Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of April 14, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: safe drinking water).
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I would like to welcome you, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings on the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the web.
I am Senator Lillian Dyck, from Saskatchewan. I am the deputy chair of the committee. In the absence of our chair this evening, I am taking over the role of the chair.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Metis and Inuit.
In May, 2007, this committee released a report concerning the delivery of drinking water on reserve entitled Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. The committee's report recommended that two actions be undertaken by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: First, an independent needs assessment of both the physical and human resource needs of individual First Nations community water and waste water systems; and, second, comprehensive consultations on the legislative options proposed by the Expert Panel of Safe Drinking Water and the Assembly of First Nations.
On April 14, 2008, the committee received the government's response to its report. The response indicated that a detailed engineering assessment that would examine physical and human resource needs would be completed by fall 2009, with an investment plan developed by April 2010.
The response also indicated that INAC would consult First Nations on the option of a regulatory regime that would incorporate by reference provincial and territorial regulations.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to obtain a follow-up by officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada as to whether progress is being made in the provision of safe drinking water, and to provide details of that progress, or lack of progress.
Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are present. On my left we have Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island; Senator Greene Raine from British Columbia; on my right, Senator Patterson from Nunavut; Senator Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick; next to her, Senator Seidman from Quebec; Senator Brazeau from Quebec; Senator Lang from the Yukon Territory; and, at the end, Senator Poirier from New Brunswick.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses this evening. From Indian and Northern Affairs Canada — and we keep seeing these individuals over and over, so they are well known to us — Gina Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister; and Karl Carisse, Senior Director.
From Health Canada, we have Debra Gillis, Director, Primary Health Care Division; and Dominique Poulin, Manager, Drinking Water Program.
Welcome to you all. We look forward to your presentations. The officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, will go first. Please proceed.
Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, thank you very much for this opportunity to provide you with updates on the department's activities in regard to ensuring the provision of safe drinking water, which is critical in insuring the health and safety of First Nations people.
[Translation]
I will begin today by outlining the Government of Canada's progress in regard to water, as well as share with you the response to the recommendations made by your committee in the 2007 Safe Drinking Water Report, and the investments in water since 2006, and discuss our future plans in regard to water.
[English]
The Government of Canada has made significant progress since 2006 in the provision of safe drinking water for First Nations on-reserve.
There are currently 766 water systems in First Nations communities across Canada. Of that number, 193 were identified in 2006 as having significant deficiencies. Today, that number has been reduced by more than two thirds, to 49 systems. In addition, 21 communities were identified as priorities, which meant that the community had both a high- risk water system and a drinking water advisory. Today, only three communities remain on that list. The department continues to work with the remaining priority communities to address outstanding issues.
The department has also expanded the Circuit Rider Training Program that helps train and oversee the work of First Nations water and waste water system operators. As of March 2009, the number of water treatment operators with their first level of certification or greater has increased from 41 per cent to 64 per cent, representing 791 out of the 1,226 water system operators across the country.
In its report entitled Safe Drinking Water for First Nations, your committee made two recommendations.
I apologize, Madam Chair, but I am repeating what you said in your opening remarks.
The first was that the department provide for a professional audit of water system facilities as well as an independent needs assessment of First Nation communities' water and waste water systems. The National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems is currently under way, with one third of the assessment already complete, and the remaining two thirds to be completed by November 2010. This complex project involves the assessment of 1,300 communal water and waste water systems, and a sampling of over 70,000 wells, cisterns and septic fields in 607 First Nation communities across the country.
[Translation]
The National Assessment will identify on-reserve water and wastewater servicing needs, propose servicing options, estimate the cost to implement solutions, and recommend long-term infrastructure development strategies to address needs in each community on a sustainable basis.
[English]
The second recommendation from your report was that the department undertake a comprehensive consultation process with First Nation communities and organizations about legislative options. In this regard, the department and Health Canada have been working with First Nations to ensure a workable legislative and regulatory regime for safe drinking water and waste water in First Nation communities.
The federal government has engaged with First Nations on water legislation on three occasions. It first met and shared information with First Nation organizations in the summer of 2008 on the proposed option of incorporating by reference provincial-territorial regulations and adapting them as required. This was followed by 13 engagement sessions in February and March of 2009 involving 544 individuals from First Nation communities, regional First Nation organizations, and provinces and territories on how to best address the regulatory gap. More recently, discussions have been held with regional First Nation chiefs and First Nation organizations to discuss specific regional issues about the proposed legislative framework.
In preparation for the engagement sessions, the Government of Canada released a discussion paper that outlined the government's proposal of incorporating by reference provincial-territorial regulations to meets the needs of First Nation communities.
The Government of Canada also provided funding to First Nation organizations for the development of regional impact analyses outlining how the proposed legislative framework would potentially impact First Nation regions and communities.
Results of the consultations reflected a range of views from concerns about issues such as inadequate consultation, potential impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, and funding for infrastructure and technical capacity, to strong support for regulatory development and the desire among some First Nation organizations to become a pilot region for the development and implementation of regulations.
