Debates of Feb. 7th, 2017

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really admire the work of the member for Etobicoke Centre on the Ukraine file over the years. I have learned a great deal from him. I have some Ukrainian ancestry of my own.

As we heard in the last question, there is a common misparlance in referring to the country as “the Ukraine” versus “Ukraine”. I wonder if the member could please explain to us why there is a difference and why it is important.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, most Ukrainians and Ukrainian Canadians are very sensitive to this point. Ukraine is an independent country. It is not a territory. We refer to “the Northwest Territories” as a territory and not as a country. In Ukraine's case, we will often hear Russian diplomats use the terminology of “the Ukraine”. It is something that Ukrainian Canadians and Ukrainians are sensitive to. I thank the hon. member for having raised that particular point.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for the work he does through the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group and with Ukrainians across this country and for the Ukrainian people themselves.

Earlier, I asked a question of one my colleagues about the work that many of our doctors from coast to coast to coast in Canada have done in Ukraine on a volunteer basis. They go over there and work doing reconstructive surgery and fixing the troops hurt in Ukraine while fighting against the Russian aggression.

I wonder if the hon. member would speak about that. Does he think there is a role our government could play to assist the doctors who are going over to Ukraine to assist our Ukrainian brothers and sisters?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the aisle for all of the work that he does with the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group.

I would like to thank him for mentioning the work of Ukrainian Canadian doctors and Canadian doctors who have accompanied them. There are hundreds of projects that are funded and sponsored by Ukrainian Canadians.

I mentioned the two soldiers whom the Prime Minister had noted that evening who had facial reconstruction surgery. It was done by Dr. Oleh Antonyshyn, who is from my riding. He went over there. He has done this incredible work, as have other doctors.

I should mention that there are camps being run by Ukrainian Canadians funded from Canada, which are also working in the areas of psychiatry and psychology with the widows and orphans of people who volunteered and fought on that front.

Ukrainian Canadians continue to make an invaluable contribution to Ukraine at this time of Russia's war against the people of Ukraine.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to rise to speak on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, Bill C-31, at third reading. Again, I would like to thank the government for getting this over the finish line. I want to, of course, take credit for it with our own Conservative government, the previous government, that started these negotiations and the member for Abbotsford and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster who worked so hard in getting this done when they were in cabinet. It really does speak to how, on an all-party basis, we feel that this is an important trade agreement that benefits Canada and Ukraine. It is also about Canada demonstrating to the people of Ukraine that we stand with them during these very destabilizing times, with the fighting that we are seeing in Donbass, with the ongoing Russian proxies and the Russian military coming across the line into Donbass and continuing to escalate the violence. Of course we always have to remember the illegal invasion and occupation and annexation of Crimea and demand that the Russian Federation return that property, return that land back to Ukraine. No one in Canada and no one in the international community should ever recognize Crimea as anything but sovereign Ukrainian territory.

On the issue of Canada-Ukraine free trade, I think many Canadians often ask, “Where are the economic benefits? Where is the spinoff?” It has only averaged around $290 million a year in bilateral trade between Canada and Ukraine, but we know that Ukraine itself has great opportunities to grow and prosper. We know that the people are very industrious, that they are now a hub of high-tech expertise. As they start to recover from the sanctions that they face from Russia, from the ongoing revenues that are required to protect Ukrainian territory and fund its national defence efforts, there will be a growth in GDP. As they start to adjust and come out from underneath the damage that was done to the economy and the corruption that was created by President Yanukovych and his regime, we know that there is greater opportunity for Canadian business, as well as greater opportunity for Ukrainians to do business with us in Canada.

All the numbers suggest that we will see an increase in GDP in Ukraine as well as in Canada but, ultimately, we are trying to ensure that all those who are over there right now in Ukraine who are fighting for their freedom, fighting for their sovereignty, will someday enjoy that peace and the prosperity that comes with it. The only way we can give them the hope of seeing their livelihoods and their fortunes improve is that we have to also be with them from an economic standpoint.

There is no question that both the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have helped with humanitarian efforts. We have helped with providing non-lethal kinetic equipment to its military. We have helped with reformation and getting corruption out of the Ukrainian government. We do know that type of assistance is welcomed but, ultimately, people of Ukraine are demanding that their government continue on with those reformations. They are demanding the corruption end and that they can actually enjoy the fruits of their labour without being shaken down on the street when they are taking their kids to school, by someone from the police or someone from the Russian mafia or anything along that line.

I just want to quickly highlight that there are some great opportunities. There are already Canadian companies that have done some amazing business in Ukraine. A lot of people do not realize but if they go shopping on Canadian Tire online, its entire online system is provided by a company out of Lviv called EPAM. It is a high-tech organization. It is there to help with any outsourcing that any company wants in managing their online and web services, from shopping to website management. It is there to assist and it does great work.

Bombardier is already in Ukraine, doing work and providing more in the areas of engineering and research and development in Kharkiv.

And then, right out of Winnipeg, Ag Growth International is providing grain-handling equipment. It is joint-venture farming in the Ukraine and would really like to see that expand. It really sees a future.

Many of us have agricultural backgrounds. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and I have been farmers. Whenever we go to Ukraine, the agricultural expanse is just amazing. It is the breadbasket of Europe and it is becoming a greater and greater exporter. That is one of the main resources Ukraine has and can capitalize on. Anything we can do from a Canadian standpoint to do more business in the agriculture sector there and to help with grain handling, with testing, with getting it to market is something we can really capitalize on and it would be very beneficial to both Ukraine and Canada.

