Public Accounts Committee on April 29th, 2021

[Christiane Fox]

At the end of day, it's definitely up to the first nations leadership to decide on the salary structure for operator salaries. What the operation and maintenance funding does is provide more money to communities. It provides 100% in terms of that formula we have in order to fully support O and M in communities. As a result of this funding, communities are empowered to pay salaries that are greater than what they had been, and then retain that talent, retain that skill and develop it. I think that's part of the strategy, absolutely.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fox.

We will now go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

Good morning, Ms. Hogan. It's always a pleasure to see you.

I have to tell you that, back in February, I almost felt sick when I read your report. I have that same feeling today; it came back as I listened to your opening statement. Your findings are appalling. Indigenous Services Canada is very slack, it would seem.

I won't beat around the bush. Instead, I will get straight to the point. Before we get into the details, I want to discuss some of your findings and recommendations. You pointed out that your office first conducted an audit on the specific issue of access to drinking water more than 15 years ago, back in 2005. The department has had time to get things ready. It's safe to say that the issue has been on your office's radar for almost 20 years.

My question is straightforward. Do you feel the department takes the role of the Office of the Auditor General seriously?

Do you think the department has a corporate culture of offering up mea culpas every five, 10 or 15 years? In other words, is it just riding out the storm, while carrying on business as usual until the auditor general's next report comes out?

[Karen Hogan]

You're right.

We conducted an audit on safe drinking water in indigenous communities in 2005. We followed up in 2011, and again just recently, as per the report tabled in the House of Commons in February.

Although progress has been made during that time, the department did not meet its commitment to lift all drinking water advisories. We found two things in particular during this audit: a regulatory regime had not been developed, and more importantly, the funding formula had not been updated for some 30 years.

As a result, the funding formula is outdated and does not meet the immediate needs. We found that it had not kept pace with advances in technology, which has a direct impact on water system operator capacity. Despite the progress that has been made, the department's failure to update the formula since it was developed some 30 years ago is not the way to ensure adequate funding for operation and maintenance.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you for that clarification, Ms. Hogan.

I realize you can't speak as freely as I can about what is obvious to both of us, so I will rephrase my question.

Your office conducted an audit in 2005 and another one in 2011. You submitted a report this year. Yet again, you are disappointed with the lack of significant progress. It's clear that the department's actions do not necessarily live up to the promise the government made to first nations. Every single time, you have made clear and specific recommendations. Despite agreeing with those recommendations, the department has never managed to implement them once and for all.

I would be willing to accept the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, but the government's commitment dates back to 2015. There was no pandemic then. I realize that it did slow things down, but it does not account for the extent of the failings identified in your report.

Mentally, do you feel assured that this is the last time you will have to prod the department like this, or is it a lost cause?

Your office produces reports, they end up on some shelf and you have to do it all over again every five, 10 or 15 years.

[Karen Hogan]

It grieves me to see that the problem still hasn't been fixed. It is a long-standing issue, so I can't give you any assurances.

The deputy minister can speak to the department's commitment on the matter. I can promise, however, that we will be watching.

Making sure every community in the country has access to safe drinking water is paramount. I hope I'm not back here in a few years having to report the same shortcomings. It is really incumbent on the government and the department to keep their commitment and to work with first nations communities.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Hogan.

I would like to discuss the fact that the risk ratings for water infrastructure remained unchanged; that was one of your findings based on the risk assessments.

In the 2014-15 fiscal year, the department's annual assessment revealed that 304 of the 699 assessed water systems, nearly 50%, were either high or medium risk. Five years later, despite the strong commitments that had been made, nothing had changed. In the 2019-20 fiscal year, 306 of the 718 systems were still rated as high or medium risk, so roughly the same percentage.

What must the government and the department do to reduce the risk of major deficiencies in the water systems?

[Karen Hogan]

The department has a program to assess the condition of water systems, which it measures by assigning a risk rating. You're right that the risk ratings have not changed, so approximately 43% of water systems are still assessed as high or medium risk.

That does not necessarily mean water advisories will be issued, but it does point to deficiencies in system maintenance or a lack of qualified and certified water system operators. The department uses it as a barometer.

The situation is a clear sign that the funding formula is outdated. Until it is updated, it will be hard to determine whether the level of funding provided is enough to meet the needs.

The first thing the department should do is update the funding formula so that it takes into account new technologies, gaps and needs. It's not just about operational requirements. It's also about keeping—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hogan. I'm sorry; I was muted and trying to get your attention.

We will now move to Ms. Ashton for six minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indigenous Services promised to eliminate drinking water advisories on reserves by March 2021. They failed, and it's first nations that are paying the price.

The government has blamed COVID, climate change and everyone but themselves. This type of dishonest and cynical politics helps no one and it certainly doesn't eliminate boil water advisories.

