37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 057
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
1005
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1010
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—National Drinking Water Standards
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1030
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Amendment
|
1035
1040
| Mr. Scott Reid |
1045
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1050
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1055
1100
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1105
1110
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1115
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1120
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1125
1130
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1135
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1140
1145
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1150
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1155
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1215
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1220
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1225
1230
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1235
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1240
1245
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1250
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1255
1300
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1305
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1310
1315
1320
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1325
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Andy Savoy |
1330
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1335
1340
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1345
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1350
1355
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1400
| ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
| NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| KOREAN WAR VETERANS
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1405
| NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE WEEK
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| ALEXANDRA SOROCÉANU
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| SOCIÉTÉ ZOOLOGIQUE DE SAINT-FÉLICIEN
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| WESTRAY MINE
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1410
| MENTAL HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| XAVIER GORDON
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| CRYSTAL SIEMENS
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1425
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FRANCOPHONE DEPUTY MINISTERS
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1435
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| STATISTICS CANADA
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| GOVERNMENT LOANS
|
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1440
| Mr. John Cannis |
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1445
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| STATISTICS CANADA
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1450
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1455
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1500
| SPACE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| NURSING
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—National Drinking Water Standards
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1510
1515
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1520
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1525
1530
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. John Herron |
1535
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1540
1545
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1550
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1555
| Amendment to the Amendment
|
1600
| Mr. John Herron |
1605
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1610
1615
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1620
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1625
1630
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1635
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1640
| Mr. John Herron |
1645
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1650
1655
1700
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1705
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1710
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1715
1745
(Division 85)
| Amendment to the amendment negatived
|
(Division 86 )
| Amendment agreed to
|
1750
(Division 87)
| Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-18. Third reading
|
(Division 88)
| Motion agreed to
|
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Second reading
|
1755
(Division 89)
| Motion agreed to
|
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-2. Report stage
|
(Division 90)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
(Division 91)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. David Collenette |
1800
(Division 92)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Environment and Sustainable Development
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1820
1825
| Mr. John Cannis |
1830
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1835
1840
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1845
1850
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| Mr. Brian Pallister |
1855
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1900
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1905
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1910
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1915
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 057
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I like to think that the government has nothing at all against
transparency or truth, so I am amazed that day after day it is
refusing consent to the tabling of the proof specifically
requested by the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, the one
linking the Auberge Grand-Mère with the Grand-Mère golf club.
Once again, I ask for unanimous consent to table this document.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade, and I would like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a petition with the names
of farmers from across Saskatchewan wanting the government to give
them the necessary tools to fight a severe infestation of
gophers.
They are calling on the federal government to amend regulations
to permit the sale of concentrated liquid strychnine to
registered farmers until an effective alternative can be found.
Gophers are destroying hundreds of acres of pasture and grain
land every year and to a great extent the farmers are powerless
to stop them.
The petitioners hope their petition will convince the federal
government to relax the restrictions on strychnine poison so that
farmers can get the gopher problem under control. We appreciate
the opportunity to bring this grave and serious problem to the
attention of the House.
* * *
1010
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a number of
questions that have been on the order paper in excess of 60 days.
I should not have to remind the House that the answers to those
questions are very important to individual members of parliament.
Under Standing Order 39 we are allowed to put four questions on
the order paper. The questions I have on the order paper, which
the government has been very slow and reluctant to answer, are
questions that have to do with HRDC.
I have been on my feet on numerous occasions but it basically
boils down to the fact that if the government fails to answer
those questions, it restricts my ability to do my job. It is as
simple as that. I would like the government to recognize the
problem and do something about it.
The point I made last week was that if a cabinet minister wanted
those same questions answered, they would be answered within 24
hours. I and everyone in the House knows that the full resources
of the government would kick into action to get answers to very
important questions. However, when it is on this side of the
House, nothing happens.
Madam Speaker, I would request that you, just out of curiosity,
examine the record. Many members of parliament are not using
questions on the order paper. The reason is that they get
frustrated and just simply give up waiting for the government to
answer those questions.
The point of this is simply that it restricts our ability to do
our jobs in the House when the government fails to co-operate
with opposition members of parliament.
Madam Speaker, please do what you can to ensure that the
government responds to those questions on the order paper.
Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Speaker, one would not be critical
at all of the hon. member for urging a prompt reply to his
questions. However, he is a frequent intervener on this subject
and we might as well use the time, in reply to his intervention,
to point out again to him the provisions of Standing Order
39(5)(b) which states very clearly that if the answer to a
member's question has taken more than 45 days, he or she has the
right and ability to transfer the matter for debate at
adjournment proceedings. That is a remedy of which the hon.
member may wish to avail himself.
If he does not do that, I assure him that the government is
doing everything in reasonably prompt fashion to obtain answers
to the questions that he put in writing. My records show that
there are 10 questions out of approximately 50 where the reply
has exceeded the 45 day window and his 1 or 2 questions are among
those 10.
I acknowledge that the reply has taken more than 45 days but I
do not accept the motive alleged by the hon. member that the
government just does not care about providing answers. It does
and we will.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
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.
He said: Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks I want to
inform the House that I will have the privilege of sharing my
time in this 20 minute spot with the right hon. member for
Calgary Centre.
Essentially what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is
advocating is that we pull out one plank of the election platform
we presented to Canadians in the election campaign of this past
November, and that was to enshrine into law national drinking
water standards. What we would be doing is sending a signal that
wherever one resides in this country, the quality of drinking
water to be consumed would be the same whether one is in St.
John's, Newfoundland, St-Jean, Quebec, Fort St. John, British
Columbia or even here in the House of Commons.
I would like to read the motion into the record:
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.
Water is a finite resource. There is no substitute for it. Yet
until recently, this precious necessity did not share the same
level of public importance as other limited resources.
Tragic events in Walkerton, Ontario and more recently in North
Battleford, Saskatchewan have highlighted the consequences of
taking this critical resource for granted.
The public confidence of Canadians has been shaken. We have
learned the hard lesson that water is the simplest tool for
distributing infection and can create massive deadly epidemics.
Yet today, a year after the Walkerton tragedy unfolded, there are
no new federal laws enforcing minimum water quality standards in
Canada.
In 1990 the former minister of the environment, the hon. Lucien
Bouchard, launched Canada's green plan, an ambitious framework to
help make Canada an environmentally friendly country. In the
ensuing framework for discussion on the environment document that
was produced from that green plan, the Progressive Conservative
government identified three gaps in Canadian environmental
protection that needed to be addressed. Canada was weak in its
ability to protect species at risk or wildlife and there was a
need to upgrade our existing pesticide legislation, which is
still over 30 years old, and to provide a safe drinking water
supply for all Canadians. I point out that all three of these
issues have yet to be addressed despite eight years of Liberal
government.
In contrast, when we look at the record of activities of the
Progressive Conservative government, which introduced the green
plan I just spoke of, it was the Progressive Conservative
government that had the courage to negotiate an acid rain
protocol with the Americans. That same government led the
international world in 1987 in what was called the Montreal
protocol, which led the international community in the banning of
ozone depleting gases.
