Public Accounts Committee on April 29th, 2021

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for their testimony today.

Obviously, this is a very serious situation. It has a lot of legacy, as we know from the Auditor General's report. I look to exhibit 3.2 in the hopes that we are making a difference. I know that's cold comfort to communities that don't yet have access to clean drinking water, but there has been marked improvement. Our hope is that we can continue with this work to be able to get there.

My first question is to Ms. Fox.

Help me understand the role of Indigenous Services Canada as it relates to the operation and the actual capital on indigenous communities. I know some indigenous communities use own-source revenue. They have some of their own operations internally. Is the expectation that the federal government provides 100% of the necessary capital, or is there some working partnership there at all?

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you for the question.

I think it's really important to flag what the role of Indigenous Services Canada is. The role is actually to work with leadership of indigenous communities to make determinations about what they need to support their communities.

Sometimes water is at the top of that list, for very obvious reasons. Sometimes there are other priorities. It could be a school construction build or a housing project. Rather than sort of dictate, we have to listen and ask what those priorities are that they have identified.

Yes, there may be some communities that say they would use own-source revenue to do various types of infrastructure, but I think our commitment to first nations communities for water infrastructure is that we can provide 100% of the capital. We can provide that 100% for O and M to allow them to do those projects in the quickest way possible and from a long-term perspective, but it is a partnership, so the decision can't come from our department. The decision has to come from the first nations leadership.

That's how we guide our work. It's for eventual full transformation.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Okay.

I want to take you to exhibit 3.3, Ms. Fox, where we have somewhere between 15 to 20 long-term advisories that have been in place for 15 years or longer, if I read the graph correctly.

Intrinsically, to me this is not necessarily just a money issue. This is capacity. This is geography. There are a whole host of things. I know that even in my own riding in Nova Scotia, there are communities that, because of colonization, were located in areas and terrains that were not desired. Is it fair to say that in some of the communities, part of this issue with some of these long-term advisories is actually finding quality water to provide to the community, or is it just the infrastructure? Can you speak to that a little bit?

[Christiane Fox]

I think there are real complexities with some of these systems. It does not take away from the importance of doing it and for the quick action that is required to address them.

Where a first nation community is located in the country will have an impact on the water source, the availability of contractors, the availability of people to get up there. There's a different scale. There are some that are probably easier in nature than others, but absolutely there are different levels of complexities.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I want to go to paragraph 3.38. I think you might have touched on this with Mr. Lawrence, but it's just so I'm sure.

At that point in November 2020, there were 60. There was a commitment to try to eliminate at least 33. Did I hear that 27 have been eliminated since November 2020? Is that fair?

[Christiane Fox]

Were 27 eliminated since November? No, not quite. I believe that in the November report, about 96 had been lifted, and as of March there were 106. Those are the data points that I have in terms of lifts.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Maybe I could ask for a submission, because I don't want to spend too much more time. Paragraph 3.38 in the Auditor General's report says that as of November 20, there were still 60 in effect and that the department thought that up to 33 would be eliminated by March 31, 2021.

If you could get that information to the committee, I would certainly appreciate it.

The Auditor General's report, Ms. Fox, also talks about how one-third of water that's used in communities is not through the public utility model, in the sense that it is coming from wells and other sources. I know that's generally the domain of the local indigenous community.

As quickly as you can, is there any programming in place there? Is it part of your mandate and that of the department to support outcomes in that space?

[Christiane Fox]

The focus is on public utility. If ever there would be conversations about needs outside of that, we are always talking to communities about their needs, but the program is focused on public utility.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

I want to go to the Auditor General.

Ms. Hogan, we've talked a lot about regulations, and I've had the chance to look through the actual legislation from 2013. With respect, it's relatively straightforward, and it's a relatively short act. Why is it that regulations matter?

You talk about policies, and I don't even think the department is in disagreement, but help me understand, as a parliamentarian, why regulations matter, especially if we're looking to try to address things.

You know, even ministers then have to gazette. They have to amend regulations. Why can't this just be a set policy in working with indigenous communities? Why does it have to be in regulatory form to be the most effective?

[Karen Hogan]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to do my best at explaining why all of this matters.

The act, as you say, is rather short. That's the legislative framework, and the regulations are really how you operationalize that. They will set, then, the minimum standards, the minimal threshold for water. They will set defined service levels, defined accountabilities when something goes wrong, such as who needs to take action. It's really how you operationalize the legislative framework that's outlined in the act. That's the fundamentals. That's needed because first nations communities need that hook, like every other community, in order to make sure that they know what level to target and what to do when those standards aren't met. It is just a fundamental way to give the same protections that the rest of the country has.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fox, there has been some discussion about how things are going. I listened carefully to you when you talked about transparency and collaboration. Those are all good things. We really hope that the action plan, as well as all the recommendations in it, that you accept today will bear fruit.

