Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of November 28, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:17 p.m. to examine and report upon the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, as this is one of our first meetings, I will go around the room. From the eastern part of the country, we have Senator Hubley; from the North, Senator Sibbeston; and I would like to welcome Senator Dallaire to the committee. Senator Dallaire is a great addition and brings a wealth of knowledge in dealing with people in areas of distress. We look forward to your input, senator, and welcome to the team. We work as a team, and if you would like to say anything, do not sit there and ponder whether you should; do it. We try to operate in a non-partisan fashion. It is not about us; it is about the First Nations, the constituency we are trying to assist and work with.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much; I am honoured. I asked to join this committee and I am honoured that I have permitted me to join. I am also humbled by the enormous task we have in front of us with our work for Aboriginal peoples. I look forward to being useful to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. This evening, we have Senator Gustafson and Senator Peterson, both from Saskatchewan.
Senator Gustafson: Home of the Rough Riders.
The Chair: Honourable senators, this evening we did a study, as most of you know, on safe drinking water for First Nations. Senator Dallaire, I do not know if you have had the opportunity to see this report, but this committee felt this report should be done to monitor where we stand based on the disastrous situations in some of the First Nations communities. As a result of this report and discussions of the committee, it was decided that we would call witnesses from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Tonight we are honoured to have with us Ms. Christine Cram and Mr. Marc Brooks.
Christine Cram, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-economic Policy and Regional Operations Sector, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, good evening to you all. Thank you very much for the opportunity to do a follow-up appearance before you. Mr. Brooks and I were here last May, prior to you producing your report on the issue of water quality on First Nation reserves and we are pleased to be before you once more.
As 2007 comes to an end, First Nation water-related challenges remain of great importance to the Government of Canada and Canadians. In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed itself to implementing a new water strategy to improve access to safe drinking water for First Nations. The government is persisting in its efforts to address the many serious issues surrounding drinking water quality on First Nation reserve.
[Translation]
The government has taken note of this committee's report on safe drinking water for First Nations that was completed in May of this year. The report provided a succinct summation of some of the core challenges in this area and further provided several suggestions to help ameliorate the current situation. These suggestions were concise and useful.
[English]
While I intend to speak to the findings in your report, I also want to talk about the Government of Canada's approach to address some of the challenges identified by the committee. I would like to begin by providing a brief update on safe drinking water activities over the past six months, as well as by highlighting some positive accomplishments.
First, the Government of Canada and Health Canada continue to move forward with multiple initiatives to assist First Nation communities in protecting drinking water quality on reserves. In addition to ongoing implementation of the First Nations Water Management Strategy, the department continues to implement the 2006 Plan of Action and the Protocol for Safe Drinking Water in First Nation communities. These initiatives have helped generate progress in a number of key areas including a reduction in the number of high-risk water treatment systems across Canada, an increase in the number of certified First Nation water treatment plant operators, as well as the provision of critical oversight and monitoring through what is known as the Safe Water Operators Program (SWOP). Additionally, there is a 1-800 hotline that has been set up to assist on reserve water treatment plant operators. I would like to note that another progress report on plan of action is being prepared and this report will highlight more specifically the progress achieved in the above-noted areas.
Of further note are the success stories to which INAC has been witness in recent months. For example, in August of this year, a Manitoba First Nation community experienced a risk to the qualities of its drinking water due to vandalism. This led to the release of formazin and other unknown chemicals into the water reservoir. A do not consume order was immediately put in place due to the operator's recommendation, and bottled water was immediately provided by INAC to the community. As a result of the training received from the Circuit Rider Training Program, the First Nation water treatment operators were able to drain, clean, disinfect and flush the system. They went to all the residences in the community, showing community members how to flush their water lines. As a result, the do-not-consume order was lifted within three days.
[Translation]
In Manitoba, a First Nation community experienced a drinking water quality advisory due to a malfunctioning chlorinator. A replacement chlorinator was installed the next day and the treatment plant operator monitored the chlorine levels at the plant and on the distribution lines. The environmental health officer was contacted, as well as the community-based water monitor who verified the water samples, and the drinking water advisory was lifted shortly thereafter. This is a good example of how the chain of communication was used effectively, thereby preventing a water- related crisis through the use of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's multi-barrier approach.
[English]
These are just two of several good-news stories that are beginning to emerge. They demonstrate that the actions of the department in collaboration with its First Nation partners are generating results.
This past May, this committee issued a final report on safe drinking water for First Nations. The report has been reviewed by INAC officials with great interest. The department took note of the two major recommendations contained within the report, namely: The recommendation to conduct an audit of water systems and independent needs assessment of both the physical assets and human resource needs of individual First Nation communities in relation to the delivery of safe drinking water prior to March 2008; and the need for a comprehensive consultation process with First Nation communities and organizations regarding legislative options to provide standards for water quality on reserve.
In terms of the first recommendation, work is currently underway to finalize the terms of reference for an independent engineering assessment of all water and wastewater systems in First Nation communities. The specific objects of assessment include: On a priority basis, conduct an assessment of public and private water and wastewater systems and associated operational practices in First Nation communities; identify the level of risk associated with each public system; and make recommendations on operational and physical improvements needed to mitigate health and safety risk.
