Debates of Dec. 6th, 2004

Department of Social Development Act

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's words ring very hollow in my constituency and with the Canada border customs inspectors. Those words are unbelievably shallow because the reality does not match the words.

The fact of the matter is that they are under-resourced. They are in perilous danger. It is the same thing as saying to a drug officer, “If you are going into a drug bust and things don't work out, just back out of it”. That is the policy of Canada customs. The interim policy of Canada customs states that if there is a problem, back out and look for resources. I just explained that earlier. The people who are listening to this parliamentary secretary will find his words mercilessly hollow.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we deal with a human tragedy like this, it is never easy or simple. Of course, we mourn the loss of this life. As I pointed out, the job hazard analysis working alone strategy was commissioned in part to examine ways in which we can improve working conditions for the employees of the Canada Border Services Agency and improve their security. This strategy is a work in progress.

As I mentioned, the government has made a commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians by forming a single integrated border agency. This agency is evolving and actively looking at all aspects of its operations in an effort to improve working conditions for its employees, including those who work alone, and to improve their security.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight because I asked the government, a couple of weeks ago, about responding to the issue of the pine beetle infestation in the forests of British Columbia.

I purposely asked the minister of forests because of his long and excellent background in the forest industry. I believe that, of all the people on the Liberal benches, the minister of forests would be the one who would know the issue far more than any one of them or all collectively.

I asked the minister why the government had not responded, despite calls from the province of B.C., for assistance in mitigating the damage that the pine beetle infestation was causing in the forests of B.C.

At the present time there are approximately 300 million cubic metres of lodgepole pine in British Columbia that has been infected and killed by pine beetles. That number is expected to rise to 1 billion cubic metres of lodgepole pine, which is a major part of the softwood harvesting in British Columbia. To put it another way, by 2013, 80% of all the lodgepole pine trees in British Columbia will have been either killed or infected by the mountain pine beetle.

About two years ago, the B.C. minister of forests came to Ottawa with a five year plan. It was based on the assessments at that time. The minister asked the federal government to participate in this five year plan. The cost was about $600 million. This was in order to mitigate the infestation, and participate in the reforestation. The province asked the government to join in.

Two years went by. The government did not respond in any way to that mitigation salvage plan. I want to ask the government, why not?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. It is a very well thought out and important question that he brings to the House on behalf of his constituents. All members of Parliament would agree that this is a massive and unfortunate act of nature. It will have quite an effect on British Columbia. We all join him in wanting to do anything we can.

The mountain pine beetle is the most serious pest of mature pine forests in western Canada. The current infestation in British Columbia is by far the largest on record. This is a massive infestation that is approaching 10 million hectares. That is an area larger than New Brunswick. Due to the scale of the infestation in an abundance of mature lodgepole pine, which is the insects' food source, complete control of the mountain pine beetle is not feasible. The only thing that will bring it under control is prolonged winter cold of minus 40 degrees for a number of days or an unseasonably cold fall snap.

However, this is not to say that the federal government has been sitting idly by, leaving the province on its own. The federal mountain pine beetle initiative, MPBI, announced in 2002, is a $40 million, six year initiative, designed to complement the provincial MPB activities and is consistent with the federal mandate.

All the mountain pine beetle initiative programs are fully operational and are being delivered in close cooperation with provincial agencies and other federal departments. Federal officers have been located in beetle epidemic regions in B.C. to facilitate delivery of the MPBI programs.

The initiative includes research programs focused on reducing current infestation impacts and the risk of future beetle epidemics. This dovetails with the province's 10 year wood salvage plan. It funds research to estimate the commercial lifespan of beetle killed timber, how best to utilize the large volume of dead timber, the impacts of timber flow, changes on the forest dependent communities, and the ecological impacts of managing the beetle killed timber stands. This research effort will provide critical information to the province in support of its 10 year plan.

It should be noted that the forest land management is a provincial mandate and it is recognized that under the B.C. forest legislation, major forest licence holders are required to carry out reforestation at their own expense. The MPBI however, does include a suite of programs assisting beetle control and forest rehabilitation on federal land, that is, first nations reserve lands, federal parks and two large blocks of federal forest lands, as well as private, non-industrial forest lands. These rehabilitation efforts are again consistent with the federal mandate. This principle was established at the outset of discussions with B.C. officials.

The mountain pine beetle initiative reforestation segment allows the federal government to do what it can on lands that are outside the responsibility of the province. I would also point out that the officials from Natural Resources Canada continue to work in close collaboration with their provincial colleagues in B.C. and in Alberta in the development of decision support systems to guide effective beetle management across western Canada.

