Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2025

[Karen Hogan]

You're going to take me back to a report that we did a while ago. I will turn to Glenn, in case he wants to jump in on this.

I think there are many elements that contribute to a long-term drinking water advisory. What I also think is important to note is that while there was priority placed on lifting those, that meant an advisory that existed for 365 consecutive days or more. There are many that lasted just a little less, and then there were a few days, and then a new one came about, so it even underestimates some of the communities that have had a long-term impact, really, by having these drinking water advisories.

I would tell you that it's about a few things. It could be that the water treatment plant isn't operating properly. It could be that they don't have someone to actually operate it, that they don't have the skills or expertise in the area.

There is an assessment done, and when something is deemed to be of poor health—and that's done by the first nations community in conjunction with the department—that's when a drinking water advisory is put in place. Communities decide when it should be lifted or placed. There are many elements, unfortunately.

I don't know, Glenn, if you wanted to add anything to that.

[Glenn Wheeler, Principal, Office of the Auditor General]

Maybe I'll add one point, Auditor General: the whole issue of the funding formula not being amended to take into consideration the state of drinking water systems.

If you have an older system, it's obviously going to take more O and M money to keep it up and running. Although the department went from funding 80% of the cost of water treatment plants to 100%, which was a good thing, the funding formula was not updated to take into consideration the age of the treatment plants. That's another issue that is of some importance.

The Auditor General mentioned the issue, for example, of water treatment operators: You need a primary and a secondary. There is turnover, there are retirements and people leave the community, so you might have two water treatment operators at one point, but six months later you're down to one, and then you're going to have accompanying issues. There's a lot that goes into the issue.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Thank you for those responses.

I think there's about a minute left, Chair. I'm going to give that to Mr. Stevenson.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

As a CPA, I usually like to look at the balance between what's overhead versus outcomes and what actually turns out to be your findings. Can you focus on the mechanisms that failed when you're looking at ensuring the process?

Is it the bureaucracy? Is it not getting programs up and running? Is it not getting money out to the first nations that need it in the specific areas, or is it being bogged down in process instead of actually getting money out there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 25 seconds.

[Karen Hogan]

Okay, I'm going to try to answer that really quickly. It's a tough one to answer, because it really will depend. At times, it's about negotiations with provinces or other levels of government, in addition to the first nations communities. At times, it's money. At times, it's capacity. There are so many factors that, with 25 seconds to answer, I think I would tell you that “it depends”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

Parliamentary Secretary Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for being here, and thanks for the reports. Also, thank you for, I guess, the report on the reports. Tracking progress is so important.

I think you explained, somewhat, that it's like a binary report card. It's “unsatisfactory”, or it's “satisfactory”, yet you recognize that even within “unsatisfactory” there's progress.

One of the areas I'm interested in is.... When I look at emergency services or health services, I see that the context has changed, I would say, in both of those areas quite dramatically in the last few years. In emergency services, we know that wildfire risk has increased, for instance, dramatically. We know that in the provision of health services, we're in a national workforce crisis in terms of recruiting and retention. Even in my area, Yukon, where it used to be so attractive and easy to retain and recruit, it's equally challenging.

How do you apply the recommendations, recognizing the changing context, all while giving a binary report card, if you know what I mean?

[Karen Hogan]

I do, absolutely, and I will turn to Glenn, maybe, if you want some more details.

I think when it comes to.... Let's look at health services. We would have expected, after studies and assessments had been done, that a step would have been made to actually change and improve the health services. The studies and assessments did a good job of identifying what needed to change, and then that last step wasn't done. Even in a rapidly changing world, when you did that assessment and study, you heard from communities what they wanted and what should change, but then no change occurred. For us, that would be an unsatisfactory level of progress.

However, we did see some satisfactory progress when it came to the hiring of nurses or to finding more creative ways to get nurses into remote communities, so there were some that had very satisfactory progress. That wouldn't have been about just finding new ways. It would have been about actually having increased capacity and increased presence.

There were things that were done well, but at times.... If you just took that first step and didn't follow through, that is where we would have said “unsatisfactory”. This is one of our actual barriers—where we talked about a sustained focus from senior management.

There is a flurry of activity after our reports—a lot of commitments and action plans—and then we see it dissipate over time. However, we do see examples, such as in B.C.—and, in fact, I think there was even one in Yukon—where that sustained focus actually saw services transition to first nations communities. That would really be the definition of success in dealing with a recommendation.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

These four barriers in themselves, as you mentioned, particularly the lack of sustained management attention, but the others are equally intriguing.... However, I have to go to what you concluded with: a different approach and mindset. Maybe you can elaborate on what you see as a different approach and mindset.

[Karen Hogan]

You know, many auditors general before me have talked about this. The reason I decided to do a follow-up on some of our programs was to mark the middle of my mandate, so that it didn't wait until the end, with me saying what I heard my predecessors say. You know, Sheila Fraser would have said it was unacceptable, the lack of progress. Mike Ferguson, about halfway through his mandate, said that it was beyond unacceptable. I tried to think of a word, and I would tell you that big words aren't driving the change that's needed. I really think it needs to be something different, and I would point to one of our barriers, the siloed and passive approach, as being probably the biggest one that I think needs to change.

Currently, it is the requirement of all communities to know that a program exists and to have the capacity to apply for it or fill out the paperwork to get access to it, but then it's very granular. If it's drinking water, it's this program. With regard to drinking water, there are many programs that you might have to apply to individually. Then there's emergency management, etc. If it's about infrastructure, that's a different program from one about access to services.

