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.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I quite agree with the previous speaker that the infrastructure program is not delivering federal money directly to this type of infrastructure, sewage or water treatment. The reason is the infrastructure programs has always been set up so the municipalities have the primary decision making on how the money will be spent. If a municipality decides to infrastructure money on their arena for example, or in my riding on a nature path, instead of on sewers or water treatment, then always the federal government has bowed to the right of the grassroots, shall we say, to determine how federal money is spent.

Is the member suggesting that perhaps we should deviate from this practice, we should turn our back on it and propose that the federal government impose or require the municipalities and the provinces, for that matter, to spend money, the money they should be spending in co-operation with the federal government, on clear drinking water?

It seems to me, Madam Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that the federal government is not doing its job, if the decision making is left to the provinces and the municipalities and they are not making the right decisions. Surely the answer is for the federal government, if it is using federal dollars, to impose upon the provinces and the municipalities to spend money on good water for Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, there is something really wrong with that approach. Impose or force are the words being used. I am talking about words like co-operate, understand and work with. That is how we do it. We need a new approach to federalism to make it work, not the forced, clamped down and tie the provinces up. That is what we have had for so long.

Let us face it, it is not very sexy to say that we will build a new sewage treatment plant, or that we will change our landfill site or whatever. However I believe more than anything, if we sit down with the provinces they will do what is right. What is right is to protect the health of Canadians. That is what they want us to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Madam Speaker, once again from another party we are hearing the argument, as we always do when concerns are expressed about jurisdictions and when we are looking out for Quebec's interests, that we are raising party differences and being militant. That is not true.

The jurisdiction is ours. Underground and surface water is indeed the property of Quebec or the provinces. Enough of these accusations of being partisan just because we want certain things or do certain things. That is not true.

What I am saying is that what we are doing right needs to be looked at. Quebec already has in place the strictest standards for drinking water. As hon. members are aware, we have been working to improve those regulations since June 19, 2000 and the bill has almost reached the cabinet stage. The final version has been drafted.

So we do not want to hear any more about our not being concerned about water quality, or not looking after it properly. Perhaps there are some places where the job is not being done as well as it might be, but the responsibility is there. This is another attempt by the federal government to trample over provincial jurisdiction, no matter for how noble a cause. It must be known that water quality is the responsibility of everyone, Quebec included.

How can the hon. member again suggest such an incursion, especially since he comes from a party like the Canadian Alliance? I am sure his province too has programs or regulations. Areas of provincial jurisdiction must be respected. Let the necessary transfer payments be made and let us stop cutting back on the funds that have to be passed on to the municipalities.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, as well as turf wars, we have to get rid of the paranoia that is involved. We have to start talking about what is good for Canadians. What is good for Canadians is that water needs to be pure. We have lots of heavy duty restrictions in Alberta on water quality. I believe we have one of the best in water quality, but I would hope that any Albertan politician would be prepared to sit down with members from every other province and try to improve the whole situation.

Why duplicate bureaucracy province by province by province? Why duplicate research or duplicate development of technology? Why would we do that? We are one country. We should be working together to fix the problem, and that is dirty water.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to salute the member for Red Deer who has taken an early lead on this issue over the last few months, and even before that with his history as a biologist. I believe he touched on a very important point in his speech when he linked health with this issue.

Could the member say a few words on whether or not he believes that linking the issue of health with clean water and food might be the way we could capture the imaginations of all members in the House and that this issue should be put on the front burner.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, environment is linked to everything. It is linked to agriculture, it is linked to health and it is linked to trade. It is linked to everything we do because we must have a pure environment in which to function. Let us put as paramount importance the health, welfare and safety of Canadians. We have to do that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the MP who covers the area of North Battleford where we are having our latest outbreak of problem water. I will read the motion that my colleague from Fundy—Royal put forward for people who have just joined us. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should act with the provinces and territories to establish enforceable national drinking water standards that would be enshrined in a Safe Water Act.

When I look at this motion, I have a certain amount of trepidation in voting positively for it. People at home are crying out. There is a demand and a need for safe water across the country.

We have a myriad of standards at this point. There are over 79 guidelines in the Canadian drinking water quality, 54 of which are health based, 17 are based on aesthetics, which is colour, taste and so on, and another 8 have a combination of the two. As I said, I talk about this with some trepidation. This is a provincial jurisdiction. We really have to get beyond the politics and look at the end of the day to what is best for the common good of ordinary Canadians who are demanding safe and secure water supplies across the country.