[Translation]
The federal government intends to continue to consult with First Nations, provinces, territories and other stakeholders during the development of the regulatory regime.
Now, I would like to say a word about investments. The Government of Canada continues to invest in water and wastewater infrastructure in First Nation communities.
[English]
Between 2006 and 2012, the Government of Canada will have invested over $2.3 billion.
In 2006, the Government of Canada, together with the Assembly of First Nations, announced a Plan of Action for Drinking Water in First Nation Communities, and provided $60 million over two years to improve access to safe drinking water. This funding was over and above the department's annual funding of $197.5 million for water and waste water infrastructure. The plan of action included, among other things, the implementation of the Protocol for Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities, which contains standards for design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of drinking water systems in First Nation communities.
Budget 2008 included a two-year investment of approximately $330 million in the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan for measures such as doubling the funding for the Circuit Rider Training Program, conducting a national assessment of First Nations water and waste water systems in all First Nations communities, and consulting on the creation of a federal legislative framework for drinking water and waste water on-reserve.
In 2009, Canada's Economic Action Plan provided an additional two-year targeted funding of $183 million for the improvement of drinking water and waste water infrastructure projects to address health and safety priorities in 18 First Nation communities across the country. These projects will provide reliable water facilities that are essential to the health and safety of First Nation communities.
I would now like to turn to the way forward.
In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the government reiterated its commitment to improving water for First Nations in First Nation communities, saying, "Having made safe drinking water and effective waste-water treatment on-reserve a national priority, our Government will introduce new legislative measures to further this goal." To this end, the government will continue to work with First Nations, regional First Nations organizations, provinces and territories with respect to next steps toward the development of a legislative framework for drinking water and waste water in First Nation communities.
As the 2010 budget states, "To build on this progress, Budget 2010 extends the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan for two more years." As well, Budget 2010 goes on to state:
Moving forward, the Government intends to place the financing system of on-reserve community infrastructure on a better footing. In particular, the Government will undertake a comprehensive review of its current approach to financing First Nations infrastructure. To be undertaken in partnership with First Nations representatives, the review will focus on ways to more effectively support access by First Nations to alternative sources of financing, and approaches to improve the life-cycle management of capital assets.
[Translation]
Moreover, we will complete the national assessment by November 2010. We will meet our Canada's Economic Action Plan requirements for the 18 water and wastewater projects by March 2011.
We will continue addressing high-risk drinking water and wastewater systems and invest in the training for certification of First Nations water and wastewater operators.
[English]
We recognize that safe, clean drinking water is essential to a community's ability to thrive. We will continue to partner with individual communities, national and regional First Nations organizations, the provinces and territories, Health Canada and Environment Canada so that residents of First Nations can enjoy the same protection afforded to other Canadians when it comes to drinking water.
The Deputy Chair: Do any of your colleagues wish to make a presentation, or shall we move now to Health Canada?
Ms. Cram: We will move to Health Canada.
Debra Gillis, Director, Primary Health Care Division, Primary Health Care and Public Health Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada: On behalf of Health Canada, I would like to thank you for inviting us to be with you today. I would also like to thank the Senate committee for your support in the development of a legislative framework for drinking water in First Nations communities.
My comments this evening will touch on the department's collaborative work with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in the development of the proposed legislative framework and associated regulations. I will also speak to activities undertaken by Health Canada to improve the quality of drinking water in First Nations communities across Canada.
Health Canada is committed to addressing the specific health needs of First Nations in Canada. As such, we continue to work collaboratively with INAC toward ensuring safe drinking water in First Nations communities. The provision of safe drinking water is not only a health and safety issue but also a jurisdictional issue.
Provincial and territorial governments have jurisdiction for drinking water and have developed legislation and regulations to best suit their needs. As on-reserve communities fall under federal jurisdiction, a regulatory gap for the provision of drinking water exists in First Nations communities.
The proposed legislative framework for drinking water and waste water in First Nations communities is one way we aim to improve drinking water quality in First Nations communities.
Health Canada and INAC will collaborate with partners such as First Nations, provinces and territories to develop regulations that are appropriate to meet the specific needs of First Nations communities, as well as being comparable to those in effect in non-First Nations communities in the same geographic areas.
Should legislation be introduced and passed by Parliament, Health Canada, under the lead and in collaboration with INAC, will undertake consultations with First Nations and provincial and territorial governments on the development of a regulatory regime in each region.
In addition to legislative and regulatory initiatives, Health Canada continues to undertake activities related to overall drinking water quality in First Nations communities. As was mentioned previously, Budget 2010 included a two-year extension of the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan, which allocated some funding to Health Canada. This funding will be used to maintain the number of First Nations community sites having access to a trained, community-based drinking water monitor, enhancement of drinking water safety programming, review of water and waste water systems, and plans from a public-health perspective and implementation of the national waste water program.
Over the last few years, Health Canada has increased the capacity to sample and test drinking water quality in First Nations communities and has significantly increased related public awareness and education activities.
