Debates of May 8th, 2001

Supply

[An hon. member]

It was shameful.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues just said, that was a shameful response. In fact, when it comes to health protection it is the law that we turn to, it is tough regulations that we require, and it is leadership from the federal government that is so imperative on all fronts. The government has failed to uphold its responsibility to act under even existing legislation to ensure that a national health safety system is in place.

The problem we are dealing with today is not just that we are trying to get the government to move away from a position of inaction and passivity. It is also an attempt to get the government to reverse almost a decade of catering to individuals and organizations with a vested interest in seeing privatization, deregulation and off loading of responsibilities so that in fact there are few standards to adhere to and there is unfettered access in terms of marketplace endeavours.

I sense today that there is a shift in the political climate in this country, that in fact the pendulum is swinging. Given the facts that this motion was initiated by the Tories and seems to have support from at least some Alliance members, it suggests to me that we are finally, as a collective, coming back to the realization that government must play an active regulatory role in health protection. That means setting standards, national policies and mandatory guidelines when it comes to something as basic as the quality of our water supply.

I hear some acknowledgement on this whole issue from members across the way on the Liberal benches. That is heartening, because over the last little while we have witnessed a government that has been prepared to evade its responsibilities on fundamental health protection matters.

When the government was elected in 1993, it began a process of moving our health protection capacity within government from a precautionary model, or one that said the ultimate responsibility of government is to ensure that the do no harm principle is maintained, to a risk management model where in fact private industry would set the standards and government would monitor and do its best. In fact, when it came down to it, it was a buyer beware model that had to be followed.

Today we are feeling the consequences of that kind of approach and we are realizing that it was wrong. We are paying the price now. We have to catch up on many fronts. We have talked in the House about food safety, about adverse reactions from drugs and about the quality of air. Today we are talking about probably the most fundamental issue when it comes to health and well-being, that being the safety of our water supply.

What do we have today in terms of federal action to deal with the fallout from Walkerton and North Battleford and all the other centres that my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair referred to? Not much.

We should have learned from the Walkerton tragedy a year ago. At that time many organizations and members of parliament were calling for the government to put in place a national water policy with mandatory standards and with the financial resources to deal with infrastructure difficulties. Nothing has really happened in that whole year. Back then in the spring of 2000 numerous organizations and members of parliament talked about how our water management laws were outdated, how they went back to the fifties. They talked about how our general anti-pollution laws were outdated and needed to be revised. They talked about unenforceable policies, guidelines and objectives of varying vintage.

What has happened since that period in our history? What good came out of the Walkerton tragedy? Why do we have to deal with North Battleford today when in fact all the lessons were there for us to learn one year ago or more? That is the travesty of the situation.

However, we all know that it is never too late to learn from the mistakes of our past and today is an opportunity to move forward. Today we call upon the government to actually take action, in whatever form it wants. It could be, as a senator has recommended, to amend the Food and Drugs Act to include mandatory standards and programs dealing with quality of water. It could be a separate, safe, national water safety law, as other groups have recommended. It could be the establishment of a special committee with resources to get moving on the problems immediately. The bottom line is that we need action today. Canadians need action today.

I do not think any of us want to hear from constituents who are worried about whether the water they have to access is safe. With something as vital and as essential as this, which we require on a day to day basis, we cannot allow people to live with that kind of uncertainty, worry, fear and anxiety about their health and safety. There is no reason for the government to delay on this matter.

Yesterday the Minister of Health referred briefly to a bill he introduced back in 1997, Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or treat water destined for human consumption. I remind members of the House that bill only dealt with a tiny portion of the issue of water safety. It dealt with the questions of water filters and water plumbing. It was pulled suddenly from the agenda of the House and not returned, and no action has been taken since.

Many members in the House expressed concerns at that time about whether or not the government was truly serious about addressing water quality, or whether it was just another attempt to respond to international trade agreements, to harmonize standards globally. We questioned whether or not there was a real framework in terms of dealing with a national safety system. We were anxious to see that debate continue. We call again on the government to bring forward a piece of legislation or a set of recommendations that will allow us to move further immediately.

In closing, let us remember Walkerton a year ago and North Battleford this week. Canadians are feeling particularly vulnerable in terms of being exposed to contaminated drinking water. All these events underscore the need for safe drinking water legislation and mandatory guidelines on the quality of our water. We must act now.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question several times during the debate and almost everyone has prevaricated in their answers, so I would like to put this very simple question to the member who just spoke.

