Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 16 - Evidence - May 1, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:33 a.m. to examine Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.
[Translation]
Marcy Zlotnick, Clerk of the Committee: As the Clerk of this committee, I have the duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the Chair and Deputy Chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair.
[English]
I am ready to receive a motion for an acting chair. Are there any nominations?
Senator Meredith: I nominate Senator Patterson.
Ms. Zlotnick: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Meredith that the Honourable Senator Patterson do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Zlotnick: I declare the motion carried, and I invite Senator Patterson to take the chair.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. Big shoes to fill.
I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the web.
My name is Dennis Patterson. I am a senator from Nunavut, and I have the honour of chairing this committee for today's meeting.
Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Today, we will be hearing testimony relating to Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands.
Although water and waste water operations and systems are generally the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments, responsibility for drinking water on-reserve is shared between the federal government and First Nations. Federally, three departments are primarily responsible for delivering safe drinking water on-reserve: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Health Canada and Environment Canada. First Nation communities, through their chief and council, are responsible for the design, operation and maintenance of their water systems, for which they assume 20 per cent of the costs.
To give us an overview of the legislation addressing the issue of safe drinking water, we will hear from witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of Justice and Health Canada.
I should mention to committee members that it is customary for the minister responsible, in this case the Honourable John Duncan, to appear before the committee. The steering committee agreed that, since he is committed to the Cabinet Committee on Priorities and Planning this morning, we would hear from the officials. We will arrange another opportunity for the minister to appear, perhaps towards the end of our hearings.
Prior to hearing from our witnesses, however, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are present today: Senator Larry Campbell, from British Columbia; Senator Jim Munson, from Ontario; Senator Salma Ataullahjan, from Ontario; Senator Nancy Greene Raine, from British Columbia; Senator Patrick Brazeau, from Quebec; Senator Don Meredith, from Ontario; and, last but certainly not least, Senator Jacques Demers, from Quebec.
Witnesses, we look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed.
Gail Mitchell, Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples as it begins its review of Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Bill.
I would like to begin by highlighting the fact that in partnership with Health Canada, the department remains committed to working with First Nations to address water and waste water issues on First Nation lands. Budget 2012 announced $330.8 million over two years as part of the economic action plan. That funding is intended to build and renovate water infrastructure and to support the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in First Nation communities. In fact, the total amount the government will have invested in drinking water and waste water infrastructure in First Nation communities between 2006-07 and 2013-14 will be approximately $3 billion. These investments are part of a targeted approach that focuses on investments in infrastructure, development of enforceable standards, and capacity and training of operators.
[Translation]
The department and First Nations share the same goal of making sure First Nations have access to reliable sources of safe and clean drinking water. The development of federal standards and regulations will be a major step in order to make sure the water provided on First Nation lands meets stringent standards all Canadians count on and deserve.
Almost five years ago, this committee tabled a report under the title Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. Research undertaken by this committee made it possible for its members to determine the many risks for the quality of water on First Nation lands and the specific actions needed to solve these issues.
The bill now being examined by the Senate is meant to implement one of the recommendations in that report.
[English]
Your report as well as reports from the Office of the Auditor General and the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations led government to introduce Bill S-11 in the previous Parliament in May 2010. The purpose of that bill was to ensure that enforceable standards would be put in place to protect the health and safety of residents on First Nation lands. This committee worked significantly on the bill. It died on the Order Paper due to the dissolution of Parliament in March 2011. Prior to that, you heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses who agreed that drinking water quality needs to be improved on First Nation lands. The department agrees with this, Mr. Chair. Progress and improvements have been made on addressing access to safe, reliable and clean drinking water.
Legally enforceable protections on First Nation lands are also needed. Enforceable standards will have positive health impacts by steadily increasing the effectiveness of water services in First Nation communities so that they are comparable to those outside of First Nation lands. This is why Bill S-8 is before you today. It will enable the development of such regulations; however, regulations are not the only measure needed.
As part of the government's commitment to improve drinking water in First Nation communities, the department initiated an independent national assessment of water and waste water systems on First Nation lands as recommended in the 2007 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, Safe Drinking Water for First Nations. This assessment was the most rigorous evaluation ever undertaken of water and waste water systems on First Nation lands. We recognize the need for a thorough baseline of the myriad systems and levels of risk. Minister Duncan released the results of the assessment last July. As anticipated, it showed that more needs to be done, and this includes not only medium-and long-term planning for infrastructure needs but also enforceable standards.
[Translation]
One can honestly say that thanks to the work of this committee and the important contribution of First Nations throughout this country, Bill S-8 is very much changed compared to the bill you examined previously. In fact, this bill and the important changes made because of intense discussions with First Nation representatives, including the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs of Alberta and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs. This bill also takes into account many of their concerns. Cooperation with First Nations will go on as it has done in the last six years in order to develop regulations under this bill and take up the serious challenges in infrastructure and operation that come up in the infrastructure lifecycle.
[English]
We recognize that significant investments are needed. The approximately $3 billion in investments that the government will have made between 2006 and 2014 includes dozens of projects, such as the construction of drinking water treatment facilities and repairs to distribution networks. In 2012, work was already under way on 47 drinking water treatment systems that had both high design and high overall risk according to the national assessment.
As the members of this committee know, assessment and investment alone cannot ensure consistent supplies of safe drinking water in First Nation communities. Success over the long term requires legally enforceable standards. Legally enforceable regulations and standards lead to accountability. They help to clarify who is responsible for the many activities involved in the provision of safe drinking water, such as source protection, regular testing, consistent record keeping and rigorous operator training and certification.
The regulations to be developed under Bill S-8 need to be regionally relevant and First Nations have to be involved directly in their development. Bill S-8 proposes a collaborative mechanism that would develop regulations appropriate to each region of the country. Concerns from First Nations on their role in the development of these regulations have been heard. The government is committed to working with First Nations on regulatory development, and this has been made explicit in the preamble of Bill S-8. Regulations will be developed on a region-by-region basis. This approach is flexible, accommodating, responsible and appropriate. Exploratory discussions with some First Nations organizations are already under way to examine how we might prepare for regulatory development and partnership.
Concerns related to the incorporation by reference of provincial and territorial regulations and standards were also heard. Incorporation by reference would not give jurisdiction to provinces or territories with respect to First Nation lands. Rather, it would allow for the making of federal regulations that are comparable to provincial and territorial regulations and provide First Nations communities and nearby municipalities opportunities to work together in areas such as training and new technologies. You will note, however, that amendments in Bill S-8 ensure that the regulations created under this bill with respect to source water will be solely for the purpose of protecting it from contamination.
