Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to speak a bit about statistics and the analysis. I hate using the words “data” and “stats” when we're dealing with something so personal in the context of the situations we're in.
This is a bit of a high-level question, but we know the short-term and long-term dates, when they come into effect and when they're removed. One of the things I find lacking in the information we have—I think Mr. Patzer alluded to this—is the context of how these boil water advisories or drinking water advisories come into effect. Is it a repetition? Are communities going through it repeatedly? Is it aging communities? Is it that water operators are not available to manage a good infrastructure system?
Do you keep statistics? We know the number that are outstanding, and I'll agree with you that it's a bit depressing. The work is never going to be done in the sense that, when you get down to zero drinking water advisories, your work is done. It's keeping communities from going into those as well.
Do you keep statistics or a breakdown of ones that are in effect? Is it because of a lack of water operators? Is it a lack of infrastructure? Is it a combination of both? Also, on repetitiveness, if it's a community that's going into this for the fourth or fifth time, do you keep that kind of data to understand how you have the ones that are getting to this level?
It's a bit of a reflection point, but I'm trying to see if that's something the department does. If not, is that something for us to understand, the context of where the repeated challenges are coming from and whether they are new or outstanding?
I'll leave it at that and pass it over to Mr. Bragdon.