:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 28 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The committee is meeting in public today and is being televised.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is meeting today to study “Report 3—Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities—Indigenous Services Canada” of the 2021 reports 1 to 5 of the Auditor General of Canada.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members may be attending in person in the room or remotely by using the Zoom application. However, I understand that everyone is attending virtually today, so for those of you who are, I will just go through a few reminders.
Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either “Floor”, “English” or “French”. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of a headset with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.
Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair. Please note that we may then need to suspend a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
If the members agree, I'd like to take about five minutes at the end of the meeting for a bit of committee business.
Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses. Joining us today from the Office of the Auditor General are Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada, and Glenn Wheeler, principal. From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Christiane Fox, deputy minister; Joanne Wilkinson, senior assistant deputy minister, regional operations sector; Chad Westmacott, director general, community infrastructure branch; and Jennifer Esdaile, director, strategic water management.
I will now turn it over to Ms. Hogan for five minutes.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our recent report on access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. Joining me today is Glenn Wheeler, the principal who was responsible for the audit.
Reliable access to safe drinking water is vital to the health and well-being of all, including the people living in the more than 600 first nations communities across Canada. Many of these communities have lived for a long time without the assurance that their drinking water is safe.
In 2015, the federal government committed to eliminating all long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on first nations reserves by March 31, 2021.
Overall, Indigenous Services Canada has not provided the support needed to ensure that first nations communities have ongoing access to safe drinking water. In fact, in December 2020 the acknowledged that the department was not on track to meet its March 31 target.
We found that since the federal government's 2015 commitment, there have been a total of 160 long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems in first nations communities. As of November 1, 2020, 60 remained in effect in 41 first nations communities, with almost half of the advisories having been in place for more than a decade.
In addition, we found that some long-term advisories were lifted only as a result of interim measures that did not fully address the underlying deficiencies. For some of these water systems, long-term solutions were not expected to be completed until 2025.
[Translation]
The audit team also found that Indigenous Services Canada's efforts have been constrained by an outdated policy and formula for funding the operation and maintenance of public water systems. The department had not amended the funding formula since it was first developed 30 years ago. Until the formula is updated, it is unclear whether recent funding increases will be sufficient to meet first nations' water infrastructure needs.
The department has been working with first nations to provide first nations communities with drinking water protections comparable to other communities in Canada. However, we found that there is still no regulatory regime in place 15 years after we first recommended it.
The federal government emphasizes the importance of reconciliation and the renewal of a nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and indigenous communities that is based on the recognition of indigenous rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. Indigenous Services Canada must work in partnership with first nations to develop and implement lasting solutions for safe drinking water in first nations communities. This is a key component of reconciliation.
Over the last few decades, many of my predecessors have raised concerns about programs that failed to effectively serve Canada's indigenous peoples. I am very concerned, and honestly disheartened, to find myself reporting a long-standing issue that is still not resolved. Access to safe drinking water is a basic human necessity. I don't believe anyone would say that this situation is in any way acceptable in Canada in 2021.
We made five recommendations to Indigenous Services Canada, and the department has agreed with all of them.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Good morning, everyone.
[Translation]
I would like to acknowledge before I begin that I am on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin people.
Thank you to the committee for having me.
The Government of Canada has made it a top priority to ensure that all first nation communities have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.
The department has welcomed the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's report on the issue of safe drinking water in first nations communities, and shares her commitment on the issue. The report includes five recommendations, each of which aligns with actions the government is taking to ensure every first nation community has access to clean water.
The department remains committed to implementing the action plan, working in partnership with first nations and following the transformation agenda.
Let me begin by noting that the impact of COVID-19 in the past year cannot be understated. The pandemic has delayed the completion of infrastructure projects across the country, including projects aimed at addressing long-term drinking water advisories. The health and well-being of first nation community members remains our top priority.
First nations are leading the response to protect their communities from COVID-19. In some cases, this has had an effect on getting equipment and resources into communities, especially in remote and northern areas.
The government recently announced significant investments to continue work aimed at lifting long-term drinking water advisories, to continue supporting water and wastewater infrastructure investments, and to support the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems.
