Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 16 - Evidence - May 16, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:30 p.m. to examine and report on recent work completed in relation to drinking water in First Nations' communities.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This committee is continuing its examination of reports in relationship to safe drinking water in First Nations communities.
The committee has heard from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations.
Tonight, honourable senators, we are honoured to have in our presence, from the Assembly of First Nations, Earl Commanda, Director of Housing, Richard Jock, Chief Executive Officer, and Candice Metallic, Legal Counsel.
Welcome to our committee. I thank you for taking time to be with us. We generally allocate 10 to 12 minutes for a presentation, and then the senators ask you questions.
Ms. Metallic, I am thinking what you are thinking about what is happening in Ottawa tonight. Hopefully, we will all rejoice later this evening with the senators and the great hockey game that is taking place.
Richard Jock, Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you for your kind introductory remarks. For us, it is important to note that we link any housing interest directly to the need for water within those new housing structures. Otherwise, they are totally ineffectual.
In May 2006, when National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, Phil Fontaine announced jointly with the minister the creation of the panel of experts that spoke to you in earlier testimony, he reaffirmed that an overall First Nations action plan recognize the need for a regulatory framework. We recognize and understand that need.
Part of that, however, was that we emphasized that a key for success, ultimately, is also in recognizing that First Nations governments need support, both technical and financial, to meet those standards.
The AFN chiefs, by resolution, and the national chiefs supported this expert panel because it addressed such a critical priority, one that is so fundamental.
Obviously, this priority was something that was referenced in the First Ministers' Meeting 2005, the communiqué and the so-called Kelowna accord, and it was part of the outcome of that meeting.
The report was tabled in 2006, along with the first progress report and a plan of action for drinking water and First Nations, December 7. We have followed since then the tabling of the second progress report, tabled in March of this year by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In general, I would say that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, is pleased that one of the clear findings of the report was that it was not credible to go forward with a regulatory regime without adequate capacity. The report established that fiscal resourcing of First Nations community water systems was a precondition of satisfying those regulatory requirements.
However, we understand from earlier testimony that the option put forward is that provincial regulation be incorporated into this legislation, and the corresponding regulatory regimes of those provinces also be incorporated into this federal legislation. That position is not exactly what we are advocating.
We are pleased that Mr. Prentice, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, agrees that having 97 communities at high risk is totally unacceptable and that he supports the next steps to reduce the number of those communities by 50 per cent over this year. However, we are also concerned that any progress, both within those communities and also as a collective with those communities, should be real, measured progress, measured with real measurable tools and that progress is also sustainable over a period of time, and not interim or short-term.
We are concerned on the surface as well that some progress, or apparent progress, may be the result of the use of a different tool or different style of measurement. We have reviewed at least what we know to be the tool, which is called a ``facility risk assessment tool'' that looks at five key areas of water treatment operations. We feel it covers First Nations communities with full or partial systems but leaves out communities without any systems or communities that still use raw water sources or private wells and septic systems. The measurement system leaves out a significant number of communities that may be at risk.
Therefore, one of our recommendations is that professional engineering assessments of all First Nations water systems should be a fundamental activity prior to implementing a new regulatory regime.
I think that overall approach is more systematic than simply focusing on high risk systems.
The other point we would make is that we clearly do not agree with fast-tracking federal legislation without a consultation process. Doing so without an engagement process on a regulatory regime is out of step.
The national chief has fully supported the minister for his initiative to move forward with his action plan, and Assembly of First Nations continues this support. This support is conditional upon demonstration that this effort is serious in terms of addressing the resource gap that I mentioned for infrastructure.
We believe that meaningful and long-term progress will result from a full commitment through a collaborative process and with solutions that respect our current needs and circumstances, and are within the context of Aboriginal and treaty rights. We believe we have a clear framework for that progress under the First Nations-Federal Crown Political Accord on Recognition and Implementation of First Nations Governments, and that there is a clear framework that outlines the need for a national dialogue, for research and expertise, and for joint collaborative policy development.
We have made that framework available previously and can do so again. It includes a checklist of characteristics of successful legislation. In our view, those characteristics include recognition of First Nations governments, which relates to the jurisdiction element; clear fiscal relationships and accountability; capacity building; and, extremely relevant in this example, harmonization of different jurisdictions to ensure that our overall approach is coordinated.
We have made this point strongly to both the expert panel and the federal government. We still believe this approach bears the most progress and the best results.
