:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 123 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
I want to start, as we always do, by recognizing that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they have stewarded since time immemorial.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill , an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.
I would like to welcome the witnesses for our first panel.
From the Assembly of First Nations, we have National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak. Alongside her are Christopher Rapson, legal counsel, and Irving Leblanc, former director of infrastructure and safe drinking water.
From the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we have Chief Betsy Kennedy, acting grand chief. She is joining us by video conference. From Cold Lake First Nations, we have Chief Kelsey Jacko. From the Kehewin Cree Nation, we have Chief Trevor John.
Welcome, everybody. You will each have five minutes for your opening statements, after which we will proceed with the rounds of questions.
With that, we will start with National Chief Cindy Woodhouse.
:
It's so nice to see each and every one of you.
For those of you who don't know me, I grew up on a small first nation in Manitoba about a two-and-a-half-hour drive from Winnipeg. I want to thank Chief Kennedy for playing an important role during this transition time back at home. We haven't met; we're meeting for the first time today, so I thank you for all your work.
Before we go on, though, I also want to acknowledge a colleague of mine who has since passed. I want to acknowledge Grand Chief Merrick, and I also want to thank the chiefs here for joining me and thank colleagues and my staff from the Assembly of First Nations.
I am the national chief for the Assembly of First Nations, and I've been so for the last 10 months. I look forward to working with all of you for the full three years ahead.
I want to acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak on Bill on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations.
The Assembly of First Nations has long advocated funding and resources to address the water crises affecting first nations. Historically, the federal government has failed first nations by chronically underfunding drinking water and wastewater service as well as implementing programs that have ignored first nations' rights and autonomy.
On June 5, the city of Calgary experienced a water main break, leading to a boil water advisory and conservation measures that dominated national headlines. This is in stark contrast with the media coverage of first nations' drinking water issues that have existed for decades. Compared to other Canadians, first nations living on reserve are 90 times more likely to lack access to running water.
For the past three decades, there have consistently been at least 100 long-term and short-term advisories in first nations, with 30 long-term advisories still in effect. First nations do not receive the same level of water and wastewater services as the general Canadian population.
Bill presents a significant opportunity to address this long-standing injustice. The Assembly of First Nations is confident that the proposed legislation before this committee addresses one of our most critical priorities: ensuring safe and clean drinking water and adequate wastewater services for first nation citizens. It is designed to address the long-standing water crises in first nations communities across Canada and ensure meaningful change.
The Assembly of First Nations has worked diligently to ensure that the legislation contains the necessary minimum requirements as articulated by first nations. Royal assent to Bill is a critical opportunity to address the issue and ensure that first nations have access to adequate drinking water and wastewater services and to programs that respect their needs, rights and self-determination.
Bill was jointly discussed and developed between Indigenous Services Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, and I commend people like Joanne Wilkinson, Phil Fontaine and Chief Linda Debassige, who, a few Christmases ago—over Christmas, everybody was resting—were there getting down to the work of this, so I lift them up in a good way. We also have Irving Leblanc beside me. I thank you for your hard work and dedication to our people for many, many years.
It marks a significant step forward in the recognition of the inherent rights of first nations and their jurisdiction over critical matters.
The current version of the proposed legislation has significant improvements to previous versions, and it reflects progress in addressing the critical components that were identified by the Assembly of First Nations during engagements held from 2019 to 2023.
The proposed legislation provides recognition of first nations' inherent right to self-government over source water. The Assembly of First Nations consistently advocated for the inclusion of source water protection that recognizes first nations' inherent right to self-government over drinking water, wastewater and associated infrastructure.
We understand that a source-to-tap protection is the safest, most efficient, effective, accepted and cost-effective approach to manage drinking water over the long term.
The proposed legislation has made efforts to address long-standing funding issues. Currently, funding to support the provision of water and wastewater services is determined through a fully discretionary approach by the minister.
Although we understand that including statutory funding transfers under the legislation would have provided assurances to first nations, the proposed legislation commits to developing a funding mechanism, in collaboration with first nations, for direct and long-term funding.
Under this legislation, the minister must consult and co-operate with first nations to develop a funding framework that provides adequate funding and meets the actual cost needs of first nations and ensures comparability with non-indigenous communities. Strong wording will continue to protect first nations and ensure they receive the necessary funding they require for years to come.
The proposed legislation includes important sections on standards. First nations are entitled to water quality, water quantity and wastewater effluent standards that meet or exceed the highest standards of other relevant Canadian jurisdictions to address the current federal regulatory void.
Based on engagements held from 2019 to 2023, the proposed legislation now specifies the standards applicable for water quality, water quantity and wastewater effluent for both public and private systems, based on an assessment of all existing and potential future needs.
It must protect and provide opportunities for first nations to develop their own standards and address all of their water needs, from domestic and institutional to commercial and industrial demands that help first nations grow.
This is an important inclusion of first nations' governance resources and support in the proposed legislation. This includes a commitment to establishing a first nations water commission to support the purpose and principles of the legislation.
Under the legislation, the minister will consult and co-operate with first nations on the development of terms of reference, a defined period for co-development and a commitment to funding. It enables the creation of first nations governance institutions, which must be led by first nations in their own ways and at their own pace.
There is an important mechanism for transboundary agreement making. Although the Assembly of First Nations did not co-develop the language for the sections related to the protection zones, as a result of its advocacy, the proposed legislation includes a provision for transboundary source water agreements, ensuring first nations are involved in all agreements that affect them.