The department will work with First Nations to review existing provincial and territorial regulations to ensure that local circumstances inform each set of regulations. This approach might mean that regulations would differ slightly from one region to the next. In every case, the protection of public health would be the primary goal of regulations. Ultimately, every Canadian must have access to safe, clean and reliable drinking water.
At the press conference in February 2012 announcing the introduction of the proposed legislation, Chief Charles Weasel Head spoke to the importance of collaboration on this bill. He said Aboriginal leaders "have high expectations and great hope" for this collaboration created on "the true spirit and intent of our treaties and inherent rights." He referred to the Crown "following through on its commitment to move forward" with First Nations "to begin establishing the relationships critical to rebuilding our nations. Not just reforming the status quo but engaging transformational change."
Work has been done to respond not only to the concerns raised in the course of these discussion but also to concerns raised by members of this committee, First Nations organizations, individuals and non-governmental organizations that participated in committee hearings on Bill S-11. Based on this feedback, many of the concerns have been addressed in Bill S-8. For instance, language has been added in the preamble on the government's intention to improve the health and safety of residents on reserve lands and to work with First Nations on the development of future federal regulations stemming from the legislation.
A non-derogation clause has been included. It has been clarified that any regulation on source water protection on First Nation lands would be restricted to preventing contamination. It has been clarified that the regulations will be able to ensure that First Nations are not held liable for systems on First Nation lands that are owned by third parties. It has been made clear that the regulations made under this proposed legislation will not deal with matters of water allocation. It has been clarified that the authority for the regulations to confer judicial, legislative and administrative powers is limited to only those necessary to effectively regulate water systems.
[Translation]
The purpose of this bill remains the same, that is to develop in cooperation with First Nations regulations that ensure the security of drinking water. It is a matter of health and security for First Nation communities.
[English]
With that I would like to thank you for your time. I will turn the floor over to my colleague from Health Canada, who would like to say a few words. After that, I look forward to taking your questions.
[Translation]
Shelagh Jane Woods, Director General, Primary Health Care and Public Health Directorate, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada: Good morning. My name is Shelagh Jane Woods, and I am a director general at Health Canada.
[English]
I too would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Health Canada with regard to the proposed safe drinking water for First Nations act.
[Translation]
Passing this legislation will allow Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Health Canada to work with First Nations to develop regulations for water quality standards, monitoring and reporting requirements and other public health protections on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, tailored to First Nations realities, helping to bridge the gap between First Nations and other Canadian communities.
[English]
Drinking water and waste water management are critical for individual and public health. The benefits of investments in safe water range from time savings from ease of access, reduced absenteeism at school and at work, reduced rates of illness, increased life expectancy and increased productivity.
On the other hand, there are clear and direct links between poor drinking water quality and adverse human health effects, such as water-borne illnesses and outbreaks. Furthermore, without appropriate waste water management, potentially hazardous contaminants and disease-causing bacteria and viruses can find their way into source water and the environment.
As the Honourable Senator Patterson said at the opening of this meeting, the responsibility for drinking water quality and adequate waste water disposal south of the sixtieth degree parallel is shared among First Nations, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Health Canada and Environment Canada.
Health Canada's role is to assist in the monitoring of drinking water quality and other related public health activities, including the following: We assist communities to build capacity to verify the overall quality of drinking water at the tap, and we review, interpret and disseminate results with them. We provide advice, guidance and recommendations to First Nations communities about drinking water safety and safe disposal of on-site domestic sewage. We review the water and waste water infrastructure project proposals from a very specific public health perspective. We provide training programs and develop various public awareness materials and resource tools.
We have collaborated with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada during the development of the legislation, providing advice on matters related to public health and ensuring that public health considerations are integrated into the proposed legislation. The bill contains authorities that would allow the Minister of Health to develop regulations concerning drinking water quality and authorities that would allow both ministers to develop regulations concerning monitoring, reporting, corrective measures and emergency measures.
Canada's Economic Action Plan of 2012 extended First Nations water and waste water funding for an additional two years to build on previous investments by supporting the development of a long-term strategy to improve water quality in First Nation communities and the development of a legislative framework, as my colleague said.
Investments in infrastructure and operations made by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada have been paired with investments in monitoring the quality of drinking water and related public health activities. In fact, between 2003 and 2013, Health Canada will have allocated more than $270 million towards First Nations water and waste water for monitoring, training and providing public health information and guidance to First Nations.
A number of successes have been achieved in that period and many of them by the First Nations themselves. Just to name a few, all First Nation community sites now have access to a trained community based water monitor or an environmental health officer to sample and test drinking water quality at tap. In 2010-11, 58 per cent of piped systems met the recommended weekly monitoring for bacteriological parameters, compared to 36 per cent in 2006.
Overall, perceptions of First Nations residents around the safety of their water supply have improved, from 62 per cent in 2007 to 71 per cent in 2011. We are aware, of course, that significant challenges remain.
[Translation]
As of March 31, 2012, there were over 160 systems in 121 First Nations communities across Canada under a drinking water advisory. It is important to note, however, that drinking water advisories occur in any system in any jurisdiction. On reserve, with so many tiny piped systems, a drinking water advisory might affect as little as one building.
We know that general provincial laws usually apply in reserves, but those governing water and wastewater are inapplicable on reserves. There is currently no federal legal framework to address this regulatory gap in First Nations communities, which is one important reason for this bill.
[English]
The creation of federal legislation is also an important step towards ensuring that drinking water in First Nation communities meets the high quality that all Canadians expect and deserve.
Again, thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Health Canada on this critical issue.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Woods.
Mr. Salembier, were you wishing to make a presentation?
Paul Salembier, General Counsel, Operations and Programs, Department of Justice Canada: No, I was not planning to make opening remarks, thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to welcome Senator Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories, to this meeting.
With the chair's prerogative, maybe I will take the liberty of asking the first question.
Senator Dyck made a speech on second reading in the Senate last week and raised some important issues, some of which have been addressed this morning. However, I would like to focus in on what I think will probably be one of the most important issues for our committee, and that is the non-derogation clause in the bill, which has changed from the bill this committee received previously. It does say that nothing in this act or the regulations is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or treaty right of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, except to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of drinking water on First Nations lands. I have a couple of questions about that.
