Debates of May 8th, 2001

Supply

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all remember the consultations held by the Bureau des audiences publiques sur l'environnement or BAPE. Paul Begin had then invited all Quebecers to put in their two cents worth on water.

I would like to quote a comment made during the hearings:

As to the quality of the water in Quebec, it is “generally good”; it is in the southwest, in the farmlands of the St. Lawrence Lowlands that the quality is at its lowest level. The St. Lawrence River, which supplies water 45% of the Quebec population, is still suffering contaminated, particularly downstream from Montreal.

As to water quality, which is an important issue, and I am still quoting:

From 1989 to 1995, more than 800 people were affected by 24 epidemics related to the drinking of surface water. These figures could represent a mere fraction of the actual numbers, because several cases were never reported.

With regard to the Lower St. Lawrence and water quality, can the member, who comes from a remote area, tell the House if it is possible that nobody has been affected by water problems in Quebec in the last few years?

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, my colleague referred to the BAPE. I would tell him that indeed the BAPE recommended that Quebec develop its own policy on drinking water and environment.

I would also remind him that in my riding, there is no contamination attributable to Quebec, to the government of Quebec. None whatsoever.

There is contamination in Sept-Îles and in my area, for example in the beaches area, where 1,000 people are without water, but this contamination is due to the government that my colleague is a member of.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the heat of political debate in the House, especially during oral question period, we sometimes get carried away. I have to admit that it happened to me today, when the member for Chambly was putting a question to the public works minister.

I hummed a song that was inappropriate in the House of Commons. I would like to apologize to anyone I might have hurt, especially to the public works minister.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Your message is clear and your apology is accepted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

This particular debate is an excellent occasion that illustrates the kind of conflict and ideology that political parties get into from time to time, because what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a motion calling on the government to act essentially in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I think we would all agree in this House, on all sides of the House, that the right to clean water is something that should be shared by all Canadians. All Canadians should be entitled to obtain clean water, to use clean water anywhere in the land. It is fundamental in the same sense that every Canadian should expect the same standard of justice, the same standard of safety and the same standard of health care. The government over the years has provided in those areas.

But in fact, when it comes to the safety of water, this has been something that has been mostly under provincial jurisdiction. We are now faced with the problem where we have had several tragic incidents where the water supply in communities has been dangerously polluted and it has led to some deaths. Quite rightly, in my view, we have a motion before us calling on the government to be in the forefront of establishing enforceable standards of water quality.

Here is the rub. Three of the opposition parties who have been stressing the need for enforceable national standards for water quality today, those three parties, when you press them, are not willing to have those standards imposed upon the provinces because those three parties, part of their ideological structure is that they believe that fundamental political life should begin with the lowest common denominator, normally the provinces, certainly in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, but also in the case of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives with the municipalities.

In Ontario, and I cannot speak for all of the nation on this issue, but in Ontario I can remember when the average citizen could test his water for free. Mr. Speaker, you would take it from a tap, take it to your local medical officer of health who would have given you a proper container, and that water would be tested. Indeed for many, many years in Ontario the province was responsible for ensuring that municipalities had their water tested properly.

But in 1996 the current Conservative government in Ontario basically downloaded the obligation of water quality on the municipalities, on the one hand, who had to look after maintaining such standards as there were, and the province basically privatized the testing of water and took away the free program of water testing through municipalities that up until 1996 led to I think 400,000 tests per annum in Ontario of water quality. All that disappeared.

The problem with this motion and particularly with the amendment to the motion, particularly the amendment that is indeed supported by our side, is if you cop on national standards to protect citizens, then you have to have a way of guaranteeing that those national standards are acted upon.

In response to a question I posed earlier in this debate, the leader of the Conservative opposition said well, yes, we can have enforceable standards, but he believes that we can come to agreements with the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what if you cannot come to an agreement with a province? What if a province decides it does not want to spend the money on water quality? What if you have a case, as you have in Ontario, when the province downloads the responsibility of water quality to the municipality?