Is it the federal government's responsibility to impose national water quality standards on all provinces so that all Canadians are guaranteed that the water they drink is safe to drink anywhere in Canada? It is a simple question.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her thoughtful commentary. I know she has been a strong advocate and a strong voice on health issues for all Canadians.

My question to her is equally simple. Given the rash of severe cuts we have seen imposed by the government since 1993, taking billions of dollars out of provincial transfers, does she not agree there has been a cascading cost down to provinces and subsequently down to municipalities that to a large extent could be pointed to as part of the responsibility for failing infrastructure that has left Canadians vulnerable to the types of situations we have seen in Walkerton and North Battleford? Does she agree that there is a responsibility directly attributable to the federal government?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. Just to elaborate very briefly, the cuts by the government since 1993 in terms of transfer payments for health and other social programs are cause for the load provincial governments are now feeling.

I think, though, specifically of the cuts to the health protection branch, the dismantling of the drug safety bureau, the erosion of the food safety lab, and the inaction on contaminants and toxins in consumer products. All those cuts have meant that provincial governments, in order to act in the best interest of their citizens and to ensure a health protection system and a safety system are in place, are left to pick up the pieces.

Obviously they cannot do it on their own. We cannot continue to have a patchwork of systems across the country. We cannot continue to evade federal responsibility for something as vital as safe drinking water.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Harris would have something quite different to say in terms of the cascading effect. It was he, after all, and his Conservative government in Ontario that took a big bite out of water safety and security and, more to the point, privatized. This had a net impact of making it difficult for the good folks in Walkerton, which is very close to my area. When I was mayor we put in place the first groundwater protection security system in Canada in the region of Waterloo, the very municipality in which I was mayor. It is very important water.

I wanted to ask the member opposite the following question. Given her zest for this area, which I think is rightfully placed and quite correct, would she use the same kind of enthusiasm, shall we say, in picking up on the Sierra legal defence fund's report card on Saskatchewan getting a C, Manitoba getting a C minus, and British Columbia getting a D when it comes to water safety and security?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can actually point to many differences between the present federal Liberals and the Harris Conservatives in Ontario in terms of an agenda of privatization, deregulation and offloading. Both levels of government bear responsibility for the current critical situation we are facing and both must take measures to act in the best interest of common good and public safety.

In terms of his last comment around the Sierra club's report card, let me say from my vantage point that the provincial government in Manitoba is certainly working hard on environmental issues. As the Conservative member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough just said, it is pretty hard for provincial governments to deal with the cascading effect of federal cutbacks and downloading on to provincial governments.

Every provincial government would probably welcome the notion of national standards when it comes to water quality and would welcome some support and leadership from the federal government to try to address a very serious and systemic problem in society today.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to the hon. member from Winnipeg on her contribution in terms of protecting human health. Quite simply, the Liberal Party of Canada prior to the election in 1993 called upon the federal government to have safe drinking water legislation in place.

The Liberal red book 3 said that clean air and water were Canada's birthright. Does the member agree with the Progressive Conservative Party that clean drinking water is the birthright of all Canadians?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that is obvious. Based on my speech today and the work my colleagues and I in the NDP have been doing over many years, we believe that access to safe water is a right as members of a civil society, a civilized nation.

The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the food we eat, the drugs we must take for health reasons, the water we drink to survive, the air we breathe, the medical devices we must use, and the blood transfused must be safe beyond a reasonable doubt. The government should always act in terms of the precautionary principle, ensuring that no harm comes to Canadians through these vital essentials of life.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris. I know that you are a personal admirer of the member for Brandon—Souris. I am sure that you will wait for the end of my speech in order to hear what he has to say.

Today, we are talking about drinking water, because problems exist. Water is primordial. It is life. Except that now it can also mean death or illness. It is something we must therefore talk about.

I had the opportunity in an earlier life to be the mayor of a municipality and the reeve of an RCM for 11 years. As such, I had to deal with two water contamination problems.

Between you and me, we were not prepared. The first time, the problem involved ammoniacal nitrogen, and I will not give a course on chemistry. What is ammoniacal nitrogen? It is a mixture of dead leaves, detritus and fecal coliforms from both animals and humans which completely unbalances the filtration system.

The basic filtration system in a small or medium size municipality is not complicated. Water is drawn from a river or a well, and sodium hydroxide, alum and chlorine are added. That is it.

When things are out of balance, they increase the chlorine to kill the bugs. However chorine cannot kill all the bugs in the water. So some people got gastro-enteritis but, thank God, nothing more serious.

