Table of Contents THE WALKERTON LEGACY: ONGOING VIGIL Introduction ........................................................................................................17 A Problem for All Canadians................................................................................18 National Water Standards ....................................................................................19 The Judicial Inquiry ............................................................................................22 The North Battleford Warning ............................................................................26 Canada’s Worst Water?..........................................................................................28 First Nations Concerns ........................................................................................29 Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions ..........................................................30 THE WALKERTON LEGACY: ONGOING VIGIL Introduction August 2001. A year and a few months after to a lack of legally enforceable national the Walkerton tragedy, the commission of standards that would ensure that a fundamen- inquiry led by Mr. Justice Dennis O’Connor tal, cohesive, and effective mechanism would is listening to the final submissions from keep our public water supplies dependable witnesses and lawyers. By the end of the year and safe. the inquiry should have completed its report The lessons learned in the aftermath of the for the Government of Ontario. The tragedy tragedy tell us to heed the lesson of and subsequent public inquiry have ensured Walkerton. But what is the lesson of that Walkerton’s tainted water outbreak has Walkerton? Whom is the public to believe? become one of the highest profile public Ontario government lawyers told the inquiry health cases in the history of Canada, and it that governments can supervise and regulate, has made Canadians very aware that we but that the flawed actions of one individual probably take the safety of our drinking can always place an entire community’s water too much for granted. safety at risk. The Ontario government’s And in April 2001, Canada received severest critics contend that the current another warning. Less than a year after the E. political leadership in Ontario automatically coli outbreak in Walkerton, cryptosporidium, gives priority to “the bottom line” as opposed an intestinal parasite, invaded the municipal to public safety. Some civil servants argued water system in North Battleford, that regulatory agencies spend far more time Saskatchewan. Cryptosporidium is far less reacting to violations than to preventing them deadly than E. coli; nevertheless, it did make in the first place. And many environmental- hundreds of people very ill and forced the ists contend that we, as a society, have entire community to boil their water for three chosen to emphasize treating water sources months. as opposed to protecting them. Is the lesson Boil water orders and advisories are now to be learned a combination of all of these common in Canada. Quebec issued 542 analyses—a Gordian knot that is almost advisories in 2000. In May of 2001, 220 impossible to untie? advisories were in effect in British Columbia; The Walkerton Inquiry is considered to be Newfoundland had more than 250. In the a model of how such an investigation should summer of 2001, boil water orders were be conducted. A full spectrum of experts as issued for 35 of Ontario’s 103 campgrounds. well as the key stakeholders in the issue—the Given this statistical context, the general public and the people of Walkerton tragedy—although perhaps the Walkerton—were consulted. The inquiry’s most dramatic example of a water quality recommendations will likely influence the crisis across Canada—is a clear warning that way Canadians look at one of our most other Walkertons could indeed happen. precious and essential resources. What we Experts point to decaying and archaic infra- learn from the inquiry’s findings may help us structures for treating and delivering water in understand the tangled and tragic series of even our major cities—describing them as events and prevent similar tragedies from time bombs waiting to explode. Others point occurring elsewhere in Canada. News in Review — 17 — September 2001 THE WALKERTON LEGACY: ONGOING VIGIL A Problem for All Canadians As the judicial inquiry into the Walkerton E. coli outbreak proceeded, many Canadians began to believe that drinking water quality was a national problem. The Central Question As a class, discuss why drinking water is one of our fundamental resources. Watching the Situation Closely While watching this News in Review report, jot down answers to the following questions, and discuss whether they are pivotal in terms of the inquiry. 1. In addition to the North Battleford outbreak, what other incidents during the past year drew attention to water quality problems in Canada? 2. How is it thought cryptosporidium got into the water system in North Battleford? What were the effects of this outbreak? 3. What was the sequence of events that finally led to the boil water order in North Battleford? 4. According to Stan Koebel, what was the standard approach to water treatment and testing by the Walkerton PUC? 5. How does Premier Mike Harris view the role of the Ontario government in the Walkerton outbreak? 6. What is the difference between national water guidelines, which Canada has, and national water standards recommended by the federal Progressive Conservatives? 7. According to the Ontario coroner, what is probably the most important lesson of Walkerton for all Canadians? Vigilance During the inquiry, the coroner suggested that vigilance is of the utmost importance in ensur- ing safe drinking water. After a second viewing of the video, discuss how the following elements of the report impact on this need. 1. In North Battleford (as in Walkerton), it was an individual doctor who called atten- tion to the likely presence of contamination in the water supply. It took two more weeks before the boil water advisory was given to the community. 2. Workers in North Battleford knew there was a sewage problem, and it was never reported to the appropriate authorities. 3. In Walkerton, Stan Koebel, the man in charge of the water system, faked test results for years and was never called on the carpet by the utility commission, public health department, or environment ministry. 4. While national drinking water guidelines do exist, their enforcement is up to local jurisdictions and varies across the country. Follow-up Discussion What steps do you feel are needed to restore public confidence in the safety of our water system? In small groups, discuss ways in which governments can ensure that those in charge of the water supply are carrying out their duties properly. Make specific recommendations and compare yours with those of other groups. September 2001 — 18 — News in Review THE WALKERTON LEGACY: ONGOING VIGIL National Water Standards “Canada is the only major industrial country in the world that doesn’t have legally enforceable drinking water standards.”— Dennis Bueckert, The Toronto Star, May 14, 2001 The safety of drinking water is an issue of great importance to all Canadians, no matter where they live. Media coverage of recent problems across the country has drawn attention to the inconsistencies in regulation and enforcement among the various jurisdictions—mostly provincial—responsible for guaranteeing the safety of our water. A survey in The National Post indicated that as many as 46 per cent of Canadians do not trust the water coming out of the taps in their homes. Currently, there are only national guidelines, which are developed in meetings twice a year between federal and provincial bureaucrats. Actual regulations, however, remain a provincial responsibility. Only Alberta and Quebec have made it the law that these guidelines must be followed. In January 2001, the environmental organization Sierra Legal published Waterproof, a report card on the drinking water situation in Canada. Sierra Legal asked each of the provinces a series of questions, and awarded a letter grade based on the responses. Questions included whether testing is required before a water source is approved, whether the province has the legal means to protect the land around water sources, what methods of water treatment were in use, and what public reporting requirements were in effect. The marks awarded were a full range: Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario (the latter after the Walkerton tragedy) received a B. (Ontario before the Walkerton tragedy would have received a D.) Nova Scotia got a B-minus; the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan got a C or C- minus; British Columbia and Newfoundland got a D; Yukon got a D-minus; and Prince Edward Island failed, with an F. Sierra Legal’s Executive Director, Karen Wristed, joined the call for national standards for drinking water quality, and said that, at a minimum, they should be designed to protect water sources; to ensure the adequate treatment of drinking water; to staff plants with properly trained, certified operators; to guarantee strict monitoring and enforcement of regulations and standards; and to provide for the prompt publication of testing results. Organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have passed resolutions encouraging the development of enforceable universal standards with similar aims. Constitu- tionally, water is a provincial responsibility. But Liberal