Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 15 - Evidence - May 2, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:15 p.m. to examine and report upon recent work completed in relation to drinking water in First Nations' communities.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, good evening. It is my pleasure to welcome you to this Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I am Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the privilege of chairing this committee. Today, our committee holds its first meeting on its order of reference on recent work completed in relation to drinking water in First Nations communities.
First, let me introduce to you some of the members of our committee. On my left, from Prince Edward Island, we have Senator Hubley; on my right, from Saskatchewan, Senator Robert Peterson; beside him, from Inkerman, Quebec, Senator Charlie Watt.
The committee will be examining four recent reports published from mid-2005 to March of this year. We will be starting with a report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on drinking water in First Nations communities published in 2005.
In order to do so, we have before us, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Ron C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; Mr. Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General; Mr. Jerome Berthelette, Principal; and Mr. André Côté, Director.
Ron C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you for inviting us to participate in this hearing. We are here to discuss our September 2005 report, Drinking Water in First Nations Communities.
As interim commissioner, I assist the Auditor General of Canada in performing audits that deal with the federal government's management of environment and sustainable development issues.
Generally speaking, audits that deal with these issues are included in the commissioner's report to Parliament. Two years ago, my colleague, Mr. Campbell, and his team conducted an audit of drinking water in First Nations communities, and that report was included as chapter 5 in the commissioner's 2005 report to Parliament. Mr. Campbell, as you may know, is responsible for audits of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and for Aboriginal issues more broadly within our office.
The audit we are looking at this evening examined whether programs and funding from INAC and Health Canada had helped First Nation communities provide residents with access to safe drinking water.
INAC covers the full costs of designing, constructing and repairing water systems and also covers 80 per cent of their operation and maintenance costs.
Health Canada provides funding to First Nations to monitor and test tap water to demonstrate that it is safe for drinking. By virtue of the terms and conditions of their funding arrangements with Health Canada and INAC, First Nations are responsible for the construction and design of drinking water systems and their day-to-day operation, including water safety testing.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the safety of drinking water on reserves, we found that residents of First Nations do not benefit from a level of protection comparable to that enjoyed by those who live off-reserve. This is due in large part to the fact that First Nations, unlike other communities, have no laws or regulations governing the provision of drinking water.
Both Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada have stated that provincial jurisdiction over drinking water does not extend to reserves. Consequently, they have attempted to ensure access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities through their policies, administrative guidelines, and funding arrangements with First Nations. However, we found that this approach meant that important elements for providing safe drinking water were missing. For example, there are no approval and licensing processes for water treatment plants, no ongoing monitoring, no public reporting requirements and no compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, nobody is legally empowered to ensure that all required tests of drinking water are carried out.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that until a regulatory regime is established that is comparable with the one in the provinces, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada cannot ensure that First Nations people living on reserves will have continuing access to safe drinking water.
In addition to the lack of a regulatory regime, we found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada had no comprehensive list of codes and standards applicable to the design and construction of water systems. Furthermore, we found that there were many deficiencies in the design and construction of water systems.
We found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's programs to support and develop First Nations' capacity to provide safe drinking water are limited. Technical support is fragmented, and many First Nations operators have difficulty meeting the education and experience requirements. Additionally the hands-on, on-site support that is available to communities is not mandatory, and is not available to all First Nations. A significant amount of the trainers' time is spent resolving technical problems rather than providing training.
We also found that regular testing of drinking water is not carried out in most communities. In addition, Health Canada has no plan to achieve, by 2008, the testing frequency set out in the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines.
Finally, we found that Parliament is not adequately informed about the drinking water situation on reserves. Both departments have agreed to provide Parliament with better information, beginning with the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
[English]
Honourable senators, since we issued our report, INAC — in cooperation with Health Canada as well as Environment Canada — has adopted a plan of action to address drinking water concerns in First Nations. Their March 2006 plan was also supported by the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, and touched upon most of our recommendations. One notable exception, however, is that the plan does not contain activities related to water safety testing.
INAC also issued two progress reports on that plan — in December 2006 and in March 2007. We are encouraged by the fact that these reports conclude that progress is being made in the implementation of the plan and that access to safe drinking water in First Nations communities is, in fact, improving. However, I would point out that we did not audit these reports and, therefore, cannot really comment on them this evening.
We note that INAC officials are here this evening and will be speaking with the committee later. In these discussions, members of the committee may wish to ask INAC officials a number of questions: How will the proposed regulatory framework for drinking water on reserves address the gaps that I mentioned earlier? How will INAC's protocol for safe drinking water support the proposed regulations? How was the risk posed by drinking water systems assessed and was the methodology used consistent over time? You may also want to ask them how to reduce the number of systems at risk and how to support those communities that are most in need of technical support to operate their water treatment plants.
You may also wish to invite Health Canada and officials from that department, at some point, to discuss what actions are being taken there to ensure that drinking water is, in fact, being tested.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I would be very pleased to answer questions that members may have.
Senator Peterson: It is kind of scary when you read through this. I guess you would not give it a passing grade, would you?
Mr. Thompson: Looking back to when we did the audit, I would say, no. Is that your summation, Mr. Campbell?
Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Certainly, yes.
Senator Peterson: Are you involved in the plan in terms of how the money is spent, or do you just audit what has been done?
Mr. Thompson: We would take whatever plan and program is in place that we are auditing and accept that, and we would audit the quality of the implementation of that plan. We would not get into assessing the merits of a policy that would underlie a plan.
Senator Peterson: You do not get involved with the process of what INAC is supposed to do or not do. They set the program. Am I right?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, they determine how to implement the program.
Senator Peterson: You basically said it is in terrible shape, and we should talk to them. There is nothing more you can add to this other than it is a pretty sad situation.
On the excuses of why, I guess it is because they are small communities of only 500 people. I come from Saskatchewan. We have numerous towns and villages of 300 to 500 people. They have water systems. They have water. They are doing all right. We will have to get the answers from them. Thank you very much for pointing out the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, in your analysis of this situation, is it a lack of funding or a lack of trained on-site personnel? Mr. Campbell, you have obviously been to some of these communities. Could you tell us whether it is a question of funding, or does it go beyond that scenario? In the presentation, Mr. Thompson pointed out that training was a challenge. Could you comment, please?
Mr. Campbell: Certainly, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is fair to say that drinking water supply on reserves falls into one of many areas, where the rest of Canadians live within a regulative framework in that provinces and municipalities provide services to their population. On reserves in Canada, very often there is a gap between what is available to First Nations and what is available to the rest of Canadians.
