Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 262
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, in two seconds.
Lastly, I want to discuss an issue that's essential to first nations communities—water. Ensuring that first nations communities have reliable access to clean water is a key goal for us. As of June 9, first nations, with support from Indigenous Services Canada, have lifted 107 long-term water advisories since 2015, at which date there were 105 in effect. In 2019, we've increased that support funding for operations and maintenance, which is a key demand of first nations—
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks, Chair.
In 2019 and 2020, we increased funding to support the operations and maintenance of wastewater systems. With these increases, by 2025-26, over $400 million per year in permanent funding will be provided, which is four times what's been allocated since 2016. That will be key and transformative to their maintaining the lifespan of these key infrastructure assets in communities and securing clean water for everyone. These added funds will have that tangible effect that I've mentioned and will contribute to safe water and safe and healthy communities.
I want to thank all of you again for this community. Now I am quite happy to take any and all questions.
Meegwetch. Nakurmiik. Mahsi cho. Thank you.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
The boil water advisories continue to be a challenge for the federal government. Your government promised they would be dealt with a year ago. We are seeing more communities come onto boiled water advisories again.
On what day will we be out of the bush on that?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I encourage you to look at the revamped website. We had some assistance from a great indigenous organization so that every Canadian could see the progress of those.
Let's recall that in 2015, there were 105 long-term water advisories in effect. We've lifted 107. This is an immense amount of progress. Work remains to be done. A lot of the communities, despite having lost the construction year due to COVID, have pushed through. We've announced additional funding.
When we've put out a date, a lot of communities have asked us where we will be after that date because the trust that I mentioned earlier is so thin vis-à-vis the federal government. It's why in November, we announced additional operations and maintenance money and acceleration funds for those communities where the cost has gone up, looking beyond lifting a long-term water advisory, which, I will remind the committee, is done by the nation themselves.
While it may seem easy to lift an advisory, the community will sometimes hesitate legitimately. If you've been on it for 25 years, you can legitimately think you're going to take your time before making that decision because it's about the health of the community.
These things do take time. We have a commitment to communities that we will be there for them.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't know if I can give you an answer today. I expect none of them turn to long term, but it's a community-by-community analysis.
You hit the nail on the head on that one. We've lifted 100-plus.... For 182 short-term water advisories, we've made the investment sufficient so they don't turn to long term ones. That means the safety of water in communities.
We need to take a look at water safety from a perspective that is greater than simply building the building, lifting the long-term water advisory and walking away from this. This is about partnership and making sure that asset has a long-term lifespan, is at the height of its technology and works for the community. That means training people at the grass roots, in the spirit of self-determination with the funds of the federal government to support it, so they are what they are, which is the pride of their community, getting water to the people.
View Sylvie Bérubé Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is this.
Mr. Miller, you recently unveiled a map on your department's website that identifies the indigenous communities that do not have access to clean drinking water. However, there is one indigenous community that does not appear on that map that also does not have clean drinking water, and that is Kitcisakik, which is in my riding.
Why is Kitcisakik invisible?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
With respect to Kitcisakik, negotiations are underway with the province about moving the community. Obviously, during these discussions about moving, we will still be here for that community.
In Quebec, there is no boil water advisory, and that is the result of the hard work we have done over the years. For identifying a community that comes under what is called federal jurisdiction, in particular, we count the public drinking water systems that have at least five residential connections.
Kelly Gillis
View Kelly Gillis Profile
Kelly Gillis
2021-05-11 11:38
The people in rural communities and northern Canada need the infrastructure investments. We've invested in connectivity projects to provide high-speed Internet access. These projects are very important. They give people the ability to access education and, in this situation, to go about their daily business.
We're also investing in recreational and cultural infrastructure. The goal is to give people access to the public services that they need.
Lastly, I want to mention our investments in areas such as access to safe and clean drinking water in remote areas.
We know that is very important, and we've been focusing a lot on waste-water facilities in areas where it's important for our communities to have fundamental clean access to infrastructure.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-05-11 12:33
Thank you. I think the more transparent we are on those, the more communities will understand where we're heading with our projects overall.
Ms. Gillis, the example of the global positioning, the reporting to communities on specific projects and expanding that....
Finally, I'm going to go to Ms. Fox.