First, in her speech, Senator Dyck suggested that the non-derogation clause should be a broad and unqualified non-derogation clause without any qualification or exception. I would like to ask why the clause was drafted as it was, with the exception relating to the safety of drinking water.
Mr. Salembier: I will answer that to the extent I can.
There was discussion of adding a non-derogation clause with the Aboriginal proponents of the bill. The clause that is in the bill now was proposed by the Alberta treaty chiefs. The fact that the exception is narrowed by stating that the clause applies except to the extent necessary to ensure safety of drinking water recognizes that the objectives of the bill are important objectives. In fact, it really replicates what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about Aboriginal and treaty rights, which is that they are not absolute and that if there is a pressing national concern they can be infringed as long as the infringement is an infringement that is no greater than is necessary to achieve the objectives of the legislation.
The manner in which this clause is drafted, which again, as I say, was a result of compromise between Canada and First Nation proponents, is designed to reflect the existing state of the law on Aboriginal rights and, in fact, it does confirm the perceived importance of ensuring the safety of drinking water on reserves.
The Acting Chair: Would you be able to give an example of where that exception might be needed?
Mr. Salembier: Yes. It is recognized that an integral component of drinking water safety is what is referred to as source water protection. That basically means that certain uses of land, in this case reserve land, have to be restricted in order to avoid contamination of water sources. For example, it might simply put limits on the grazing of cattle near a water source or near a well site. In fact, the contamination of the Walkerton water supply was the result of contamination by cattle. That would be an example.
Regarding restricting the use of reserve land, I think everyone would agree that barring this necessary restriction, First Nations do have and should have the right to use their land as they choose to the extent that the land is the result of a treaty right and probably an Aboriginal right. However, in order to protect the safety of their citizens, it may be necessary to impose some minor restrictions on the use of the land if that land is near drinking water sources.
Senator Munson: First, a couple of quick questions before I get into more substantive ones. Thank you for being here.
You said that all First Nation community sites now have access to a trained community-based water monitor or environmental health officer to test and sample. What does "having access" mean? Does that mean if they are called in they are there immediately so that we do not see the kind of tragedies we have seen in the past?
Ms. Woods: In the case of community-based water monitors, they are in fact resident in those communities. We have spent a lot of time and effort developing a training program that is relevant for them.
They are always overseen by an environmental health officer. There are not enough of those to be one in every community, nor is it necessary. Their work is overseen, but in cases where the community-based water monitor quits or is not there, an environmental health officer goes in and does the regular inspections and provides whatever other services relate to the safety of the water.
Senator Munson: You also mentioned that on March 31 of this year there were over 160 systems and 121 First Nations under a drinking water advisory. How does that compare to the rest of the country percentage wise? Is that high?
Ms. Woods: That is very difficult to say. It is hard to make comparisons. Different jurisdictions have different ways of reporting. We are constantly looking and checking. Every small water system is vulnerable to problems. In our case, our small water systems are tiny. A system is something with five connections. There might be five households and that is considered one whole system. The threshold for other jurisdictions is usually in the thousands.
We have done a lot of work over the years with the World Health Organization. We have compared ourselves not only to Canadian jurisdictions but also to other countries where they have a preponderance of very small systems. We find the same issues. It is always exceedingly difficult. There are always drinking water advisories associated with small systems, as there are with large systems. We try to keep track and ensure that we are constantly striving to be comparable to the conditions that you find off-reserve.
Senator Munson: My understanding is that First Nations in Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia criticize this whole approach and refuse to participate in any of the discussions. From your view, where do they fit in this debate?
Ms. Mitchell: Perhaps I can set some context. We have been actively involved with the Alberta treaty chiefs on this legislation, as well as the Atlantic Policy Congress, which represents communities in Nova Scotia. The dialogue has been productive related to the legislation.
Going forward, we are also exploring with those groups how to develop the regulations in partnership. I would say that the relationship has been quite positive and constructive.
Senator Munson: I have quite a few questions. I know other senators have many, but I have two others on this round.
To what extent do First Nations have the resources to meet the requirement of assuming 20 per cent of the costs, I understand, of maintaining the water systems? Are they really aware of the challenges in this regard? Also, has the department identified a funding strategy — you talked about it a bit — that would accompany this proposed legislation to ensure that all first Nations' water facilities are able to comply with legislative standards? If not, why not?
Ms. Mitchell: Currently there are water systems in First Nations communities, obviously. We do provide First Nations with support to operate and maintain those systems or to build new systems. Approximately $400 million per year is spent in First Nation communities in the delivery of water and waste water services. There is significant investment taking place already. Part of that does require currently that First Nations assume some portion of the operating and maintenance costs associated with systems. The department provides 80 per cent to support that, and the other amounts are to be covered by the First Nation through user fees or other types of revenues. That is not a new proposed approach; it is something that currently happens.
As we move forward into a world of regulation, we are very much conscious of ensuring that systems are able to comply with those. We have focused a lot of attention on areas where there are risk and mitigation measures to support that, whether that is new systems, better training, better certification of operators, or a more targeted use of operation or maintenance dollars to support those systems in living out their full life cycles.
Senator Munson: You mentioned user fees. I think the question was whether Aboriginal communities have the capacity to raise that kind of money. Is that kind of money available within the community for that 20 per cent?
Ms. Mitchell: Some communities currently do that through user fees. They may use other sources of revenues that they may have to support that. It is happening now.
Senator Munson: I will go on the second round. I have many other questions.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Munson.
Senator Ataullahjan: Could you describe your engagement process with First Nations communities? Do you feel that your consultations are enough and that you reached all regions and provinces?
Also, could you describe the process for me if self-governing Aboriginal communities wanted to opt into the regulations?
Karl Carisse, Senior Director, Innovation and Major Policy Transformation, Community Infrastructure Branch, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: With regard to the consultation process, this has been a long process. It started back in 2006, when the government at the time decided that there would be a panel of experts put together to go across the country. This was mentioned earlier by Ms. Mitchell. There is a report by the Office of the Auditor General; the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development made a report stating that there needed to be legislation put in place to fill this regulatory void that was in First Nations.