For example, I draw the members' attention to an audit report that we tabled in February 2006, which was a status report and follow-up on a number of audits that we conducted on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Health Canada. We identified a number of critical factors in the management of those programs. One of them, in particular, was the absence of a legislative base for services and programs that the rest of Canadians live within a regulative framework or on a legislative basis. For example, provision of health services in communities is done by Health Canada as a matter of policy, essentially because no one else is doing it. The delivery of drinking water services on reserve falls into that area as well. Probably the most critical factor in relation to this issue is that there is simply no regime or standards or regulations that people have to follow.
Senator Hubley: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's 2001 assessment indicated that only 10 per cent of the operators met the certification requirements of their respective provinces. According to your 2005 report, most treatment plant operators in First Nations communities did not possess the knowledge and skills required to operate their plant safely. It also suggests that it is difficult to ascertain whether those certified are certified to a level of complexity of their water treatment plant. In response, the department has since established a 24-hour hot line — an emergency support — and is expanding the Circuit Rider Training Program, whereby experienced operators provide on-site training on a cyclical basis to help resident operators run their own water systems.
How many on-reserve operators were certified at the time of your report? Do you know how many are currently certified?
Jerome Berthelette, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: In our audit, we note, as the senator has pointed out, that 40 per cent of the operators were reported as being certified. In the most recent report, the number is a little less than that. I believe the figure INAC quotes is that about 37 per cent are certified or have reached the first level of certification in terms of training.
The total number of operators is in their report dated March 22, 2007. At page 5, it states that there are 1,117 water system operators and backup operators across the country. If you take the percentage and apply it against approximately 1,117 water system operators, that would tell you how many are certified.
Of course, when we did the audit, there were fewer than 1,117 operators in place and, since then, they have added a number of new water treatment plants to the inventory to my knowledge.
Senator Hubley: The reduction from 40 per cent to 30 per cent is for what reason?
Mr. Berthelette: We had about 40 per cent, and the most recent numbers, as of March 2003, had 37.4 per cent. The report does not say why the number is lower than the reported number in 2005. It might be a question to ask of officials when they appear before the committee. I could give you an idea of why that is, if that would be helpful.
Senator Hubley: Yes, give me an idea.
Mr. Berthelette: The numbers are fairly close, which indicates a couple of factors. There is a certain amount of turnover within the position. As that happens, it is necessary to retrain. That would account for part of the decrease. Getting operators certified to the level required to operate their systems can be difficult. If they are operating a system beyond the level 1 type of system, which is simpler, then the amount of training and experience they require to achieve certification naturally increases.
The ability to achieve the combination of experience, education and training is more difficult, particularly when the operators' level of education might not be adequate in order to qualify to be certified. The operators are often new — because of the turnover in personnel that I mentioned — at the various water treatment plants. As well, there is the isolation factor of the communities and the inability to provide backup for the operators so they can access training programs.
A combination of those factors has kept the percentage of operators at around the 37 per cent to 40 per cent mark. The department is making efforts to provide the support required in order to ensure that the other 60 per cent to 63 per cent of the operators, who are not certified and who do not have the level of training required, have the support that they need to deliver the water safely.
Senator Hubley: Do you know if there were programs available to the other 60 per cent to improve their skills or their qualifications?
Mr. Berthelette: They have the Circuit Rider Training Program, which is the program that INAC relies upon in order to achieve the training required for the operators. If there are any other programs, INAC officials would be able to provide you with that information.
Senator Hubley: Do you have any comment on the Circuit Rider Training Program? Is it working?
Mr. Berthelette: We make two comments in our audit about the program. First, the program has resulted in providing more training to the operators. The operators appreciated the support that the Circuit Rider Training Program provided. Second, the trouble with the program was that when the circuit rider trainers went into the community, they spent more time trying to fix the problems that had accumulated since the last time they had been on the job and less time actually training the operators than they would have liked to have spent. Those are the two points made in the audit.
Senator Hubley: Is it noted how often circuit riders go into a community to assess or improve the systems? Are they constantly on the move from community to community?
Mr. Berthelette: The goal is to have that kind of circuit approach and have the trainer go through that circuit on a regular basis. Problems arise when there are emergencies or other priorities that cause the circuit to be broken from time to time. The circuit riders have to break the schedule and go where they are needed to assist a particular operator with a particular problem.
I do not have the information, senator, with respect to how often a circuit rider is supposed to be in a particular community, although INAC officials might be able to provide you with more specific details.
Senator Watt: In 2003, the federal government committed $600 million over a five-year period in new funding to address, among other things, urgent water and waste water upgrades. An additional $60 million over a two-year period was announced in Budget 2006 to help the objective of the government's water action plan.
What happened to the money? Is there any clear indication as to whether those dollars were utilized? Was it not used for this particular purpose? Was it used for something else? What happened?
Mr. Thompson: As I understand it, the $600 million was a commitment made to spend money over a period of time. I do not have an analysis before me as to how much has been spent since that commitment was made. We could get that for you and provide it to the committee.
However, the $600 million is an amount that would not have been spent in the first one or two years. That would be my sense. Perhaps, it might be an idea to ask our colleagues from INAC that very question.
Senator Watt: Could you also give us an indication as to what happened to an additional $60 million?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, we will do that.
The Chairman: Mr. Campbell, you spoke of there being no legislative base or regulative framework. If we did have that framework, would the resources be there, and is the capacity there to make it work on the ground? If not, can you see — without treading into the department's area of responsibility — what could be done?
Mr. Campbell: That is an excellent question, Mr. Chairman. The legislative basis is hugely important. Everyone else does it that way. Without being an engineer, it would seem to me that there is much sense in it.
Would that be enough to guarantee all the problems would be resolved? Probably not. I believe you touched on one in terms of capacity. Mr. Berthelette has just answered questions about the percentage of people who were trained up to do the jobs in the communities — to deal with the issues in those plants, not only on an ongoing basis but also when emergencies arise.
Again, referring back to previous work we have done, in addition to a legislative base, there are a couple of other factors that are vitally important in ensuring that people can follow through and ensure that the actions they commit to have the results that we all want.
One of those is sustained management attention. We have had a number of cases in the past where we have made recommendations, and the government's agreed to them and made a good start. Then they get their attention diverted elsewhere where there is another crisis. The cases where we have seen success in getting problems fixed have been those where management in the department has been able to sustain their attention over the period of time that is required.
Another critical factor that we have identified is the need to have the capacity, as you said, Mr. Chairman, on the ground. That will not happen overnight. These are not a set of problems that will be resolved immediately, nor will they be resolved solely with a legislative base. However, it will be a good start because it will identify standards that have to be met, and those standards then will require that people get trained up to be able to operate within those standards.
It is a long-term commitment; and when we look at the department's reports, it is pretty clear they have a number of policy issues they must wrestle with as well before this is fully implemented. The legislative base is really important, but it is not the only thing. You are absolutely right that capacity over a long period of time is important to ensure it works on the ground.