There is a myriad of examples where there are problems. Senator Grafstein has a bill in the Senate at this time. He has identified 700 communities, and he says there are probably more, that have problems with water. At any given time there are 5,000 communities across the country that have boil water advisories out.

We have to look at the concentrations of livestock and some of the weather related problems. Part of the problem in North Battleford is that the river content is very low at this time. Compound that with the sewer pump that is on the wrong end of the town and there is a recipe for disaster.

A tremendous amount of studies have been done. Currently we have national standards but they are not binding. The problem as I see it is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the standards we have and the testing that is required.

The problem with the testing is that it is very expensive. The procedures are very costly. The fancy name is cryptosporidium, which is the little bug in the water in North Battleford. Testing for that requires tankers of water to be taken to the provincial lab, which is 300 or 400 kilometres away. That is done on an ongoing basis. It is cost prohibitive.

The other option is to have a chemical engineer or a biologist on staff, which of course for a community of 15,000 again is cost prohibitive. There has to be some sort of national, provincial and municipal co-operation.

The Minister of Transport made a comment the other day. He stated “The government believes the improvement of our drinking water supply and sewage treatment is an utmost priority.” That is what he said. The health minister, in a comment to my question to him yesterday in this place, said that there was nothing more important than public safety, that we really had to spend money on our crumbling infrastructure and that $56 million had been allocated to Saskatchewan.

To replace the sewage plant alone in North Battleford, we are looking at $20 million. That is a third of the total allocation to Saskatchewan. It will handle the output for 15,000. There is roughly a million people in Saskatchewan, so members will see that the $56 million will be a couple of dollars short and probably a day or two late in this instance.

There are a couple of heavy weights at the cabinet table saying that they realize there is a problem. It really begs a question. Moneys have been allocated to the Canada infrastructure program with the focus on water and sewer. We have a tremendous problem with crumbling infrastructure in water and sewer related areas. One member cited the problems on first nation reserves. He is absolutely right. We see that at home on the reserves. However it is also hitting our towns and communities that pay huge taxes are looking for security in their water and sewer supplies.

We are not seeing it happen out there. As the federal government cut the funding on the health and social transfers, that got off-loaded to the provinces. What did the provinces do? They cut support and so on to the municipal governments, the lowest level of government, which led to problems that we see today. They cannot do the testing that is required because the dollars are not there. Staffing has been cut, and it has been a compound action all the way down. I guess we all share in the disgrace in our safe water supply.

We are being asked today to support the idea that the federal government should get into the business of clean water. That is an argument unto itself. If we look at what federal governments have done over time with health care, employment insurance and other programs like that, we see that they have become bureaucratically heavy and have not delivering the germ we need out there in the real world.

Clean water is and will continue to be a complex issue. We have geography. We have climate. We have floods and all sorts of things that happen. We need access to source. Then we have the crumbling infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said we need $16.5 billion just to get everybody back to a benchmark that would give us relatively safe water and sewage handling. The whole Canada infrastructure program over three years is $4 billion. That will not even supply maintenance.

We will have to take a lot harder look at this issue. Government spending is all about priorities. We saw an announcement of $560 million to the arts. Then people say that they need safe water. Where do we suppose they vote? Which one would they ask for? We have a long gun registry that has eaten up $600 million, and we do not have safe water. Which one would the ordinary citizen want to put the money into? It is all about priorities.

The impact of the water crisis in North Battleford goes away beyond money and regulations. People on the street are concerned about their health and the future safety of the water supply. There is a problem out there about when it will be safe. When the people who were in charge when the problem hit say the water is safe, will these people take their word for it? Probably not. A whole supply system has to be flushed out and that can only be done after rigorous testing has been done at both the sewage end and the pump intake end. There is a combination there of wells and surplus water that is used.

There has been a tremendous outpouring of support for North Battleford's situation from across the country. A lot of other communities, which were in that same situation to a lesser degree, have come forward with ideas. As was mentioned before by my colleague from Red Deer, tremendous gains have been made on the applications of cleaning up our water supply. We are marketing those across the world. If North Battleford wants the upscale, high tech equipment, it will have to go to Beijing to buy it from a Canadian source. We just do not seem to have that communication system in this country which puts the buyer and the seller together. In a lot of cases it is very cost prohibitive.

