THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 30, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met with videoconference this day at 2 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures; and, in camera, in consideration of a draft report.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the Senate of Canada is situated in the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquian Anishnaabe people. However, since this meeting is hybrid, senators are conducting their work from the traditional territories of many nations.
I’m Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I have the honour of chairing the committee on Aboriginal people.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to introduce the members who are participating today, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Dan Christmas from Nova Scotia. With us today are also Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan; Senator Audette from Quebec; Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia; Senator Hartling from New Brunswick; Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Kim Pate from Ontario; and Senator Moncion.
I would like to remind senators and witnesses joining us remotely to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized. Should any technical challenges arise, please let us know. I’d also like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed; however, official proceedings can be shared via the SenVu website.
I want to take a minute to recognize that June is National Indigenous History Month, which is a time to recognize the duty, diversity and contributions of Indigenous peoples across Turtle Island, as well as our resistance and resilience across generations. That we’re still here after centuries of genocide, and that we continue to reclaim and rebuild what was taken from us, is worthy of celebration.
I also want to note that it has been a year since the Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc announced they located 215 potential unmarked graves of children near a former residential school. To date, there have been more than 2,000 discoveries, and additional searches are under way or soon will be under way. Every child who lost their life at a residential school deserves to be returned home and given a proper burial. Families deserve to know what happened. Please join me now in a minute of silence to honour all the innocent children who died at residential schools as well as the strength and courage of survivors and their families and communities.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
Wela’lioq, thank you.
The Senate of Canada and, in specific, the committee on Aboriginal peoples can play a critical role in the process of addressing historic and ongoing injustices, as well as in challenging attempts to deny or minimize the scale and severity of the harm caused by the residential schools and other state actions. May the Creator guide us all in the journey to advancing truth, justice, healing and reconciliation. Let’s now proceed with our meeting.
Today we’re here to resume our study on the subject matter of Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act. In specific, we’re examining Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 5, one of which amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act and the other repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.
I would like to introduce our first witness with us today. From Tataskweyak Cree Nation, we have Taralee Beardy, Executive Director. Please note that Ms. Beardy will be providing opening remarks of up to five minutes. If necessary, I will let her know when she has one minute left.
In the interests of time, I ask everyone to be as succinct as possible. Each senator will have approximately five minutes to ask a question and get an answer. When the allocated time is over, I will intervene and move to the next round of questions and answers. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the raise-hand feature. You’ll then be added to the list.
Ms. Beardy, if you’re unable to provide a full answer or would like to provide additional information after the meeting, I invite you to submit a written response to the clerk before Friday of this week. Ms. Beardy, I now invite you to begin your opening remarks.
Taralee Beardy, Executive Director, Tataskweyak Cree Nation: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Taralee Beardy. I’m from Tataskweyak Cree Nation in Split Lake, Manitoba.
My community is located in northern Manitoba. We are situated along the Nelson River, which is part of the Hudson Bay drainage basin, and we are on the main channel where many of the Manitoba Hydro dams are situated along the Nelson. Upstream from us, we have the Kelsey Generating Station hydro development dam, which was completed in the 1970s. Downstream from us, we have Long Spruce, Kettle and, most recently, we have the Keeyask dam that’s almost completed.
Because we are on the main water system, our elders, fishermen from our past, have noticed changes in the water, our water systems. They say it came from as early as the 1950s and Thompson, which is located along the Burntwood River. They started noticing impacts from mining development and a new city being located there. There’s also the impacts of hydro development, the rising water levels adding contaminants to the water, such as mercury. Not only that, but in recent times, like I said, we’re in a main drainage basin, and we’re getting all the pollution from the cities, farms, mining and different industries, which end up in our water systems due to runoff. We are downstream, just before the Hudson Bay.
In 2017, our chief and council took it upon themselves to call a state of emergency due to contaminants in the water, because our people were getting sick. A lot of the children were having skin and stomach issues. They declared that our children could no longer swim in our waters. We took it upon ourselves to hire our own independent researchers, who took water samples from our community. They found more algal toxins in our water, not previously identified by the province. That’s when our chief and council went ahead with a class action lawsuit.
Our water is not safe to drink. How can our water treatment plant clean the water with so much pollution in it? We’re in the process of seeking another source for our water. We’re trying to get it from another lake, not part of the main drainage from the Nelson River. We’re trying to get our new water source from Assean Lake. The drainage comes from the northern lakes, so it shouldn’t be as polluted as the main channel of the Nelson River. As we know, cities are continuously dumping raw sewage into the lakes and rivers, so we know our water is polluted. We knew it all along.
We need to find funds to continue funding our studies. We have to think about our future generations. Everything we’re doing, we’re doing for our children and for future generations. Water is life, and life is water. We need water to survive.