The reporting on the boil water advisories I always hold up as the example of good reporting on what projects are in place and what the next milestone is. Is that going to move into the financials as well?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-05-11 12:34
We are constantly looking at better ways to be open and transparent, and the long-term drinking water advisory work, taking it community by community, is a good approach. We do that, as well, for our infrastructure funding. It's important to note that there is data around the money that has been spent and the completion. I can give you an example, for instance—
View Kelly Block Profile
CPC (SK)
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.
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:05
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 minister 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.
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.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:09
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
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.
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.
Thank you.
View Len Webber Profile
CPC (AB)
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.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:19
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.
View Len Webber Profile
CPC (AB)
Great.
You mentioned that this is a huge amount of money, obviously. It's $4.2 billion. Do you think that is a sufficient amount of money to alleviate the problems in these first nations communities and reserves?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:23
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—
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-04-29 11:24
Thank you.
Perhaps Ms. Fox could complete her thought there. It's along the lines of some of the questioning I had as well.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:24
Okay. Thank you.
We have a program here at Indigenous Services Canada called the circuit rider training program—namely, how do we actually develop the skill set within communities to develop a workforce that can do that very important operation and maintenance? Through that program, we try to develop that skill and capability and provide the tools required for communities to manage their projects. We work with first nations leaders and communities directly as well as with other organizations. How can we empower youth through skills, learning and training so that they can be part of the solution? How can we empower women so that they can be part of the solution?
I would just note that this program, with the O and M funding we got, can really expand and build. It has that reliability over the long term.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-04-29 11:25
Thank you.
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?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:26
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.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-04-29 11:27
That is why our budgets are increasing as we find different needs, things that we maybe didn't consider, that they're bringing forward to us.
I wanted to touch on the band council resolutions. Band councils will come to us with resolutions, particularly during COVID, and say, “We really don't want you in our community. We'll tell you when you can come in.” That has limited some of our construction projects and changed some of our schedules.
Could you talk about the process of band councils giving us resolutions and how we're respecting those resolutions?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:28
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.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-04-29 11:29
Okay, thanks.
I have quick one in terms of retaining the operators that we're training.
Up in the NAN at Sioux Lookout, they have been losing operators to the local paper mill, which was paying more money. What are we doing to try to retain operators?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:30
At the end of day, it's definitely up to the first nations leadership to decide on the salary structure for operator salaries. What the operation and maintenance funding does is provide more money to communities. It provides 100% in terms of that formula we have in order to fully support O and M in communities. As a result of this funding, communities are empowered to pay salaries that are greater than what they had been, and then retain that talent, retain that skill and develop it. I think that's part of the strategy, absolutely.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
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?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:32
You're right.
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.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
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.
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:34
It grieves me to see that the problem still hasn't been fixed. It is a long-standing issue, so I can't give you any assurances.
The deputy minister can speak to the department's commitment on the matter. I can promise, however, that we will be watching.
Making sure every community in the country has access to safe drinking water is paramount. I hope I'm not back here in a few years having to report the same shortcomings. It is really incumbent on the government and the department to keep their commitment and to work with first nations communities.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Ms. Hogan.
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?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:36
The department has a program to assess the condition of water systems, which it measures by assigning a risk rating. You're right that the risk ratings have not changed, so approximately 43% of water systems are still assessed as high or medium risk.
That does not necessarily mean water advisories will be issued, but it does point to deficiencies in system maintenance or a lack of qualified and certified water system operators. The department uses it as a barometer.
The situation is a clear sign that the funding formula is outdated. Until it is updated, it will be hard to determine whether the level of funding provided is enough to meet the needs.
The first thing the department should do is update the funding formula so that it takes into account new technologies, gaps and needs. It's not just about operational requirements. It's also about keeping—
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Chair.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indigenous Services 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?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:40
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.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to give the witnesses a heads-up: I'll be asking a lot of questions, so it would be appreciated if they could keep their answers as brief as possible. That will help us get the answers we are looking for.
Ms. Hogan, in your audit, you did not assess the impact of the long-term drinking water advisories on the health of the affected populations.
Was that deliberate? Is that something you could have examined?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:44
You're right. That wasn't part of our audit.
