Public Accounts Committee on June 14th, 2022

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay.

Deputy Minister, is there stable funding for the circuit rider training program? How many workers are there in the program?

[Christiane Fox]

I think the stable funding is about $20 million per year. We could get you the number on exactly how many there are.

Nelson, maybe I'll turn to you.

[Nelson Barbosa]

The circuit rider training program is under grants and contributions. It's a resource that is paid directly to this organization. They have their own stable of employees. That is managed wholly on their part.

As the deputy minister mentioned, the commitment for funding is there. That was a core component of the operations and maintenance review, to ensure that operations were stabilized and that programs like the circuit rider training program but also other training programs, such as those that support youth training and the training of women in order to modernize the operational workspace, were all core components of the operation funding that was highlighted by the Auditor General some time ago.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay.

Actually, getting back to these last few remaining ones that are particularly challenging, many first nation communities have a smaller population, sometimes just a few hundred. What is the government doing to support those communities to develop the expertise and capacity in the communities to run their water and waste systems? What is the plan to adjust these challenges? Maybe the circuit program is part of it.

[Christiane Fox]

Absolutely. In the 29 communities that are still impacted by long-term drinking water advisories, we have data on each community and whether they fall under zero to 100 people, or 200 to 500 people, to determine the scale and scope of the community.

By working with first nation chiefs and councils, we identify what the needs are and how we can support them. The circuit riding training program is an excellent way that we can support them. Also, the additional funding through O and M allows them to provide salary dollars that are competitive in the context of water operators. That's another way to attract and retain.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Great.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Bradford, you have time for either a quick comment or the briefest question with a brief answer.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have a brief question for the Auditor General.

You mention in your brief that “the department presented the committee with a detailed action plan that addressed our recommendations. Many of the milestones that the department had set have passed.”

By that do you mean the deadline has passed or that the situations have been resolved? I found that a confusing statement.

[Karen Hogan]

I meant that the deadline had passed and that those would be certain actions that you should ask the deputy minister of the department about progress against.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

It's to follow up on.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That will have to wait for another round, Ms. Bradford.

Go ahead, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné. You have two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to my last question. I was asking why we didn't have the recommendations, which Indigenous Services Canada had accepted and was to provide a status report by March 31, 2022, on those recommendations.

Unfortunately, the June 9 letter didn't contain what the status report was supposed to have, which is a deadline, the initial results and so on.

Just before the end of my previous time, I asked what had been done in the past year, but I'd like to know what is planned for the next six months. There are so many things that need to be done. In particular, I know that there was a settlement agreement regarding the first nations' class actions on drinking water. I also know that a bill was supposed to be introduced by March 31, 2022, and that a bill must be introduced in consultation with first nations by December 31, 2022.

Ms. Fox, six months away.

Will the deadlines be missed once again? Are you sure that you'll meet them this time?

[Christiane Fox]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her question.

Through our agreement, we noted that a bill would be introduced by December 31 and that efforts would be made to do so. Obviously, we don't control all elements of the parliamentary calendar.

So it's important to note that not everything was under our control. That said, it is indeed very important that we introduce our bill, through the agreement.

If I'm more confident that we will succeed, it is because we've already started the consultations and work.

The 2013 bill contained no regulations and was non‑binding, and first nations felt they were not consulted.

So an important part of this bill is co‑development. We don't have a lot of time, that's true. The federal government could introduce a bill that would meet our deadline, but if our partners didn't feel comfortable or if they wanted to work longer, I wouldn't want to ignore the co‑development process.

We intend to introduce the bill before the end of the year, but we will also work at the pace of our partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

It's over to you.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think this is our last round. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If there is a will, it will be, yes. I'm going to check back with everyone.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks.

You mentioned the consultation process, so I want to touch on that. I've worked in this field for half a decade with first nations and Métis communities in the west for a very long time. It's how I know some of my colleagues here, which is fantastic. I know some of you know very well the issues that are present for indigenous communities.

Particular among the issues is consultation. You mentioned AFN. I'm sure you're aware of, by way of tons and tons of correspondence that comes to your office and, likely, other MPs' offices—it comes to my office, at the very least—related to consultation, what some nations perceive as the ignoring of requests for consultation.

I want to speak to one directly in northern Alberta, which is the confederacy of Treaty 8. The Treaty 8 chiefs have a grand chief named Art Noskey. He has communicated to me his overt frustration with his inability to contact persons within the department, particularly about legislation, bills and information that he feels pertinent to the operations of Treaty 8 and, particularly, around their treaty rights. He feels that those treaty rights have been largely ignored.

In relation to this bill, has Treaty 8 been consulted?

[Christiane Fox]

I would start by saying that, absolutely, we know we have to go and consult beyond the AFN. Many rights holders have told us that no one speaks for them other than them, so I would say, absolutely. I think our consultation will be broader than just rights holders and indigenous political organizations, either national or regional. We will go to water experts and the tribal councils that are doing a lot of this work.

When it comes to Treaty 8, I am familiar with them, not only through the correspondence but in our discussions with them around health legislation. They have been very clear that their treaty right to health has to be part of that dialogue. In the context of this work, we will absolutely work with Treaty 8 and other treaties across the country. I don't know if they've been engaged at this point yet—yes.

[Nelson Barbosa]

I would say that, as the deputy mentioned, the preconsultation on this has been going on for three years. That is done with AFN and other rights holders. It's paramount to recognize the space of rights holders, as well as the treaty rights.

Post-repeal is when we will begin drafting the new legislation in earnest. That will be done in concert with the AFN, rights holders, tribal councils and organizations that have voices in this space. That would include treaty organizations and treaties in the Alberta context.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barbosa.

Turning now to Mr. Duncan, I believe you are splitting your time. You and your colleague have five minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

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.

[Christiane Fox]

We have some statistics and data on what you've outlined, particularly on why some of them would be in effect and short term or long term. Is it an infrastructure gap? Is it an operations gap? There is data around that.

We also have quite a bit of data.... We have quite a big regional footprint across the country, so our regional offices working with communities would know whether or not it's a community that has had many short-term.... We could come back to you with a bit more of a breakdown, if that's helpful for the committee.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I think it would be helpful in that regard, too, just to understand the repetition of a problem or the type of problem that's there in terms of how we do that.

I appreciate the time. I'll pass it over to Mr. Bragdon.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Bragdon, you have two and a half minutes.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To you, Ms. Fox, thanks for your time today. This is a challenge that we're all taking about, and everyone around this room agrees on the urgency of this matter. That's what I want to pick up on here.

I think the frustration that Canadians are feeling from coast to coast—and this goes beyond any particular government of whatever stripe—is that this is a situation that has been neglected for far too long, through all kinds of governments. As Mr. Desjarlais pointed out, that neglect, that lack of adequate response to that crisis, to this ongoing crisis, is extremely frustrating for Canadians from coast to coast.

In my region, I hear about it: Why can't we, in Canada, with the kind of water reserves we have, not just get this fixed? I know that seems very simplistic in a very complex circumstance, but I think Canadians want to hear assurances now, not, “Oh, in 2023 or 2024,” or “Yes, we're going to set another deadline and make another announcement.” They want to know that the government is going to respond with the urgency this situation requires. When there's a national emergency, they can move amazing numbers of things in a hurry and can get things done when they choose to make it a priority.

Why can't this government make this an absolute priority? If they have to borrow from other departments and bring resources.... I'm talking about human resources, because it doesn't look like it's a funding issue. It looks like we have to get the right people in place.

Can you speak to that, Ms. Fox? What is the government doing to show that this is an absolute number one priority? It needs to be. Canadians are demanding it.