Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

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

I know that there's been some concern expressed by both the Bloc and the Conservatives about protection zones being undefined. We agree that we need to ensure that we don't infringe on provincial jurisdiction, and that's why this extra sentence gives the clarity that the water has to be connected to a first nation, so it's not just all waters associated in the province that are a protection zone. There's actually a connection to that first nations community, whether it's drinking water or fishing.

I see this doing exactly what we've been asked by the Conservatives and the Bloc to consider doing, which is ensuring that when we're doing this, we're not covering all waters associated with that province but rather the ones that are connected to a first nations community.

In terms of drinking water sources, we've had cases of first nations' drinking water being poisoned in Nova Scotia or Alberta. What this hopes to do is give clarity by saying that only waters that are connected to first nations communities can be considered a protection zone.

I think that addresses some of the concerns that the Conservatives and the Bloc have raised. Would you say that's a somewhat reasonable reading of what this statement does?

[Nelson Barbosa]

It's a very accurate encapsulation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the comments from Mr. Battiste and his efforts to try to get to consensus here. I guess I disagree a bit with the specific wording of this in what it.... I don't disagree with the intentions, but I'm not sure if the wording is quite sufficient.

I'd be curious how “connected” would be defined, versus “adjacency”. We've gone to lengths to remove “adjacency”. What is “connected”? I mean, water flows in many ways for great lengths. At what point would a river that runs through multiple provinces still be connected to a first nation or perhaps not connected to a first nation?

I think that creates some ambiguity. I don't think it's intended ambiguity on the part of the government, but it just concerns me that it could be the case.

Do you have thoughts on how “connected” would be defined? I hate to say “defined”, because we've been fighting about definitions for some time now, but I think it's an important point.

[Nelson Barbosa]

Thanks for the question.

Well, first off, it says “must consider”, not “defined”, so it's a part of the consideration of how the laws apply.

Yes, some rivers are very long. Some of the longest rivers in the world are in this country, and there are also sources of water that are quite small. I think the concept is that there must be—not to define a term with the term—a connection to that water in order for a law to be passed.

In the same way that exists in the provincial and territorial concept, the Province of Ontario cannot pass a law over waters in Alberta, because there's no connection to those lands or to that watershed. I think it's talking about aligning laws over a space that is permeable and connecting those to a first nation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

I just want to point out that we will be voting in favour of the amendment. I thank Mr. Battiste for his sensitivity on this.

We still think it will be important to clarify the concept of adjacent lands, but that will be discussed when we discuss BQ‑15 and clause 22.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Next, we're going to go to Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This does get complicated. I know of rivers that originate in the United States that would be connected to the Blackfoot Confederacy. They come through Canada and return to the United States.

In some water agreements, percentages of water are retained in one country, with an international agreement. The water use is retained in Canada. We also have water agreements from B.C. to Manitoba on the amount of water each province can retain from that river flow. We have a number of very complicated agreements and international agreements sitting out there that this would affect when you talk about connections. It's not as simple as you might suggest in this conversation. It's very complicated.

Those agreements on the international water that affect the Blackfoot Confederacy, for example.... On both sides of the border, that agreement is being.... They've spent 10 years renegotiating that particular agreement, because it's very complicated. It's not simple. When we say “connected”, it's not simple.

The headwaters of the Saskatchewan rivers come out of B.C. through the western provinces all the way to Hudson Bay. When we say “connect”, this is a lot of territory and a lot of....

There are agreements that provinces have on water usage and percentage, and across international borders. When you say “connect”, this is a red flag for me. It's a tough issue, not only between provinces but internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

Next is Mr. Zimmer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with my colleague Mr. Shields.

In a previous committee meeting, I mentioned protection zones and how they would affect certain water bodies. In my riding, as an example, we have the Peace River. It goes from Alberta to B.C. and all the way up into the Northwest Territories, where it exits into the Arctic. Along the way, it affects many things—I used this example too, but I'll state it again—such as natural gas.

The reason we have a natural gas project on the west coast of B.C. is the natural gas from my riding. It only makes its way there because exploration has been done and production has happened, and they needed water to produce that natural gas. If we put a protection zone anywhere near the Peace River, it would affect any potential new development on natural gas.

Natural gas, by the way, is great for the environment in that it reduces emissions around the world, as long as we can get it to the world. Any kind of limitation that we put around that source water—that would be the Peace River or any water coming from the Peace River—would have some pretty dramatic effects, not just in the province of B.C., but in Alberta and, really, globally. That's how a simple piece of legislation can have some pretty severe impacts on any new development.

Lastly, I'd add to this statement that it affects first nations. A lot of first nations along the way have had economic prosperity and opportunity because of natural gas. If we're going to limit that as well.... Again, just a simple phrase—two words in a piece of government legislation—can have some wide and vast negative consequences.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.

I don't see any further hands—

Go ahead, Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I think we really have to be considerate of the impacts that waters, waterways and watersheds have, even though communities may be quite far away from projects, dams or anything of that nature that holds back water or reduces water.

