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.
John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON
On just a point of clarity, Madam Speaker, I wish to understand from the member who just spoke: Does he mean that if we set national standards we should force compliance on the part of the provinces?
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, the way I would approach that and the way I have approached it in the past is to work out agreements with the provinces.
The hon. member can shrug, and I understand that, but I have seen both ways work. I have seen agreements reached when the federal government was prepared to go some distance on its own to clean its own hands going into those discussions.
I do not believe we get very far by pretending there are not provincial jurisdictions and riding over them. I think that becomes counterproductive. It gets people's backs up. It makes solutions less possible.
I believe in a phrase used by a former leader of the hon. gentleman's party. I believe in co-operative federalism. I think it is the spirit of the country. That is the kind of federalism that I would like to apply in this instance: getting agreement, forcing agreement by the force of persuasion, by the force of example, and then writing it into law.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, building on the point that the Canadian Alliance member touched on and as the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party stated, if we use our jurisdiction on reserves to create a model water quality agreement then by example that could have an effect on provinces and municipalities and respect the provincial jurisdiction about which especially the province of Quebec is concerned.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, that is a very constructive suggestion. I believe it also falls within the ambit of the motion now before the House.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Madam Speaker, does the right hon. member not think that the water problems we are having are just the tip of the iceberg, an iceberg that probably started surfacing about 50 years ago when it came to the decline in Canada's infrastructure?
Truckers are telling us about bridges that were built in 1955 which they are afraid to drive over. We have sewage treatment plants that are archaic. We have water treatment plants that no one seems to know whether or not they work.
Does he not think that this is just the tip of the iceberg, one that should have been addressed probably 30 years ago and now we are just starting to see the repercussions from this?
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, the short answer to that is yes. The deteriorating infrastructure problem is a serious complication. It has been aggravated in recent years because the drive to expenditure reduction has meant that investment which should have gone into infrastructure to keep things up to date has been delayed. We are paying the price for that.
The only thing I would add is that there are other factors here. More people are moving to small communities. There is greater diversity of commercial activity in various communities, as the hon. member would know coming as he does from Red Deer. That has environmental implications. There are changes in the various environmental factors that can affect water, but there is no doubt that infrastructure is one important element of this and has to be addressed.
I would add in closing there needs to be a law on the books that encourages governments to act and not let these issues slip away. That is why we would propose to bring together the provinces and federal government to establish standards and then to enshrine them in a law on which Canadians could count and any government could not ignore.
Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Madam Speaker, I first want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.
The motion by the representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party provides an opportunity for a valuable debate not only on the quality of water, but on the organization of the Canadian federation and on the allocation of responsibilities among the various levels, the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities, in the management of a resource as vital as water.
The opposition motion proposes national standards that would be not only directives or recommendations but requirements enshrined in a safe water act.
Nothing separates us from the Progressive Conservative Party in our concern for the need to protect a safe environment and the right to safe and quality drinking water throughout Canada. I consider it a fundamental right, which we must help guarantee, at all levels of government.
When we see the tragedies and problems occurring in Walkerton, North Battleford and other regions in Canada, I think it is high time we took a look at water quality, of course, but also at the way we manage our environment and our most precious heritage, which helps us survive each day, namely, our air, our water and our land, the various contaminants and categories of waste.
A debate on water quality is of interest to all Canadians. It gives the government an opportunity to make known its share of the responsibility in the area.
Let me first say that our government has promised to increase funding for research into the effects of toxins on our health, including research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, on heavy metals that pose special risks for children, on specific toxic substances and on the cumulative effects of all toxins on our health. This is a commitment that we made, and is one that we will fulfil. It is a commitment that will have a concrete impact on water quality across the country.
Moreover, Health Canada will continue and enhance work on the drinking water guidelines. These guidelines are developed based on lifetime exposure to a specific contaminant, thereby addressing concerns with cumulative effects.
Health Canada's safe environments program acts as the technical secretariat to the federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking water, the entity responsible for the development of guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. The guidelines establish health based limits for contaminants of drinking water. They are meant to apply to all drinking water supplies, both public and private, whether the source water comes from a lake or river, or from a well.
