Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2024

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We are continuing our discussion of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste-water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Of course, we have the housekeeping measures. They talk about audio feedback. I'm sure you have a note on that. For anyone in the room, please remember your earpiece as we keep going.

I'm going to get right into it because we don't have much time. I believe there is agreement amongst the parties to consolidate the two panels that we have into one.

Everyone gave the thumbs-up here, so we are good to go.

Why don't we start right away with Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill?

You have five minutes, Dr. Hill.

[Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill, Full Professor, Indigenous Studies Department, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Skä•noñh. Sekoh.

I'm honoured to be asked here today.

I'm going to talk about the Ohneganos research team, which intentionally centres indigenous knowledge in women in addressing climate change and the water crisis we're currently experiencing, which is an increasingly recognized step by international organizations and bodies to build effective mitigation approaches to these crises.

A UN economic and social affairs policy brief from 2021 states:

Indigenous people are stewards of the world's biodiversity and cultural diversity. Although they account for only around 5 percent of the world's population, they effectively manage an estimated 20-25 per cent of the Earth's land surface [including water]. This land coincides with areas that hold 80 per cent of the planet's biodiversity and about 40 per cent of all terrestrial protected areas and ecologically intact landscapes. Indigenous peoples therefore play a key role in efforts to protect the planet and biodiversity.

Focusing on the role of traditional knowledge and indigenous women in mitigating climate change, the report notes “the importance of upholding the rights of indigenous peoples as enshrined in international law and full respect for the right of indigenous peoples decision”.

My community of Six Nations has led a project, Ohneganos, which means “water” in our language. It's a research project with the Six Nations of the Grand River of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, in the largest populated indigenous reserve in Canada. The Six Nations community has been engaged in efforts to achieve sustainable ecosystems, health and well-being directly tied to the state of water. As a Kanienkehaka—Mohawk—woman and a scientist living in my community, it is important to acknowledge the laws that our people upheld long before colonial laws of the Crown.

The research undertaken centres on the Haudenosaunee Great Law and responsibility to care for the water. This is embedded in our creation stories and the thanksgiving—or Ohenton kariwatehkwen—address. The constitution of the Haudenausonee states that whenever the confederacy leaders “shall assemble for the purpose of holding a council, the [leaders] shall open it by expressing their gratitude to...and offer thanks to the earth where men dwell, to the streams of water, the pools and the lakes”.

Secretary to the Haudenausonee Confederacy and sub-chief Leroy Hill tells us how the Great Lakes were formed, and the fresh water that the Creator gave us to live on earth. The landscape of this region is literally tied to our creation story.

The Great Lakes are collectively the third-largest body of drinking water globally. When Europeans arrived, they marvelled at the abundance of pure, sweet drinking water. In less than 200 years, the sweet water of the Great Lakes has been contaminated and, in some cases, is highly toxic. These numbers are expected to increase and are exacerbated by climate change and population growth.

Our study found that, in my community, only 10% to 12% of Six Nations residents have access to treated water piped into their homes. Nearly 30% of home and tap water sampled had unsafe levels of heavy metals and E. coli bacteria. The majority of residents are required to purchase their water, both trucked and bottled, and must pay for waste removal, causing undue economic, physical and social hardships. Our health surveys found that over half of the residents were found to have daily levels of water insecurity anxiety, impacting mental health significantly, especially for the new mothers and our elders.

Only less than 0.5% of the water on this earth is usable and available fresh water, and climate change is dangerously affecting this. Only 2.6% of the world's freshwater supply is available to southern Canada, where most of the population lives, in contrast to the continental U.S., which has a 3.7% freshwater supply available for its use. Canada has a relatively high amount of fresh water available per capita; however, this availability of fresh water varies dramatically by region.

One in four Canadian municipalities experienced water shortages between 1994 and 1999. Shortages were attributed to increases in consumption, drought or infrastructure constraints. Consequently, changes in river flows, climate or land use can have significant impacts on the water available to individual households.