Pratt & Whitney has just started a joint venture project with Antonov to refurbish aircraft and supply engines to Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Often Ukraine is referred to as a modern Silicon Valley because of the high tech sector, how it is developing, the education system and the way it has been set up. It has a number of hubs that have been situated around the country. They are attracting the right talent and the right environment is being created. There are things we can do in the high tech industry there, and it is already worth over $5 billion U.S. There is this great opportunity for Canada to partner with with Ukraine, capitalize on that as well and make our country more prosperous along with it.

One thing about having more trade is that it creates a new need, and that is the free flow of people. I tabled a petition in the House a while ago, with over 2,400 signatures on it from across Canada, demanding that a new visa regime was brought in so people could visit Canada from Ukraine a lot easier. We get to go over there visa-free for six months. They are asking for a reciprocal agreement with Canada so their youth, their students, their business people and those who are trying to reconnect with family can more easily come to Canada. As trade and their economic prosperity improve, there will be an increasing demand for us to change the visa regime. I encourage the government to look at the visa situation.

What we are looking at today is the escalation in fighting in Donbass, where there are Russian proxies, Russian military equipment and Russian soldiers who are so-called on leave and who are fighting in Donbass. That has definitely increased.

We know that President Putin loves to test the strength of world leaders. There is a new president of the United States. Even though there has been a lot of platitudes and diplomatic niceties exchanged between both President Trump and President Putin, we see Putin, behind his back, escalate the aggression in Donbass to see what type of response he will get from President Trump. He wants to see whether Trump is a man of his word, that he will stand by his rhetoric. He wants to see if he can determine whether he has the strength or weakness to deal with the international obligations that surround the violence in Donbass, and if he will stand with President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine in pushing Russia out of Donbass.

There is a situation where Ukraine still needs defensive military equipment. I believe the government needs to look at everything, from defensive weapons to more non-kinetic military equipment, as well as supplying Ukraine again with RADARSAT images that Canada had been providing until June last year, something that Prime Minister Harper had committed to, and allow the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian military, to see what type of excursions were taking place by Russian forces across into Ukraine, and also where the military units in Donbass, operated by the rebels, the Russian proxies, were stationed so they could adjust their military defensive lines in the appropriate fashion.

It is time to reinstate those RADARSAT images, to share those images with the military of Ukraine.

It is also time for the government to finally sign the defence and security co-operation agreement that the Conservative government under Stephen Harper had negotiated. All it needs is to be inked out, to ensure that we can have the ongoing military co-operation that we already see with Operation Unifier, which runs out at the end of March. I am hoping that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will renew that mission for more training and more co-operation.

Training is beyond just training soldiers. We are also training its military police, its logistical officers, and its medics so they can deal with traumatic injuries in the field, something that we have a great deal of experience with, coming back from Afghanistan and including what is happening today in Iraq.

Sharing that wealth of knowledge through Operation Unifier is one thing that I hope, and I demand, the government renews and extends for at least another two years; but the security co-operation agreement would help with the exchange of soldiers and military officers coming to Canada. It would help with the ongoing movement of military equipment between our two countries because it would be on a most favoured nation list then and be able to acquire Canadian military equipment. It is important that the agreement be signed and finalized, and now is the time to do it.

We are going to get the trade deal done. We are at third reading now, and the bill is going to go to the Senate where I expect it to be finalized in short order.

Ukraine needs our help today with the military fight that is taking place in Donbass, with the invasion, and with the escalation of violence coming from Russia and its proxies in Donbass.

President Poroshenko, when he was here, both talked about the extension of Operation Unifier, asking the Government of Canada to do that, and addressed the need to make sure that we get the security and defence co-operation agreement signed, get the radar satellite images reimplemented, and continue on with our co-operative training and assistance, which we have been doing with more than 200 soldiers. We pay tribute to all of those soldiers who are over there.

I hope that our Prime Minister is listening. I hope that the government will come to the aid of Ukraine again and stand with President Poroshenko and the Government of Ukraine. More importantly, this is about standing with the people of Ukraine who have to deal with this situation. They see Canada as their closest friend and ally. They appreciate all the help we have provided, the way we have been able to work through Operation Unifier, and the way we have worked with our NATO allies through NATO's Operation Reassurance. The people of Ukraine really appreciated our bringing our frigates into the Black Sea. They appreciate our going in there with the NATO maritime task force and doing co-operative training and exercises with the Ukrainian navy.

The former minister of foreign affairs liked to talk about having a normalized relationship with Russia. He also talked about how he wanted to appease President Putin by talking to him about what was happening in Ukraine. I have great hope that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of trade and helped to get this final agreement to the House as a legislative bill, will continue on with her love of Ukraine and not appease Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin. She has a lot of experience in Moscow, having worked there as a journalist, and she has written extensively about the corruption in Russia and how it continues to try to exercise its sphere of influence over Ukraine. I would hope that, despite her predecessor taking a rather soft stance with Ukraine and trying to appease Russia, she will have the intestinal fortitude to stick to her beliefs, as someone like me who is proud of our Ukrainian heritage, and will continue to fight for the people of Ukraine.

It will be interesting. Like me and a few others in this House, she has been banned from Russia. When she needs to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow, they will probably have to find a different rendezvous place. Perhaps Kiev would be a good place for them to have their discussions.

One of the things that I congratulate the government on is that it has continued with our line of sanctions against those in Russia and Ukraine who are responsible for the violence in Donbass, as well as the illegal activities taking place in Crimea. We have to make sure that we not only continue to hold those sanctions in place until Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine but we also have to continue to expand them. One of the ways we can do that is through the Magnitsky Act, which is one of the things that we have looked at, and I know the foreign affairs committee is studying it.