There are a couple of options available to clean up the cryptosporidium that is in the water in North Battleford. One involves a complete ultraviolet light filter system, which is very expensive and high maintenance. It needs to be maintained on almost a daily basis because of the volume of water that would go through it. The summer capacity is like 3.4 million gallons a day, so that adds to the problem. The system is very dry right now, so it could even go higher than. That is the average.

Other people have come forward. Canadian Tire did an excellent job of getting bottled water to the people. The line up has been as long as two kilometres and those folks have risen to the challenge. They have committed to 1,500 gallons a day to be brought in. They have given fantastic support to a small community. The Canadian Tire store is probably the best loved store out there right now. I really commend it for its efforts.

Culligan has stepped up to the plate. It will ship in skids of water at its cost, including cost of the water, freight and everything. The only thing Culligan wants is for the province to waive the enviro charge, which would be about $1,200 on what it is planning to ship in. I was on a conference call yesterday with the new premier, Lorne Calvert, the mayor and the council, and I am sure the province will step up to the plate.

Everyone is looking for solutions. We are way beyond trying to condemn anyone. We need to find the answers and move along with that.

The crisis over water in Canada is becoming a crisis over government. People are looking to their municipalities that provide these services. They then look to their provinces and ask them for their support. Lastly, they look to the federal government that made the decision to make the huge cuts in health and social transfers. They are telling the federal government that the cuts were for the deficit, which is gone, so we should now prioritize some government spending.

Canadians want the government to look at putting money back into safe resources like water and sewers. They want the infrastructure system, which is so sadly lacking across the country, to be built up again. It is not systemic to one particular area. Every province has problems. No one is blameless. Five years ago we were slashing funding and now it is time to step up to the plate and put some of it back.

We have been asked today to support the idea that the federal government should get into the business of clean water and the safety of supply. I guess in a vacuum where that does not exist someone has to come forward. I have a real problem voting for the federal government to get into a situation like this but of course the money rests with the federal government.

What we are looking for today is the federal government to commit the $20 million that will be needed in North Battleford to bring its sewage system up to standard so it can get back to doing ordinary business.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Madam Speaker, on behalf of all of us here, our thoughts are with the hon. member and the challenge he faces as the federal leader for the community right now in dealing with this issue. In my humble opinion this is precisely an area where the national government must address the emergency immediately.

I want to remind members about the foot of snow we had in downtown Toronto about three years ago. Our mayor declared a national crisis and called the Prime Minister to ask for the army. Within hours the Department of National Defence was plowing the streets of Toronto. I think there may have been eight or ten inches of snow on the streets and everyone thought this was a great national crisis.

I believe we are sensitive about intervention and trampling on rights of municipalities and provinces but, in a case like this, I do not think it is inappropriate for the municipal leaders to reach out to the local member and to the national government to ask for help. I think as members of the House of Commons we should all be there.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Toronto—Davenport for his intervention. He is of course on the record as trying to spearhead a national drinking water committee. I think it would be very important to do that. I think it should be an all party committee. I think it must confer with the provincial ministers, the Federation of Municipalities and so on.

It is time for the drinking water concerns to be addressed in a systematic fashion, not an ad hoc series of programs. We need to look at the big picture, break it down into components and address each one of those: the sewer, the water distribution system and so on, and it needs to be done through research and development. It is also very important to stress the co-operation and conditions that would be placed on provincial jurisdictions. This is their area of expertise and they really need to be brought to the fore. I know my colleagues from Quebec will certainly stress that issue, and I fully support that. The federal government is really trampling on provincial jurisdiction in doing this but let us take a look at it in a systematic way.

The member mentioned the snow storm in Toronto and the help it received. A couple of years ago, when an ice storm hit this region, lower Quebec and so on, the federal government was there. If we look at the floods in Manitoba and other areas of the country, we see that the federal government had a role to play.

I would ask the members opposite today to keep crisis and disaster in mind as my community of North Battleford applies for extra funding to get its water back under control.

A new sewage plant has been committed for the year 2003. We would like to bring that forward by a year or a year and a half. The problem we are seeing is that the green funds that have been announced are a little tough to access when the forms are not out yet. They are a little tough to administer when the guidelines say that anything planned needs to have the planning done, the site selection done, the environmental assessment done, the contract let and the building built and tied into the system in less than a year. That is physically impossible when we look at all of the concerns that have to be addressed.