With the combined investments made as part of budget 2019 and the $1.5 billion in additional funding announced by the department in December 2020, by 2025, Indigenous Services Canada will have increased the annual funding it provides first nations to support the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater systems by almost four times.
The increase in operations and maintenance funding has already started flowing directly to first nations, with 2020-21 operations and maintenance top-ups having been provided.
In addition, budget 2021 committed $4.3 billion over four years to support infrastructure projects in first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation communities, and $1.7 billion over five years to cover the cost of operations and maintenance of community infrastructure in first nations communities on reserve.
[English]
Working with indigenous partners, these investments will make significant strides in closing gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, support healthy, safe and prosperous indigenous communities, and advance meaningful reconciliation with first nations, Inuit, and the Métis nation. These investments will support continued action on infrastructure and clean water.
The long-term drinking water advisory commitment was made to address drinking water issues and concerns on reserve. Partnering with first nations, the government has collectively taken a number of important actions that have improved drinking water on reserve.
In November 2015, there were 105 long-term drinking water advisories on public systems on reserves across the country. Since then, 58 long-term drinking water advisories have been added. First nations, with support from Indigenous Services Canada, have lifted 106 long-term drinking water advisories. In addition to that, 179 short-term drinking water advisories at risk of becoming long-term have been lifted, ensuring clean drinking water to first nations.
Initiatives are well under way to address the 52 remaining long-term drinking water advisories in 33 communities.
Long-term solutions are under way in all cases where interim measures were put in place to provide communities with clean drinking water as soon as possible.
The department also continues to support a first nations-led engagement process for the development of that long-term strategy. We will continue to work to ensure that funding is available to commit towards these important water projects and address the long-term needs of communities.
In alignment with the Office of the Auditor General's recommendations, the government will continue to work with first nations to conduct performance inspections of water systems annually and asset condition assessments every three years to identify deficiencies.
Still, we realize more work needs to be done. The government values input from the OAG and other observers, and we will continue to work in concert with first nations partners to improve water infrastructure on reserve and support access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.
In closing, we remain committed to clean drinking water because it is about building a sustainable foundation that ensures first nations communities have that access to drinking water now and into the future.
Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Marsi. Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you.
:
I want to bring an important point to the witnesses' attention. I think my fellow members will agree with me.
We received the department's action plan only an hour before today's meeting. Frankly, that isn't enough time to properly review the plan, so we may very well ask questions that are already covered in the action plan.
I also want to make the Indigenous Services Canada officials aware that we need more time to consider and examine their answers. I would ask them to bear with us if we ask questions about the action plan, because we likely will.
Madam Clerk, could the committee ask the witnesses and departmental representatives who will be appearing next to adhere to a more reasonable time frame, so we have time to read the action plan before the meeting.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Absolutely, I can concur with Mr. Berthold on that. To get the information sooner would certainly help.
I thank Ms. Hogan and Ms. Fox for their presentations today.
Ms. Fox, you talked a bit about the budget, and that was something that I jumped into. I sifted through the budget and found that on page 265 it says there's “$1.7 billion over five years to cover operations and maintenance costs of on reserve community infrastructure in First Nations communities.” You mentioned the number of billions of dollars going into community infrastructure as well, but that could be a hockey arena or anything other than a water treatment facility.
Page 245 of the budget indicated “new investment of over $18 billion over the next five years, to improve the quality of life and create new opportunities for people living in Indigenous communities.” It also said, “These investments will support continued action on infrastructure”, and then mentions “and clean water”, which is nice to see in the document. On page 248, it says there's $125 million over four years, beginning next year, “to continue to support First Nations communities' reliable access to clean water and help ensure the safe delivery of health and social services on reserve.”
None of these three points that I bring up really specify what type of money is going directly into water and water treatment. Have you any idea of what money you're getting in this new budget that is targeted specifically for water and water treatment in indigenous first nation communities?
Thanks.
:
First, I would say the following. Since 2016 we have invested $4.27 billion. That is directly to repair water and waste-water infrastructure and support the effective management and maintenance of water systems on reserve. I would also note that in the fall economic statement, there was a commitment that is very specific to water operation and maintenance. In December of 2020, $1.5 billion was announced. That includes $616.3 million over six years, with about $115 million ongoing. That is directly for the operation and maintenance of water infrastructure in communities. That money is very dedicated to that activity. We have a series of budget announcements over the last five years that have very specific and direct funding for water infrastructure.