AFN will continue under its mandate, as given by the chiefs in the assembly, to consult on long-term solutions that will lead to effective First Nations jurisdiction in terms of water and waste water management. It is clear that interim measures are important and can and should be looked at, but such approaches should be clearly interim, and there should be a clear and predetermined process under which that interim process is replaced by First Nations jurisdiction.
In addition, we will soon write to the department about considering a process that we think shows promise in terms of a federal First Nations standard development process that would be established through the Canadian Standards Association, an internationally recognized body for developing and monitoring standards.
We must not and cannot repeat mistakes of past legislation, or adopt quick fixes such as those suggested by incorporating provincial regulations, as we believe quick fixes alone will not achieve sustainable change. In our view, change must be swift but careful and methodical and with a clear view to the future.
In summary, we recommend three elements. First, we must address the fundamental capacity issues in First Nations communities to minimize the risks and to prepare for real change. These measures optimally must include effective training programs throughout the country.
The second and third elements must be achieved simultaneously, and they are the development and implementation of standards. Together these elements will result in capable First Nations governments positioned well to manage sustainable, effective, safe drinking water systems, and we have definitions of what those items mean.
That concludes my presentation and we will be happy to interchange with you on questions or comments.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jock. You said that provincial standards are not acceptable. Would they be acceptable on an interim basis if it was clear that they were only interim, in order that we could improve the situation?
Mr. Jock: It is our understanding that such standards are not in effect in every province, so adopting provincial standards alone will not result in progress. That is why we believe an alternative approach, such as that suggested with the Canadian Standards Association, would result in progressing to a national level more quickly and uniformly. A number of provinces do not have such standards, so I am not sure how adopting provincial standards would be faster necessarily.
The Chairman: For clarification, are you speaking of international or national standards? Where are they established? If we used the standards of the provinces that have acceptable systems, how would they be implemented?
I can see how they could be implemented at the provincial level, and I am not saying that if we use provincial standards, we should continue to use them, but it would be a start to help accelerate the process.
Earl Commanda, Director of Housing, Assembly of First Nations: In their contribution agreements with First Nation communities, the federal government uses a protocol that accepts the Canadian drinking water guidelines as the national standard. This protocol applies equally to municipalities and First Nations.
As to using the national drinking water guideline as a standard, we would have thought that long ago a First Nations standard would have been developed as it relates to the national standard.
The federal government says that it would prefer to look at the provincial standards. Right now, there is a debate on which provinces have the best standards. Of course, because of Walkerton, the protocol reflects the Ontario provincial standards for the design and maintenance of water systems. Ontario is currently developing its own law on safe drinking water in the province.
For us, it is not a question of which standards to follow or whether to adopt provincial standards. Clearly, there are cross-jurisdictional issues to face by accepting these standards. For us, it is not only the case of safe drinking water. It is also the case of what to do with waste water and how to protect source water which, in many cases, is outside boundaries of First Nations reserves.
Many issues have not been resolved in the notion of accepting provincial standards.
The Chairman: If the national standard governs municipalities, would all municipalities not be required to adopt the same standard? There are municipalities in every province.
I am trying to clarify how this system of checks and balances works and if there is a proper one.
Mr. Commanda: Even though Ontario has had their standards and laws in place for a long time, Walkerton did happen. We are really talking about the enforcement of those standards. How will the federal government proceed? Should they adopt the provincial standards? How will they handle the enforcement of those standards? The First Nations really object to having someone from the province come into a First Nations jurisdiction and say, the province will now enforce a provincial law. Our leadership would have a hard time accepting this approach and it is a bone of contention.
Senator Sibbeston: In some respects I feel that now we have come this far and know a certain amount in terms of where we should go generally, there are recommendations that we should provide resources and capacity for First Nations to have clean water. That seems to be the answer.
It angers me, because one of the first things I heard Mr. Prentice say after he became minister, when Kashechewan and other situations had come to the forefront, is that he would deal with the water issues in First Nations communities throughout our country. We have a minister who seems determined and wants to help deal with the matter. We have this expert report that says, close the gap before making regulations, and then the department recommends that its first priority is to set up a regulatory regime. It seems to me the departmental recommendations are contrary to the experts and contrary to the minister.
How they can say that? How can the recommendations stand, if they are a good department? If the system is democratic, how can the departmental recommendations seem so off course?
I appreciate First Nations in our country deal with this situation. We deal with bureaucrats who have their own ideas as to solutions for First Nations people, and so we are in the situation that we are in, in this country.