We talked for a little bit about infrastructure. This is not just a question of drinking water. This is a question of the proper treatment of sewage and that kind of thing. What we have in my own municipality, we have a situation where the province downloaded the responsibility for sewage treatment and that kind of thing to the municipality and it has privatized it.

In Hamilton a private corporation runs the sewage treatment plant and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating that that sewage treatment plant is in a lot of trouble. The problem is because the province downloaded to the municipality who privatized it. No one knows whether that sewage treatment plant is functioning properly.

I submit that all across Ontario and indeed all across the country that no one knows for sure that the water treatment plants in communities like North Battleford or communities like Collingwood or other communities across the country, that they indeed are looking after their water quality to a standard that guarantees the safety of the people using it.

The other thing that is overlooked in this debate is we have talked only about municipal water supplies. I do not think I have heard a single person mention the tens of thousands of Canadians who get their water from wells. Again, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario it used to be possible to test water in your well. As a farmer or a cottage person, you could take it to the local officer of health and you could have that water tested. That no longer exists.

Now that we have the industrial farm where there is an increased risk of truly deadly bacteria getting into the water table, we do not have free water treatment even though two decades ago or 15 years ago we did have. So we are regressing, not progressing. My difficulty with this motion is not the original motion. It is the amendment to the motion that says that we must respect jurisdictions.

We are afraid in the House to stand up as members of parliament and say that when it is a case of national safety, when it is the safety of Canadians, whether it is a criminal code, a justice, a law or a medical issue, we are afraid to stand up in this House and say that we should have national standards for water quality across this country, and we have to impose them upon the provinces if they are not willing to do it.

I do not think that is going to happen. Today I heard the Prime Minister say in the House that we had to respect provincial jurisdictions. It is going to be very difficult to turn that around considering what we have heard from the opposition. I note that only the NDP was prepared to suggest that the water quality standards that were being proposed should be mandatorily enforced.

If we are not going to intrude on provincial jurisdictions, then I suggest this national government has to do something, and it has to do something practical. Quite frankly, this is a feel good motion and does not do a darn thing. It just makes it look as though we MPs on both sides of the House are taking action when in fact I do not believe real action is being taken.

Therefore, I would like to suggest something to my own government. The government should invest in free testing for all communities and individuals across the country. If we cannot enter into provincial jurisdiction to fix the water treatment plants, then at least give Canadians, whether they are on a farm or in a municipality, an opportunity to test their water to see whether it is safe. If they find the water is unsafe, then they can go to their local politicians, be they municipal or provincial, and demand action. However right now it is a complete darkness, a complete void. People are drinking water and have no idea whether it is safe, and of course they are unwilling to test it themselves and often cannot afford to.

My suggestion, my contribution to this debate is that as far as the motion is concerned I am not at all happy with it. I just do not think it goes anywhere. However I am delighted to at least have had the opportunity to offer what I think is a constructive suggestion to the government, and that is to institute a nationwide free water testing program.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. For the most part his remarks were certainly on target.

I understand his reservation with the federal government trying to enforce their wishes on the provinces. If I heard the member correctly, I believe he was referring to leadership at the federal level where sometimes the federal government has to exercise its power to force the provinces to do something.

Is the member suggesting that maybe the government or the Prime Minister should do that or are we not acting simply because we do not want to get into a tug of war or head-butting with the provinces?

I just want a little clarification on that. From time to time the federal government has to spend some of its political capital doing things which may prove to be unpopular in the short term, but obviously the right thing to do in the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am proposing. I think the federal government should meet with the provinces and set the standards. Once the standards are set, then they should be enforceable, and the federal government should ensure that they are mandatory and enforced.

The difficulty is that in any province there may be a change of government that has a mantra of tax cuts, for example. This is precisely what happened in Ontario. Because of the desire to cut personal income taxes, spending on the environment, water quality and all these things was slashed overwhelmingly.

I believe that we have to give the provinces the opportunity to work in their jurisdictions. Where we go wrong is when we allow the provinces or the municipalities to take actions that actually affect the safety of Canadians.

