House of Commons Hansard #57 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Canadians in rural and remote communities face unique health needs and challenges.
Could the minister tell this House what innovate action the Government of Canada is taking to address those needs?
Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle for his question.
It affords me the opportunity to announce the Government of Canada's commitment to better meeting the unique needs of rural and remote communities.
Just last Friday, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Rural Development announced $440,000 for three rural health projects in Shawville, Quebec. This is part of the $50 million Innovations in Rural and Community Health Initiatives.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, last Friday the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board stated that no legislative changes were required to give organic growers an exemption from the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system. However a published paper of the Canadian Wheat Board states:
If an exemption were presented as an option to farmers it could not be done right away since there is no clause in CWB legislation to allow an exemption and the legislation would therefore have to be amended.
Is it necessary to change the Canadian Wheat Board legislation to allow exemptions from the monopoly? Yes or no.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, what I pointed out in the House last week was that when the original legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act was put forward in the predecessor to Bill C-4, we attempted to include a specific procedure for dealing with the jurisdiction of the board, either the expansion or the diminution of that jurisdiction.
It was at the insistence of the opposition that explicit procedure was removed from the draft legislation.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, if the minister would have listened to the opposition we would have a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board today.
Ron Tetoff is an organic producer in Kamsack, Saskatchewan. In February he had arranged a sale to a buyer in Europe that would have given him $9 a bushel for organic wheat at his farm gate. The sale fell through and Mr. Tetoff was forced to go through the Canadian Wheat Board's buyback system.
The price the board charged him for his own grain made it impossible for Mr. Tetoff to complete his sale to Europe. Why is the government stifling value added organic farmers like Mr. Tetoff?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, again I make the point that the place to begin the dialogue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board is with the duly elected directors of the Canadian Wheat Board where farmers make the decision and not politicians.
I point out that on December 8 of last year the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors announced a new producer direct sale program for organic producers. Producers will now have an expanded and improved option for marketing their organic wheat and barley themselves.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, after the ministerial tours in Quebec paid for with public funds, we are now learning that the government is using the financial resources of the Canada Information Office, the CIO, to conduct a poll for political purposes, this for a mere $193,000.
Will the minister of public works admit that this further evidence that the government is using the CIO's resources for partisan purposes and that it confuses the interest of its party with that of the public?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the CIO has been conducting polls three times a year, in January, May and October, since 1998. This is the ninth poll. Therefore, these polls are not partisan measures connected with an election.
I also remind the hon. member that these polls are available to all, since they are on the CIO's Internet site.
John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the infrastructure program in western Canada. Why is the federal government taking so long to make funding decisions under the Canada-Saskatchewan infrastructure program?
People are looking for answers because communities such as North Battleford need help to deal with their problems right now.
Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie)
Mr. Speaker, a number of decisions have already been made. There will be a number of additional decisions this coming Friday.
Let us remember that the deadline for applications on the first round was February 1. Over 1,500 applications have been received from western Canada, roughly 600 of them for pure water and water disposal projects. I think that is extraordinary.
I might add that by the end of the program six years from now over $6 billion will have been spent throughout Canada, with $2 billion for western Canada.
Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, Doyle Kemp, like a growing number of wheat farmers in Saskatchewan, is now a registered organic grower.
He has found his own market. He has found a customer who wants to buy 3,000 bushels of his organically grown durum wheat, but before he can make that sale he has to turn over $1,750 to the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what is called a buyback. Why does the government continue to penalize western farmers for diversification?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman and his constituents to discuss the procedure directly with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would also point out, as I said in response to a previous question, that under the directions of the Canadian Wheat Board there is now a producer direct sale program in place with a lower administrative charge that can be of assistance in these circumstances.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, two American experts on nuclear armament and anti-missile defence will soon meet with Canadian officials.
Today, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois sent a letter to the Prime Minister in which he asked for a meeting with these two envoys.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to respond favourably to the request made by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois by making it possible for opposition parties to meet these two experts and thus get all the information available?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, we will take that matter under advisement. It is still to be determined as to what the schedule will be of the consultation and at what levels the consultation will occur.
I want to assure the hon. member that ultimately this parliament will play a key role in dealing with the matter of missile defence decisions.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic and telling, in this week set aside to honour the work of the nursing profession, that a report has just been released showing that nurses face higher injury rates than police or firefighters and are more likely to miss work due to illness or disability.
