Indian Affairs provides the funds for designing, constructing, and maintaining water systems in First Nations.
Health Canada helps monitor water quality (except for British Columbia, since 2013, as noted above).
First Nations are responsible for getting the construction done and the maintenance in place.
“Aha!” you say. “So, if people still don’t have clean drinking water in First Nations communities, it’s because the leaders are corrupt and stole the money and didn’t build anything properly!”
Well, dear reader, it’s not that simple at all.
The Auditor General identified a number of problem areas:
There are no laws and regulations governing the provision of drinking water in First Nations communities, unlike in other communities.
The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many water systems are still deficient.
The technical help (including supplies like spare parts) available to First Nations to support and develop their capacity to deliver safe drinking water is fragmented.
Indian Affairs defines the construction codes and standards applicable to the design and construction of water systems in First Nations communities, and the Auditor General found these codes and standards are extremely inconsistent and the follow-up is poor. In addition, the Auditor General found water testing by Health Canada is also inconsistent, hampering the ability to detect problems in water quality before a crisis arises. Added to this, most of those water-treatment plant operators in First Nations are not properly trained for their position.
What has to happen?
Improving access to potable water for Indigenous peoples in Canada is going to require cooperation and commitment.
This is not a problem that can be solved with a one-pronged approach. More money has not worked, and cannot work, without addressing the regulatory gap, and ensuring capacity within the communities guarantees successful and safe operation of water-service facilities. Yet, despite a 2007 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples saying basically the same thing, not enough progress has been made on these issues.16 If your question is, “What needs to happen?” then let’s review the Senate Committee’s recommendations.
Recommendation 1:
Indian Affairs to (all in relation to the delivery of safe drinking water):
provide a professional audit of water-system facilities and an independent-needs assessment (with First Nations representation) of:
1.physical assets
2.human-resource needs of individual First Nations communities
dedicate necessary funds to provide for all identified resource needs of First Nations communities
Recommendation 2:
Indian Affairs to:
undertake comprehensive consultation process with First Nations communities and organizations regarding legislative options with a view to developing such legislation in collaboration
Has any of that been done yet?
In April of 2011, Neegan Burnside provided the independent-needs assessment recommended by both the Auditor General and the Senate Committee, finally giving us a more accurate view of what the situation is and what needs exist.17 Almost all First Nations participated in the study. Indian Affairs provided a Fact Sheet in July of 2011, laying out the summary of the report. Since people often focus on cost, here is what the report recommended:
Having assessed the risk level of each system, the contractor identified the financial cost to meet the department’s protocols for safe water and wastewater. The total estimated cost is $1.2 billion which includes, amongst other factors, the development of better management practices, improved operator training, increasing system capacity, and the construction of new infrastructure when required.
The contractor also projected the cost, over 10 years, of ensuring that water and wastewater systems for First Nations are able to grow with First Nation communities. Including the aforementioned $1.2 billion to meet the department’s current protocols, the contractor’s projections for the cost of new servicing is $4.7 billion.18
Basically, we know what needs to be done, and how much it is going to cost. All we need, at this point, is the will to do it.
Problems with legislation
Bill S-11, The Safe Water for First Nations Act, was introduced in May of 2010. However, the much-awaited federal legislation recommended by the Auditor General and the Senate Committee met with criticism for not having been produced with actual consultation with First Nations.19
Bill S-11 was replaced with Bill S-8, without any substantial changes.20 Critics of this bill pointed out that there was no funding formula included and called it a “piecemeal” approach that did not respect Aboriginal rights. The Canadian Environmental Law Association submitted a briefing note to the Senate Committee pointing out three problem areas with the proposed legislation:
1.The bill did not respect constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights.
2.There was no long-term vision for First Nations water-resource management.
3.First Nations governance structures were not being respected.21
A legal analysis of the bill commissioned by the Assembly of First Nations raised similar concerns, pointing out the following:
[Bill S-8] is a legal and constitutional non-starter… [which] makes no progress towards its stated end of providing safe drinking water to First Nation communities…[and] threatens to undercut aboriginal autonomy and rights.
[Bill S-8] shows the current government’s hand-pushing for more private control, less accountability to First Nations and less responsibility to [Indian Affairs].22
The Ontario Native Women’s Association pointed out there is still no mechanism in place to ensure that development of regulations related to water in First Nations is a joint process, rather than merely a top-down one.23
Nonetheless, the bill was passed into law in November of 2013.24 No regulations were ever drafted or implemented under the Harper government, and the situation remains as dire as ever as one can tell by the stories that continue to come out of First Nations communities.25
This relationship has to change if things are ever going to improve.