I would say that yes the government should do what is unpopular. However the reality is, the opposite side and the member who spoke for his party have suggested that the federal government should not intrude into provincial jurisdiction in this matter if there is reluctance on the part of provinces. I say it should, although I do not hold much hope that that is what is going to happen.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech, which I was delighted to hear, the reference to the millions of Canadians, including myself, that had their own wells.

When we talked about rural water supplies, some of these communities are rural and have a central water supply supplied by the village which is still considered by definition rural. There are millions of Canadians who depend on their own well water. It is a much bigger problem which goes to the care and the concern for the environment. Some deed that we might do might contaminate our neighbour's well water.

Maybe the member could talk about the responsibility of individual Canadians in ensuring that our water in those rural areas is kept safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my region the local municipality is allowing developers to group houses together, drill their own wells and maintain their own water supply in their neighbourhoods. There is no scrutiny on this at all. They are required to meet an original or basic standard, but then it is up to that small neighbourhood or community to maintain that water quality and keep testing it.

That is no good. Whether it is one of these small neighbourhoods or individual farms scattered across the country, this is really the enormous problem. Unless we come up with a program whereby the federal government actually requires or provides the funds for free water testing, we are always going to have this danger.

This debate has only been about communities. It has not been about the millions of Canadians who get their water from private sources. This is where the government could act and should act.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Health; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, National Defence.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on water quality. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency both play a crucial role in ensuring that Canadians have a safe and clean drinking water supply.

Protecting water against agricultural runoff is a challenge that our government is taking very seriously. Most of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's initiatives in this area focus on prevention, that is on ways to prevent problems from arising.

However, as many Canadians know, municipalities and provinces are mainly responsible for providing drinking water to Canadian families.

Local governments must first find suitable water sources to meet present and future needs of the community without endangering the environment. Then they must treat the water to eliminate any trace of impurities or contaminants. Finally, municipalities must build and maintain a system to supply water to the consumers.

The last stage, and not the least, consists in building treatment and evacuation systems to make sure that wastewaters do not harm the environment. In short, it is a complex process in which the margin of error is very small.

While water supply systems are being developed and are in service, municipalities and provinces often need scientific data on the farming and agrifood sector. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has undertaken a research project on nutrients in fertilizers and manure, to reduce the risk of water contamination by these nutrients.

This task is not easy as Canada is a huge country with many different ecosystems. Moreover, every community has specific needs and challenges.

Another example of scientific data supplied by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is the development of a series of agricultural and environmental indicators, several of which are linked to water quality.

These indicators, which track environmental trends over the years in various regions of Canada, make it possible to identify areas and resources still at risk. Moreover, they serve as a starting point to focus action on areas where risks are the highest.

For example, when provinces and municipalities are considering using some lands for agricultural purposes, the indicators and background data help scientists determine if farming might involve the risk of nutrients or other substances contaminating water. The indicators help in developing measures to evaluate and reduce as much as possible the risk of water contamination due to farming.

As everybody knows, the semi-arid prairies present unique problems with regard to water supply. Ensuring supply in these areas is often a bit more difficult.

However, I am proud to mention that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration supports the main part of the research and technology transfer the Prairie communities need to manage their water supply. The administration is currently conducting numerous projects relating to water supply, conservation and protection of water resources and improvement of water quality.

For instance, the rural water development program provides technological support for projects to develop wells and improve water quality. The administration also works together with its rural clients and local producer groups to promote better practices to protect surface water and ground water.

In the area of research, scientists with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are looking into other means of protecting drinking water against contaminants. Numerous Canadians are now aware of the dangers associated with bacteria like E. coli.

As part of the fight against E. coli and other pathogenic agents, researchers at the Lethbridge research centre have discovered and tested several promising solutions which could help to check and eliminate those organisms at all points in the food chain, from the farm to the consumer. The Canadian beef industry, our partner in research, plays a major role by financing this initiative in the hope of finding a solution.

I am pleased to inform hon. members that producers are playing an active role in the protection of the environment. Many of them took the trouble to prepare and implement an environmental plan for their operations. For some time now, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been providing them with financial assistance to do so.