Climate change, population growth and increasing water scarcity will put pressure on our food supply, as most of the fresh water used—about 70% on average—is used for agriculture. It takes between 2,000 to 5,000 litres of water to produce a person's daily food. As part of our project Ohneganos, we identified numerous threats to the ongoing illegal extraction of groundwater by Nestlé, and now by BlueTriton, on our traditional lands as outlined indigenous lands, leading to advocacy for indigenous water governance.

Our study documents that the water insecurity of Six Nations is further exacerbated by the selling of our sacred aquifer to corporations, which will eventually devastate our ecosystem.

In response to Bill C-61, there is a positive duty on states to observe UN agreements, treaties, declarations and norms, including indigenous rights under UNDRIP and rights to territorial integrity and resources therein.

Canada has an obligation to uphold UNDRIP articles 21 and 26. I won't go over them, but article 26, paragraph three, states:

States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Dr. Hill, if you could wrap up quickly, that would be awesome.

[Dr. Dawn Martin-Hill]

Okay.

The concerns we have are the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. Also, funding is not addressed in Bill C-61. To meaningfully support water infrastructure, funding is required for initial development and also for the ongoing management and training required to achieve long-lasting indigenous water sovereignty.

I'll end it with this: In our Great Law, we talk about the seventh generation. Youth need to be integral and central to all the works that you do in your bill. Make sure that they are funded.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Dr. Hill.

Next up, we have James MacKinnon from the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority.

You have five minutes.

[James MacKinnon, Director, Engagement and Government Relations, Atlantic First Nations Water Authority Inc.]

I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I'll be providing comments on behalf of the Atlantic First Nations Water Authority, which I'll be referring to as the AFNWA for the remainder of my time.

The AFNWA is a first-of-its-kind, full-service water and waste-water utility that is owned and operated by its participating first nations. Currently, we provide service to 13 nations in Atlantic Canada.

The AFNWA is a not-for-profit organization led by its participating first nations, with the board comprising primarily first nation chiefs, who have carefully developed incorporation documents, governance manuals and bylaws to guide their decision-making. The AFNWA board of directors is supported and informed by our elders advisory lodge. The elders provide guidance on first nation values, cultures and knowledge, and offer advice to the board to ensure that the AFNWA is not solely a copy of a western utility model.

The foundation of AFNWA's success to date is, in large part, due to its alignment and connection of funding to treatment, monitoring and operation standards through an indigenous-informed governance framework.

The legislation being studied by the standing committee is central to the sustainability of the AFNWA and embodies many of the tenets that have been central to our progress, such as a commitment to a funding framework that is based on actual costs of operations and maintenance and is responsive to projected infrastructure needs. These themes are also embedded in the AFNWA's 10-year business plan, which was developed and approved by the AFNWA board in 2022 with the vision of strengthening programs and approaches to service delivery in the spirit of self-determination and reconciliation.

It is in this context that the AFNWA supports many elements of this legislation. However, there are key aspects of the legislation that could be improved, and I'd like to take the remaining time to outline some of these opportunities.

First nations water quality is currently unregulated. However, Bill C-61 allows for first nations to create their own regulations for water and waste-water quality, which, at a minimum, must align with the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and either the waste-water system effluent regulations or provincial standards. It's the AFNWA's opinion that future waste-water regulations must also consider environmental risk assessments to the receiving water body.

The AFNWA supports water and waste-water regulations, as a regulatory framework supports operational and design conditions for the AFNWA. However, regulations developed under Bill C-61 must be met with adequate funding. Subclause 27(5) states that the minister “must make best efforts” to begin consultations on a funding framework within six months of the section coming into force. This is encouraging. However, while there is a mandate to start the work, there is no required deadline to finish it. Communities would be well served if there was a commitment to finalize the funding framework in partnership with first nations within two years of the legislation achieving royal assent.

Further to funding, if a first nation creates standards above the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality or waste-water system effluent regulations, the funding framework must also provide adequate funding to design, install, operate, maintain and monitor the infrastructure required to meet those standards. Perhaps most importantly, paragraph 27(2)(d) identifies “enforcement” as an element to be considered in the funding framework.