Mr. Thompson: To add to that, we had a recommendation that dealt specifically with capacity — it is in paragraph 5.70 — and it talks about the need to develop capacity over time in order to allow this all to work. You will see, on page 33 of our report, that recommendation set out, as well as INAC's response to it and Health Canada's response to it. There might be merit in pursuing those capacity issues with those two departments as they appear before you.
The Chairman: I was approached, when I was in Alberta, by a group that said there was the ability to monitor water systems remotely by way of technology. Did you run across any of that when you were on the ground? Apparently, there is technology now that monitors the water supply on an ongoing basis, and would not require people on the ground to do that. I do not know how reliable this is, or whether it is pie in the sky, but I have a tendency to believe this technology must be available.
Mr. Thompson: I would invite Mr. Campbell to respond.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, I believe there are a wide range of systems that are available — and probably a wide range of costs that go with them. This is solely anecdotal, but we did see a system that had some remote sensing capacity, where they could test water at various points in the system.
It was quite a sophisticated system and I believe, again from my recollection, that it does not absolve them from the need to have people on the ground to deal with things. First, the systems are quite sophisticated, so to make sure they operate all the time requires the technical capacity in the community. Second, all those systems really can do is identify where there are problems. The technical capacity is still needed to deal with the problems once they are identified.
Senator Hubley: To clarify, in your presentation, number 3 reads in part:
. . . INAC covers the full costs of designing, constructing and repairing water systems, and also covers 80 per cent of their operation and maintenance costs. Health Canada provides funding to First Nations to monitor and test tap water, to demonstrate that it is safe for drinking. By virtue of the terms and conditions of their funding arrangements with Health Canada and INAC, First Nations are responsible for the design and construction of drinking water systems and their day-to-day operation, including water safety testing.
Can you just explain that to me?
Mr. Thompson: I will ask Mr. Berthelette to explain that. I could try it, but he would do a much better job for the committee.
Senator Hubley: To me, it sounded as if the responsibility had shifted from the departments to the First Nation themselves. I want to be sure of that.
Mr. Berthelette: As you described, senator, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is responsible for providing the funding for the water treatment systems. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada also provides the operation and maintenance funding for the water treatment systems. As you pointed out, that is 80 per cent of the costs — that is 80 per cent based on formula or 80 per cent based on actual costs. In some regions, it is actual costs, and, in some regions, it is formula.
The First Nations are responsible to hire the operator and to manage the water treatment plant. This is done through contribution agreements; the allocation of responsibility is essentially done through contribution agreements. It is by that instrument that the allocation of responsibilities occurs.
Senator Hubley: On that, were you satisfied that the funding arrangement was adequate? Is it an annual figure that is negotiated or is it a global figure that is put together?
Mr. Berthelette: If you are referring to the operations and maintenance, senator, we pointed out in the audit that the 80 per cent figure is based on a formula or on actuals. That leaves 20 per cent that the community has to find, either through user fees or other sources of revenue, which, in some communities, is just not possible. As a result, the First Nation has to find that additional 20 per cent from other programs within its budget.
When we see issues related to operations and maintenance — either operations and maintenance not taking place or systems breaking down — we were told during the audit, particularly by the First Nations, that was because many of them do not have an adequate operations and maintenance budget in order to maintain the systems the way they should be maintained.
Senator Peterson: When you did your audit, you said that, although it has improved, the design, construction and maintenance is still deficient. The information we have is that INAC provides funding to assist them in the provision of these services and also monitors the design, construction and maintenance of the facilities. By monitoring, I presume they have an ownership position; they are involved in it.
They say that they provide funding for operation and maintenance for First Nations for the unit and for the staff when it is done. Again, this is an ongoing responsibility.
When you do your audit, do they provide a budget of where the money is spent and what it is spent on for you to look at and measure the outcomes, or is it just lump-sum funding that says they spend $600 million?
Mr. Berthelette: We examined 28 individual files related to the construction and operation of particular water treatment plants. We saw evidence that, in all cases, the money that was to be used to construct the water treatment plants went for that particular purpose. It was used for the purpose of construction. We also saw, when we examined the files, that in many cases the department did not have sufficient proof that the water treatment plant was either built to the standard they wanted it to be built to — or expected it to be built to — or that there were no deficiencies with respect to the water treatment plant.
When we went through the files and were looking at the reports that were either being filed by the Circuit Rider Training Program or by the communities, it became evident upon reading them that — even shortly after construction — there were a number of deficiencies in terms the ability of the plant to produce the quantity or quality of water required. There were also deficiencies in the construction of the plant with respect to the layout of the plant.
While the money was used for the purposes intended, the result was not what the department had hoped to achieve by funding these plants.
Mr. Thompson: To add to that, we had a recommendation as well in our report — at paragraph 5.75 — that dealt with reporting to Parliament, and that gets at an issue that you also raised in your question about the money achieving outcomes. That is something that the departments should be measuring. We do not measure achievement of outcomes, but strongly encourage, when a government program is in place, that the departments responsible for it have a way of determining whether or not it is working.
We are getting at this business of measuring and reporting outcomes initially internally to manage, but then externally to parliamentarians for purposes of accountability. In the sense of that recommendation that we made, INAC also has a response to it, and it might be useful to discuss that with INAC officials as well.
Senator Peterson: It is appropriate to say it is not working. Everywhere in Canada water standards exist and sewage treatment standards exist, but on reserves, they do not. Why would that be? Why would we stop there?
Mr. Thompson: When we audited this for First Nations there was a different regime for water quality that existed for First Nations communities as opposed to the rest of the country.
One problem, in looking at that regime, was that there was not a regulatory framework within which water quality could be looked at and put into play. That is one of the recommendations that we made, that there be such a framework and, as I understand it, INAC is working hard to do that. They have had a separate study done of that. I believe the report of that study was tabled back in November of last year, and, therefore, believe they are moving toward putting a regulatory framework in play for the First Nations communities. That simply was something that did not exist for those communities. Perhaps there is more to the story than that.
Mr. Campbell: Simply put, the provincial jurisdiction does not extend on to reserves for matters such as drinking water. Therefore, while provinces have legislation and regulation, that does not extend to reserves.
There is this gap, this void, where unless — and until — Indian and Northern Affairs Canada picks up responsibility and takes action, then there is simply a void. However, as Mr. Thompson says, the department's response is subsequent to the chapter, it certainly seems as if they are trying to fill that void and have a number of options, which I am sure their officials will be happy to talk about.
Senator Peterson: It should be beyond trying; they should fill the void. I find it astounding that the attitude to the issue of safe drinking water is, ``Well, too bad, we do not have a policy or regulation for you.'' It is incredible.