The engineering assessment will also provide INAC with the data necessary to explore the feasibility of providing water services to First Nation households using private, on-site and small-scale communal systems.
In relation to this assessment and the need to renovate our policies on water and wastewater systems, the department engaged the private sector as well as the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association to examine the water and wastewater services of non-First Nation communities with a particular emphasis on small, rural communities.
It was determined that many rural areas and small towns throughout Canada rely upon private, individual water and wastewater systems to meet their needs. They have chosen to do so primarily due to cost, but also for environmental, health and safety reasons. Central, piped systems are generally deemed too expensive to build in small communities due to the cost of the associated piping networks. Centralized pipe systems are also costly to operate and maintain. It requires skilled personnel who are difficult for small communities to find, afford to hire and retain. For these reasons, many small communities prefer on-site systems that are simple, low-cost technologies that provide cost- effective and environmentally-sound solutions on a sustainable basis.
With respect to the committee's second recommendation, the Government of Canada is considering options for the development of a regulatory regime for safe drinking water for First Nation communities. It is important to note that some discussions with First Nations took place while Minister Prentice was the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, regarding his preferred option.
In May, when Mr. Brooks and I were before this committee, we advised you of the option Minister Prentice had discussed with Chief Fontaine to incorporate provincial and territorial standards into a federal regulatory regime. Since these discussions, as you are aware, Minister Strahl has been appointed as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[Translation]
Minister Stahl is giving careful consideration to the various legislative options and to recommendations put forward by the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, as well as the options provided in the report of the expert panel, before he makes recommendations to his cabinet colleagues.
[English]
On a final note, a summative evaluation of the First Nations Water Management Strategy is under way that makes use of data provided by both INAC and Health Canada. The evaluation will assess the progress made in providing safe drinking water and treating wastewater effectively on reserves for the period 2003 to 2007; second, the value created by INAC's investment in water and wastewater systems in First Nation communities; and third, the relevance and appropriateness of the approach developed and implemented through the strategy, along with potential improvements. INAC intends to review the evaluation recommendations with a view to improving program delivery over the longer term.
In closing, much progress has been achieved in the area of First Nation water management; however, more remains to be done. The Government of Canada and, more specifically, Minister Strahl have reiterated on a number of occasions their commitment to assist First Nations in the provision of safe, clean and reliable drinking water. INAC will continue to reduce the number of communities with high-risk drinking water systems and will continue to move forward with the various initiatives that have been outlined today.
We will continue to look to new approaches that will seek to optimize existing resources and reduce the risk to drinking water to ensure that First Nations citizens enjoy access to safe drinking water.
The Chair: Ms. Cram, you said that a new strategy was being developed as a result of the Speech from the Throne, but I did not see anything of a new strategy in that speech. Can you explain what you are doing differently since the Speech from the Throne?
Ms. Cram: When we came here in May, we talked about the fact that the First Nations Water Management Strategy authorities said that funding was up for renewal at the end of March 2008. Since we were last here, we have been working under the current First Nations Water Management Strategy and the action plan on water. I covered a bit of that in my remarks.
Our next stage will be to seek the renewal of the First Nations Water Management Strategy. That is why we are in process of undertaking a summative evaluation. We have an evaluation under way, looking at how we are currently operating. This will give us suggestions on what improvements we need to make. We are also looking at this committee's report and at the expert panel report that was done on possible legislative options.
The Chair: There is not yet a defined strategy. It is in its embryonic or development stage; is that correct?
Ms. Cram: Exactly, it is in its development stage.
Senator Sibbeston: When the new government was formed, I was impressed with Minister Prentice in the sense that he said he would be dealing with the water situation for First Nations people. I had the sense that he was serious. It looked like some new initiatives or more money would be put toward water programs and that something urgent may happen in the department.
Have you seen a difference since the new government has come in as to whether there has been more energy, initiative or money put into this matter of water for our First Nations people?
Ms. Cram: Under the First Nations Water Management Strategy, the department had $1.6 billion over five years. In Budget 2006, we received an additional $60 million over two years. There was also the announcement of the plan of action on water, and two progress reports were tabled in Parliament, one in March of 2006 and the other in December of 2006. We hope to have another progress report in the coming period.
There has been significant improvement in terms of reducing the number of high-risk water systems. I will ask Mr. Brooks to cover the highlights of the improvements that have taken place.
Marc Brooks, Director General, Community Development Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: As Ms. Cram indicated, new funding of $60 million was put forward in Budget 2006. More importantly, there was a new emphasis on ensuring that we could deal with many of the high-risk systems. Two years ago, there were approximately 193 systems out of 752 that were deemed high risk in that all factors being considered, the chance of a problem occurring was quite elevated. The risk to the community was quite high in terms of safe drinking water.