As members know, I tabled a bill in this House to have the Magnitsky Act become law. A similar bill was tabled in the other place by Senator Raynell Andreychuk. The bill in the Senate has passed committee stage. It is going back for report stage and then third reading. It is my hope that we will see it over here in the next few weeks so that we can have that debate in the House and give the Government of Canada the tools, through the Special Economic Measures Act, as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to impose travel bans and take action on economic sanctions against not only those corrupt foreign officials who are responsible for what we see happening in Ukraine and in Russia today but also against other individuals globally who are abusing their authority and power within their own governments against their own people. This could apply to corrupt dictators in North Korea or China. We could also be looking at individuals who may be committing human rights abuses in Venezuela, Indonesia, and even Cuba. There is an opportunity to use this on a larger scale.

The way the Special Economic Measures Act works right now is that Canada will not move against individuals unilaterally. We always work through multilateral organizations. If the UN or the OSCE pass a resolution, or NATO provides an article stating that we need to go after certain countries and individuals within those countries for human rights abuses, for corruption, or for military incursions that happen from time to time, then we can take action. However, the way our legislation is set out today, we are prevented to unilaterally act on our own, under our own authority, when we think it is right. That is why the Magnitsky law is so important, not only to go after Russians, which originally was the case in the law that was passed in the United States a few years ago, but, at the urging of Bill Browder, to remember Sergei Magnitsky for the fight he had with the Russian government in standing up against corruption and human rights abuses. Unfortunately, Sergei Magnitsky was murdered after being arrested, tortured, and detained in prison. Just this past December, the U.S. passed a new global Magnitsky Act, similar to what I am trying to do with my bill and what Senator Raynell Andreychuk is doing with hers, which is to provide that global scope in the memory of Sergei Magnitsky for fighting for that freedom.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to seeing this bill become law. I hope that it goes through the Senate in an expedited fashion, and that ultimately we will see a strong relationship on the trade front grow and expand because of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I know that the people of Ukraine are the ones who would benefit the most and would see their economy improve. I subscribe to the saying that a rising tide lifts all ships, and this is about raising the waters right now.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague across the aisle for all of his work on the Ukrainian file over the past number of years. As he said, the Canadian government's support has been multifaceted. We are all thankful that in the House everyone stands united when it comes to CUFTA, the free trade agreement. He also mentioned Operation Unifier. The Minister of National Defence last week signalled that the odds are that this training mission will be extended. My personal hope is that it will be expanded, and I noted that the member referenced that as well.

I also noted that he made a distinction between kinetic defensive weapons and non-kinetic defensive weapons. Back when he was a member of the government, there was an opportunity to provide Ukraine with kinetic defensive weapons. It did not occur at that time. We now know that Russia has sent more than 600 tanks into eastern Ukraine, and more than 1,000 artillery systems, and that Ukraine keeps looking for systems such as the Javelin to counterbalance the threat of those tanks. Now that the member is in the opposition, has his opinion changed about kinetic defensive weapons for Ukraine?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, actually it has not. My position today is the position I had when we were in government as well, and I did encourage government to look at using some of our tank-buster missiles as possible defensive equipment. Unfortunately, the ones that we were decommissioning were not considered useful from the standpoint of providing them to the Government of Ukraine. It is something that was discussed, but they were decommissioned because of a question around their efficacy, which would be a polite way to put it.

Things are also evolving. What we are now witnessing is a bigger push by the rebels and the Russian military farther into Ukraine. They are trying to gain more territory, so because of this new aggression and the expanded land grab that is being orchestrated from the Kremlin, I think there is now a need for us to provide Ukraine with those defensive weapons. No doubt, as we are fighting in the wintertime, there still need to be more supplies to help deal with winter weather. Ukraine's military is definitely getting better equipped all the time, but if there is any chance for Canada to provide the military equipment that is needed by the soldiers out there, we should be working with the government of Ukraine to make it happen.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will have just a little over six minutes left for questions and answers the next time this is before the House.

The House resumed consideration from November 25, 2016, of Motion No. 69, and of the amendment.

Water Quality

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to this important motion. It is obvious but nonetheless worth repeating that water is a vital resource. It is vital to human health, it is vital to the environment as it infuses our ecosystems, and it is vital to our economy, not just to agriculture and aquaculture in obvious industries that would use water, but also to industries like pharmaceuticals and computers. Just ask someone from the computer industry how much water it takes to clean computer chips to make sure that they absolutely pristine.

Water is also a very complex issue from the point of view of creating an integrated approach to the resource, or a national water policy vision.

In other words, it is extremely complicated to create an integrated approach to the issue of freshwater, whether it be in Canada or elsewhere. There are many reasons for that. First, There is a multiplicity of issues surrounding water, and water is governed by more than one jurisdiction.

There are a multiplicity of issues surrounding water. Water is governed by more than one jurisdiction, by a multiplicity of jurisdictions. The challenge is, how do we focus public and political interest on such a big issue that calls for a broad, visionary, and systematic policy approach? The answer is to shine the light on water at every opportunity, namely when specific water incidents arise, such as Walkerton, which would be one example, boil water advisories in first nations communities, sewage overflows during rainstorms, or controlled sewage releases.

We have to use these opportunities not only to solve what are serious matters in a timely fashion but use these incidents to channel public concern about water to governments. These issues, in addition to being matters that require immediate government attention, are doorways for the public into the multiple facets of water policy.