All First Nations communities on-reserve south of 60 now have access to either a trained community-based water quality monitor or an environmental health officer to sample and test drinking water at the tap. Because of these efforts, public opinion research indicates that the perception of First Nations concerning the safety of water supplies has improved. For example, in 2007, 62 per cent of First Nations viewed their tap water supply as safe. In 2009, 70 per cent viewed their tap water as safe.
Since 2003, while more drinking water advisories have been issued in First Nations communities, overall these advisories are resolved in about one tenth of the time that it took before 2003. For example, the median duration of advisories in effect was 307 days before 2003; it is now just 35 days.
It is important to note that as monitoring programs continue to improve, and as First Nations and the Government of Canada continue to report more operational issues, such as line breaks and pressure losses, the number of drinking water advisories issued in First Nations communities will also likely increase.
However, the rates of long-term drinking water advisories have been cut in half. Currently, only 7 per cent of advisories are in effect for 7 to 12 months, and those remaining in effect for more than a year have dropped from 43 per cent to 24 per cent. Health Canada is collaborating with INAC to reduce the number of these long-term advisories that remain in effect.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you. If you have questions, I and my colleagues will do our best to answer them.
The Deputy Chair: As the chair, I will take the prerogative of asking the first question.
During your consultations, it sounds as though you only offered one option, namely, the legislative option. Is that correct?
Karl Carisse, Senior Director, Strategic Initiatives Directorate, Community Infrastructure Branch, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: When we went out, we provided a discussion paper to all the chiefs and councils throughout the country. We advised them that we would be going out to talk about that preferred option that we had, which was incorporating provincial regulations with the ability to adapting those regulations to the community's specific needs. We also left the floor open to all the participants who were at the sessions to suggest, if this was not their choice, what else could work. We did leave it open to all the participants at the sessions.
The Deputy Chair: When you gave them that choice, were other options proposed that came up a number of times, making you think that there may be other ways to proceed?
Mr. Carisse: We heard loud and clear from all the participants — namely, the chiefs, leadership and technicians with whom we met — that they wanted a role in how we move forward with regulations. We never heard from the chiefs that going forward with the regulation was a bad idea. It was more about having a role within that and how we would move forward. No other discussions took place on what else could be there.
The expert panel at the time proposed three different options: national, provincial and looking at customary law. However, not much was mentioned in those sessions.
Senator Brazeau: Welcome to all of you. Thank you for your presentations this evening.
It is no big secret that the current government inherited quite a mess when they came into power with respect to the issue of clean drinking water. This committee received a briefing about a year ago on the same issue. We can definitely see that progress has been made. That is a good thing for the benefit of those who live in those communities. However, in your opinion, what is the biggest improvement that we see today that was not there before 2005 that has assisted in making substantial progress?
Gina Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: I think the biggest challenges that we have had were with the 21 priority high-risk communities. We have been able to reduce that number to three communities: Muskrat Dam Lake, in Ontario; Shoal Lake No. 40, in Ontario; and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, in Quebec. We are still working with those three communities, but that has been a strong indicator of progress because those 21 communities had significant challenges and only three are left. That is a good indicator.
Senator Brazeau: The second question concerns the legislative framework. First Nations communities have been hesitant to buy into provincial legislation for their own reasons. Once the legislative process begins, will minimal standards be attached to the entire issue of safe drinking water, or will they mirror provincial standards?
Mr. Carisse: The intent is to look at what exists in the provinces and territories as a guideline, to start there. The provinces and territories have their own legislation, standards and regulations. They have been doing this for a long time. It is to our benefit to look at what exists and build upon that. If legislation is put forward, it will be enabling legislation. We will then have to work on regulations. We want to do this in partnership with the communities to see what works best within those regulations for a certain jurisdiction, province or territory and build on that to meet the needs of the communities within that jurisdiction.
From what we heard in the consultations, there is a substantial difference between Atlantic Canada and British Columbia in the water, how we will treat it and the way we will go forward in the communities. We must be able to meet those regional differences. This approach will do that.
Senator Brazeau: I will leave it at that for now. My final question concerns polling. Ms. Gillis mentioned that some polling was conducted. Can we access a report with respect to that? Do you have numbers of how much it costs? Can you give us a comparative scenario on how much the polling has cost versus putting some of those monies toward safe drinking water, for example?
[Translation]
Dominique Poulin, Manager, Drinking Water Program, Primary Health Care and Public Health Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada: You are talking about public opinion polls?
Senator Brazeau: That is correct.
Ms. Poulin: These are public reports, and we can send you copies. They are not yet on our website, but they will be soon. We have been doing this every other year to check whether perceptions are improving. We have more and more education material, we are putting more effort on sampling, so that we are hoping positive perceptions concerning the quality of drinking water will improve over time.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you. The second part of my question dealt with the cost of this exercise.
Ms. Poulin: I do not have the answer to that right now, but I could find out for you.