In this case, we put a lot of emphasis on what I will refer to as some of the softer costs. That is, as Ms. Cram indicated, putting forward a 1-800 number to ensure that communities that did not necessarily have a certified water operator did have some form of backup in terms of having a qualified engineer or water technologist who could work with the community.
We have also worked closely with what is referred to as a Circuit Rider Training Program. These are technologists scattered throughout the country who go from community to community in a circuit. They provide not only hands-on training and mentoring, but they have also been showing the water technicians how to troubleshoot and fix the problems and how to perform preventive maintenance. There has been an emphasis in those areas, as well as on trying to reduce the number of high-risk systems. There is an additional focus on training more water plant operators and finding ways to keep them in the community. Certified water plant operators are in high demand throughout the country. This is not just a First Nations problem in terms of retaining water plant operators; it is a problem across Canada.
Senator Sibbeston: Are you the top officials in the department responsible for water for First Nations people?
Ms. Cram: The department is organized in such a way that our work includes the seven regions south of 60. Most delivery in Indian and Northern Affairs is done through its regional office, working with Aboriginal partners. We have the regions south of 60, and that is where the vast majority of reserves are located. The First Nations Water Management Strategy and the action plan deal primarily with reserves. We have a sector that has regional capacity. Mr. Brooks' branch has all the infrastructure programs. He has a team that is dedicated specifically to water. We also have access to engineers, and those engineers do not just deal with water; they may deal with other infrastructure projects.
Senator Sibbeston: I do not know how the federal government works, but I come from the Northwest Territories, where I was involved in government. I was a minister dealing with communities and so forth. I know that if I were a minister and received a report like this, I would absolutely reject it, because it does not indicate that this is an urgent matter. It is not good enough. I do not see that much has changed.
I know that in closing you said that much progress has been achieved in the area of First Nations water management and more remains to be done. That is a general statement that does not mean very much other than, "Yes, we are dealing with it.'' I would have thought that since our Senate committee has done work in this area and helped the government department to focus on the issue, raising it as a real, urgent issue for the people, that the department and officials like you would be on fire and imbued and encouraged and work with a sense of urgency. I do not sense that urgency.
I notice that since our last meeting in the spring, you say, "With respect to the first recommendation.'' Well, all that has been done is that you are finalizing the terms of reference. That is so slow. How many years does it take for you to get things done? Is this the way the federal government is, or is this the way Indian Affairs operates? Does anyone care? Do you not want to do something significant? Do you not want to couch your language in more precise terms rather than saying that much has been done, but more has to be done. Those are general statements that do not amount to anything. It does not satisfy me.
You are officials. Is there not a sense of urgency? Are you not concerned? Are you not burning with zeal to improve the lives of Aboriginal people across our country? Do you just report and say that is just the way things are, and it is just going to take years and years and years. Do you people make a difference at all in the system? Does it matter what our Senate committee says in terms of the work we do? Does it matter?
Ms. Cram: I think it matters a great deal, and this is an area that we think is absolutely important because it affects the health and safety of individuals. We think we have made progress. I will ask Mr. Brooks to give you the specifics. We have made progress on reducing the number of high-risk water systems, and we have made progress in getting certified operators and backup for those certified operators. That has been done in a relatively few number of years. In fact, we are happy that we have been able to make progress. Is it enough progress? I am sure everyone in this room, including ourselves, would agree that we would love to make more progress and have more results to show. I can assure you that every civil servant working on this file is incredibly dedicated to making those improvements. I will ask Mr. Brooks to speak about the specific improvements that have occurred.
Mr. Brooks: I would like to underscore that we do care. If the presentation gave that appearance, it certainly is far from the truth. We do care. We do not like to see any community have health problems. I do not think any Canadian wants anyone to have health and safety issues.
In terms of the high-risk systems, I mentioned that there were 193 when Minister Prentice announced the plan of action. We reduced that number by 50 per cent as of last March. We were down to 97 systems, and there has been another reduction. At this point in time, the numbers are still being finalized for Minister Strahl's next report.
In terms of the number of water plant operators who have undergone training, we have 1,140 trained operators and 463 have reached level 1 certification, which means they are level 1 plant operators right now.
We have put in oversight measures to ensure that if any community system runs into trouble there is some form of built-in backup or redundancy to try to avoid the water problems of the past.
Senator, I will point out that we are trying to take things in a slightly different direction. Ms. Cram mentioned some of the studies undertaken in terms of rural Canada. Many rural Canadians, and I include myself in that group, have individual wells and septic systems. I will tell you the water from my system works extremely well. I have it tested once a year to make sure it is fine and meets the standards. We have many comparable communities, non-First Nations communities, which do not have water treatments systems. They are on individual wells and septic tanks. We are looking at those communities as part of our assessment.
You indicated that we are taking a long time on the terms of reference. We are working closely with our First Nations partners and other stakeholders in this area and looking at what is the best type of water solution for the communities. We are not looking at them as just a made-in-Indian Affairs term of reference. At the end of the useful life of their existing system, what is the better solution to put in place? Through the measures, we are hopeful to be able to provide for communities and that the communities will be able to adopt and adapt to the solutions that will ensure better health and safety outcomes.