Finally, in the interests of setting the record straight, the federal minister did respond to B.C. Forest Minister Mike de Jong. In fact, as a result of the meeting between Mr. de Jong and his federal counterpart in 2002, bureaucrats from both levels of government developed the mountain pine beetle initiatives as a fitting response that was consistent with the federal mandate. I join my colleague in all the efforts to work on this problem.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his little history lesson on the mountain pine beetle. Having lived in central B.C. where the main part of it started, I am well aware of the facts that he brought out.

The government has not recognized that this is a full-fledged natural disaster. It is not just some little bug that just happened along in B.C. This is in the same magnitude as the floods in Manitoba, the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec, and the floods in Saguenay. There the federal government recognized that they were in fact natural disasters.

This, which the government does not get, is as much of a natural disaster as any of those other examples. That is the issue. This is a natural disaster that is destroying the forests of British Columbia. It is destroying an industry in British Columbia that has contributed billions of dollars in tax revenue to the coffers of the federal government over the last many decades.

Two years ago the B.C. minister of forests came to Ottawa and asked for $120 million. That member knows it. He got $40 million. There is another 10 year plan needing $800 million based on the new assessments. The government has a responsibility to respond to that request.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member agrees with what I said in the beginning. This is a huge infestation, larger than in New Brunswick. It is a terrible crisis. As he said, it is a natural disaster. I believe we have been researching this since 1917. We are doing whatever we can.

In reply to the minister in 2002, we set up the program that I outlined in great detail. I would add the fact that the research and that program came after consultation with the province and with first nations. It is strategic, it is sound and it is practical to complement natural needs, in addition to providing the necessary information to allow the mills to use the timber that has been killed by the beetle.

We will continue to be dedicated to this very serious problem and do what we can in cooperation with our counterparts in the B.C. government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question as to why the federal government was allowing the Province of Ontario to force municipalities and small businesses into chlorinating their water when the 1993 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement commits Canada to reducing the amount of chlorinated byproducts in our drinking water. The representative for the minister said that it was nice that I was interested.

In October 1994, the federal government developed the chlorinated substances action plan to prune the chlorine tree. Despite this and the evidence to the contrary that environmentally friendly alternatives exist, the federal government, in partnership with the Liberal Party of Ontario, is forcing businesses to spend millions of dollars on water treatment systems that they cannot afford to use. It is doing so without regard for the environment and without regard to people's health.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which was signed by Canada and the United States, commits Canada to reducing the amount of cancer causing chlorination byproducts, including the Great Lakes watershed.

The sixth biennial report under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1978 to the Governments of Ontario, the United States, Canada and the state and provincial governments of the Great Lakes Basin was delivered in 1993. In it, the Water Quality Board developed a working list of 362 chemicals confirmed to be present in the water, the sediment or the biota of the Great Lakes Basin.

Approximately half of these substances are synthetic chlorinated organic substances. In addition, there are other chlorinated organic substances entering the environment that have not yet been separately identified. Even though many of the substances have not been proven to be individually toxic, it is likely that many of these chemicals, because of their chemical characteristics, will be identified as persistent toxics and hence substances to be virtually eliminated to zero discharge.

There is a growing body of evidence that these compounds are at best foreign to maintaining ecosystem integrity and quite probably persistent, toxic and harmful to human health. They are produced in conjunction with proven persistent toxic substances. Thus, it is prudent and indeed necessary to treat these substances as a class rather than a series of individual chemicals.

Further, in many cases alternative production processes do exist.

This approach raises the question as to whether or not the use of chlorine, the common precursor for the production of chlorinated organic substances, should be sunset. We know that when chlorine is used as a feedstock in a manufacturing process one cannot necessarily predict or control which chlorinated organics will result and in what quantity.

Accordingly, the commission concluded that the use of chlorine and its compounds should be avoided in the manufacturing process. It recognizes that the socio-economic and other consequences of banning the use of chlorine and the subsequent use of alternative chemicals or processes might be considered in determining that timetable.

The issue of cleaning up the Great Lakes concerns the United States. The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Michael Leavitt, chaired a cabinet level task force. The Great Lakes cleanup has become a national priority in the United States. The U.S. general accounting office found last year that 33 federal and 17 state programs spent more than $1.7 billion on cleanup efforts.