A few years later, another problem arose. This one was due to a spill: liquid manure got into our main reservoir and, once again, threw everything out of kilter. Again, we had problems with the public. Following theses disasters, there were a number of them throughout the country, people changed their way of doing things. They evolved. They adapted. They created new regulations, new laws, except that they were not uniform.

In Quebec, for instance, the regulations are not applied the same by all municipalities. Why? Because they do not all have the same means. The government of Quebec has probably been one of the most active governments, producing new regulations and new statutes, although there has been a bit of a delay because of the applicability of this legislation.

The municipalities are told “This is what you have to do”. However they lack the expertise and means the major urban centres have. Some provinces are not as advanced as others. The comment is often made to the federal government “What are you doing messing about with drinking water? That is a provincial jurisdiction”.

People's health is not provincial, not federal, not municipal, not the responsibility of a school board. When there is a public health problem, we as elected representatives have a duty to assume our responsibilities and to do something. This does not mean overstepping jurisdictional rights. If people are not putting the interests of those they represent foremost, it is the role of this parliament to let them know and to take the appropriate steps.

If a province is in line, that is fine. Debates may, however, be raised at some point. Provinces are starting to set up commissions. Quebec, for instance, held a symposium on water a few years ago. It even declared a moratorium on all water bottling plants in Quebec. Major commissions of inquiry are cropping up in the various provinces. If there are a few fatalities, a few cases of illness, a commission is struck. There is no uniformity, and the information is not even shared.

What we are saying is that the federal government must be in a position to bring together all partners in order to put criteria in place, standards for across Canada. There is nothing dangerous about a standard for all of Canada. It will be a minimum, one that will need adjustment, of course. It is not good for 30 years; adjustments will need to be made within a certain timeframe. This is an evolving situation, and so standards will have to be adjusted as we go along in order to keep our water drinkable.

The greatest reserve of drinking water is in Canada. People drinking Canadian water have been dying. Although the situation does not really lend itself to such a comparison, if we were the top beef producer in the world and people were dying from eating beef, a whole industry would be at risk.

What do people do when there are problems with their drinking water? Instead of putting pressure on all levels of government, including the federal and provincial governments, they walk over to the convenience store and buy bottled water, because they have no choice. This does not solve the drinking water problem in Canada.

What we are saying is that time has come for the federal government to assume its responsibilities. We are not necessarily talking about a bill like those that used to specify which screw, hose or pipe to use. We are not talking about hardware; we are talking about global issues.

We must ask our partners in confederation to assess the situation and to take action. This is a public health issue.

I am telling my colleagues from Quebec “Do not be afraid, this is not a Liberal motion”. I know that the Liberals are in office. I know it is disturbing and tiring. It is upsetting to see the government introduce bills. It is always messing around with the grey areas, in terms of jurisdiction. However this is a motion from a political party that is respected by the regions and provinces. We need help to push the government in the right direction.

This motion does not jeopardize the jurisdictions of the provinces. If they want to do the job, let them do it. Are we not part of a country? The federal government has a role to play. It must contact its partners, so that they can find solutions together.

Do not start a war, do not start fighting over provincial jurisdictions. We know all about that. In any case, the supreme court is there, should the federal government get involved in provincial jurisdictions. Under the constitution, an appeal is possible. The problem is that there are some grey areas in the constitution.

We are saying that people must get together. Drinking water is under provincial jurisdiction, but its export is a federal matter. In this House alone, is there a minister responsible for water in general? Is there one? No. Five or six ministers at least are involved: the ministers of health, public works, intergovernmental affairs, the environment, fisheries and oceans, and so on. Everyone has a say on water issues, and more specifically, on drinking water.

My provincial colleagues, including those from Quebec, should not be afraid to support such a motion. They should tell themselves one thing, which comes from the civil code of Quebec, and that is, we have to act reasonably, according to the spirit of the civil code. If we act reasonably, we can avoid many problems when they arise.

We invite the members to set a course, to look in partnership at the best solutions and standards. Standards change. If there is ever a problem, we in the Progressive Conservative Party cannot be accused of doing nothing.

This is only a motion, and we are an opposition party. This is why we hope that both the government and the opposition will work together to ensure respect for jurisdictions. It is time to stop getting our knickers in a twist. I know it is difficult with the government opposite. We must stop and recognize that there is a real problem. If one province does its job, so much the better. If there is one that does not, or if public health is at risk, no one better come to me saying it is a jurisdictional issue. It is an issue of accountability, and that starts here in parliament.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a number of the points made by the hon. member. About six years ago when I was a councillor for the region of Waterloo there was an outbreak of cryptosporidium. It is not a pleasant thing to go through. Fortunately for us we had an alternate water supply and other ways of coping. However it was nothing like what the people of Saskatchewan are going through and what the people of Walkerton went through.