Senator Watt: To pick up on the legislative base that Mr. Campbell mentioned, there is a private member's bill that has been floating back and forth between the House of Commons and Senate for quite some time. Could that be helpful to allow the federal government to monitor the drinking water, the accessibility of it on reserve? The federal government, I believe, says that this is under provincial jurisdiction, therefore we should not have a similar type of regime within the federal level to monitor accessible drinking water.
The Food and Drugs Act is already administering bottled water, for example, and I believe also on aircrafts, accessible waters in the aircraft. If that act could be amended to include drinking water, such as under the federal jurisdiction of a reserve, would that help? Would that allow the federal government to have a better monitoring system on the reserves since they are under the federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Campbell: I certainly would not want to comment on a bill that has not passed before Houses, but I certainly agree with those senators who said there should be a legislative base. We said that in our report. The department has responded to it, but not quite as directly as we would have wished at the time. You may want to explore that with departmental officials.
However, I would point out in their subsequent progress reports and the work of their advisory panel, they have identified a number of routes whereby they would do precisely what Senator Watt suggests. Perhaps not with that piece of legislation, but they are looking at trying to find the technical means to have legislation apply on reserve to cover drinking water. Again, it is in their published progress reports, and I would encourage members to ask the department how they intend to advance those. They would be better placed to answer that than I.
The Chairman: My understanding is that in education there are about 30 people in the department who supervise the educational process for our Aboriginal peoples on reserve, which is about 600,000, I gather.
Now, in regard to this, is the workforce there, within the department, to do the job properly or are we asking them to do something that is physically impossible? I do not know how many communities you went to, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Berthelette — and I am not trying to put you on the spot — but people are appalled that so many of our Aboriginal communities do not have safe quality drinking water.
This is the reason that we, as a committee, are trying to find ways to help. It is not to criticize; anybody can criticize. We cannot keep doing the same thing if we want to resolve this situation.
I believe this is critical. I get visitors from various Aboriginal communities. I just had a group that covers Kashechewan, up in North Western Ontario. I had people in from Northeastern Manitoba, where, they tell me, there are three families living in one house. Is the department capable of doing this the way it is presently structured from your opinion? I cannot think of anyone else to ask, because of the respect I have for the Auditor General's department.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we raised the capacity issue forcefully in this report, and it is obviously extremely important to the safety of drinking water. Perhaps I might ask Mr. Berthelette who is a little closer to that and perhaps has a little more current knowledge of this than I do.
Mr. Berthelette: The regulation and management of water on reserves or in non-reserve communities is a complex process. We do not necessarily rely on ministries within the province to provide all of the support that communities require. For instance, in Ontario and Saskatchewan, there are corporations that are in place that have a mandate to help communities meet the legislation and standards required when they provide drinking water to their citizens.
The Chairman: Is this for non-Aboriginal communities?
Mr. Berthelette: This is in the non-Aboriginal case.
When we speak of the First Nations communities, what we would be looking for is a combination of capacity to support the communities, capacity within the communities and capacity within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to oversee the process. I do not know how many people are required within a department to oversee this, but I can say that the capacity to assist the communities is absolutely fundamental and that capacity need not be situated within the department. We suggest within our recommendations, in fact, that the Ontario Clean Water Agency, or SaskWater be used as a model to support the communities in meeting the requirements of future legislation or regulations.
Mr. Campbell: I believe it is fair to say that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's current plan to identify standards, put a legislative base in play and bring all those communities up to an acceptable standard is considerably more ambitious than their previous manner of operating. I would expect, among other things, that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada will have to operate differently. I would imagine they would need to bring to bear additional and different sets of skills than those they have had in place in the past, which is largely, but not completely, managing funding arrangements with First Nations.
I know the department will give you more information than that, but the plan they have in place is sufficiently different that they will need to upgrade themselves in order to be able to implement it.
The Chairman: The expert panel apparently recommended that a First Nations water commission be established. Is this something that you could support? Or does it make sense? Is this just another level of bureaucracy that maybe we do not need?
I would like your opinion on that, please.
Mr. Campbell: Our view is that people in First Nations communities need, deserve and should expect to have a level of service in this area and others that are comparable to those of other Canadians. How the government actually gets there, the Auditor General would not talk about the machinery of that. However, we would definitely support anything that would take us toward those results.
The Chairman: Well, gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for your excellent presentation, your straight forward answers. We do not see ourselves as miracle makers, but if we all work together and pull in the right direction maybe we can achieve better results. The Auditor General's department has done excellent work in various areas, and I compliment you on the work you have done in this area.
Have you got something else you would like to say, gentlemen?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your remarks and remind you again of something I have mentioned several times, this concept of sustained management attention that is required by the department. They need to keep at it, and anything your committee can do to help that amount of attention be sustained will be very important.
The Chairman: Thank you again, gentlemen.
During the second portion of this meeting the committee will examine two reports from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada including the plan of action to address drinking water concerns in First Nations community launched in March 2006 and the progress report on the action plan dated March 22, 2007.
We will now hear from the officials of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC.
We have with us this evening Ms. Christine Cram, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-economic Policy and Regional Operations sector; and Mr. Marc Brooks, Director General, Community Development Branch.
We look forward to your presentations. We welcome you to the committee. We are really appreciative that you are here before us on an issue that is challenging, interesting and has to be resolved.
Christine Cram, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-economic Policy and Regional Operations Sector, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, honourable senators, and good evening. I would like to thank both the chairman and the committee for inviting us to be here to speak on the subject of water on First Nation reserves. I would also like to thank the Office of the Auditor General for their presentation this evening. It is very helpful for us to be second. We have an idea of some of the questions that might be posed to us.
All Canadians need safe drinking water, and it is well recognized that for some First Nations people on reserve, this is not the case. In response to the serious water-quality problems faced by some First Nations people, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, in concert with other departments and agencies, is actively working with First Nations and their organizations to improve matters.
Since 2003, the Government of Canada, specifically through INAC and other departments such as Health Canada, has invested over $1 billion in the capital construction, operation and maintenance of water and waste water treatment plants on reserve. This funding has also been used to train operators, develop standards and create a monitoring program to ensure that plants are being run effectively and that water is properly treated.
INAC uses what is known as a multi-barrier approach — which is, in fact, a seven-point strategy — to ensure that water is safe for consumption. This means that there are multiple barriers protecting drinking water from possible contaminants or mistakes that could render water unsafe.
[Translation]
The seven multiple barriers are: standards, upgrades to systems, operating and maintenance, training, monitoring, management protocols and public awareness.