I think that’s it for now. Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks, Ms. Beardy. We’ll begin the question and answer session. I’m going to ask the first question before I turn it over to our deputy chair, Senator Christmas.
My question, Ms. Beardy, is this: Why was the repeal of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act a part of the settlement agreement?
Ms. Beardy: Can I get back to you later?
The Chair: Yes, absolutely. You can provide your answer in writing, Ms. Beardy, before Friday, if you could. Thank you very much.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much, Ms. Beardy, for appearing before the committee. I have a number of questions.
You mentioned in your opening remarks that your community had decided to hire your own independent researchers. Could you tell us how you found the funds to hire these researchers? What work did the researchers do that was different from the studies the province had done?
Ms. Beardy: We took money from the profits from our businesses. We have a gas bar and a couple of businesses. We were able to tap into some of those profits and hire an independent tester. I was told that they did an in-depth study of the different toxins in the water — more algal toxins not previously identified. I was also told that six toxins were found in our water systems that were previously found in Third World underdeveloped countries, such as Africa. They found six toxins, such as blue-green algae. I’m not really good with the terms, but that’s how we were able to pay for it. To keep the studies going, we need more funding. We actually need the funding.
A lot of our people have H. pylori. That’s the short term for it. A lot of our people are undiagnosed as well, because our clinic will not just take people in to get tested. They have to be really sick before they’ll test them. There are people who constantly complain about issues with their stomachs, and it’s been linked to H. pylori.
Was I able to answer your question?
Senator Christmas: Yes, Ms. Beardy.
I have a couple of follow-up questions, if I may. You started to tell us about the sickness and the symptoms that your people have been suffering. Have these symptoms been noticed for some time? Over time, did the symptoms get worse or better?
Ms. Beardy: I think some people got worse. We’re actually losing a lot of people at a younger age. The life expectancy is much lower. A lot of people are getting cancer and diabetes. A lot of our children have skin issues, such as rashes and sores. We do our best. We look after our children, but there are still issues with skin — even in adults, but it’s most prevalent with little children.
Senator Christmas: Ms. Beardy, you also mentioned the hydroelectric dams that were built upstream and downstream. How do you think those dams have affected the quality of your water?
Ms. Beardy: There’s a lot of sediment in the water, and when the water is high there’s a lot of flooding on land and land erosion. A lot of contaminants, like mercury, get into the water systems.
I remember when I was a young child in elementary school. We had people come to our school and cut a piece of our hair to check how much mercury was in our systems. That hasn’t happened in recent years, but it used to be done because of the mercury levels in our water. Now we’re unable to eat the fish out of Split Lake. We harvest fish from lakes further up north. As you know, fish is one of our main food sources in our earlier years.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Beardy.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much, Ms. Beardy, for being here today.
I wanted to expand a bit in terms of what Senator Christmas was saying. When a lot of us hear about the water issues, we think, “How can this be?” Can you explain a bit more some of the stresses, challenges and fears that people are experiencing? You started talking about health and food but, emotionally and just day-to-day, how are the people coping with just knowing their water isn’t clean and good?
Ms. Beardy: People knew the water wasn’t good. You could smell the water, too, when you turned on the taps. Sometimes they put extreme amounts of chlorine to try to clean it, but you can still smell it and it tastes bad. People struggle because they can’t afford to buy water. If you buy a case of 24 bottles of water at the northern store, at one time it cost $10 or $20. People around here can’t afford that because the majority of our people are on social assistance. When the northern store runs out, we have to travel to the next town, which is Thompson. That’s an added expense as well to find a ride to Thompson to purchase water. But many people have done that.
Keeping our children out of the water is hard. When I was young, we swam in the water. As we got older, however, the waters became very murky. There’s a lot of sediment in it, so it just looks like muddy water. But that muddy water is going to our water treatment plant. How good is our water treatment plant at filtering the water and getting all those contaminants out? There are medications and all kinds of chemicals in the water. How can the water treatment plant possibly clean all that water?
People are stressed about it. We have to put signs all around town at every beach saying, “Don’t swim in the water due to E. coli.” Our water fluctuates because of the dams and the flooding upstream, but the water eventually ends up here. One year it was confirmed that there was a lot of E.coli in the water. That was due to the flooding down south and all the sewage. So we put up warning signs. We really had to keep our children from swimming in the water. Then we had to find funding from other programs, like hydro, and bus our kids all the way to another lake. It’s a one-hour bus ride, and parents worry about their children’s safety on that highway.
As to the kids going swimming, kids love to swim. They love the water activities. Different kinds of stresses are involved, even with giving kids a bath. I see people complaining about giving their kids a bath because they still have bad rashes and raw faces, especially the babies. It is very stressful.
