Transport Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2017

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I want to support my colleague's comments. I was one of the first to discuss this in the House and to support Mr. Bratina's motion. I too think there is a problem. I was once a mayor, and my municipality had to deal with the issue of lead in drinking water. The issue was raised, and we solved part of the problem.

At this time, the government has an opportunity to make the required amounts eligible. I don't see what other recommendation our committee could make that would really change anything in the short or medium term. I do not believe that our committee studying this motion further would contribute much to attaining Mr. Bratina's objective.

Mr. Bratina says he is very worried about the health of young mothers and children who are consuming lead in drinking water. The federal government could intervene to change things and force municipalities and provinces to act in the health area. This would advance Mr. Bratina's cause considerably.

I believe I understood that he wanted to make this his cause before he concludes his term in Parliament. It is a good thing when members invest in a cause and want to change things to improve our society, especially when it concerns people's health. I think we could help Mr. Bratina more if we recommended that the Standing Committee on Health examine the health impacts of lead in drinking water. That committee could then intervene and bring in some regulations, so that the municipalities and provinces would have to do something, which our committee cannot do currently.

I agree with Ms. Block on this. I want to help Mr. Bratina, I fully approve of what he is doing, but we simply have to help him find the right path to attain the objective in his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I agree with what other members have said.

I don't know how we should proceed, but I suggest that we provide the member with a written reply in which we say that we are sensitive to the problem, that we are fully aware of it, and that in order to help him we recommend that the question be referred to the Standing Committee on Health. Indeed, that committee will be in a better position than we are to make the necessary recommendations to the government. We would also recommend that he continue his awareness- raising work with the various departments. This will give Mr. Bratina the additional tools he needs to continue his work.

Our committee is aware of the problem. We do not deny it at all, quite the opposite. However, we think that this is a matter of health, first and foremost. In fact, whenever we asked him what we could do, he always brought us back to issues involving people's health. I felt that he was one of those people who are aware of the problem and its consequences on children and human beings, but who feel somewhat powerless. This really is a health issue.

For the rest, honestly, it is up to the government to decide if it wants to invest and include criteria in its programs, as it did for the fuel tax. As I said earlier, for those who don't know, the municipalities in Quebec have to use the funds collected through the fuel tax to resolve water quality issues first. If they do not do that, they cannot use the money for other purposes. They have to make that a priority under the agreement negotiated between the federal government and the province.

On the Quebec Department of Environment website, you can see all of the work that has been done on this, and to encourage the municipalities to correct things quickly. Perhaps we could refer to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Chair, I don't yet know how we are going to answer Mr. Bratina, but I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me, and I'm not going to repeat what they said.

I have a concern about consistency. That our committee reply to Mr. Bratina with a suggestion is one thing, but that our committee suggest to the Standing Committee on Health that it do a study is another. We would be dealing with prerogatives we have already discussed on other topics. I would like us to avoid that, so that all committees maintain their autonomy. That includes ours, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Just to offer a counterpoint to the issue about this being public health, I think we all recognize it is a public health issue, but I think Mr. Bratina's perspective is that the health aspect is not what he wants to do something about. He's not advocating that we do research to see the scope of the health problem. He's bought into the fact that research shows that lead can impact the developing brain, and he's sold on that. I think where he would like us to focus is on where the fix is. I had some of the same reservations, and I still do, which is why I don't want to get into a really lengthy study on this, but there might be something to discuss with FCM, for example, about how infrastructure funds could be delivered, whether the gas tax is the right way to go, and whether there are advocacy efforts that we could be doing.

There are just two areas that come to mind for me where there's some utility in doing a study, and it's really on the advocacy and awareness piece and on the delivery of infrastructure funding that could be used for this project. My inclination is to go forward with a short study that kicks off the discussion on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You say a short study. Are you talking two meetings?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think two meetings would an appropriate place to start, and we may very well find that two meetings are plenty for what we need to do, but I'd recommend we start with two meetings for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any other further speakers on this?

The suggestion on the table right now is that we allocate two meetings to this. Mr. Hardie has suggested inviting FCM in for one of the meetings and possibly a municipality that has dealt with it.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It wouldn't hurt to have some Infrastructure Canada officials to talk about the opportunities for the delivery of funds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, those are the suggestions.

I have Mr. Aubin first and then Mr. Hardie.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I have a lot of trouble imagining undertaking such a study here. If we ever managed to do that and convened the FCM, I would like us to invite their Quebec counterparts, the UMQ or the FQM, either one.

That said, the committee would be asking people to travel here to come to tell us that this is already included in municipal priorities. I don't think this would be the best use of our resources in Ottawa, nor of our partners' resources. Why would we want the UMQ to come to the witness table to tell us that the problem is already well in hand in Quebec? We already know that. It seems to me that we would be asking these people to travel for nothing, because we will be putting questions to them to which we already have the answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll pass, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support my colleague's remarks. Our study could instead attempt to determine which persons within the federal government are in a position to intervene. I would prefer that we know who has the power to act. For instance, are there people in the Department of Health who could do something? All of this would help to properly orient the study.

In the House, the motion to conduct this study was accepted unanimously by the members. We all voted in favour of motion M-69, which states that we are to undertake a study. We simply want to determine how to do that. That is important, and we all agree.

However, rather than hearing municipal spokespersons tell us what we already know, why don't we target federal representatives who can really intervene in this file, whether they are with the Department of the Environment or with public health? These people could tell us whether they can act in such or such an area. I think that would be the best way to move Mr. Bratina's motion forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's a good point.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think I'm a bit guilty of putting the cart before the horse by kicking off a discussion about witnesses that we don't need to have today. If I haven't officially moved it, I'd like to move now that we conduct a two-meeting study on the issue of the presence of lead in water. I think we should borrow the wording from the motion, but it's essentially that we conduct a two-meeting study on the motion that Mr. Bratina presented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Exactly. I think what we've heard here is let's try and stay focused on the federal side. Maybe we have some folks from the Department of Health come for one hour, and Infrastructure Canada for the second hour, and that may give us enough information to be able to go forward with our recommendation.

Mr. Sikand, did you want to make a comment?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

No, I thought you were going to put forward the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Would it be possible to keep it to one meeting initially? Then, if need be, we could schedule another. If we wanted to conduct a serious study, as the chair pointed out, it could go on for a year. We want to help the member make progress on the issue. It seems to me that we could hold a first meeting, and then figure out whether a second is necessary, whether we could take it further.

I'd also like to discuss the types of witnesses we would want to bring in to help us make the decision.

Personally, I don't think this is for the committee to deal with. I think that it's in the government's hands, that the government could take the necessary steps. If, however, we absolutely have to have these meetings, I will get on board. That said, we have many other issues in the mix right now, files in which we can have a real impact. I say let's start with one meeting and go from there in terms of how best to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I don't think Mr. Fraser put the cart before the horse; he simply has a holistic view of the horse and the cart. As I see it, if we can already agree on a list of government witnesses we would like to hear from, we'll know whether we need one or two meetings, and we can wrap up the discussion.