Perhaps one of the hallmarks of that government was the
introduction of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, our
principal piece of legislation for the control and use of toxins
within our environment. At the time it was categorized as a very
pioneering bill.
However, we still have some gaps that need to be filled. Today,
some 10 years after that framework was released, the Liberal
government has yet to pass a significant piece of new
environmental legislation. It has merely renewed existing bills.
Prior to being elected in 1993, the Liberals flagged a very real
concern to Canadians: that the protection of drinking water was
paramount. I will now read from a document which I would be
pleased to share a copy of with the House. It was produced on
June 23, 1993, by the then House leader David Dingwall on behalf
the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister of Canada, and
the then whip, now the public works minister, a member of
parliament from the province of Quebec. In it they flagged quite
clearly that it was paramount to ensure drinking water safety.
They even went on to produce a chart that they called Tory
environmental mismanagement. They said there was no legislation
with respect to drinking water safety. That was their position.
1020
Madam Speaker, I am sure you have actually read some of these
red books and other documents which we may actually want to refer
to. As we go through the historical references, perhaps one of
the notes that is most shocking is on Bill C-76, a bill that was
introduced by the government to protect drinking water in Canada
and then re-introduced. The press release produced by your
government, which I am sure you are familiar with, stated:
This Act will provide enforceable national health standards for
all materials that come into contact with drinking water...This
Act goes a long way to maintaining and improving the health of
Canadians.
The Government of Canada is now saying it would not want to make
a foray into what it considers to be perhaps provincial
jurisdiction. The Progressive Conservative Party has always been
very respectful of the jurisdictional boundaries that actually
exist in this magical country we call Canada, but it is very
revisionist to actually take that perspective in light of what
was said only a few years back.
We know that the hallmark of the Liberal Party of Canada is
revision. That is characterized by the issue of free trade. It
fought us tooth and nail on it in 1988 and 1993 and now embraces
the concept. We welcome the Liberals on board on that particular
aspect of public policy.
With no new legislation on the books, the Progressive
Conservative Party believes that the time to act is long overdue.
All Canadians deserve access to a clean and safe water supply. We
made this commitment in our last election platform.
Our nation is fortunate enough to claim one-fifth of the world's
freshwater resources. Thirsty nations throughout the world are
trying, unsuccessfully, I might add, to buy our precious
resource. Instead we preach conservation and preservation and
admirably invest millions annually into CIDA projects that
improve water treatment, sewage, irrigation and pollution control
systems. Yet here at home Canadians find it shocking that we
cannot guarantee to our own citizens the security of our water
supply.
The federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking water, a branch
of the federal-provincial advisory committee on environmental and
occupational health, currently defines national guidelines for
acceptable drinking water quality. However, these Canadian
guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not legally
binding and they provide inadequate national protection for our
drinking water.
[Translation]
What the Progressive Conservative Party is attempting to
demonstrate is that Canadians have concerns about the quality of
their drinking water. Recent events in Walkerton and North
Battleford have added to those concerns. My Conservative
colleagues and I are here, therefore, to propose concrete
solutions. All Canadians need to be assured of the quality of
the water they drink anywhere in Canada.
All my life I have had great respect for the diversity of our
country.
All during my political life I have had, and continue to have,
respect for the jurisdictions of the provinces and of the
federal government. I was present when Bill C-20 was passed. I
voted against it. I would like it to be known that I will
respect other provincial areas of responsibility, such as
education.
[English]
There are certain issues that actually transcend jurisdictional
boundaries. In the perspective we advocate, we understand that
there is a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and
the provinces in the delivery of drinking water and the setting
of guidelines or, what we are now advocating, standards for safe
drinking water.
We believe that these standards must be enshrined in law in order
to guarantee quality drinking water throughout the country. In
addition, these standards should be revised on an ongoing basis.
1025
Unfortunately, studies reveal that Canadian guidelines are far
behind the U.S. in their level and breadth of protection. There
are substances prohibited by the Americans that do not even
appear in Canadian guidelines. In some instances, permissible
levels of some identified dangerous substances are set much lower
in the U.S.
One such example is cryptosporidium, the substance that is
suspected of killing three residents in North Battleford,
Saskatchewan. The U.S. has both cryptosporidium and E. coli
mandatory standards. Canadian guidelines address only total and
fecal coliforms, which includes E. coli. The U.S. EPA requires
filtration treatment for cryptosporidium while Canada has no
mandatory treatment for eliminating this parasite from our water
supply systems.
Jurisdictional matters do indeed complicate the control of our
drinking water supplies, but this is not a barrier we should
fear. We have to pull together regardless of partisan lines so
we can protect our drinking water.
That is why the Progressive Conservative Party has selected very
benign language in its motion. It is not partisan. It is not
provocative. It clearly states that we have to be respectful of
provincial and territorial jurisdictions. It clearly infers that
this is something all members of the House should embrace and
support. However, even though there are different jurisdictions,
this should not deter the federal government from its leadership
role in maintaining public health and safety in order to protect
drinking water.
It is important to note that the Progressive Conservative Party
does not encourage overlap and duplication but rather seeks to
harmonize its efforts with the provinces and territories while
creating a minimum national standard for all Canadians. If there
is a provincial law in place, the federal law need not apply.
I seek the support of all members of the House for our party's
motion.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke and the
opposition party that has introduced this motion should be
congratulated because this is an important issue and we should
debate it.
I will put a very quick question to the member for Fundy—Royal.
He is proposing national standards brought in by the federal
government, which I presume he means should be legislated
standards. There is resistance in Ontario to any imposition of
federal standards in just about any area of provincial
jurisdiction. Is he proposing that we should bring in
legislation setting national standards for water quality and
provide penalties that will force the provinces to comply?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, my response is threefold.
First, the language in the motion says that we need to act with
the provincial and territorial governments. Second, I wish to
inform the hon. member that I have been in contact with Elizabeth
Witmer's office. She is currently the environment minister in
the Ontario government. I told her office what we were advancing
in the House of Commons and received no opposition in that
regard.
Also, we are looking to the federal government to provide some
leadership and act with the provincial and territorial
governments. I am very appreciative of the hon. member's
response to this. He says it is a very important question. Given
that our party wants to do this in a collaborative fashion with
provincial and territorial governments, I genuinely hope the
member would support our motion.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member and his party on
this initiative. I have been a supporter of this debate for a
long time. Using an opposition day to bring this issue to the
floor of the House is something I totally support. I will be
voting in favour of this motion.
1030
I also bring to the attention of the House, because we are not
the only House that is seized with this issue, that Senator
Grafstein has Bill S-18 on the floor over there, an act to amend
the Food and Drug Act for clean drinking water.