This is a very important motion, one of great concern to Canadians. It behoves us as parliamentarians to review the things Health Canada has been doing in this area in terms of setting out guidelines and publications, researching the effects of water on human health, and looking at different treatment additives and devices.

People are looking into the issue in a meaningful way, especially the people at Health Canada. Can we do more? We can always do more on such an important health related issue. In budget 2000 the government committed $2.65 billion over the next six years to infrastructure, green projects and other things commensurate with what we are talking about today.

I was interested in the member's comments on jurisdiction. There are always sensitivities relating to federal, provincial and territorial discussions. There are sensitivities when it comes to who is doing the work and who is mandated to do it.

I would like to hear the member explain a little more how he thinks the process could and should work. Perhaps he could use Quebec, his home province, as an example and explain how best to make sure jurisdictional squabbles vis-à-vis water supply are set aside in this case in the best interest of Canadians wherever they live in this great country. I would be interested in the member's opinion on that.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Jurisdictions are part of our everyday life in government. They must be respected.

That being said, a jurisdiction shared by everyone is called leadership. We are saying that it is not because there is a jurisdictional problem that the federal government does not have a unifying role to play.

This morning, our leader, the member for Calgary-Centre, said that this was what co-operative federalism was all about. The fact that there is a problem in a jurisdiction does not mean that I will not help it. One does not leave someone to rot because one is not supposed to be on his sidewalk. One gives him a hand, while respecting jurisdictions.

We are saying that it is not a case of setting norms or standards, call them whatever, and then imposing them on the provinces. That is not what this is about. There must be consensus with our partners. Once this has been obtained and created, then yes, a national standard can be drawn up.

As for the issue of drinking water, there is no getting away from it. It is a matter of life and, unfortunately these days, a matter of death. The federal government must play a unifying role, all the while respecting jurisdictions. For us in the Progressive Conservative Party, respect for the provinces is probably the most important, because it also involves respect for the regions and the people who live there.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

I have a little trouble with the statement that they will respect jurisdictions and that that is what must be done. I have a problem with that because it involves the consensus just mentioned. They come along and step in and we have a national standard. When it comes time to raise these standards or change them, Quebec will have its hands tied in its own jurisdiction. Would the member for Richmond—Arthabaska comment on this?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when regulations are set by consensus, they have built-in mechanisms that come in handy when it is time to modernize these regulations. Any analogy is lame, I agree, but the five main principles of the Canada Health Act are pretty vague. Provinces can do almost anything they want as long as they maintain a minimum level of service. The problem with this legislation is that it is not reviewed on a regular basis.

As far as public health is concerned, we should have shared national standards. Of course, these would be implemented by the provinces, which would be done again by consensus or under an agreement with the federal government. Jurisdictions clearly have to be respected.

The constitution is very clear on this issue: court challenges are always possible. Quebec has not gone much to the supreme court recently to get an opinion on a constitutional matter. Still, all the provinces and even the federal government have the power to do so.

So, I do not think it is really a problem. Maybe we just need to change the players on the other side. If we all agree to work together, I believe that we can get the people opposite untwist their knickers, so to speak.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Fundy—Royal, who moved our opposition day motion today. It is rather timely and certainly rather topical. The member for Fundy—Royal has been working on the issue quite a while, even before the current problems in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. The issue was on the minds of Canadians even before the terrible happenings in North Battleford.

I congratulate my other colleague, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who as we all know was the previous mayor of Asbestos.

I will deal with two areas. One relates to my previous municipal experience. I will also touch briefly on the area of federal responsibility, as the federal government has a large responsibility for first nations people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

We accept the motion and hope members of the government and other opposition parties accept it. No commodity in our world, our country and our municipalities is more sacred than water. If we do not have food, clean air and water then what we know as life cannot exist. We must put our priorities in perspective and water is one of them.

In 1993 the federal government and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities put an infrastructure program into place. It was a tripartite arrangement between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

I mention that for specific reasons. First, co-operative federalism has worked in all provinces. All levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, got together and said they had needs which could best be served by working together. We all work for the same people. Our constituents are the constituents of all three levels of government. It is therefore important that we work together to provide the best services we can.