Offers in provinces and territories, water and waste water is regulated. You do not have that regulatory protection on-reserve. First, this expert panel went across the country. It was led by the Deputy Minister of Indian affairs at the time. They had about 110 witnesses and heard from people. They came up with ideas and proposals about how to move forward. There was an initial meeting with the AFN and other First Nation organizations. In the summer of 2008 we went across the country. In all the provinces and territories you have one major political First Nation organization. We approached them. We went to their annual meetings to talk about the possibility of water regulations and how to move forward. We approached provincial and territorial governments at the same time to see their reaction and if they could play a role or not. This led to more formal engagement sessions. These were done in February and March of 2009. We sent invitations to all the chiefs and councils across Canada. We provided funding for them to send political as well as technical representatives to these engagement sessions. We also made invitations to tribal councils, First Nation technical organizations and provincial representatives. In all there were 13 sessions across the country. We had about 700 participants, of which about 550 were First Nation leadership or technicians.
We also provided these organizations with funding to develop their own impact analyses of what these regulations or legislation would do and what kind of impact they would have to their own communities within their own province or territory. We stepped aside. We really wanted to hear from them and what they wanted to say. We made a commitment that that report would go up to the minister, along with what came out of the engagement sessions.
After the engagement sessions, there were still issues with communities. We received some correspondence, and we had open dialogue, I guess is the best way to describe it, with all the different organizations. We extended invitations and asked if they wanted us to go. We again went across the country and met with the leadership of those organizations to discuss the engagement sessions and what came out of the impact analyses.
All this built up, and we kept doing these engagements, to finally having the first piece of legislation, Bill S-11, which was introduced in May of 2010. Up to that point, there was quite a bit of engagement. The legislation was based on what we heard at the engagement sessions and what was in those impact analyses and in the correspondence. We put out a piece of legislation that we thought at the time was the best we could do to reflect what we heard.
As senators know, during the committee hearings, there were a lot of witnesses, and there were issues with certain clauses of this bill. This committee recommended that we continue engagement with First Nations to try to see if we could address some of these issues. As you know, with the dissolution of Parliament, that bill died on the Order Paper in March.
We had discussions and engagement with various First Nation organizations, led by the minister's office. All these organizations were invited for discussions. I think we established a good rapport with the treaty chiefs in Alberta for Treaty Areas 6, 7 and 8, as well as with the Atlantic Policy Congress. As Ms. Mitchell mentioned, they represent the 33 First Nation communities in Atlantic Canada. We worked with them to come up with more resolutions and agreements on how to move forward.
Two of the big issues, which are part of the amendments in the new bill, Bill S-8, stemmed out of those discussions, the non-derogation clause being one and making sure that in the preamble there is wording such that the department and government would work with First Nations in partnership to develop regulations. It was always the intent of government to do that. I went to do presentations, and the minister made commitments publicly that that would be the case, but chiefs would hold up Bill S-11 and say they did not see anything in there stating that. They really wanted to see that reflected in the bill. Now, in Bill S-8, in the preamble, you have the language that we would be doing this in partnership.
Starting in 2006, it has been almost six years of good engagement. There were some issues. There were some difficult engagement sessions, I will not lie to you, but it has been productive in most cases. As the bill was introduced in February, the Alberta chiefs as well as the Atlantic chiefs are behind the bill. I think it has gone well.
Senator Ataullahjan: Will this have significant improvement on maternal and child health in Aboriginal communities?
Ms. Woods: That is a good question. We would certainly hope so. It is absolutely essential for the healthy development of children, starting in the prenatal period, to have access to safe, clean water. One of the things that I think the nurses in the nursing stations worry about most is whether expectant women will have access to safe drinking water. That is one of the reasons we put so much emphasis on it. Yes, it is one of the very important contributors to better maternal and child health.
The Acting Chair: Senator Ataullahjan asked about whether chiefs and band councils could opt into regulations. Could you answer that part of her question, please?
Mr. Carisse: The bill, the way it is drafted now, will apply to every First Nation community on reserve or First Nation lands, because there are some situations in the Yukon where it is not exactly reserve but First Nation lands.
It does not apply to First Nations under self-government agreements or land claims. There are about 24 of these throughout the country if we do not include Nunavut, which is a different situation. These self-governing First Nations do have the option to opt in if they so desire. This is the reason behind clause 14 of the legislation. We will have to look at that on a case-by-case basis. All the self-government agreements are different. If you look at these First Nations that have opted into self-government, even some of their parcels of land have different legality behind them, but it is a possibility.
The issue is that for self-governing First Nations compared to those are not, we are trying to avoid a regulatory gap. For those that are on First Nations land, there is a regulatory gap that needs to be filled. For those communities that have opted into self-governing agreements, there is no longer a regulatory gap. They have either adopted their own laws or provincial or territorial laws apply to them with regard to drinking water. They may choose to get out of those provincial laws and adopt their own, and they may look at Bill S-8 and the regulations that, should the bill receive Royal Assent, stem out of the bill and decide to opt in. That will be up to that government to decide, and we will definitely work with them to ensure there is consistency.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for your excellent presentations. Some of the questions I had have already been asked, but I would like a little clarification from Ms. Woods. We heard that there was difficulty in getting capacity for water treatment inspectors or technicians. When they had one trained, they would soon find that a neighbouring, non-native community would offer more money and they would leave, so there was a big turnover. One of the issues seemed to be that in some provinces, to become a trained water technician, you needed to have a grade 12 graduation. Often people living on reserves who are very intelligent and capable do not have a lot of formal education. Is there an assessment available for those people who sincerely want to become trained as technicians to be trained under the new regime?
Ms. Woods: That is a very good question. Let us divide it up into its component parts. You have touched on the community-based water monitors and the environmental health officers, who are within the domain of Health Canada, and then I will suggest that Ms. Mitchell answer from the Aboriginal Affairs side.
Health Canada's role is not at the water treatment plant but the product that comes out of the water treatment plant, so after it has left the plant and gone through the distribution system — the pipes — and either to cisterns or people's houses. That is our domain.
Senator Raine: You did say that training was also your regime.
Ms. Woods: Yes. We train the community-based water monitors. They are trained in the community. They are usually trained by the environmental health officer. The environmental health officers are the ones who must have grade 12. Many of them are from communities, but many of them are not. They are the ones for whom the competition is most fierce, because all jurisdictions hire them. Our biggest capacity problems are at the community level. I am not downplaying our capacity problems with environmental health officers. They are a precious commodity. They get bought and sold and traded, and we keep hiring them. We keep trying to improve the working conditions and the responsibilities of environmental health officers.