Even the nursing station staff won’t drink the tap water. The nurses and doctors and all the clinicians that come in get bottled water. They always got it. It wasn’t until 2017 that our chief and council stepped up and decided that our people needed clean drinking water too. They managed to get bottled water in. We’ve been getting bottled water for over a year now.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much. I’m really sorry that your people are having all this stress. It seems so unnecessary in our country. We’ll try to do our best to see what we can do. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Beardy: Thank you for listening.
The Chair: I have another question for you, Ms. Beardy. How do you think the settlement agreement will help individuals and the community overcome the harm created by the lack of access to clean water for so many years?
Ms. Beardy: First, if we reach a settlement, I hope that we can get another source of drinking water for our community, and I hope that this will allow us to get a water line to the rest of our community. Our community has an aging infrastructure for water pipes on the older side of town. We’re constantly having water breaks. That also contributes to the dirty water in the pipes. We have another part of town that doesn’t even have running water. We have to depend on a water truck and a sewer truck to deliver it. If we were to get a fair settlement, we could probably hook up the rest of our town to a water line and a sewer line, which we don’t have. Even that is a struggle. There are times where the water trucks are broken down and when the sewer truck is broken down, and then we don’t even have water in the homes at all. That’s a whole different struggle.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Ms. Beardy, for your testimony.
If I am hearing correctly, you’ve talked about the health issues related to the drinking water. You’ve spoken about health issues related to actually bathing in the water, the children, et cetera, and the effect on their skin. You’ve talked about the limitations of the recreational opportunities for the children and others in the community because the water isn’t safe to swim in. You’ve also spoken about your food supply, about the fish and how, with the contaminated water, you can’t trust the fish supply either for people’s diets. Am I getting that picture straight from what you’re saying? Have I missed anything there?
Ms. Beardy: Yes, that sounds right.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. We thought we were just going to just be talking about drinking water — and drinking water is really important — but this is a bigger, more comprehensive problem that you’re describing here.
You have mentioned the hydro dams as being a factor. You’ve also mentioned flooding being a factor and contaminants from other industrial and urban sources. You’ve also talked about some solutions to the situation, both in terms of building the infrastructure — that is, using funds from the compensation to build new infrastructure — and I believe you also mentioned switching your source to another lake.
Ms. Beardy: Right.
Senator Coyle: Could you tell us whether you’ve had any feasibility studies and any costing for what both of those aspects would take, that is both the building of the infrastructure to and from and at the new source of drinking water that you would like to see come into the community and then the repair and extension of the existing infrastructure that you have there? Do you have a sense of what that would cost and whether this funding would be a suitable source for that?
Ms. Beardy: I think we started the process of the feasibility study for a new source, a new location. We actually had someone visit our community and check out the lake. We have a new project management company helping us with this, and they mapped out a water route to the new source. Right now, I think it’s being done in the feasibility study.
I know more funding is coming. We were recently told we are supposed to submit any part of the infrastructure gap to ISC. We were told that we can start submitting some budgets to help with the upgrading of our water and sewer pipes in the older part of town and maybe installing them in the newest part of town. Hopefully, that will help us with the cost, because I can’t imagine the settlement water would be sufficient.
Senator Coyle: Could you tell us if you have a sense of what kind of timeline you’re looking at for both having that new source of clean drinking water come online for your community and then having the infrastructure in place in the community to channel that to all of the households that need it?
Ms. Beardy: We’re thinking the timeline for the new water source will be two years max. For the infrastructure, we’re just hoping it can be approved for funding to upgrade the new part of town.
With part of our funding, we were only able to upgrade our sewage line. And then only some of the houses were hooked up to sewer but not water, I’ll say about 10 houses in the new part of town. But there are two other neighbourhoods that do not have a water line whatsoever. There are just water and sewer tanks.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for joining us.
I share the sentiments of my colleagues that it’s extremely disconcerting that a country like Canada, with the resources we have, has these boil-water and drinking water and access-to-water issues. I’m reminded of a comment made by Cindy Blackstock last fall when she and I were presenting together that these are policy decisions that are made by the government, and these are policy decisions that could be changed by the government. Hopefully, this settlement will help us on the way because, as she said, if we can get clean drinking water and internet on the space station, we surely can get it in every First Nations community in this country.
I’m interested in whether you have more details — and not that I think it’s your responsibility, let me be clear, nor any other community’s responsibility, to lay out what the plan needs to look like, but I would be very interested in what the terms of a successful, proactive settlement agreement would look like from your community and from your governance perspective.
Ms. Beardy: It’s hard to say, but ideally we just want clean drinking water for our children and for our children who are not here with us yet, our unborn children. We just want to have clean drinking water, safe drinking water, for our future generations, and we feel it’s very important to fight for that right now. I have grandchildren, and I think about their futures. I just hope that we are treated fairly and compensated fairly. It seems we’re always getting the short end of the stick, getting very minimal of anything. Our children deserve better than that, especially with truth and reconciliation and our inherent treaty rights. I just would like safe, clean drinking water for our community members. I don’t even know a dollar number to put on that. It’s important that, being in Canada, we should have clean drinking water that’s safe for all of us.
