Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2024

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us.

I am joining you all from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Wolastoqey today.

I'd like to direct my questions to Chief Haymond, if I could.

I'm really interested in learning more about the consultation process and your personal experience developing this replacement to the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. I'm wondering if you could explain what kinds of supports the government may have provided for individual first nations to participate in this process.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

As I mentioned, some of the initial challenges we had were around the timing of the dropping of the first drafts of the legislation. It created a little bit of a disadvantage for us. However, given that we have a well-structured situation in Quebec where we have strong tribal councils, along with other resources that are available in our region, the hiring and the funding that was provided to engage regional water coordinators was instrumental in the consultation process. It allowed the young lady who was hired to do the work to do outreach beyond the initial regional engagement session that we had, and to go to first nations that wanted additional information or had questions around the legislation.

As I mentioned, although the process started off quite poorly and we were very disappointed with the initial draft of the legislation that we saw, we also note that the government took the time to go back, get an expanded mandate and work diligently with the water committee at the Assembly of First Nations to get to a point where we were comfortable when the minister tabled the legislation in December.

I think part of the challenge is that AFN was primarily responsible for the consultation process, and I know that regions like Treaty 8 in Alberta are not full participatory partners in the Assembly of First Nations. Thus, making sure that every region across the country is involved at the same level is a challenge for the assembly, to make sure regions like Alberta have an opportunity to be consulted.

That being said, I think Madame Phare and others who've actually done the work on the ground will tell you that a considerable amount of time, energy and effort went into the draft that was tabled in December.

I'll stop there.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Could you be a bit more specific, perhaps? Compared with the initial drafts, what are the areas of the current version of the bill that were significantly altered or strengthened during that consultation process?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

There are a number of key provisions that were added. Again, I would have preferred that those comments and those elements of improvement had come from the Assembly of First Nations. They've done the work to get those improvements. There were definitely some improvements in terms of the definition.

Going forward, we know the implications and the application of UNDRIP have to be a part of this process, so, again, that is free, prior and informed consent. Some good consultation has to occur, but there were improvements in ensuring the funding is adequate, predictable and stable, along with improvements on transboundary water. Again, there's some work that needs to go forward with the whole issue around jurisdiction, as indicated by the chief beside me.

One of the more important improvements, particularly from a first nation perspective, was this. The initial draft of the legislation most certainly protected the Government of Canada from any legal responsibilities, so there was an important improvement in the next phase, which we fought hard for, to have that same protection for our employees who will be working in water and waste water, to ensure that, in the event of any issues, they will not be held liable. If there are issues with our water treatment facilities, of course it will probably be due to inadequate funding and facilities that need to be brought up to code.

I think fundamentally the main piece that still has to be worked out is the funding framework. While a good piece of legislation is important, if we don't have the financial resources to bring our systems up to par and keep them there, as well as train and provide good salaries to our operators, we're going to continue to have the same kind of challenges we have today.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

In my last few seconds, around the issue of jurisdiction, how do you see that interplay between the provinces, the federal government and first nations self-governments? What do you think that will look like?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

What it should look like is governments recognizing our ability and our right to develop our own jurisdictions. Currently, in this legislation, it doesn't look like that's the case. It looks like we will have to negotiate with the province. If the province is unwilling, that is going to become a challenge.

Again, it would be preferable if we could develop our own legislation and jurisdiction, but it looks like we're going to have to find the ways and means to negotiate with both the federal government and the provinces in the effort to apply our own laws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

We now go to Mr. Lemire for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Haymond, I'm speaking to you as the chief of the Kebaowek First Nation, not as the representative of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador. I have a question for you about your extensive experience dealing with the issue of the near-surface nuclear waste disposal site at Chalk River.

What specific concerns do you have about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's decision on the location of the site, keeping in mind the trend among ministers to off-load their responsibilities onto independent commissions?

Since the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission doesn't have the ability to propose another site, should we include that power in the water bill when source water is at risk?

In this case, an important water source for more than 144 communities is being exposed to elevated risk levels. Do you think the bill will give you more power to protect this source water?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

That's a multitude of questions in one question.

Starting off, I think that the whole issue of nuclear waste and Chalk River is an important element to discuss, primarily because developing laws in our interest is really about protecting the water in the long term. The current project that's been approved by CNSC causes us great concern and heartburn in the fact that down the road, in a couple of hundred years, the mound will degenerate and in all likelihood, from everything we've seen, poison the water.