Let us have a look at those regulations. North Battleford sits in the middle of a large agricultural area. It is certainly aware of federal government programs, such as AIDA, and how difficult they are to manage and maintain. It is also aware of the green funding. However, when it looks at the funding it sees it as a public relations spin that really does not address the issue in a practical or common sense way.

We need to get beyond the partisanship and the politics and address this across the country. We have a lightning rod in North Battleford. We had one in Walkerton. We need to seriously look at this issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was the first one so far in the debate who has said that the national standards should be binding.

One of my problems in the debate, as I have heard it thus far, is in Ontario the provincial government withdrew from the programs that provided free water testing for Canadians and withdrew from many other programs that guaranteed good water for people in Ontario.

Should we, when we consider legislation for guaranteeing clean water for all Canadians, be considering ways in which we can prevent provinces withdrawing their support for clean water when they have the responsibility to provide the funds to maintain clean water?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, I guess the point that is being made is withdrawing funding; kind of a carrot and a stick attitude. I think we draw more flies with honey than we do with vinegar. Certainly no one out there on the ground wants to destroy the water system that feeds their families, friends communities and so on. They all want to do a good job.

When we talk about the free testing that was available, I guess there is testing and then there is testing. It is like doing a litmus test and doing a couple of things for specific areas in the water. The problem is we have gone way beyond that with a lot of the pollution and so on that we are seeing generated.

We need tests for this crypto. However, as I said, it takes tankers of water on an ongoing basis to a provincial lab. The costs are just prohibitive. We need to somehow come up with ideas where the testing can be refined and done in a way that is affordable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to this motion by my Tory colleague pertaining to an issue of great concern: our drinking water.

First, I will read the motion, and then we can develop together the whole theme of drinking water. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should act with the provinces and territories to establish enforceable national drinking water standards that would be enshrined in a Safe Water Act.

First, I would like to say that we are not against high standards for the monitoring and quality of drinking water. It is all the more essential in the light of recent events, such as what happened in Walkerton or what is going on right now in western Canada, or even the risk of contaminant migration on federal lands for instance.

Take military bases like Bagotville or Valcartier, where, according to some Department of National Defence reports, the contamination could have a major impact on the individual wells of residents in municipalities like Shannon and La Baie, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. I think this is a matter of concern both at the Canadian level and at the Quebec level.

We agree about national standards, and I remind hon. members that on June 19, the environment minister announced a regulatory project, currently before Cabinet, to tighten standards on the quality of drinking water in Quebec.

It is therefore a priority not only in Canada, but in Quebec as well. Water has long been a matter of concern to Quebecers.

Need I recall the major symposium we held in Quebec in December 1997, where environmentalists, academics and industrialists met to discuss the question of water and drinking water, of course, and the whole issue of Quebec's water resources, how to promote them and how to manage them more effectively in order to protect public health and the environment and to ensure better municipal management of this resource.

This symposium, held in Montreal, led to key findings. The first conclusion was that Quebec needed to establish a policy on water for itself. That was fundamental. It was so fundamental that the whole issue of water was re-examined a month later in Quebec by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which we call the BAPE. In May 2000, after considerable public consultation, it issued a report that provided clearly, on various matters, that Quebec should establish a water policy in the near future.

The wish was also expressed, and I mention this because it also concerns the issue of water, that the issue of water be considered in the free trade agreements, that water not simply be considered a commodity and that it be excluded from trade agreements being negotiated, such as that of the free trade area of the Americas.

There is another aspect to recall. Moreover, Quebec adopted its own water preservation act. That act, which is currently in effect and which was unanimously passed by the Quebec national assembly, specifically seeks to preserve and protect drinking water and to include this protection in an act, not a safe water act, but an act on the preservation of our drinking water. Again, this legislation was unanimously passed.

I mentioned that we support national standards. Why? Because, as I said earlier, Quebec has already proposed a number of measures through draft regulations tabled in the national assembly, on June 19, 2000. These measures, which basically seek to improve those already in effect in Quebec under the water regulations passed in 1984, would ensure the effective management of drinking water, while always keeping in mind the protection of public health.

These regulations were adopted in 1984 and in June of last year the Quebec government announced amendments and draft regulations. What is the purpose of these draft regulations? First, they are aimed at improving turbidity standards to ensure that the particles in suspension in our drinking water are of acceptable quality.