Protecting source water that is often located off-reserve is critical. These areas are within the traditional and ancestral territories of first nations where provinces and territories have extensive jurisdiction. Addressing on-reserve waters alone is insufficient; source waters that provide drinking water for first nations must also be protected.
A key concern raised by first nations is immunity and liability. The proposed legislation states that no employee or person hired by a first nation can be held liable if they acted in good faith in their duties in the provision of water and wastewater services. A first nation may still be held liable, and it's important to recognize that sufficient funding goes hand-in-hand with accepting liability. No first nation is prepared to accept liability for an underfunded system.
The Assembly of First Nations is committed to defending against amendments that would diminish or otherwise weaken the proposed legislation. We must ensure that this legislation is as strong as it can be, and to that end, we are advancing amendments to improve the bill in the following ways: protection zones; standards, such as the requirement that the quantity of water would meet all needs, including agriculture, fire protection, industrial, commercial, etc.; the funding framework; the first nations water commission; liability, immunity and indemnification; and, finally, references to best efforts.
Details of these amendments are contained in our written submission, which has been provided to this committee.
Currently, without legislation in place, there are no enforceable standards or regulations, no recognition of rights to govern water and wastewater on first nations' land and no sustainable long-term funding mechanism. Comprehensive legislation compliant with UNDRIP will further Canada's commitment to reconciliation. The urgency of this issue has been stated for decades; now is the time to act.
In closing, Canada recognizes the human right to drinking water and sanitation and has obligations to all first nations. This is an important moment for Canada and for first nations. We look forward, and we look to you for your support in moving this forward in a good way.
I just want to say chi-meegwetch for this very important matter. Thank you for your time on this.
It's an important moment for all of us.
Meegwetch for welcoming me here today.
I want to thank the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the opportunity to speak with you today on Bill .
I am the chief of War Lake First Nation and appear before you as the acting grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.
I would like to begin my remarks by explaining the significance of the water crisis for our first nations in Manitoba.
As we all know, lack of access to drinking water has devastating effects on our health. Some, however, may be less familiar with the host of adverse effects it has on well-being. Many of our children living in these first nations without proper drinking water are very sick. They develop conditions for which they have to seek help every day of their lives. Sometimes it goes on until they become adults. This is very stressful for families. They don't know who to turn to, sometimes. I have seen it. My own family is going through the same thing—first nations having boil water advisories.
I also want to state that we support Shamattawa in their concerns over drinking water. We should have access to the same drinking water as everyone else does across Canada. We have a legal right to be there, to have access to clean drinking water and to have water in every first nation across Canada.
Important teachings and knowledge that should have been passed down over generations have been disrupted. These losses have created a disconnect between first nations and the land, a relationship that is fundamental to our world view. The resulting impacts on well-being, spirituality and concepts of identity cannot be overstated.
On the foundation of this knowledge, I want to express concerns about how this bill impacts first nations' right to self-determination.
The bill follows a framework similar to existing Canadian laws, which limit the recognition of first nations' inherent right to self-government through the legislative approach. In short, Parliament is telling first nations how to enact laws in their inherent jurisdictions, subordinating first nations governments and undermining the nation-to-nation relationship. The AMC rejects the notion that first nations' jurisdiction and lawmaking authority is contingent on federal legislation. One nation cannot control or validate another in a true nation-to-nation relationship. It requires equal recognition of the laws and authority of each other.
Also concerning is the fact that the bill only recognizes first nations' jurisdiction on first nations land, as if water is stagnant and does not flow from one jurisdiction to another. I want to emphasize what the national chief said about water running and flowing in many directions. It's not just first nations' water that we utilize; we also live off reserve. The spring waters are in areas we also want to protect.
As a result, there is no recognition of first nations jurisdiction on much of the treaty and ancestral territories of first nations in Manitoba.
Overall, the proposed act fails to fully recognize first nations jurisdiction and conveys lack of respect for our laws. It only recognizes first nations authority over water resources within the confines of first nations land, despite the fact that the water knows no boundaries.
When we see buildings or roads being built, the builders don't meet with the first nations. We know where these waters are—the wells that have been there for a long time. They're just being bulldozed. Those are the waters that we would like to protect. Those are the waters that are clean. Some of these waters are not just for drinking; there are minerals in there that help in the way of medicine.
In order for us to protect the water, we would like to include in Bill water protection. It's not just within our communities on reserve that we're protecting the water, but it's also the waters that run outside. The water is all over, and we would like to protect that.
There are a lot of industries in operation. That's the reason many of us are going through these issues with health. The issues of health really undermine what we try to do to protect our children and grandchildren from some of these diseases. That needs attention.
The doctors do—
I am Chief Kelsey Jacko of Cold Lake First Nations. Thank you for taking the time to listen today.
Thank you to Chief Cindy Woodhouse for helping to make this happen.
You have our written technical statements, but today I want to speak from the heart. I want to acknowledge that we meet today on the lands of the Algonquin people who have been, and still are, caring stewards of the land.
In my culture, as with all peoples who are connected to the land, water is life. Before we're even born, we are in water inside our mother's womb. Lue Chok Tue and Ha Tue have been the womb my relations have centred their lives around from time immemorial. The people moved within the seasons—to Ha Tue for trapping and winter camp and to Lue Chok Tue for the summer months. Our treaty practices depend on these waters. In treaty, the phrase “as long as the river flows” is about my people's ability to continue living and bringing forward new generations. It's also life for our fish, animals, birds and bugs.