[English]
This approach helps create a redundancy in protection, so if one barrier fails to stop the contamination of water, another barrier acts as a check against the system, thereby making certain that drinking water is safe. The multi-barrier approach is the standard in water management, and its concept is fully detailed in the document ``From Source to Tap: Guidance on the Multi-Barrier Approach to Safe Drinking Water,'' created by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME.
In March 2006, Minister Prentice outlined a five-point plan of action to address water issues in First Nation communities.
[Translation]
The points in the plan of action are: to issue a clear protocol on water quality standards, to ensure mandatory training for all operators and the oversight of water systems by certified operators, to address the drinking water concerns of the highest risk communities, to create an expert panel to provide options for a regulatory regime for drinking water on reserves, and to report to Parliament on the progress of the plan of action.
[English]
I would note that the items in the plan of action are similar in scope and focus to the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development — and I believe you heard that in the earlier presentation today. The five recommendations included implementation of a regulatory regime, codes and standards, monitoring, capacity building and progress reports to Parliament.
As part of the plan of action, INAC is currently implementing a framework known as the Protocol for Safe Drinking Water in First Nation Communities. The protocol came into effect in March 2006 and applies to water systems that are funded in part or in whole by INAC and which serve a public facility of five households or more. It addresses the recommendation of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on clarifying standards. It is based on a review of the regulatory frameworks of all Canadian jurisdictions and represents regulatory best practices used by drinking water providers in Canada.
The protocol specifies that First Nations will meet the water quality criteria set out in the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines, which are established by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Drinking Water Committee and which are used by all provinces and territories.
First Nations are responsible for training and retaining a certified water system operator. INAC provides assistance in this through the Circuit Rider Training Program, providing hands-on training to community operators on their own systems. This program has had great results, as over 81 per cent of operators have received training and 37 per cent are certified.
The plan of action has a special focus on high-risk communities, and remedial plans have been created for these communities. When the plan of action was announced in March 2006, 193 drinking water systems were identified as high risk. As of March 2007, this number was down to 97 systems, and INAC continues to work with First Nations to further reduce this number.
[Translation]
The expert panel was created in May 2006 and was asked to provide options for the development of a regulatory regime.
[English]
The expert panel held public hearings across Canada during the summer of 2006, hearing from more than 110 presenters. The final report was tabled in the House of Commons by Minister Prentice in December 2006 and forms the basis for work that is presently under way to establish legislation aimed at regulating drinking water in First Nation communities. The recommendation that Minister Prentice has discussed with National Chief Fontaine is to incorporate provincial regulations and the corresponding regulatory regimes into federal legislation.
To date, two progress reports on the plan of action have been tabled in Parliament, in December of 2006 and March of 2007. The progress reports demonstrated that federal initiatives in the area of water have produced results. As an example, in March 2003, some 8 per cent of water treatment plant operators were certified; as of March 2007, the number of trained operators had risen to 37 per cent.
To support First Nation communities that do not have certified operators, INAC has put in place a number of measures to make certain that plants are operated properly.
[Translation]
The measures include a 24-hour hotline and emergency support that is available to all First Nations and now gives them access to technical support and assistance, the expansion of the principal existing training program for water operators, also known as the ``circuit rider'' training program, and arm's-length service provision to communities most in need.
[English]
To support the minister's plan of action, the federal government allocated an additional $60 million from Budget 2006 for the operator oversight initiative, to undertake capital projects and for the development of a regulatory regime.
You will be pleased to know that First Nation children and educators are also involved in the drive for safe and sustainable use of water. Working with Health Canada and Environment Canada, and in collaboration with First Nation teachers, students and the Assembly of First Nations, INAC recently developed the Water is a Treasure! school kit for children.
We provided some copies to the clerk of your committee, and we can get more copies for you.
It is a bilingual, interactive resource that includes a poster, a variety of fun and educational activities and a list of Internet resources. Its key themes consist of the value of protecting water now and for future generations and appreciation for the importance of clean, safe and reliable water from its source to the tap and back to the source. We are also hoping that it will encourage students to pursue careers in water plant operations.
It must be acknowledged that, despite ongoing efforts and federal support, some First Nations continue to face significant challenges to establishing safe and effective water management regimes.
Core challenges include the following points:
[Translation]
High costs for equipment and material mobilization, construction and maintenance costs in remote and isolated locations, the lack of economies or independent resources to properly fund system operation and maintenance, and limited local capacity to retain trained and qualified operators.
[English]
Notwithstanding these challenges, INAC continues to work persistently and diligently with its partners, both federal and First Nations, to find new and innovative solutions to address the ongoing need to protect the health and safety of First Nation residents through properly managed water treatment systems.
As next steps, INAC will continue to reduce the number of communities with high-risk drinking water systems and will undertake an evaluation of the First Nation Water Management Strategy. We will follow through on legislation to regulate drinking water in First Nations communities and will look to funding models and delivery approaches that will extend the life of systems.
In closing, much progress has been achieved in the area of First Nation water management, but much more remains to be done. The Government of Canada, and more specifically Minister Prentice, has reiterated on a number of occasions the commitment to assist First Nations in the provision of safe, clean and reliable drinking water.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Cram. In your presentation, you talk about 193 drinking water systems that were at high risk; that number is now down to 97. Is that correct?
Ms. Cram: Yes.
The Chairman: How can we actually live with a number such as 97? What is being done for the 97 drinking water systems? Are they on a boil water alert? Can you explain to us what is happening with those that are still at high risk at this stage?
Ms. Cram: I will ask Mr. Brooks to speak to that.
The Chairman: By all means; either one of you. We are glad to have you here and hear from you.
Marc Brooks, Director General, Community Development Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: First, whenever we have systems identified as being high risk, medium risk or low risk, that means consisting of the various criteria that are there, and failure of certain criteria is what puts them into the various areas of risk. High risk does not necessarily mean that the system itself will fail today or tomorrow. It just means the probability of failure is much more elevated than a system that is identified as medium or low risk.
After saying that, Mr. Chairman, your comment is right; 97 drinking water systems at high risk are unacceptable. Our aim is to bring it down to zero. Minister Prentice has been very clear: We do not want to have any communities at risk. We have been successful in reducing the number of high-risk systems. We have put plans in operation for all the systems that were identified as high risk last year, and we are working diligently to try to reduce them all from a high- risk system.
This current year, we are striving to reduce the number of high-risk systems by an additional 50 per cent. One must bear in mind, though, that there is also the opportunity to have a system that is not identified as high risk today. Various factors, such as losing a certified operator — who may go to another community for a better paying job — could potentially elevate a system into a high-risk zone. Our aim is to reduce the high-risk systems by 50 per cent and to eradicate down to zero.
The Chairman: Within your department, have you established an emergency method of going into a community that is at risk by either water tankers or whatever method possible? Is there an emergency backup system if something fails, so that we can deal with it immediately and not just leave these people out there drinking unsafe water?