The subcommittee, which includes representatives from all provinces and territories as well as the federal government, is a very good example of federal-provincial-territorial collaboration in place to ensure the safety of all Canadians.
What is Health Canada's role in this subcommittee? Health Canada develops the scientific documents used by the subcommittee to establish acceptable concentrations for contaminants in drinking water. Health Canada provides provincial and territorial governments with the best scientific data on biological, chemical and radiological contaminants found in drinking water.
Over the past thirty years, this system has worked well and Health Canada has developed a strong working relationship with each of the provinces and territories. Health Canada provides the provinces and territories with the best scientific data available and co-ordinates the flow of information across the country.
These guidelines are used in a number of ways. They are truly the cornerstone for all drinking water quality across Canada.
The provinces and territories use them as the benchmark for their own enforceable standards, guidelines and objectives. Each province and territory has developed its own method to incorporate the guidelines to best fit its needs.
Some provinces have developed regulations, based on the guidelines, while others require that all national health-based guidelines be met.
Guidelines are also used at the federal level with respect to areas of federal jurisdiction, such as in connection with first nations, or on federal lands, and so forth.
These guidelines also set the standard for the quality of bottled water and water used in food production.
These guidelines are very much a work in progress: as new research, monitoring data, analytical methodology or treatment processes become available, existing guidelines can be and are re-evaluated and kept current.
By definition, these guidelines are not mandatory. However, I would like to take a moment to tell the House that to date this method has been very largely effective in safeguarding the quality of our drinking water. Canada is the second largest country in the world, with an incredibly diverse geography, and there are many differences between the regions with respect to source water quality, availability and quantity.
The guidelines developed by the joint committee must be applied appropriately in the various provinces and territories in order to be effective. Risk management in this case is best done by the people who know their territory best.
The federal government acknowledges that the provinces know their water best and that they can use the federal guidelines in the most effective way.
If the federal government were to mandate that every province follow the guidelines, line by line, or face stiff penalties, some provinces would spend a lot of public money testing substances that are not even found in their territory.
By leaving it up to the provinces to interpret the guidelines in the way that makes sense and is appropriate for them, the federal government allows them to make the most appropriate risk management decisions, and also gives them an opportunity to assume their responsibilities in making the most judicious use possible of taxpayers' money by not testing for substances that might not even exist in their territory.
It bears repeating that the provinces know their geographical territory best, and are best left to control the quality of their drinking water.
In summary, I wish to say that the safety of Canadian water requires a multi-layered approach, which includes the protection of the source water, the effectiveness of the water treatment process, the training of treatment plant operators, the distribution of the treated water and the safety of the materials that come in contact with drinking water throughout the entire process.
All these elements cannot be the responsibility of just one level of government or of the federal government alone. A division of responsibilities has become established over the years, which is also consistent with our constitution and which requires the provincial and municipal levels to play a role, with the support, as I mentioned, of the federal government through the work being done by Health Canada.
I am proud of what we have been able to achieve in collaboration with the provinces and territories. I believe the steps we have all taken in light of the recent tragedies will ensure we maintain the safety of our drinking water supplies for all Canadians.
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words “to establish” with the following: “respecting their jurisdiction to ensure”.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The tenor of the language that we utilized in the shaping of the motion was to provide a high degree of flexibility.
In keeping with that same tenor and trying to make the issue as non-partisan as we possibly can, I ask the member if a subsequent member could reintroduce the amendment while we have a chance to talk among our colleagues and reflect upon the wording.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
As it is, I would like to advise hon. members that there is a motion already on the floor that was moved by the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I will have to take this amendment under advisement because we cannot have two motions to amend a motion on the floor at the same time.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, I wish to compliment the member for Fundy—Royal on bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons today.
As many members will know, over the last few months a number of us have been seized with this issue. We have been trying hard to work on terms of reference that would be acceptable to all parties for a special committee of the House that would move this debate forward. We want to make sure that the security of our freshwater, the quality of our drinking water and all facets related to water are dealt with in a proper fashion.
I was particularly reassured today, and it is the reason I will be supporting the motion, that all members who have spoken to the motion have said that it is not a partisan issue. It is an issue on which we all have to come together. We all have to figure out a way to make sure that laws are put in place to ensure the quality of our drinking water.
