One of our first audits back in 2005 on this issue did raise a concern about a regulatory regime, and we have seen that some progress has been made since then. I think I need to back up just to explain what's in a regulatory regime.
Typically there's an act, which is the legislation and the law, but then there are also guidelines that accompany it. It's those guidelines that really show you how to operationalize.
What we found in this audit is that the act has been in place for a few years, but the guidelines are still not finalized. Many first nations communities, and we noted this in our report, questioned how the act was put together, noting a lack of a meaningful engagement and consultation, and perhaps that's the reason why some of the guidelines are not finalized yet.
Why this is really needed is it helps define roles and responsibilities and provide clear accountability when something goes wrong. It defines minimum service levels in order to be able to identify when water is no longer safe and what advisory needs to be put in place. It's really about ensuring that the first nations communities have the same protections that other communities across the country have, but they have to be able to set that, because they have their right to self-govern. They have to be able to be actively engaged in setting what those regulations should look like. That is one of the key steps, in addition to the funding formula, that's needed in order to help advance this and lift those boil water advisories on a more long-term, sustainable basis.