The top-down approach reflected in this proposed legislation has not worked. The water crisis in First Nations communities is not some recent development, but rather a chronic problem that was caused, in great part, by the failure of the federal government to bring First Nations into this process as partners.
For years, Canada lacked a proper understanding of the scope of the problem, but that can no longer be used as an excuse. With the Neegan Burnside report, we now have the most comprehensive study ever done on the issue. We know where we need to go.
First Nations are working hard to develop a national strategy.26 Canadians and the Canadian government need to join this process. The need is pressing, and that cannot be forgotten. All Canadians need to be aware of the severity of the problem, and I would further ask that they stand with Indigenous peoples as we ask to be consulted properly in any proposed solution.
For many years now, Indigenous women have been spearheading “water walks” to bring attention to the vital role water plays in human life.27 In many Indigenous cultures, women are particularly tasked with the responsibility of caring for the water, and this tradition has not been forgotten. Water security is an issue everyone in this country faces, and access to clean drinking water has long been considered a basic human right. To guarantee that right, the Canadian population must become more informed on the issues and more vocal in its insistence that access to water is not sacrificed in the name of economic development. Building relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis is a vital part of developing a national strategy that works for everyone.
NOTES
1.Laura Gottesdiener, “Detroit Is Ground Zero in the New Fight for Water Rights,” The Nation, July 15, 2015, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.thenation.com/article/detroit-is-ground-zero-in-the-new-fight-for-
water-rights/.
2.“In Detroit, City-Backed Water Shut-Offs ‘Contrary to Human Rights,’ Say UN Expert,” UN News Centre, October 20, 2014, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49127#.VmGa2MpAEQ0.
3.Carl Gibson, “This City Could Become the Next Detroit,” Think Progress, April 4, 2015, accessed December 4, 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/04/04/3642935/baltimore-water-shutoffs/.
4.Ibid.
5.People’s Water Board (blog), accessed December 4, 2015, http://peopleswaterboard.blogspot.ca.
6.nêhiyawêwin for: truly, this is so.
7.Health Canada, “Canadian Water Drinking Guidelines,” last modified September 11, 2012, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php.
8.Health Canada, “Types of Drinking Water Advisories,” last modified February 11, 2015, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/promotion/public-publique/water-eau-eng.php#type.
9.Laura Eggertson, “Investigative Report: 1766 Boil-Water Advisories Now in Place Across Canada,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 178, no. 10 (2008), accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.cmaj.ca/content/178/10/1261.full.
10.See note 7, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/promotion/public-publique/water-eau-eng.php#s2d.
11.Ibid., http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/promotion/_environ/2009_water-qualit-eau-canada/index-eng.php#a4.1.
12.“No Running Water,” Winnipeg Free Press, accessed December 4, 2015, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/no-running-water/.
13.Polaris Institute with Assembly of First Nations, “Boiling Point! Six Community Profiles of the Water Crisis Facing First Nations Within Canada,” May 2008, accessed December 4, 2015, https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/polarisinstitute/pages/31/attachments/original/1411065375/Boiling_Point.pdf?1411065375. This report discusses Neskantaga and five other communities.
14.WaterToday.ca homepage, accessed December 8, 2015, http://www.watertoday.ca/.
15.Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “Chapter 5 – Drinking Water in First Nations Communities,” Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, September 2005, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_200509_05_e_14952.html.
16.Parliament of Canada, “Safe Drinking Water for First Nations: Final Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples,” May 2007, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/abor/rep/rep08jun07-e.htm.
17.Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), “National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems – National Roll-Up Report,” April 2011, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313770257504/1313770328745.
18.INAC, “Fact Sheet: The Results of the National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems,” last modified August 19, 2011, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313762701121/1313762778061.
19.Parliament of Canada, “Legislative Summary of Bill S-11: The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act,” June 7, 2010, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=s11&Parl=40&Ses=3&source=library_prb&Language=E.
20.Library of Parliament, “Legislative Summary: Bill S-8: The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act,” April 19, 2012, accessed December 8, 2015, http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/s8-e.pdf.
21.Canadian Environmental Law Association, “Briefing Note to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples Re: Bill S-8,” June 6, 2012, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.cela.ca/sites/cela.ca/files/846CELA_BriefingNoteBillS-8.pdf.
22.Allison Thornton, “Implications of Bill S-8 and Federal Regulation of Drinking Water in First Nations Communities,” accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/parliamentary/legalanaylsis.pdf, page 7.