It is very important that we first begin by acknowledging the work of Senator Grafstein in the other place. He tabled Bill S-18, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act dealing with clean drinking water. I believe it is at second reading right now.
I appeal to all members, their staff, other legislators, journalists, environmentalists and people interested in the issue to get a hold of Senator Grafstein's bill. I am sure the research he has done in this area would be deemed acceptable to the point where we could move the bill from the Senate into the House of Commons. Together we could create an historic moment where the Senate and the House of Commons, in the interest of all Canadians, would work together to ensure that we have clean drinking water in every part of Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health suggested an amendment to the main motion a few minutes ago that talked about making sure we are respectful of provincial jurisdictions. It is a very important amendment which hopefully the member for Fundy—Royal will accept. It would be a tragic day in the House if we could not get together, because there was some unease by the Bloc Quebecois and other members who felt we were trying to interfere with provincial jurisdiction.
That is not the essence of the motion. We understand the provinces jealously guard their areas of jurisdiction and that we had a tremendous disaster in terms of water quality in Ontario. The world knows about it. We are very sensitive because on an issue like this one Canadians do not want for a moment to be criticizing one another.
We must get together to resolve the problem. We must make an effort to put forward the collective will of all parties of the House to make drinking water better for everyone in the country and perhaps even a template for the world. It would be awful if through a few words the spirit of good will were to fall apart.
It is very important that all members support the amendment and that we respect provincial jurisdictions. It is no secret that traditionally I have a reputation for being a passionate centralist and interventionist. This has been my political background. The issue is so fragile and important that if we are to create a national will all of us will have to put a drop of water in our wine. We will have to bend a little and park some of our traditional philosophical views. Nothing is more important than the quality of our drinking water.
As a nation we have a very special trust not only for Canadians but for the rest of the world. I hope the debate will lead to the next part of the discussion on water technologies. As a nation we have some of the best water purification technologies on the planet. We have a responsibility to take that technology and make sure other parts of the world that are disadvantaged get to share it.
The whole area of water purification technology will end up as another issue for debate, which is very important. On this issue we cannot just think about our own constituents and our own country. We have to reach out to the rest of the world and share the technology.
Over the next little while another issue will be water and our trade agreements. There is no mistake about it. In 1995 I spoke to Mr. Nelson Riis' private member's bill banning bulk water exports. I supported his bill, but when we get into the area of water eventually we come to issues that are explosive and sensitive for us and the House of Commons must deal with them.
I hope the spirit of today's debate will continue. When our House leaders get together tomorrow I hope they will put the special committee of the House on track so that it can move ahead on these issues. We need to deal with them in a constructive way by bringing in some of the best minds in our country and in other countries to talk to us about all facets of water.
I should like to make one final point which I touched on in my question to the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. It has to do with water quality on Indian reserves.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue. I believe, without causing any problems with our provincial or municipal friends, that if we started working on the quality of drinking water in an area where we have constitutional jurisdiction such as on reserves this would be a great beginning.
If we could have the best quality of drinking water on our Indian reserves, it could be a template or a model which other municipalities or provinces could voluntarily pick up. It would save some of the potential for disagreement or interference.
I appeal to the House that we urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to put that file on a fast forward track to a jurisdiction where we have nobody holding us back. We should make sure that our reserves have the best drinking water in Canada and then we could build from there.
I congratulate the hon. member for Fundy—Royal on the motion today. I hope that it leads to a long and vigorous debate on all facets of the security of freshwater in Canada.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for his recent conversion to the virtues of fully complying with the constitution. This is a great novelty, and I do hope it reflects a new Liberal tendency.
As we are dealing today with drinking water, the Liberals are suddenly determined to fully respect the areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Is the hon. member giving us a scoop and telling us that the government is now dropping the infamous millennium scholarship program so vigorously condemned, particularly by Quebec but also by other provinces, as interfering in provincial responsibility for education? Is he announcing, for the Prime Minister, that the Romanow commission on health care is a thing of the past, that it is over and done with, that the government will not interfere with Quebec's health care sector? Should we now conclude from the member's speech that these are the new tendencies of the Liberal Party, the party in power?