Canada is in no position to lecture the United States over environmental issues when lack of action by the federal government means it is hampering efforts by the U.S. to clean up the Great Lakes. Canada-U.S. relations are troubled enough without adding another item to the list of irritants.

In keeping with the political structure of Canada, a federal strategic pollution prevention program was developed in cooperation with the provinces.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada shares the member's view on the importance of protecting the health of Canadians and ensuring that our drinking water is safe. As we know, the presence of bacteria, viruses and protozoa in drinking water represents the greatest risk to human health from drinking water. The Walkerton tragedy and the North Battleford incidents are clear evidence of this.

All governments, both nationally and internationally, recognize that the elimination of these microbiological contaminants is the top priority in treating drinking water. Chlorine and other disinfection techniques, along with good management practices, eliminate this risk.

There are potential health risks, including cancer, associated with disinfection techniques. These risks, from long term exposure to relatively high levels of disinfectant byproducts, have been documented in numerous scientific studies such as the 1995 study entitled, “Great Lakes Basin Cancer Risk Assessment”.

Our objective is and will continue to be to reduce the severity of these risks to the health of Canadians or to eliminate them altogether.

I would first like to make it clear that Health Canada and its provincial and territorial partners, represented on the committee on drinking water, developed the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality as the basis for ensuring the safety of drinking. A focus of their work is developing guidelines for disinfectant by-products including these associated with chlorine.

The existing and proposed guidelines are protective of human health. In addition, the application of the guidelines is designed to minimize the formation of by-products. This includes applying additional treatment processes to remove the organic matter that would react to the chlorine to form by-products.

Second, it is important to understand that other treatment processes, such as UV radiation or ozonation, are increasingly encouraged and used in new and modernized treatment plants across Canada, like in other countries around the world.

It is important to understand that the use of ozone or UV does not eliminate the need for chlorine or related chemicals to be used as a secondary disinfectant that will work throughout the distribution system. Ozone and UV are effective at the treatment plant, but do not prevent subsequent growth of microorganisms in the water as it is held and transported through the distribution system to people's homes. It is always necessary to use chlorine or a similar chemical to maintain a residual disinfectant in the distribution system.

In addition, ozonation is known to also create disinfectant by-products which can pose health risks. While UV is an excellent and relatively new technology for treating water, its effectiveness and efficiency are greatly reduced by the presence of high levels of organic matter in the source water.

Third, we must no longer rely on treatment alone. All governments nationally and internationally are adopting multi-barrier approaches for protecting drinking water.

This source to tap approach means protecting water sources to avoid drinking water contamination, or cleaning up existing pollution, which is one of the main objectives of the Great Lakes water quality agreement.

Provinces, territories and the federal government have endorsed this comprehensive approach and are putting it in place. A good example is Ontario's development of source water protection plants and initiatives under the Canada-Ontario agreement.

In summary, the quality of Canada's drinking water is among the best in the world but more remains to be done to ensure that it is protected in the future.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the concern of residents in my riding and of Canadians who are committed to a healthy environment and clean water in the Great Lakes is the decision by the federal government not to enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The regulation of toxic chemicals is a federal responsibility. The province of Ontario is expanding the use of chlorine with no consideration for the environment. Not only is the federal government allowing this to occur, federal dollars are being used through cost shared programs to fund this expanded use of chlorine.

Trihalomethanes, THMs, are chlorination by-products that are formed as a result of chlorination of organic material present in raw water supplies. Human studies are suggesting a link between exposure to THMs and colorectal cancers. It goes on to identify a link between reproductive and developmental outcomes caused by these chlorination by-products.

The Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program is being used to pay for an increased use of a toxic chemical that has been demonstrated by the federal government's own funded studies to cause cancer and reproductive defects.

This must concern all parliamentarians.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, the federal government has taken a very productive approach to this problem. We began by looking at the integrated system of water management within Canada and the ecosystem approach. We have made huge investments in improving the infrastructure. We recognize that where the rubber hits the road it is usually a municipal responsibility to operate the plants. There is provincial involvement also.

Through the infrastructure program where we have created the investment of over $20 billion in the country with our partners, we favoured the green projects of water and sewer, elements that improve the whole ecosystem, airborne particulates that go into the water, the quality of the rivers and lakes, the water that we take out of them and the treatment plants that we are working on.

I just returned from Yarmouth where modern technology was used to improve a 100 year old plant so that it now uses a lot less chlorine than it did in the past. Cutting edge technologies were used at a very affordable price but it required a massive infusion of cash and the federal government was very pleased to participate.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)