We understand your objective with the water legislation and we agree that source water protection is key. The issue is that the legislation provides no real tools. It is more of a suggestion than legislation.
My nation is fortunate to have much lower industry and agricultural allocations than the volumes impacting most nations. Still, as the indigenous population grows, we will be last in line for water, even though we've been here long before Europeans could even find this continent. Unless something changes, our concerns will always be last in line when it comes to water.
The historical unwillingness of Canada to fund on-reserve water infrastructure has put most nations in the position of being last in line under Alberta's First-in-Time, First-in-Right legislation. Other provinces have similar legislation, and until our inherent rights are recognized within the legislation frameworks, our communities are at risk.
In Alberta, we have a lot of problems with water, as our growing population demands more and the lands get drier. Will the North Saskatchewan one day be like the Colorado and not reach the sea? Will our industries and cities collapse with our environment? The Bennett dam destroyed the livelihood of our Dene cousins in Fort Chipewyan.
In Treaty 7 territories, only 7% of the resources are allocated to fish, wildlife and general habitat management. In-stream requirements, the ones that sustain the critical habitats, are not well understood. To be clear, we do not know if the amount of water currently being left is enough for fish. We certainly don't know the appropriate amounts for wetlands and the aquifers that support them—and by “we”, I mean humanity.
Today we have provinces, regulators and industry working to release oil sands water into the river or releasing it by accident—and they're lying about it, as with Kearl. We know that Canada is working with industry on slow release, but this isn't the way. They said that they could clean it, and they should. Instead, they hold it hostage.
In my area, we see water lines being built to suck large volumes of water out of our lake for industrial and domestic use. This year, the lake was so low that the water withdrawals had to be suspended, and the place where our kids learned to kayak and canoe had 50 metres more beach. This means that industry just switches to groundwater. However, these aquifers have fallen as much as 30 metres because of oil sands' use.
The AER, the Alberta Energy Regulator, lets companies pollute shallow groundwater so long as they stay on lease. These companies can just leave, but my people will be here forever, bringing forward new generations.
The watersheds we depend on flow right through the Cold Lake air weapons range, draining from Alberta and Saskatchewan. We will have to deal with three governments. I will say that the DND and Saskatchewan have both been supportive of efforts to expand protection of the land base, and Parks Canada is working with us on creating an ecological corridor that will protect the largest river flowing into our lake, but generally, we know that climate change is going to bring more low-water years. No one seems interested in the kind of monitoring and management required for sustainability.
We acknowledge that the legislation is a sincere attempt to move forward on a complicated issue. We need to see it provide more actionable solutions, tools that we can use. At the regulatory level, the majority of the considerations around the water are for use. Consideration for the environmental impacts of lowered water tables and in-stream availability come dead last. This is not a way to uphold treaty.
CLFN belongs to a regional utility board that is a partnership between my nation and our immediate neighbours. Many of these neighbours draw their water from Cold Lake. We are doing our best to work together to manage local resources.
However, Alberta won't even share the key performance indicators it uses to ensure that water allocations are sustainable. The Alberta government has demonstrated that it is unwilling to enforce water rationing on industry, even in times of crisis. What makes Canada think they will work with us on prevention?
Industry oversight is mostly reliant on self-reported statistics. As we have seen recently with methane release, these numbers are unfortunately rarely reliable. Because of the importance of the land and our treaty rights to all treaty peoples, putting source water protection into the hands of the nations will help to address the principal/agent problem that most governments face.
My understanding of the intent of this bill is that its purpose is to give nations clear tools with which to uphold their inherent rights to water. However, the current version of the bill contains no material recognition of these rights. Instead, it reads like a joint venture option.
You have to understand that nations never gave up their right to care for the water. This is what we mean by inherent rights. The concept of owning water at the time of treaty was like saying you owned the stars: It is an outrageous impossibility. Canadian law already recognizes this concept. You sell the right to access, move, use and pollute, but not the water itself.
If you are serious about protecting source water and acknowledging the inherent rights and responsibility of first nations as protectors, I ask that you consider what the bill offers on the ground for our technicians, particularly for those nations that are being asked to partner with unwilling provincial governments or that will be forced into a four-way partnership, as CLFN would.
If your goal is to be good treaty partners rather than asking the province to co-operate, you need to recognize the interjurisdictional nature of this resource and employ the jurisdiction space available to you in this bill.
Mahsi cho. Thank you for your time.
First and foremost, I'd like to thank the Creator for blessing us all with a beautiful day and this time together.
I would like to thank our national chief, Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, for helping us get this time together with all you folks.
I'd like to thank the elder for blessing us with a prayer this morning. It's always good to start out with a prayer in our culture, so hay hay to Elder Betsy.
For those of you who don't know me, my name is Chief Trevor John. I'm from Kehewin Cree Nation, Treaty No. 6, Alberta region.
Tansi, boozhoo and hello.
Kehewin Cree Nation, like many of our neighbouring Cree tribes, sits near a water source. This is no mistake. Our ancestors, at treaty time and along with the dominion of Canada officials, marked out spaces that the Indian Act calls reserves, where our people would have access to the basic human right of safe drinking water. The treaties themselves are referred to as lasting in perpetuity for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and, yes, the waters flow.
