Environment Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, that would be best.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Yes, we did support the repeal of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. We opposed its adoption in the first place, because we felt it was very ill-suited to the needs of first nations communities. It took governance and leadership away from first nations and provided the potential, for example, for third parties to take over systems without their consent and with very little participation by them in those decisions. For many other reasons, we actually attended at the standing committee multiple times over the various iterations of that legislation that was introduced before it had been adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thanks very much.

We'll go to Ms. Idlout, please, for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to sit here with you in this committee on this important issue.

I will be asking my questions of Laura from the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Could you very briefly describe what the water infrastructure challenges are for first nations communities as they currently stand?

[Laura Tanguay]

There are a lot of issues with pollution and contamination of the source water, and with getting access to clean drinking water on reserves due to contamination of groundwater, source water or wells. It's not having sufficient infrastructures in place to provide, through service lines or well regulations, drinking water to communities. There are some communities, for example, in northern Ontario, that have had well-water advisories for over 27 years. This isn't something we find acceptable. I think there are regulations that could be put in place to mitigate some of these issues.

I would also like to defer to our executive director, Theresa McClenaghan, for anything she'd like to add.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Resourcing is key for nations to meet these challenges. That has been an issue in the past. It has been an issue addressed little by little over many years by many governments. We see the number of boil water and drinking water advisories decreasing, absolutely. Certainly, the approach, especially for Ontario.... We're most familiar with the 121 first nations systems here. They took the approach of doing the low-hanging fruit first. This means the systems that remain a challenge now are the ones with the biggest watershed or source-water issues that have to be addressed.

Most recently, in northwestern Ontario, we started to see some very long-standing issues and inequities addressed, but we need a sustainable system going forward that includes first nations governance, leadership and capacity. It's about not only building the systems but also making sure there's strong, ongoing support for operating those systems.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

You answered what my follow-up question was going to be in regard to what improvements could be made.

I wonder whether you could explain why the boil water advisory in northern Ontario has been in place for about 27 years.

[Theresa McClenaghan]

It depends on different nations.

In one case, it's because of the issue concerning the intersection between disinfecting drinking water and organic material in the source of the fresh water. It's very difficult to find a different source. I can think of a couple of communities, in particular. You can't just boil it in those cases. The issue is that you must disinfect the water if it's from surface water. You must have some system of disinfection. Then it becomes a question of whether we find a different method for disinfection instead of, for example, chlorination. Perhaps there can be different technologies. Perhaps it's time to think about a filtration system.

I can't speak to the specifics because I'm not an engineer, and I'm not acting for communities. I'll just say that, in principle, when you find you have a long-standing, intractable problem, you need to start to look for other solutions.

If I may, I'll quickly add that it's also a question of where the first nations' own infrastructure is. It may be that they need senior governments to think about helping them relocate. For example, the location of their lagoon, waste-water system outflow, intake or landfill site.... Some of those source-water plans we did with first nations, with grant funding, noted those issues. For example, in some communities in northern Ontario, it costs big capital dollars to change that around so you don't have the outflow from the waste-water plant ahead of the intake or a landfill site.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

The Liberals have been saying for years that they're going to end boil water advisories, specifically in indigenous communities.

Do you believe the government has the capacity to end these boil water advisories?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

Yes, I think so, and I think, as I mentioned, progress is being made. The further down that road we go, of course, there are more and more difficult situations to deal with.

We also know that dealing with systems in the north and in rural communities is, by definition, more expensive. You have to sometimes fly in a lot of the equipment and people. You have to deal perhaps with ground that doesn't thaw as soon as it does down here in balmy Paris, Ontario, where I live. There are all kinds of challenges, but that doesn't mean we don't need to address them.

What I would say, and I don't know whether this is true right now, is that some of the past infrastructure funding programs, as a previous witness noted, did not provide adequate support for the small and rural and northern communities. Sometimes they applied a population per capita benefit test, or sometimes they looked at the overall expenditure in relation to the size of the system. We really need to take a different approach so that the smaller systems would be helped as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's very interesting.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

We got started a little late. We have time for a reduced second round, so instead of five minutes, I'm reducing the time for the second round by 40%. That's three minutes each, and Madam Pauzé and Madam Idlout will have 1.5 minutes each, so we'll be able to get in a second round.