Because there is no precedent for enforcing regulations regarding water services in first nations and clause 24 enables the minister or a provincial, territorial or municipal government or any public body acting under the authority of the first nation to enforce first nations laws—or preferably, a first nations-designed and -led enforcement body—it is unclear what the actual cost of enforcement will be. Laws without oversight are protocols. As we see in the present circumstance, protocols alone are insufficient.

Further to regulations, we understand that they will only be as effective as the trained professionals who work to adhere to them. As the only first nations water utility in Canada, I want to state that additional equitable and culturally appropriate opportunities for first nations personnel in the water sector are needed. Furthermore, funding support for first nations youth and water professionals is essential to fully realize water regulations in Bill C-61.

Lastly, we are encouraged to note that any standards developed will apply to both individual or decentralized systems and public or centralized water and waste-water systems. That said, decentralized drinking water systems, including individual wells and truck-to-cistern systems, are often not monitored for bacteriological or chemical safety, resulting in a poor understanding of water quality.

Decentralized waste-water systems, like water systems, receive little to no federal funding for the actual cost of operations, maintenance or replacement. This can leave aging and failing septic systems to release untreated or undertreated waste water to the environment. Where necessary, the act should explicitly mention and address the very significant challenges associated with decentralized systems and how to safeguard these systems from failure, inclusive of funding.

Bill C-61, if constructed well, would help expand the AFNWA's mission to include both centralized and decentralized systems in order to provide holistic water services to our member first nations, thereby reducing the service gap often experienced by communities.

I would like to close by thanking the committee for their invitation to appear here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much.

According to my list, the next witness is online.

We go to Chief Roy of the Kainai First Nation.

[Chief Roy Fox, Kainai Tribe]

[Witness spoke in Niitsipowahsin and provided the following translation:]

Friends and representatives of the federal government, my traditional name is Makiinima. We send you our greetings.

[English]

On behalf of the Kainai Blood Tribe, we send you greetings from the land of the Kainai Blood Tribe.

I want to quickly share a bit of history about our tribe and the relationship we have with aohkíí—water.

Of course, we will support any legislation that confirms our ownership of our water in, on, under and boundary to our reserve lands, as well as our inherent right to govern that water. The history I want to quickly share with you is that our reserve is bounded by four rivers: the St. Mary, the Belly, the Waterton and the Oldman. Of course, that is our water. Other jurisdictions have tried to lay claim to that water, but it is ours. We use the water for drinking, domestic and agricultural purposes. We have the largest irrigation farm in Canada. Of course, we fully utilize the irrigation that takes place. We are the largest producers of timothy forage hay in Canada—soon to be in North America. We export to many countries.

Therefore, the use and ownership of water are not new matters to us. We will continue to use the water that bounds our reserve. It is important that this bill includes any amendments with respect to waters that bound our reserve, not just the ones in, under and within the reserve. It's so important to us.

We certainly, of course, support Chief Crowfoot's call for amendments to recognize that first nations have a human right to safe drinking water, and Chief Knowlton's comments about being able to utilize our waters for other purposes, such as agriculture. We want to emphasize that some amendments have to be made. Source water protection is important to us. However, because of the rivers I mentioned that bound our reserve, most of that source is from the United States of America—the state of Montana. More importantly, it's from the lands of our cousins the Blackfeet in Montana, who are part of our confederacy. We of course share the water rights issues they have as well.

I need to get back to an important conference we are hosting for the membership of the confederacy. It's a conference on our language.

[Witness spoke in Niitsipowahsin]

[English]

Of course, I have to get back and make some closing remarks. I would request that our senior counsel Dorothy First Rider represent me after my initial presentation.

Thank you, Chairperson and members of the committee, for giving us some time to make our comments.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Chief Roy, and good luck at the rest of your conference. I'm sure they will appreciate your closing remarks.

Next up, we have Chief Troy Knowlton from the Piikani First Nation.

Chief, you have five minutes, and then questions will follow.

Thank you.

[Chief Troy Knowlton, Piikani Nation]

Thank you very much for having us here today.

I am Piikani Nation Chief Troy Knowlton. It's Troy “Bossman” Knowlton, which is how the people back home know me. My traditional name is Bear Head.