One of our real points of focus is at that community level, because what we are really doing is building the capacity of the community to manage its own water supplies by training people. It is not lengthy training. They do not require grade 12 necessarily. Last year, we stepped up the national training program, trying to provide more consistency across the country and more guidance to those community-based water monitors. Again, as I said at the beginning, they work under the supervision of the environmental health officers, who are trained and certified public health inspectors. It is a nice, neat system. I would not underestimate how difficult it is to keep the community-based water monitors on the job. They are small, part-time jobs. One thing we are looking at in other areas is how to make better combinations of these small part-time jobs so as to create better full-time, more stable employment. I would ask Ms. Mitchell to intervene.
Ms. Mitchell: There are some very important points around the operators of the systems. I recently attended a workshop that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities sponsored, which brought in representatives from small municipalities and First Nation organizations across the country. The theme of turnover of water operators is one that resonates for small communities. That challenge, while it may have different components to it in First Nation communities, is something that small communities are struggling with.
We are trying to empower First Nation communities to deal with that on a couple of fronts. One is, on the training side, to address the point you raised around educational levels and requirements. We are working with relevant provincial governments, who really do the certification, to try to adapt their training programs to address that particular issue. I think that is a very promising avenue for us in terms of increasing the number of certified operators.
When we talked to First Nations through the fall last year in response to the national assessment, we heard that rates of pay for water operators are an issue. We are currently looking at what types of supports we can provide to band councils so that they can offer their operators a more appealing compensation package, what that might look like, and what other incentives might be in place to support those operators in staying in those positions.
We are also looking at how you can leverage the training that is out there across multiple communities. Maybe each and every individual community will not have all of the skills right there, but you identify what is within a reasonable area and create service hubs or areas. That is something that municipalities are looking at in different jurisdictions across the country.
We are trying to find ways to fill some of these gaps with more creative, innovative approaches because we recognize that a well-trained operator is really at the heart of delivery of safe, predictable, reliable water services.
Senator Raine: Just to clarify, when you say a "well-trained operator," is that a water technician or an environmental health officer?
Ms. Mitchell: I am speaking specifically about the person operating that treatment plant. I think it is a model that applies across the chain in the delivery of safe water.
Senator Raine: Those people require certification?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes.
Senator Raine: For that certification, do they require grade 12?
Ms. Mitchell: As I said, we are trying to adapt tools in cases where grade 12 is a hindrance or a gap. In some jurisdictions, for instance in Ontario, we have done a lot of work with the provincial certification bodies to find ways to have a proxy for grade 12.
Senator Raine: To get a prior learning assessment done?
Ms. Mitchell: That is right.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. Could I ask another question? It is sort of on the same topic. I am very curious to know, if a First Nation requires a new treatment plant, what is the process? Is it decided in Ottawa what kind of a plant they get? Are the treatment plants being designed by the community, based on their needs and their ability to operate? There are some great, high-tech water treatment plants, but it is kind of like a high-tech car: If something goes wrong, you cannot just go out and fix it yourself the way you could in the old days.
I am wondering what the process is. Are we supplying the appropriate type of water system for the size of the community and their particular concerns?
Ms. Mitchell: Great questions. A couple of things on the planning side: The department works with First Nation communities to prepare five-year infrastructure plans. They cover a broad range of infrastructure needs, but water and waste water are included in that. Over that five-year horizon, the department is looking at risk levels for particular communities. The communities are monitoring and tracking their overall performance. Based on that and on an evaluation of risk, you begin to prioritize where you will make investments.
From the perspective of the community and the types of systems, the department has in place protocols, level of service standards, and a whole range of guidance documents that communities have to review and come to grips with as they are thinking through the types of systems that they want to proceed with. We have decentralized models and centralized models. It is really a matter of going through the steps to answer the questions. Is this the right system for this particular community? Are the costs associated with it sustainable? Will it address the type of water source? They will work with engineers. We will work in collaboration with them, through project teams, to review that. In that process of understanding the feasibility of particular projects, we have a number of decision points along the way. We do this in close collaboration with the community. It is not a system that is imposed by Ottawa, and it is not a solution developed entirely by the First Nation in isolation; it really is a collaboration.
Senator Raine: Does it go through a filter of common sense?
Ms. Mitchell: I would hope so.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: This bill is similar to Bill S-11, which was before us approximately a year ago. As I recall, at the time, our committee had quite a number of concerns. We had heard from the minister who said it was a great bill. However, most Aboriginal people who appeared before us expressed real concern. Shawn Atleo appeared expressing concerns. We heard from him again, through video conferencing, at the end.
Anyway, the bill was simply removed, and I think that election proceeded. It has been a while since we have seen this bill. I think the general concern, at the time, was that really changes ought to be made to the bill. At the time, concerns were expressed about the non-derogation clause, the certainty of access to funding, and the role of First Nations in developing regulations. There were recommendations from many sources, including this committee, that regulations should await capacity building. Then there were issues of consistency of regulations between provinces and First Nations and whether liability would be transferred from the federal government to First Nations. These were some of the major concerns we had then.
As Mr. Carisse stated, there has been a fair amount of consultation since then. Hopefully, therefore, some of these concerns have been dealt with.
Have there been changes to the bill regarding some of these issues? Is it a better bill? Will it likely have support from more Aboriginal people and from people like Shawn Atleo this time around?
Mr. Carisse: Yes. As I was mentioning earlier, the initial bill — as you know, I was in committee — did not have much support. When the bill was introduced, the minister was in Calgary and had the three treaty chiefs with him supporting the bill. As well, the Atlantic Policy Congress put out a press release supporting the bill. Already, with these two fairly large organizations representing quite a number of communities — 44 in Alberta and 33 in the Atlantic region — there is support for the bill. Others are still looking at it. They all realize it is a better bill. I am sure there are still some issues for some organizations, but I think we have gone a long way to addressing some of the concerns you mentioned.
For instance, with respect to non-derogation and the clause added in clause 3, some may still have issues with the qualifier at the end, "'except for the protection of drinking water." However, as was explained, without that qualifier, you may have a bill that will not address the concern of the safety of drinking water. If you cannot prevent cattle from grazing near a community's wellhead, you are putting that community's drinking water into jeopardy. It may prohibit certain uses of that land but for the betterment of the whole community. Although that is still difficult for some, it is definitely a step forward, which was not in there. The role in developing the regulations, as I mentioned in the preamble, is now in there. In terms of consistency between the provinces and First Nations, the way I think this will work, and we said it from the beginning, is that we are looking at the provincial and territorial experience with the regulations to see what exists and to build from that.