How do you, as officials from the Assembly of First Nations, deal with the government? If we do not do anything, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada will go ahead and, despite all that is said, will begin their regulatory process. I am sceptical and suspicious that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs suggests this process to delay, to do nothing. Either they do not have the money, or are afraid to obtain it, but they want to delay the solution and not get on with the job.
The situation warrants the government to put money and capital into the water situation. It is not something that can wait many years, yet we have a department that thinks we should fiddle around and spend years, a decade maybe, setting up regulations that would govern water. Then, after that, the regulations would be implemented slowly.
Do you have any comments on that? What do you do?
Mr. Jock: We fundamentally have some of the same interests. We feel that the sequencing is out of step. We can have the highest standards but if there is not a systematic way to enforce them they will be meaningless.
Essentially, we will need to look at the liability, the impact on communities that fail to live up to this standard, if it is legislated. What will be the impact? Will communities be liable for individual breaches? Will they be liable for health impacts? If there is no way to meet those standards from a capacity point of view, it will be risky for communities.
That is why we say that a process of collaborative drafting is the best way to come up with an approach that makes sense, one in which we can engage our First Nations colleagues properly. We have a group of experts on our side of the table, who I think could craft practical approaches to meeting this need.
We have these same objectives. We feel that we are a bit at odds in terms of how to meet the objectives. We feel, as the expert panel does, the capacity part is the vital part and is a precondition.
Mr. Commanda: From our perspective, we look at the issue of standards as being important to First Nations but we also say the resourcing to meet any standard that is accepted needs to be part and parcel of the plan.
The expert panel made the recommendation that the precondition of capacity development and resources to fix the system had to occur, and even when we look at that particular process, there is a suggestion in their report that they create a First Nations water commission to tell not only First Nations what they need to do for their water systems, but also they tell the federal government what to do to ensure it happens. From that perspective, certainly we have taken a look at the total report.
We are surprised that the chairman of the expert panel would side with the federal government in support legislation referencing provincial standards, when we thought clearly the recommendation that was most favoured by the expert panel was federal legislation on its own. We offered a joint process, so from that perspective we felt, although they did not go far enough in terms of looking at First Nations jurisdiction or customary law, there was an opportunity for us to work together with the federal government in developing a First-Nations-driven set of standards that would be acceptable and appropriate for First Nation communities.
Senator Gill: I want to come back to what you said with regard to standards. It is not a matter of accepting standards from someone else, it is a matter of seeing if those standards work for the reserve and what the reserve wants, and that they are controlled by the Aboriginals. This is the way we will go eventually.
At the beginning, according to the figures I have, 193 reserves had high-risk drinking water. Now, there are 97. The situation is already being corrected. Is that the case or not? The process to reach the goal to cope with the situation has started. Is there a way that you can accept the solutions jointly with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or are you still fighting about the way to solve this problem?
Mr. Commanda: The report tabled by the federal government in March focused on safe drinking water. It did not focus on where those communities are that have no water system whatsoever. Where are those communities that have waste water systems that need to be repaired as well? Where are those communities that rely on individual wells and septic systems as their system in most rural situations?
From our perspective, although the numbers have come down, certainly the numbers have not drastically come down when we look at the waste water systems. The report does not include looking after the private wells and septic systems. The federal government views that as an individual responsibility. We feel that the approach is not holistic enough to focus only safe drinking water.
From our perspective, we point out that it is good that they use what they call a multi-barrier approach from the source to the tap and again from the tap back to the source of drinking water but in this regard, it seems they are only concerned with safe drinking water.
From our perspective, going from 193 reserves to 97 is something, but it would take very little in terms of those that are considered medium risk to move to high risk. We currently have a situation where 25 per cent of those plant operators have left their jobs. Because they have left their jobs for other municipalities or for industry, the human resources are not there and it takes years to train someone to be either a Class 1, a Class 2 or Class 3 plant operator. The federal government is not putting the money on the table to ensure those people are retained in the community to look after these water systems.
When we say sustainability, it is not only fixing the plants, it is also giving the monies to communities to hang on to trained operators, keep them in the communities and keep the jobs there. That money is critical to making the system work.
Senator Gill: Talking about money, in one reserve they receive a global budget to deal with their stuff. It is not up to the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to say, you should put more money here or more money there. It is up to the reserve how to spend their money and sometimes the employees are not satisfied with the salary they receive. It is complicated. How do you deal with that?
