speak to the provincial government. You actually speak to us in terms of any type of issue that will affect us.
I think there needs to be an understanding that there must be the ability to enforce section 81 of the Indian Act, which talks about us being able to pass laws and regulations. It says that we have that authority for health and public safety. You can't be more clear about water and water legislation, but we also need the ability to enforce that. It has been a failure of government all along to not enforce our bylaws.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you very much to both of you for that context. I appreciate it.
I'll come back to Neskantaga. In the opening remarks, Chief, you mentioned an amendment around the codevelopment of funding. Could you expand more on that and what effect it would have on your nation?
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I'll try to speak a little closer to the microphone.
I just said, Chief, that in your opening remarks, you mentioned a potential amendment around the codevelopment of funding.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I'm curious if you could speak more to what that would look like and how that would benefit your nation.
Neskantaga First Nation
A lot of the time, when things or legislation is being developed, the indigenous communities don't get a chance to be involved, especially when we're talking about consultation and things like that. One of the chiefs earlier mentioned how it's not just an email. We need to sit down and really take a look at those things that will affect the first nation communities. We don't see that, either federally or provincially. All the times when we're asked to support something, we're not there because we don't have that opportunity.
That would really strengthen the relationship and the things we're trying to do. We need involvement.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it.
Darian, I'll ask you to follow up on the previous question around the regulation framework. The language of consulting and co-operating seems very broad. Again, I'm not a legal expert.
In your view, what would that interpretation be? Could it be more solidified to be consent or something that more closely resembles consent, from a legal standpoint?