Senator Sibbeston: In your statement, you said that the government takes note of the committee's report. You go on to say that the committee provides several suggestions. How noble and how kind of you to take note and to turn our recommendations into suggestions. You weaken it so much; you dismiss it. I get the impression that you do not take us very seriously. You note that we made a report to you, and you consider the recommendations we have made as suggestions. That is very weak. I just wish there was more fire, more of a sense of urgency, more of a sense of dedication, a sense that you are putting your life on the line for the First Nations people of our country.
In the North, when I was in government, a report like this would never have passed because it is insufficient. When you want to do something, you just do it, but you are just at the stage of finalizing the terms of reference. How many more years will it take? Surely if you are high enough up in the government department, can you not deal with these things in a more urgent and efficient manner than having six months or so to just consider the terms of reference? That is so lame. That is so little. That is just typical. It makes me think of a typical federal government. This is why First Nations people in our country are concerned, because nothing happens. I do not know what it would take to light fires under people like you, but I do not get the impression you are imbued with a sense of urgency. I do not see any determination to do anything. You are just carrying on in the regular old same fashion. "It is just Indian people. We will deal with them and tend to them when the time comes. It will take years, you know.'' I get the feeling that when we hear from you in six months we will see a similar report.
The Chair: I think they get the message, senator. I am not restricting this, but I have four other senators who definitely want to ask some questions. I understand what you are saying. Are you prepared to make a response?
Ms. Cram: I guess all I can assure you is that both Mr. Brooks and I understand the seriousness of this matter and we are attempting to make as much progress as we can. I am sorry if you interpret the language to be that we do not take your recommendations seriously.
Senator Sibbeston: They are just suggestions to you, and you noted them.
Ms. Cram: The first recommendation is to do an assessment, which indeed we are doing. I accept that your view is that we are not doing it fast enough.
The second recommendation is to do with the need to consult before moving on a legislative or regulatory option. I think what this committee heard last spring was different views about the best legislative and regulatory options.
The Chair: Do you have the authority at your level to make the changes that would make the difference?
I do not doubt your dedication or commitment to your job. The only thing is have you the authority to make the difference or do you have to go through a chain of command that theoretically, regardless of how fired up you would be, you would not be able to get there?
I have been in a minister in Ottawa and I know how cumbersome this process can be. That is why I ask this question. The fact is that we each have responsibilities here, but could you make a significant difference for safe drinking water for First Nations?
Ms. Cram: We can operate within the parameters of the First Nations Water Management Strategy, which is what we have been doing. To move to a new legislative model requires cabinet authority; therefore, we would need ministers to agree to that model.
In terms of the assessment, as long as we can do it within the funding that we have in the First Nations Water Management Strategy — we will have that funding until the end of March and we will be seeking a renewal — we can do the assessment. We will have to follow the appropriate procurement process in order to initiate that work though.
The Chair: The public view of this is that we have a $9.7 billion budget for Indian and Northern Affairs. We have done a report and there is an onus on us as parliamentarians, which is what Senator Sibbeston is trying to get at. If we cannot provide First Nations communities with safe drinking water we had better get excited about this issue if we still have 97 high-risk systems. One is too many, if one child dies from unsafe drinking water. I am sorry about that, but that is our position. We hope you understand what drives our concern.
Senator Peterson: I would like you to expand on the systems audit. I presume that the report of the Senate committee, the report of the expert panel committee is being made available to whoever is putting these terms of reference together. I presume that dealing with the regulatory standards would be a part of that as well, along with the physical and human capacity to implement them.
I would hope that at the end of the period of this audit that we would be able to identify the challenges that we face so that the work plan can be moved ahead. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Brooks: What we are looking for in the assessment is part of the reason it has taken a bit of time with the terms of reference. First, we are working closely with many First Nation stakeholders. We have to bear that in mind because we are dealing with First Nations communities and they certainly have an important stake in the outcomes.
We will be looking at all the various approaches, including the First Nation Water Management Strategy, which are the non-regulatory standards that we have in the department. We will also be looking at the operations and maintenance spending allocated to each community for system maintenance, operator training, salaries, and things of that nature.
We are also auditing the systems. How well are the systems functioning? We do have incidents in certain communities where some First Nation members do not like the taste of chlorine so they disconnect a chlorinator in a water system. That can result in the possible degeneration of the water and chloroform problems will occur. These are issues that we will be able to notice in going through the complete assessment and audit of all the wastewater systems.
I wish to underscore that we will not only be looking at the community systems themselves, but also some of the individual systems — the private wells within the communities. We will be looking at the hydrology studies within the various communities to identify the best solutions to provide clean, safe drinking water to all citizens.
Senator Peterson: How long do you think it will take to complete this audit?
Mr. Brooks: Approximately 640 communities have some form of water systems including private wells and water treatment systems. When the engineering firms come back, they will have to tell us how long they think it will take. We would like to see it completed within 18 months.