In co-operation with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, farmers have developed many other initiatives, so that Canadians may enjoy a cleaner environment and cleaner drinking water. Those initiatives are financed through the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund and implemented with the help of the provinces.

The environmental stewardship initiative in agriculture, which is part of the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund, will make $10 million available to farmers over the next three years to help them launch projects dealing with water quality improvement, soil decontamination, wildlife habitat and biodiversity conservation in agricultural areas and the use of farming practices that will help prevent climate change.

Another activity funded by the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund is the environmental stewardship initiative in livestock production. It has a $1.3 million budget for research and technology transfer to assist producers in adopting environmentally friendly practices. This initiative will also help to create an environmental certification system for the hog industry.

These are some of the measures taken by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to help protect Canada's water supply.

Members will have to agree that we have accomplished a lot with the provinces and the producers, our partners. However, we will continue to do more and to work relentlessly because we take our responsibilities seriously. Canadian farmers and the public expect no less from us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about another aspect of water protection that Canadians may find of interest. To be quite square, this was in the Progressive Conservative platform in the election this past November. The issue originated from work done by the provincial Progressive Conservative government and the minister of environment, Kim Jardine. She made a very progressive approach to water stewardship for which she should be commended, and I think the nation should do that.

Would the hon. member subscribe to what we are advocating, that new guidelines be drawn up in a co-operative fashion by provincial, territorial and federal governments that determine which activities can take place next to municipal wells, water sources, lakes or whatnot? The most profound example might be to prohibit gas stations or laundromats from opening within a protected perimeter around municipal wells. Would the hon. member support such an initiative?

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before answering the question put by the hon. member, I would like to review what has been happening, especially in the last two years.

The waterborne diseases we saw in Ontario last year and in Saskatchewan recently have brought to our attention the issue of access to safe drinking water in Canada. We know that these two tragedies are not isolated incidents. Several people have died and thousands got sick. I share the grief of all the people and the families who were affected by this. This situation is becoming all too common in Canada. As parliamentarians, it is not easy for us to find out that some people have died from drinking contaminated water.

There is something else that must be taken into consideration. If we talk about wells, we know that, in Quebec, many lakes are near some municipalities. For several years now, only one lake has been constantly monitored by the Quebec Department of the Environment, only one lake out of more than 500,000. Who is looking after the other lakes in Quebec?

The same thing goes for wells. The federal government is not monitoring all the wells in all the provinces. It is not easy, especially in remote areas. We have the same problem with ground water. In Quebec, 20% of the people living outside urban areas, as well as hundreds of businesses and farm operations, use ground water as their water source. However we know almost nothing about where they are located. That is what is happening right now in Quebec. We do not know how renewable these water reserves are and we know nothing about their users. Only the municipalities that use that water source or water bottlers are accountable for their water management.

In answer to the member's question, I am not familiar with the report he is referring to. He would have to provide me with a copy. However, we know that there is a considerable lack of knowledge in the provinces, in Quebec for instance, on the state of their water supply.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to speak to the motion. I compliment the Progressive Conservative Party and its leader for raising this very pressing issue.

If there is one thing of critical importance to all human beings it is the quality of our water. Access to potable safe water has been a given in society for a very long time. Canadians over the years have come to expect and perhaps take for granted that a country with a population of 32-odd million, which possesses some 11% of the world's reservoir of freshwater, would have safe drinking water. As we have seen, however, circumstances in Saskatchewan and in Walkerton have shown something very different.

I will quote a senator from the other place who said very poignantly that lack of access to safe water has become a clear and present danger to society.

How have we come to ignore that which is the essence of life on our planet? A document put out in 1987 set very clear guidelines for water quality in our country. The document said there could and must be co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in developing national standards to allow every person in Canada access to safe and potable water. Have we seen any action since 1987? No, we have not.

The government has been in power since 1993. Surely it has had an opportunity to address the issue, bring forth national standards and give Canadians confidence in the water that comes out of their taps. We have not seen that. It is now 2001 and we are sitting here trying to shake up the government to work with the provinces and develop national standards so that our drinking water is safe for everyone from coast to coast.