I'll read a little bit here, and then I'll just add a little bit.

I'd like to thank the committee for ensuring that Piikani Nation and other Blackfoot nations have the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-61. I want to start by helping you appreciate who we are and what we have faced as first nations when it has come to water.

You have before you today three first nations that have been on the front lines of the first nation water rights in this country. My comments will be from Piikani's perspective, but I know that Siksika and Kainai have grappled with the same challenges.

As Chief Fox mentioned, the Blackfoot treaty region is one of the most water-scarce regions in Canada. From 1857 to 1860, Captain John Palliser led an expedition across the Canadian Prairies to assess the potential for the region. In his report, Palliser noted a large arid area that was likely unstable for agriculture. That area included much of the Blackfoot treaty region and became known as the Palliser triangle.

When Canada entered into the Blackfoot treaty in 1877, they knew that water was critically important to the reserve lands promised in the treaty. Even so, Canada has done little or nothing over the past century to protect the treaty water rights of the Blackfoot until Bill C-61.

When Alberta took over control of water in the province from Canada, it entrenched a system of water licensing: first in time, first in right. The system is intended to ensure that during times of drought, older or more senior water licences will not be impacted and more junior water licence-holders have to reduce water. The first in time, first in right system utterly fails to respect that the Blackfoot nations were using water in the region for thousands of years before European colonization. This is not an academic issue. The Government of Alberta has maintained that it owns and has jurisdiction over all water on Blackfoot nation reserve lands, and it has asserted that control without reference to history, our treaty water rights or the water needs of our nation. These issues led to a standoff in 1990 at the Piikani Nation over the construction of the Oldman River dam and nearly ended in violence.

When I say that it nearly ended in violence, there were shots fired. I was part of an encampment of 100 or so people who faced off against the province over the construction of the Oldman River dam that was going to decimate a lot of our ancestral territories, and it did. It was built against federal environmental statutes. Alberta did it anyway for a few millionaires who lived downstream in the agriculture belt of southern Alberta. Those millionaires are billionaires today, and they've created a lot more, whereas the Piikani Nation hasn't benefited the way we ought to have.

We had a water rights case that was put into abeyance in 1998. We negotiated a deal with Canada and Alberta over the jurisdiction of the water, put it into abeyance, and today we have problems with that. Bill C-61 may help us to alleviate some of those long-standing problems.

Although this is a touchy issue for many of us when it comes to the water and jurisdiction and ownership, we assert that we are stewards of the land and that first in time, first in rights make reference to the Blackfoot people who were there first in time, first in right.

I thank you for your time today. The chiefs, I know, have other issues that we want to talk about, but there are certain measures in here that are amenable to us that we can work with that will strengthen some of our jurisdictional issues as well as our future. However, there is still a lot that needs to be addressed in here.

I'll speak specifically for my northern brothers and sisters who lack infrastructure and who lack different water qualities. In the oil sands I have friends and families up north who are dying at an alarming rate because of water contamination. How is this going to help them? There is opposition from many first nations because of that, and it does not address a lot of their problems.

For the Blackfoot Confederacy, the Oldman River runs right through my reserve, and we're close to the headwaters. Because there are provisions in here for source water, for safe drinking water and for waste water, there are many areas that we can appreciate.

Of course, more needs to be done. I think you all can understand that when you look at the bill, at the history and at where we're going.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Chief, for those words.

Next up, I have two names, so I'm not sure who would like to speak from the Siksika Nation.

Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Chief Ouray Crowfoot, Siksika Nation]

[Witness spoke in Siksikai’powahsini]

[English]

I am Chief Ouray Crowfoot from the Siksika First Nation. I'd like to thank the chair and the committee members for providing the opportunity for Siksikaitsitapi, the Blackfoot nation, to speak regarding Bill C-61.

I'd like to thank Kiaayo'toka, Troy Knowlton, as well as Makiinima, Roy Fox, from the Blood Tribe.