I would like the member to explain his position. Members will agree with me that it is surprising to hear the member for Toronto—Danforth repudiate the federal government's interference and its centralizing power in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, my conversion is limited to water. My interventionist passion continues unchanged as far as other issues are concerned.
I would give a very specific example. I do not want to take away from the issue of water that we are dealing with today. On that issue I will bow to the provincial jurisdiction the Bloc Quebecois guards so dearly, but I will not bow and I will intervene with vigour in any province that is not living up to its requirement to provide more affordable housing.
Water is too fragile an issue. I have had a conversion and I will bow to the provincial jurisdiction.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he does not think the issue of drinking water is serious enough to warrant an all party committee to examine it. This would include not just drinking water but all aspects of water, everything about it. Is it not time we put the interests of Canadians ahead of party interests?
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, I totally support the view of my colleague, who is an educator, a biologist and the chief environmental critic for the Canadian Alliance.
I hope the House leader of the Conservative Party, the House leader of the Canadian Alliance and our own House leader will come here tomorrow and say that now is the time to move forward on the security of our freshwater. All the goodwill we can muster here today can be a moment of special hope for all Canadians, not just on drinking water but on all aspects of water.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Madam Speaker, I find it incredible to hear the member state that only water is sufficiently important for standards to be set and provincial jurisdiction to be respected, including that of Quebec. This is incredible. Besides, there is nothing more important than water, and it is basically the jurisdiction of Quebec.
What I would ask the hon. member is whether he believes this is a matter of respecting jurisdictions by calling for standards that, while possibly different, will respect provincial jurisdiction, and will Quebec or any other province not be forced in any way to adopt standards that may not even be any better than its own? This is already the case in Quebec and besides, Bernard Landry is already preparing to bring in a new drinking water bill and regulations far superior to what they want to establish as standards here in Canada.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, this gets me into trouble from time to time in the House. If someone in the House comes up with a good, constructive idea that will make life better for Canadians I do not care where the idea comes from. If the premier of Quebec has the model for drinking water we will look at it. Maybe it will end up being the model for all of Canada.
There can be philosophical differences on certain issues. If I understood the motion of the member for Fundy—Royal, the best formula or plan for drinking water should become the national standard regardless of who proposes it. One either opts in or one does not. If the province of Quebec has the best standard then Ontario and the rest of the country should follow it.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously I am passionate about this issue. I would seek unanimous consent of the House to rescind the amendment put forth by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and to permit the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to table another amendment.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The hon. member is asking for a withdrawal of the amendment to the original motion that was moved earlier. Does the House give its unanimous consent?
Yvon Charbonneau LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended
(a) by adding the word “immediately” after the word “act”; and
(b) by replacing the words “to establish” with the words “respecting their jurisdiction, to ensure”.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The hon. parliamentary secretary has moved an amendment. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. parliamentary secretary to move this amendment to the motion?
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. It is fitting that we talk about this important subject today. We should have been talking about it a great many years ago.
Canada is looked upon internationally as a pristine, pure, clean place. However Canada is sliding and has been sliding for a considerable time in terms of infrastructure. This is true of more than just water, but water is what we are talking about today.
We have general regulations but do not enforce them. Canada has no standard for water safety. Nor do we understand whose responsibility it is. As a result we saw the Walkerton incident, the North Battleford incident, and I am sure we will see a great many others.
Canada is sliding into third world status when it comes to water. It is safer to drink bottled water than tap water in Canada. Both sides of the country are dumping raw sewage into the ocean. That is not a G-8 phenomenon; it is a third world phenomenon. We put our garbage into landfills where they seep into our water table. It is a time bomb waiting to explode. It will cost us a fortune in the future to take care of those garbage dumps.
Canada has thousands of toxic waste sites. Our roads and bridges are decaying. Our health care system is rated 23rd out of 29 by the OECD. Our dollar is now worth 60 plus cents. We are suffering from a brain drain. These are symptoms of what is happening to our country, a country of which we are proud and for which we came to Ottawa to fight.