Is the Minister of Health, in this week of all weeks, prepared to start addressing the serious situation facing nurses in Canada today, put in place a national strategy and deal with the nursing shortage.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring the member up to date. I was present this morning in Toronto for the launch of that excellent report by the Canadian Institutes of Health Information for which provincial and federal governments paid.
On the question of nursing, the information in the report today reflects the situation on the ground. Last September and October I worked with provincial ministers to develop a national strategy on nursing in Canada in order to address many of these very problems we have talked about.
I also opened an office of nursing policy at Health Canada so we could have someone available to the federal Minister of Health to make sure that the nursing perspective would be reflected as we go about the business of managing health care.
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on water.
Let me begin by commending the member for Fundy—Royal on his motion. I believe it is long overdue. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy to bring attention to this most basic of human needs. I find it almost unbelievable that after the tragic experience in Walkerton, we are now experiencing the same kind of problems in North Battleford. What we see demonstrates that we require more leadership, certainly on the part of government.
I would like to take us back to pre-Walkerton history. As the former mayor of Dauphin, I had to live through the same kind of experience, so I will speak from my experience as a municipal leader who had to shepherd a community through an outbreak in giardia back in 1995.
If we look at the records in 1993, Milwaukee, Wisconsin had a cryptosporidium outbreak which took many lives. We called it legionnaires' disease. Then on we go to Waterloo. An hon. member across the floor mentioned this morning the problems that Waterloo had with cryptosporidium and giardia around the mid-1990s. In Kelowna there was an outbreak in 1996 of cryptosporidium.
This is not new. We have known about the problem for at least a decade. What has the government done about it? Not an awful lot. It has pointed the finger at the provinces because it is a provincial jurisdiction, but it needs to show more leadership. Canadians expect their health to be protected. Consumption of potable water is part of that health and safety need.
Our water systems and water treatment plants, for those communities that have them, go back to the 1950s vintage. That was when most of them were built. There are a lot of communities that do not have water treatment systems. They rely on surface water or well water. In fact inclusive in the topic of debate today, we really should be looking at the whole issue of sewage treatment because sewage facilities built back in the 1950s and the early 1960s are all falling apart today. In other words, they will and have become a problem to the environment just as much as to potable water.
In 1995 a boil water order was issued for Dauphin, which is where I come from. At that time I was the mayor. Obviously when people cannot drink the water what can they do? Little does one realize that without water there is not a lot one can do. However when people have to boil the water to use it, it creates a lot of difficulties.
Imagine a community being under threat of not having potable water for a period of almost two years. That is why I believe there needs to be an emergency funding provision put in place by the federal government for communities, such as North Battleford, that need it. In essence, one of the key responsibilities for the federal government is to provide tax dollars to build these facilities.
Building water treatment facilities are not ordinary mundane activities at the municipal level. It takes huge amounts of dollars. In the case of Dauphin, Manitoba, we were very fortunate, through the PFRA and through the co-operation of a fellow by the name of Erminio Calagary, we managed to get the support of the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government to put the dollars together and built a brand new water treatment plant. It amounted to something like $9 million.
That $9 million to a community of about 10,000 people is a huge tax load. It is easy for the federal government to say that it will throw some money here and there through its infrastructure program and hopefully then tripartite agreements will get some money to build water treatment plants or sewage plants.
I was very deeply involved with the 1993 infrastructure program. That money was distributed on a per capita basis, which did not account to very much especially when we knew the cost of water treatment facilities. The federal government has to ante up. After all that the money does belong to the people.
I agree with the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and its lobby to ensure that fresh or potable water is always available to all communities. There are over 4,000 municipalities. The FCM resolution number 26, which was adopted in the year 2000, states:
—reaffirm its commitment to the protection of public health in all aspects of the provision of water for human consumption, including the protection of drinking water or drinking water sources.
Further to this statement, perhaps it is time the federal Liberal government recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of the municipalities of this country.
I still remember in 1996 listening to the Prime Minister in Calgary. He stated that the municipalities played a huge role in this country, that they were very important, that they were the first level of government and that they were closest to the people. I am still waiting for the Prime Minister of the day to recognize the legitimacy of the municipalities. Until that happens, the municipalities will always be bantered about between the provinces and the federal government.
As we know, the provinces always say the municipalities are the children of the provinces and that the federal government has no business dealing with them. It is long overdue, when it comes to health care and water issues, that the municipalities be at the table. It is no different than if the topic of discussion was roads.