Using the language of the member about non-partisan
collaboration, let us get on with it. It may be a consideration,
and I do not know the logistics of this, that the House could
come together, because there already is proposed legislation, and
somehow take the work of the great senator, bring it over here
and pass the bill immediately.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I compliment the member
for the tenor of his response. The work of Senator Grafstein has
been incredibly constructive and is doing what private members'
bills should do within the House and the Senate. That is to be
provocative and advance issues of public policy that require
debate. Senator Grafstein should indeed be congratulated.
I am not sure of the road map and the proposal of Senator
Grafstein in terms of how he wants to accomplish this end. We
can perhaps debate that later. The spirit of what Senator
Grafstein and the Progressive Party want is essentially the same.
However we obviously have to include provincial and territorial
governments in that equation.
I again applaud Senator Grafstein for his initiative.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Madam Speaker,
I begin by congratulating my colleague from Fundy—Royal, not
only for introducing the motion but also for the leadership he
has shown on the environmental issue throughout his time in the
House of Commons, working obviously as these recent questions
have indicated, with other concerned members of the House of
Commons of all parties.
In the interest of urgency on the bill, I would like to move an
amendment to the bill. I move:
That would simply allow us to move forward more quickly.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The amendment is in
order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, when we speak about
clean water, we are speaking about the most basic expectations of
our citizens. This is not about some rare disease that may
strike strangers in some far off place. This is about what our
children drink every day in every part of Canada.
For most of our lives, most of our citizens have believed that
our water would be clean, that it would be safe for our kids, for
elderly Canadians and safe for all of us. However the water that
Canadians drink today is not as safe as it should be. It is not
as safe as it could be. That has been demonstrated by two
separate tragedies, one last week in North Battleford,
Saskatchewan and the other a year ago in Walkerton, Ontario.
For years experts have warned of the need to improve Canada's
water safety. As long ago as 1990, as my colleague indicated,
the green plan of the then Progressive Conservative government
warned of “important gaps in the federal government's
environmental legislation, particularly in regard to assuring the
safety of drinking water”.
I was part of that government. The minister who launched the
green plan was Lucien Bouchard. Ten years later those
legislative gaps still exist. The Liberal government has sadly
not treated environmental safety as the priority it should have
and now the headlines report that Canadians are dying because of
drinking water.
There is a broad new fear that environmental health standards
have fallen. The fear is real because two things have happened
together. First, there are more threats to health. Second,
there is less protection for health.
1035
The money that governments spend on protection has been cut and
the factors that could contaminate water have grown. What is
certain is that the sources of danger will grow as communities
become more crowded, as infrastructure crumbles, grows old and is
not renewed and as new elements enter the environment. If the
threats to citizens grow so too does the responsibility of
governments. These are matters which most citizens cannot
protect on their own. Society has a clear responsibility which
it is the duty of governments to exercise.
[Translation]
Undoubtedly, that issue compels us to ask ourselves, first,
which government has to act and which one can take action.
It is a provincial jurisdiction in the first place, but the
federal government also has a responsibility, which evolves from
its more specific but equally important jurisdiction. As for the
municipalities, they are called upon to manage several areas
related to water quality and distribution.
If those governments co-operate and work hand in hand, we will
have adequate water quality and be able to maintain it.
However, if the various levels of government fight between
themselves over matters of jurisdiction, the quality of our
water will be affected and our children will suffer from it.
Still more deaths will make headlines in the news media.
So let us be clear with regard to jurisdictions. Let us be as
clear as we would wish our water to be. The first jurisdiction
in that area belongs to provinces, but the federal government,
under its criminal law power, is responsible for health
protection and public security at the national level.
At present, there are only guidelines and these vary from
province to province. In concrete terms, it means that the life
of your children might be more at risk if they drink water in
your province than that of children living in another province.
We need to set common standards.
We must ensure they are respected and we must do so by
respecting both the rights of the provinces concerning their
jurisdictions and the rights of the citizens concerning their
health. This is the objective of this motion.
We must start by recognizing that there are too many deaths,
that the guidelines are too weak and that this is a shared
responsibility. Thus, the different levels of government must
work together at establishing standards and ways to ensure these
rights are being respected. Only then will these weak guidelines
transform into standards that the citizens can rely on. Where
the jurisdiction is provincial, the means to ensure the respect
of these standards may be provincial in nature.
No one is more sensitive to constitutional issues than I.
I have spent a major part of my life trying to find ways for the
different levels of government of working together in a spirit
of mutual respect.
Because of these efforts, we have been able, for example, to
launch the Francophonie. We have invited the provinces to
participate fully in negotiations toward a free trade agreement.
We have entered into an agreement on acid rain, as well as other
environmental initiatives. Even through all these processes, we
have firmly respected provincial jurisdictions, as well as the
interests of the citizens of this country.
Today, when the issue is the quality of the water that our
children are drinking, are we going to hide behind the veil of
jurisdictions or are we going to try to find solutions to allow
governments to co-operate for the well-being of our children?
[English]
The motion respects the federal partnership. It allows
enforcement. It increases protection at a time when citizens
feel protection is gradually falling away. It forces the federal
government, entirely within its limited jurisdiction, to stop
hiding and to start leading. It gives society a chance to send a
strong signal through an enforceable commitment to clean water,
an enforceable commitment supported on the floor of the House of
Commons of Canada.
1040
I very much hope that Canadians who are concerned about the
issue will take this opportunity to move forward on the motion
and move Canada toward a situation where there will be no more
deaths at North Battleford, no more deaths in Ontario and no more
risk of death from the thing that Canadians should be able to
count on above all else, which is the safety and the cleanliness
of our drinking water.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a couple of
questions with regard to his eloquent speech.
He defended very eloquently the rights of provinces to be
autonomous in their own areas of jurisdiction. Of course that is
not what the motion says. I think the hon. gentleman may have
reconsidered how he wanted to phrase his words before the House
when he realized the Bloc Quebecois would not be supporting him.
Frankly, I look at the federal record on water in areas that are
within the federal government's jurisdiction and it is
deplorable. We do not see that being addressed here. This is
one area where the federal government could act effectively,
forcefully and could improve a standard which quite frankly is
the worst in the country, not the best. The federal government
has shown no leadership. On the contrary, the federal government
has been the worst offender in this regard.
I will make the point that will allow me to raise the question.
Last Friday it was reported that Matthew Coon Come had observed
that one in eight aboriginal communities, areas where the water
supply was under the federal jurisdiction, had unsafe water. A
1995 report indicated that one in five aboriginal communities had
substandard water of the 171 reserves across the country.
Another area that is under federal jurisdiction is the—
Mr. Dennis Mills: What is your question? It is a speech.
Come on, a question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): There will be one
Chair in this place. I have permitted a lot of members at least
a minute to put their question, so let us show the same respect
to the hon. member. Would the hon. member please put his
question since there are other members yet to speak.
Mr. Scott Reid: Madam Speaker, the other area under the
federal jurisdiction where there are problems is on military
bases, for example at Valcartier. The federal government has not
taken action and did not take action for years with regard to
pollution affecting the town of Shannon in Quebec. We see a
federal government which has taken no leadership action.
Why does the hon. gentleman's motion not focus on setting a
federal leadership role in areas that are directly under the
federal government's jurisdiction so that it can lead by example.