Senator Peterson: The last time we met the Circuit Rider Training Program was a major issue. It was indicated that there were not funds available for that program, which begs the question why you put regulatory standards in place when they cannot be met. They do not have the people in place who understand the problems.
Is your report going to address that issue? You say you have been training and certifying. Have you found the money to deal with this issue?
Mr. Brooks: With the plan of action, we had some identified funding to enhance the training activities as well as the circuit rider training activities. We undertook a study to see how many circuit rider operators are required to ensure enough operators to work with the communities; we are striving for a six-to-one ratio.
With that, we estimate we have to hire another 30 to 40 circuit riders, depending on the proximity of the communities. In this regard, we are going ahead with an enhancement of the system.
Senator Peterson: They are key to the whole thing. You can have all the regulations you want, but without people to implement them, the system will not work.
Mr. Brooks: We agree. The last time we met — and it may not have occurred at that point — the circuit riders were semi-autonomous organizations or individuals throughout the country. We have brought them together to exchange best practices and ensure national cohesion.
Senator Gustafson: I liked your comments on water supply. Is getting water a big factor? Are you using wells? I suppose it varies from place to place.
Mr. Brooks: The current policy is that we will be going forward to change — and this is within our authority to be able to effect that change —from the mid-1980s. Under this policy, we do not provide funding for systems that have fewer than five connections. If you had a community well that had five or more connections, the department would provide the funding but we were not funding individual wells.
There are approximately 14,000 individual wells in First Nations communities throughout the country but they have been funded either by the bands themselves or by individuals. As a result, in some instances, the wells have not been commissioned properly. They have not always been dug deep enough to a good aquifer; perhaps as soon as they hit water, they would stop because of lack of funding. We are looking to try and change that so that we can support individual wells and septic systems.
Senator Gustafson: Are there health problems coming from this type of water supply now? Have you run into that issue?
Mr. Brooks: We have heard that there are issues with individual wells. There have been some cases reported in a few of the communities. There was a case up in the Yukon about four weeks ago. The department has worked with the community, which is a self-governing First Nation. We have provided them with technical advice together with the Yukon territorial government.
Senator Gustafson: The way in which communities conduct themselves is very important. We have had water and sewer problems to no end in the little town that I live in. Engineers want to come out from Regina and want more money to analyze the situation than it takes to fix it. They fixed the problem, and yet it still does not work. Any practical person could have built a holding tank, put a big pump on it and pumped the sewer out. However, it becomes a challenge to be practical.
I would think that this would be a major challenge for the department. Do you have familiar contractors who stick with the department and go from problem to problem? How does that work? Is that left up to the community?
Mr. Brooks: Basically, it is up to the community. The communities themselves undertake the contracting for the systems themselves. The department tries to provide technical advice when we can. The problem is, we have engineers on staff and, like all departments, we are short-staffed in terms of those engineers. We do provide as much technical support as we can. Basically, everything is contracted out.
In terms of oversight for the communities, I mentioned the 1-800 number. We have contracted for these activities ourselves to ensure the funding is there and the activities do occur.
Senator Hubley: I welcome you both this evening. I was certainly pleased to see the number of preventive maintenance initiatives that have taken place. It shows me that you are moving in the right direction and progress is being made.
I am wondering if you might help me with the figures. In March, the first progress report — Mr. Brooks, I think you mentioned this — showed there were 193 on-reserve high-risk drinking water systems, and it went down to 97 at that time. Approximately how long did that take? Did that decrease happen from the beginning of the plan of action?
Mr. Brooks: Yes, it did. It took about a year to reduce that number.
Senator Hubley: There was a question on the number of high-risk water systems and you mentioned that perhaps the minister was waiting to get the figures. Can you give us any idea as to whether it would have halved itself again? Would it have dropped that dramatically?
Mr. Brooks: I would like to say it has, but it has not dropped dramatically. We do, however, have a substantial reduction.
Senator Hubley: Can you give me any idea of what that would be in terms of a percentage or a number? I am not trying to second guess the minister's report or his progress report.
Mr. Brooks: Minister Prentice indicated in his March 2007 report that he wanted to reduce the high-risk systems by another 50 per cent, and that is what we are striving to do this year. I hope that we will go down even further over the course of this fiscal year. We are trying to get the figure of 97 down to 49, if we can, by the end of this fiscal year. We are striving to improve on that number.
Senator Hubley: Are you getting close?
Mr. Brooks: I think we are making significant progress.
Senator Hubley: I will leave it at that and hope that we are decreasing the number of high-risk systems. The figures are important because they indicate that we are taking the issue seriously. I understand that some situations are easy to solve in the beginning, but I am sure some are more of a challenge to you.
When you talk about an on-reserve high-risk drinking water system, is that a community system or an individual system? Could there be 10 different water systems in one community?
Mr. Brooks: There could very easily be three, four or 10 systems. Sometimes there are communal wells that may serve 10 houses, and that would be considered a system.
When we are referring to a high-risk system, it is actually a system. Theoretically, there could be 10 systems within a community for various suburbs, but only one of those systems may be high-risk.
Senator Hubley: Obviously, there have been a number of communities taken off of that high-risk list. Have any of them been put back on the list?