We are three distinct nations, but we are one nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy. As a matter of fact, just a month ago, the Blackfoot Confederacy and the Iroquois Confederacy made some alliances to work together because we have a lot of similarities in our proximity and our populations. We're large confederacies, and we have a lot of commonalities, but that's another story for another day.

The Blackfoot nation, Siksikaitsitapi, supports Bill C-61. This does not mean that we think the bill is perfect, as mentioned by Chief Knowlton. The minister has committed to making further amendments, which we will speak of today.

I want to start, though, by focusing on the critically important and long overdue historical rights recognition contained in Bill C-61. My cousin Sam Crowfoot and my great-great-great-grandfather was Isapo-muxika, Chief Crowfoot, one of the signatories to the Blackfoot treaty. He entered into the treaty with Canada in 1877. Water was clearly fundamental to that treaty.

Canada committed to support Siksika's transition to agriculture and other economic developments on our reserve lands. At that time, the Blackfeet, previous to the treaty, were a buffalo people. We were a nomadic people; we followed the lands. The buffalo all over the lands and our stories tie us to these waters. Our stories tie us to these lands, similar to what was mentioned by the Six Nations and their stories about the water and the lands.

After the treaty of 1877, the transition was that Canada was to create farms for the Blackfeet and other economic opportunities on those lands. Despite this, many times since 1877, we've been told we have no water rights and that the water on our lands and under our feet is not our water and that we have no rights to govern our water.

With Bill C-61, that comes to an end. It has taken over 147 years, but finally Canada is set to recognize our treaty rights to the water on, in and under our lands, and our inherent right to govern the water according to our traditional values. For this reason alone, Siksika supports Bill C-61 with respect to the right of every first nation to their own position on Bill C-61.

Having said that, I need to address the consultation process on the bill. We didn't think it was perfect. Even so, Canada started by asking for our understanding of our treaty water rights. For the first time ever, we had opportunities to review and comment on draft legislation. Although we had to fight hard, Canada responded with critically important changes to the bill. After two years of significant consultation, the recognition of our inherent right of self-government over water was broadened beyond just drinking water infrastructure to all aspects of water. The assurance of sufficient water supplies in clause 15 was also a direct response to the Blackfoot nations.

The committee needs to appreciate that every first nation has had some opportunity to consult on the bill. However, there are still serious issues with the bill. The legislation is supposed to end Canada's shameful legacy of neglect, underfunding and discrimination against first nations' access to safe drinking water, but it falls short. Canada commits to best efforts to ensure first nations have safe drinking water. In light of Canada's century of failure on safe drinking water, first nations must not be asked to accept and trust that Canada's best efforts will be effective.

Many first nations across the country share this concern with Bill C-61. A clear and simple amendment can help address this. In the preamble of the bill, Canada cites the UN resolution, confirming that safe drinking water is a human right. Canada needs to recognize that right in the body of the bill.

Siksikaitsitapi, the Blackfoot nations, are seeking an amendment to clause 3 that would read:

3(3) For greater certainty, it is recognized and affirmed that First Nation peoples have a human right to safe drinking water consistent with United Nations resolution 64/292 (2010) and that pursuant to this Act the human right to safe drinking water means that all First Nation members resident on First Nation lands have a right to drink water that poses no risks to human health or well-being.

When Canada started consultation on Bill C-61 in 2022, it told first nations across Canada that it would affirm and recognize our rights. At least a dozen AFN general assembly resolutions and many resolutions by the Alberta Assembly of Treaty Chiefs have consistently called on Canada to recognize that first nations have a human right to safe drinking water. It should be obvious that in legislation meant to ensure that first nations have safe drinking water, the primary right to be enshrined must be the first nations' right to safe drinking water.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Chief, I'm sorry, but you've gone about two minutes over. Could you wrap it up? Thank you.

[Chief Ouray Crowfoot]

Okay, I'll be two seconds.

Our proposed amendment will also inform what is meant by the phrase “best efforts” in Bill C-61. Best efforts means that first nation mothers, children and elders have a right to turn on their taps in their homes and the water that comes out poses no risks to their human health or well-being.

Bill C-61 presents a historic opportunity for Canada to finally do the right thing and to recognize that first nations people have a human right to safe drinking water.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much, Chief.