Canada has a lasting obligation under this relationship created by treaty to ensure that treaty first nations are supported as far as water and related infrastructure are concerned. This bill intends to abandon all of this in favour of section 35 rights of self-determination. This is wrong, shameful and unethical, yet here we are in 2024 with exactly that.
It must be said that the preamble of Bill has good-sounding words and all the right language about reconciliation and recognition. It sounds good on the surface for sure, but it doesn't bind Canada or Alberta to ensuring that the legislation does what the intent of the preamble is—that is, to ensure safe and viable water and water infrastructure beyond best efforts.
If this bill goes forward, we feel it will not be linked to treaty-based implementation, planning objectives or milestones. Bill looks like lip service to a nice future but does not meet the reality we have with the Province of Alberta. This bill does not guarantee or bind Alberta, and based on our extensive experience with Alberta, there is no current recognition or relationship that enables us to be sure that our peoples will have sustainable infrastructure.
The title of Bill is “An act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands”.
Inside the bill it says, “on, in and under the First Nation lands”, and jurisdiction under treaty means the whole of the treaty territory. For many of our nations, that goes well beyond provincial lines whereby our reserves are designated. This is what needs reconciliation if the bill is to mean anything.
Canada, under its declaration action plan, states a commitment to “honourably implement historic and modern treaties” consistent with article 37 of the United Nations declaration. Bill , in Canada's processes to discuss it, needs to work on it through this.
As a chief of my nation, this is not honourable with regard to the UN declaration commitment, and this bill, like those that came before it, will fail us.
Bill provides treaty first nations with no assurance for improving water health and meeting current or growing water infrastructure needs. It contains significant loopholes for Canada to delay implementation and decisions on commitments to providing funding for addressing long-standing needs. It does not contemplate binding obligations to ensure adequate or consistent resourcing for needs or how those real needs could change over time, considering climate change and other related impacts.
The bill says Canada will use “best efforts to ensure...access to clean and safe drinking water” on reserves, but this is not binding. With no clear implementation plan that considers actual and full costs according to those needs, we are setting the stage for new challenges for the next generations. This is not acceptable.
Canada often talks about a whole-of-government approach in relation to reconciliation. On water, the potential of this is something that could be supported with a treaty bilateral approach, but instead, Canada, this summer, through an order in council, gave permission to the Alberta, the Saskatchewan and the Manitoba provincial governments to reapportion water for their purposes, without a single interaction with our governments. This is not a good start for us to feel any assurance that “best efforts” language will help us and that our needs for water and related infrastructure will be prioritized.
Since 2019, Canada has indicated that it would be gradually transferring all programs and services to willing first nations. It is using comparability standards that are provincial standards in the implementation of the transfer of responsibility and calling that “self-determination”. It seems to us, as treaty leaders, that Canada, through ISC, is trying to leave its legal obligation because it knows what we know, because we have told them: The infrastructure gap in our nations is much larger than what AFN has told them.
Today, I'm asking on behalf of my peoples for Canada to get real and work with us to address the actual needs it's responsible for under treaty. As we have told the ministers, “treaty” means good faith dealing to adjust to the actual water and infrastructure needs of the nations and to ensure Bill is amended to address those needs as promised under the treaty relationship.
Hay hay.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin briefly on two personal notes and echo some sentiments that have been shared already.
To Grand Chief Kennedy, it's a pleasure to be with you here this morning. As the sole Manitoba representative around the table, I can certainly share the feelings of many in Parliament and across the province of our grief and shock about the passing of Chief Merrick. I'm very much looking forward to working with you and continuing the legacy, path and vision that she set forward as you undertake these important responsibilities as grand chief of the AMC.
Chief Woodhouse, this is a special moment for me, because you and I have known each other since we were 15 years old. I have seen you work hard and grow into an inspiring and meaningful leader. Much of my understanding of our history as it pertains to first nations people, our public policy development and our path towards truth and reconciliation has been informed by the mentorship, guidance and friendship that you have provided to me over the years. To be with you in this capacity is quite special to me.
I want to take a step back, National Chief, and ask you to more broadly address the evolution in the past number of years of where we have come on this water file, in your view. As regional chief, it was one that you invested a fair amount of time in developing.
I'm wondering if you can provide some commentary about how you have seen the evolution of our public policy around the protection of first nations' rights, particularly as it pertains to water, from your time as regional chief, and then where we're at here today as we're talking about implementing the legislation found in Bill .
:
Certainly, and thank you for that.
It's nice to see you this morning. I can't help but remember your dad as he walked these chambers. My heart goes out to you and your family, and I send my sincere condolences on his passing.
I'm glad that we're sitting here together today. It's nice to see all of you.
I have to say that this is a very important moment for first nations in Canada. I know that there was an old bill, and we're repealing it. Let's not go back to the way that bill was done in the past. It was very hurtful towards first nations. I also know that co-development isn't easy, and I know we're here and talking about amendments to this bill.
In growing up on a first nation community when I was a little girl, I could easily drink from the water. I grew up there. I know that we've come a long way in first nations communities, but we haven't come far enough. I think, after watching the way the first piece of this was done, that had it been done right back then, I don't think we would have been sitting here today. We would have been on a different track. We're here now, and we're here now together. We're here to try to work towards a bill that we can agree on. We heard the amendments from many speakers before me, and I think that if we can put some of those pieces into this legislation, we'll move this along very quickly.