Why is that absent from his motion?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, any fair reading of
the motion will realize that it provides plenty of latitude for
the kinds of legitimate questions with regard to federal
jurisdiction raised by the hon. member. I come from the
tradition on the environmental issue of the acid rain treaty. I
knew when we were going to the United States to get agreement on
the acid rain treaty that we had to have clean hands at home.
There is no doubt that the federal jurisdiction we are talking
about is of two kinds. One is a specific jurisdiction under the
criminal law power. That is a narrow jurisdiction, but it is
there and it is well established. I know the hon. member, as
someone who studies these things, recognizes that that
jurisdiction is soundly founded and must be protected in the
national interest.
The other responsibility is for federal leadership. This is the
parliament of the national government. This is the parliament
that is able to persuade legislatures everywhere else in the
country to assume their responsibility. Can we do that more
effectively if our hands are clean and if the conditions are
better on reserves and in federal lands? Of course we can. If
there is going to be a serious attempt by the national government
to try to encourage that kind of action on all fronts, in all the
places where jurisdiction or responsibility lies, then obviously
we have to exert that kind of leadership.
I welcome the hon. member's interest in these specific issues. I
hope he will not confine that interest to those Canadians who
live on reserves or those Canadians who live in Valcartier. I
hope he will share an equal concern about Canadians across the
country who today are more at risk than they have been before
because the communities are growing and pressures are growing.
Not just me, but Canadians in general, the people who would have
preferred not to be ill or who would have preferred not to have
seen fatalities in Walkerton or in North Battleford, need
stronger standards.
1045
They count on the hon. member. They count on all of us. This
motion provides an opportunity for the federal government, acting
within its jurisdiction, to provide the leadership that may
change and improve the standard of health and cleanliness of
Canadian water.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): On just a point of clarity, Madam Speaker, I wish to
understand from the member who just spoke: Does he mean that if
we set national standards we should force compliance on the part
of the provinces?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, the way I would
approach that and the way I have approached it in the past is to
work out agreements with the provinces.
The hon. member can shrug, and I understand that, but I have
seen both ways work. I have seen agreements reached when the
federal government was prepared to go some distance on its own to
clean its own hands going into those discussions.
I do not believe we get very far by pretending there are not
provincial jurisdictions and riding over them. I think that
becomes counterproductive. It gets people's backs up. It makes
solutions less possible.
I believe in a phrase used by a former leader of the hon.
gentleman's party. I believe in co-operative federalism. I
think it is the spirit of the country. That is the kind of
federalism that I would like to apply in this instance: getting
agreement, forcing agreement by the force of persuasion, by the
force of example, and then writing it into law.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, building on the point that the Canadian Alliance member
touched on and as the right hon. leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party stated, if we use our jurisdiction on reserves
to create a model water quality agreement then by example that
could have an effect on provinces and municipalities and respect
the provincial jurisdiction about which especially the province
of Quebec is concerned.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, that is a very
constructive suggestion. I believe it also falls within the
ambit of the motion now before the House.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, does the right hon. member not think that the water
problems we are having are just the tip of the iceberg, an
iceberg that probably started surfacing about 50 years ago when
it came to the decline in Canada's infrastructure?
Truckers are telling us about bridges that were built in 1955
which they are afraid to drive over. We have sewage treatment
plants that are archaic. We have water treatment plants that no
one seems to know whether or not they work.
Does he not think that this is just the tip of the iceberg, one
that should have been addressed probably 30 years ago and now we
are just starting to see the repercussions from this?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Madam Speaker, the short answer to
that is yes. The deteriorating infrastructure problem is a
serious complication. It has been aggravated in recent years
because the drive to expenditure reduction has meant that
investment which should have gone into infrastructure to keep
things up to date has been delayed. We are paying the price for
that.
The only thing I would add is that there are other factors here.
More people are moving to small communities. There is greater
diversity of commercial activity in various communities, as the
hon. member would know coming as he does from Red Deer. That has
environmental implications. There are changes in the various
environmental factors that can affect water, but there is no
doubt that infrastructure is one important element of this and
has to be addressed.
I would add in closing there needs to be a law on the books that
encourages governments to act and not let these issues slip away.
That is why we would propose to bring together the provinces and
federal government to establish standards and then to enshrine
them in a law on which Canadians could count and any government
could not ignore.
1050
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Health, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I first want to say that I will be sharing my time with
the member for Toronto—Danforth.
The motion by the representatives of the Progressive
Conservative Party provides an opportunity for a valuable debate
not only on the quality of water, but on the organization of the
Canadian federation and on the allocation of responsibilities
among the various levels, the federal government, the provinces
and the municipalities, in the management of a resource as vital
as water.
The opposition motion proposes national standards that would be
not only directives or recommendations but requirements
enshrined in a safe water act.
Nothing separates us from the Progressive Conservative Party in
our concern for the need to protect a safe environment and the
right to safe and quality drinking water throughout Canada. I
consider it a fundamental right, which we must help guarantee,
at all levels of government.
When we see the tragedies and problems occurring in Walkerton,
North Battleford and other regions in Canada, I think it is high
time we took a look at water quality, of course, but also at the
way we manage our environment and our most precious heritage,
which helps us survive each day, namely, our air, our water and
our land, the various contaminants and categories of waste.
A debate on water quality is of interest to all Canadians. It
gives the government an opportunity to make known its share of
the responsibility in the area.
Let me first say that our government has promised to increase
funding for research into the effects of toxins on our health,
including research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, on heavy
metals that pose special risks for children, on specific toxic
substances and on the cumulative effects of all toxins on our
health. This is a commitment that we made, and is one that we will
fulfil. It is a commitment that will have a concrete impact on
water quality across the country.
Moreover, Health Canada will continue and enhance work on the
drinking water guidelines. These guidelines are developed based
on lifetime exposure to a specific contaminant, thereby
addressing concerns with cumulative effects.
Health Canada's safe environments program acts as the technical
secretariat to the federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking
water, the entity responsible for the development of guidelines
for Canadian drinking water quality. The guidelines establish
health based limits for contaminants of drinking water. They are
meant to apply to all drinking water supplies, both public and
private, whether the source water comes from a lake or river, or
from a well.
The subcommittee, which includes representatives from all
provinces and territories as well as the federal government, is
a very good example of federal-provincial-territorial
collaboration in place to ensure the safety of all Canadians.
What is Health Canada's role in this subcommittee? Health Canada
develops the scientific documents used by the subcommittee to
establish acceptable concentrations for contaminants in drinking
water. Health Canada provides provincial and territorial
governments with the best scientific data on biological,
chemical and radiological contaminants found in drinking water.
Over the past thirty years, this system has worked well and
Health Canada has developed a strong working relationship with
each of the provinces and territories. Health Canada
provides the provinces and territories with the best scientific
data available and co-ordinates the flow of information across
the country.
These guidelines are used in a number of ways.
They are truly the cornerstone for all drinking water quality
across Canada.