With respect to budget 2021, you are correct that there is $4.3 billion dedicated to infrastructure, but it's infrastructure at large, and it is distinctions-based. We will have to work with first nations leadership, the Inuit and the Métis nation to have a distinctions-based strategy in order to dedicate funding to infrastructure priorities. In that there will be water infrastructure.
I would say that in terms of the very specific funding that I think will have a huge impact on our ability, it's this O and M money that we received in both budget 2019 and the fall economic statement that really allows us to pursue the important work of the critical infrastructure as well as the operation and maintenance training needs of communities to be able to respond. It's about getting the systems in, but it's also about getting the expertise to manage the system and to monitor the system. That can really be about job creation. It's about the transformation agenda whereby first nations leadership and the community can take ownership of that water system. We want to work very closely with them on that.
With regard to the $18 billion dedicated to indigenous priorities, that touches the next year of COVID supports that will continue. It touches health transformation, anti-racism, infrastructure, governance; it's kind of a long list. We'll be working with our partners to work through budget 2021 and marry it with previous investments with, as I said, a starting point of over $4.2 billion for water infrastructure.
:
I think we have seen over the last few years a continued commitment towards addressing these water challenges. This has not been an exercise of just lifting drinking water advisories. Obviously, that is a very focused part of our department and our mandate, but really it's about that long-term strategy.
Will more investments be required into the future? I can't say that this is enough to solve everything forever, but I think what we're seeing is dedicated funding for infrastructure and, in addition to that, for operation and maintenance. I can't stress how important that is, especially as we look at new technologies in water. How do we sustain the shifts and the advancements to have better operating systems in communities?
We will keep working through it with communities, with first nations leaders, to see what solutions work for their communities and how we can empower them and support them in making the right decisions.
I would just note that a big part of the focus in this—
You mentioned the women. Quite often in indigenous communities the women are the water watchers, the ones who take care of the water. It's important to have them involved, as well as the youth.
I'm thinking of a round table I had with some grand chiefs in my last term at the beginning of all this. I remember Chief Madahbee saying to us, “We need operating and maintenance.” There was another comment from another grand chief who said, “We're getting these systems given to us from Ottawa, but they're not the right systems. You're not listening to our elders. You're putting septic fields where we know there are flood plains. If you would work with us, we could tell you better solutions.” One treatment plant actually added contaminants to the water because it wasn't being maintained properly. That was one of the examples, so there's the whole training piece.
Could you comment, Ms. Fox, on the importance of nation-to-nation discussions, and how they're actually very practical in terms getting to the right solutions at the right time to serve the communities in the way they want to be served?
:
Thank you for that question.
I think it is absolutely a foundational part of our work. It can't be about the federal government coming in and giving solutions or prescribing one particular system over another. It has to be about partnership and about indigenous leadership making decisions that are best for their communities.
We've really tried to take a community-by-community approach. Through our action plan, we really try to have the communities tell us what their needs are and what some of their priorities are. That can't be unique to water. As you know, when we have conversations with leadership, there are other priorities they address. How do we empower them?
I think the decision-making is key. It's not for us to lift a long-term drinking water advisory. It's not for us to prescribe a contractor. It's not for us to decide on the systems. We really want to support, and that support has to come with funding. It has to come with a commitment to work in partnership, but ultimately we want indigenous leaders and first nations leaders within communities to make the decisions that are best for their communities, and we are there to support them in doing that.
:
Absolutely. That's an excellent question.
COVID-19 obviously has been our number one priority in this department over the last year. We have been working in lockstep with indigenous leaders to partner with them and to support them in the very important decisions they make to protect their communities.
Band council resolutions are a way that they demonstrate to us that they've made a decision about the safety and security of their communities. That has sometimes meant a shutdown of the community. They've requested some supports at times for perimeter security to manage the flow in and out of their communities, and at times it was the difference between the protection of a community against an outbreak in order to have a healthy community.