Mr. Brooks: There are a few systems that are put into place. There is an emergency management system in the department, but, by and large, it is for various emergencies in communities, such as floods and fires and situations of that nature, including problems with water systems.
When a problem arises, a few activities do occur. Bottled water is immediately dispatched to a community that is in peril. With the various activities that we currently have — through the Circuit Rider Program, through the 1-800 number we have referred to — we do have the ability to get resources into communities fairly quickly to see if we can resolve the problem immediately.
The Chairman: I have many more questions, but I will go to my colleagues now. I will start with Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Welcome. I believe there is an advantage of listening to the previous presenters, because, as you said, you will probably know not only the questions but also the answers as well, which will be really nice.
I wish to reference the progress report. According to the March 2007 progress report, the number of First Nation communities with high-risk water systems has declined from 193 to 97 in the past year, as you have mentioned. In his appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on March 29, 2007, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, questioned the results of the report, saying that the findings were not subject to an independent risk assessment, but, rather, that the findings were from an internal reporting mechanism of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
By what method were the report's conclusions arrived at? Was an independent assessment of waste water systems conducted? If not, why not?
Ms. Cram: Maybe I could just start by explaining how we assess risk.
There are five factors that are considered: source water quality, design of the system, operation and maintenance of the system, operator training and certification, and reporting and record keeping. Those factors are rated. If you would like, I can give you the ratings. The source water quality is assigned 10 per cent; 30 per cent to the design of the system; 30 per cent to the operation and maintenance; 20 per cent to operator training and certification; and 10 per cent to reporting and record keeping.
An assessment is done on each system to determine how it scores. When we initially introduced this idea, we did not have necessarily a consistent approach to applying this. With the introduction of the protocol, we have clarified how to go about doing this assessment, and so we feel the assessment is much more reliable.
In terms of your question, I would say that we have to use the internal reports that we have. However, we intend to evaluate the First Nations Water Management Strategy. We would want to look at that in terms of determining the effectiveness of the way we are currently assessing the level of risk.
Senator Peterson: In the information we have, it indicates that INAC monitors the design, construction and maintenance of the facilities that are put up. Is that correct?
Ms. Cram: INAC provides funding, for example, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities. The department itself does not build the facilities. The money goes to the First Nation and the First Nation then must follow appropriate contracting procedures to build. Public Works and Government Services Canada verifies, at certain points in the construction, that the construction is taking place as it should.
Senator Peterson: A consultant would design it; a contractor would build it. There would be specifications to be followed. There would be a performance and maintenance bond to ensure that the plant would operate for a year trouble-free.
You monitor that so that you see that it is done properly. Then you have the seven multiple barriers to make certain that drinking water is safe, yet there are breakdowns. Where would that be? There are problems after all this.
Ms. Cram: You heard, from the previous discussion, that not all the plants necessarily were certified or checked to ensure that they were functioning as they should. In Ontario, the province will certify water plants for us, so we know then that they have been certified. In other provinces, that is not the case. We want to move to a legislative and regulatory regime in part to ensure that there is a mechanism for certifying that plants in every province have been built and are being operated as they should be.
Senator Peterson: You do not have that now. You are just starting to do it now. After spending all this money on these new plants, there is no oversight to see if they are operating properly. I do not understand that.
Mr. Brooks: Senator, oversight is provided by the department to an extent. As Ms. Cram pointed out, the First Nation does undertake the contracting activities itself. We do have what is referred to as the First Nation tendering policy that lays out how the tendering process should be followed. Public Works and Government Services Canada engineers provide services within the last six months. This engineering group has now been folded into my group, so that they are actually part and parcel of INAC. It helps us quite a bit, while working with the various communities, to have on-site engineering staff when various activities take place, such as progress report meetings and so on.
Senator Peterson: Your new protocol specifies that First Nations will meet the water quality criteria set out in the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. Are you providing additional funding to ensure that happens, or do we just write that and say, ``This is the way it should be''?
Ms. Cram: The First Nations Water Management Strategy includes funding of $1.6 billion over five years. The strategy has one more year to run. As well, in Budget 2006, there was additional support of $60 million for various aspects including certified operators, operator training, to develop the protocol and disseminate it and to start work on the regulatory regime.
Senator Peterson: Do you provide an annual budget with breakouts as to what will take place over the year, so that outputs can be measured and one can go back to see whether this is working or the money is being spent in the right areas? Could we get a copy of that?
Mr. Brooks: There are two aspects. I can say, yes, to part of it; we can give you a copy. We have a long-term capital plan, a five-year plan, which is a requirement of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. It is an ongoing, rolling five-year plan. Each of our regional offices works with the various communities to identify major capital activities. Major capital activities for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada are projects in excess of $1.5 million.
The other component to our capital programs is what we refer to as minor capital. That includes the operations, maintenance and other support that go to a community for some of the minor capital works that have to go on. This is the one area where communities do provide annual plans to us, but we do not necessarily have this all captured from a national perspective. However, we certainly would be happy to provide a copy of the long-term capital plan.
Senator Mitchell: You can also provide the yearly one, too — what you have done in a year — so that one can look at it and ask whether the government is getting value for the money?
Mr. Brooks: At the end of the year we receive audited financial statements from each community. We compare the outcomes that were required in the beginning of the year to see what has been achieved at the end of the year.
To add one point, we were talking about the amount of money. Ms. Cram pointed out that the strategy was allocated $1.6 billion over five years. As everyone is well aware, one of the issues we are running into now — and it is not just a First Nations issue, it is an issue being run across Canada, especially in Western Canada — is the exacerbating prices, the inflation in the construction sector. We see this especially in Northern Alberta, and around parts of Vancouver now with the 2010 Olympics coming on line, and in Northern communities. This puts additional pressures on our respective capital budgets and also impacts, as you can appreciate, the communities. Many projects come in very close to 100 per cent over the estimated budget.
Senator Mitchell: You do fewer projects, but I presume you do not get substandard quality because the costs have gone up.
Mr. Brooks: No. Unfortunately, we just have more of a backlog in trying to address some of the major capital systems.
Senator Peterson: We will get a copy of that annual budget.
The Chairman: Do you have enough people in the department to do the job properly? I speak to the minister on an ongoing basis, and I know he wants to get this done. There are so many competing causes for dollars in the system. I am a bit taken aback that 97 drinking water systems are still sitting out there at high risk.
I know Mr. Brooks is trying to give Senator Peterson an answer when he asks for an annual review of an audit. You have to ask a straightforward question. We had hearings here on specific claims. We heard it takes seven years or longer to recognize a claim, because the funding is not there. The same is true in INAC, in your department. There are just not enough people to handle these issues.