The political ground is fertile for engaging Canadians on the issue of water. Canadians already rank water as a top priority. The Royal Bank of Canada water attitudes survey finds consistently that water ranks number two as a concern for Canadians, after health care. There is clearly an interest. The question becomes how to channel this interest to very specific water issues. The more, the better, because the more the public becomes interested in an array of water issues, the greater the chance that governments will act in an integrated, broad-based fashion to advance the water agenda.

I congratulate the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for putting the spotlight on one particular issue, the very important issue of lead in drinking water, and in the process putting a focus on drinking water in general, and therefore on water itself in general.

Lead drinking water pipes are one pathway for lead to enter the human body. As we know, lead gasoline was another. Fortunately, we have addressed that problem. Lead in paint was another conduit, and that has been been addressed fairly significantly, as far as I know. Lead in jewellery is another way lead can contaminate the human body. Of course, dust from smelters in areas that have smelters that emit emissions that have lead in them is another way.

One of the most recent flashpoints that underscores the need for a strong focus on water is what happened in Flint, Michigan. Flint also highlights a dimension that needs to be taken into account whenever we make policy decisions about water, or quite frankly any policy decision; that is, the socio-economic dimension. In this case, we are talking about the question of environmental justice.

In other words, the question that poses itself is this. Are decisions or a given decision likely to negatively affect disadvantaged socio-economic groups more than other groups in society? To quote from a U.S. EPA white paper dated October 2016 on revising the agency's lead and copper rule:

Because of disparities in the quality of housing, community economic status, and access to medical care, lead in drinking water (and other media) disproportionately affects lower-income people. In addition, lead has disproportionate health effects on infants and children. In revising the LCR, EPA seeks to address environmental justice concerns and to prioritize protection of infants and children who are most vulnerable to the most harmful effects of lead exposure.

In Flint, 42% of residents live below the poverty line. It is a stunning figure. To reduce the water-fund deficit, the city switched water sources in 2014. It was getting its water from Detroit, but that proved to be too expensive so it had the intention of connecting a water line from Flint to Lake Huron whereby it could access drinking water more cheaply. In the meantime, it had a two-year period in which it needed another source of drinking water other than the Detroit drinking water system. Therefore the town turned to the Flint River for its drinking water for, as I mentioned, this two-year period. Flint River water was of poor quality, among other things due to earlier industrial pollution. It was 19 times more corrosive than Detroit water. The water therefore corroded the aging lead pipes of Flint's drinking water distribution system, and we know what the results were: a drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Just to give an example, one home, the home of Lee Anne Walters, mother of four, had 104 parts per billion of lead content in that home's drinking water as compared to the EPA limit of 15 parts per billion.

Fortunately, our Liberal government has made a major financial commitment to upgrading and modernizing our infrastructure, including our water infrastructure. We will thus hopefully not be plagued by problems like those in Flint. In fact, this can be called Canada's infrastructure moment. The 2016 budget made a 10-year, $120-billion commitment to Canada's municipal infrastructure, in two phases. The first phase includes $2 billion for rehabilitating and modernizing water infrastructure. Then in the fall 2016 economic update, the Minister of Finance increased that commitment by $80 billion over 11 years, beginning in 2017 and 2018. This will be a further opportunity to address aging infrastructure, including old lead pipes in municipal water distribution systems.

Health Canada, for its part, is taking the initiative on lead in drinking water. A consultation has been launched by the federal-provincial-territorial committee on drinking water, and this consultation is open until March 15. It aims to set a new limit for the maximum acceptable concentration of lead in drinking water. The existing limit was set a quarter of a century ago in 1992. Health Canada's consultation document proposes a limit of five parts per billion, citing the impact of lead on IQ, especially in children.

It should be noted that no threshold can be identified below which lead is no longer associated with neuro-developmental effects. The U.S. limit is 15 parts per billion and the World Health Organization's limit is 10 parts per billion. Different limits are the product of different assumptions about consumption rates, body weights, and so on. In Canada, we are aiming ambitiously at lowering the maximum acceptable limit to five parts per billion. While Health Canada is working on the question of maximum allowable concentrations, we need to examine the issue from the point of view of controlling lead in drinking water, which is fundamentally an infrastructure issue.

Lead in drinking water serves to highlight the interdependent, interdepartmental, and interjurisdictional challenge surrounding water policy in our country. We need, at minimum, a two-track approach to this problem. The best permanent approach to getting lead out of drinking water—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the time has expired. I am sure the member still had a few things to say on this matter, but perhaps he will be able to do so at some other point in time.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked to hear what else my colleague had to say since he just seemed to be getting to the crux of the matter. However, I am sure there will be other opportunities to hear what he has to say. We will undoubtedly hear more from him on this important issue when it is referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

First of all, I have to say that, on this side of the House, we are in favour of removing lead from our drinking water systems whenever possible. Obviously, we need to ensure that the federal government does not infringe on areas of provincial jurisdiction.

As a result, we are going to support the motion calling on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to undertake a study on the federal government's role in lead pipe infrastructure in Canada. However, it is important to remember to work with the provinces.