The infrastructure program was about dollars. We are talking about standards. We can, through compromise and consensus among all levels of government, put proper standards into place that benefit all provinces and peoples throughout the country.

In 1993 my community had access to millions of dollars and I played a role in decision making. We put the majority of those dollars into the sewer and water infrastructure our constituents needed to be able to work and live in the community. We put most of the money into water. As mentioned, single source communities like North Battleford are running into serious issues of contamination. My community spent millions of dollars to find a second water supply. We spent those dollars knowing full well our constituents needed an uncontaminated water source.

We also put millions of dollars into the sewage treatment plant which sends sewage into the rivers. It was necessary to treat the effluent so people downstream would not suffer problems. I say with great pride that we spent those dollars in the right places.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says Canadians are the second highest users of water. It says Canadians use 300 litres of water per person per day. That is a huge amount. It is something we have taken for granted. We must put standards into place to make sure those 300 litres are of proper quality.

A member of the government mentioned that $2.6 billion over six years had been identified by the government to go into infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has indicated that infrastructure to ensure quality water for Canadian citizens would require some $16.5 billion. When $16.5 billion is needed, $2.6 billion over six years is but a drop in the bucket.

I suspect we can work together, provincially, municipally and federally, to put the necessary standards into place. We have a substantial number of first nations people in Manitoba, particularly in Saskatchewan.

I would like to quote from an article in which Chief Matthew Coon Come said:

“Walkerton made news across Canada,” the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations said. “But about one out of eight of our aboriginal communities are threatened by unsafe water, which each year kills our newborn and our elderly.

These deaths don't make the front pages of Canadian newspapers...

This accurately sums up the problems that are evident in our water supply in our aboriginal communities. One out of eight aboriginal communities today do not have proper water quality for the people they serve.

The national chief's statement is also supported by a 1995 Health Canada report that found that 171 reserves, or one in five at that time, had water systems that could affect the health and safety of the community if the problems were not addressed. Those problems were not addressed. Today there is still one in eight communities that still suffer through an inadequate water supply.

Drinking water became so bad a few years ago that aboriginal residents were told by health experts to give only bottled water to their pets because the quality was so bad. The assembly of first nations recently reported that 79 communities or 12% had what Health Canada called potentially dangerous drinking water. These statistics demonstrate the severity and the extent this issue has impacted those communities.

National water safety standards must take into account not only what is happening in our rural urban centres across Canada, but also in our aboriginal communities.

When I say that there is a need for us as Canadians to identify the need for water purification, I cannot underestimate the seriousness of that statement. The motion before us today sets those standards. We currently have guidelines that can or cannot be followed dependent upon how the jurisdiction wishes to follow them. We have no specific standard.

You have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to travel across the country as I do. I go from Manitoba to Alberta, to British Columbia to Quebec City or to the maritimes. When I take a glass of water I believe that, as a Canadian, I should be convinced that that water is of sufficient quality to drink and should not be afraid for my health, welfare and well-being. That is where we have to set the standards.

Right now in Canada we do not have a standard or guideline set for the testing of cryptosporidium, that very little parasite that is causing all that trouble in North Battleford. There is no need by our guidelines to test for that. That is utterly insane. The United States has a requirement, a guideline and a standard to test for cryptosporidium. When I go to my friend's in Alberta, I expect that the water supply not to be contaminated with cryptosporidium. However right now I do not know that.

That is why we are here today suggesting that the government, with the co-operative federalism, that wonderful buzzword, work in concert with provincial governments, as well as municipal governments, to put forward the standards which could be accepted. so that when I and my family travelled across Canada we would not have the possibility of encountering a water quality that would not be good for our health.

The Progressive Conservative party did not put forward this motion simply because of what has happened in the last number of days. In our policy statement and during the last election we indicated that this was a very serious issue. The PC party said that if we were in government we would introduce a safe water act which would legislate and ensure safe drinking water quality standards for Canadians. That would be harmonized with the provinces and territories.

Everyone across Canada should have that same security in knowing their water is safe. That comes from an election platform back in the year 2000. We put our money where our mouth was. We put our water where our platform was. I suspect that the government should embrace what our platform was.

The Conservative party also said that we would enshrine into law and harmonize with the provinces and territories Health Canada's guidelines for drinking water. As a result, any municipal water source in non-compliance would be immediately disclosed to the public. Transparency concerning the water supply would build the confidence that Canadians deserve. We had that policy in our platform, so we speak from the heart and from a policy that was put into place that speaks to this very issue.