Mr. Leslie, go ahead for three minutes.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with Mr. Peslari.

I've met with many rural municipalities, towns and city councils since being elected, and water is often the key issue, water and waste-water infrastructure, and storing water for overland flooding and irrigation purposes. Infrastructure funding for those projects has seen a lack of federal support in many of their eyes, as you mentioned, not only due to a forced need for collaboration between rural municipalities that might be at odds in their needs, but also due to the onerous nature of a lot of the project applications and the timelines in which these applications are approved. Often, the project's total cost is up 30% or more by the time the federal government actually comes through with the money.

Are there any recommendations that you have for the federal government? How can we go about getting those projects completed with less work for municipalities that don't necessarily have the same levels of capacity? How can we fund them appropriately as well so that by the time shovels are in the ground to upgrade water and waste-water systems, it doesn't put undue burden on a level of government that doesn't have the same deficit capacities as the federal government?

[George Peslari]

I can collaborate with the people who made the application, but I can say that it was at least eight months of work with the engineer to provide the paperwork, and it took over a year to hear about the funding. By then, there were major changes in the cost of the project. It's going to be passed on to the people involved, as each person needs to contribute the difference in the cost of water being supplied to their houses.

I like what Theresa said, that things cannot be tied to the number of people in the community. It needs to just be fair for all.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

I tend to agree with that. We've seen a lot of projects that run into this particular challenge. It's not unique to water, but the federal government's programs on housing, for example, are putting 10,000-person communities up against a million people in a community. I think we need to do a better job and make sure that rural municipalities have access to the same program dollars because, in speaking with the RMs that I represent, aging water and waste-water infrastructure is a real concern. I think we need to find ways to alleviate that.

Maybe I'll just quickly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a good point to end on. It's a good comment. I mean that sincerely.

Ms. Chatel, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question about water quality consultations with our indigenous communities.

Ms. Tanguay, you told us about contaminants and radionuclides present in water. You also mentioned five principles that were to be followed by our government. As you know, the Anishinabe community in my riding intervened in connection with Chalk River nuclear waste management.

Could you tell us about these five important recommendations?

[Laura Tanguay]

Thank you so much for that question.

Yes, I am familiar with the site at Chalk River, where there have been many Algonquin interventions against the siting of a near-surface disposal facility where experts have said there's likely contamination of the Ottawa River watershed with radionuclides including tritium and cobalt-60. There have been recommendations for a siting relocation to minimize the likelihood of the impacts to freshwater sources for many people in Ottawa, Montreal, the surrounding rural areas, municipalities, including Algonquin first nations that rely on the watershed for fresh drinking water.

We have made a number of recommendations that are linked in our initial brief about more responsible policies for radioactive waste management and decommissioning.

Ms. McClenaghan, I don't know if you'd like to speak to what those are.

I can go through them for you as well, if that's what you're looking for, Ms. Chatel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We only have 30 seconds, unfortunately.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

One of the main recommendations made by members of my community was that if the Chalk River project were to go forward, it would be essential for the management and removal of radioactive waste to be carried out and supervised independently. Canada would accordingly need an independent organization to oversee the management process. Moreover, you adopted a policy prohibiting the importation of radioactive waste from other countries.

If you could send us your comments in writing, we would be very grateful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Of course. Witnesses can always submit comments in writing.

Ms. Pauzé, you have time to ask a question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I really like the questions Ms. Chatel just asked.

Here are some other instances in which indigenous nations were not heard. Only 10 km from Edmonton, there is an indigenous community that doesn't even have access to drinking water. At the Kearl mine in Alberta, there was a spill of contaminated water and gasoline. There were also the nuclear accidents at Chalk River that Ms. Chatel just mentioned. I also took note of Mr. Yates' replies to my questions.

My question is for the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Do you think the scheduling and conduct of consultations with indigenous nations allows them to be heard properly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Who would like to take this question?

[Theresa McClenaghan]

I'm sorry. What was the exact question?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I was asking whether the scheduling and conduct of consultations with indigenous nations allows them to be heard properly, given the numerous examples I gave of instances where they were not heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have time for a very brief answer. Who would like to take that?