Senator Brazeau: I appreciate very much. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Ms. Cram talked about the assessment that was done, a professional audit or an engineering assessment. We learned that an audit has been done for about a third, and the other two thirds are expected by November 2010.
What were the results? What are the main findings? Will those findings being be made available to the communities that were assessed?
Mr. Carisse: We have received about 50 preliminary reports. As we move forward with the national assessment, both INAC and the communities will receive the reports to ensure that the fact-checking will be done. Afterwards, it will go to the consultant who is doing this work, with the recommendations that will come in November. The regional roll-ups and the national roll-up of these reports will be made public.
Senator Patterson: I would like to take that further. How did it go? What did you find? Were the findings encouraging? Can you summarize generally the results that you obtained?
Mr. Carisse: I have not seen these reports yet. We are working with the communities to ensure that we have a good idea and that the consultants know what exists on the ground right now. That is the audit part. We will then keep working on the needs over the next 10 years. It is the intent of the national assessment to do both. That is, to see what the needs are and, in a sustainable manner, to see how we can address those needs in the next 10 years.
With the small sample that we have now, we would have to go to an individual case to see what is happening. We will know more once we go along and once we have a bigger collection of these reports that come out; then we will be able to address some of those questions.
Senator Patterson: I am not really clear. Are you encouraged, or are there many problems? What are these assessments telling us? I know there are only a few and that they need to be analyzed, but how does it look?
Ms. Cram: Our problem at this point with the 54 reports that we have received is that they do not give us a good sense of what has been found. It is more documenting what is there. Until we have more of the overlay of the assessment on it — that is, what the information tells us — we will not be able to answer that question. That is the problem. It is very early days yet.
The Deputy Chair: If I could ask a supplementary, what is the relationship between these assessments versus the improvements that you are receiving? You have said that you had 49 systems that had significant deficiencies, and it is now down to three.
Ms. Cram: An annual assessment is done of all water facilities based on their performance. It looks at how those systems are performing. When we have the data in terms of the percentage of high risk, it is obtained through doing those annual assessments.
The national assessment has been looking at more than just what is there now. It goes beyond communal systems and looks at individual systems as well. The idea was to take a similar approach right across the country. We went to contract on this, and a firm is going across the country looking at every single communal system, as well as the sampling of individual systems, to determine what is needed not only for today but also for the future. We hope to receive recommendations on what some of the best technical solutions would be to address what those needs are.
Based on that, we would be able to develop an investment plan for what would be needed in the future, what the best solutions are and how much that would cost. The firm is looking not only at what it would take to construct things but also at what it would take to operate them as well.
The Deputy Chair: Does that answer your question, Senator Patterson, or does that add more to what you were asking?
Senator Patterson: Yes; I will leave it at that.
The Deputy Chair: You can come back on a second round.
Senator Patterson: I would like to do that.
Senator Hubley: Welcome again. It is nice to have you here this evening. We are encouraged by the fact that there has been some improvement in the water condition on First Nations.
My question concerns the funding that you mentioned in your presentation.
Are those adequate resources to meet the needs of the legislation? Is it possible that we might be transferring some of the responsibility for water management from the government to First Nations governments? Is there a potential for associated risks of non-compliance to the legislation, resulting from capacity deficits? I would like to know if that is something that you have discussed, if it is part of your consultation program, and if it is something that has been discussed with First Nations.
Ms. Cram: Thank you for that question, senator. I will start and maybe ask my colleague to jump in. Part of the reason for doing the national assessment was to try to compare against what it would take to meet standards. In doing the national assessment, we have national protocols right now, but they are also looking at what it would take to comply with provincial or territorial regulations, whichever is higher. That national assessment will give us a very good idea of what it would take to meet those standards.
You have asked whether there is enough money. We do not know yet. We are hoping this national assessment will give us information that will allow us to develop an investment plan; then we will know whether it is sufficient money.
The plan is that we would have legislation introduced and proclaimed, and then we would start doing the regulatory development. However, our plan is to implement the regulations on a phased basis and have them come into effect when the First Nations communities are able to meet them. We do not want a Catch-22 situation where the First Nations communities are unable to meet those regulations. It is all supposed to happen in sequence.
In terms of capacity development, they are looking at both the hard infrastructure side of it and also what would be needed for operations. We have learned that with water it is equally important to have not only the infrastructure but also the trained operators and Health Canada to do the testing. It all needs to come together at the same time.
Senator Raine: Is there a great deal of difference across the country in how the operators are trained and managed? Is it the responsibility of Health Canada to oversee that part of it? I am not talking about the infrastructure but more about the trained operators. Also, could you explain where the circuit riders fit into all that?
Mr. Carisse: The Circuit Rider Training Program is a mentoring program where they go into the communities and train the operators right on their systems. We found, from experience, that that is the best way to train the operators, so we are doing this across the country. They have circuit rider trainers in every region. We have added another 11; we are up to 65 circuit riders; and as of last year they have started their own professional association to promote circuit rider trainers as a profession to share best practices.