We have been very responsive to band council resolutions to respect the decisions that indigenous leaders have made. That has meant that some of the construction season of last year was impacted. It was impacted not just because of those decisions, which were very important as we face a third wave in this country and have to be extremely vigilant in how we manage it, but also in terms of just getting equipment in and out.
As a department, we have to think about how we manage both the pandemic response and the support we're giving to communities in the summer season coming up, while trying to advance some of these very important water projects and other infrastructure projects.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses.
Good morning, Ms. Hogan. It's always a pleasure to see you.
I have to tell you that, back in February, I almost felt sick when I read your report. I have that same feeling today; it came back as I listened to your opening statement. Your findings are appalling. Indigenous Services Canada is very slack, it would seem.
I won't beat around the bush. Instead, I will get straight to the point. Before we get into the details, I want to discuss some of your findings and recommendations. You pointed out that your office first conducted an audit on the specific issue of access to drinking water more than 15 years ago, back in 2005. The department has had time to get things ready. It's safe to say that the issue has been on your office's radar for almost 20 years.
My question is straightforward. Do you feel the department takes the role of the Office of the Auditor General seriously?
Do you think the department has a corporate culture of offering up mea culpas every five, 10 or 15 years? In other words, is it just riding out the storm, while carrying on business as usual until the auditor general's next report comes out?
We conducted an audit on safe drinking water in indigenous communities in 2005. We followed up in 2011, and again just recently, as per the report tabled in the House of Commons in February.
Although progress has been made during that time, the department did not meet its commitment to lift all drinking water advisories. We found two things in particular during this audit: a regulatory regime had not been developed, and more importantly, the funding formula had not been updated for some 30 years.
As a result, the funding formula is outdated and does not meet the immediate needs. We found that it had not kept pace with advances in technology, which has a direct impact on water system operator capacity. Despite the progress that has been made, the department's failure to update the formula since it was developed some 30 years ago is not the way to ensure adequate funding for operation and maintenance.
:
Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Hogan.
I realize you can't speak as freely as I can about what is obvious to both of us, so I will rephrase my question.
Your office conducted an audit in 2005 and another one in 2011. You submitted a report this year. Yet again, you are disappointed with the lack of significant progress. It's clear that the department's actions do not necessarily live up to the promise the government made to first nations. Every single time, you have made clear and specific recommendations. Despite agreeing with those recommendations, the department has never managed to implement them once and for all.
I would be willing to accept the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, but the government's commitment dates back to 2015. There was no pandemic then. I realize that it did slow things down, but it does not account for the extent of the failings identified in your report.
Mentally, do you feel assured that this is the last time you will have to prod the department like this, or is it a lost cause?
Your office produces reports, they end up on some shelf and you have to do it all over again every five, 10 or 15 years.
I would like to discuss the fact that the risk ratings for water infrastructure remained unchanged; that was one of your findings based on the risk assessments.
In the 2014-15 fiscal year, the department's annual assessment revealed that 304 of the 699 assessed water systems, nearly 50%, were either high or medium risk. Five years later, despite the strong commitments that had been made, nothing had changed. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, 306 of the 718 systems were still rated as high or medium risk, so roughly the same percentage.
What must the government and the department do to reduce the risk of major deficiencies in the water systems?
The and the promised to eliminate drinking water advisories on reserves by March 2021. They failed, and it's first nations that are paying the price.
The government has blamed COVID, climate change and everyone but themselves. This type of dishonest and cynical politics helps no one and it certainly doesn't eliminate boil water advisories.
The Auditor General report that we're discussing here today has been clear on the reasons for this failure, and I want to highlight particularly the way they point to the lack of funding to retain staff and the lack of a regulatory regime that still wasn't in place 15 years after it was recommended. Quite simply, this is another example of this government saying the right things but not backing them up with action and the same kind of urgency they give when big oil, for example, needs money for a pipeline.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for first nations. It has laid bare the lack of investment in first nations communities by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, leaving these communities to fend for themselves. We must do better, and we can do better.