When we were discussing this with the provinces, we were told that a lot of the provincial regulations would not be proper the way they are written now for First Nations because they do not cover the First Nation reality of small or remote communities. For example, not many provincial regulations talk about truck systems or cisterns. Therefore, this will need to be reflected in regulations for First Nations. We are going on a province-by-province and territory-by-territory basis to reflect the reality and the source water of that province. This will be done jointly around the table with the First Nations in that area to address the issues that are concerning those communities.
For liability, I think right now there is probably more liability for everyone because there is not that certainty. No one knows for sure legally their roles and responsibilities and what regulations would bring as clarity around those roles and responsibilities for chief and council, for that water and waste water operator, and for the government as well. I think it will help that.
There was a specific issue with liability in the bill, for instance, where it said that First Nations were the owners of water treatment plants on reserves. One of the comments that came out of the committee sessions was that buildings in the community or certain systems are not owned by the community, for example a commercial venture such as a hotel. The chiefs raised a valid point on the way that clause was written. We made an amendment to that clause to specify that owners are not only First Nations but could be a third party who is an owner of a treatment plant. Therefore, the liability would rest with the third party and not with chief and council.
Did we address everything? We will see as we move along in the community process. We have come a long way, and this is why we are seeing support from some of the political organizations out there.
Senator Campbell: My question is relatively simple: When will this be done? When will we have safe drinking water on reserves? It seems like we have been talking about it forever. When is it going to be done?
Ms. Mitchell: The challenge of delivering safe water wherever you happen to be is one that requires us to keep our eye on the key components. In the context of First Nation communities, some of those key components that we need to have in place turn on regulations. We have to move forward with our regulatory framework, investments and capacity, which are all part of the solution. Until we have those regulations in place, there is greater risk in First Nation communities around the access to safe and reliable drinking water.
Senator Campbell: When I look at the regulations and at the disagreements within those regulations, I think that surely there is some way we can come to a conclusion. Somebody has to give, and no one is giving. As long as no one gives, people will be sick, people will die and people will be left with no water. It is unconscionable in this country that we have Canadians living in that situation.
I am not laying the blame at the feet of the government. I am laying the blame at the feet of all those involved because somehow they have not been able to move beyond their narrow confines to a position where we have to get an agreement. We can have these meetings every day. We can sit here and listen to you and listen to First Nations but, until there is a breakthrough on that trust and on the agreement, it will not happen; and that is not acceptable for Canadians. I do not know how many years — two or three now — that we have been going here. We are no closer now than we were then, from what I see. Each time we get close, there is a deal breaker. We have to get by that. Somebody has to understand how to negotiate and how to get through that. It is both sides. I have long since given up just blaming you guys and have decided to spread it around.
What can we do as a committee to help push this along? Is it a case of putting feet to the fire? I do not know, but it drives me crazy that we have this problem in this country when we should not.
Ms. Mitchell: Those are fair points. The committee has done a lot through the report in 2007, which pointed the path forward. It has been a long journey. We have made progress in this new bill. We have some support out there from some very strong advocates, and I think that will help us to move forward in the development of regulations in a couple of regions. We are very well placed to do that. I am hopeful that that will unlock a bit more excitement and commitment to moving this forward. However, it is not our only avenue of intervention. We are working at the ground level with operators and with communities in the provision of water so that we can improve the statistics.
Senator Campbell: Could you possibly draw up a list of successes?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes, we could.
Senator Campbell: That would give us an idea of what was not there but is there now. Perhaps from studying those successes, we can understand how other groups view it and pull them along that way.
First, much of it has to do with not understanding the whole technical part of it; second, with worrying about getting caught with a system that they have to maintain, which I believe they should do; and third, with wondering how they will fiscally maintain it. These are all issues that can be resolved. Certainly, if you want to have your own governance, part of that governance is taking care of issues like water. That comes under being a self-governing First Nation.
It baffles me that no one appears here that does not understand the problem and wants to help, on any of the sides. It just seems like we are talking at cross purposes. Maybe if we have the successes, we can look at them and figure out how they happened. Why were these guys able to get it together and get it going while we cannot get anything going here?
The Acting Chair: There is a commitment to provide that information.
Ms. Mitchell: Yes.
Senator Meredith: I appreciate your presentations today. Senator Campbell pretty much asked a couple of my questions about the speed with which we are not moving and the fact that this has taken so long.
My question is about what has been done to the health of individuals, and what we are doing right now. I would be happy to see that list of successes as well. In the absence of legislation and governance to bring drinking water to First Nations, what are we doing now as a government to really help alleviate those? I just drank some water and I felt safe about it, but could I go to First Nation lands and do the same thing now if our government is not taking those necessary steps? Could you comment on that?
My other question is about their consultation with respect to the health practitioners that you may have spoken to. What are they saying about the current health of First Nations people and the projections of health if we do not move expeditiously to ensure that they have proper water systems? I have seen Aboriginal youth who have appeared before us. I am always concerned about their health because youth have always been a focus of mine over the last several years. I am concerned, so maybe go on and I will have a couple more questions.
Ms. Woods: I will start on the health side of things. I am glad that you asked because I was kind of itching to get into that because it is not as dire as we may slip into thinking. The fact is we actually have a pretty good regime. It will be made immensely better by having a regulatory regime to underpin it, having enforceable standards, as Ms. Mitchell talked about; it will change relationships dramatically.
I believe it was actually here, some time ago, that I said we must remember that the First Nations take their water quality tremendously seriously, too. In the entirely long time that I have been at Health Canada, I have never heard of a First Nation community saying to an environmental health officer that no, we do not really think we need to put a drinking water advisory in place. They take this very seriously.
Our regime, I am quite well aware, which has no enforceable standards and no regulation to back it up, is based on the Canadian drinking water guidelines that all jurisdictions use. We do not have a secondary set, "good enough for you" kind of thing. We set the same high standards, and, in general, we reach those high standards. We have not spent enough time talking about the successes, and putting a light on the successes will help enormously because generally speaking the water is safe. Yes, there are drinking water advisories in place. I said somewhere around 160 the last time. We track that regularly.
Some of those are preventive measures that the chief and council put in place. For example, in a small community with a small water system, if the community-based water monitor is going to be away for an extended period they will put a precautionary water advisory in place to say that to be absolutely safe you should perhaps boil your water or you should just be a little bit more careful than usual.