The circuit riders are there to help the operators become trained. To become certified, the operator will still have to seek professional certification through the provinces. However, the Circuit Rider Training Program is another big plus in moving forward with what we have been doing the last few years, with how well these operators have been trained and certified. The Circuit Rider Training Program has really taken off.
Ms. Wilson: You asked about consistency across regions or provinces with circuit riders. I thought I would mention that, in some areas, circuit riders provide the oversight for the Safe Water Operations Program, while in others, it is private service providers. Thus, there is a variety in service providers and how it is delivered. It could be through private companies, tribal councils or First Nations technical organizations. You might hear of circuit riders from different sources.
Senator Raine: In rural communities where homes are spread out and on individually private wells, do the circuit riders have a role to play in training the residents how to test their wells?
Mr. Carisse: At this point, the circuit riders will be looking at the actual operators of treatment plants. However, the department is moving forward to looking at wells and septic systems, decentralized systems, which we were not doing in the past. As we move forward, we will have to look at capacity there and how best to work with the communities to ensure that wells and cisterns are properly operated.
Senator Raine: Do you know what percentage of Aboriginal people living on-reserve have private wells versus community water systems?
Mr. Carisse: I do not have the percentage with me; however, I could get that. We know through the national assessment that we targeted about 70,000 wells in those 607 communities, and we will sample a percentage. We know of at least those 70,000 wells within those communities, so there are quite a few.
Senator Seidman: My question concerns the water systems. You said that there are currently 766 water systems in First Nation communities across Canada, and of that number, 193 were identified as having significant deficiencies in 2006.
What type of deficiencies do you mean? My follow-up to that would be then whether you have a protocol for sampling and testing procedures, frequency, et cetera.
Mr. Carisse: With those 193 communities, which are down to 49 now for assessing risk, it is a multi-barrier approach. We assess the source water, operations and maintenance of the treatment plant, operator certification, reporting, monitoring and design of the treatment plant, and we give a score to that. That is how we came up with those that are a high risk.
To be clear, a high-risk system does not mean a problem exists with the system per se. It just means because of the deficiencies in all those five areas, the likelihood is high — it is a high risk — that they would be having issues with their water. When dealing with water, there is always a risk, but low risk would mean that no deficiencies or hardly any exist in the five categories. If a problem occurs with the source water, the other four should take over, and then you would not be having issues with your water. That is how we categorize high, medium and low risk.
What is your other question?
Ms. Cram: I talked about the annual assessment, and that is when the systems were looked at, and depending on what their problem was — it could have been source water, design, operations and maintenance, operator training and certification, reporting and record-keeping — some things were easy to fix. Operation and maintenance might be relatively easy to fix, or operator training and certification, the need to get a certified operator in place. Source water is a big problem to deal with. Sometimes we can find a reasonably effective or cheap solution. In other cases, we have had many years of struggling to find good source water. In fact, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg is a case in point of a source water having uranium. Therefore, it presents a challenge.
With some, solutions can be found quicker than others. When Ms. Wilson spoke about the remaining three communities of the 21 priority communities, they all have a very significant problem that will take some time to resolve.
Ms. Gillis: I wanted to respond to your question about testing and who does what. Guidelines are in place for Canadian drinking water quality. Health Canada's role and the role of the drinking water monitors, the testing people and the environmental health officers is to test the water for bacteriological, chemical and other parameters, to ensure that the water of the system, after it has been treated and at the tap, meets those standards.
We have fairly strict guidelines on how you treat what you are testing for. It tests for a significant number — I think it is over 50 — different parameters every single time the testing is done. Health Canada is responsible for that. When problems are being identified, we can then advise chiefs and councils or others on what type of remediation is needed.
Senator Seidman: My question was about whether you had a protocol for the type and frequency of the sampling you do. You are saying that a rigid and strict protocol is in place, including for frequency.
Ms. Gillis: Yes.
Senator Poirier: You mentioned that today only three communities remain on the list. You also said that the department is continuing to work with the remaining priority communities to address the outstanding issues. What are the outstanding issues, and when do you anticipate that these outstanding issues will be dealt with so that you can move ahead?
Ms. Wilson: I will talk about the three communities, and maybe Mr. Carisse can talk about the other communities amongst the 48.
I mentioned Muskrat Dam Lake in Ontario. We have been working with them to complete the construction of a pipe and water system. That resulted in the community being connected to a pipe system. Recent results from Health Canada indicate the water treatment plant is capable of producing treated water within guidelines but presently requires significant operator involvement with the current treatment process. We still have some issues with the operator. We have agreed to fund a proposal to expand the role of the Safe Water Operations Program and have taken a number of other mitigation measures to ensure that Muskrat Dam Lake gets off the list of priority communities.
For Ontario, Shoal Lake No. 40, we are currently at the design phase. That is in approvals and in progress. I am not sure what else I can say. There has been a long history of issues in getting a treatment plant into Shoal Lake. Right now, certified oversight would result in a lower-risk ranking for the community. That has been offered to the First Nation, and we will continue to encourage the First Nation to take advantage of certified-oversight issues.
Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, a community with which I am quite familiar, as mentioned earlier, has a water source problem. However, this is one of the communities, announced under Canada's Economic Action Plan, that will get a new water system. That is under way and has been approved. Construction should start in May or June of this year.
Senator Poirier: Do you have a time frame for the first two communities that you mentioned?
Ms. Wilson: The first two depend very much on mitigating some of these issues. I think we are closer to removing Muskrat Dam Lake from the list of priority communities than anywhere. The other two might be a little longer. It is hard to say. With Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, by next year, we probably will not have the whole community covered. A number of well systems will continue to require bottled water to be delivered.
Senator Poirier: In your presentation, you talked about some desire among some First Nation organizations to become a pilot region for the development and implementation of the regulations. Has that been done? How many First Nations have become a pilot region? Where are they on that?
Ms. Cram: We do not have legislation passed yet, so it is early days to start working on regulations. However, I think it is fair to say that the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat has expressed an interest in considering what regulations would look like. It is still early days, but we are interested that they are interested.
Senator Poirier: Has any other region had any desire, or are you open to more than one region having a pilot?
Ms. Cram: It is not really that it would be a pilot per se. I mentioned regulations. The regulatory development would be done on a phased basis. The Atlantic region has expressed an interest to go first. We could do more than one. If another region in the country said that they would be interested in being one of the first movers on regulations once legislation was passed, we would be interested in moving with them as well.
Senator Poirier: What is the time frame that you anticipate to start that?
Ms. Cram: We are having preliminary conversations. The bill is in draft stage. It has not been introduced yet.
The Deputy Chair: Before we move on to the second round, I would mention that this committee meeting is timely if you read the Ottawa Citizen today about Grassy Narrows, Ontario, and the state of their water. It appears that the fish from the river still contain mercury. Could you comment on how the system will be improved so that this type of situation will not occur in the future? Would current testing of the water in Grassy Narrows have detected the mercury in the water? Were the residents not aware that eating fish from that water created a health risk?
Ms. Gillis: I probably do not have all the detailed information. As we all know, Grassy Narrows has been an issue that has been occurring for many years. However, steps have been taken in education and in changing a number of different things. The latest information that we have had from research and investigation done and supported through Health Canada is that the standard that Canada has of six parts per million, I believe, in hair samples and other samples is definitely being met in Grassy Narrows. The people are not seen as being at an increased risk at all at this point in time because of all the education and other efforts that have occurred.
The Deputy Chair: Is that standard based on an adult or a child?
Ms. Gillis: I am sorry, but I cannot answer that.
Senator Patterson: I would like to follow up on the engineering assessment results. This committee has been examining this issue for some time. Would the department be willing to table with the committee a copy of the findings of the engineering assessment? It seems we are at an early stage now. Regional impact analyses are also being done. That would be important information. It would lead to a proposed investment plan. It would be helpful for us to have that information prior to the tabling of legislation, which is where I think we are headed.
Sometimes people think making legislation will fix a problem. I wish it were that easy. We need the analysis and the infrastructure to do so. That is my request. Would you be prepared to provide that information to the committee as it emerges from your work?
Ms. Cram: Mr. Carisse has mentioned that we are expecting the regional roll-ups and the national roll-up to be things that could be made public. We were not intending to make public every individual community's information. I do not know, senator, how they will come together. Could we give you one region and then another region? I would have to look into that and get back to you. When we have all the regional ones, we would be prepared to give them to you, as well as the national.
Senator Patterson: We do not need the all the details, but the findings would be useful.
I would now like to turn to what I am sure we all agree is important, namely, the capability to maintain systems. However great they are, we need people on the ground in the communities. Hopefully, we would not have to import people to maintain those systems.
You have described the progress in certifying operators to the first level to be at 64 per cent. I understand that some provincial legislation would require certification to provincial standards. If that is correct, how would you propose to have people certified to the provincial standards once they have the first level?
Mr. Carisse: As I explained earlier, with the Circuit Rider Training Program, the operators are trained on their own system. However, to be certified, they then have to pass their exams with the provincial body. Therefore, they do become certified; 64 per cent of operators are certified to the provincial standard within their own province. We are working in tandem with the province to do that.
Senator Patterson: That answered my question; the 64 per cent is to provincial standards. What are the implications for the remaining 35 per cent of operators who are still not deemed to be compliant? What are the consequences of that, and how will you address that?
Mr. Carisse: Starting from the announcement made in March 2006 of the plan of action for drinking water, we ensured that every system would have at least certified oversight. Although right now some systems operators do not have their certification, they are being trained to get it. We have system oversight there where there is a certified person to oversee the system.
To be certified takes time, especially if you are a level 1, 2, 3 or 4. It is similar to an apprenticeship; you have to put time in, and it does take time. However, we are working toward that. If a situation occurs and we cannot leave a system without a certified operator, we do have the Safe Water Operations Program, where a third party who can operate the system will come in and start training operators again at the same time.