I thank the House for the opportunity and the time to speak to what I consider to be one of the most, if not the most, important issues facing Canadians today.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the House earlier, Quebec has been working on draft regulations since June 19, 2000. A final draft designed to make standards far exceed those being proposed for Canada will be submitted to the Quebec cabinet.

It has already been proven that Quebec has the best water management system. What scares me about this motion, as noble as it may be, is that programs already exist. Again it will look like duplication. Even experts will not know where to turn, and we will be dividing this concentration of expertise. Who will be the looser in all this? The environment.

I also heard the member for Toronto—Danforth tell us earlier that the government wanted to respect this jurisdiction, because water was too important. Something else is important, however, and I am talking about respecting jurisdictions provided for in sections 91 and 92 for over 100 years. These jurisdictions have already been divided, I am supposed to believe that there is no danger of opening the door to encroachment when water is a provincial jurisdiction, therefore Quebec's jurisdiction, and the establishment of national standards is being proposed.

How are you going to convince me that these national standards will not create the same situation we saw in other areas, such as the millennium scholarships, education and health? How are you going to assure me that the government will respect this jurisdiction? I do not believe it will.

In light of what I just said, what do you think about these remarks?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I give the floor to the member for Brandon—Souris, I would like to remind the member for Châteauguay that any comments, questions and interventions must be addressed through the Chair, and not directly to the member.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Châteauguay was actually working through the chair. He was just looking at me and that is why his comments may have seemed a bit more pointed.

I say to the member for Châteauguay that the Bloc is losing its raison d'être. We do know that there are certain provincial jurisdictions in the provinces. Having been in another level of government, I recognize that those jurisdictions are selfishly guarded, as well they should.

The member for Châteauguay said that there would be standards set within the province of Quebec. Good for the province of Quebec. I hope those standards would be set at a higher level and a higher bar than perhaps the standards would be set at a federal level because they would then take precedence. Those standards would take precedence within the provincial government and those would be the standards they would try to achieve. I say good for the hon. member. I hope he does have the highest standard of water quality within our country.

However there are other provinces that perhaps may not set those same standards. What I am saying is that when I go to Quebec City, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, I expect to have water quality that I can depend on. I expect also when I go to Winnipeg, Manitoba or Dauphin, Manitoba that the level of standard, that bar, should be attained. I see the member for Dauphin—Swan River, whose area had some serious water quality problems.

As for the jurisdiction, absolutely. Co-operative federalism is a buzzword we have heard in the House so often. I wish we could finally put it into effect. We should have co-operation among the provinces, the territories, and I have even thrown in the municipal governments. It is necessary that there be a tripartite co-operative relationship and a tripartite funding relationship.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to my colleague and to all members who have taken part in the debate.

With respect to the question from the hon. member for Châteauguay's question, I say to my friend from Brandon—Souris that there is nothing which would in effect harm Quebec's standards to adopt and accept the motion that has been put forward. In fact it would very much embrace a situation that he has quite rightly pointed out. If Quebec has legislation pending, and I take him at his word, which would try to set a higher standard in the province of Quebec, that is perfectly in keeping with the notion of co-operative federalism. In fact, I will be the first to acknowledge that in the area of criminal justice with young offenders Quebec set a very high standard which other provinces can strive to match or exceed.

Does my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris not see that the motion is consistent with Quebec's approach, that is to always strive to put water safety, in terms of Canadians' health first and we should be trying to match if not exceed Quebec's example?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was absolutely correct in reconfirming what I had said earlier. We hope and wish the Bloc Quebecois and its members will support the motion for the very fact that they on behalf of their constituents would now be setting a benchmark and standard throughout the country which would have water quality as its raison d'être. If the province of Quebec wants to raise that bar even higher and set those standards higher, we would applaud that.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time. It is certainly a pleasure to be back in the House. If they say “your house is your home” I guess I am back home. I have been away the last weeks attending to the my new son, Cade Andrew, who was born on April 17.

The issue is very important on the heels of the recent tragedy at North Battleford and certainly last year's tragedy in Walkerton. It is critical to the health of all Canadians, and is something that is very close to my heart.

As a parent with a 22 month old and a newborn and knowing that contaminants have a more serious effect on the newborn and the elderly, I am very concerned.

Having been an alderman in the Village of Perth-Andover, I am also familiar with the issues from a municipal perspective. They are very serious, and all municipalities take them very seriously. In funding crunches, I also understand the administration and construction of the municipal facilities.