The Auditor General report that we're discussing here today has been clear on the reasons for this failure, and I want to highlight particularly the way they point to the lack of funding to retain staff and the lack of a regulatory regime that still wasn't in place 15 years after it was recommended. Quite simply, this is another example of this government saying the right things but not backing them up with action and the same kind of urgency they give when big oil, for example, needs money for a pipeline.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating for first nations. It has laid bare the lack of investment in first nations communities by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, leaving these communities to fend for themselves. We must do better, and we can do better.

I want to acknowledge that what the Auditor General report has made clear is that first nations need more than just empty words and symbolic commitments when they're consistently left with broken promises, particularly on something as fundamental a basic human right as access to clean drinking water.

First nations need access to clean drinking water immediately. I'm pleased to join you in this committee today to really get at what needs to be done for us to get there, for first nations to see that reality take place.

My first question is to the Auditor General.

I am wondering if you can expand on why a sufficient regulatory regime wasn't in place. I'm thinking of first nations like Garden Hill in our region, which actually is not even on the list of boil water advisories. It is a first nation that received investment for its water treatment plant after the H1N1 crisis, which hit that community hard. However, we know—and this was exposed by a CBC report in 2019—that by the time water gets to homes in the community, it is not drinkable.

How is it that Garden Hill First Nation, and presumably others, have fallen through the cracks and don't even make it to this list? How did we get to this point? What can be done to ensure that communities like Garden Hill get the help that they need?

[Karen Hogan]

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.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you.

My next question is to ISC.

We have heard repeatedly, including today, a favourite Liberal buzzword, “partnership”, as in “work in partnership” with first nations. I want to bring up Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which is also in my region. They've struggled without clean drinking water for years, yet ISC, Indigenous Services Canada, wasn't even testing their water for the contaminants that were making people sick, forcing the first nation to pay out of pocket for the work that ISC refused to do. Due to Canada's failures, they launched a class action lawsuit and have spoken about their fear of government reprisals for doing this.

They're now taking their complaint to the UN, and I'm proud to support their efforts in doing so, but it didn't need to come to this. When asked about these failures, a spokesperson for ISC said, “Indigenous Services Canada...has supported the community in the repairs and upgrades to their water treatment centre to ensure water quality continues to meet approved guidelines.” The water that makes them sick continues to meet approved guidelines.

This type of disrespect is far too common. In a meeting between ISC and Tataskweyak Cree Nation in their community, an ISC official took a sip of water to demonstrate that the water was clean, seemingly ignoring the many community members who had rashes or were otherwise sick.

Does water that you won't test properly, that we know makes people sick, continue to meet approved guidelines? If yes, why is ISC maintaining that these guidelines are accurate? What good do they serve outside of public perception? We know that the first nation has been clear that the water makes them sick. Why is ISC continuing this charade?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

I am very sorry, but we have gone over your time. Perhaps, Ms. Ashton, we can come back to get an answer during your next round of questioning. Thank you.

We will move on to our five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to give the witnesses a heads-up: I'll be asking a lot of questions, so it would be appreciated if they could keep their answers as brief as possible. That will help us get the answers we are looking for.

Ms. Hogan, in your audit, you did not assess the impact of the long-term drinking water advisories on the health of the affected populations.

Was that deliberate? Is that something you could have examined?

[Karen Hogan]

You're right. That wasn't part of our audit.

We could have hired health experts to help us with that assessment, but we felt it was more important to focus on what the federal government had done to meet its March 31 target.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Had the report contained real data on the health of individuals who had experienced the long-term effects, perhaps it would push the government to respond more quickly. That's a suggestion for your next audit. It could save us another 15-year wait before seeing further results.

You weren't able to visit first nations communities because of the pandemic. Might that have changed your findings?

[Karen Hogan]

When we conduct an audit involving first nations, we usually like to visit communities to gain a better understanding of the problems, and to identify the needs and concerns. It may have changed how we interacted with first nations communities, but I don't think it would have changed our audit findings.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

For the second time in two weeks, you have said you were disheartened. I just want that to be clear, Ms. Hogan.

Ms. Fox, was your department consulted in 2015 when the government came out and said that it was going to fix all the problems by 2021?

[Christiane Fox]

I wasn't with the department then. I started in September 2020, so I don't know whether the subject was discussed in 2015.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Would you be able to get back to the committee with that answer? I'm interested in finding out about any advice that may have been issued on the likelihood of achieving the target.

When I was a mayor, the city had to deal with a drinking water issue. It took 10 years to fix, so I find it hard to believe that the government thought it could actually identify and fix all of the problems that existed in 2015 by 2021.

I just received the department's detailed action plan. What is your new target date for eliminating all the short- and long-term drinking water advisories?

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you for your question.

I should point out that the plan has to take into account not just long-term advisories, but also short-term advisories.

A total of 179 short-term advisories have been lifted.

Under our strategy, the action plan targets long-term situations.

We are being very transparent about the work we are doing to address the existing advisories in the 33 communities. The details of the work and the progress made are all posted on a public website, because—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Forgive me for interrupting, but I just wanted to know—

[Christiane Fox]

You wanted to know whether we had a target date, did you not?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, precisely.