We're not clear whether or not Bill C-61 will have any major implications as, of course, there are other ministries involved. It could help, but it will also require the ministry of natural resources and the ministry of the environment to take into consideration our concerns around what's happening at Chalk River.

I'm sorry, but it's common sense. I don't think you need to be a nuclear scientist to recognize that building a nuclear waste dump at the edge of an important water source like the Ottawa River is probably not a very good idea, for the very fact that potential leaching could impact the drinking water supply for millions of people in the future.

Again, I'm not sure Bill C-61 will have major implications in terms of what's happening at Chalk River, but it will most certainly help communities like mine potentially use and argue that some elements of UNDRIP need to be taken into consideration prior to the government making decisions.

Again, when projects like the nuclear NSDF—the nuclear dump at Chalk River—come to bear, I think we should always opt for erring on the side of caution rather than simply moving ahead with projects that have the potential to impact our water supply.

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

Meegwetch.

What do you make of the fact that article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is mentioned only in the preamble of the bill? The government nevertheless has an obligation to respect that principle, including in connection with activities that pose a risk to the source water of indigenous communities.

What specific measures need to be taken to ensure the lasting quality and safety of those water sources, in accordance with the rights of indigenous peoples?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Whenever I hear that part of the legislation is to be defined in the preamble, it makes me nervous. I think we've learned from Bill C-15 that putting in the preamble aspects that we want to see in the body of the legislation does not give them the weight that is required.

With lessons learned from Bill C-15, it's absolutely clear that to engage and force the government, those provisions should be encompassed within the body of the bill, not in the preamble, which is used more for interpretive purposes and does not necessarily constitute a part of the law.

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

Would you be in favour of amending clause 3 to include the right to clean and safe drinking water?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Yes, I think it's clear that we need to have the ability to have the right of access to water.

Again, in the improvements that have been made, there's some language that says “the Minister may”. I think we need to strengthen that with “must” and “should”. There are a whole host of areas that should have more solid language that commits the government and the minister to do something and not give them the option to opt out if it doesn't work. We need more solid language that says they “will” and “must” versus “may” or “could”. I think that's really important.

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

Since I'm almost out of time, I'll end with a yes or no question for you.

Would you be in favour of applying the precautionary principle to all high-risk projects, especially those with an impact on critical resources like water, in order to better protect indigenous communities?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

The answer is a simple yes. I think we should always err on the side of caution, especially when there are variables that we don't understand and when we're making decisions that have impacts for the next 500 years to thousands of years, as the project at Chalk River will. Therefore, absolutely, the precautionary principle, I think, is key in moving forward.

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

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

With that, I want to welcome MP Desjarlais to the committee today.

I will turn the floor over to you for six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much for the welcome, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you here.

Witnesses, thank you for being present here, in particular Okimaw Sunshine, from my neck of the woods. It's good to have you here. You spoke to me earlier, before we started today. You said that you weren't certain how good of a politician you are, but you did a pretty good job today, I'd say, in outlining the concerns of Treaty 8, particularly those of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation.

We heard a lot, particularly in Alberta from Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8, that there hasn't been enough consultation. However, in your remarks, I think you elevated the discussion to a place where Canada has never really wanted to go, the place where they have to actually address the fact that they had a treaty with many people on the prairies—mine, yours, just the whole province of people—and had these commitments that were laid out in the treaty-committed partnership. They committed to a nation-to-nation relationship, committed to dual sovereignty, this idea that we could exist separately but together.

I think the principle you're speaking about today, and one that I really implore my colleagues to listen to deeply, is that this is the most critical kind of legislation, in the sense that it deals with water, life, our women and our future. If I've heard anything that's been clear from chiefs in Alberta, it's that we have to get this right, and if we don't get it right, then we have to go back to the drawing board.