I want to acknowledge that what the Auditor General report has made clear is that first nations need more than just empty words and symbolic commitments when they're consistently left with broken promises, particularly on something as fundamental a basic human right as access to clean drinking water.
First nations need access to clean drinking water immediately. I'm pleased to join you in this committee today to really get at what needs to be done for us to get there, for first nations to see that reality take place.
My first question is to the Auditor General.
I am wondering if you can expand on why a sufficient regulatory regime wasn't in place. I'm thinking of first nations like Garden Hill in our region, which actually is not even on the list of boil water advisories. It is a first nation that received investment for its water treatment plant after the H1N1 crisis, which hit that community hard. However, we know—and this was exposed by a CBC report in 2019—that by the time water gets to homes in the community, it is not drinkable.
How is it that Garden Hill First Nation, and presumably others, have fallen through the cracks and don't even make it to this list? How did we get to this point? What can be done to ensure that communities like Garden Hill get the help that they need?
:
One of our first audits back in 2005 on this issue did raise a concern about a regulatory regime, and we have seen that some progress has been made since then. I think I need to back up just to explain what's in a regulatory regime.
Typically there's an act, which is the legislation and the law, but then there are also guidelines that accompany it. It's those guidelines that really show you how to operationalize.
What we found in this audit is that the act has been in place for a few years, but the guidelines are still not finalized. Many first nations communities, and we noted this in our report, questioned how the act was put together, noting a lack of a meaningful engagement and consultation, and perhaps that's the reason why some of the guidelines are not finalized yet.
Why this is really needed is it helps define roles and responsibilities and provide clear accountability when something goes wrong. It defines minimum service levels in order to be able to identify when water is no longer safe and what advisory needs to be put in place. It's really about ensuring that the first nations communities have the same protections that other communities across the country have, but they have to be able to set that, because they have their right to self-govern. They have to be able to be actively engaged in setting what those regulations should look like. That is one of the key steps, in addition to the funding formula, that's needed in order to help advance this and lift those boil water advisories on a more long-term, sustainable basis.
My next question is to ISC.
We have heard repeatedly, including today, a favourite Liberal buzzword, “partnership”, as in “work in partnership” with first nations. I want to bring up Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which is also in my region. They've struggled without clean drinking water for years, yet ISC, Indigenous Services Canada, wasn't even testing their water for the contaminants that were making people sick, forcing the first nation to pay out of pocket for the work that ISC refused to do. Due to Canada's failures, they launched a class action lawsuit and have spoken about their fear of government reprisals for doing this.
They're now taking their complaint to the UN, and I'm proud to support their efforts in doing so, but it didn't need to come to this. When asked about these failures, a spokesperson for ISC said, “Indigenous Services Canada...has supported the community in the repairs and upgrades to their water treatment centre to ensure water quality continues to meet approved guidelines.” The water that makes them sick continues to meet approved guidelines.
This type of disrespect is far too common. In a meeting between ISC and Tataskweyak Cree Nation in their community, an ISC official took a sip of water to demonstrate that the water was clean, seemingly ignoring the many community members who had rashes or were otherwise sick.
Does water that you won't test properly, that we know makes people sick, continue to meet approved guidelines? If yes, why is ISC maintaining that these guidelines are accurate? What good do they serve outside of public perception? We know that the first nation has been clear that the water makes them sick. Why is ISC continuing this charade?
In paragraph 2.3, where you break out a number of items in numerical amounts, what is the annual commitment to O and M? It's going to be growing as more water advisories are lifted and more water treatment plants and purification systems come online, so I would love to know what the annual commitment is if someone could come back with that. I was trying to go through the numbers and I would love to get to where it says what we are spending and investing in ensuring that indigenous communities have safe and clean water systems.
That's great to hear, because that is a big thing that was pointed out in the AG's report.
Second, holistically, with the budget commitment that we recently introduced, approximately $42 billion is being invested into the indigenous communities across Canada, so it's great to see that, and I just wanted to point that out. That includes the $11 billion from the prior government.
On the payments to the individuals running the water treatment plants, is that a decision by each of the indigenous communities themselves to make, or is that in partnership with the federal government?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My first questions are for Ms. Fox.
Good morning and welcome to the committee, Ms. Fox.