Senator Pate: Absolutely.
If there are any documents that you or anyone in your community would like to share, they could be sent to the clerk. That would be great, just to help shore up this testimony — not in any way to diminish from what you have said, but if there were anything else that would be helpful that you have submitted to the government or commitments that the government has made, that would be very helpful. Thank you, and thank you for your work on this subject.
Ms. Beardy: Thank you for listening.
Senator Christmas: Ms. Beardy, you mentioned in your opening remarks that, five years ago, in 2017, your chief and council declared a state of emergency. I’m interested if you could say in your own words what led to your chief and council declaring that state of emergency. What brought your community to the point where you made this decision?
Ms. Beardy: Our water had a foul smell, and our people were getting sick. It’s been ongoing. People have been getting sick for some time. We know it’s linked to our water because we all need water, right? We need water for everything we do in our daily lives. We know that our water treatment plant isn’t able to clean the water sufficiently. There are so many toxins in the water. How could it possibly filter out every toxin in the water?
Another thing that one of the councillors shared is that our animals eat and drink water, and they have found dead moose in the water, and there was no explanation for it. They were washing up onshore. Moose know how to swim; they are good swimmers. Why were they washing up on the shore? Maybe, over time, they are getting sick as well because that’s their main water source too. It is in our Nelson River channel that they were finding these moose. One of the councillors in the area is also a fisherman. He shared his experiences, too, of what he noticed as a fisherman. Even the fish had blisters on them.
From what I know, it was just that our water is filthy. It has an odour. People are getting sick, rashes, things like that. It all just accumulated to, “That’s enough.”
Senator Christmas: I find it also quite interesting that you have partnered with two First Nations in Ontario to launch a class action suit against the government. What led your council to make that decision? Why didn’t the government solve the issue before you launched a class action suit?
Ms. Beardy: I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
Senator Christmas: Okay.
The settlement agreement has now been approved by the court, and now the Government of Canada is asking Parliament to legislate the settlement agreement. How will the settlement agreement benefit your community?
Ms. Beardy: We have two other areas of town. The newer part of town does not have water and sewer lines. I’m told there is a chunk that links the older part of town to another part of town. We have no funding to hook up the rest of the town. That won’t be part of any funding. Maybe we’ll have to use some of our funding to get that water line in there.
We just recently upgraded our sewer line, and they relocated it to another spot. Some houses were hooked up but not all, and they are not hooked up to a water line either. We are hoping that, in the future, the rest of our homes can be hooked up to water and sewer. Maybe this will help with those costs, along with the funding from the infrastructure gap, closing the gap on infrastructure. Whatever is not covered there, we are not even guaranteed this funding. We have to apply for it. But it’s a long process. We just want water for our community.
We need another recreation place for our kids to go swimming because we don’t have that in the community. Our dream is to have a pool here in Split Lake, but is that possible? I would love to have a pool in Split Lake. Maybe we can get a pool for our children. There is a lot of stuff we don’t have that we wish we had. That’s one of the things that always comes up. We wish we had a pool in town for our children.
The chief and council haven’t said anything yet about how they are trying to use the funding. Right now, we need to have safe drinking water in our community for our people.
Senator Christmas: We understand that some part of this compensation package will compensate individuals. Do you expect individuals from your community to be compensated as well?
Ms. Beardy: I think so, because a lot of our people are suffering. They are sick. They have skin issues. They have had stomach issues and been diagnosed with H. pylori more than once. Our health care system is not very good on First Nation reserves, so a lot of our people get turned away from the nursing station, and the nurses think they are faking their illnesses and won’t bother testing them. They don’t give our people tests to see what’s wrong with them, so a lot of people go home still feeling the same way and complaining that they are sick, and they can’t find anything wrong with them. There are a lot of people like that. It’s a lot of young people too. There are a lot of people in their twenties and thirties already experiencing stomach issues, and the nursing station says they can’t find anything wrong with them.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Beardy, for your comments. I certainly wish you and your community all the best and that you get the infrastructure for your community that you need and that this settlement agreement will be a turning point for you and your community. Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thanks again to Ms. Beardy for filling us in. You’re painting a disappointing picture, as my colleagues have said. This is actually going on in your community and affecting your older people, your young people and your children in such serious ways.
I have a couple of questions, one following what Senator Christmas was asking about. If there is to be individual compensation through this settlement, I would imagine that there would need to be two things. One, there would need to be reliable health data in the community so that people could say, “Here is how I have been affected.” Then, two, once you’ve got a safe drinking water system in place, they would need to monitor the changes in individual and community health. My first question is about that. You have identified some issues with the existing health care infrastructure and its limitations. Could you tell us what your community would need in order to paint an accurate picture of what is happening with people’s health as it stands today?