Therefore, water is essential and it impacts all of us. It is time the federal government recognized that water should be treated the same way blood is treated. When we get a transfusion most of us think the blood is safe. Likewise, when we pick up a glass of water we should not question the safety of that glass of water. As we know, that is not the case at this point in time.
I would like to talk about the lack of support for potable water development for aboriginal reservations. In my riding I have 13 reservations and I know that they are in dire need of infrastructure development. In fact, when will the federal government move on this? Hopefully it will not wait for someone to lose their life before it makes some concerted effort to deal with the deplorable conditions of drinking water on many of the reserves.
I have many Metis communities in my riding. Health Canada has to put its foot down and be more assertive in making sure that funds go to water and sewage infrastructure development in those communities, rather than just handing the money over to the Metis provincial organizations and letting them give out the money. In many cases basic issues like water and sewage are left out altogether.
We need specific programs for water and sewage. The government should avoid the word infrastructure. In the last round of debate the definition of the term was wide open and infrastructure dollars were used in many areas. A government that wants to lead and be accountable should set up water and sewage programs. If we do not do it at this point it will be the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problems that confront Canadians.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his remarks. He is on a similar page with the Progressive Conservatives on the issue. Last week at the immigration committee we were more often than not on the same page as well.
He touched on the need for the federal government to protect water quality on Indian reserves. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth said in the House today that we could make a model for Canadians based on how we handle water on reserves.
The Yellow Quill Indian reserve in northeastern Saskatchewan close to Kelvington has had a boil water advisory since 1995. As the reserve is under exclusive federal jurisdiction, I ask the hon. member if he believes the Government of Canada should clean up its own act and address the situation.
Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I lived in a community that had a boil water order for two years and could not imagine what it is like to have a boil water order for six years.
There is a lack of commitment on the part of the government. If the government sees a problem it must deal with it and not make excuses. People on reserves need to be treated no differently than people off reserves. Until the government takes its responsibilities seriously nothing will change.
In terms of the whole country it is the same thing. If the government understands the need for potable water and good sewage facilities across the nation it must change its current position and approach. It needs to take action, not put money into fancy programs for political purposes. If the government understands the importance of the issue it must do the work that is asked of it.
That can only be demonstrated through action. The government must make long term commitments. It must have plans in place. It must sit and talk to people to find out what their needs are. The government has sole responsibility for Indian reserves and it has no excuse for not dealing with problems that affect them.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member has been involved in municipal politics and we are talking today about municipal water supplies. I have a difficult question for him about jurisdiction. These issues should be dealt with primarily among municipalities and perhaps provinces.
To what extent does the hon. member want the federal government involved in organizing municipal water infrastructure?
Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elk Island for his question. The issue with both water and sewage facilities is money. Application of the act falls under provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces have their own water acts. However the cost of facilities is out of reach for municipalities which do not have the resources.
If we deem water and sewage an essential health and safety issue we should treat it no differently than public health. The responsibility therefore lies with the federal government. Municipalities do not have the tax base. We cannot expect communities to boil their water for decades if they cannot come up with the money for infrastructure.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I say at the outset that I intend to share my time with the hon. member for Mississauga West. I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today and I thank the member for Fundy Royal for framing it by tabling his motion.
I begin by expressing, I know on behalf of all members of the House of Commons, our concern and sympathy for the residents of North Battleford who this week are dealing with an unexpected and what must seem an overwhelming burden. Health Canada is working alongside municipal and provincial officials in North Battleford to provide what assistance we can to that beleaguered municipality.
I intend to vote in favour of the motion as amended, but I will make some comments explaining why. I will also respond to the suggestion which has underlain most of the discussion from the opposition benches that in some way the Government of Canada is not fulfilling its obligation to ensure clean drinking water. That is simply not true.
The Government of Canada has fulfilled completely its obligation as a partner in the federation to work with those who have responsibility for delivering fresh, clean water. We have taken a number of steps and are active in a variety of ways. We are working with provincial and municipal governments in that effort.
I will identify five of these steps in the few moments available to me. First, we are contributing to the cost of maintaining appropriate water and sewage treatment facilities so that local municipalities, rural and urban, have facilities to treat water and make it suitable for human use.
Last year the federal budget identified $2 billion to be available over five years through the infrastructure program to help provinces and municipalities in this effort. When that money is leveraged by matching funds from the other two levels of government it will total over $6 billion in the coming five years. That money will be spent on infrastructure that will make the difference between water that is fit to drink and water that is not.