That is not everyone's experience in every community every day. Also, as I said at the beginning, some of those 160 systems that have advisories are tiny systems or they are systems that are used perhaps once a year. It could be a public system at a fairground, so you put a drinking water advisory in place because you are only using it once a year and you are not monitoring it on a regular basis. There are a whole bunch of reasons.
It is important to say that we do not find a number of instances of deaths. I have not heard of one that is directly water-related in the almost nine years I have been at Health Canada. The nurses at the nursing stations are vigilant. They try to connect with the environmental health officers on anything that looks like it might be a water-borne illness or an outbreak, so there really is a safety standard in place.
Ms. Mitchell: To give a bit more context, there are over 800 systems serving First Nation communities. When we talk about 160 drinking water advisories on 160 systems, the whole universe is around 800 systems serving communities. Again, those systems may be serving a small population, a non-permanent population, and it may be seasonal use. The devil is in the details in some respects in terms of risk and so forth.
To come back to the point of the successes, even in the absence of the regulatory framework being in place, we have made progress over the past number of years in terms of increasing the number of certified operators and investments in this system. We have had the benefit of additional dollars over the past number of years that have been put into upgrading existing or building new treatment plants so that communities can actually access safe, reliable systems and water.
The focus on training has been very important as well. The supports to those operators, including our Circuit Rider Training Program or other mechanisms that we have used through safe water operator programming, ensure that at the treatment plant in the community there is a backstop. There are supports to be able to go in when necessary and when needed, and then an overall monitoring system.
The national assessment of water and waste water took a snapshot of the systems community by community and gave a very detailed picture of the state of those systems and how they are managed. On an annual basis we are also supporting communities and we have those systems inspected so we can monitor how things are going in terms of overall system risk. We can then support communities in targeting investments to address those risks through better training, increasing certification and so forth.
Senator Meredith: You are prioritizing the systems that are basically deplorable. You are attacking those first in terms of priorities and moving forward.
The thing about it is that the world is looking at Canada, and we are saying that we have this problem right in our own backyard. There is bureaucracy upon bureaucracy. People are not moving forward about preserving life and ensuring that every Canadian enjoys this quality of life and has access to drinking water. My colleague, Senator Ataullahjan, talked about the health of the child. Therefore it is important that we continue to move expeditiously on this.
I am curious about reports of doctors from across the country whom I am sure you consulted with in your consultation. What are they saying?
Mr. Carisse: During the consultation sessions we had folks from Health Canada there. We had some environmental health officers at the formal engagement sessions. It was more along the lines of what Ms. Woods talked about.
There has been a lot of talk about drinking water advisories. That is not necessarily a bad thing. A drinking water advisory means that the mitigation system is actually working. People are prevented from drinking water that is being contaminated. It is funny to say but that is the way to look at it. We are the only ones who track drinking water advisories like this. The provinces and territories do not do it to this extent.
If you go back in time, I remember not too long ago, in Vancouver, I believe it was in 2006 when the expert panel was going through, there were 1 million people on a drinking water advisory for two weeks. Just a few weeks, in Prince George, there were 40,000 people on a drinking advisory. Just a few weeks ago, in Gatineau, because of construction, there were close to 30,000 people on a drinking water advisory.
These are the ones we hear about off-reserve because the numbers are so big, but there are some small systems in rural municipalities where there are drinking water advisories all the time. We just do not hear about them and no one tracks them. Therefore I think we are doing justice to this by ensuring we have a study of what is happening across Canada in regard to First Nations to determine when there is a need for a drinking water advisory by working with the health officers. Then the key thing is to get that drinking water advisory off as soon as possible, but you make people aware and then you get the advisory off. That is the key to making sure that the health of the individuals in the communities is protected.
Senator Meredith: Clause 5(1)(f) of the bill talks about the compliance once this legislation goes into place. If somebody is found to be non-compliant, who is charged and who will be responsible? Who pays this fine?
Ms. Mitchell: The bill will provide the framework for the regulations, and the regulations will spell out those details. The general principle around compliance is that the operators and owners of systems are the ones required to comply. As to the regime around fines and so forth, that really is a matter yet to be discussed and sorted out as we go through the regional processes to develop regulations. Provincial models may be a useful starting point for those discussions.
Senator Meredith: However, that will not bog us down in moving forward in the process, will it?
Ms. Mitchell: No.
Senator Demers: Thank you for your great presentations.
I will come back to Senator Campbell's concern about it taking quite a while to get this done. When things do not get done, is it a matter of trust, communication and commitment to get it done? We talked a lot about the young kids, but there are the elderly too. We tend to forget them. That is the first question.
How would the proposed legislation help protect Canada's substantial investment — $275 million from 2003 to 2013 — in First Nation water and waste water systems?
Ms. Mitchell: I will start with the second question, what is the interplay between regulations and continuing investment in infrastructure.
The first point is that with regulations we will have clarity around roles and responsibilities, something we do lack at the moment. The regulations will make it very clear who is responsible, what they are responsible for doing and over what time period they are responsible for doing that. It will sharpen the focus on operation and maintenance of systems. It will provide band council, water operators and federal government departments with a clear picture of how you get these things done.
Right now we have protocols in place. We have the drinking water guidelines, so we do have those frameworks. The rigour that is associated with the regulatory framework I think will impose a greater degree of focus for all the participants. When the minister appeared at this committee last year in relation to Bill S-11, he was explicit in saying that the ongoing investments required in First Nations systems really do have to be paired up with that regulatory framework. He was quite strong on that point.
On your first question around delays in implementing legislation, having impacts on the health of children and the elderly, if I understand your question correctly, I will speak to from a broader perspective.
In the absence of a regulatory framework, we have done what we could with essentially a voluntary compliance model through protocols. Have we been 100 per cent successful? Not yet. Will we ever be in this kind of world? That is why we are pursuing the regulations. We have made improvement. We have more trained people monitoring so that, as Mr. Carisse said, we are able to identify when there are risks to ensure people are not consuming water that is not potable. I think we made significant headway there. You want to be in front of those risks, not catching up after the fact.
We have tried to understand how the delivery of safe water operates and the many steps and interventions that are required, starting from the source of the water, the type of system you design, the level training and certification that your operators have, the way you distribute that water into your community and have designed supports in each of those communities to help them do it. It is very complex to deliver safe water in the world that we live in because so many factors impact the quality of that water. It is not simply a matter of putting something through a filter and then distributing it. We have tried to take steps to support communities across a broad range of activities. I think we have achieved some successes there, but we still have a ways to go.