At the same time, I know that first nations have never ceded their jurisdiction over their traditional waterways or source water. The United Nations General Assembly recognizes the “human right to water and sanitation” and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We don't have that right now, so I know that legislation is a necessary tool to ensure meaningful change to the current water crisis faced by first nations across Canada.
Legislation and how it's developed are critical to the quality of life and self-determination of first nations. The process involves more than consultation, however: It requires co-operation and working together in good faith. This is the core of co-development that speaks to a two-way collaborative process. This is the foundation of the commitment Canada has made through section 5 of the federal UN declaration act, UNDA, which requires the following: the proposed legislation must meet this bar. All eyes will be upon it to assess whether it does that and whether Canada is sincere in the commitments made in UNDA.
This is an important moment for first nations in Canada. I know that on a first nation, we don't have the simple things that many Canadians take for granted. I've lived in two first nation communities. In either place where I've lived, I've never had access to clean drinking water. I'm so used to drinking bottled water that it's sometimes hard, when you come off reserve, to have to drink water like this water that is beside me here today, because we're so used to drinking bottled water. I think that's the reality for many first nations in this country, and I look to a time when we can fix that.
It also disheartens me when I see fishermen in Lake Winnipeg. I have to say that the first nations fishermen in Winnipeg are pulling up nets that are full of stuff. We have to do better in this country. On the waters, it's starting to show. The animals are starting to show us that. Our people are starting to show us that.
I look forward to working with all of you to find that path forward, and I think this is a right step in that direction to move in a good way together.
Thank you.
:
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for appearing before our committee on such an important matter.
I share the sentiments with acting Chief Betsy Kennedy on the sudden loss that we all experienced with the loss of Chief Merrick. She had such an important role, and for you to take on this role at this urgent time is much appreciated. Thank you for sharing your testimony as well.
I'm quite honestly frustrated with this committee, because we've been limited in our time to ask so many witnesses questions. I'm frustrated with this committee that we're trying to rush through as many witnesses as we can, especially knowing that out of the 634 first nations, only about 31% were consulted in the development of this bill.
In my eyes, this is not meeting the standard of the duty to consult. I think it is so important that we hear from as many witnesses as possible.
We had great testimony, for example, from Chief Trevor John, who shared very clearly what the concerns are around source water, jurisdiction and sustainable infrastructure. Those things in the bill are not clear enough, especially in this time when we all know that first nations managed water with their own laws before Canada stole your jurisdiction, and for them to try to hand it back in Bill is completely unacceptable.
We need to do a better job of ensuring that first nations treaties are being implemented and that first nations' human right to water is being upheld, and we're not seeing that in Bill .
Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, congratulations on becoming the National Chief for the Assembly of First Nations. I wanted to point to the Federal Court case with Shamattawa First Nation, in which the federal lawyer, Scott Farlinger, at first acknowledged that there's been a historic underinvestment in first nations' water, but also shared his argument that “everything is better now”.
Can you respond to that, please, Chief Woodhouse?
I can, absolutely. We stand with Shamattawa. I grew up the way that.... I feel for the people up there, and I invite this entire committee and Canada to come visit our communities and see the reality of what our first nations face day to day with basic human rights like access to drinking water and source water.
Sometimes you go up to these communities and you come back down and you realize the disparity that many of our first nations are facing. This country has a lot to answer for over what we've been through for the past 150 years. I know that's not what we hear about the relationship between first nations and the rest of this country. I'm glad that we're finally here, having these really difficult discussions with each other. They're not always easy, but they're absolutely necessary, even when it comes to things like safe drinking water and sanitation.
I know there's a lot to work through. I know this is a really tough issue, and my heart goes out to Shamattawa First Nation.
Canada, you have to right that wrong with Shamattawa First Nation. We can't leave them hanging. For the minister, I'm glad about her comments on water and trying to work that way, but for the Department of Justice lawyers to go out and say the statements that they're making.... The right hand needs to know what the left hand is doing when you're going out there and speaking to my people, speaking to first nations. You can't say one thing on one hand and then have your lawyers coming to say something else in a legal way. The political way—yes, okay, there's that will. I'm glad you're all here today. I commend all of you for sitting here with us.
At the same time, when your lawyers are writing all these laws, that's where the mistrust comes from from us. These lawyers are there, and then they go into court and they say stupid things like that to first nations. They make us feel like.... I thought we were making progress.
It's hard as national chief to hear that the day before. I'm glad that we're working on this legislation and trying to co-develop and work through some of these pieces together, but we really have to work stronger together. Obviously, you're seeing the cracks in it, even before this committee happened this morning.
As I said, my heart goes out to the Shamattawa First Nation. Canada, right that wrong with them.
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Thank you for the statement of “despite...ministers publicly acknowledging federal responsibility for water crisis, they continue to support a completely contrary position in court.” That came from the Manitoba federation yesterday. I appreciate that.
When I look at this legislation, I see the Canadian government, the provincial governments, the Canadian water commission and the indigenous water commission. No matter what you say, with this legislation, we're not going to fix the water crisis tomorrow. We're going to be in court for years. You know that.
If this legislation said that we empower the government to build water treatment plants in co-operation with every nation in the country starting tomorrow, we could set up regional training centres with support staff to train water treatment people who are available 24-7. We could set up a system so that supplies for those water treatment plants were available, just like emergency transfers for health, so that you'd have a fly-in plane to bring a part to you immediately. If we had legislation that said that, we could start fixing those problems quickly. This legislation tells me that we're going to be tied up in court for years, and you're not going to get clean drinking water for years.