Mr. Jock: If communities received money at a rate of growth that was commensurate with what provinces receive, for example, and would have received for the rate of growth for the last 10 years, then I would say, yes, what you say makes sense. However, the cap on INAC funding of 2 per cent — it is not necessarily brought out by the department itself — results, in our calculations, because of increased population and increases due to inflation, in losing 6 per cent if we look at that funding in terms of constant dollars.
Fewer resources go to education, health, social services and, in effect, we are losing ground because of that lack of funding increase, what you are saying becomes impossible. There is nowhere to shift resources from because all those areas are underfunded. That is why in our remarks we talk about the overall need to remove the funding cap as being critical in terms of general sustainability of First Nations communities. That cap, in effect, has an impact on all these programs.
In the best situation, communities can do that kind of reallocation but because of funding circumstances over the last 10 years, that reallocation is not real.
Senator Gill: Of course, as you mentioned, there is a lack of money somewhere. This is exactly the situation on the reserves. They can put money in one sector, if they do not correct or if they do not do something for the rest, they still have problems and they are not sure that it is the priority of the people. They try to cope with their priorities, but they do not have enough money. That is why people say sometimes, outside people who do not know the situation, we gave money to the Indians but the Indians did not use the money for the purpose that we gave them the money. It is not their business, but that is the situation. This is why it is so difficult to set priorities.
By the way, about priorities on those reserves who need services: Who establishes the priorities? Who fixes that? Who says that the money should go there first because there is a real priority? Do you help the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs there?
Mr. Commanda: No, I do not think we do.
Senator Gill: You are not involved?
Mr. Commanda: Are you asking who sets the priority for the monies that go to the communities?
Senator Gill: Yes, first, who chooses the reserve where the money goes to solve the problem?
Mr. Commanda: Water has been recognized as the highest priority within the federal budget capital system. From our perspective, because of health and safety risks, they maintain that they put $1 billion of their overall budget towards water. In 2003, they received an additional budget of $600 million to deal with the water systems. That $1.6- billion fund will come to an end at the end of this fiscal year. We do not know what will happen for the next five years in terms of additional monies.
From that perspective, the impact of that 2-per-cent cap is real. It means they are not spending money on schools, roads or other priority areas. First Nations are forced to comply with the national priority list, which means that although they might have minor capital dished out to them every year by the department of Indian affairs, they are told how to spend it based on the national priority matrix. From that perspective, they might need money for housing but because of this priority on water, they are forced to spend their 20 per cent share of the monies they receive from the federal government for water.
Senator Hubley: What criteria were used to identify the 97 communities that are considered still at high risk? What sort of conditions are we looking at to say that the community is considered high risk?
Mr. Commanda: The federal government developed this risk assessment tool to assess the water systems on a ranking basis. According to the ranking system, this weighted assessment comprised five components. The first component is the water source. Open water is a higher risk water source than a drilled well because a lot of contamination can happen.
The second component is design. Was the design of the water system appropriate to meet the needs of the community? In some cases it has been suggested that some of these systems have been over-designed. However, in our case, because they are using older federal standards, they are not up to the same current class of standards as the province and the municipalities in Ontario. From our perspective, there is a need to look at the design standards for building these systems.
The third component is the operation itself. How are these plants and water facilities run? Who looks after replacing a water pump? Who ensures that there is a good, proper mix of chlorination? That is being assessed.
Another component is reporting. Are the chief and council, are the health officials receiving a regular up-to-date report as to the quality of the water, or are no reports coming in and people are drinking water that is contaminated or should have a boil-water advisory. I think they have also used that assessment.
Finally, the other area is the operator.
If there is a problem with any one of these five risk assessments they are either classed as medium risk or high risk. A low-risk community is one that has satisfied all five conditions.
They have tried to mix the boil-water advisories by Health Canada and match it with their own yearly annual assessment. This assessment is not a professional engineer's: It is by someone from the department who may telephone the community.
That is why we are not happy with the risk assessment tool they are using. Although those 97 communities have been rated as high risk, from our perspective, we ask that every system be assessed by a professional engineer.
Senator Hubley: We heard from previous witnesses that the idea that clean drinking water from natural sources should be a right is no longer recognized. For environmental reasons and because of the amount of pollution in our country, that right is no longer an option.
You mentioned customary law. It was described to us that where traditionally one could go to the riverbank, scoop out the water, take it home and use it how ever one wanted, that is not the case anymore.
What type of customary law is now in place, or what type of customs would you like to see implemented within any sort of a safe-drinking-water system?