How bad is it? Recent reports estimate that 357 of 645 Ontario drinking water systems fail to meet even provincial standards. Twenty-five per cent of Newfoundland's water systems have serious problems, to such an extent that boiling water and relying on bottled water has become the norm. Let us imagine a province where 25% of the drinking water is unfit for human consumption. It is completely absurd.

Canadian drinking water guidelines set out safe recommended limits for various polluting substances in raw, untreated drinking water, recreational water and water used for industrial or agricultural purposes. The guidelines are designed to protect and enhance the quality of water in Canada.

However the guidelines apply only to inland surface water and groundwater and not to estuary and marine water. There are large holes in the system. Those holes need to be plugged and they needed to be plugged yesterday. Failure to do so will result in more deaths such as we have seen in Walkerton and Saskatchewan.

Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only by the grace of God that it has not happened more often. It quite surprises me that we have not seen more outbreaks of water borne diseases in Canada.

The guidelines limit the concentration of pollutants according to their potential health effects or aesthetic appearance. However are they reasonable? Has anyone questioned whether the guidelines are safe? Should the limits be higher or lower? We do not know.

Even if the guidelines are violated and water is high in coliform, pesticides or other substances, what is the penalty? Nothing. There is no penalty because there is no mechanism to enforce the guidelines. We desperately need enforceable guidelines. What is the point of guidelines without a mechanism to enforce them?

This is not an academic issue, as we have heard today. The issue is fundamental to the health and welfare of Canadians. As a physician I know that some water borne diseases do not affect healthy adults but they certainly affect the most vulnerable in society. Water borne diseases selectively take out the most vulnerable such as children and the elderly. They are the ones who pay the price in an outbreak.

Canadian drinking water guidelines are used by provincial, territorial and federal agencies to assess water quality problems and manage competing users of water resources. However the guidelines are not law.

The government's response to this has been to put a bit of money forward. That is easy to do. It is easy to stand and devote money, but there must be a plan. We know the municipalities and provinces are responsible for this. However there must be a co-ordinated effort by all parties.

In our country, whether in regard to water quality, health care or other issues, we have fractured jurisdictions and often the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The ministers have a great opportunity. They can bring together their provincial and municipal counterparts and develop a co-ordinated system of enforceable guidelines, based on science and fact, that will protect our society.

This is an issue of the future. Make no mistake about it. The lives of millions of Canadians will rest on it.

Over the last 10 to 15 years we have seen disturbing things in the ecosystem. There has been a massive die-off of amphibians not only in our country but around the world.

The scientific evidence of late points to a direct correlation between the die-off of amphibians and the use of pesticides. In addition to the die-off there are massive and grotesque deformities. There are frogs with eyes on the top of their heads, amphibians with multiple legs or two heads, and fishes with gross deformities. These are very serious problems.

The reason this is a bellwether, the proverbial canary in the mine, is that the skin or outer covering of amphibians is very permeable. It is not like our skin which is tougher. The skin of amphibians is permeable and absorbs substances much easier. This makes them the canary in the mine. Amphibians tend to visibly manifest the cancer causing, teratogenic and mutagenic capabilities of the substances they absorb.

We ignore that to our detriment. Epidemiological studies have shown clear health risks in communities that are close to areas with high concentrations of pesticides. Pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers are necessary but they must be used in an appropriate way. We are now seeing grave health risks in some communities near the areas where they are used.

Higher rates of birth deformities, teratogenicity, neonatal morbidity and mortality are all being observed. They are red flags waving in front of us but we are not responding. That is very serious.

A number of substances are being released into our environment that will be here not for a few days but for years or hundreds or even thousands of years. Large amounts of nucleotides or radioactive material from Russia are being bioaccumulated within our ecosystems in the north.