We could have hired health experts to help us with that assessment, but we felt it was more important to focus on what the federal government had done to meet its March 31 target.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Had the report contained real data on the health of individuals who had experienced the long-term effects, perhaps it would push the government to respond more quickly. That's a suggestion for your next audit. It could save us another 15-year wait before seeing further results.
You weren't able to visit first nations communities because of the pandemic. Might that have changed your findings?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 11:45
When we conduct an audit involving first nations, we usually like to visit communities to gain a better understanding of the problems, and to identify the needs and concerns. It may have changed how we interacted with first nations communities, but I don't think it would have changed our audit findings.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
For the second time in two weeks, you have said you were disheartened. I just want that to be clear, Ms. Hogan.
Ms. Fox, was your department consulted in 2015 when the government came out and said that it was going to fix all the problems by 2021?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:46
I wasn't with the department then. I started in September 2020, so I don't know whether the subject was discussed in 2015.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
Would you be able to get back to the committee with that answer? I'm interested in finding out about any advice that may have been issued on the likelihood of achieving the target.
When I was a mayor, the city had to deal with a drinking water issue. It took 10 years to fix, so I find it hard to believe that the government thought it could actually identify and fix all of the problems that existed in 2015 by 2021.
I just received the department's detailed action plan. What is your new target date for eliminating all the short- and long-term drinking water advisories?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:47
Thank you for your question.
I should point out that the plan has to take into account not just long-term advisories, but also short-term advisories.
A total of 179 short-term advisories have been lifted.
Under our strategy, the action plan targets long-term situations.
We are being very transparent about the work we are doing to address the existing advisories in the 33 communities. The details of the work and the progress made are all posted on a public website, because—
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:48
I can't give an exact date because, as you pointed out, some things can be planned in advance of a specific deadline, but others can be delayed. What I can tell you is that the department is 100% ready to work with all 33 communities to eliminate the long-term advisories.
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
My understanding is that, as a politician, in government or anywhere, it's very risky to set a deadline for an issue of this nature, which involves so many variables. It can take twice as long to build a plant in some parts of Canada than in areas near ports and equipment.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:48
True, but setting a goal sometimes gets people engaged and motivated to work towards it. The department is continuing to work with the goal of meeting the deadlines. We still have work to do.
The minister said in November that we wouldn't meet the deadline. However, I think that we're in a good position to fulfil our goal, given our funding, the team in place, our relationship with the communities, the partnership created and the transparency of our approach.
There's work to be done and we're being challenged, but we want to work in a partnership.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair
Thank you to the Auditor General for the report.
I have lot of questions.
Just to Mr. Berthold's earlier comment, I spent a lot of time last night reading through all the documents, including Mr. Webber's comments on the funds and programs that we've committed to the indigenous community across Canada in the budget that we recently introduced. I'm very happy to see the continuing investments, of course. I would have loved to have received this detailed action plan last night to have been able to review it a little more extensively. I have gone through it now, so I'm going to go to that right now.
Just on the O and M side, is the 100% commitment in the funding formula in place today for the indigenous communities?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, so there's no cost-sharing, as in municipal, provincial or federal sharing. Is it all in place?
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
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?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:51
In terms of the water operators and the salaries for the water operators, it is the decision of the communities to make and to establish the rates. However, obviously, with the increase in O and M that we can give to the communities, they have the ability to have competitive salaries in their communities.
To answer your question around the yearly basis, in 2021 O and M is $338 million, I believe, and by 2025 we're going to be at about $400 million per year on O and M.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
In regard to the contracting, putting out the bid and the request for proposal for these treatment plants, obviously there is an economies of scale perspective. Does that happen from the federal government and it is then turned over to the indigenous community so that each indigenous community doesn't have to develop its own expertise in order to do this? Is it done through a partnership? Can you describe that process?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:52
Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
It definitely is a partnership process. At the federal government, we do not want to be selecting contractors for indigenous communities. We would like the indigenous leadership to make those choices. However, we do want to work with them. If they require supports, information or additional capacity to work with contractors, we're absolutely prepared to do that, but at the end of the day we really want them to be making the decisions that are best for them.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am a numbers person. I like to think about the world in that sort of sense. On page 4 of your introductory remarks, you said there were 105 long-term drinking water advisories in November 2015. Obviously, more have been added as we go along, and some have been taken off. There were 106 lifted.