You mentioned in your statement that we have to find a way to return to treating each other more honourably, but most particularly Canada, the Crown, has to see its obligations to its treaty partners first and foremost. You even mentioned the Province of Alberta as an obstacle to what is, really, the full enfranchisement or full recognition of treaty rights, as well as your nation's sovereignty, future and ability to be recognized for its already existing powers: the right to self-government, the right to water, the right to land, the right to simply be who we are. Those are fundamental rights that exist, whether Canada acknowledges them or not. Your statements here today have made even more clear and deeply founded in my heart the great reminder that this place has a lot longer to go in finally trying to recognize its jurisdiction, which isn't complete jurisdiction but a shared one—one that it hasn't yet fully recognized with indigenous people.

I want to ask you this, Chief Sunshine. You made this statement about Canada: “They put us in a box and they forgot about us.” It pains my heart to know that such a proud people, particularly the Cree people on the prairies—my mother, my parents, our relatives—find themselves in this deplorable condition of poverty where water.... This is something that you mentioned in Calgary right now is being met by the people there as something so critical and desperate that now the attention on the importance of it is at the forefront of every newspaper in Alberta. However, this is something you've thought about as chief, something your people have thought about, something that indigenous people across the prairies have thought about for generations. What does our future mean without water? What does our future mean without clean water?

You also spoke about the importance of limiting the damages to existing water. The fish we eat come from the water that's been there, gifted by the Creator, yet toxic pollutants are constantly put into the water without your notification.

Many of these issues stem from a great deal of disrespect when it comes to the signatories who signed those treaties all those years ago, to have all these barriers put in front of them and to force you to come to this table today to say yet again what's been said for over 100 years, which is to simply allow us to be ourselves and to simply allow us to continue to do the work that we've been doing for generations, since time immemorial, to recognize the fundamental jurisdiction that is already present. The jurisdiction doesn't come from the Crown in better ways. It comes from our Creator, and you've made that very clear today.

My question is whether you'd like to elaborate any more on why the things you've said today are so important and why they lead you to oppose this legislation.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

Thank you for that.

I talked about our treaty and our box. I've been in this position for two years, and it's relatively new. When I say that I'm not a politician, I know that one of my elders said, “You are, because you are in your position.” When I learn of the atrocities that our people have faced over 125 years.... This year in Treaty 8 territory, right now, we're having a celebration of the signing of Treaty 8. I'm missing the grand opening. It's a reminder of where we are today and how far we have to go with the Government of Canada, and the Province of Alberta as well.

It's difficult to look back. I walk around this land and see the grandeur of these facilities, and where I come from we deal with poverty every day. When it comes to legislation, we talk about co-development. It's a struggle for me to really put it into words, to express how I feel today. I feel it's a responsibility that I have to my people to really try to come and express what that is. A treaty was an obligation. We agreed to share the land, but we haven't seen it.

Our people have been very good treaty partners, but our partner in the Crown, the Government of Canada, hasn't reciprocated. We've seen it. We see it every day. I'm sure you guys see all the statistics, the opioids epidemic that has faced our people. It's not a quick fix. It's not just one thing. You can't come here and just think you're going to fix the water and the water issues, or you're going to come and fix the drug issues, the opioid problem. In my community, it's a global issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Chief, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to finish that thought, please.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

It's housing. It's jobs. It's all of that. That's how you fix it. You fix it one piece at a time, but all together. In my community we're taking some steps towards that, but we need some assistance, and some partnership. We need the other side to uphold their obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desjarlais.

With that, we're moving into our second round, for five minutes, and we'll start with Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for this very important discussion.

Chief Sunshine, just to pick up where you left off, you were talking about the challenges that you're dealing with in your community, most of them, if not all, created by the “Ottawa knows best” approach. Now we've heard, through testimony in this meeting and others before it, about Bill C-61 and the challenges it imposes on you, in many cases, as a leader in your nation. Specifically, the consultation piece has been mentioned a few times, but also what can be described by many in this committee, through testimony, as the power that the minister would have under this legislation. Would you like to expand upon that?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

Thank you for the question.

When it comes to consultation, my friend here said that the AFN has been privy to that, and some other organizations. I know Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation hasn't been part of that. When it comes to consultation, AFN in particular, out of Alberta.... We're not participatory. I know the AFN has a lot to say when it comes to these types of things, but in Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, we haven't.

I'm sorry. What was the second part of the question?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

A lot of the wording in this legislation talks about “best efforts” by the minister, which could be interpreted as a large amount of power given to the minister to designate certain pieces of area as source water. It could be with or without consultation, according to some of the testimony we've heard.