In a few months, Quebec will adopt, and I am absolutely convinced of that, standards that are twice as strict as the current Canadian standards. This is quite something, considering that some people think that Quebec does not manage its water properly and that its standards are less strict than elsewhere. Yet, we have standards that are twice as strict as the Canadian ones.

The standard for acceptable turbidity will be reduced from five to 0.5 NTU the year immediately following the coming into force of the regulation. The new proposed standard would therefore be twice as strict as the Canadian recommendation for the quality of drinking water, which is, in the other provinces, the same as the standard applied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

First, with these draft regulations, we will put into place stricter standards, in terms of turbidity as well as quality. These standards will be twice as strict as Canadian standards.

We will also increase the number of substances that must be assessed through sample testing. The number of substances to be assessed in sample tests will be increased from the current 46 to 77. Consequently, more substances will be subject to tests.

We must recall that in certain municipalities, tests are presently conducted, for example in waterworks or individual wells, for certain substances only while others are ignored. Nitrate is one example. In many sample tests, the level of nitrate is not analyzed in standard tests to assess drinking water. The number of substances assessed in Quebec will increase from 46 to 77.

Moreover, and this is significant, these regulations will provide for mandatory controls, which will mean more frequent sample testing.

Need I remind the House that, when samples are taken in Quebec, for example when E. coli, which is well known from the Walkerton case, is detected, would we have one of the most stringent sets of regulations requiring that municipalities be notified rapidly in order to ensure that public health and safety are safeguarded and that people are well informed. We will therefore be increasing the number of mandatory controls both for E. coli and for other substances.

Also important is the frequency of testing. As we discovered in the cases of Shannon, La Baie and the Bagotville base, it is not enough to take samples annually.

It is essential to ensure that if a contaminant enters individual wells, which is most often the case, being a rare occurrence in water supply systems, we can increase the frequency of sampling. This is what will be accomplished by the draft regulations which have been introduced in Quebec and which will be adopted in a few weeks or months. The number of samples taken will be increased to eight a month from two a year. This sampling will be mandatory. The frequency will go from the present two samples a year to eight a month. This is the provision in the government of Quebec's draft regulations.

We had water quality regulations in 1984. We will improve on them with draft regulations which can be described as innovative. They are the most stringent regulations a province can enforce. They are so rigorous that, even though the quality of water in Quebec is considered to be the best in Canada, Quebec has decided to improve them.

When I say that Quebec has the best quality of water, I refer to what the Sierra legal defence fund has said. This environmental organisation, which is not an advocate of industry, has given Quebec the highest mark, ahead of all other provinces, in terms of the severity of its requirements regarding drinking water.

On a scale of A to F, Quebec got a B, like Alberta. Nova Scotia got a minus B. I will not mention the others but I will only talk about Quebec. This environmental organization, which is well known and very rigorous in terms of its evaluations, recognized Quebec as having the best quality of drinking water in Canada.

Another important aspect is the issue of infrastructures. This is fundamental. We cannot raise our environmental standards if we do not have operational sewer and water supply systems to treat water effectively. This is fundamental. I will simply refer to the case of Montreal.

A few years ago, the city of Montreal published a report. It was a green book on the evaluation of the sewer and water supply system. According to this report, and I quote:

At present, the city estimates the operation costs associated with the management of drinking water at $118 million and the costs associated with the treatment of wastewater at $83 million.

This was for the city of Montreal alone.

Those costs did not take into account the spending on system improvements. However, the present condition of the system would not necessitate spending of $1 billion but rather between $157 and $225 million.

What we are saying is that the federal government must act as quickly as possible within the existing infrastructure program. However, this is not going to be enough in view of the fact that the sewer and water treatment system of the city of Montreal needs to be improved. The system needs to be improved to ensure there will be no leaks.

If we develop drinking water quality standards, while our sewer system is leaky and is not working properly, my colleagues know what I mean, because we have evaluated the cost of a municipal sewage system malfunction, then the outcome would be contamination of the groundwater and the drinking water would inevitably be contaminated.

The Union des municipalités du Québec and the mayors have all stressed the need for adding to the envelope earmarked for water infrastructure renovation. We need concrete action to get the federal government to invest more in infrastructure improvements.