Ms. Beardy: Like I said, a lot of babies have skin issues, like eczema, and some cases are very severe. Adults have Helicobacter pylori. H. pylori, they call it. A lot of people are undiagnosed. They don’t know why they are sick. I always see people saying, “I’m sick. I don’t know what’s wrong with me, and the nurses can’t figure out what’s wrong with me.”
The reality is the bottled water we have runs out too, and people do use the tap water to cook. They boil the water in the hopes that it’s safe to use. There are times where bottled water does run out, so I’m pretty sure that when they have no choice but to use the tap water, they do. People are still getting sick from it.
I notice a lot of our people are dying young. My parents were only in their sixties, and they both passed on. That’s quite young. I notice a lot of our people are getting sick and dying young. It’s very rare you see a person to live up to their eighties and nineties now. My parents were born in 1948 and 1950, and they died in 2017 and 2018. They were both not very old. That age group is not living to be 80 or 90 anymore. We are losing a lot of our people at a younger age. They are getting sick. They are dying early because of cancer, diabetes or whatever health issues they have.
Water is everything, right? Water is life, and we depend on it, so we have to drink our water.
Senator Coyle: Right.
Ms. Beardy: We only just started getting bottled water in a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago. Before that, we always drank the tap water, except some people who actually went out of their way to buy their own bottled water. That’s a new thing too. People didn’t always buy bottled water. That was very recent.
Senator Coyle: I have a follow-up question for you, and it’s not about this, but I can imagine the waste from all that plastic. Plastic water bottles must also be an issue your community is having to deal with. It compounds the problems that you’ve talked about, but my question is not about that.
Here you have a community that you want to be a safe, healthy and attractive place for any professionals you want to attract in to work in your community and for people from the community to stay in and build a community, as you say, for the future generations. I am curious whether this issue of an unhealthy environment due to the unhealthy drinking water and other water sources is something that causes people not to want to come to your community or to want to leave your community, because they might think, “Why would I want to stay in this community if my relatives are getting sick?” or that sort of thing. Has there been any link between community members wanting to leave or people from other communities not wanting to come there to fill any jobs that might be there because of this issue? I’m just trying to get a sense of all the implications of this.
Ms. Beardy: For the nurses who come in, I’m pretty sure they know that there’s bottled water available for them. We are having a difficult time attracting teachers to our community. It’s a struggle for us to get teachers to fill the vacancies for all our teaching positions. It’s an ongoing struggle that way. It could be the water, but I can’t say 100% that’s the reason because I don’t know why people don’t want to come here to work. I never thought of people not coming here because of the water, but it could be.
Senator Coyle: Are some community members wanting to leave as a result?
Ms. Beardy: Yes, some of them have moved away. I’ve noticed that people have moved away for health reasons, and they have a hard time out there too. They are struggling living in the city, in a new setting. Some live in Winnipeg and some in Thompson. They always say, “We’re having a problem living out here. We need to get from point A to point B.” They are struggling out there, living in a new setting. Other people have to move, especially people who have kidney failure and have to leave for dialysis. There are all kinds of other health reasons that people leave.
Even a lot of our children are sick. I don’t want to say this, but I worked in a school environment as an educator before moving to the band office to help. A lot of our kids have autism. I don’t know why. No studies have been done. In our education program, we have a high number of kids who are funded under a special ed program. At one time, I know we had 150 kids. I have a grandchild who is autistic. It’s almost like every other family in Split Lake has an autistic child in their family. The incidence is very high and very scary. I thought that was odd. It’s not frequent, but in our community there are some families with multiple autistic children. I don’t know why, and I can’t say why because I don’t know. Nobody has studied why. But we can guess.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Ms. Beardy. I don’t think the words “thank you” are strong enough for your presentation. We must remember that, once again, in Canada, we are comparable to developing countries or places that are experiencing similar situations. In this sadness or injustice, you are reminding Canadians that this also exists here. I want to thank you as an Innu woman; we are the guardians of the water, and it really hurt me to hear you.
My question is this: Knowing that we are close to moose, caribou, fish and animals, do you also have the ambition or willingness to create relationships to continue to do studies on the impact on our way of life? I say “traditional” in quotation marks, but all of this is also very present to ensure that our food is healthy and edible. With regard to this agreement, will it actually improve the health of these children and babies, through studies done in co-operation with you, to show that the problem of non-potable water that cannot be used for cooking is much deeper? I’m telling you, you have stunned me. I’m Innu, and I rarely get stunned by Indigenous issues, but you have stunned me.