I suppose that it isn't very pleasant for you to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts today. We know that the Auditor General tabled a less than glowing report in Parliament on your organization's work to meet the basic need of providing safe drinking water to indigenous communities. This basic need is more than vital. You'll agree that the report speaks for itself.
I know that some progress has been made and that many initiatives have been put in place to address the issue. I just want you to clearly state whether you find it acceptable that, for over 10 years, communities have had to boil their water on a daily basis before consuming it.
:
I understand, Ms. Fox, but 10 years is a long time. I still find it difficult to read all the findings of the Office of the Auditor General. Most campgrounds provide better service than the services available to some indigenous communities.
I'm trying to understand. I agree that the COVID-19 pandemic slowed down some activities. However, at what point did your department already know, even at the start of the pandemic, that the work would slow down significantly?
In December 2020, the government offered a mea culpa to mitigate the situation before the submission of the Auditor General's report. The government knew that the report would be scathing. I can't imagine that you didn't know about this until December 2020. The pandemic had been going on for almost a year.
When did your department realize that the pandemic would slow down some of your ongoing work?
:
First of all, you raised a question in your last intervention around whether or not we would penalize people who are taking legal action. I would say categorically no, we would not. We respect the right of indigenous groups to take the decisions that they need to take for their communities.
In terms of the water, the guidelines we have are based on science, and we want to work in lockstep with communities. If people feel that the water is unsafe, not only will we do the testing, but we will also work with our environmental health officers and look at what we can do.
If there are things happening in the community that require health interventions, it also becomes not just a water issue; it becomes the health supports for that community. We would continue to provide support based on science for the guidelines, but also, in recognition that something is happening, we want to work in partnership with the leadership to address that.
:
As I mentioned, there are 33 communities that still have 52 long-term drinking water advisories. We're going to continue to work very closely with them.
What we're looking at in the short term is what kind of progress can be made over the next few months, especially taking into account the spring and summer construction. Obviously, with COVID still very present in a number of communities, we're looking to see what can and can't be done and what types of security measures could be put in place by way of rapid testing and other types of supports that we could provide, if communities decide that they want to proceed with construction or maintenance.
I can tell you that we remain committed to it. I can tell you that we have an action plan for each of the 33 communities, but it would be premature for me to put a time frame on this today, given that we're still living in the midst of COVID.
I really want to make sure that we have conversations with first nations and that they tell us when they feel that it's the right time to adjust or fix or build, or whatever process and step they're in.
:
Thank you very much to my colleague for that.
My question is to the Auditor General. I want to raise the issue of Red Sucker Lake.
Red Sucker Lake has a water treatment plant that was constructed in 1995. We know that the infrastructure in Red Sucker Lake First Nation to deliver dependable clean drinking water is simply not where it needs to be. In fact, when Red Sucker Lake was dealing with the COVID-19 outbreak before the end of December, it took the Canadian Forces to come in and identify clearly that having only one water truck to service the community was not only not adequate but was actually contributing to making people sick with COVID-19.
These are catastrophic implications. The AG report referred to how, in many cases, ISC seemed to rely on short-term solutions such as water trucks—and not enough of them—to solve water advisories. What we saw with Red Sucker Lake is that this is not what's needed.
What is keeping Indigenous Services Canada from making the investments necessary to ensure that communities don't have to rely on unsafe water practices, as in the case of Red Sucker Lake?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for their testimony today.
Obviously, this is a very serious situation. It has a lot of legacy, as we know from the Auditor General's report. I look to exhibit 3.2 in the hopes that we are making a difference. I know that's cold comfort to communities that don't yet have access to clean drinking water, but there has been marked improvement. Our hope is that we can continue with this work to be able to get there.
My first question is to Ms. Fox.
Help me understand the role of Indigenous Services Canada as it relates to the operation and the actual capital on indigenous communities. I know some indigenous communities use own-source revenue. They have some of their own operations internally. Is the expectation that the federal government provides 100% of the necessary capital, or is there some working partnership there at all?
:
Thank you for the question.
I think it's really important to flag what the role of Indigenous Services Canada is. The role is actually to work with leadership of indigenous communities to make determinations about what they need to support their communities.