Another aspect concerns the entire issue of crown land contamination, which has a connection to water quality. In recent weeks I revealed that two military bases are the sites of high levels of contamination: Bagotville and Valcartier.

Reports released under the Access to Information Act clearly indicate that the land at Bagotville is contaminated with nitrate, which is liable to end up in the individual well system of nearby municipalities. I am not making this up, I am not being alarmist, I am merely quoting what the National Defence reports say.

This demonstrates that it is all very well to have standards and laws but if the sites are not decontaminated immediately there are health risks. The risks of exposure to nitrate are high. Exposure to nitrates in drinking water can lead to what is termed blue baby syndrome. Action must be taken, therefore.

On the base at Valcartier, not one but a number of sites are polluted. The Jacques-Cartier River was for many years a munitions depot. This situation inevitably creates problems. At Shannon, there is a very high risk that this pollution will migrate into the wells of some 30 homes. The federal government must therefore do something about this and manage its own land before it tells the provinces what standards they should adopt, especially since Quebec's standards are higher than what the federal government wants to recommend.

Quebec is setting standards for itself that are higher than what the government of Canada is recommending. It is not decontaminating its land, which is polluting the drinking water wells of cities, and it wants to tell us what to do. I think the provinces must be respected. If Quebec wants to establish tighter regulations, can it do so? Can the government honour Quebec's areas of jurisdiction?

As far as I know, water is a provincial matter. It is especially insulting for a province that has standards imposed on it to have the federal government taking the lead in setting these standards. It is rather insulting for a province.

People wonder what business it is of the federal government. Should it not get on with managing its own land? Should it not control the quality of the water on its military bases? That is the issue. No, the federal government prefers, generally, to create a law and standards and tell the provinces what is to be done, when it are not about to give lessons.

In closing, I will say simply that we need higher standards on the quality of drinking water. Clearly, stricter regulations are required, but provincial jurisdictions must be respected, especially when the provinces are the leaders.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc Quebecois made excellent comments in his speech today. I was born and raised in Saskatchewan and my heart goes out to the families who lost family members and to everyone in Saskatchewan over this issue.

Since I was elected in 1997, I have been arguing very strongly for full funding of basic infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewers. The tragedies that we see happening now are due to the fact that small towns and cities cannot tax their people enough in order to build the infrastructure that is required for basic human needs. Clean water is certainly one of those needs.

What does the member believe the priorities should be? There are many examples. I believe that federal and provincial governments should not be in the business of deciding who should or should not be getting government money for business. They should be dealing with what the public needs, and that is basic public infrastructure.

The massive use of moneys for gun control is an example. We also had an example in Manitoba where a person was paid $15,000 to hang up dead rabbits in the trees south of Winnipeg as an artistic endeavour. That was bad and the people of Manitoba complained. This year that person received another $5,000. To me that is not priority spending.

Does the Bloc member believe that public infrastructure needs more money? We know we have an infrastructure program in Canada right now partially funded by the federal government. Should the level of funding from the federal government not be increased from $3 billion to $4 billion for public infrastructure?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the findings of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

We should indeed increase the infrastructure budget. Our position on this has always been clear. We should be the voices of the municipalities in the House. We should ensure that the federal government puts in the money that is needed in infrastructure.

The experience has been tried in Quebec. If we set higher water quality standards, municipalities will see their costs go up. Public policy choices will have to be made. Setting standards is not enough. We need the means to enforce them.

That happens very often in the environment sector. A prime example is the Environmental Protection Act. We have some fine legislation, but we do not have the investigators and inspectors to enforce it.

Three things are needed. First, we must improve our infrastructure system to ensure that there are no leaks, as I said earlier. Second, we need to improve water quality standards in Quebec and other provinces. Third, we should provide whatever resources are needed for the optimal implementation of these standards, in other words, provide the money to hire inspectors and investigators.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I too acknowledge that the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie gave a great speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health acknowledged, through the amendment, that we would be respecting jurisdictions as the debate moves forward.