As a result, Inuit people and many large aquatic and terrestrial mammals have large amounts of radioactive, cancer causing and teratogenic substances within them. We see higher rates of cancer, birth deformities and neonatal morbidity and mortality in the north than in other communities. Science clearly indicates that individuals in the north are suffering because they eat mammals that bioaccumulate these dangerous substances in their bodies.

That is what is happening. We and others have warned the government for some six years about this but have seen no action. The government knows about this. It is very aware. Perhaps it feels impotent to deal with it, but it is not. The only way to deal with these issues is to work with the international community. We must deal seriously with the release of these substances into our environment. On the issue of fertilizers, we have seen changes in the pH levels of our water quality and acidification of the water as a direct result of pesticides being leached into it. As a result, a number of water tables have been polluted. If we measure the outflow of water into larger basins, we see that the concentrations are very high.

We know our farmers need good fertilizer and pesticides to give us the food we require. We have to allow them to work by using these fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides in a reasonable way. However we do not see enough studies nor action on the side of the government.

In fact, the environment commissioner has repeatedly mentioned to the government the ways in which it is falling flat on its face with respect to being the guardian of our environment. The environment commissioner, like the auditor general did with finance, has waved the flag many times. He has given specific solutions on what the government could do, and has a moral responsibility to engage in, to improve our environment. It is there in black and white.

The environment commissioner's reports have come out in black and white. They are good reports, fair reports and are constructive. We can only hope that the government will push hard and listen to what has been said in these reports and to the other signs, so it can build an environment that will be fairer and cleaner.

An issue that is very important on the west coast of British Columbia, because a large number of people rely on salmon, is what is happening to our salmon stocks, which have been decimated. We believe part of the reason for this decimation is the conditions and changes taking place with respect to the water. The water temperature is going up. As a result, there has been change in the mackerel population which is eating the salmon fry and the fingerlings. That is in part contributing to the very small numbers which are returning. It is decimating the fish populations, particularly the salmon populations, on the west coast.

Do we know why this is happening? No. We certainly have some theories that it is related to global warning. In fact the oceans are now believed to be a CO2 sink that is taking up a lot of the unrecognized carbon dioxide being released.

It is incumbent upon the government, and indeed the Minister of the Environment, to work with his provincial and municipal counterparts across the country, rather than have a balkanized system of environmental standards which benefits absolutely no one, to develop safe water for all Canadians.

Potable water is essential. It is our life blood. I can only encourage the government and say to it that we as a party together with the Progressive Conservatives and others will push hard to make sure that the government lives up to its responsibility to ensure that all Canadians will have access to potable water, such as the type we are all drinking.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take time to pose a question to my colleague.

In my other life I was the mayor of a town in southern Alberta of 1,700 people. The quality of the water and the concern about supplying safe water was always paramount in our minds. We had to go through different scenarios with different standards being presented. The standards would change and we would have to increase our ability to treat our water.

In subsequent years there was a problem. The mayor at the time, the council, the staff and others worked very hard to correct it. I still live in that town of 1,700, and it is spending over $1 million in upgrading the water treatment plant to meet standards for supplying safe, secure water for the community. That is just one community that is spending spending well over $1 million to upgrade its facility.

The idea of standards that are binding is one thing. We support the motion brought forward today by the Conservatives to have something put in place to deal with that.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the science needed to test the systems which are in place and the funds required to come up with a water study in Canada which would absolutely place, in some parameters, the condition of our present drinking water systems in Canada. What emphasis does he think should be placed on the science, as well as the standards needed to supply that safe water?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pertinent question. Whatever we do, the guidelines we put forth have to be based on good science. Science would give us the basis upon which we could have guidelines that were reasonable, that were safe in terms of health care aspects and guidelines that were doable. Sometimes we set standards that are not attainable. We need to have attainable standards that are safe for the public and that are imminently doable, and we can do it.

A lot of the science has already been done. One very interesting thing is that a number of new water achievement capabilities have been discovered around the world. We need to extract the best information from around the world, and on a case by case basis utilize water purification mechanisms appropriate for given communities.