We have to ask the question. This is what we are here for. Do you have the personnel to meet this? I know how big this country is; I fly from Vancouver to Ottawa every week. It is not a question of putting you on the spot. I know it is a tough question to answer, but I hope that you can give us some indication as to an audit and as to whether you have enough capacity within the department to handle the complexity of this situation, with the urgency of it.
Ms. Cram: Thank you for the question. I would answer it with two parts. First, as I mentioned, we will evaluate the First Nations Water Management Strategy. We already developed the terms of reference and will be moving on that. That will help us assess aspects such as whether we have enough resources.
Looking at the question of whether we have enough resources to reduce the number of high-risk water systems, we can go back to the different criteria we looked at. They were source water quality, design of a system, operation and maintenance, operator training and certification, and reporting and record keeping. The department certainly needs some resources for some purposes, but the vast majority of the resources that one would need to do this are at the community level. We do not want the resources being in the bureaucracy in terms of oversight when we need to have capacity on the ground in communities to help build the plants and do the operations, maintenance, operator training and certification.
The Chairman: In the same breath, someone has to supervise and follow up on this. It originates with you people. I will refer back to when we studied specific claims. There were neither the human nor the financial resources to get the job done. We made recommendations, and I honestly believe that we will improve that file.
However, with something as critical as safe drinking water, I understand you have to build capacity on the ground in communities. I do not want to build a bigger bureaucracy for the sake of building it, but in an emergency situation — until we get everyone on a level playing field and a standard of water that is acceptable to everyone — do we need an emergency program in the system to deal with it?
Ms. Cram: We do have emergency programs, and the place to have the programs is not in Ottawa. We need some people in Ottawa, but in an emergency we need people that we can get on the ground very quickly.
We have been using various mechanisms, having technical capacity at the tribal council level and with First Nation technical organizations, and also using contracts so that we can deploy contract organizations onto the ground.
I will use the example of Kashechewan. Honourable senators will recall there was a serious problem last year in Kashechewan that occurred because the water plant flooded and was no longer capable of producing clean water. We now have an operator on the ground, through a contract approach. The company, Northern Waterworks, keeps an operator in that community to ensure that there is good quality water.
If I had to make a choice where to put the resources, I would rather have the resources on the ground, in the community or, at least, at a tribal council or a broader level where we can then deploy them to the particular circumstance where we need them.
The Chairman: To establish that, maybe we need the legislative or regulative framework of which the Auditor General's people spoke.
Senator Watt: I am having some difficulties understanding. I am hearing about all kinds of layers of people, more people, and more money. Let me try to simplify it as much as I can — the way I see it. You can criticize me if you want afterward.
If the money is there, why could INAC not tender the contracts and get the private sector in there, and following that, set up a monitoring system? Why could this not be done? You can save much money.
Mr. Brooks: It is a good question. As you know, the department, from about the mid-1980s onward, started to devolve much more of the responsibility to the community level to undertake many activities. There has been recognition that some of the devolution may have occurred without the necessary capacity happening right now, and that has been demonstrated in a few areas.
In terms of the contracting within our own department, we developed a First Nations tendering policy precisely to give the guidelines. Our departmental officials undertake feasibility studies to ensure that the community is going in the right direction in what they are looking to engage in terms of a system or putting a system into place.
We do work very closely with the private sector and the communities. To get the tendering done through our department, part of the problem is we are dealing with communities, and many of them, as you know, are self- determining communities. There is a jurisdictional issue that we deal with on occasion, and we do believe that in providing more capacity support to the communities, working with them a little more closely, would be a better way to ensure that the dollars are achieving all the outcomes that are intended.
Senator Watt: To respond to some parts of the argument that you have laid forward, it does not necessarily have to be tendered out by INAC by itself. If this business of a partnership means anything — and we have heard about it for a number of years — why is it so difficult for the band council and INAC to jointly tender the contracts and bring in the private sector? I have difficulty understanding why this could not be done.
Mr. Brooks: I may not have answered the question the right way the first time. We do work with the various councils, communities, authorities and tribal councils by sitting down with them and going through the specifications. We go through the tenders with them, and we do have an engineer that goes through the review process.
As you know, when things are tendered out, we have a few public-private partnerships also under way right now. When activities are tendered out, they are tendered to the private sector, but we are involved in these activities.
Could we provide more oversight? Could we be in there a little more? Probably the answer is, yes, we could be; however, we do work with communities very closely.
Senator Watt: Well, you have 97 outstanding communities that still have many problems accessing clean drinking water. If this matter could be simplified, if the money is there, through tendering contracts, bringing the private sector in, I am sure the problems we are having could easily be taken care of in one year. It goes on year after year; it is going too long.
This is the taxpayers' money we are talking about here. At times, as Aboriginal people, we get heavily criticized for eating up the system. We are a bit cautious on that aspect; therefore, we should try to find a shorter way of getting the job done. That is a recommendation you could put forward to your department. Maybe it would mean something.
Ms. Cram: It is a good idea, and we have been looking at opportunities for getting private capital so we could build faster. There are some partnerships being considered. We have to do it within the Treasury Board guidelines, so we are trying to find a way to do it that will work within those guidelines.
Senator Watt: This matter has to be taken as an urgent matter because people are getting sick and dying. It is about time that we try to find the shortest way of getting the job done. We do not have to wait for the crisis to come and then react. Let us try to act before the crisis comes.
Thank you very much for listening to my criticism of the way the department is handling it. I do not believe that more people are needed within the department. I believe you have enough.
The Chairman: According to the expert panel, they say it is not credible to go forward with the regulatory regime without adequate capacity to satisfy the regime. They say it is tempting to put a regime in place that would reduce dangers associated with water systems, but exactly the opposite might happen because not only would a regulatory regime take time to create and enforce but also the attention and money would be better directed to systems and operators, management and governance.
Can you comment on the panel's view that the regulatory regime by itself will likely do little to help the water quality on reserves without comparative investments in the capacity of the facilities?
Ms. Cram: We had a debate about the timing of things, and the panel's idea was why go ahead and implement a regime when we know that its implementation will cause a number of systems not to make it. We are kind of creating a problem right from the get go. We maybe should, therefore, bring systems up to a certain level before we implement our regime.
When we looked at it, we thought we do not know what the regime is until we develop it. Would it not be better to work on our legislation, determine what our regime will be and then phase in the implementation of it to permit the systems to be brought up to the level of the regime? Therefore, we are working with an actual knowledge of what the particular regimes will be. Because the legislative approach that we expect to be following is one of adopting provincial regulatory regimes, then they will be potentially different province by province. We would need to work with the systems in each of the provinces to bring them up to the appropriate level.