[English]
Ms. Beardy: Thank you. We do need ongoing studies, and it would be a good thing too. Once we have our new source of drinking water, I think we should study our people to see if the health is improving. We should track these stomach and skin issues and everything. It would be good to see our health issues improving over time, especially with a new source of drinking water besides the Nelson River. It would be nice to have ongoing studies.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Ms. Beardy.
I have a simple question and then a comment. How many members are there in Tataskweyak Cree Nation? How many live on reserve and how many live off reserve?
Ms. Beardy: We have approximately 2,000 on reserve and 1,000 off reserve.
Senator Arnot: I would like to make a comment. One of the things that hasn’t been discussed is the lack of honour of the Crown in the treaty relationship. In your evidence, you said that your elders have said that since the late 1950s, when the mine was established and Thompson, Manitoba, was created, there’s been ongoing pollution in the Nelson River, the traditional source of your water and food. To me, what you stated is a clear and unequivocal example of the lack of honour of the Crown in respect to the relationship between the Crown and your community, pursuant to the treaties. That’s one aspect that needs to be amplified, because I think most Canadians would be shocked, appalled and ashamed if they knew what we just heard from you. This is appalling and needs to be addressed.
I will build on Senator Christmas’s comment. Your community had to resort to a legal action, a class action — which would be very costly, I’m sure — just to get to the point where you’re in negotiation for a settlement. I think that’s fundamentally wrong when you look at the treaty relationship from a proper perspective and the principles of mutual benefit and mutual respect that are in the treaties.
Thank you for your testimony today.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I want to thank you for taking the time to provide testimony today, Ms. Beardy. Please know that we hear you loud and clear. It is troubling that it has taken so long for the general public and Parliament to confront the crisis created by the lack of safe, clean and reliable water on reserves. That being said, I’m hopeful that the settlement will spark tangible changes in your day-to-day lives. The current reality is certainly not acceptable. Thank you again for your testimony.
I would like to introduce our next group of witnesses. Joining us today, from Indigenous Services Canada, is Curtis Bergeron, Acting Director of Regional Operations, and from the Department of Justice, Douglas Fairbairn, legal counsel.
The officials will have up to five minutes to provide a brief overview. If necessary, I will intervene when one minute is left. We will afterwards proceed to a round of questions and answers of approximately three minutes. I ask senators and witnesses to please be brief wherever possible. Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Fairbairn, if you’re unable to provide a response to a question today or if you’d like to provide additional information after the meeting, I ask that you follow up in writing before Friday of this week. I remind senators that we heard last week from the Department of Finance officials on this subject matter. Without further delay, I invite Mr. Bergeron to start his opening remarks.
Curtis Bergeron, Acting Director, Regional Operations, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As mentioned, my name is Curtis Bergeron. I’m an employee of Indigenous Services Canada, and I’m joined today by my colleague Doug Fairbairn. I am happy to be speaking with you today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people here in Ottawa.
We are proposing legislation that would repeal the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. The act came into effect in 2013 and allows Indigenous Services Canada to develop federal regulations to ensure access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water and the effective treatment of wastewater.
Since 2013, First Nations have repeatedly called for the repeal and replacement of that act, citing concerns of lack of adequate, predictable and sustainable funding; nonrecognition and potential infringement on rights; lack of proper protection of source water; and insufficient engagement. Repeal of the act would respond to concerns raised by First Nations and deliver on government commitments to work in partnership with Indigenous peoples.
As a result of First Nation concerns, work on the development of regulations was paused in 2015, and there are currently no federal regulations under the act. Since the act only enables regulations and no regulations are in force, repeal of the act does not create a regulatory gap.
On December 22 of last year, the Federal Court and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba jointly approved the Safe Drinking Water Settlement Agreement class-action litigation, which includes a commitment for Canada to make all reasonable efforts to introduce legislation repealing the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act and to develop and introduce replacement legislation in consultation with First Nations by December 31 of this calendar year.
The Assembly of First Nations has been leading engagements with First Nations on review of the act since 2018. The AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, hosts annual national water symposiums and water summits to share information and gather feedback from chiefs and their councillors, water technicians and other water experts to support ongoing initiatives, including the proposed repeal of this act.
Indigenous Services Canada also engaged key Indigenous groups and organizations on the proposed repeal of the act back in March of this year. All participants were supportive of the repeal of the act, with no opposition expressed. Participants also took the opportunity to share what they would like to see in the replacement legislation, things like engagement, funding, recognition of rights, provision of safe drinking water and effective treatment of wastewater. These views will continue to inform the way forward with respect to water-related legislative reform.
In terms of next steps, we are advancing work in collaboration with First Nations partners to co-develop a framework to inform the development of future legislation that would replace the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.
Back to you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening remarks, Mr. Bergeron. We will now move to the question and answer portion. I’ll start with my deputy chair, Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron, for your opening remarks.
