Health Committee on March 26th, 2018

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

As a preface to my questions, I'll give you some of my background. As a chemical engineer for Dow Chemical, I worked on developing membrane systems and ion exchange systems to treat water and remove contaminants. From there I went on to work with the bottled water industry. I then worked at Suncor as a director of engineering and construction to develop, design, and build all of the potable water systems, such as reverse osmosis systems for water quality. After that I went to WorleyParsons, where we had a significant water treatment technology, and I worked on different water systems, both municipal and industrial.

One of the difficulties I see with this regulation is that it's another update on top of all of the other updates. Every municipality has its own specifications, and every province has its own set of codes or specifications, and then there's the federal government on top of it all.

I'm wondering if any of you have ideas about how we could better streamline the provincial, municipal, and federal levels to come to a standard that we could resource to meet.

I'll start with you, Mr. Gagnon.

[Prof. Graham Gagnon]

Thank you. It's wonderful to know your background as a chemical engineer.

The idea of trying to streamline provincial, municipal, and federal usage of water is a true challenge. One of the things I like about looking at other countries is that Canada may find other ways of doing business. One of ways of doing business that I think is highly appropriate is the way that the U.K. goes about it.

Britain, as you may know from your engineering days, takes a risk-based approach. Most of the water companies are privatized—which is neither here nor there. Australia and New Zealand also take a risk-based approach, in much the same way as the airline industry and the banking industry. In fact, Canada and the U.S. are somewhat behind in that we take this paradigm that allows us to get into the trap we're in. What Mr. Leonard talked about the specific parameter that you have to meet. In Canada we have over 80 of those, which makes it very difficult for a resource-strapped small community.

A risk-based management approach says: make a management plan and we, as government, will evaluate that management plan, much like the banking sector evaluates individual spending behaviour and then makes risk decisions on individual spending behaviour. We don't evaluate every single item you buy, but we have a framework. This allows us to think much more flexibly.

About a month ago, I was in Pond Inlet, Nunavut, which is one of Canada's most northern communities. Water there is trucked in, as it is in the majority of Arctic communities. Most of our policy, however, considers the idea that we're going to pipe water from a plant to someone's home. This paradigm in Arctic communities is simply not there.

Most of the regulations we have begin to fall down like a house of cards because we view the world in that manner. A risk-based approach allows us to inherently have some flexibility, to ask questions about a truck, to ask questions about the cleanliness of the truck, which presently we don't.

An OECD approach or review would allow us to ask whether there is another way for us to regulate water, which I think would allow us to maybe look at the very hard question you're asking. Rather than having multiple levels, is there another way we can do business?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Do you have anything to add to that, Mr. Leonard?

[Clayton Leonard]

I would agree that there's some value in looking at what's being done in other OECD countries, but I'm not sure it needs to be set out in a piece of legislation. The minister and the ministry can do that.

Working in a first nation context, if I'd had more time to prepare today, I could have brought you a stack of reports from the last 30 years, where we've studied the problem to death. We all know what needs to be done.

Speaking more broadly, I'll go back to source-water protection. If you're an Ontarian, there are legislated protections in place for your source water. If you're in rural Alberta, there are really none. You're responsible for your well and what uses you make on your land. There's nothing that compares to Ontario's system.

I think the role the federal government could play, if there's political will, which I'm skeptical of, is to create a national standard for provinces and territories and other levels of government. Under this standard, you'd be free to legislate source-water protection however you see fit, but it would have to meet minimum standards. This way, every Canadian—indigenous, non-indigenous, western, central Canada, Atlantic Canada—would know they are going to be living under the same standard for the protection of source water.

I think this is the only approach that's consistent with the international statements and commitments that Canada's made regarding safe drinking water being a human right. It also has relevance under the UN declaration on the right to clean water.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I took your point very well that if you come with more recommendations, but you don't resource them, then they're totally useless. We already have standards that we don't meet, and although the government pledged $8.4 billion to get rid of the boiled water advisories when it was elected, and although there's been some progress, still.... As an engineering company, if you had given us $8.4 billion years ago, you'd be done. I think there's a need to put some teeth into this bill, and coming up with more recommendations on top of what already exists won't necessarily fix it.

Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Odjick?

[Jason R. Odjick]

I agree strongly with what both of my fellow witnesses have said. I think the important thing is to remember that while work has to be done, we can't be putting the financial onus on first nation communities, due to the lack of financing and budget for this. It would require a different approach, by having the federal government partnering with and dealing with first nations on these things, because simply put, in most communities, and I can especially speak for my own, resources and workforces are stretched really thin as is.

I think the idea of standards is fantastic. I agree with what Mr. Leonard said. As I said, if we can take a look at other countries and where they're at.... Primarily we have to thoroughly test the first nations drinking water, because in communities like mine, we can say, “Bacteria? No. Uranium? No. Radium? Maybe”. That “maybe” is not good enough. It comes down to the first step, which is thorough testing, and then everything else follows.

I agree strongly with what you said about the $8.4 billion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Time is up.