We need to change the legislation so that we're taking action now. This legislation doesn't do it. It's going to tie us up in court for years across many jurisdictions. I want the water fixed now. Don't you? Yes. This legislation isn't going to do it. This is just going to tie us up in court.
:
I can, absolutely. Thank you for that.
I know we had seen that there was a huge gap in this country, of course. I know that these discussions are always tough to have, but I have to say that I commend many of the technicians, the Assembly of First Nations staff and the chiefs for giving a mandate. Our chiefs come to our assemblies. They tell us what they wish. We're bringing that forward today in a good way. Certainly they have called on us for many years to try to fix and to repeal some of that, and to make sure that there is something protecting us.
As we see right now, there is so much dumping into waters. It's from everybody. Every industry is at fault. We're all at fault—each and every one of us.
We don't look at our carbon footprint half the time, myself included. I know that we have to do something.
I commend the bureaucrats and many of the people around this table who have committed to try to work through this. I ask you to really, seriously consider the amendments to this bill from the Assembly of First Nations. Let's move forward very quickly, so that we can get to royal assent.
I think we all know that there is always a ticking every day. Every day we have time to breathe and time to do this work while we're here. Let's make it better so that our children don't have to be sitting here talking about this same issue and so that we're protecting ourselves for the next generations to come.
The way it is right now, when you see gallons of raw sewage being dumped into rivers and chemicals being dumped into our rivers and lakes, what are we doing to ourselves? There is no planet B and there is no extra water somewhere. We have most of it here in our beautiful country. Let's work on it and keep it together.
I'll stop there. I don't know if my knowledge keeper wants to say anything else.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be able to stay slightly longer than originally scheduled because of the delay in the start time, but I think we have a hard stop at a quarter to the hour. I really do want to have a full conversation here.
I'm really glad that the committee has listened to so many witnesses over the study of this legislation. It's so important that we respect the voices of first nations, and the diversity of those expressions and perspectives is what makes us such a fantastic country.
I'm very happy to join you today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people to discuss Bill , which, as you know, is called the First Nations Clean Water Act. This bill, as you've heard through witnesses, reflects an immense amount of work, of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and real heart from first nations partners. It really is their work, their contributions and their leadership that have brought us to this point today.
The day Bill was introduced, Chief Erica Beaudin of Cowessess First Nation said, “I believe that today is historic; not only because the bill has been introduced, but because it is the start of that day where our children will be born with the regulations that are needed.”
As the bill moves through the parliamentary process, it's now our responsibility as parliamentarians to treat this bill with the respect and the urgency that it deserves. I agree with everyone that it is unacceptable that there are first nations communities that do not have safe and clean drinking water, and that's what led to the promise to end long-term drinking water advisories that was made in 2015, and we have made significant progress. In fact, I'm pleased to share that just yesterday, Fort Severn First Nation lifted their long-term drinking water advisory. That one had been in place since December 2022.
However, we will never be out of this cycle of long-term boil water advisories and short-term boil water advisories if we don't fix the system that allowed for this process to happen in the first place. That's what the underlying intent behind Bill is. It's to change the way we do things in this country so that we're not ever again in the position that we were in 2015.
Bill would establish minimum standards for water services on first nations lands based on first nation choice. It would affirm the inherent right of first nations to self-government with respect to water, supporting first nations' authority, management, maintenance and protection of their water in, on and under their lands.
It also reinforces the essential role that provinces and territories play. You've heard many stories through this study of provincial governments, including while I was here listening to other witnesses—provincial governments that have ignored and excluded first nations when it comes to water rights and resource management. As a federal government, we do have the responsibility to make sure that first nations have the tools they need to ensure that their inherent rights are affirmed and that their jurisdiction is respected.
In fact, Chief Knowlton said, “You ought to be behind us or in front of us or beside us in any battles that we're going to have with Alberta. That's federal jurisdiction. Your obligation, the fiduciary responsibility of Canada, is to protect the first nations you signed treaty with.”
I know that no provincial or territorial governments chose to appear as part of this study, and it's disappointing, because it's actually an opportunity for provinces and territories to work more closely with first nations partners, but this legislation does provide tools to encourage and support those relationships, and it's a signal of the critical need for this legislation.
Bill requires the Government of Canada to make best efforts in providing adequate and sustainable funding for water services on first nations lands, and that the services be comparable to those in non-indigenous communities. The term “best efforts” sets a high standard through which the Government of Canada is legally accountable to first nations. Furthermore, the flexibility in the bill also ensures first nations will determine exactly what resources they need to properly fund and maintain their water systems.
The Atlantic First Nations Water Authority said it well:
One has to come before the other. We don't know how much money we need until we develop our regulations. With those regulations, we can then set forward how much money we need and what our long-term strategic vision for that infrastructure would be.
Bill is a reflection of the direct engagement, extensive collaboration and knowledge sharing with first nations partners, and you've heard many witnesses talk about how they've contributed to the bill and what they've advocated for inclusion.
First nations partners closely collaborated on this bill, and we've been working with first nations partners and keeping them up to date. I hope that this sets a path for the kind of co-development this country could use for many different kinds of legislation.
The engagement process didn't end at introduction. We've continued through the work that you're doing in this study, and as I've said from the beginning, we're open to ways that we can make this bill even stronger, guided by first nations voices.