As an engineer for the last nine years, I worked in the environmental sector, specifically in the area of water quality, water and waste water quality. For the last five years, I have been president and/or vice president of the New Brunswick Environment Industries Association. One of its goals is educating the population of New Brunswick on environmental issues.

I would also add that as part of that association I was allowed to see a lot of the Canadian technologies, as far as drinking water goes. Companies such as ADI in the riding of Fredericton, Zenon and Trojan Technologies in Ontario have internationally renowned technologies on clean water.

Last June I also helped initiate and co-chaired a clean water conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick, entitled “Your Drinking Water: Ensuring Its Safety”. Three hundred people attended from across Atlantic Canada to talk about drinking water issues. The goal of that conference was to educate the people on the perils of unsafe drinking water, how to remediate unsafe drinking water if they ran into that situation in their communities and how to protect their communities against unsafe drinking water. It was very much an educational conference, and I am proud to announce that I will be doing it again this September.

As members can see, from a parent's perspective, from a municipal politician's perspective, from a professional perspective and certainly from a personal perspective, this is one of the issues I feel very strongly about and have some background in. In fact part of my platform during the last campaign was clean water issues. One of the reasons I came to Ottawa was my strong beliefs in clean water.

On the specific motion, I do not agree with the honourable intent of the motion. It is an excellent motion but I have some concerns. The hon. member's goals are very honest and productive for society in Canada.

As recently as last night, at, I assume, a multiparty dinner, the leader of the PC Party mentioned that one of the policy areas on which he would like to co-operate with the official opposition was specifically in the area of a renewed or healthy federalism, which he said was to respect the rights of the provinces. Some would see it as flying in the face of a renewed federalism, which is respecting the rights of provincial jurisdictions.

I will turn to our Liberal record on water quality and some of the initiatives that we have undertaken. In the 2000 Liberal election platform, Opportunity for All , we committed to addressing the issue of safe drinking water by funding improvements to municipal water and wastewater systems through the infrastructure Canada program.

We also committed to working with provincial, territorial and municipal governments to create the first building code for municipal water and wastewater facilities. Such a code would help improve the ability of municipalities to meet water quality standards.

In the 2000 budget the Liberal government committed $2.65 billion over six years to fund improvements to infrastructure across Canada. We created the $25 million green municipal enabling fund and the $100 million green municipal investment fund to help municipalities improve energy efficiency, water and wastewater treatment, solid waste treatment and public transportation.

The Liberal government is providing leadership on the protection of clean drinking water through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. As recently as May 1, council members agreed that the protection of surface and groundwater quality was a priority. The council agreed to collaborate on water research, to share best management practices, to accelerate the development of water quality guidelines and to link existing water quality monitoring networks to provide comprehensive access to timely information.

The government has shown a commitment to safe drinking water for all people in Canada by focusing on stronger national guidelines for water quality and by strengthening the role of the National Water Research Institute. The institute has an excellent well water monitoring and modelling program, that it is working on now, by funding improvements to municipal water and wastewater systems, and by investing in research and development on better land use practices.

One of the major issues is the healthy federalism that I spoke about. We have to consult with the provinces to see if they support us in taking the lead on this issue. Do they want us to establish enforceable national drinking water standards?

I understand the need to address this issue and I respect the sincere intent of the motion. I commend the hon. member for Fundy—Royal for his quick action and for his attempt to find a quick solution to the serious situation. We must consult, liaise and ultimately, in the words of his own leader, respect the provinces.

Although I have concerns regarding the healthy federalism in consulting with the provinces, it is an important enough solution. I am proud to say to my constituents and to my family that I will vote in support of the motion.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too, as most members of the House, wish to thank the member for Fundy—Royal. When it comes to a health issue that affects the lives of every person in the country, it is imperative that we put aside partisan politics and work toward the best interest of everyone in the country. The motion does that.

The motion respects all members in the House and it tries to put an issue forward that would be fundamentally helpful for the whole system. It would help the federal, provincial and municipal governments to work together to make certain that these kinds of tragic incidents that happened in Walkerton and North Battleford do not repeat themselves time and time again.

When I was first told that there was a boil water order in the municipality that I live in, I found it difficult to accept here in Canada. We talk about boiling water or not drinking water when we travel to some third world countries but not many of us thought about that situation happening here in our own country. It did bring shock but it also brought awareness.