When we introduce interim measures, which obviously mean that water can be consumed, and so forth, are they lifted and then counted as lifted advisories, or are they put in a separate bucket of projects that are still ongoing? How do we account for that when we use interim measures?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:53
If there is an interim measure, yes, it could lift the water advisory. What we try to do is work with communities to make sure that if the interim measures are in place and we lift the advisory, we still work with them on the longer-term solution. I think what this additional funding allows is for us to do that work with them.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
Finally, on the resources dedicated to lifting all the water advisories, obviously COVID-19 has delayed many things on the construction side, even in terms of going to certain communities because we don't want the COVID-19 virus or any of the variants there, but are the resources sufficient to lift the remaining long-term water advisories?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:54
Yes. We have a long-term commitment of funding of O and M. It's for capital infrastructure and for O and M funding, and I would say that the O and M funding is key because it allows us to track and monitor and avoid deficiencies in the long term.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
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.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:56
Through its action plan, the department is committed to ensuring the elimination of all long-term advisories so that people can access safe drinking water. This drives us to take action and continue the work. We want to ensure that communities aren't under advisories. We completely agree that all Canadians should have access to safe drinking water.
View Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Profile
BQ (QC)
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?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:57
It is important to note that in March 2020, the department was beginning to think about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We did a reassessment, over the summer, when the second wave seemed to be diminishing. We thought that a decrease in cases would allow us to begin work.
However, the arrival of the third wave in September and October had a much more pronounced impact in indigenous communities. We were thinking about acceleration strategies, but when we saw the number of cases and closures in the fall, we realized that we were not going to meet the timeline.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you.
I'd like to ask Indigenous Services Canada to respond to the reality of Tataskweyak Cree Nation. Again, here's my question. The first nation has been clear that the water in their community is undrinkable, yet ISC maintains that guidelines are being met. If yes, why are you maintaining guidelines and what good are they if they are making people sick?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 11:58
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.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Well, I would urge you to do so. Something is happening, and the first nation has made it clear that going to court is not their number one choice. What they want is clean drinking water now. Let's be honest: Canada is able to deliver that. Political will is what we need to see.
I want to go back to the Auditor General and ask her about another first nation in our region, Shamattawa.
Shamattawa First Nation has had a long-term boil water advisory, a housing crisis and a tuberculosis outbreak, and was on the national news because of its devastating COVID-19 outbreak before Christmas. It was so serious that the military had to step in, in full force. Few communities in this country have had to bear the brunt of Canada's failures like Shamattawa First Nation.
Can you expand on how the housing crisis in particular affects a community's capacity to deliver safe drinking water and what needs to be done to get at these crises together?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:00
I guess what I would add to that really quickly is that we have studied all of these issues that many first nations face. When there is a housing crisis, there is overcrowding in homes and, as we've seen throughout the pandemic, that just makes situations worse.
The only thing I would say about drinking water is that the public systems are those that serve five houses or more. There are so many systems in first nations reserves that are operated by first nations or by the homeowner, and this is where training is so important, so that the communities can take care of drinking water in all their systems going forward, not just the public ones.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
My first question will be for the Auditor General. I just want to make sure that I understood something. I want to clarify it.
It seems 43% of the systems are at risk. Is that correct? Also, what exactly does “at risk” mean?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:02
The reference is to a process that Indigenous Services Canada has whereby they do an annual risk assessment of the state of a water system, and 43% of them have been rated as high or medium risk, meaning that they likely haven't had their maintenance done or they perhaps don't have trained operators.