Mr. Brooks: I will have to check. To the best of my knowledge, one community went from medium-risk to high-risk. I do not know if it was a community that had been reduced down. I would be happy to provide you with that information.
Senator Hubley: That information would be of interest to the committee. I am sure that some communities would be placed back on the high-risk list. Do you have any examples of that situation? Perhaps, the system works so well that it does not happen.
Do you feel that we are taking the correct approach? Are we doing it properly?
Mr. Brooks: I do not understand what you mean in terms of "the approach.''
Senator Hubley: From your experience and the successes you have seen, do you see that we are doing things correctly? Would more money accelerate the process and help us reach an acceptable standard of water quality?
Ms. Cram: I think Mr. Brooks was speaking earlier about how, as part of the assessment we are doing, we want to see whether there are other options that might meet the needs. In many cases, we need to build big plants. We recognize that it takes a lot of capacity and money to operate big plants, and maybe that is not always the best solution.
Through this review, we want to recognize the best cost-effective means; what works best with the capacity and what will deliver the best solution for a particular community. We want to consider that and look at the idea of wells and septic tanks, which in some cases, may be good options instead of installing a big plant in a small community where it will present challenges in terms of the capacity to run it.
Senator Hubley: Speaking of systems, do we have a choice in systems? Are there programs in other parts of the world that utilize different technologies? Is it an ongoing process in your department that you are continually looking for a better way of building the mouse trap?
Mr. Brooks: Yes, it is. In terms of the research, we work with the Canadian International Development Agency, as an example. I worked with CIDA many years ago on water solutions for developing countries. There are systems used overseas that are adaptable for many of the communities here at a lower cost, which is part of the reason we are trying to focus more on individual wells. We are looking at more individual accountability and responsibility for various home dwellers.
Senator Hubley: How far are we from making some of those major decisions in how to solve the problem?
Mr. Brooks: I do not know that the decisions will solve all of the problems, as Ms. Cram pointed out. Wells and septic tanks are not the right solutions for all communities. We are striving toward small systems commensurate with the needs of the community.
We are working on policy development right now, as well as preparing a standard for the commissioning and decommissioning of individual wells. Once the policy change is affected, we want to ensure some form of standard accompany it so communities and individuals understand the expectations.
Senator Dallaire: I wish to indicate that as I am on a rather steep learning curve here, and as a visual person, I will be looking to the clerk for things like maps and organizational charts. Second, I hope to change my initial reaction, based on my experience on the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is paternalistic and not progressive. I hope to learn whether that is actually the attitude or the way of being of that organization and its culture.
Ms. Cram mentioned that INAC is there to assist the First Nations. Is that an articulated mandate that INAC is there to assist the Aboriginal people, or is there a more specific legislative responsibility?
Ms. Cram: We do have legislation under which we work. The Indian Act is the primary piece of legislation dealing with reserves. In addition, every self-governing First Nation and those that have negotiated modern treaties have legislation under which they operate.
When we use language like "assist,'' part of it is the shift that occurred in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada over time. Prior to the 1980s, the department had delivered programming. In the 1980s, devolution occurred. The government responded to demands by First Nations that said they could do a better job than INAC in providing services to their constituents. There was a shift to move service delivery from the department to First Nation governments and other organizations.
In many cases, what we really do is provide funding. About 85 per cent of the department's budget is spent in funding that is delivered to First Nations and other organizations. In some cases the department will retain certain activities. For example, First Nations governments would have enough water operators on staff. However, as Mr. Brooks indicated, some backup has been given to provide operators. Where we recognize or see a gap, the department may enter into contracts to provide these services for communities that are not able to do it on their own. We will do that on an interim basis.
Senator Dallaire: You have indicated that when a gap is identified, you may be involved in trying to assist. How much can INAC be held accountable for problems? Are you interpreting an implementation of a new methodology that has not devolved your responsibility, but rather has only devolved the service delivery while responsibility remains with the department?
Ms. Cram: We would say that our department is responsible. Parliament appropriates funds to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to do certain things. Our minister is responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of those funds.
You point out a challenge in that we are not the ultimate deliverer, but we use certain means, such as funding instruments, to have accountability for the expenditures. Money is provided to those First Nation governments and organizations and they are required to report to the department on the expenditure of those funds.
Over time, we want to move toward those First Nations governments being accountable to their constituents. Now, they produce an annual audit, but we would like shared accountability, where First Nation governments are accountable to their citizens at the same time that the department and the minister are accountable to Parliament.
Where you have a self-governing First Nation, that accountability has shifted already.
Senator Dallaire: However, they do not go directly to the federal government, they go to INAC.
Ms. Cram: They usually receive a grant.
Senator Dallaire: We know the 2008-09 budget is not approved. However, we also know that there is a five-year program. Is it $1.6 billion or $600 million?
Ms. Cram: I must apologize, it is $1.6 billion. There is $1 billion in INAC's A- Base, $600 million is associated with the First Nations Water Management Strategy and it is that piece for which we will be seeking renewal on March 31.