Sometimes water is at the top of that list, for very obvious reasons. Sometimes there are other priorities. It could be a school construction build or a housing project. Rather than sort of dictate, we have to listen and ask what those priorities are that they have identified.
Yes, there may be some communities that say they would use own-source revenue to do various types of infrastructure, but I think our commitment to first nations communities for water infrastructure is that we can provide 100% of the capital. We can provide that 100% for O and M to allow them to do those projects in the quickest way possible and from a long-term perspective, but it is a partnership, so the decision can't come from our department. The decision has to come from the first nations leadership.
That's how we guide our work. It's for eventual full transformation.
I want to take you to exhibit 3.3, Ms. Fox, where we have somewhere between 15 to 20 long-term advisories that have been in place for 15 years or longer, if I read the graph correctly.
Intrinsically, to me this is not necessarily just a money issue. This is capacity. This is geography. There are a whole host of things. I know that even in my own riding in Nova Scotia, there are communities that, because of colonization, were located in areas and terrains that were not desired. Is it fair to say that in some of the communities, part of this issue with some of these long-term advisories is actually finding quality water to provide to the community, or is it just the infrastructure? Can you speak to that a little bit?
:
Maybe I could ask for a submission, because I don't want to spend too much more time. Paragraph 3.38 in the Auditor General's report says that as of November 20, there were still 60 in effect and that the department thought that up to 33 would be eliminated by March 31, 2021.
If you could get that information to the committee, I would certainly appreciate it.
The Auditor General's report, Ms. Fox, also talks about how one-third of water that's used in communities is not through the public utility model, in the sense that it is coming from wells and other sources. I know that's generally the domain of the local indigenous community.
As quickly as you can, is there any programming in place there? Is it part of your mandate and that of the department to support outcomes in that space?
I want to go to the Auditor General.
Ms. Hogan, we've talked a lot about regulations, and I've had the chance to look through the actual legislation from 2013. With respect, it's relatively straightforward, and it's a relatively short act. Why is it that regulations matter?
You talk about policies, and I don't even think the department is in disagreement, but help me understand, as a parliamentarian, why regulations matter, especially if we're looking to try to address things.
You know, even ministers then have to gazette. They have to amend regulations. Why can't this just be a set policy in working with indigenous communities? Why does it have to be in regulatory form to be the most effective?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Fox, there has been some discussion about how things are going. I listened carefully to you when you talked about transparency and collaboration. Those are all good things. We really hope that the action plan, as well as all the recommendations in it, that you accept today will bear fruit.
I am trying to get a better understanding of what the collaboration is all about. The report notes that there are problems with the legislative framework. In particular, a lack of consultation is mentioned. Drawing a parallel between consultation and collaboration is self-evident. The lack of collaboration and consultation goes back to the design of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in 2013. Eight years later, no changes have been made.
How do you explain the fact that your department has never taken action to actually change the legislative framework to improve the situation?
:
I agree with you. We have the same goal, which is to ensure that everyone has access to safe drinking water.
We were doing our job with timelines, community realities and construction seasons in mind. We were still working hard to meet the March 2021 target.
Unfortunately, 52 long-term drinking water advisories remain in place in 33 communities, but we are committed to doing everything we can to lift them.
I want to emphasize that the work isn't just about long-term advisories. We have lifted 179 short-term advisories and, as a result, several communities have not been put in a difficult position in the long term. I don't want to minimize the effort required to eliminate the 179 short-term advisories.
My question is to the Auditor General.
York Factory First Nation has now gone six weeks without clean drinking water and has declared a state of emergency after their so-called state-of-the-art water treatment plant that was built one year ago failed them, forcing them, like TCN, to pay out of pocket for both testing and clean drinking water. The chronic water shortages have forced the school, the day care and the restaurant to close, and they have been left without proper fire and emergency services during this pandemic right now.
I'm sure we can all agree that this situation is unacceptable.
In your report, you make reference to how woefully insufficient funding to maintain water treatment plants has been. According to the report, the ISC's operation and maintenance funding formula is out of date. What is the government not doing that leads to communities with so-called state-of-the-art water treatment plants being without clean drinking water?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I had originally asked this question of you, Ms. Hogan, back in March when you tabled the reports. It's about the hiring practices on first nation communities.