1055
The provinces and territories use them as the benchmark for
their own enforceable standards, guidelines and objectives.
Each province and territory has developed its own method to
incorporate the guidelines to best fit its needs.
Some provinces have developed regulations, based on the
guidelines, while others require that all national health-based
guidelines be met.
Guidelines are also used at the federal level with respect to
areas of federal jurisdiction, such as in connection with first
nations, or on federal lands, and so forth.
These guidelines also set the standard for the quality of
bottled water and water used in food production.
These guidelines are very much a work in progress: as new
research, monitoring data, analytical methodology or treatment
processes become available, existing guidelines can be and are
re-evaluated and kept current.
By definition, these guidelines are not mandatory. However, I
would like to take a moment to tell the House that to date
this method has been very largely effective in safeguarding the
quality of our drinking water. Canada is the second largest
country in the world, with an incredibly diverse geography, and
there are many differences between the regions with respect to
source water quality, availability and quantity.
The guidelines developed by the joint committee must be applied
appropriately in the various provinces and territories in order
to be effective. Risk management in this case is best done by
the people who know their territory best.
The federal government acknowledges that the provinces know
their water best and that they can use the federal guidelines
in the most effective way.
If the federal government were to mandate that every province
follow the guidelines, line by line, or face stiff penalties,
some provinces would spend a lot of public money testing
substances that are not even found in their territory.
By leaving it up to the provinces to interpret the guidelines in
the way that makes sense and is appropriate for them, the
federal government allows them to make the most appropriate risk
management decisions, and also gives them an opportunity to
assume their responsibilities in making the most judicious use
possible of taxpayers' money by not testing for substances that
might not even exist in their territory.
It bears repeating that the provinces know their geographical
territory best, and are best left to control the quality of
their drinking water.
In summary, I wish to say that the safety of Canadian water
requires a multi-layered approach, which includes the protection
of the source water, the effectiveness of the water treatment
process, the training of treatment plant operators, the
distribution of the treated water and the safety of the
materials that come in contact with drinking water throughout
the entire process.
All these elements cannot be the responsibility of just one
level of government or of the federal government alone. A
division of responsibilities has become established over the
years, which is also consistent with our constitution and which
requires the provincial and municipal levels to play a role,
with the support, as I mentioned, of the federal government
through the work being done by Health Canada.
I am proud of what we have been able to achieve in collaboration
with the provinces and territories. I believe the steps we have
all taken in light of the recent tragedies will ensure we
maintain the safety of our drinking water supplies for all
Canadians.
[English]
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to move the
following amendment:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words “to
establish” with the following: “respecting their jurisdiction
to ensure”.
1100
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The tenor of the language that we utilized in the shaping
of the motion was to provide a high degree of flexibility.
In keeping with that same tenor and trying to make the issue as
non-partisan as we possibly can, I ask the member if a subsequent
member could reintroduce the amendment while we have a chance to
talk among our colleagues and reflect upon the wording.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): As it is, I would
like to advise hon. members that there is a motion already on the
floor that was moved by the right hon. leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party.
I will have to take this amendment under advisement because we
cannot have two motions to amend a motion on the floor at the
same time.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to compliment the member for Fundy—Royal on
bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Commons today.
As many members will know, over the last few months a number of
us have been seized with this issue. We have been trying hard to
work on terms of reference that would be acceptable to all
parties for a special committee of the House that would move this
debate forward. We want to make sure that the security of our
freshwater, the quality of our drinking water and all facets
related to water are dealt with in a proper fashion.
I was particularly reassured today, and it is the reason I will
be supporting the motion, that all members who have spoken to the
motion have said that it is not a partisan issue. It is an issue
on which we all have to come together. We all have to figure
out a way to make sure that laws are put in place to ensure the
quality of our drinking water.
It is very important that we first begin by acknowledging the
work of Senator Grafstein in the other place. He tabled Bill
S-18, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act dealing with clean
drinking water. I believe it is at second reading right now.
I appeal to all members, their staff, other legislators,
journalists, environmentalists and people interested in the issue
to get a hold of Senator Grafstein's bill. I am sure the
research he has done in this area would be deemed acceptable to
the point where we could move the bill from the Senate into the
House of Commons. Together we could create an historic moment
where the Senate and the House of Commons, in the interest of all
Canadians, would work together to ensure that we have clean
drinking water in every part of Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health suggested
an amendment to the main motion a few minutes ago that talked
about making sure we are respectful of provincial jurisdictions.
It is a very important amendment which hopefully the member for
Fundy—Royal will accept. It would be a tragic day in the House
if we could not get together, because there was some unease by
the Bloc Quebecois and other members who felt we were trying to
interfere with provincial jurisdiction.
1105
That is not the essence of the motion. We understand the
provinces jealously guard their areas of jurisdiction and that we
had a tremendous disaster in terms of water quality in Ontario.
The world knows about it. We are very sensitive because on an
issue like this one Canadians do not want for a moment to be
criticizing one another.
We must get together to resolve the problem. We must make an
effort to put forward the collective will of all parties of the
House to make drinking water better for everyone in the country
and perhaps even a template for the world. It would be awful if
through a few words the spirit of good will were to fall apart.
It is very important that all members support the amendment and
that we respect provincial jurisdictions. It is no secret that
traditionally I have a reputation for being a passionate
centralist and interventionist. This has been my political
background. The issue is so fragile and important that if we are
to create a national will all of us will have to put a drop of
water in our wine. We will have to bend a little and park some
of our traditional philosophical views. Nothing is more
important than the quality of our drinking water.
As a nation we have a very special trust not only for Canadians
but for the rest of the world. I hope the debate will lead to
the next part of the discussion on water technologies. As a
nation we have some of the best water purification technologies
on the planet. We have a responsibility to take that technology
and make sure other parts of the world that are disadvantaged get
to share it.
The whole area of water purification technology will end up as
another issue for debate, which is very important. On this issue
we cannot just think about our own constituents and our own
country. We have to reach out to the rest of the world and share
the technology.
Over the next little while another issue will be water and our
trade agreements. There is no mistake about it. In 1995 I spoke
to Mr. Nelson Riis' private member's bill banning bulk water
exports. I supported his bill, but when we get into the area of
water eventually we come to issues that are explosive and
sensitive for us and the House of Commons must deal with them.
I hope the spirit of today's debate will continue. When our
House leaders get together tomorrow I hope they will put the
special committee of the House on track so that it can move ahead
on these issues. We need to deal with them in a constructive way
by bringing in some of the best minds in our country and in other
countries to talk to us about all facets of water.
I should like to make one final point which I touched on in my
question to the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party. It has to do with water quality on Indian reserves.
1110
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has done
a tremendous amount of work on this issue. I believe, without
causing any problems with our provincial or municipal friends,
that if we started working on the quality of drinking water in an
area where we have constitutional jurisdiction such as on
reserves this would be a great beginning.
If we could have the best quality of drinking water on our
Indian reserves, it could be a template or a model which other
municipalities or provinces could voluntarily pick up. It would
save some of the potential for disagreement or interference.