Senator Dallaire: It was new money in 2003, but it was not incorporated into the A-Base when you received it. Is it still a project that must by approved by Treasury Board?
Ms. Cram: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Is it identified in a proposal for 2008-09 to cover the next five years? Are you seeking $800 million?
Ms. Cram: We need to go to cabinet, and then we need to see if it appears in the budget. We are still developing the proposal.
Senator Dallaire: Do you not have that money?
Ms. Cram: No, the extra $600 million will end March 31, 2008. Now we are working on a new proposal for the extension. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you how much money we will be requesting.
Senator Dallaire: It is a project that you want to pursue and this money is not in your A-Base. You also do not have in your funding line a promissory note in the overall plan. Is the department's overall demand for funds incorporating the $600 million or will that be something new that will be dropped on the minister.
Ms. Cram: It will be something new. It is a program as opposed to a project. Programs that come up for renewal may vary from two to five years. We have a program coming up for renewal and its five-year period ends March 31, 2008. Each department needs to come forward with proposals for the renewal of those programs. We are working on such a proposal that we will bring to the minister.
Senator Dallaire: I spent four years in project management and capital acquisitions at DND. This is like a major Crown project, and I am just concerned at how far your term "strategy'' is mature to actually defend this program being renewed. We are in November and the budget is in February, and they probably asked in September for the proposals of budgetary demands. How far are you down the road with this requirement for the $600 million, or are you going for more?
Ms. Cram: I would say that we are advanced on developing proposals. Generally speaking, the time frame that departments work towards is to get to cabinet prior to Christmas in the hopes to get into a subsequent budget. We are working towards being in cabinet before Christmas.
Senator Dallaire: Do you have a memorandum prepared?
Ms. Cram: We are working on that.
Senator Dallaire: It seems a little late in the exercise, particularly when you say that the strategy is still evolving. You are still looking at new methodologies of actually providing this capability. It seems to me that you are a bit behind the power curve, but I am not familiar with your department so much as the other ones.
I have a question about contracting out and a concern about expertise and training people, and so on. Why is the whole process not contracted out in a national omnibus capability with, perhaps, local particular arrangements so that we can hold contractors accountable — or you can.
Is there a national contracting out methodology that oversights it and then you have some problem areas, or is every contract creating these 197, or other problems?
Mr. Brooks: There is not an overall omnibus approach. Since we are working with our First Nation stakeholders, there are different approaches. In Alberta, there is an Aboriginal technical services group that provides engineering services. We have worked with them. We have provided the funding to this group, who have worked with the Circuit Rider Training Program. As I mentioned before, the Circuit Rider Training Program was an autonomous organization and was not knitted into a national organization. We are striving to go down that road with the circuit rider group. Individual approaches are used. Various organizations offer the training: In Ontario, there is a training centre near Walkerton and in Edmonton, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology offers training also.
Senator Dallaire: If you contract it out, they should be providing the training. Are you contracting out turnkey operations or portions of it and then you have to fill in other things such as a training or emergency program? Does the contracting out cover all of that, or do you have to fill in the gaps?
Mr. Brooks: In essence, most of the funding, as Ms. Cram explained, has devolved to the First Nation communities. In this case, many of the individuals are responsible for their own training. They are provided funding for their training.
Senator Dallaire: How can we hold you accountable? There is a bit of a problem here. We cannot crucify them if it is local. Are they getting enough money to do the job? Are they being had by the contractors and maybe we should be beating on other doors? Again, it is part of my education, and I do not want to push that envelope too much.
I would like to come to the question of provinces and the First Nations. Why would we even want to talk to provinces about their concerns with First Nations? Why should we be worried about meeting provincial water standards or water requirements, when we are fundamentally talking about a federal responsibility towards people who are turning to the federal government for capabilities? We have a department that is being held accountable for that. What role does the province play in this exercise?
Ms. Cram: That is a very good question about the province. I will speak specifically to the province vis-à-vis water.
First, it is important that the water standards on reserve are what would be compatible with the standards found off reserve, because water does not stay in one place but moves from place to place. You need to have a consistent approach. Second, in a number of cases First Nations obtain their water from the near by municipal systems. To meet the water needs of a community, you ask: Is there some capacity that is in the nearby community? They then enter into service agreements with the municipality with the provision of that water. You would want the same kind of standard to be operating in that municipality as you would for it operating on reserve. You would not want different levels of testing or whatever.
Senator Dallaire: Maybe, if you can provide something better than the community that does not have the tax base to do it, of course you would want to do it. If it is not on the negative side, but on the positive side, why not? If we have the capability of providing something better, why not do it? Like protecting the sources of water, why not do that too, to a better level than the province or the local municipality.
Ms. Cram: You could, but we would not want to make it impossible for a First Nation community to purchase its water from a municipality because it did not meet a federal standard that we deem to be higher than the provincial standard.
Senator Dallaire: That might be an extreme scenario, but I am very leery of provincial arrangements within the federal structures. I am not convinced that the federal-provincial interface is necessarily a positive one — not only for water but also for the social programs. On the one hand, they say that the federal government is taking care of them; while on the other hand, they say we cannot move because there is a provincial standard.