We heard today from the member for Saint Boniface that $2 billion of that $6 billion will be spent in western Canada and that he has already received proposals for 600 projects that relate to water and sewage treatment in western Canada.
Second, we have made a commitment, in working with provinces and municipal governments, to create the country's first building code for municipal water and waste water facilities. The code will improve the ability of municipalities to meet high standards for water quality and ensure that Canadians from coast to coast have access to comparable facilities for producing potable water.
Third, we committed in the Speech from the Throne to making clean water one of our top three environmental priorities along with clean air and conservation. We also recognize that as trustee of one of the world's largest supplies of freshwater Canada has a particular responsibility to preserve that legacy for future generations, and we shall.
Fourth, in the Speech from the Throne we committed to developing stronger national guidelines for water quality by enhancing scientific research and continuing to work with provincial partners. As part of that we promised to strengthen the role of the National Water Research Institute whose world class work provides the basis for our action in sustaining freshwater ecosystems.
Fifth, we committed to investing in advanced information systems to make better use of our land and protect surface water and groundwater from the impact of industrial and agricultural activity. Such systems would help monitor what happens on the ground and measure the impact of agricultural and industrial activity on the underlying water supply.
With those five measures the government has demonstrated that it is doing its part to help provide safe, clean water for Canadians, a responsibility all governments in the federation must share.
There has been talk opposite about the need for a national standard. Since 1983 the Government of Canada has met twice a year with provincial officials, scientists, chemists and environmentalists. Together they have developed a consensus on the level of purity for Canadian drinking water.
That consensus is reflected in national guidelines that are reviewed twice a year. The guidelines are provided to the people on the ground who inspect water and provide, furnish, maintain and operate the equipment which purifies it. The guidelines apply to all public and private water sources across the country. While the approaches taken by provinces might vary, the guidelines reflect a Canada-wide consensus on water quality.
It is unfair and wrong to suggest we do not have national standards. The guidelines reflect those standards. The process by which the guidelines are developed reflects how the country is organized and who is responsible for what. We share part of the responsibility. We do not deny that. We accept it and meet it by working with partners every year, year in and year out, to make sure the guidelines are appropriate.
The Government of Canada has clear responsibility for drinking water on first nations lands. Since 1995 my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has invested over $400 million in first nations communities throughout Canada to make sure facilities are in place to provide fresh water.
More generally, Health Canada maintains national surveillance for infectious diseases including those linked to contaminated water. In Walkerton, Health Canada scientists led the epidemiological investigation which identified the extent of the outbreak and the sequence of events leading up to it.
Last July, Health Canada consolidated the various components of our emergency response capacity into a single entity, the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response. Through the centre Health Canada is positioned to respond more quickly and effectively in an emergency.
I mention these responsibilities because I want my colleagues in the House to know that we are actively doing our share, not just today or this week but continuously.
Members should be careful before they say the issue of safe drinking water can be resolved by the adoption in parliament of a federal statute or by the imposition of a federal law even if it contains penalties. The hard reality is that life is not that simple. The hard reality is that all of us must work together and do our share if we are to produce the results we want.
There is no doubt that we could go across the country and find areas where there is room for improvement, whether it be in grade schools, primary education or in hospital administration. No one would suggest for a moment that the solution is to have the Government of Canada pass a law to improve primary or grade school education and take over that field of endeavour. The solution, as in any successful federation, is for governments to work well together in good faith. That is what motivates Health Canada and the Government of Canada.
We must continue that work. I welcome the motion which I will vote in favour of. I undertake to the member for Fundy—Royal and to the House to raise the issue with my provincial counterparts the next time we meet in order to determine their willingness to work toward establishing a safe water act. If they believe it would be helpful we shall be there to do our part.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indication of the Minister of Health that members on the government side will be supporting the motion.
However I want to express concern about the minister's tentative and very modest support for the idea of national guidelines, standards, and legislation on the matter of clean and safe drinking water.
The minister talks about hard reality in terms of ensuring an adequate supply of safe drinking water. I want to say to him that the hard reality today is that people are dying from the failure of our water supply and the quality of our water in the country today. People are worried about contamination, sickness and problems associated with inadequate standards and legislation.
Would the minister concede that in a time of crisis when the public good and the public need are clearly at stake, it is necessary to have legislation, guidelines and standards that are enforceable and must be lived up to in order to ensure that the public good—