Mr. Davies, you're next.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We are the health committee, and I can't think of any issue that is more critical to our health as humans than access to clean water. I don't want to be melodramatic about it, but water is the essence of life. I don't think we live three or four days if we don't have access to water, and so I think that of all the issues that come before this committee, this is one of the most important.

What's on my mind in studying this legislation is the gravity of the subject and its importance as a health issue. What does this bill propose to do? Is this the highest level of action we can take? This bill essentially just calls on the minister to conduct a review of drinking water standards in OECD member countries, and if appropriate, to make recommendations for amendments to national guidelines respecting drinking water.

Mr. Leonard, if I heard you correctly, you said that this bill is at best a distraction or waste of time, and at worst it may place burdens on first nations. Given that we all know that the state of clean drinking water in the indigenous communities across this country is deplorable—there are a massive number of boil water advisories—do we really need to be passing legislation to look at the OECD countries? Would we be better off putting resources into addressing the mechanical needs on the ground? Are we that confused about what those mechanical needs are?

[Clayton Leonard]

I don't think we're that confused about what those mechanical needs are. I would agree that our resources and attention would be better focused on solving what I see as a national embarrassment. I don't understand why someone in the province of Alberta, one of the biggest wealth generators in the country, needs to be worried about turning on the tap in their home just because they're living on a reserve. Until that problem gets our full attention and resources, I view anything else as a distraction. That's part of my view of the world as well.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

To Mr. Leonard again, in 2014 when you represented four Alberta first nations that filed a law suit against the federal government in an effort to resolve long-standing drinking water problems, you said the following: “How many times do you get to reannounce the same amount of money? If you spent $2 billion, and then you find that 73 per cent of First Nations still face serious drinking water issues, it's a pretty clear indication it's not enough.”

Recently we found that two-thirds of all first nations communities in Canada have been under at least one drinking water advisory at some time in the last decade, and we know that in the last election Mr. Trudeau promised to end drinking water advisories in indigenous communities within five years. However, according to a recent report from the David Suzuki Foundation, the federal government is not on track to fulfill its promise and has no plan to get there.

I believe the PBO has also come to similar conclusions. According to a recent report from the PBO, the federal government is only spending 50% to 70% of what's needed to fulfill its promise to end boil water advisories on first nations reserves within five years.

This is my question for you. When you said the investments are not even close to meeting the needs, how much money would it take—if you know—to make sure that all first nations communities in this country have access to clean drinking water, and how much are we falling short of that now?

[Clayton Leonard]

I don't have those statistics on hand, but I know, for example, that a national engineering assessment done in 2011 was the most thorough look. There are problems with it, but that's the most thorough examination we have nationwide, and it said just shy of $5 billion over 10 years is needed.

We had maybe $330 million under the Harper government. I'm not sure what the amount has been under Prime Minister Trudeau's watch.

That need has not been filled. The other elephant in the room that nobody is talking about is that when you speak of boil water advisories, that's first nations water treatment plants. As I've said, in a lot of communities we have decentralized systems: trucking, cisterns, or water wells. Those are not monitored in the same fashion as drinking water treatment facilities, so we really don't know how many people turn on the tap in those homes and face risk to their health.

There is another looming problem that's not addressed by the current initiative even if it's being funded properly. The Neegan Burnside national assessment found—I'm basing this on memory here—that about 60% to 65% of first nations drinking water systems across the country were classified as medium risk. That means they need an investment of funds for proper operation or maintenance and eventual replacement of them. So we have this bulge in the snake coming. We might be dealing with boil water communities right now, but we have this looming infrastructure bulge in the snake coming that really needs billions of dollars to address, and it's only going to get worse as it's neglected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have a little problem here, folks. There's a vote being called in 28 minutes and 29 seconds, so I need unanimous consent to carry on until maybe 15 minutes before the vote.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We don't have unanimous consent.

Okay, we have to call a halt to our proceedings. It's 28 minutes before the vote. The vote takes about 10 minutes, and then 5 minutes for us to get back here. We have to go to vote. It will take us a little while—I'm going to say almost 45 minutes, because it's 28 minutes until the vote.

I hope our witnesses can hang on. We'll be back as soon as we can, but it's part of our obligation. We have to go vote.

I am going to suspend the meeting for now.

Mr. Leonard, do you want to make a comment?

[Clayton Leonard]

I have something else that has to be done today and then a flight to Calgary to catch, so I'm going to have to excuse myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

All right. Thank you very much for your contribution.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering about the time. If the vote is in 28 minutes, that's 5 o'clock. The vote will take 15 minutes, and that's 5:15. By the time we get back we're talking of 5:20. I don't see how we can continue the meeting that is scheduled to end at 5:30. I just don't want to keep the witnesses around if we're not going to be able to come back.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

We should just adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

I see consensus that we end the meeting, then.

I'm very sorry. Your testimony so far has been really helpful, and we really appreciate it, but it's the will of the committee that we end, and we'll reconvene on Wednesday.

The meeting is adjourned.