Our last speaker is, I believe, Clayton Leonard from the Blackfoot first nations.

[Clayton Leonard, Lawyer, Blackfoot Confederacy First Nations]

I start by thanking the committee for making time and paying attention to our submissions on Bill C-61. I'm here as a legal counsel to the Blackfoot nations so, of course, I have to speak in support of the amendments they're seeking, but before I get into those points I'd like to speak from a personal perspective.

I had my first file about unsafe drinking water at a first nation 20 years ago, and there's been a constant flow of those issues ever since. I shouldn't be in front of this committee, 20 years after the fact, asking Canada to do the right thing on first nation drinking water. I'm not indigenous, and like most Canadians I have the good fortune to turn on the tap in my home or office and not give a second thought to the water that comes out of the tap.

However, I spent a lot of time in first nation communities, hearing from people who live first-hand with water that threatens their well-being on a daily basis. I saw elders in tears as they recounted having to struggle physically to get bottled water into their homes. I saw dirty, smelly water coming out of a fountain in a first nation school, and perhaps one of the most shocking moments to me was seeing a billboard that was pretty much permanent, warning people in the community that there's a do-not-consume order.

Just imagine that for a moment. We all focus heavily on drinking water advisories and boil-water advisories. That community, literally every day, gets up and they can't boil the water. They can't drink it or they'll get sick, and that's been in place for a number of years.

The unsafe drinking water in first nation homes, schools and community buildings is among the worst kind of discrimination our country has inflicted on first nation peoples. It's a disregard for their humanity. I'm happy that Canada took steps to address this over the last few years, but it's not enough and more has to be done. Bill C-61 is a good start, but it asks first nations, despite Canada's legacy, to trust that new best efforts will be enough to ensure safe drinking water in their communities. With Canada's legacy of discrimination against first nations in general, and particularly with regard to unsafe drinking water, it's irrational and indefensible to ask first nations to trust that.

This is why Bill C-61 needs at least one very critical amendment. It's time to stop with half measures. Do the right thing by expressly recognizing that first nations people living in their communities have a human right to turn on the tap and face no risk to their human health or well-being. Nothing less is acceptable. The proposed amendment recognizing that first nations have a right to safe drinking water is critical to reconciliation as well and is consistent, as Chief Crowfoot pointed out, with over a dozen AFN chiefs and assembly resolutions from 2011 to 2023, which I provided to the clerk of the committee.

The amendment will address what's a very common—the most common—criticism from first nations about the bill: It doesn't do enough to ensure that first nations will be assured access to safe drinking water. Canada endorsed the UN resolution 64/292 on the human right to safe drinking water. Did it mean it or not? It references that resolution in the preamble, which means it's within the scope of the bill, but it's lip service if it's not in the body of the legislation.

Funding is also fundamental. It's been about 18 years since the expert panel on safe drinking water concluded that resources, a lot of them, are needed before regulation happens. As we know, that was the key failing of the first crack at this kind of legislation: It wasn't backed by resources for first nations.

While the $6-billion commitment—now—that accompanies the bill will finally address this, I think it's important to note that the funding commitment, although it flows from the class action, the minister has clarified, in writing, to a number of first nations that the funding is for all first nations in Canada.

However, there's still a serious funding issue with the bill. There will be a two-tiered level of access to the $6 billion in water infrastructure funding. The 271 nations under the class action will have access to a binding third party resolution process. This means that, if one of those communities, for example, gets an engineering assessment done of their system that identifies a $10-million need and ISC says, “No, here's $7 million,” the community has recourse under sections 9.06 to 9.08 of the settlement agreement to bring that to a binding dispute resolution process and compel ISC to fund the full $10 million.

This is a critically important funding mechanism that will not be available to 348 first nations across the country; 60% are going to be left behind and at the the mercy of ISC in making decisions. I think it's really critical—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Excuse me, sir. You've gone about 45 seconds over.

If you could either quickly wrap up or.... We can probably get to you in questions.

[Clayton Leonard]

I can do that.

It's critical that the committee take a look at attaching that to the bill in some fashion.