This is the tip of the iceberg. It is the canary in the coal mine in terms of our infrastructure problems. We need a vision and an action plan. We need a government that is not afraid to show leadership.
What has the government done? It likes to stay in the centre and appear shocked that we have a water problem. It likes to pass the buck and blame someone else. When I questioned the government about the 5 and 6 year old girls who were forced to visit their sex offender father in prison, the justice minister told me to go to the province because it was its fault. The province told me to go to the feds because it was a federal prison.
That is called passing the buck, and Canadians are sick and tired of it. They do not care whether an issue is federal, provincial or municipal. They want it fixed. Ultimately the government throws money at the problem. It throws money at infrastructure. What do we get for that money? We get golf courses, statues, canoe museums, ski hills and fountains in the middle of rivers. We need our sewage, water and garbage problems taken care of. That is not what we are getting.
The government has put aside $4 billion for water between now and the year 2005. Little or none of the money has gone to communities. Most of it seems lost in the bureaucracy. Municipalities say they need $16.5 billion to address the water problem.
What are the responses? Everyone cares about health. When we talk about water, air or garbage we are talking about people's health. If there is one thing people care about more than anything it is health. It does not matter how many material things one has. Without health one has nothing.
What do we need to do? First, we need to co-operate with the provinces and territories. The people do not care who deals with the problem. They just want us to deal with it. The federal government's job is to show leadership. Let us get rid of the turf warfare that seems to plague the whole issue and most other issues in government. Let us show leadership. Let us show that we care about the issues that affect Canadians.
Second, let us do a complete water inventory. Let us look at our aquifers, find out what we have and make a map of them. Let us see if we are in a positive or negative position in the recharge of those aquifers. Let us evaluate the water sources in the country. Let us look at the contamination levels of our water tables. That is where we get into landfills and that sort of thing. Let us look at watershed management. Let us work with the provinces. This is not a turf war between provinces. It is about fixing a very important resource, our water.
As the hon. member mentioned, we will need to talk about the whole issue of water export. The south west U.S. needs a lot of water. In Libya, Mr. Khadafi has built a $32 billion pipeline that is 1,900 kilometres long and 5 metres in diameter. He is using it to pump water out of the Sahara Desert. If they can pump water out of the Sahara Desert we had better believe that someone in the south west U.S. will say why not pump it out of Canada.
Let us at least know what our resource is. Let us talk to Canadians and ask them what they think about the issue. Let us not put our heads in the sand and be afraid to deal with difficult issues such as water. That is exactly what we seem to be doing and that is why Canadians are so frustrated.
Third, let us set standards. Let us work with the provinces and territories to set standards. Let us set the bar high. We are a G-8 country. We are a highly industrialized country. If we cannot set the bar high what country can?
We talk about water technology. We are selling water treatment technology to Beijing that we have not even used in Canada. We have 12 to 15 companies selling technology around the world for sewage and water treatment but we do not use it in Canada because we cannot afford it or are not committed to water quality.
Let us change that. It is negligent that we did not set and enforce standards long ago. It is government negligence. Who cares whether the federal, provincial or municipal governments are at fault? It is negligence on the part of governments not to have done something.
Fourth, we need money for infrastructure. That is always a tough one. We need to train people and acquire technology. Where do we get the money? I have been here long enough to think I could find it within the budget of planet Ottawa. So much waste goes on here in terms of unnecessary programs that do not help people that we could list page after page of it. There is money for important issues like health, water, sewage and garbage. The federal government should show leadership in working on the problem.
Lastly, we need leadership. Canadians are looking for environmental leadership. Environmental issues are not unique to one province or region; they are a universal Canadian problem. Who better to take leadership on such an important issue than the federal government? I urge the government to take leadership on alternate energy, water, sewage, garbage and clean air. I have been working on the Fraser Valley situation at Sumas and the power project. I am shocked how little concern the federal government has about air problems that are potentially going to hurt that area.
With respect to the Sydney tar ponds, Elizabeth May is sitting out there on a hunger strike. We have all kinds of these toxic sites.
We need to develop in this place a vision and a co-operative approach for Canada. Let us fix this environmental concern: today water; tomorrow all these other issues.