Candice Metallic, Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations: We tried to put our minds to this difficult question when the expert panel included it in their report. The problem with customary laws is that every First Nation has customs, practices and traditions that are distinct to their own First Nation. The way in which First Nations have dealt with water issues in the past differs across the country. Also, those practices, customs and laws have evolved over time.
My first point would be that to think of the issue in the pure traditional context would not necessarily be the best approach because our circumstances are clearly different today. The question is more about the way in which each community exercises its jurisdiction with respect to water regulation, as opposed to how it deals with water specifically.
Senator Hubley: You have given us a lot of information on the need for technical support. Systems must work and they must be efficient. There was a suggestion that perhaps communities might look at adjacent communities to see if a management plan can be put in place to bring those communities together under one system. Is that something that the Assembly of First Nations would endorse?
Mr. Commanda: We have looked at management systems. Our communities are small, and British Columbia probably has the highest number of small communities. The federal government has created, throughout the country, a system of tribal councils. We see the tribal council as a unit of additional service. When we talk about providing certified plant operators, a supervisor of existing plant operators, or a system to oversee the management of water systems in the communities, we feel that aggregate model would be a good aggregate one for us to follow. We call it a hub model.
In terms of that approach, the federal government has proposed that they bring in third-party managers, certified operators that are not from the community, and pay for their services to oversee the operation of those water systems. That measure is a stopgap one. It does solve the problem. In the long term, we want to see local communities properly trained to manage their own systems. Even with the hub model we propose, we eventually want the communities to take over that responsibility.
That is why we suggest that capacity development needs to be ongoing. The Circuit Rider Training Program has invested a lot of money to train plant operators. With that program, we want to see operators given the additional responsibility for oversight, to manage the systems themselves. We feel that approach is more financially feasible than paying out extra dollars for a third party to come into a community to look after its system.
Senator Watt: I have some understanding of what is meant by customary law. I raised that issue with the so-called expert panel when they were before us the other day. I asked whether they had an opportunity to participate or whether they already were participating with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in terms of designing the regulatory instrument the department is trying to put together. Their answer was that they are not participating. Why not?
My question also applied to AFN. Why do you not participate? Under the name of partnership, if that means anything at all, why not work together and design from a different perspective? You can also learn a lot from provincial regimes that already apply across the country. I do not think that regime is totally negative. I think you can learn from a regime, take a part of it, and marry the customary aspects into it.
``Customary'' means having an understanding of nature, how the water system operates, how it flows and how it transacts with the planet and the universe. You have to convince the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs somehow, and probably also the expert panel, that they need you to design the system. Otherwise, you will wait year after year, not able to get to the point, and continuously having disagreements. I suggest to my colleagues: That should be our recommendation.
I do not have any questions.
Mr. Jock: That is exactly the point we tried to emphasize, and I will reinforce it. We are interested in joint efforts to draft effective legislation. If First Nations were involved directly, then even designing effective interim measures would not be out of the question. Being involved in the design and sequencing of those systems, and maybe even looking at the standards in terms of the financing, would be ingredients for a successful effort.
I support your comment. That is what we have tried to put forward, and we would welcome such a recommendation.
Ms. Metallic: If I may add a comment in respect of provincial standards, to some extent, I agree that lessons can be learned from provincial laws and regulations with respect to water regulation and management. The concern from a First Nations perspective is that when we start applying provincial laws to First Nations reserves, it becomes a slippery slope. Right now we are also dealing with matrimonial real property. That area is another one where the federal government thinks the best approach is to apply provincial regulations, laws and standards.
When we look at all the various legislative initiatives that contemplate applying provincial regulations and laws to First Nation lands, it is a great concern for us. There is a historical precedent. Section 88 of the Indian Act states that provincial laws of general application do not apply to Indian lands. Provincial laws may apply to Indians, but not the lands themselves. An historical principle underlies that.
When provincial laws are imposed through the back door by incorporating them by reference and giving them the robe of federal law, it becomes a concern for us. There may be First Nations who think they want to abide by the provincial regulatory regime because it works for their community. We are not saying it is not a possibility, but clearly First Nations need to have some voice in figuring out whether a provincial regime is appropriate for their community.
Senator Watt: I am not taking about accepting provincial laws into your reserve. I am talking about the tools and instruments used by the provincial government; take those tools and instruments and put them into yours. I do not suggest you should look into the possibility of having the provincial government play a role in your life.
Take those tools and blend them with customary practices within your reserve. I am sure your legal counsel will see that point. It is possible.