I'll just close by restressing the need to seriously consider the amendment that's been proposed to recognize that first nations have a right to safe drinking water. If one amendment makes it into the bill from this committee, that's the one that needs to happen.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much to all our witnesses. We've had some great testimony here.

Unfortunately, we have time for one round only, but it is a six-minute round for each of the parties. We'll start with the Conservatives.

Martin Shields, you have six minutes, please.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, and I appreciate your being here in person. I know Chief Fox had to leave, but I appreciate his making a statement.

One of the things that affects Chief Fox more than some of you is the international piece. I know we've talked about that before, like when the Milk River had a bust here. That sort of disrupted the Milk River, but that infrastructure is on the U.S. side. That's another challenge we have in the sense that you have an amendment here that you want to make about quantity. We have an international agreement with regard to water and water rights with the U.S.—the amount we get. However, the infrastructure is the other issue of that being maintained, and that affects Kainai more than anybody else. That's something we have to pay attention to when we work on this in the sense of quantity.

The other part that's been mentioned is climate change, and having listened to many different people on climate change, we've heard them say that we will have more quantities at different times. Storage becomes the issue. When I talk about storage, in the sense of water for quantity, Chief Crowfoot, you're very familiar with storage—part of your nation. How do we address that if we get less periodic rain, but it's much more extensive?

Storage becomes an issue, and that leads into your amendment that you'd like to do with quantity. I know you didn't get a chance to talk about it, so would you like to talk about your amendment to do with quantity?

[Chief Ouray Crowfoot]

I'll yield that comment to Sam Crowfoot.

[Samuel Crowfoot, Council Member, Siksika Nation]

Alberta has not been a responsible steward of our water. No Blackfoot nation has ever accepted Alberta's assertion of control over water on our lands, and no court has confirmed that Alberta has any jurisdiction over our water on our reserve lands. In fact, in 2006, an expert report commissioned by the Government of Canada concluded that water on reserve lands could not be governed by provincial water laws due to subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act.

We are not here to rehash the difficult history of water colonialism in Alberta. The reason for this background is to help the committee appreciate and understand the critical importance of the recognition of our ownership and our inherent right of self-government over our water on our lands in Bill C-61.

The recognition of our treaty rights is historic and long overdue. However, the bill falls short of what is necessary in clause 15, which currently reads:

15 The quantity of water available on the First Nation lands of a First Nation must meet the drinking, cooking, sanitation, hygiene, safety, fire protection and emergency management needs of the First Nation, based on its current and projected water usage needs.

The assurance in clause 15 of a sufficient quantity of water available to first nations is a good start but is not consistent with Canada's treaty obligations with the Blackfoot nations. Under the terms of the Blackfoot treaty, otherwise known as Treaty 7, we have a right to enough water to fully use, benefit from, live on and develop our lands. The listed water uses in clause 15 must also include water for agriculture and economic development to be consistent with the Blackfoot treaty. This is a simple but very critical and necessary amendment to the bill.

Thank you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

We talked about “first in time, first in right”, which is the provincial organized water system. You're dealing nation to nation with the federal government. Would you believe, then, that it's the federal government that needs to deal with the provincial governments under their water rights of first in time, first in right?

[Samuel Crowfoot]

Go ahead, Clayton.

[Clayton Leonard]

I've been asked to address that question.

I think if this bill passes, what it does is it creates a new conversation around that. Instead of trying to fit first nations into a system that's been in place since 1897, after 22,000 licences have already been issued in southern Alberta, it takes them out of it. It creates a level playing field for a government-to-government discussion with Alberta about the use of water in a watershed, including on reserve lands. That hasn't happened in the past. They have been treated as stakeholders. If they're lucky, they've been consulted.

It will also change other things. You may be aware that the Government of Alberta is considering a new dam on the Bow River between Cochrane and Calgary. Siksika, despite a lot of efforts to have a conversation with Alberta about that, has been left on the sidelines. They are the only nation downstream from what will be the biggest addition of a reservoir on the Bow River in the last quarter-century. Why aren't they at the table and in a partnership on a project like that?