Everybody in the country must be made aware that we have to do all we can, at all cost, to ensure we have safe drinking water and a safe supply of other items such as food and so on. It is clearly an issue that affects the lives of everyone. The barrier to this point has been that public opinion has not moved forward.

When I was the mayor of Kingsville much of the municipal fund was spent in trying to improve the water system. Our small community was looking at $1.5 million year after year to separate the water system so that raw sewage was never pumped into the Great Lakes. A great deal of work was done on the water system to make sure that safe water was available.

We now find that systems are getting older, but we can now test the systems to find bacteria or micro-organisms that create somewhat of a problem. Places like Walkerton and North Battleford raise our awareness of what is happening. It is important that we have standards across the country to make certain that no one can be threatened under any circumstances by our systems.

It is extremely important we make sure that frequent sampling is done on a regular and consistent basis. The national guidelines structured between the federal government and the provinces show us a good direction to head in. They point out where we need to go.

The issue is to ensure that those national guidelines are enforceable. That is what the debate is about today. It is about ensuring that water pollutants are treated properly so that our water is safe, that the aesthetic concerns about water which Canadians demand are met, and that we test water on a frequent basis to make sure it is safe for all Canadians. As I understand it, the national guidelines have been accepted in Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Hopefully that program will continue and cover the rest of the provinces as well.

By making sure that all provinces move in an appropriate way to correct the systems that need correcting is the important issue of the day. Yes, the Liberal government did take action. No, we cannot correct all things in one quick sweep. I do not believe many people 5 or 10 years ago would have thought that we would be faced with the dilemma we now have with our water systems.

During the Walkerton incident there was a great deal of discussion about water safety across Canada. As an election platform the Liberal government looked very carefully at the infrastructure in the country. The government may not do all the things that need to be done, but by working in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments and by directing $2.65 billion toward infrastructure it will go a long way in the next few years to ensure that the needed safety factors are in place.

It is important we also realize that we as the federal government do not do things alone. As our minister said yesterday, passing a law is not the only way to resolve a problem.

It is important that we have consultations with the provinces, territories and municipalities. We must make certain that we take their expertise, technology and their advances into consideration so that we build a system that would be workable and safe for all Canadians. We must ensure that municipalities spend what is required to make certain that the municipal water systems and waste systems are state of the art technology. Canada must go in that direction to make sure that we are there.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on May 1 put an agreement in place to protect surface groundwater quality, making sure that it was a priority for all governments across Canada. It agreed to collaborate on water research. That means we can bring together the experts who know systems that are workable and the solutions available and who can make certain that all municipalities and all provinces have all the information required to use the best technology possible to work on this problem.

It also agreed to share best management practices. Oftentimes training and management practices are not necessarily as they should be. It is important to realize that under proper management systems it is possible that the Walkerton situation may have been averted.

We have heard testimony from Walkerton. We are all aware that there were some very difficult situations in their management system. That should not happen and we must make sure that anyone operating a system maintains it at the best possible level. We need to accelerate the development of our guidelines. They would be structured to make sure that we have a system where everyone could share in what needs to be done and share in the monitoring of all systems across the country.

When we look at the issue it is critical to support the motion which has a tremendous amount of merit. It can take away partisanship in the House. It can make certain that we are all working together to ensure that Canadians have a system that is workable, that is better for everyone than some of the systems of today, and yet takes into account all the technology, costs and resources required to move forward.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. Does the hon. member believe there should be more money put into basic infrastructure in the country and, if so, how much more than is presently going into it?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as we move along as a society there is a definite requirement for money to be put into infrastructure. We have a problem today in water systems, perhaps many water systems across the country, but new guidelines are being structured and set. New goals and targets are being worked on. It is important the experts sit down to look at what is the most cost efficient and yet achievable goals to make certain the system works.

Chlorination was a system used in the past. Today new systems in chlorination and other systems have been developed. I do not know what those costs are. For me to suggest that putting in more money would resolve the question is naive, to say the least. It is also naive for me to say that we do not need more money, but what is clear is that we need a safe system.

We need experts to look at the costs. We know that costs in the past have traditionally been shared by the municipalities and the provinces. We know that the federal government has tried to come into the system with a program of infrastructure. Since first elected in 1993 until now the Liberal government has provided infrastructure dollars to assist municipalities and provincial governments to achieve the goals that need to be achieved.

I believe it is extremely important to look into what the costs are, at how those costs could be shared, at what the role of each level of government is and then make the decisions there. It is not just a simple matter of money. It is a matter of safety, a matter of technology and a matter of what needs to be done in the systems before I could possibly make that commitment.