I would like to come back to the wording of the motion that was first moved by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. The initial motion that he moved read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) the government should address the growing concerns of lead pipes and water quality in private residences across Canada by working with the provincial and territorial governments, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as well as Indigenous partners, to advocate and establish possible solutions to these issues; (b) the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should undertake a study on “The Federal Government's role in lead pipe infrastructure in Canada”; and (c) the Committee should report to the House no later than December 1, 2017;

The member forWinnipeg North proposed the following amendment, which changes the outcomes of the motion considerably. The amended motion reads as follows:

(a) the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should undertake a study on (i) the presence of lead in Canadian tap water, (ii) provincial, territorial and municipal efforts to date to replace lead water distribution lines, (iii) current federal efforts to support other levels of government in the provision of safe drinking water...

The primary difference between the two statements is that, obviously, one of them completely eliminates the government's obligation to respond to the growing concerns regarding lead pipes. In addition, it gives a parliamentary committee, one that I am pleased to co-chair, as a matter of fact, the mandate to do basically everything, that is, to conduct any study the government should be conducting from its end.

Not only is a committee being asked to do the government's job, but the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is also being asked to study “current federal efforts to support other levels of government in the provision of safe drinking water”.

The amendment practically dictates the conclusions of the standing committee's report by saying from the beginning that the government's efforts on the issue of lead pipes must be recognized.

The original version of the motion mentioned the federal government's role in lead pipe infrastructure in Canada. That left the committee with some flexibility to be able to study the problematic aspects. It was not coming from an order from the House, the government deciding which subjects must be studied in any given file, in what order or timeframe.

Therefore, I am somewhat surprised by the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North. I have to say that we already saw this at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We see it on a regular basis. This is the second time that resolutions or ministers' letters have dictated to the committee what it will study. We saw this with the Navigation Protection Act, when letters from the Minister of Transport in particular asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to study this act with a view to repealing the amendments made by the previous government. The committee was asked to carry out a study and then dictated the solutions that it was to include in its report.

I am concerned that we will proceed in the same manner, that is, with an amended resolution such as the one presented to us. It will be up to the committee to determine whether the federal government is doing enough to help the other levels of government with the provision of safe drinking water, and it will be up to the committee to decide whether the government has made efforts to support the other levels of government determine whether the help they have received is sufficient.

With respect to the wording of the motion, I would like to say that I am disappointed. We definitely agree on the substance of the motion. We also agree that the federal government has a role to play in public health with respect to the presence of lead in drinking water lines, whether in big cities, rural areas, people's homes or municipal water lines.

I believe that the committee has a contribution to make so, for heaven's sake, let us allow the committee to come to its own conclusions. Let us allow parliamentarians of all parties on the committee to decide what the recommendations should be. Let us not dictate the findings that we want ahead of time just to help a member get the governing party's support for his motion.

The first motion was perfectly acceptable and would have allowed the committee to do its work. What is more, it would have forced the government to hold real discussions with other levels of government in order to quickly advance the file.

At the beginning of my remarks, I talked about the importance of not infringing on provincial jurisdiction on the lead pipe issue. Here is why. The provinces, particularly Quebec, have done a lot of work with regard to the quality of drinking water and the presence of lead in that water.

The website of the Quebec ministry for sustainable development, the environment, and the fight against climate change lists all of the measures that have been taken by the Government of Quebec and shared with the municipalities to protect citizens.

The reason it is taking so long to fix the situation has not changed. I used to be the mayor of Thetford Mines. We spent months testing the water for lead. In the end, when we realized there was a bit of lead contamination in Thetford Mines, the question became, who was going to pay to replace the pipes?

This is not about recognizing that there is a problem. The problem is clear. We know which pipes need to be replaced. This is about determining what needs to be done to fix the problem as quickly as possible and protect the health of Canadians. In Thetford Mines, infrastructure investment programs have helped improve the situation greatly.

Who pays when the problem is in our own home, which is over 50 years old and has lead fittings on the pipes? Who pays when the pipe between the municipal water system and the residence is made of lead, or when it has lead fittings?

Unfortunately, many Canadians cannot afford it, so they follow the public health agency's recommendation and run their water for five minutes every morning. That clears out any lead in the pipes and prevents excessive lead intake, which is important, especially for pregnant women.

Asking people not to waste drinking water conflicts with telling them to run the water for at least five minutes to avoid contamination. In such cases though, we can all agree that health trumps the environment.

I believe that more should be done to raise people's awareness. Until the problem of lead in plumbing has been solved definitively, Canadians must be protected. That goes double for pregnant women, who are even more susceptible to serious illness caused by lead poisoning.

In conclusion, we will support the bill. I want to emphasize that I do not like the wording of the motion, but I think the committee will be able to make its own recommendations.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, my remarks on the motion currently before the House could be entitled “how to deflect the issue 101” or “how to turn a good idea into a waste of time”.

The original text of the motion we are debating today called on the federal government to address the concerns of communities regarding water quality.

The motion called on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to undertake a study on the federal government's role in lead pipe infrastructure in Canada and report to the House no later than December 1, 2017, suggesting that it needs to be done right away because the situation is problematic, to say the least. The study seems to have been transformed into the creation of some kind of inventory, which is not at all what was intended.

The original text of the motion mandated the committee to recommend policies to the federal government for resolving the issue of lead water pipes, solders, and fittings. The study would also have allowed us to meet with a number of specialists who could have helped us determine whether, when it comes to public health and safety, the problems with lead and those with asbestos, for example, share any commonalities.

However, through a tired old magic trick, the Liberal government amended the motion and made the federal government's responsibility disappear from the wording of the motion. The government's amendment eliminates the committee's responsibility to recommend specific policies to fix the problem and relegates the work to simply taking stock of the efforts made by the different levels of government to address the problem.