I am trying to get a better understanding of what the collaboration is all about. The report notes that there are problems with the legislative framework. In particular, a lack of consultation is mentioned. Drawing a parallel between consultation and collaboration is self-evident. The lack of collaboration and consultation goes back to the design of the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in 2013. Eight years later, no changes have been made.

How do you explain the fact that your department has never taken action to actually change the legislative framework to improve the situation?

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you for the question.

Indeed, the act has been in effect since 2013. There are a lot of questions about the regulations and the need to change them. However, I must say that our first nations partners do not agree with the elements of the bill that was tabled in 2013 that led to the creation of the act.

We are willing to work with them. Once we develop a bill with them, there may be a way to work together on the regulations. The fact is, we don't want to do it on our own. Legislation of this nature must be developed jointly. To do that, we are willing to work with our first nations partners.

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

So you're starting from the beginning, so to speak. The government made this commitment in 2015. There were 160 long-term drinking water advisories in first nations communities. The government said it was going to fix everything by March 31, 2021. Then the COVID-19 pandemic broke out.

We understand the situation, but do you think the government would really have been able to achieve its goal of getting this all done by March 31, 2021, had the COVID-19 pandemic not occurred?

[Christiane Fox]

Even in the early spring of 2020, we were still trying to find ways to achieve that goal by working on the action plan with the communities. That was still our goal. We realized, especially during the summer and early fall, given the third wave, that our challenges would be more numerous. That's when we thought we would need more time. The realization that we needed long-term solutions, not just short-term ones, meant that the timelines were pushed back.

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

I want to understand the situation well, Ms. Fox. The problem has a cause. What was unrealistic, the goal or the timelines?

We can set the COVID-19 pandemic aside. Indeed, the Auditor General's report notes that even before the pandemic, some projects were slowing down and many were already behind schedule. So the pandemic cannot be blamed.

Is it incompetence, an unrealistic goal? What is the problem?

We can redo action plans and meet again in 5, 10 or 15 years, but I for one do not want people to have to continue to live in precarious and unacceptable conditions.

[Christiane Fox]

I agree with you. We have the same goal, which is to ensure that everyone has access to safe drinking water.

We were doing our job with timelines, community realities and construction seasons in mind. We were still working hard to meet the March 2021 target.

Unfortunately, 52 long-term drinking water advisories remain in place in 33 communities, but we are committed to doing everything we can to lift them.

I want to emphasize that the work isn't just about long-term advisories. We have lifted 179 short-term advisories and, as a result, several communities have not been put in a difficult position in the long term. I don't want to minimize the effort required to eliminate the 179 short-term advisories.

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

Ms. Fox, I'm trying to understand what happened in your organization. At one point, you described the situation and noted that the March 31, 2021, deadline would not be met.

At what point did you realize that?

[Christiane Fox]

In our discussions over the summer and fall of 2020, we recognized the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the second wave, which took place from October to January in first nations communities, all our attention was consumed by the pandemic. During that time, there were 5,000 cases in on-reserve communities, and the entire team was dedicated to dealing with the issues related to the pandemic.

That's when we realized it would have been irresponsible to bring construction workers into the communities. We were making every effort to protect the physical and mental health of people in the communities that were really affected by the crisis. We had to ensure there was access to food and isolation centres. That became our main focus because of our commitment to first nations communities.

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

According to your department, the reason—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas; you basically have seven seconds left.¸

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

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

Thank you.

My question is to the Auditor General.

York Factory First Nation has now gone six weeks without clean drinking water and has declared a state of emergency after their so-called state-of-the-art water treatment plant that was built one year ago failed them, forcing them, like TCN, to pay out of pocket for both testing and clean drinking water. The chronic water shortages have forced the school, the day care and the restaurant to close, and they have been left without proper fire and emergency services during this pandemic right now.

I'm sure we can all agree that this situation is unacceptable.

In your report, you make reference to how woefully insufficient funding to maintain water treatment plants has been. According to the report, the ISC's operation and maintenance funding formula is out of date. What is the government not doing that leads to communities with so-called state-of-the-art water treatment plants being without clean drinking water?

[Karen Hogan]

Unfortunately, I don't think I can speak specifically to that community. I don't know where they would fit in some of our findings. I'm not sure that even my colleague Glenn could get there. If you want something more specific, we could probably get back to you on that. I can point you to our overall findings again and then refer you to the department for some more specifics about that community.

I do acknowledge that all of this is very interconnected. Access to safe drinking water has so many ripple effects through a community, and you rightly point out that it's unacceptable in Canada in 2021 for many first nations communities to be in this situation.