I would be far more interested in working with the federal side. We will take care of that and we will see how the provincial side works out and not be constrained by that. That is a back-drop to my question.
Ms. Cram: I wish to use education as an example and talk about why it is important to work closely with the provinces. About 50 per cent of the children who are normally residents on reserve go to school off reserve. This is common at the secondary school level because many First Nation communities are too small to have a high school. If they are in a very isolated region, then they would probably have a school that goes kindergarten to Grade 12. However, if they are closer to urban areas, the children would normally go to a provincial high school. Therefore, 50 per cent of the kids are going to school in provincial schools. We need to work very closely with the province because, at the end of the day, we want the kids that graduate either from the on-reserve school or the provincial school to be able to be recognized by that province as reaching Grade 12 and be able to be accepted into post-secondary institutions. I offer that as an example of why we have to work closely with provinces.
Senator Dallaire: I agree with "in collaboration with,'' and so on, but not necessarily "in subordination thereof,'' or held to ransom by them. If it suits our needs, fine. If it does not, we should be sorting it out ourselves. I find that when we try to be too much with the provinces, we tend to devalue ourselves to a standard that may not be that good, and we could be better by investing more. My bottom line is that $9.7 billion in good American language "ain't that much'' for one million people in a country that we are holding near colonial rules. Certainly, I will be working on that.
The Chair: That is good news. Perhaps you will get more money.
Mr. Brooks, you said that you were in the process of doing an assessment.
Mr. Brooks: We are finalizing the terms of reference.
The Chair: The first recommendation in the committee's report was that DIAND provide a professional audit of the water system facilities. Have you done anything in respect of that matter?
Mr. Brooks: These are the terms of reference to which I referred.
The Chair: This is tied in with the assessment.
Mr. Brooks: Yes. If I may, senator, every three years we undertake a review of each system, doing one third each year, in what is referred to as our assets condition reporting division. We look at the assets and we go in depth beyond just the systems to the operation and maintenance aspects looking for the right solution for the community.
The Chair: You are making progress but I hear from colleagues tonight that there has to be a sense of urgency. If, in the one of the richest countries in the world that is generating wealth at an astronomical rate, we cannot give everybody safe drinking water then there is a problem. I cannot go to bed at night and sleep while I sit on a committee that is part of the federal system that has the fiduciary responsibility to First Nations people. Everybody should have safe drinking water, First Nations or tourists. Everyone is entitled to safe drinking water in a rich country like ours.
Ms. Cram said something in respect of sufficient funding for this initiative. We cannot have another Kashechewan. I do not care who is in government, whether the NDP, the Bloc, the Conservatives or the Liberals, such an incident is unacceptable to Canadians. I am trying to relay the urgency that Senator Sibbeston relayed to you. I cannot believe that we are not further down the road on this assessment. Perhaps you are not the right people for us to talk to about this but I hope you are. As Senator Dallaire said, the department is complex and matters are so scattered that I can only hope that our message is getting through. When you complete the assessment, I would ask you to make a copy of it available to the committee as soon as possible.
Senator Peterson: First, I do not think we are talking about the assessment but rather about the terms of reference and then another 18 months to complete the terms of reference. Is that right?
Mr. Brooks: No.
Senator Peterson: When do you think you will complete the terms of reference.
Mr. Brooks: It will be complete within the next few weeks. This will be publicly tendered so we have to go through a process.
Senator Peterson: Then, things will begin to happen. In the interim, do you do crisis management if a problem occurs? Do you have to jump in and solve it ahead of this report?
Mr. Brooks: With the oversight that has been put into place, the crisis management circumstances of that have been mitigated quite a bit. Our department is involved if a water issue arises in a community. Ms. Cram has demonstrated that the oversight has produced fairly successful results.
Senator Peterson: Could the committee have an interim report every six months to know how this is going rather than wait 18 months?
Mr. Brooks: We would be more than happy to put this in the terms of reference to determine whether we can have an interim report every six months.
Senator Dallaire: Because of the water scenario and many other factors, would legislation on safe water for First Nations guarantee your funding base? Would that not be more positive than trying to work it on a five-year annual program, which can or cannot work in applying this side of the problem?
Ms. Cram: Legislation would be a positive development. Whether it would ensure the money would depend on how the legislation is written. One option would be to write the conditions into the legislation; it might be a way to ensure that you have adequate funding.
Senator Dallaire: Is that being proposed to the minister? Is the Policy Branch in your department looking at that option?
Ms. Cram: We have not come that far along with the legislation because, in keeping with the report, we are looking at the matter of consultation first.
The Chair: I thank the witnesses for appearing this evening and compliment them for standing firm in these trying times because this could be a volatile issue. There is no doubt that this committee has taken the matter seriously. The message to Indian and Northern Affairs is that we have to notch it up a gear or four to produce some results sooner rather than later.
Again, thank you for your patience and understanding.
The committee adjourned.