I live in a community called Fort Providence. It's an indigenous community. It's the first community on the Mackenzie River. Two days ago, the Mackenzie River dropped so low that we can no longer pump water into our water plant. It's the first time in our history that we've had water levels drop so low. Our water levels have been dropping since they started holding back water at Site C. Whether that's the actual cause, I can't say for sure, but the timing is certainly coincidental.

When Site C was being built, we did not have one word of input on that project—not one. We were considered not connected. We're too far away. It didn't matter if it was indigenous voices trying to provide impact or the Government of Northwest Territories: We had no say.

Now our barges can't come up and down the river and water intakes are being affected, so I think we need to be able to make sure that projects that are on one side of the country don't affect something that's further downstream. We have to look at whole watersheds. We have to look at the whole flow of river systems when we talk about impacts and when we start talking about projects and their effects on others.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod. It's just alarming and heartbreaking to hear what the impact is right now.

Mr. Shields has his hand up, so I'll go there next.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to refer to B.C. and the Columbia River and the agreement with the United States. This is hydrological. The amount of electricity that's created is a huge source of power within the Columbia River basin. That's another one that's an international treaty with the U.S.: the Columbia River. The amount of hydro power that's created is a piece to that.

There's another side to the dam argument. Recently, environmentalists in discussions and meetings that I've been in have talked about dams that have created a better environmental flow of water at a predicted rate that creates a better environment, predictably, along the river streams. I'm seeing information, then, from environmentalists who used to oppose dams and are now saying that they are a means of a healthier environment along the stream beds. I think there's some information out there that shows both sides of that.

I understand and realize what you're saying and the difficulty it creates. However, I'm just saying that there's some other information out there, as well, on the creation of dams both for power and for stream-flow consistency.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Shields.

I have a lot of thoughts on this, as someone who's practised in transboundary water management. Certainly the dams on the Columbia River were done for flood mitigation. However, among other things, damming did prevent the salmon runs from going upstream, so there are some very major ecological impacts. Actually, that treaty is now up for renegotiation, which will be very interesting with the new incoming administration.

In any event, that's neither here nor there.

I'm not seeing any more interventions, so let's go to a vote.

Shall G-5 carry? We're going to have a recorded division.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

That takes us to CPC-4.

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to move CPC-4, which pertains to the discussion about protection zones and the regulations the minister must make.

Again, this is not a new concept, at least from the standpoint of our amendment. It's just ensuring that any such regulation must be co-developed with provinces, territories and first nation governments.

That is the hope of CPC-4. It's aiming to ensure that the protection zones can be defined clearly and not get caught up in any, frankly, legal dispute, whether it be from provinces or first nations, about what the zones may look like.

I will end it there. We're hoping to include co-development, which I believe is in the spirit of this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

That will open it up to debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

I understand that what we've asked for is consultation and co-operation with provinces that's consistent with this legislation, but this seems to add a layer of bureaucracy of co-developing different agreements with all of the different provinces and territories.

I'm wondering if that's consistent with the legislation that we're looking at now or if it would require extra layers of bureaucracy in asking provinces to co-develop something and if we'd be waiting on provinces to move forward in this area for first nations water.

I'm a little concerned that by having these co-developments with provinces, as opposed to co-operation and consultation, it might take years for that to actually happen, and first nations communities would not have protection zones and first nations water legislation.

Am I understanding this amendment by the Conservatives correctly, and what the implications might be?

[Nelson Barbosa]

In previous remarks we spoke about consultation and co-operation being embedded in UNDA. This being absent, it certainly still holds here.

To your point, I don't think there's consensus, even among many first nations, on what the bar is for co-development. I certainly would say that it applies for provinces and territories.

What is being proposed would be co-developing with those three parties of provinces, territories and first nations. That concept of engagement among first nations has been a tricky one and one that you have heard many times from partners coming to this table on this legislation.

Now this is being applied to provinces and territories. I have not heard from provinces and territories what their opinion on co-development is, but I would imagine it is a very high bar and one for which I have not seen a precedent.

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

Just to follow up, in order to obtain co-development from provinces and first nations as pertaining to this legislation, that would delay implementation of this by at least months, if not years.

[Nelson Barbosa]

It would be hard to put a time on it. Co-development with provinces and territories certainly creates a new layer, for sure. It also may detract parties from even coming together in the first place.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

Next we'll go to Mr. Melillo, Mr. Zimmer and Ms. Idlout.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the concern raised. I do. I believe, however, that bringing this forward will help protect the process and ensure that it's not caught up in court in legal battles and will actually get to a place where this legislation could hopefully be effective. That is the aim of this amendment, Mr. Chair.

As mentioned, co-development is perhaps a bit of a new term in this concept, but the minister has used it many times in the context of the development of this bill.

You suggest, Mr. Barbosa, that co-development could delay the implementation of this bill. Could I ask if the co-development process for this legislation delayed the implementation of Bill C-61?