I appeal to the House that we urge the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development to put that file on a fast
forward track to a jurisdiction where we have nobody holding us
back. We should make sure that our reserves have the best
drinking water in Canada and then we could build from there.
I congratulate the hon. member for Fundy—Royal on the motion
today. I hope that it leads to a long and vigorous debate on all
facets of the security of freshwater in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for his recent
conversion to the virtues of fully complying with the
constitution. This is a great novelty, and I do hope it reflects
a new Liberal tendency.
As we are dealing today with drinking water, the Liberals are
suddenly determined to fully respect the areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Is the hon. member giving us a scoop and telling us that the
government is now dropping the infamous millennium scholarship
program so vigorously condemned, particularly by Quebec but also
by other provinces, as interfering in provincial responsibility
for education? Is he announcing, for the Prime Minister, that
the Romanow commission on health care is a thing of the past,
that it is over and done with, that the government will not
interfere with Quebec's health care sector? Should we now
conclude from the member's speech that these are the new
tendencies of the Liberal Party, the party in power?
I would like the member to explain his position. Members will
agree with me that it is surprising to hear the member for
Toronto—Danforth repudiate the federal government's interference
and its centralizing power in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Madam Speaker, my conversion is limited to
water. My interventionist passion continues unchanged as far as
other issues are concerned.
[English]
I would give a very specific example. I do not want to take
away from the issue of water that we are dealing with today. On
that issue I will bow to the provincial jurisdiction the Bloc
Quebecois guards so dearly, but I will not bow and I will
intervene with vigour in any province that is not living up to
its requirement to provide more affordable housing.
1115
Water is too fragile an issue. I have had a conversion and I
will bow to the provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he does not think the
issue of drinking water is serious enough to warrant an all party
committee to examine it. This would include not just drinking
water but all aspects of water, everything about it. Is it not
time we put the interests of Canadians ahead of party interests?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Madam Speaker, I totally support the
view of my colleague, who is an educator, a biologist and the
chief environmental critic for the Canadian Alliance.
I hope the House leader of the Conservative Party, the House
leader of the Canadian Alliance and our own House leader will
come here tomorrow and say that now is the time to move forward
on the security of our freshwater. All the goodwill we can
muster here today can be a moment of special hope for all
Canadians, not just on drinking water but on all aspects of
water.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I find it
incredible to hear the member state that only water is
sufficiently important for standards to be set and provincial
jurisdiction to be respected, including that of Quebec. This is
incredible. Besides, there is nothing more important than
water, and it is basically the jurisdiction of Quebec.
What I would ask the hon. member is whether he believes this is
a matter of respecting jurisdictions by calling for standards
that, while possibly different, will respect provincial
jurisdiction, and will Quebec or any other province not be
forced in any way to adopt standards that may not even be any
better than its own? This is already the case in Quebec and
besides, Bernard Landry is already preparing to bring in a new
drinking water bill and regulations far superior to what they
want to establish as standards here in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: Madam Speaker, this gets me into
trouble from time to time in the House. If someone in the House
comes up with a good, constructive idea that will make life
better for Canadians I do not care where the idea comes from. If
the premier of Quebec has the model for drinking water we will
look at it. Maybe it will end up being the model for all of
Canada.
There can be philosophical differences on certain issues. If I
understood the motion of the member for Fundy—Royal, the best
formula or plan for drinking water should become the national
standard regardless of who proposes it. One either opts in or
one does not. If the province of Quebec has the best standard
then Ontario and the rest of the country should follow it.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Obviously I am passionate about this issue. I would seek
unanimous consent of the House to rescind the amendment put forth
by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and to permit the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to table
another amendment.
1120
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member is
asking for a withdrawal of the amendment to the original motion
that was moved earlier. Does the House give its unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment.
I
move:
(a) by adding the word “immediately” after the word “act”;
and
(b) by replacing the words “to establish” with the words
“respecting their jurisdiction, to ensure”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has moved an amendment. Is there
unanimous consent for the hon. parliamentary secretary to move
this amendment to the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Battlefords—Lloydminster. It is fitting that we talk about this
important subject today. We should have been talking about it a
great many years ago.
Canada is looked upon internationally as a pristine, pure, clean
place. However Canada is sliding and has been sliding for a
considerable time in terms of infrastructure. This is true of
more than just water, but water is what we are talking about
today.
We have general regulations but do not enforce them. Canada has
no standard for water safety. Nor do we understand whose
responsibility it is. As a result we saw the Walkerton incident,
the North Battleford incident, and I am sure we will see a great
many others.
Canada is sliding into third world status when it comes to
water. It is safer to drink bottled water than tap water in
Canada. Both sides of the country are dumping raw sewage into
the ocean. That is not a G-8 phenomenon; it is a third world
phenomenon. We put our garbage into landfills where they seep
into our water table. It is a time bomb waiting to explode. It
will cost us a fortune in the future to take care of those
garbage dumps.
Canada has thousands of toxic waste sites. Our roads and
bridges are decaying. Our health care system is rated 23rd out
of 29 by the OECD. Our dollar is now worth 60 plus cents. We
are suffering from a brain drain. These are symptoms of what is
happening to our country, a country of which we are proud and for
which we came to Ottawa to fight.
This is the tip of the iceberg. It is the canary in the coal
mine in terms of our infrastructure problems. We need a vision
and an action plan. We need a government that is not afraid to
show leadership.
What has the government done? It likes to stay in the centre
and appear shocked that we have a water problem. It likes to
pass the buck and blame someone else. When I questioned the
government about the 5 and 6 year old girls who were forced to
visit their sex offender father in prison, the justice minister
told me to go to the province because it was its fault. The
province told me to go to the feds because it was a federal
prison.
That is called passing the buck, and Canadians are sick and
tired of it. They do not care whether an issue is federal,
provincial or municipal. They want it fixed. Ultimately the
government throws money at the problem. It throws money at
infrastructure. What do we get for that money? We get golf
courses, statues, canoe museums, ski hills and fountains in the
middle of rivers. We need our sewage, water and garbage
problems taken care of. That is not what we are getting.
The government has put aside $4 billion for water between now
and the year 2005. Little or none of the money has gone to
communities. Most of it seems lost in the bureaucracy.
Municipalities say they need $16.5 billion to address the water
problem.
1125
What are the responses? Everyone cares about health. When we
talk about water, air or garbage we are talking about people's
health. If there is one thing people care about more than
anything it is health. It does not matter how many material
things one has. Without health one has nothing.
What do we need to do? First, we need to co-operate with the
provinces and territories. The people do not care who deals with
the problem. They just want us to deal with it. The federal
government's job is to show leadership. Let us get rid of the
turf warfare that seems to plague the whole issue and most other
issues in government. Let us show leadership. Let us show that
we care about the issues that affect Canadians.