The member just said that we need to speak for municipalities in the House. Does that mean the Bloc Quebecois would support the motion that is on the floor of the House today? Given his experience on Quebec's special high standards, his acknowledgement that infrastructure is needed, that we do have some challenges to meet on our crown lands and that these issues do need the full light of day, would the Bloc Quebecois support the motion? We would need the co-operation and support of the Bloc Quebecois to make this happen.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat unbelievable. They are saying that Canada needs Quebec to adopt national, higher standards. The hon. member for Bourassa knows very well that in Quebec we have the highest standards and the best drinking water in Canada. If the Canadian government wants to adopt higher standards, to copy the standards we have in Quebec, nothing is preventing it from doing so. We will present it with the draft regulations so it can have them adopted wherever it wants.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to explain or clarify his thoughts. When he says that Canada could copy, is he talking about Canada or the provinces?

Second, he talks about adopting Canadian standards? Could the hon. member also indicate whether this would not lead to conflicting expert advice? Would this not be a new case of duplication?

I would like the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie to answer these questions.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member understood correctly. I am talking about Canada, including the provinces. I did not talk about the federal government adopting standards.

Canada, through the provinces, could indeed adopt regulations similar to those passed by Quebec in 1984. It could also adopt stricter regulations regarding water quality, including standards. Would this result in conflicting expert advice? The important thing is to have high standards, both in the provinces and in the lands under federal jurisdiction. I am thinking, among others, of military bases.

If standards as high as those that Quebec is about to adopt were in effect on military bases, we would probably not have a risk of nitrate contaminating the drinking water wells of the town of La Baie, and of water contamination in Shannon.

The federal government is free to adopt standards for federal lands, and the provinces can certainly adopt the same draft regulations as the Quebec government. What will be the result of such measures? We will finally have quality drinking water which will probably be classified as B water, as is currently the case in Quebec. We will not merely have standards, we will have better drinking water and a better quality of life.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. Would he be supporting the motion today? Yes or no.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think I made myself clear earlier. This is not oral question period. Government members seem quite frustrated because I am not answering their questions to their liking, but we have to put up with this every afternoon in the House of Commons. Now, Liberal members can see how frustrating this can be. What I said is that if we could talk—

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the motion, although with some reservations. I will be sharing my time with my friend from Winnipeg North Centre on this very important subject.

I must admit that I prepared some notes and I thought about the motion overnight. I did so with a great deal of concern at a somewhat personal level because I have some close friends who live in Walkerton. I have followed that issue and that incident very closely out of concern for their health and for the health of that community. When we heard the story break last week about North Battleford, it was déjà vu.

I could not help but recall it was a little over a year ago that the government and governments across the country had their warning. We had all the scientists and all the experts say to us that this would happen again. Now the citizens of North Battleford have been the next victims.

With regard to the motion, I must admit that I do not have a great deal of hope it would not be repeated in more communities across the country. We have known for 30 to 40 years that our infrastructure programs and support programs for both water and sewage treatment have not been funded properly. They have been deteriorating to the point as seen now in these two communities.

They have lead to the deaths of citizens in Canada. It is not limited to just those two communities. We have had regular and continuous warnings right across the country, including in the province of Quebec, in spite of my friend's protestation of how good the systems are there. It will only get worse before it gets better.

Last year in Ontario 274 communities had boil water advisories. Last weekend 37 Saskatchewan towns were being advised to boil their water. These are all after Walkerton.

The need for government action is very obvious. We will see that today in terms of the response we get from the various political parties in the House. It seems to me and to my party that to a great extent the motion is only window dressing unless there is action that flows from it. I have great reservations that will happen.

I had a vision of a federal budget that recognized the urgency and the crises we are faced with in terms of the treatment of our water. We did not see that in the fall budget and we will not see a budget for perhaps another year that would take this issue into account.

When I hear the Minister of Health saying that we cannot snap our fingers and solve the problem, he is right. It begs the question of where he and the government have been for the last year since Walkerton and where successive governments have been for the last 30 to 40 years.

It all comes down to money, as is often the case. We could set up a co-operative effort between the provinces and the federal government, but the reality is that the municipalities deliver these services. They are responsible for treating our water and our sewage. We cannot divorce those two issues.

I am not sure about the Bloc, but if we passed the motion everybody would be in favour of it. Then, tomorrow, do we just do nothing as we have for these last number of years? Or, do we deal realistically with it? Do we reach into our collective pockets in the form of tax dollars and pass those down to municipalities? They have told us that what they need over the next 10 years is a minimum of $16.5 billion.