The goal is to see First Nations operators running the First Nations water and waste water treatment plants. That is what we would like to see at the end.
Senator Patterson: I have been involved in substantial amount of training over the years, and one thing that can undo all that good work is turnover. Are you concerned about that issue? Have you considered how to deal with it? We hope they stay there forever, but that is not always the case. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Carisse: Definitely it has been an issue. For a while, we were looking at close to a 25 per cent turnover of operators. We have been working with the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, also. They conducted a study with operators on how best to address this issue. Obviously, it could be salaries, but a multitude of other reasons exist; someone who becomes trained can leave the community to work as a treatment plant operator elsewhere. They are in demand.
It is an issue. Working with the AFN, hopefully we can address that and keep those First Nations operators within their communities.
Senator Patterson: I guess the answer would be to train more than you need.
Mr. Carisse: That is about it.
Senator Brazeau: We talk about water being primarily a provincial matter; we talk about jurisdictional issues. Obviously INAC has its mandate and jurisdiction; the same applies for Health Canada.
Do you think that perhaps some of the problems or issues that transpired with drinking water occurred in part because of jurisdictional issues between Health Canada and INAC years ago?
Ms. Cram: I do not think it is because of issues between Health Canada and INAC. I think, rather, it is the fact — and we run into it in other issues besides water — that it is between the provinces and the federal government. Because of section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, where the federal government is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians, it means that we have multiple levels of government dealing with issues.
As we know, reserves are spread out all across the country, and they are within provincial boundaries. We need to line up with provincial standards in many other fields, such as education. I was here yesterday talking about education. That makes it challenging from a federal-provincial perspective; however, I think the departments work closely together, in particular on this file.
Ms. Gillis: The roles are clearly defined as well. Health Canada's role is related to public health, water monitoring and testing, providing recommendations and working with the communities; INAC and others to try to improve and provide recommendations for the testing, along with public education and things of that nature. Our role is clearly defined, but we work closely together.
Senator Brazeau: I appreciate both responses. I do not doubt them today, but I think I would put a few more question marks if we go back to 2003 or 2004, for example. I do not think there might have been as much cohesion on this issue as there is today because of the greater highlighting of the issue.
I think you will appreciate where I am going with this. Yes, there is section 91.24, whereby the federal government has jurisdiction for Indians and lands reserved for Indians on-reserve. However, if we talk about the water issue, that is provincial jurisdiction. Some of these lands are federal Crown lands. The issue with unsafe drinking water is attributed to health issues.
In terms of responding with boil water advisories, for example, do you think that could have been attributed because of the jurisdictional issues between INAC and Health Canada at the time?
Ms. Wilson: Like anything, when it comes to federal departments working horizontally, it only gets better and improves along the way. I do not think any of us would be around on the file to know what the situation was then. However, even in the last few years, I have seen the coordination and collaboration increasing on a number of levels. I would think it is an ongoing improvement.
Senator Brazeau: If progress is being made, then we are on top of the issue. That is what I like to hear.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to ask a final question about the Grassy Narrows issue. I gather in that particular situation the big problem is the source water. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is proposing legislation that covers drinking water, but the legislation would not necessarily cover where the water comes from. Do you see that as a problem?
As I understand it, some First Nations have indicated that this legislation alone will help in some instances. However, because it does not cover source water, it will not cover all situations — situations that are quite serious.
Mr. Carisse: The intent moving forward with the legislation is to cover water, waste water and the protection of sources of drinking water. We would like those regulations to go forward, if legislation is introduced and passed and developed in cooperation and partnership with communities.
The source water issue will be touchier because, as Senator Brazeau was saying, the province will become involved as well. You will have to get everyone at the table. However, we will look at that.
The intent with the water, if you have a situation where the source water is very poor, is to work in partnership. The national assessment will indicate for some communities what the best technology, use or serviceability is for that community; how best to address the issue of providing good, safe, clean drinking water; and how we can properly treat the waste water for that community. Hopefully those issues will be addressed with a national assessment.
The Deputy Chair: That would be through consultations and regulations as opposed to legislation; is that what you are saying?
Mr. Carisse: The legislation, since it would only be enabling, will only give us the capability to go forward and do regulations. It is in the regulations where we would get the nitty-gritty details on that.
The Deputy Chair: You are saying that the regulations will be able to cover these types of situations, is that correct?
Mr. Carisse: Yes.
Senator Raine: I would like to come back to the wells again. That is a huge amount wells, 70,000 across the country. Is an education program in place? Can anyone put a well in and not understand how it all works? How does one determine where to put a well on their property so that it is an optimal drinking source?
[Translation]
Ms. Poulin: There are 12,000 private wells in Aboriginal lands to supply with water 10 per cent of Aboriginal people. It is about the same figure we find for the rest of Canadians outside Aboriginal lands.
Private wells are not under the responsibility of Health Canada or the Department of Indian Affairs, even though we supervise them.