Second, let us do a complete water inventory. Let us look at
our aquifers, find out what we have and make a map of them. Let
us see if we are in a positive or negative position in the
recharge of those aquifers. Let us evaluate the water sources in
the country. Let us look at the contamination levels of our
water tables. That is where we get into landfills and that sort
of thing. Let us look at watershed management. Let us work with
the provinces. This is not a turf war between provinces. It is
about fixing a very important resource, our water.
As the hon. member mentioned, we will need to talk about the
whole issue of water export. The south west U.S. needs a lot of
water. In Libya, Mr. Khadafi has built a $32 billion pipeline
that is 1,900 kilometres long and 5 metres in diameter. He is
using it to pump water out of the Sahara Desert. If they can
pump water out of the Sahara Desert we had better believe that
someone in the south west U.S. will say why not pump it out of
Canada.
Let us at least know what our resource is. Let us talk to
Canadians and ask them what they think about the issue. Let us
not put our heads in the sand and be afraid to deal with
difficult issues such as water. That is exactly what we seem to
be doing and that is why Canadians are so frustrated.
Third, let us set standards. Let us work with the provinces and
territories to set standards. Let us set the bar high. We are a
G-8 country. We are a highly industrialized country. If we
cannot set the bar high what country can?
We talk about water technology. We are selling water treatment
technology to Beijing that we have not even used in Canada. We
have 12 to 15 companies selling technology around the world for
sewage and water treatment but we do not use it in Canada because
we cannot afford it or are not committed to water quality.
Let us change that. It is negligent that we did not set and
enforce standards long ago. It is government negligence. Who
cares whether the federal, provincial or municipal governments
are at fault? It is negligence on the part of governments not to
have done something.
Fourth, we need money for infrastructure. That is always a
tough one. We need to train people and acquire technology. Where
do we get the money? I have been here long enough to think I
could find it within the budget of planet Ottawa. So much waste
goes on here in terms of unnecessary programs that do not help
people that we could list page after page of it. There is money
for important issues like health, water, sewage and garbage. The
federal government should show leadership in working on the
problem.
Lastly, we need leadership. Canadians are looking for
environmental leadership. Environmental issues are not unique to
one province or region; they are a universal Canadian problem.
Who better to take leadership on such an important issue than the
federal government? I urge the government to take leadership on
alternate energy, water, sewage, garbage and clean air.
I have been working on the Fraser Valley situation at Sumas and
the power project. I am shocked how little concern the federal
government has about air problems that are potentially going to
hurt that area.
1130
With respect to the Sydney tar ponds, Elizabeth May is sitting
out there on a hunger strike. We have all kinds of these toxic
sites.
We need to develop in this place a vision and a co-operative
approach for Canada. Let us fix this environmental concern:
today water; tomorrow all these other issues.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): 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.
Mr. Bob Mills: 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.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): 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.
1135
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: 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.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Bob Mills: 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.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): 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.
1140
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.
1145
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.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: 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.
1150
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.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): 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?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: 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.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): 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.
1155
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.
1200
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.
1205
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.
1210
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.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): 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.
1215
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?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: 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.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): 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.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: 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.
1220
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): 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.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: 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.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the member. Would he be supporting the
motion today? Yes or no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: 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—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): 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.
1225
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.
1230
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.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
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?
Mr. Joe Comartin: 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.
1235
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.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): 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.
An hon. member: It was shameful.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, as one of my
colleagues just said, that was a shameful response. In fact,
when it comes to health protection it is the law that we turn to,
it is tough regulations that we require, and it is leadership
from the federal government that is so imperative on all fronts.
The government has failed to uphold its responsibility to act
under even existing legislation to ensure that a national health
safety system is in place.
The problem we are dealing with today is not just that we are
trying to get the government to move away from a position of
inaction and passivity. It is also an attempt to get the
government to reverse almost a decade of catering to individuals
and organizations with a vested interest in seeing privatization,
deregulation and off loading of responsibilities so that in fact
there are few standards to adhere to and there is unfettered
access in terms of marketplace endeavours.
I sense today that there is a shift in the political climate in
this country, that in fact the pendulum is swinging. Given the
facts that this motion was initiated by the Tories and seems to
have support from at least some Alliance members, it suggests to
me that we are finally, as a collective, coming back to the
realization that government must play an active regulatory role
in health protection.
That means setting standards, national policies and mandatory
guidelines when it comes to something as basic as the quality of
our water supply.
1240
I hear some acknowledgement on this whole issue from members
across the way on the Liberal benches. That is heartening,
because over the last little while we have witnessed a government
that has been prepared to evade its responsibilities on
fundamental health protection matters.
When the government was elected in 1993, it began a process of
moving our health protection capacity within government from a
precautionary model, or one that said the ultimate responsibility
of government is to ensure that the do no harm principle is
maintained, to a risk management model where in fact private
industry would set the standards and government would monitor and
do its best. In fact, when it came down to it, it was a buyer
beware model that had to be followed.
Today we are feeling the consequences of that kind of approach
and we are realizing that it was wrong. We are paying the price
now. We have to catch up on many fronts. We have talked in the
House about food safety, about adverse reactions from drugs and
about the quality of air. Today we are talking about probably
the most fundamental issue when it comes to health and
well-being, that being the safety of our water supply.
What do we have today in terms of federal action to deal with
the fallout from Walkerton and North Battleford and all the other
centres that my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair referred to?
Not much.
We should have learned from the Walkerton tragedy a year ago. At
that time many organizations and members of parliament were
calling for the government to put in place a national water
policy with mandatory standards and with the financial resources
to deal with infrastructure difficulties. Nothing has really
happened in that whole year. Back then in the spring of 2000
numerous organizations and members of parliament talked about how
our water management laws were outdated, how they went back to
the fifties. They talked about how our general anti-pollution
laws were outdated and needed to be revised. They talked about
unenforceable policies, guidelines and objectives of varying
vintage.
What has happened since that period in our history? What good
came out of the Walkerton tragedy? Why do we have to deal with
North Battleford today when in fact all the lessons were there
for us to learn one year ago or more? That is the travesty of
the situation.
However, we all know that it is never too late to learn from the
mistakes of our past and today is an opportunity to move forward.
Today we call upon the government to actually take action, in
whatever form it wants. It could be, as a senator has
recommended, to amend the Food and Drugs Act to include mandatory
standards and programs dealing with quality of water. It could
be a separate, safe, national water safety law, as other groups
have recommended. It could be the establishment of a special
committee with resources to get moving on the problems
immediately. The bottom line is that we need action today.
Canadians need action today.
I do not think any of us want to hear from constituents who are
worried about whether the water they have to access is safe. With
something as vital and as essential as this, which we require on
a day to day basis, we cannot allow people to live with that kind
of uncertainty, worry, fear and anxiety about their health and
safety. There is no reason for the government to delay on this
matter.
1245
Yesterday the Minister of Health referred briefly to a bill he
introduced back in 1997, Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety
and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or
treat water destined for human consumption. I remind members of
the House that bill only dealt with a tiny portion of the issue
of water safety. It dealt with the questions of water filters
and water plumbing. It was pulled suddenly from the agenda of
the House and not returned, and no action has been taken since.