As a member of the committee, I want express my deep disappointment with this sleight of hand that eliminates our capacity to propose solutions to a potentially significant public health problem. The same amendment does away with the sense of urgency that accompanied the original motion, which is outrageous when we know that at least 200,000 households in Canada are at risk of being exposed to the lead contained in their water lines.

We now know that water contaminated with lead is the source of many illnesses and behavioural problems. A study by the World Health Organization shows that the presence of even the smallest amount of lead can be toxic. More precisely, the WHO findings confirm that there is no threshold below which the exposure to lead is not a risk.

Despite the serious nature of the issue, there is no federal program to support provincial, territorial, and municipal initiatives to replace lead water lines or lines containing lead in the solder or gaskets.

However, Canadian communities are not immune to a crisis like the one in Flint, Michigan. In April 2014, the Municipality of Flint decided to take its drinking water from the river that crosses the city. The poor quality of the water corroded the pipes and released lead into the drinking water, causing the problems we have heard about. The pipes of 39,000 residents were corroded and for 1,000 days the city's inhabitants had no drinking water. In some homes, the lead concentration was 200 times the permitted level.

Closer to home, in Montreal, and 10 years after an agreement was reached with the provincial government, only 9,000 pipes have been replaced out of the 69,000 that are to be replaced by 2026.

Need I point out to members that although there are home water treatment devices that could eliminate lead from tap water, the only known effective method to date is replacing the lead lines?

In light of the difficulties experienced by the provinces, territories, and municipalities, it is time that the federal government establish a national strategy so as to be part of the solution to the problem. The findings of a committee study could be used to that end.

We can imagine that the government's backpedalling on this matter might have something do with the infrastructure privatization plan proposed by the Liberals in the form of their infrastructure bank, which is unlikely to generate the huge profits the investors are expecting to justify their investments.

Let us talk about what the NDP wants in return. It is no secret that the NDP strongly and vehemently opposes the public infrastructure privatization plan. We are proposing practical solutions for ways the federal government could help communities update their infrastructure, while also eliminating lead in all pipe systems.

So far, the diagnosis is clear: most municipalities and indigenous communities do not have a register of their water pipes, and the main reason is that most communities cannot afford one.

To address those funding shortfalls, the federal government could bring in a program to support small communities so that each and every one of them would be able to identify those water pipes and assess the quality of the water.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports our position. I would like to quote an excerpt of an FCM document to that effect. It reads:

The distribution system should be seen as an extension of the water treatment facility “where the goal is to consistently produce safe, high quality drinking water as cost effectively as possible. Even in the absence of strong regulatory pressures, continuous monitoring systems have been installed”....

It goes on to say:

The ability to measure, monitor, and control all aspects of your distribution system water quality is mandatory to ensure safe water, to assess the seriousness of a situation during an emergency and to prove due diligence.

We are also asking the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to undertake a study on the interest-free loan programs for homeowners put forward by the Cities of Ottawa, Hamilton, and London, for example. The purpose of these programs is to provide financial assistance to help residents replace lead pipes in their homes. The NDP is also asking the committee to consider how an infrastructure modernization program could be incorporated into the clean water and wastewater fund.

Let us remember that the second phase of the Liberals' infrastructure plan does not include any special provision to deal with this issue.

In closing, despite the many criticisms I have raised regarding the somewhat questionable approach, I still plan to support this motion because it is difficult to be against doing the right thing. However, I would like to once again remind members that the Liberal government completely gutted the original motion, which I thought had a lot more merit than the one we are preparing to vote on in the next few days.

Let us hope that the committee will know how to handle this study and will take a more comprehensive approach that is more consistent with reality and the needs expressed by our partners.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the motion of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I would like to thank him for taking the leadership role on the issue of eliminating lead from our drinking water systems. As he quite rightly points out, probably over 200,000 households across Canada are currently at risk of lead exposure. I know the member has dealt with this issue as the former mayor of Hamilton, and has continued to shine the light and provide guidance at the federal level.

I am also encouraged to see the government propose an amendment to the motion, as I believe it will provide clear direction to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

At this time, we only have rough estimates of how many homes and Canadians are at risk of lead exposure, and by determining the presence of lead in Canadian tap water and learning about and disseminating what communities and municipalities have done to replace lead water distribution lines, it would provide the federal government an opportunity to review what supports are currently in place to assist other levels of government in the provision of safe drinking water.

My constituency of Brandon—Souris is not immune from lead exposure, which stems from antiquated water pipelines. I would like to quote the late Bill Paton, who was a renowned professor at Brandon University and was well sought out for his advice on public policy matters. Back in February of 2013, Bill wrote to The Brandon Sun on the larger issue of the responsibility of governments to ensure safe drinking water. He wrote that Canada and its provinces should commit to water in our country that was drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. He said that if we had those three things, it would guarantee making our lives, our economy, and our health better.

I could not agree with Bill more, and even though we came from complete and utter opposite ends of the political spectrum, our passion for sustainable environmental practices was one thing we very much had in common. In fact, he would probably enjoy knowing that a Conservative member of Parliament was quoting one of his many letters to the editor, while, at the same time, supporting a private member's motion put forward by a Liberal.

It was only a couple years ago, in the city of Brandon, that high lead levels were found in the tap water of older homes that had pre-1950 water connections. A provincial study showed that lead contamination was in excess of the national drinking water guideline. In one case, there was a water test that came back that showed lead concentration was five times greater than the nominally accepted levels.

Even though these homes have had lead service connections for over 60 years, many residents were surprised to find out that there were up to 3,600 homes in the city that could still be at risk of exceeding lead contamination in their potable water.