That passive and siloed approach needs to change. Communities that need help need to be met where they are to help them change, and right now the department waits for them to come to the department.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Just to dig into that, really what you're talking about to overcome that siloed approach is taking a more holistic intervention or audit. I recognize where the capacity of a community can be so stretched with trying to respond to a siloed approach, let alone maybe the consultation capacity as well when improvements are trying to be made.

Maybe you can highlight where you have seen a successful approach that has been more holistic and has overcome some of the siloed approach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 25 seconds again.

[Karen Hogan]

It's a very challenging committee with 25-second answers.

What I would point to here is that, if we look at our housing report—and it wasn't a success, but it'll highlight an example—smaller communities had more homes in need of repair or replacement, yet they received a fraction of the available funding, because they didn't have the capacity. It would put them closer to an equal footing if we went to them and asked, “Can we help you go through the heavy burden of all the paperwork and the funding?” Currently, it disproportionately disadvantages communities that just don't have that capacity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Our last question will be from MP Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Hogan, for being here today.

Regarding Indigenous Services Canada's response to your report, the department stated that the audit doesn't fully reflect the significant progress that has been made, both in terms of lifting 147 long-term boil water advisories and 311 short-term ones, and in terms of substantial increases in funding for maintenance activities, operator salaries, training and infrastructure sustainability.

Your report also points out something quite disturbing, which is that Indigenous Services Canada has not determined the actual funding needed by first nations to operate and maintain drinking water systems. What we also saw in the last budget is that there will be $0 this year and that the $2.3 billion in funding is planned to start only next year.

In that context, can you explain how your office came to the conclusion that the department didn't properly determine the funding needed to operate and maintain the drinking water system?

[Karen Hogan]

Your question has a lot of elements.

I'm going to talk to you about the system, or the funding mechanism.

When we finished our audit on safe drinking water, I believe the funding system had not been updated in three decades. They updated it following our report, but for three decades, it didn't reflect the fact that it costs more to repair and maintain treatment systems and that the wages of operators assigned to treatment systems have gone up. The cost is just different in the north when it comes to communities that are much more remote than others.

The fact that the system hadn't really been adjusted was the basis for our conclusion. The funding mechanism has been adjusted since, but budgets still have to allocate money to support communities.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Since 2015, your reports have included multiple recommendations to Indigenous Services Canada regarding program delivery, as well as health services, education and drinking water.

What do you think have been the main challenges for Indigenous Services Canada in implementing those recommendations over time?

Do you see any trends or systemic barriers that have prevented your recommendations from being fully implemented over the years? Those could include the police, housing and obviously many other areas.

[Karen Hogan]

I'm going to answer you in terms of safe drinking water, but I think this can apply to other things.

The government had made a commitment to lift all boil water advisories by March 31, 2025. The deadline was missed. There were still many boil water advisories in effect. The government gave another deadline, but it missed that one too.

There has been a lot of progress. I acknowledge that. From about 60 boil water advisories, we're down to about 30, and that number continues to decrease.

However, there are still communities, nine in particular, that have been in this situation for over a decade. In one of the communities, it has been almost three decades. That's a long time to wait for safe drinking water.

It isn't just because of the money. It's also because of the approach, which is different. I would invite you to review our four barriers. You would see that each of the barriers has an element that factors in when it comes to understanding why the recommendations aren't being implemented in a timely manner.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

One of the other things highlighted in your report is that many first nations communities continue to have to face challenges related to their capacity to effectively deliver service-related programs.

Based on your audits over the past six years, are there any recurring trends or patterns in the types of challenges faced by first nations, Métis or Inuit communities?

Could one of the problems be related to Indigenous Services Canada's capacity to support them in overcoming barriers?

Is it ultimately the fact that expertise is never developed within indigenous communities and that service delivery deadlines are too short to keep expertise active within the communities?

For example, if programs last one or two years, it's harder to maintain expertise than if those programs were offered over five or ten years.

[Karen Hogan]

It's obviously always a concern if the funding isn't long-term and is attached to a short-term program. However, the problem isn't always about money. I'll take you back to two of our barriers.

First, the required level of service has to be clearly defined. In this case, there's really a commitment to the communities to understand what they can expect to receive. Then, it's much clearer for the government when it comes time to establish the necessary level of funding. The lack of clear definitions in many areas is one of the elements. I see that as a major trend. We've been mentioning that for years, but it hasn't been resolved yet.

One of the issues is obviously the passive and siloed approach that we talked about, but there's also insufficient support to give communities the capacity to take action. It isn't just a matter of providing a service, but of truly making the community more autonomous by giving it the necessary support to have the capacity and skills within the community. However, we often don't see that response or that approach.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do you have the ability to assess whether an act would bring more rigour or improve the capacity to deliver services to first nations?

I'm thinking in particular of what the Prime Minister has committed to doing for next spring or Bill C‑61, which we studied in this committee.

Do you think the money promised in the budget could have been used, but that there were ultimately shortcomings that the bill won't address anyway?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 25 seconds left.

[Karen Hogan]

It's different when it comes to legislation that hasn't been approved yet. I don't know if that's going to change the approach that's used. It's even hard to say whether there will be an act. There have been changes over the years, and even decades, but there has been no change to the approach.

I think change is really needed. The government has to bring communities to the table and really change the way that it supports communities. We have to address not only the four barriers we mentioned, but also the barriers that they themselves raise. For example, they talked about the burden of filling out an application and applying to a funding pool.

It isn't just a question of money. We've seen the amounts of money increase. It isn't just a question of goodwill either. It's the approach that has to change.