One thing I’m trying to get clear in my mind is the sequence of events here. You started by mentioning that, in 2013, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act was passed. You mentioned that, in 2015, there was a decision not to introduce regulations. Since that time to today, could you sort of walk us through the sequence of events that led to the lawsuit and led to the settlement agreement?
Mr. Bergeron: Starting in 2018, the Assembly of First Nations, with support by Indigenous Services Canada, commenced engaging on a repeal of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, and has been doing so for almost four years.
In terms of the settlement agreement, obviously there was a lot of concern in numerous First Nations. Although I don’t have the exact dates, Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Neskantaga First Nation and Curve Lake First Nation initiated litigation against Canada, which then was negotiated between class counsel and chiefs and the Government of Canada on the current settlement agreement, which was approved by the federal and Manitoba courts back in December.
Senator Christmas: The question that bothers me is, given that Indigenous Services Canada and AFN were actively engaging on this topic, why did those three First Nations opt to launch a lawsuit? What led to the failure of negotiations that resulted in a lawsuit?
Mr. Bergeron: Indigenous Services Canada does support the right to litigate against Canada. It’s a right that every Canadian does have. In terms of results or rationale as to why, I can’t specifically say, but the settlement agreement is a means to come to a resolution or to settle litigation outside of court.
Senator Christmas: Thank you for that, Mr. Bergeron. I knew that was a long shot and you probably couldn’t answer it, but I decided to try anyway.
I’m curious to find out if this settlement agreement makes references to bylaws that First Nations can enact on safe drinking water. Will Indigenous Services Canada allow bylaws on safe drinking water?
Mr. Bergeron: As mentioned, the new legislation would be co-developed by First Nations and Canada. That may include the ability to create bylaws. Stepping back for just a second, the settlement agreement does provide for compensation for governance initiatives, and that may include funding for the creation of bylaws.
Senator Christmas: Great. Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: First of all, thank you very much to my colleague Senator Christmas for asking the question.
As far as I’m concerned, even if there is a right to challenge before the courts, I think that action should have been taken long before we got there, especially when we see the quality of life of individuals and communities over the decades. In my opinion, it is obvious that we have to review how we do things.
From now on, since we know that there are communities that have declared this state of emergency and before agreements can be reached and co-construction can take place, what is the government doing right now to ensure that the communities can also exercise a right that everyone has, namely the right to clean drinking water?
I have one last question for now. I guess this is just the tip of the iceberg, but are we going to measure the impact on the environment, animals and fish? As first peoples, all of these things are part of our lives. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you very much for the question.
In terms of the right to clean drinking water, first, I wanted to acknowledge the heartfelt responses that Ms. Beardy provided. That may be one of the reasons why I joined Indigenous Services Canada. Everyone does have a right to clean drinking water, and there’s a lot of work to do.
Since 2015, there have been 132 long-term drinking water advisories lifted by First Nations with support from ISC, but the real effort is being done by First Nations. There are 34 remaining in 29 separate communities. So, yes, there is definitely a lot of work to do.
I would also flag that, through the settlement agreement, there are numerous commitments. In terms of future funding, there is $6 billion to go towards ensuring access to clean drinking water. There’s also a renewed commitment by Canada to support the lifting of all long-term drinking water advisories, which is very key. Some drinking water advisories may be able to be lifted fairly quickly in the short-term; some will require funding for new water treatment plants. That takes time to plan and construct.
In terms of your second question around monitoring impact on wildlife, I may have to get back to you on that question. I don’t really know. There are definitely environmental public health officers that are either transferred and employed by First Nations communities or employed by Indigenous Services Canada that continue to monitor drinking water and other avenues with respect to infrastructure.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Bergeron, I understand that the settlement agreement allows for an appeal period to allow others to appeal the settlement agreement. I understand there’s been a few. Could you outline which communities have appealed the settlement agreement, and can you also help us understand on what grounds those communities have chosen to appeal the agreement?
Mr. Bergeron: Throughout the court proceedings, and prior to the court’s acceptance of the settlement agreement, there was a 60-day appeals period. It closed on February 21, 2022, and the information I have is that no appeals were received during that time. As a result of that, February 22 was the implementation date for that settlement agreement. That triggered the requirement for Canada to provide funding 60 days after that implementation date, which Canada did make, in about $2 billion. That was funded to a trust held by class counsel and the third party administrator.
Senator Christmas: Okay.
Mr. Bergeron, this is an afterthought. It is something that was triggered by Senator Audette’s question. It seems to me that the settlement agreement is focused on compensating individuals and also on providing the necessary infrastructure so that these communities can have a safe source of drinking water. We heard earlier from Ms. Beardy, and it seems to me that the situation in her community is that, instead of remediating the source of contamination of the Nelson River, the parties have agreed to develop an alternate source of safe drinking water, so the environmental problems remain, as mentioned earlier, about wildlife. I assume it still remains unsafe to swim. Is there any thought or consideration to remediating the Nelson River, at least in Taralee Beardy’s community? Where you have compensation being directed to individuals, will there also be dollars set aside to remediate the original source of drinking water?