In response to this troubling report, the city of Brandon started offering testing kits to residences, subsidized the cost, and delivered them to the lab in Winnipeg. However, there was still a $20 charge to residents to help offset the cost of the water analysis.

While I know other communities across the country have offered to make these same sorts of tests free of charge, this motion, and, if passed, the subsequent committee report, could dig deeper as to whether test kits should be free of charge. While $20 may not seem like a lot of money, I believe we can all agree that there should be no monetary barriers to determine whether drinking water supplied by a municipality is, in fact, safe to drink.

Regardless of the $20 charge to test the water, it was reported in 2014 that more than 570 city homes had their water tested and of those, 59 were found to have higher levels of lead contamination than the provincial standard of 10 micrograms.

While preparing for this motion, I read a variety of different approaches and government initiatives that encouraged home and building owners to get rid of their lead service lines.

The city of Brandon originally put in place a new pipe program, where the municipality would pay for half of the pipe replacement from the property line to the water main and the homeowner would be financially responsible for the rest. However, the homeowner was also on the hook for the entirety of the costs on their own property, while also having to cover half the costs of the municipality. Essentially, the homeowner would have been paying a very high portion of these project costs. To no one's surprise, not a single homeowner took the city up on the deal.

As we all know, it costs thousands of dollars to replace underground water pipes and that number could skyrocket if a sidewalk or concrete driveway has to be ripped up and then repaved in order to do so.

Obviously, municipalities would like to make their water services lead free, but it could cost a significant amount of money and put further strain on homeowners who are already paying significant amounts in property taxes.

To give just one example that highlights the costs associated with replacing pipelines, the City of Brandon estimated that if it were to assume all the costs of replacing the water service from the water main to the property line for 3,600 homes, it could cost approximately $27 million.

Not only are there financial concerns for both municipalities and homeowners, but the presence of lead pipes, even after the drinking water has been tested and has found to be safe, can still diminish the resale value of a home.

A couple of years ago, before this report showing 3,600 homes in Brandon were at risk, homebuyers were not concerned about the safety of drinking water. Furthermore, many routine water tests do not actually look for lead, but now, due to the issue being on the front page of the local paper and the potential of severe health issues related to that exposure, it would not be unreasonable to see an uptake in conditions in sales agreements to include such tests. I believe this could also be another angle the committee might want to investigate if it undertakes the study contained in the motion.

Another aspect of dealing with traces of lead found in drinking water, without ripping up existing water pipelines, could be increased use of filters. Due to the aforementioned high cost to both the municipality and homeowner associated with ripping up lines, it is my hope that the committee hears evidence about how water filters could be a more cost-efficient but equally safe way of guaranteeing water quality.

On a final note, one of the issues that I actively pursued since elected is that the federal government be a strong and consistent partner for local infrastructure projects. Across my constituency, and I know it is the same in many others, I was pleased that our former Conservative government supported and invested in numerous water projects, such as the expansion of water pipelines in my area of Brandon—Souris, in the regional municipalities of Elton and Whitehead. We also invested in lagoon water treatment facilities in communities like Virden and Deloraine. I believe this motion would allow the committee to discuss if water projects should remain a high priority for the infrastructure Canada program. Even though a federal government has no direct involvement in the maintenance of municipal water systems, I think all members in the House would agree that having access to safe and reliable drinking water is absolutely paramount.

It is my sincere hope and desire that the committee consults as broadly and as widely as possible. We should look at best practices used in other countries, and even here in our own backyard where municipalities have approached this issue using a myriad of programs and financial incentives.

I also believe that the federal government could play a productive role in working with provincial and territorial partners through existing infrastructure programs, such as the gas tax fund, which I was pleased to see was doubled, made permanent, and indexed in our Conservative government days, so our communities have a safe source of reliable infrastructure funds.

As we move forward, all of us in the House, even government members, should continue to ask the tough questions and hold the executive accountable for not getting infrastructure money out the door and getting projects moving. The recent PBO report is a reminder that just because infrastructure money is allocated, it does not guarantee it gets spent on critical projects that would improve the quality of life of the people we represent.

With that, I would like to once again thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for bringing this motion forward, and I applaud the member for Winnipeg North for his very constructive amendment. I believe the motion should pass unanimously, and the committee begin its study.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who spoke today and previously, the members for Brandon—Souris, Trois-Rivières, Mégantic—L'Érable, and Lac-Saint-Louis. I am touched by the government's willingness to move forward on a difficult subject.

Our discussions on Motion No. 69 and lead in drinking water are very timely, if we think about it. In Flint, Michigan, more than 1,700 residents are suing the U.S. government's Environmental Protection Agency for its mismanagement of the water crisis after extremely high levels of lead leached into the drinking water. The lawsuit states that the EPA failed to warn citizens of the dangers of consuming lead and failed to ensure that state and local authorities were accurately addressing the crisis on the ground.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable mentioned that in Thetford Mines, they knew there was a lead issue, so it was not about that. It was about how they were going to fix it. However, there are many communities that are continuing to find that they have lead issues. It is not general across every municipality throughout our country, even though the science is there and the knowledge should be there. It is quite important that we bring this back into focus.

It is an example of the crucial role a federal government should play in accumulating best practices and generating awareness of the dangers of lead consumption.

It is my hope that the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee's study will bring forward key findings regarding the scope of the problem of lead in drinking water across Canada, as well as recommendations for our government's role in guidance, advocacy, and education in eradicating these lead lines and effectively treating our water.