The vast majority of those dollars have to come from the federal government because most of the provinces are either in no position or a very weak position to be able to fund that. At this point we have a commitment in the last federal budget. Over the next six years we have $2.65 billion committed for all types of municipal infrastructure, not just water or sewage treatment. That includes roads and any number of other items. That $2.65 billion comes nowhere near dealing with the problem.

What do we have? We have a situation where, from what I am hearing, I expect we will pass this motion. We will probably not do anything more. That is a sham we are perpetuating on the people of the country. If we do not take action we should all be ashamed.

We no longer can say, as some of the other political parties in the House would say, that we still must have this thrust of having tax cuts. We are seeing the costs of those tax cuts in Walkerton and in North Battleford. We will see it again and again across the country.

We have to get real. We have to dig into the pockets and use the revenue being generated, not to turn back as tax dollars but to flow through so that municipalities across the country can build the proper sewage treatment plants, can treat the water and can do the testing and monitoring that needs to be done, all of which will cost a lot more money than any of those municipalities have.

Unless we are serious about it, as I said earlier, we will simply perpetuate this sham. That is not something any of us should be proud of. All I can say on behalf of the New Democratic Party is that over the next weeks and months we will continue to press the government to develop an appropriate infrastructure program for the municipalities.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague from the NDP. He speaks of window dressing. I am curious as to whether he would agree that what we are seeing at least initially in this debate is an indication that the government will in fact vote in favour of the motion this evening in a very clever and Janus-like fashion, that it will support the motion and indicate in some detail it is already doing what the motion calls for.

The government just as erroneously and disingenuously did the same thing when it came to the sex offender registry, indicating that it was already taking steps. The government continuously denies and distracts and delays. These are very much the trademarks of the government.

On a specific note, and I know it is an issue my friend would be aware of, there is this fundamental issue of health that stems from clean air and clean water. There is a specific example, perhaps the most extreme example in the country today, and that is the ongoing titanic environmental disaster of the tar ponds in Sydney, Cape Breton. What was once a very pristine body of water in that community has now become a chemical pool from steel plant chemicals and treatments that have gone into that water supply. Just outside our Chamber there is a hunger strike taking place in regard to this by Elizabeth May. With Maude Barlow, she has written a book called Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada's Love Canal .

In the context of this debate, I am wondering if there are specific recommendations. My friend touched upon the aspect of the money that is required, but is there not a need for leadership from the government and a need for a specific plan to address situations like the Sydney tar ponds where the health risks are phenomenal and are documented? The cancer rates and the rates of other serious illnesses are startling in comparison with other communities in Canada.

Though we have Walkerton and we now have North Battleford, this is a looming disaster for an entire community in Sydney, Cape Breton. Would my friend share with us any thoughts or advice he might have for the government in order to finally address this huge embarrassment and environmental disaster in Sydney, Cape Breton?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been following rather closely for the last two years the issues surrounding the Sydney tar ponds and the impact that is having on human health, both from the perspective of my position as environmental critic for the NDP but also, and more important at this time, in regard to the impact that is having on human health.

The statistics that come out of there are just horrendous and bring us back to the issue. What has happened there, I am very afraid, will just be repeated by the government, because it has had in place a committee for going on five or six years, I believe, and there was a preceding committee. The committee really has not accomplished anything. I think everybody agrees with that. It is almost moribund in its lack of activity and has had no effective results at all, so while nothing is going on there, in the meantime we have people literally suffering serious health problems and there have been a number of deaths that I think can safely be attributed to the toxins that exist in the air, the soil and the water in that region.

The hunger strike that Elizabeth May is conducting at this point just highlights the level of frustration that people are feeling in Cape Breton over that issue and over the lack of any serious results being achieved while people are suffering major health problems. We believe that very serious numbers of deaths will ultimately come from that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and join with my colleague, the member for Windsor—St. Clair, in expressing the support of the New Democratic Party with respect to this motion.

We want to thank the Conservative Party for bringing this matter to the House and we wish to comment on the fact that there seems to be, based on the first couple of hours of debate, considerable support for the motion. That is a good sign. If at the end of the day we can unite around something as fundamental to the health and well-being of Canadians as a safe drinking water supply in our country, then we will have done a great service and we will have fulfilled our responsibility as members of parliament representing a level of government that is required to act on health protection matters.

What I think is so important today is to acknowledge that health protection is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. It was obviously very disconcerting to hear yesterday from the Minister of Health that in fact standards, laws and guidelines in terms of quality of water are not necessarily the solution.