There's a set of criteria that allows the department to rate the state of a system. Forty-three per cent of them have rated “high”, which is an indication that perhaps there will be water advisories. It's at least an indication that you need to pay attention to those systems because maintenance is likely not happening the way it should be happening.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
One thing that came across in the report to me, and maybe you can confirm this or correct me, is that it seemed that you were a little concerned that the government was focusing too much, perhaps, on getting short-term solutions, but not focusing on the long term, such as making sure there were enough operators, etc. Is that a correct thing to be pulling out from your report?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:03
We did highlight in the report that many of the long-term drinking water advisories that were lifted were lifted by interim measures. We did note, however, that some of those systems had long-term plans, but that they would not be in place until about 2024 or 2025. Just lifting an advisory doesn't mean you've fixed the underlying issue, and that's why it's not a cookie-cutter approach across communities. Each community needs to have its unique long-term sustainable solution, and we shouldn't just be focusing on lifting advisories, but on getting those long-term solutions in place.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
To be clear, I think this as well was pulled out in the other question, but I want to make sure I have it right. In 2015, 43% of the systems were high risk, and in 2020, there were also 43% that were high-risk systems. Is that correct, or do I have that incorrect?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:03
For high or medium risk, you have that correct at 43%.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
I know everyone here, especially including the folks who are senior bureaucrats, want to make sure this is taken care of. One thing has bothered me a little bit. I saw a dissonance between your report and the reaction of Ms. Fox. You used the harshest language I've seen so far in any of your reports when you said “disheartened”. What degree of confidence do you have in the government eventually eliminating all drinking advisories, as I know everyone here desperately wants to have happen?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:04
I'll say that I'm disheartened for first nations communities because so many of us across the country take for granted that when this meeting's over, we're going to walk over to the tap to pour ourselves a glass of water, and so many communities can't do that. That's really what saddens me about all of this.
I can't give you assurances. I do think that's where the department needs to demonstrate, through their action plans and the updating of the funding formula, that they're going to work in collaboration with first nations communities to address this issue and not just, as I mentioned earlier, focus on lifting long-term or short-term drinking water advisories but on finding those long-term sustainable solutions and making sure that first nations have adequately trained operators and good long-term operating and maintenance funding.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I'll go over to you, Ms. Fox. I will let you comment on the Auditor General's comments right there. Rest assured that I believe 110% that your intentions are good and that you work, I'm sure, hours and hours to try to solve these issues, but I see a dissonance and I'm not sure why. Do you realize the issue here and why Canadians are concerned?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:05
Absolutely, I realize the issue. Absolutely, I am committed to it, and absolutely, the department is committed to it. There is no doubt.
The conversations that we are having with our partners and also with the OAG take very seriously the recommendations that they've brought to us and how it can help inform the way forward. We have a responsibility to do this well and over the long term, and this department's mandate is to actually transform all of our services into the leadership of indigenous communities. To do that, we have to get ourselves ready for that transformation and empower indigenous leaders to take on a system that is fully operational and running well.
There is no doubt that we are 100% committed to this. We have regular discussions with the partners within our team to make sure we are making progress, that we are working collectively to make a difference, that we are—
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, everyone, for all your hard work on this topic. I always feel particularly saddened that our own indigenous communities do not have the same rights to safe drinking water as the rest of us, so this is important work.
My first question is to Ms. Hogan. It concerns your comments about feeling “disheartened” about these programs. What do you think is the most important recommendation?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:07
I want to tell you that all of our recommendations are important recommendations. I do think addressing the funding formula is a key one, being able to ensure that there's a stable base of funding not only for building the infrastructure but also for its operation and maintenance. You can have a state-of-the-art facility, but if you don't maintain it, eventually there's going to be a problem down the road. That operating and maintenance funding is linked to the ability of first nations communities to attract and retain trained and certified water system operators, and also to have a backup operator.
What we found in our audit is there were many systems—I think 26%—that lacked a trained and certified operator, and then 56% lacked a backup operator. Those are really fundamental to maintaining access to safe drinking water. If I had to pick one out of all of them, I would focus in on that funding formula to make sure that it's updated and meets the needs and new technologies that communities need.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Do you think that there are enough resources or thought put into having these maintenance contracts to ensure that these water operators will be there and be continually trained, and perhaps have outside support come as well to do more training and support?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:09
I believe that's why one of my comments earlier on was that until the funding formula is updated, it's difficult to determine if the additional commitment of funding will be sufficient to meet the current needs of the first nations communities. I think it's also something that will need to be monitored going forward. It's not going to be a one-and-done solution to make sure that the ongoing maintenance and operating funding is adjusted. Currently it's only adjusted for inflation, but not for other things, and that's why that funding formula update is pretty key to helping support the solution for this situation.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:10
During our planning we did have some conversations with first nations communities. As we mentioned earlier, we try to always visit them, but because of the pandemic we were unable to do that. We have some difficulties trying to do so virtually with them, but it is always our objective to make sure that we consider the points and opinions of first nations communities whenever we do any audit work that affects them.