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you very much for the question. It is a tough one.
Current legislation on safe drinking water is focused on federal and Indigenous lands. Some of the pieces that Ms. Beardy eloquently spoke to were off reserve, including provincial lands. One of the concerns raised by numerous First Nations was a lack of source water protection, which I believe is what you’re speaking about. It is something is that is being looked at and is a key topic for the codevelopment of new proposed legislation.
You mentioned the settlement agreement, and there are two parts to that settlement agreement: One is retrospective compensation, and the others are kind of forward-looking. In terms of retrospective compensation, there are two categories. One is $1.5 billion in compensation for individuals who were deprived of clean drinking water. The second aspect is $400 million for First Nations communities. It’s being called the First Nations Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund. Then there are the forward-looking measures, which is a renewed commitment to Canada’s action plan for the lifting of long-term drinking water advisories and the creation of a First Nations advisory committee on safe drinking water, which will provide advice and recommendations for key policy items, including repeal and potentially replacement. There is also the commitment of at least $6 billion — I forgot to mention that in my first remarks — to support reliable access to safe drinking water on reserve, and then obviously the planned modernization of Canada’s First Nations drinking water legislation, to be co-developed in consultation with First Nations. As I mentioned, a key component of that from previous engagements with First Nations, including the Assembly of First Nations-led engagement, is concerns cited by First Nations about the lack of source water protection.
Senator Christmas: Mr. Bergeron, you mentioned source water protection. What kinds of protection do you envision will be included in the new legislation that would protect source water given the circumstance of not all sources of water for First Nations are on reserve lands. Some sources of water would definitely be off. How do you enable the protection of source water for First Nations even if it is off reserve lands?
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you. That is another very difficult question.
I wouldn’t want to pre-empt the co-development of legislation, because we’re currently working with the Assembly of First Nations to create a joint co-development working group that would identify a legislative framework to inform legislation, and these are the exact questions that that joint working group would be tasked with providing.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses.
As you’re undoubtedly aware, last year the Office of the Auditor General identified the need for a regulatory framework to ensure Indigenous communities receive adequate drinking water protections — and as you’ve said, you’re repealing the legislation that currently exists — but one of the issues they raised was that only 80% of the costs of addressing drinking water issues are covered currently in the negotiations that occur and many First Nations struggled to raise the extra 20%. I’m curious as to what plans are going forward to ensure these policy decisions ensure clean drinking water. Not just that we have hopes and dreams for the future, but that we actually see this realized and not be the Canadian government’s ongoing failure.
Your attestation of the right of First Nations and Indigenous peoples to bring lawsuits, on the one hand, sounds positive, but, on the other hand, puts the responsibility on Indigenous peoples to rectify something that is clearly not something that they generated. I’m curious as to what the Canadian government has done in terms of addressing or analyzing the likelihood of future lawsuits, if this isn’t rectified in a proactive manner, and what the potential costs of those would be in terms of human costs, health costs, as well as financial costs. As you know, and as my colleagues are well aware, addressing many of these issues proactively was a Call for Justice of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry as well as a Call to Action of the TRC. I’m curious as to where you see us going really proactively, not just reacting consistently to the challenges that have to be brought by communities that are ill-equipped financially to bring forward these actions.
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you. I appreciate the question.
In terms of litigation, I would say it’s maybe not necessarily a last resort, but every attempt is made to avoid litigation on Canada’s part. In terms of nation-to-nation relationships, that is the direction Indigenous Services Canada is attempting to go in.
You had mentioned a few things, one of which was 80%. With that, I believe you’re referring to the operations and maintenance costs that stemmed from the OAG audit. Since that time, there have been numerous budgets provided to Indigenous Services Canada which increased the operations and maintenance formula from 80% up to 100%, and that formula was also modernized to reflect new realities in First Nations communities. By 2025-26, the funding will have increased by almost four times for operations and maintenance. Indigenous Services Canada heard loud and clear what the OAG audit had said and also what First Nations were saying.
In terms of the cost, the human cost of litigation is very difficult to think about, let alone predict. Obviously, I can’t put a cost to it. What I can say is that Indigenous Services Canada is prepared to work with First Nations in resolving all long-term drinking water advisories. I would say there are initiatives under way in every one of those cases to be able to support First Nations and their decisions to lift them, and the estimate is that about 40% of those current long-term drinking water advisories will be lifted by September of this year.
Senator Pate: Thank you. If you could send along the documentation about the increased funding, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you.
The Chair: If there are no further questions for our witnesses, this panel is now complete. I would like to thank Mr. Bergeron, and Mr. Fairbairn for joining us today.
We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)