I believe the panel was correct in saying that if we intend to implement regimes, we have to recognize that some of our systems may not meet the regime and, therefore, investments may be needed in order to have that happen. We recognize that this is the case.
Senator Hubley: One of the most important themes that our previous presenters brought forward was with respect to sustained management. I have looked at the seven multiple barriers that you have put in place to ensure that if one system fails, the other one does not. Would you comment on that?
Could you also comment on the devolution of services during the 1970s and 1980s? Like many things, it looks very good on the surface. However, without the capacity — that word seems to be recurring here this evening — there seems to be almost a prescription for problems. I will leave it at that for now. Please comment on the issues of sustained management and capacity.
Ms. Cram: I will start with respect to sustained management. The minister has made a commitment to have regular reporting to Parliament. There was one in December and another in March.
I can assure you that that creates incredible sustained management attention in the department, because we know we have to produce reports perhaps every six months or at least every year and have a strong objective to show improvements in each of those reports.
The minister has also said publicly that he would like to reduce high-risk water systems by another 50 per cent for the next report. Therefore, we essentially have until March 2008 — less than a year — to be able to drop those 97 high- risk water systems to half that number.
In order to do that, we need sustained management attention. Therefore, we have to develop a plan and figure out region by region, looking at every one of the remaining high-risk systems, what we will do between now and then to achieve the minister's objective. I believe having a specific target and a requirement to report to Parliament is an excellent way to achieve sustained management attention.
In terms of the capacity issue, I see much of the strategy for improving water systems is based on recognition of increasing capacity. That is why we have the requirement for training, certification and oversight. If we do not have it on the ground right now, we have the Circuit Rider Training Program that provides help to get us to a certain point in time.
Much of it is about building capacity, because it is recognized that we need to have a well-trained, certified operator on the ground to ensure that the plant will produce the quality of water needed.
Mr. Brooks: If we look at the capacity question in the communities, we are dealing with many communities that are quite small and have fairly complex systems. There is a bit of a policy issue that we must also examine, which we are currently doing, in terms of the complexities of some of the systems versus what we may find on adjacent non-First Nations communities. We will find many households that are on, let us say, individual wells versus a community that is on a water treatment system. That becomes complex.
Many communities expect the offer of municipal services to their members, when quite often they do not necessarily have the capacity, the required amount of bodies, within the community to provide the services.
We are looking at other activities that will provide support, such as circuit riders. One area we are concerned with — I heard you mention it previously when the Auditor General was here — is the number of certified operators. This is a happy and sad issue with us in that there is a turnover of approximately 25 per cent of operators per year in the communities. Many times the turnover occurs because the operators have left the communities for other locations that pay better.
Therefore, it is happy in one way, because there are people with very employable skills that are in high demand, but it is sad for the community to lose these people. That is an extra onus.
Senator Hubley: Hence the need for an emergency program or plan or something in place to address that.
That sounds good, but do you have enough dollars to achieve these objectives? Are the monies in place for this?
Ms. Cram: As I mentioned, the $1.6 billion was for the First Nations Water Management Strategy. We have one year left in the strategy. It expires on March 31, 2008. We will be looking at a renewal of the First Nations Water Management Strategy. That is one reason we are doing an evaluation so as to prepare for the renewal, which will allow us the opportunity to assess what resourcing needs will be required for the future.
We also received an additional $60 million in Budget 2006, as I mentioned.
We feel it is good to have another year of the water management strategy to roll out plus the $60 million we received in Budget 2006 over two years. That will put us in good shape to continue to make progress on the legislation regulatory gap, training and such. Through the evaluation, we will be able to determine the resources we require into the future.
Senator Hubley: Are the standards of water quality national standards?
Mr. Brooks: The protocol that we have is our national standard. The way the protocol works is that a certain province may have a slightly higher standard in one area, such as turbidity of water. Where the standard, for example, in Saskatchewan, is a little higher than the protocol calls for, by default, the First Nation in Saskatchewan will then be required to respect the provincial standard in place for turbidity.
There are many instances where our protocol actually exceeds the standards or regime available in the provinces. Also, much of the provincial legislation currently in place does not necessarily cover some of the issues that we run into in First Nations communities, such as cisterns or water that is trucked in by vehicles and many of the smaller systems. A system for INAC consists of five or more connections. Some of the provinces, such as Ontario, go down to 15 only.
That is why there is a need for us to hopefully move toward a regulatory regime using provincial reference. There will also be a need to work with the provinces not only to adopt their regimes but also to ensure that the missing elements of First Nations are covered by the respective provincial regimes. In turn, that should help the provinces because, I dare say, they have individuals and communities in similar situations.
The Chairman: Ms. Cram, with regard to Senator Hubley's question about funding, is there enough funding there to solve all the problems? You say there is $1.6 billion in funding. You make reference to it. Are the dollars there to go out and solve these problems right now? My understanding is that it is being run like a program as opposed to an emergency situation.
I ask this question because I know the minister wants to get this job done — and done properly. However, if he does not have the money, perhaps we should be making a recommendation and doing all we can to ensure the dollars are there. We could run out of money before March 2008. It is not acceptable when we are talking about safe drinking water.
Ms. Cram: If we said we want to eliminate all high-risk systems within a year, I am not sure we could in that time frame, because some of them will be dependent on capital infrastructure. The entire capital infrastructure could not necessarily be done in one year from the time of design. We would not have sufficient capital to be able to rectify all the systems in a year.
Senator Peterson: March 2008 is a rather critical date for you, with many things happening. I would presume you would want that number of 97 communities with high-risk systems down as low as you could to demonstrate what you did with the additional funding, because you will need the capacity on the ground at that time or that number will shoot back up again.
Ms. Cram: Yes.
Senator Peterson: When will the legislative standards be completed and available to implement?
Ms. Cram: I mentioned in my remarks that the minister had a preferred option for pursuing it; however, we must now follow the process. We must secure drafting instructions, and then a bill would have to be introduced. As I described, the preferred approach is that of adopting provincial regulations by reference.
At some point a piece of legislation will be drafted and introduced, and we need to start developing the regulatory regimes province by province. We anticipate that we will have to work very closely with the provinces and First Nations on the development of those regulatory regimes as we move.
I do not know when the legislation will be introduced. We are looking to do so at the earliest opportunity.
The Chairman: I can assure you that if a bill in relation to this issue appears before us, senators here will expedite the process. We will not hinder the process in any way, shape or form.
I would like to thank you both. This is a tough challenge for all Canadians. This issue concerns not only us here tonight, but a large segment of our society that needs immediate assistance.
Ms. Cram and Mr. Brooks, I thank you for your straightforward, candid answers and your presentations.
If there are no other questions, honourable senators, we will adjourn the meeting.
The committee adjourned.