Chief Emerita Emily Whetung-MacInnes asked us:
Please do not politicize [our] first nations' access to one of the basic necessities of life. This is a matter that is too important to get caught up in party politics. The legislation that you're considering relates to a subsection of Canadians whose human rights have been ignored for too long.
Bill is a critical step toward making sure future generations in communities like Neskantaga, Tataskweyak and Curve Lake will never know what it's like to live without reliable and safe drinking water. By working together, we have an opportunity to make this a reality for thousands of people.
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer any questions or share more information with the committee about how important this bill is.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik.Marsi. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister, for being here. I appreciate your patience with us, as we ran over time in the previous panel.
I also appreciate you acknowledging the work of the committee here in listening to first nation voices. I think it's been very important. Frankly, I do think that we've all been working in pretty good faith to improve this legislation
It does feel like we are doing some of the consultation that could have been done prior to the development of this legislation. Minister, you've claimed this bill has been co-developed, I believe, or close to being co-developed. That was a term that you used, but we have heard from many first nations that do not feel that their voices have been heard on this.
Chief Sheldon Sunshine told the committee that “Bill C-61 garnered the support of only 100 out of 600-plus first nations”. The context of that was a discussion around the Assembly of First Nations.
We've heard some amendments that were brought forward. We've also heard from some chiefs and community leaders who want to scrap the bill altogether. On such an important topic, I think that is a shock to many. It is the reality of the situation that we are in because of such a lack of consultation.
Can you explain, Minister, how that consultation process went and why so many voices have been left out of it?
:
Thank you for the question.
I think I'll answer it in reverse, because I do think that this bill.... You and I both have a background in public health, so prevention is our first love.
This bill actually does set the table so that we never go back to a place where communities don't have the appropriate financial resources, the technical support or the inherent rights to regulate water, which has led to so many of these intractable situations.
The government has spent in the billions of dollars to lift boil water advisories, which was an amount that built up over years of neglect and years of inequitable funding for first nations infrastructure, including water infrastructure.
One important piece of this bill is the co-development of funding models. As you know, and as parliamentarians know, the process for which first nations receive allotments for water provision, water operation, has always been decided by Ottawa, by the , by the , and although we've seen tremendous increases in appropriate operating expenses provided to first nations communities under the Liberal government, you could easily see it slipping back under another government. This bill says that this can no longer be an arbitrary decision by Canada, but rather it has to be co-developed with first nations so that they can set the appropriate regulations and then can have comfort that they will have long-term, sustained funding that will allow for the development of expertise in their communities, that will allow for a certainty for operator salaries and that will allow for the capacity of the community to grow in its own ability to monitor and, in some cases, to design their water operating systems.
The number of stories I've heard about communities that have received contractors that build these plants that then don't resolve the water safety issue is appalling. What we're trying to do through this legislation, at least in part, is to restore the self-determination to communities to be able to develop their own expertise and, in some cases, to build on the existing expertise so that we never return to those situations again.
:
First of all, thank you for coming, and I know this would be very interesting to the party you represent, and I'm glad you're here to talk about clean water.
I first want to talk about your question about best efforts. In fact, in 1994, in a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Justice Dorgan determined that “best efforts” imposed a higher obligation than “a reasonable effort”: “'Best efforts' means taking, in good faith, all reasonable steps to achieve the objective, carrying the process to its logical conclusion and leaving no stone unturned.”
In fact, many of the participants in developing this legislation acknowledge that “best efforts” is quite a significant bar for Canada to reach and that it holds Canada to a high degree of accountability for the sufficiency in funding, which is what “best efforts” largely refers to in the legislation.
In terms of the consultation—and I won't repeat everything I said to MP Melillo—we have had extensive consultations, and there have been many opportunities, including direct outreach to every first nation implicated and including opportunities to submit online and opportunities to participate in consultations.
I can't speak to Chief Hill's particular experience, but I can tell you that we're still open to speaking to chiefs.
As you know, we are working through a process of considering amendments as they might arise from this committee, and we will continue to be there to meet with any chief or council who wishes to speak with us.
:
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
I must start by shaming you, Minister Hajdu, for your pride in this work. I must shame you for being proud of the investments that you say have improved so much for first nations, especially knowing how many gaps there are in ensuring that first nations are achieving equal health and equal opportunities for economic development. First nations will continue to have to negotiate their jurisdiction over water. I'm quite disappointed that the work that is supposed to help first nations take ownership over water still limits them. It is supposed to respect first nations' right to water, jurisdiction and human rights. You introduced a bill that is below the minimum standard set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
I feel quite strongly that if the federal government were challenged on this bill not meeting the duty to consult standard, the court would find that you failed, especially having learned that only about 31% of first nations were consulted.
On June 12, I questioned federal bureaucrats at the indigenous and northern affairs committee regarding how many people had been engaged. They were very reluctant to respond to my question regarding numbers. I had to pressure bureaucrats Nelson Barbosa and Joanne Wilkinson to finally answer me. They said that out of the 634 first nations that would be impacted by this legislation, only about 181 were engaged.
There are huge concerns. We heard from Neskantaga. We heard from the Mikisew first nation. We heard from the national council. We heard from Trevor John in today's sitting, as well as from Cold Lake First Nations' Chief Kelsey Jacko and so many more who had not been consulted.