Right now, Health Canada is implementing a new policy under which we will do the sampling at the request of the owner of a well. It will be implemented within a few months, and that will bring a huge change. People who want their well checked for bacteriological contaminants will be able to request that.
More education material has also been developed and will be published at the same time, in a few months from now. This material explains how one should maintain a well, and protect it from contaminants, and it will give detailed explanations on the new sampling service which will be available to owners. This will also be announced on the radio.
[English]
Senator Raine: Will this process also analyze the location of the well and condemn wells if they are located in the wrong place?
[Translation]
Ms. Poulin: Not this policy in particular, but I understand the Department of Indian Affairs can take measures about this.
[English]
Mr. Carisse: Moving forward with the sampling under the national assessment, every single well in a community may not be tested. For example, in Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, if some of the wells still have uranium, then the problem is with the source water in the underground table. We will have to come up with solutions as to how best to address this.
The big difference is that in the past we were only looking at big treatment plants for water and waste water. This time we are changing our policies to be able to look at small, decentralized systems, which are wells and septic systems. Moving forward with regulations, we would ensure that they are properly commissioned and decommissioned. These are the steps that we have to take in this process.
Unfortunately, as with the experiences in the provinces, it will take time. We would love to see regulations in place sooner than later, but it will take time. We should be able to address those issues for wells for the larger treatment plants and decide what works best for each and every community in Canada. We will have that option now in front of us.
Senator Brazeau: It is nice to hear that the departments are working collaboratively together. Progress is being made, we all agree on that. I imagine it is hard to forecast, but obviously a plan of action is in place. Where will we be in two years?
Ms. Cram: In two years, we hope we would have the results of the engineering assessment. We would also have had the chance to develop an investment plan. In two years, the most recent extension of the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan will be up for renewal. We would want to use the results of the engineering assessment and the investment plan to then look at the long-term water needs.
Also, we would hope by then that legislation would be introduced and that we would be in the process of developing regulations across the country. We would hope that we had reduced the percentages of high risk even further and that the three high-priority communities would have been addressed. We would hope to have an even higher percentage of operators certified. From an INAC perspective, that is what we would hope for in two years.
I will ask my colleague in Health Canada about her hopes.
Ms. Gillis: Most important, over these next two years we must maintain the degree of water quality testing and actually improve it where we need to and ensure that we are meeting all of the guidelines and the protocols in every place across Canada,.
For us, that is the key piece in Health Canada, to meet those guidelines, do our role in testing and working with INAC throughout this, and provide public health and safety advice on a regular basis. In two years, I would expect that we would be in even better shape with the testing and what we are doing for the advice that is being provided.
Ms. Wilson: I have a final comment on that issue. Over the years, I think we will also see increased transparency around this particular issue and additional information being made more public. For instance, we will soon be issuing our next report card on water, which will demonstrate progress on a number of indicators. We will see the indicators, be they the three priority communities or the 49 high-risk communities, the number of circuit riders trained, and so on. That will be made available to the public, along with the First Nations infrastructure investment plan, which will demonstrate precisely what water projects we are investing in over the next number of years.
Senator Raine: I am curious to know what percentage of the people working in the water testing and operating of the treatment plants are women.
[Translation]
Ms. Poulin: Health Canada has about 550 or more controllers of the quality of drinking water. They check tap water. All communities have access to qualified personnel to check their drinking water.
Ms. Cram: How many are women?
Ms. Poulin: That question was never asked.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: It is an excellent question, though. Since you want to know, we should ask and let you know. We should also think about that in terms of recruitment, retention and those types of issues.
Senator Raine: I asked that question because, in many cases, it is the women in the house who are intimately connected with the health of their families. If they do not feel comfortable drinking the tap water, they give their kids pop. We all know where that leads. It is important that clean, safe drinking water is available and that they are confident in the water. If you had women involved in the testing and the operation of the systems, a network exists there and that might help.
Ms. Wilson: There might be a net gain to that. In First Nation communities women are considered the water keepers, per se. They have a direct responsibility for water. That connection exists. It is a good point.
Senator Patterson: Today, I received a publication called A Legal Guide to Aboriginal Drinking Water: A Prairie Province Perspective. It was sponsored by the Alberta Law Foundation, the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation and the Tomorrow Foundation, and it seems to have quite a lot of information about issues we have discussed tonight. Are you aware of this publication, and are you working with these authors? At a glance, they seem to have prepared useful information. It looks as though it is targeted to making the legal issues understandable to laypeople. Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Cram: Unfortunately we are not, but we would be interested in it. I will write down the title and authors, and we could look into it.
Senator Patterson: A Legal Guide to Aboriginal Drinking Water: A Prairie Province Perspective by Linda F. Duncan and Marie-Ann Bowden, and they are experts in environmental law and Aboriginal law, I believe.
Ms. Cram: Thank you very much for that suggestion.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses this evening for their presentations and for answering all the questions from the senators. On behalf of all honourable senators, I commend you on the good job have you done. The meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)