Ms. Metallic: The federal government proposes to adopt provincial regulations through referential incorporation. That is the concern.
Senator Watt: You are talking about provincial governments coming into a reserve and taking over management. That is not what I am talking about.
If you want absolute management control over the resources and the regulations of reserves, you must be part of the design of that instrument. You will be there after the fact, before the fact and while you design it.
Suppose you come up with a model acceptable to your community that you really want. You still must go another step to put the hardware in place. Perhaps you should consider contracting a third party to put those models in place. Then put training programs into place. Take that into consideration.
Senator Sibbeston: Would our representatives from the Assembly of First Nations comment on the general situation of Aboriginal people living along rivers and lakes? Historically, Aboriginal people have always lived along rivers and lakes, and Inuit people in the Arctic, where I come from, along the sea.
A general view of the Canadian public is that native people are often affected by large developers, industry and so forth, upstream or in the area. The pollution First Nations must endure is often the result of ongoing societal development.
In some respects it is a fair view. As an example, in northern Alberta, the Fort McMurray tar sands project is so huge it uses a lot of water and eventually puts some of the water back into the river. People living downstream from that project would be adversely affected. That is probably the case throughout the whole country where First Nations live not too far from big cities or manufacturing plants. Do you have any comments on that?
This point is critical and important because Canadians should know they are polluting the waters that the First Nations drink. They deal with their own water adequately because they have the financial resources and technology. First Nations are left scrambling and are dependent on an insensitive and sometimes inept department to look after their interests.
Would you say something about that? That might help people understand your situation.
Mr. Commanda: For some time now, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has been looking at changing the part of the Fisheries Act that speaks to source water protection. From a municipal standpoint, they look at any polluter that impacts the life of the fish from that perspective. When it comes to First Nations people, we are treated no better than the fish in terms of the quality of source water being protected. It might work well for a municipality in the southern part of the country, but when it comes to the isolated North, the standards are reduced.
There are no stringent standards when it comes to waste-water and source-water protection for First Nations communities. They look upon us as being isolated and not in the mainstream. In that regard, they have not heard us when we asked, when using the most stringent standards to protect fish in the water, why are the same standards not used when it comes to First Nation communities? We have not had a clear response from the ministers of the environment when we made presentations to them.
We are as concerned about safe drinking water as we are about how they will deal with the waste water in the Fisheries Act. That is the other side of the coin and the other battle we must fight in relation to the source-water- protection side of this issue of safe drinking water.
Mr. Jock: Relative isolation is not necessarily a protection. Many of our northern communities have significant diesel contamination. That is a factor. Many of the former military bases dumped a lot of their equipment, which has resulted in high levels of PCBs. Even in what should be clear and clean lakes, that is the case.
This issue is important. It is one that has a highly complicating effect on more than safe drinking water.
The Chairman: Our Aboriginal communities clearly are better stewards of the environment. The biggest critics on the environment who talk about pollution are urban people, and the victims end up being Aboriginal peoples.
Do you know how much money would be necessary to bring water systems up to standard? That question may not be fair to ask. You can answer later if you wish. It is important that we know how much the liability is as far as bringing our First Nations up to the standards that would provide them with safe drinking water.
Mr. Commanda: Our rough estimate is $15 billion to $25 billion. In terms of actual numbers, they asked us to pull together figures on the cost to fix the system. What does it cost to maintain the system? We are interested in working with our communities to come up with good, solid numbers around what it would take to look after their system properly in their community.
When we look at the $1.6 billion, we need a continuation of that type of commitment by the federal government to bring all our systems up to the current standard in the protocols now, and that is Ontario's Canadian drinking water standards.
The Chairman: I apologize for not introducing my colleagues tonight: Senator Gill from Quebec, Senator Watt from Quebec, Senator Hubley from P.E.I. and the Deputy Chairman, Senator Sibbeston. I thank the AFN, and you, Mr. Jock as the CEO, for your excellent presentation and the support that you brought with you, Ms. Metallic and Mr. Commanda.
We will draft a report, and we hope it will result in some of the recommendations that you have come up with here tonight. Your presentation is not falling on deaf ears, I assure you. I hope we can come up with something that will resolve this unacceptable situation that exists in our Aboriginal communities across Canada.
Colleagues, we have a budget in regards to the special study on drinking water. It is $2,000 for basic services. Can I have a motion that this budget be adopted? We are not an expensive committee. We are a frugal organization.
Senator Hubley: I so move.
The Chairman: Seconded by Senator Gill. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee continued in camera.