Senator Munson: First, can the department provide a list of First Nations that have user fees and other revenue to provide that 20 per cent that we talked about earlier, just to have a rate? Can you do that?
Ms. Mitchell: We can.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that.
We are talking about water. There is a story out this morning that Environment Canada has found at least one place to cut, following the tightening conditions of Budget 2012. We are now just beginning to hear of the implementation of the regulations of this massive 400-page document. There is a leaked email from the department indicating that several water-related programs will get the axe while others will face severe cuts. Most notable is WaterSense, a program to provide national coordination for water efficient programs. It will stop receiving federal support. The Municipal Water and Wastewater Survey, the only national survey on Canadian water usage habits, will also end, according to this.
I am curious because inside Bill S-8 there is a requirement that an assessment of the environmental effects of drinking water systems or waste water systems be undertaken in circumstances where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not apply. You talked in the opening speech about the amount of money that has been spent and will be spent on First Nations in dealing with safe drinking water.
Can you assure us today that there will be no cuts to this program, or have you seen anything within these regulations that will come before us in the Senate soon enough that you still have the money? This is a time of restraint, but we should never restrain ourselves when it comes to safe drinking water for First Nations.
Ms. Mitchell: I am sorry, but I cannot comment on decisions that Environment Canada may be making with respect to implementing deficit reduction action plans.
Senator Munson: On your own, in Health Canada, are you confident that you still have all the money? That is, no one has come to you and no one has said to you that you have to find a place to cut a corner here or there because we do not have that kind of money? Can you assure us that within your departments the money is still there? I think that is important to know.
Ms. Mitchell: I think Budget 2012 was explicit in identifying $330 million over two years.
Senator Munson: The budget is one thing, but one thing that sometimes politicians, reporters and others forget is that there was a time here when there was scrutiny of these regulations and the implementation of them. As Mr. Andrew Coyne said in his column today, people paid attention to that. At one time when parliamentarians got angry, they would not answer the bells for three weeks because they were angry enough about what happened later in terms of dealing with energy in this country.
I would like to be assured that, as far as you know to this point, you do not see forthcoming cuts to this program.
Ms. Mitchell: I can tell you that we are planning for sort of ongoing investments in water and waste water services on-reserve. Those will involve those targeted funds that this budget announced, as well as ongoing A-based dollars from the department.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that assurance.
Ms. Woods: It is the same for Health Canada. As we went through our own deficit-reduction exercise, we decided to ensure that the delivery of public health services at the community level would not be affected, so no cut goes down to the community level.
Senator Munson: I appreciate that.
Senator Brazeau: Welcome to all of you.
We all know there are many First Nations communities that do not have water systems or waste water systems to bring in clean and safe drinking water. However, it is also a fact that many First Nations communities either have water trucked in or have contracts with water companies to have bottled water delivered on the different reserves.
Do you have a number with respect to how many First Nations communities have those arrangements?
Ms. Mitchell: We will have to follow up with you. I do not have that number with me.
Senator Meredith: On Senator Munson's question, you mentioned some numbers going into 2014, Ms. Mitchell.
Treaty 7 with Chief Weasel Head indicated that without sustainable funding this legislation will basically be impotent.
Going forward, you talked about your department not cutting any funding. If we are to cut somewhere, this is not the department to be cutting when it comes to people's lives. To project beyond 2014, do you have numbers for what will be spent on infrastructure, training and staff to ensure that they are compliant and that they ensure the standards will be kept up to par?
Ms. Mitchell: Yes, I can provide some projections on that.
We have typically been taking it out of our departmental A-base. Approximately $1 billion of that is for infrastructure. Of that $1 billion, approximately $200 million specifically is targeted towards water and waste water.
The additional funds we have had over the past number of years through the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan, Canada's Economic Action Plan, the water strategy have supported us in doing more.
We continue to hear from First Nations exactly that: We want predictable funding. That is a message we relay on a regular basis to our minister, and he relays it to his cabinet colleagues.
I think it is an important signal that, during a time of restraint in this last budget, the government did put additional money on the table to support these investments going forward. I take that as a very strong commitment to provide the funding required to allow First Nations to build up those systems so that they are eventually positioned to be fully able to comply with regulations.
Senator Meredith: Thank you.
Senator Raine: I was just looking back on questions we had when the committee was studying the previous bill. With respect to the national assessment that was done, we found the key findings included that 807 water systems were inspected, 314 were classified as high overall risk, 278 as medium and 215 as low overall risk. Could you provide us with an update on those figures, if you have done an update, just so we can see progress is being made?
Ms. Mitchell: We are in the process of updating those numbers. We do annual inspections. We have just come through our annual cycle and will be working on updating those numbers in the coming weeks and months. Once we have those, we can certainly make efforts to share that.
Senator Raine: Thank you. It will be nice for us to see the progress that is being made.
The national assessment for Attawapiskat rated the water treatment system at 7.7, high risk, and waste water treatment at 6.4, medium risk. In particular, they mentioned the issues of insufficient capacity, training of the operators, improper record keeping and submission, and no emergency response plan.
In view of what happened subsequently with all the housing issues on Attawapiskat, and I am sure that community is not the only one across our country that is experiencing high birth rates and a rapidly expanding population, are you keeping track of those high-growth First Nations with respect to their ongoing needs? I know you talked about a five-year plan, so I presume that is part of it.
Ms. Mitchell: Yes. We look at population as one of the factors in assessing the need in a particular community. I think a general rule is that on-reserve populations are growing at a much faster rate than off-reserve. We do not tend to break that down into a community-by-community analysis of the demographics but rather apply that general rule that the rate of growth is higher. Population is one of the considerations when we are planning for investments and the growth of that population.
Senator Raine: The report that we will be seeing, when it is ready, on the state of the systems, is that broken down at all? It would be nice to differentiate between the really small systems that serve five to ten houses and the communities where people are concentrated in their population and where, if anything goes wrong, it is a much greater problem. If that could be broken down, it would be very helpful.
Ms. Mitchell: Certainly.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses. I have made a quick list of requests. They include user fees, successes, the number of trucked and bottled water services provided, sharing the updated assessment of water and waste water systems and the request Senator Raine just made. I believe that has been noted by you. The committee would welcome that further detail.
As I said, I believe the minister is willing to appear before the committee at a future time. I know there are questions about the future fiscal commitment that are probably better asked of the minister.
I believe that concludes this session. I think it has been a helpful introduction to this important bill. I thank the witnesses and honourable senators and declare this meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)