In my area of Victoria sewage is dumped out after only primary treatment. To my knowledge, that is not much of a problem because of where the water is and the velocity of the tides. I am sure that it would give comfort to people in Victoria to have a secondary water treatment system where we could remove a number of other substances that are bioaccumulating in our environment, the likes and consequences of which we do not know at this point in time. The bottom line is base the guidelines on good science.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of an issue that could come before the House where Canadians would have a greater sense of resolve, purpose and be of a common mind, than the issue of clean drinking water in our country.

The debate today has been very interesting. I thank the member for Fundy—Royal and the Progressive Conservatives for bringing the issue forward. It is important that we have this debate.

I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. It seems to me there is an agreement that we all want to see clean water, but the issue before us is whether or not the federal government is willing to take a stand and show the leadership to provide enforceable national drinking water standards, and to do that now, not at some point in the future. I heard my colleague say that he supports that.

On a related matter, it seems to me that he also raised the question of the use of pesticides and how they can contaminate our water systems. He gave some very alarming examples of what can happen. We have to remember that in the environment committee a very excellent report was issued on the use of pesticides, particularly for cosmetic use. My understanding is that the Canadian Alliance issued a dissenting report. It did not agree with the main report.

We have to be very clear about the positions being put forward. Either we agree that there should be clean water for Canadians, and that it should be backed up by enforceable national standards, or we think that somehow various jurisdictions such as the marketplace would take over. I believe the former.

What is the position of his party on the use of pesticides? Would it agree that it is a central point in whether or not we have a clean water system? Would he agree that we need to have strong enforceable standards, not just for the water but for all of the stuff that goes into those water systems, like pesticides?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked a very important question. It is important to remember that the government is using a federal water policy from 1987, which is obsolete. We have to deal with this issue now.

We are in support of the motion put forward by the member for Fundy—Royal and his party to develop enforceable guidelines based on science.

With respect to pesticides, there are pesticides and there are pesticides. For us to have access to safe food stuffs and enough food to eat, there is little doubt that pesticides are required. However it is important that we use pesticides wisely and whatever pesticide is utilized, it is used on the basis of science not on the basis of emotion.

I would encourage the House to continue to look at whether we need to use pesticides for cosmetic reasons. If so, what kind do we need to use? I would encourage the NDP member to work with the rest of us, as I know she will, to develop those kind of standards, which we would support.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of this motion. I know that other members of the NDP caucus have spoken in strong support of this motion from the Progressive Conservative Party. We consider this to be a very critical issue facing Canadians.

The confidence of Canadians has been very severely shaken given recent events in both Walkerton and now in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. This raises the question as to whether or not any Canadian can rely upon our water system. It is something that many Canadians over the years have taken for granted.

We live in a country of immense natural resources with a huge abundance of freshwater. Canadians believe that our water resources are protected, clean and safe for drinking. Yet the events that have unfolded in the last year have seriously undermined what it is that we believe in in terms of clean water.

This leads me to the question of the motion before the House. While there needs to be negotiation and collaboration between the federal jurisdictions, provinces and territories, the critical issue is to arrive at a place where we have enforceable national drinking water standards that are enshrined in a safe water act. If we cannot agree on that in the House, then why are we here?

We are talking about a basic necessity of life. We are talking about the provision of a resource for human consumption that should be safeguarded at all cost. I do not think it makes a difference whether one lives in a small or rural community where reliance is on well water or whether one lives in a large urban centre where reliance is on very complex water filtration and chlorination systems. No matter where people live, they should have the assurance that the water is safe.

In my community in Vancouver there have been significant issues about water quality through the greater Vancouver regional district. We have fought many battles to try and stop logging in the watersheds where the reservoirs are to ensure the quality of that water. This has been a very hotly contested local issue. Many activists have taken it on over the years.

If we had a safe water act and enforceable standards along with a federal government that was willing to put that into law and provide a guarantee to every Canadian, then it seems to me that we would not have the severity of the problems that we are facing in Canada today. Along with my colleagues I wholeheartedly support the motion, as I hope every member of the House does, that we act in the public interest to uphold the public interest in terms of the provision of clear and safe drinking water.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.