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:10
I think I'm going to ask Glenn Wheeler to talk about that since he would have been there from start to finish, and he'd be able to give you more details on it.
Glenn Wheeler
View Glenn Wheeler Profile
Glenn Wheeler
2021-04-29 12:10
No, we were unable to speak to individual first nations during this audit, as the Auditor General has mentioned. We typically do that, but the reality is that a lot of first nations were dealing with COVID and the impact of COVID during the time period of our audit and it didn't make sense for us to do that detailed work or consultation we would typically do with first nations. We did speak with the Assembly of First Nations, however, and some of their experts to get their views on water.
Glenn Wheeler
View Glenn Wheeler Profile
Glenn Wheeler
2021-04-29 12:11
It wasn't possible in this audit. However, when we did some earlier planning before COVID—we did long-term planning on where to focus future audit work—we did visit a number of first nations and their water treatment plants and spoke to their water treatment operators and their band managers to get a sense of what the issues were, but that was before we formally started this audit.
View Jean Yip Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. Fox, how many short-term water advisories are there, and how can the department prevent these short-term water advisories from becoming long-term ones?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:12
I was just looking at my chart. We've lifted 179 short-term advisories, and then I'm going to have to get you the precise number for the active ones. I don't want to mislead you. I'll get you the precise number of how many short-term are active right now.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:12
I'm sorry; it's nine. Nine is the answer. It's here.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
I want to go back to you, Ms. Fox, in the line of questioning we were on.
We had the pledge to have all drinking water advisories done initially by this spring. What is the recalibrated goal, now that the government has acknowledged that obviously we won't be achieving that goal?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:13
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.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Ms. Fox.
On the bigger scale, as I discussed with the AG, we were at 43% being at high or medium risk. Will we, in the next five years, get down to zero? Everyone here wants to get to zero, and I know probably you most of all want to get there.
We need to know for the indigenous communities out there when we will be at zero for high- to medium-risk situations.
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:14
First of all, it might be helpful for the committee to know that in terms of the risk rating, we look at very specific points for the risk rating of a system: the water source, the system design, the system operation and maintenance, the operator training and certification, and the record keeping and reporting. Those are the high-level metrics by which we measure a high-risk or a medium-risk system.
As we look at the recommendations of the OAG and at the budget investments over the last cycles, we have to see how we address these so that we bring the number down.
The high-risk number has come down. High risk right now is at about 15% of projects, and you noted the 43% figure for high and medium. As we look at long-term solutions and not interim solutions, we see fewer projects of a high-risk nature. As we look at more funding for operators and maintenance and they're active in the communities, we again reduce the risk factor.
We'll continue to monitor.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I'm concerned. I understand that your intentions are good, but words like “commitment” and “engagement” and “investments” don't cut it for people who right now cannot get clean water. We need commitments in terms of times and deadlines, etc.
On that note, I'd like to cede the rest of my time to Ms. Ashton for her questioning, as I think it's been great and critical.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
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?
Karen Hogan
View Karen Hogan Profile
Karen Hogan
2021-04-29 12:17
I acknowledge that when so many communities have to deal with short-term and long-term drinking water advisories and all these temporary measures, they lose confidence in their water system, and that is definitely something that needs to be reversed and addressed.
All I can tell you is what we found in our audit, which showed the department's lack of the ability to meet its commitment. I linked it to the lack of a regulatory regime and issues with the funding formula, and hence inappropriate funding to those communities.
Your more pointed question, as to why it has taken so long to address those matters, will have to go to the department.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Let's turn it to the department.
In the case of Red Sucker Lake, why has it taken so long—and frankly, the presence of the Canadian Forces—to say that what they're facing is downright unsafe?
Christiane Fox
View Christiane Fox Profile
Christiane Fox
2021-04-29 12:18
In situations like Shamattawa and Red Sucker Lake, in COVID we have been working in lockstep with community leadership to support them during this pandemic. As you noted, COVID has pointed to the lack of housing and some of the other socio-economic gaps that exist.
We are committed to working with Red Sucker Lake and Shamattawa and to using these investments to address long-term solutions for the community.
Results: 1 - 100 of 262 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data