That brings me back to my number one point, which is that no amount of lead consumption is considered safe. The current guidelines are being studied right now by Health Canada's federal-provincial-territorial committee on drinking water. That committee is planning to update the Canadian drinking water guidelines for lead and suggest that it be reduced from the current number to half of that number, which shows the seriousness of this problem.

We can no longer take a reactive approach to combatting lead pipes and drinking water quality. The time has come for the federal government to work together with its provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous partners to create a unified cross-country solution to eradicate these issues, which affect the very young more than the old, and low-income families more than the affluent. Children in older, poorer neighbourhoods should not be exposed to a serious health hazard because of where they live or their family's economic status.

Safe drinking water in Canadian homes, schools, and places of work should be a right, not a privilege. That is why we have to move beyond words and begin to do the deeds that are required.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion as amended agreed to)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have this opportunity at the end of the day to ask members of the government to answer a question that we do not feel was properly answered during question period.

I have to say, reviewing the question and the answer that were given in this case, it was if the question was not even heard when the answer was given. The question I asked was:

Mr. Speaker, China has just passed a new law aimed at shutting down Christian house churches where over 70 million Chinese people worship. In the same week, Muslim parents in the PRC were told that they would be reported to police if they encouraged their children to participate in religious activities.

I ask the minister to take this opportunity right now to specifically condemn these outrageous abuses of human rights. Will the government speak out clearly and specifically against the latest crackdown on religious liberty in China?

That was my question. It was a clear question, asking the government to take the opportunity to identify, to respond to, hopefully to condemn the abuses in China, happening then, happening now against Christians, Muslims, and other faith communities.

Here is the response that I got from the then-parliamentary secretary:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion. We have a comprehensive mandate that includes all human rights, including, as I know it is so important to the member opposite, freedom of religion. Moreover, we have all 135 ambassadors championing this comprehensive vision. It is entrenched in their mandate. It is central to their work.

This allows Canada to be a more effective defender of universal human rights, which are universal, indivisible, and interdependent, and is properly reflected in the office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion.

Unfortunately, in asking a question specifically about the abuse of human rights in China, I got a response that did not mention China. The member did not even say the word China in response to a very clear and important question. I should add that these human rights issues are not difficult partisan questions. I am not laying a trap for the parliamentary secretary. I am simply asking the government to speak out clearly and specifically about things that should be Canadian values.

The government, tonight, has another opportunity. We know what is happening in China right now. We know that the current President Xi Jinping is pushing this crackdown against faith communities. It is something that we need to speak clearly about.

Many members in this House have spoken clearly about religious liberty issues in other places. We had a whole emergency debate here that I participated in around some of the policies in the United States. Yet, we need to speak more about the situation in China, the country with the world's greatest population, a rising economic power, and a country with which we have an important relationship with, but with which we cannot allow the compromise of our values in our interactions.

We have the opportunity tonight, again, for the parliamentary secretary, a different parliamentary secretary, to clearly and specifically speak out against the abuses of fundamental human rights that are happening in China. If we are true to our values, if the government is true to its stated commitments around human rights, then we need to hear it speak specifically about the abuses in China.

In the past, the government has declined to take the opportunity to make these clear and specific and pointed comments. Minorities in China, the Christian community, the Muslim community, the Buddhist community, and other communities want to see that kind of response. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary now speaking clearly and specifically about the human rights abuses in China, and how unacceptable they are to us as Canadians.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I can assure my friend across the way that members on this side of the floor often hear him as we enter this chamber. We certainly appreciate his contributions to this House. I am pleased to answer the question here this evening.

Promoting and protecting inclusion, respect for diversity, and human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are integral to our government's foreign policy and a priority in our long-standing relationship with China.

We continue to lead the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, where concerns such as these are raised regularly.

In addition, Canadian representatives seize every opportunity to talk about human rights with their Chinese counterparts, including China's State Administration for Religious Affairs.

The Prime Minister also raised human rights concerns on his visit to China, and in turn, when Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada. Rest assured that we will continue to champion these important values at every juncture in our relationship with China.

The right of Chinese citizens to freedom of religious belief is enshrined in the Chinese Constitution, and this government will take every opportunity to call for its respect. We are aware that both official and underground Christian churches have been targeted by Chinese authorities, and their leaders have been repeatedly harassed and detained.

In June 2016, Chinese authorities began to demolish the largest Buddhist teaching academy in Larung Gar, Sichuan, Tibet. Monks and nuns from Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan have been ordered to leave Larung Gar.

We are aware of continued reports of restrictions on freedom to worship and observe religious traditions by Christians in Zhejiang province, and on Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, including inhibiting their freedom to fast during Ramadan. Like the member opposite, we are concerned about these continued developments.

The Chinese government is currently reviewing its regulations of religious affairs, which governs religious administration. While the proposed amendments provide some clarity, such as in the definition and management of religious activities, the main outcome is greater oversight and stricter controls by China's security apparatus, thereby legally placing the church under the control of the state.

The proposed definition of “normal” religious activities does not recognize respect for diversity and inclusion, and the amendments have the potential to further suppress religious freedom, including religious education, expression and practices. It is only through our strategy of engagement that Canada can voice concern and engage with our Chinses counterparts to encourage respect for freedom of religion and human rights.

In stark opposition to the former government's hot and cold relations with China, we have embarked on a new relationship with China, one on an equal footing, one where various interests are met by human rights concerns and Canada's commitment to the rule of law.

I can assure the House that the Government of Canada will do everything it can to press China to honour its international human rights obligations and promote and protect inclusion and respect for diversity—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.