23.James Murray, “ONWA – Bill S-8 Fails to Address the Most Pressing Needs and Issues,” Net News Ledger, July 16, 2012, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.netnewsledger.com/2012/07/16/onwa-bill-s-8-fails-to-address-the-most-pressing-needs-and-issues/.
24.Accessed May 8, 2016, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-1.04/index.html.
25.Joanne Levasseur, and Jacques Marcoux, “Bad Water: ‘Third World’ Conditions on First Nations in Canada,” cbc.ca, October 14, 2015, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/bad-water-third-world-conditions-on-first-nations-in-canada-1.3269500; Gloria Galloway, “Unresolved Water Advisories Creating ‘Health Emergency’ for First Nations,” The Globe and Mail, December 6, 2015, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/unresolved-water-advisories-in-aboriginal-communities-creating-a-health-emergency/article27627801/; “Northern Manitoba First Nations Gather Evidence for Drinking-Water Lawsuit,” CBC News, November 12, 2015, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/northern-manitoba-first-nations-gather-evidence-for-drinking-water-lawsuit-1.3315436.
26.AFN, “Honouring Water,” accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.afn.ca/en/honoring-water.
27.Mother Earth Water Walk homepage, accessed December 9, 2015, http://www.motherearthwaterwalk.com/.
25
No Justice, No Peace
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
I believe we can do something different. We want to do something different. We are sick and tired of coming to events like this and being your conscience. Absolutely sick and tired of it. We’d love nothing more than to be able to go around and dance and feel good about ourselves. But, by god, we have too many real things to be concerned about!1
If you’ve being paying attention to the voluminous endnotes, you’ll have seen that I cite the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples quite frequently. There is a lot of information contained in those five volumes, and it covers a heck of a lot of ground, so to say I consider it a useful set of documents is a severe understatement. In fact, I am devoting an entire chapter to why I think you ought to become more familiar with it.
What I am really trying to do with this chapter is to give you a general sense of what is contained in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report so you will go and read the portions of it that interest you or that deal with questions you have. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a physical copy of the report, so this chapter is heavy on the hyperlinks, which are certainly of more use in ebook versions than in print. Nonetheless, the entire report is available online for free, and if you can’t follow the hyperlinks, I am attempting to at least get you in the general area of where the sections I discuss can be found.
What was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?
Canada is a test case for a grand notion – the notion that dissimilar peoples can share lands, resources, power and dreams while respecting and sustaining their differences. The story of Canada is the story of many such peoples, trying and failing and trying again, to live together in peace and harmony.
But there cannot be peace or harmony unless there is justice. It was to help restore justice to the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada, and to propose practical solutions to stubborn problems, that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was established.2
Please forgive me if I choose to quote large passages from time to time, rather than breaking it down myself. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP – spoken aloud as “R-cap”) did a fantastic job of speaking plainly, and these words have inspired me so often through the years, despite so little change in that time, that I feel it is important to share these words as they were written. Also, despite my exhortations to read the thing, I know many of you simply will not have the time or the inclination; so think of it as me drawing your attention to passages I think are particularly important.
The quote above comes from a publication that is 150 pages in length, and, in my opinion, should be mandatory reading for every single
Canadian. This publication is called Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: People to People, Nation to Nation.3 If you never manage to wade through the five volumes of findings and recommendations published by RCAP, please at least make your way through the Highlights.4
Backing up a little, RCAP was established in 1991 and engaged in 178 days of public hearings, visiting 96 communities, commissioning research, and consulting with experts. In 1996, RCAP released a five-volume report of findings and recommendations:
We directed our consultations to one over-riding question: What are the foundations of a fair and honourable relationship between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of Canada?5
This was the central purpose of the RCAP: to figure out what went wrong, how it went wrong, and what can be done to correct the problems identified.
Many people seem to feel lost or overwhelmed when it comes to the huge diversity of issues faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada and with the obviously dysfunctional system of relationships between Indigenous peoples and settlers. You will see this reflected in comment sections, or falling from the mouths of politicians and reporters, or yelled out in frustration over and over again whenever there is conflict between us. What you are witnessing is hopelessness. Helplessness. Confusion does this to people, and that is why I think RCAP is so incredibly powerful and important.
You see, people really do sit down and identify the problems and try to come up with solutions, and if you feel like you have no idea where to begin to address these problems, then I want you to know you have a good place to start. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel here, folks. So much work has already been done to come up with practical solutions to identifiable problems, it’s a damn shame most Canadians have never read a single word published by this Royal Commission. So, let’s get to it, shall we?
Indigenous Writes Page 27