I'm quite fascinated by your statement this morning about “moving...away from a colonial approach” and how you see this bill doing that. We currently have the Shamattawa case in the Federal Court. It had its three-day hearing, where Scott Farlinger, the federal lawyer said, “some maturity and without unnecessary adjectives” regarding Shamattawa First Nation, and also said, “The claimant under Section 7 may have an extreme need, but Canada doesn't deprive you of your interests [or] stop you from helping yourself.” That, to me, is very much in opposition to your political posturing when you say that this bill will move away from a colonial approach.
Meanwhile, because of the way you introduced this bill, first nations will be required to consult and negotiate with municipalities, provinces and territories regarding source water protection and protection zones.
I wonder if you could answer, for us, how you reconcile that difference. If you respect first nations' right to self-determination so much, why did you introduce legislation that requires us to have vague notions about what self-determination looks like for them?
:
Thank you for sharing your perspective, MP Idlout.
With regard to your comment around shame, it will be all of our shame if we don't transform how we do things in this country. That's what this bill is attempting to do: to transform how we create legislation that deeply affects first nations people and to transform how we have relationships that are open, inclusive and evolving to include first nations voices.
That is work that I am proud to do, actually. I am proud to do this work. It's difficult work, especially when you represent a system of colonialism that has oppressed indigenous voices for so long, yet it's such important work.
I thank all colleagues for having these important conversations with first nations partners, because you are hearing the reflection of that difficult relationship in the ways that people are expressing themselves to this committee.
With regard to engagement, a number of people have said that in fact they felt fully engaged, that the engagement was more than the kinds of engagement they've ever had in the past. This includes, for example, Chief Crowfoot from Siksika, who said, “For the first time ever, we had opportunities to review and comment on draft legislation.” He said also, “Although we had to fight hard, Canada responded with critically important changes to the bill.”
Don't forget that the bill you're studying is dramatically different—
:
Again, I just want to acknowledge that deep distrust of the federal government by first nations is not unexpected. In fact, we should all understand that it's a by-product of colonialism.
What this bill is trying to do is change the way we create legislation and the way we decide, for example, on funding models to be inclusive of first nations voices. This could be a path for the country. I hope it is a path for the country in bringing first nations voices into all of the legislation we debate in this House, because in fact they are an important partner in the work of building this country and protecting our beautiful natural resources.
Thank you for the question. I would just say that what this bill does is remove an arbitrariness of funding from the federal government. Now, that's a strange thing to say as a minister of the Crown. I'm sitting here as a minister of the Crown, representing the federal government, yet I'm advocating a framework that says that Canada can no longer arbitrarily decide, in a silo, alone—regardless of need, regardless of actual facts, regardless of science and figures—what first nations should receive to operate their systems fairly.
Rather, the federal government must work with first nations to co-develop funding models that will help them achieve their own regulations that must meet—or beat, by the way—provincial standards. First nations will have standards of water quality like everyone else in this country and the fiscal firepower to be able to achieve that.
This is revolutionary. We've not done this in this country. To be here saying to you that the Government of Canada commits to do so through this legislation should give you pride as members of Parliament, because it is the first time the Government of Canada has ever proposed something like this.
:
Thank you for the question.
This is very important to me, because there are first nations that suffer the effects of pollution produced by oil companies or from other substances, among other things. I'm thinking of the Mikisew Cree, for example.
[English]
They are facing a devastating situation right now.
[Translation]
Their water and land are contaminated, and these people eat meat from the animals that live on their land.
[English]
It's very important, and the work I'm doing right now is in sync with the work that Environment Canada is doing on, for example, the first update of the Canada Water Act and the water commission. We have to work better to protect people from the effects of contaminants.
In southern Ontario, , as you know, used his orders as the Minister of Environment to pause the production of pollutants from the petrochemical industry in Sarnia that were polluting the air with an invisible, scentless chemical that nonetheless is a carcinogen. He worked very closely with the first nation. The company, as you may have read, was not too thrilled about having to shut down business while they put on better filters and scrubs.
The chief from that community told me that they live in chemical valley. He said that we know this industry is important to the economy and that many of our members work in this industry, but it still doesn't mean that we're okay living with practices that are poisoning our members.
:
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to remind the committee, based on the minister's responses regarding removing the arbitrariness of what the federal government can do, that this kind of statement ignores the legal obligations that the federal government has towards first nations and important constitutional principles like the honour of the Crown and the fiduciary duty that the federal government has to act in good faith.
I also remind the committee that there is a Supreme Court decision, a judgment regarding the Haida Nation, that says, “In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably.”
This does not prevent the federal government from funding or from introducing laws that respect their relationship with first nations. To posture to us that this would eliminate that arbitrariness I think disregards that important relationship with first nations. It disregards the importance of reconciliation that this government must exercise with first nations, rather than refusing to act towards reconciliation.
We need to make sure as a committee that we've heard from those who have been ignored. Only 31%, we were told by bureaucrats, were engaged in this so-called “co-developed legislation”. I take this opportunity to make sure that we understand, based on what we've heard, that there.... I do recall, as well, that there have been numerous submissions from first nations.
The indigenous and northern affairs committee received notice of my motion on October 4. I would like to submit my motion:
That the committee direct the analysts to prepare a summary document of correspondence and briefs submitted, including recommended amendments and a summary of issues, related to Bill C-61, First Nations Clean Water Act.
We were told this morning by the Assembly of First Nations that they had submitted their brief, but I've looked through my inbox, and I haven't seen any of that correspondence or their submissions.
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.