Ms. Hogan indicated that it wasn't part of her audit, so I will ask you, Ms. Fox, about what role the federal government has in the hiring practices of first nation communities. I specifically asked Ms. Hogan, so I'll ask you, Ms. Fox, whether or not any first nation reserves have restricted water supply jobs to indigenous and band workers only. If so, does this affect their ability to find qualified people to fill these positions? Has this created any continuity issues in the plants' operations?
:
Thank you for that. That leads to my question here also.
First of all, there was a survey conducted by a consortium of universities led by Concordia. They found that two-thirds of water operators on first nations reserves were earning lower than the median wage of operators elsewhere, outside reserves. Sometimes they are working for close to minium wage, often while on call 24-7. Many of the operations operate this way in first nation communities, with the safety of their drinking water reliant on just one or a few underpaid and overworked operators.
I know, as you indicated, that it's not your role to determine salaries and such, but certainly with this new funding in place, they can look at these wages, as you've indicated. I just think that it's incredibly important that we look at retention. It was brought up by Mr. Longfield and Mr. Sorbara as well. Retention seems to be a recurring issue.
Again, it is up to the first nation communities, then, to determine the wages and salaries. Would bonuses be much cheaper than the costs associated with water advisories? It just makes sense to me to pay them fair wages. Do you have any comments on that, Ms. Fox?
:
We didn't really address this in the audit.
In my opinion, money alone is not enough. Money is absolutely needed when you make commitments or create laws and regulations. You need the funding to support the infrastructure, the investment and the time that need to go with all of these things. It isn't just about money, but money is definitely an important aspect.
One of the last things I would highlight is probably the training that would then be needed to maintain those trained operators. However, what we've seen across so many of our audits on indigenous issues is that this is not unique to water treatment plants. It's also the ability to attract and retain resources when it comes to nursing staff, mental health practitioners. There are so many issues. It's very interconnected in the north and on reserves with housing as well, so it isn't just money. There's a much bigger, broader, more comprehensive issue.
:
“Capacity” is the word. “Capacity” seems to be the word.
With that, Ms. Fox, just as a quick follow-up to Mr. Webber, he mentioned—and I'll take his report at face value, because I don't have it in front of me—that two-thirds of individuals who are working in these spaces might be earning near or around minimum wage. I have to assume that when Indigenous Services Canada puts its block of funding to indigenous communities, it would not just be on a basis of minium wage.
What type of accountability or what type of oversight, if any, do we have to ensure that the block of funding is supporting certain outcomes, such as improvement over minimum wage, or to ensure that the money is in place to retrain these types of workers that we need?
First, I have a comment. I find it pretty rich when I hear Liberals talking about how it's not just about money and it is about capacity. I mean, where's the political will? It's pretty disrespectful to blame first nations for not having clean drinking water. I have heard and visited communities where first nations are doing everything they can with what they've got to meet the need in their communities. The stories right now in 2021, during a pandemic, are stories that are inhumane and are reflective of third world living conditions, so just to set the record straight here, what we are missing is political will from this government.
I want to go to the AG to ask, based on their report, how devastating is it that so many first nations do not have access to clean drinking water? Does this also connect with their—
:
I was trying to find my “raise hand” option.
For May 13, we will have the meeting....
[Translation]
I'll switch back to French.
On May 13, we will have a meeting with people who will explain the cabinet confidences, and we will be looking at two reports. I suggested that we immediately schedule an extension of the meeting until 2:00 p.m., which would make it a three-hour meeting. We could then plan our schedule accordingly.
Does everyone agree to proceed this way? I would like us to plan for this meeting to be a little longer than usual. That way, we don't have to extend the meeting by half an hour or 45 minutes at the meeting
Colleagues, with that change, do I have a motion to adopt the revised work calendar?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That's excellent.
I also want to let you know that the meeting on Tuesday will be on the Canada child benefit with the Canada Revenue Agency.
Thank you very much, colleagues. Enjoy the rest of your day.
The meeting is adjourned.