Many members in the House expressed concerns at that time about
whether or not the government was truly serious about addressing
water quality, or whether it was just another attempt to respond
to international trade agreements, to harmonize standards
globally. We questioned whether or not there was a real
framework in terms of dealing with a national safety system. We
were anxious to see that debate continue. We call again on the
government to bring forward a piece of legislation or a set of
recommendations that will allow us to move further immediately.
In closing, let us remember Walkerton a year ago and North
Battleford this week. Canadians are feeling particularly
vulnerable in terms of being exposed to contaminated drinking
water. All these events underscore the need for safe drinking
water legislation and mandatory guidelines on the quality of our
water. We must act now.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question several times
during the debate and almost everyone has prevaricated in their
answers, so I would like to put this very simple question to the
member who just spoke.
Is it the federal government's responsibility to impose national
water quality standards on all provinces so that all Canadians
are guaranteed that the water they drink is safe to drink
anywhere in Canada? It is a simple question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her thoughtful
commentary. I know she has been a strong advocate and a strong
voice on health issues for all Canadians.
My question to her is equally simple. Given the rash of severe
cuts we have seen imposed by the government since 1993, taking
billions of dollars out of provincial transfers, does she not
agree there has been a cascading cost down to provinces and
subsequently down to municipalities that to a large extent could
be pointed to as part of the responsibility for failing
infrastructure that has left Canadians vulnerable to the types of
situations we have seen in Walkerton and North Battleford? Does
she agree that there is a responsibility directly attributable to
the federal government?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is
yes. Just to elaborate very briefly, the cuts by the government
since 1993 in terms of transfer payments for health and other
social programs are cause for the load provincial governments are
now feeling.
I think, though, specifically of the cuts to the health
protection branch, the dismantling of the drug safety bureau, the
erosion of the food safety lab, and the inaction on contaminants
and toxins in consumer products. All those cuts have meant that
provincial governments, in order to act in the best interest of
their citizens and to ensure a health protection system and a
safety system are in place, are left to pick up the pieces.
Obviously they cannot do it on their own. We cannot continue to
have a patchwork of systems across the country. We cannot
continue to evade federal responsibility for something as vital
as safe drinking water.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Harris would have
something quite different to say in terms of the cascading
effect.
It was he, after all, and his Conservative government in Ontario
that took a big bite out of water safety and security and, more
to the point, privatized. This had a net impact of making it
difficult for the good folks in Walkerton, which is very close to
my area. When I was mayor we put in place the first groundwater
protection security system in Canada in the region of Waterloo,
the very municipality in which I was mayor. It is very important
water.
1250
I wanted to ask the member opposite the following question.
Given her zest for this area, which I think is rightfully placed
and quite correct, would she use the same kind of enthusiasm,
shall we say, in picking up on the Sierra legal defence fund's
report card on Saskatchewan getting a C, Manitoba getting a C
minus, and British Columbia getting a D when it comes to water
safety and security?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I
can actually point to many differences between the present
federal Liberals and the Harris Conservatives in Ontario in terms
of an agenda of privatization, deregulation and offloading. Both
levels of government bear responsibility for the current critical
situation we are facing and both must take measures to act in the
best interest of common good and public safety.
In terms of his last comment around the Sierra club's report
card, let me say from my vantage point that the provincial
government in Manitoba is certainly working hard on environmental
issues. As the Conservative member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough just said, it is pretty hard for
provincial governments to deal with the cascading effect of
federal cutbacks and downloading on to provincial governments.
Every provincial government would probably welcome the notion of
national standards when it comes to water quality and would
welcome some support and leadership from the federal government
to try to address a very serious and systemic problem in society
today.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I pay
tribute to the hon. member from Winnipeg on her contribution in
terms of protecting human health. Quite simply, the Liberal
Party of Canada prior to the election in 1993 called upon the
federal government to have safe drinking water legislation in
place.
The Liberal red book 3 said that clean air and water were
Canada's birthright. Does the member agree with the Progressive
Conservative Party that clean drinking water is the birthright of
all Canadians?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer
to that is obvious. Based on my speech today and the work my
colleagues and I in the NDP have been doing over many years, we
believe that access to safe water is a right as members of a
civil society, a civilized nation.
The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the
food we eat, the drugs we must take for health reasons, the water
we drink to survive, the air we breathe, the medical devices we
must use, and the blood transfused must be safe beyond a
reasonable doubt. The government should always act in terms of
the precautionary principle, ensuring that no harm comes to
Canadians through these vital essentials of life.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, first, I
wish to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member
for Brandon—Souris. I know that you are a personal admirer of
the member for Brandon—Souris. I am sure that you will wait for
the end of my speech in order to hear what he has to say.
Today, we are talking about drinking water, because problems
exist. Water is primordial. It is life. Except that now it can
also mean death or illness. It is something we must therefore
talk about.
1255
I had the opportunity in an earlier life to be the mayor of a
municipality and the reeve of an RCM for 11 years. As such, I
had to deal with two water contamination problems.
Between you and me, we were not prepared. The first time, the
problem involved ammoniacal nitrogen, and I will not give a course on
chemistry. What is ammoniacal nitrogen? It is a mixture of dead
leaves, detritus and fecal coliforms from both animals and
humans which completely unbalances the filtration system.
The basic filtration system in a small or medium size
municipality is not complicated.
Water is drawn from a river or a well, and sodium hydroxide,
alum and chlorine are added. That is it.
When things are out of balance, they increase the chlorine to
kill the bugs. However chorine cannot kill all the bugs in the
water. So some people got gastro-enteritis but, thank God,
nothing more serious.
A few years later, another problem arose. This one was due to a
spill: liquid manure got into our main reservoir and, once
again, threw everything out of kilter. Again, we had problems
with the public. Following theses disasters, there were a number
of them throughout the country, people changed their way of
doing things. They evolved. They adapted. They
created new regulations, new laws, except that they were not
uniform.
In Quebec, for instance, the regulations are not applied the
same by all municipalities. Why? Because they do not all have
the same means. The government of Quebec has probably been one
of the most active governments, producing new regulations and
new statutes, although there has been a bit of a delay because
of the applicability of this legislation.
The municipalities are told “This is what you have to do”.
However
they lack the expertise and means the major urban centres have.
Some provinces are not as advanced as others. The comment is
often made to the federal government “What are you doing messing
about with drinking water? That is a provincial jurisdiction”.
People's health is not provincial, not federal, not municipal,
not the responsibility of a school board. When there is a
public health problem, we as elected representatives have a duty
to assume our responsibilities and to do something.
This does not mean overstepping jurisdictional rights. If
people are not putting the interests of those they represent
foremost, it is the role of this parliament to let them know and
to take the appropriate steps.
If a province is in line, that is fine. Debates may, however,
be raised at some point. Provinces are starting to set up
commissions. Quebec, for instance, held a symposium on water a
few years ago. It even declared a moratorium on all water
bottling plants in Quebec. Major commissions of inquiry are
cropping up in the various provinces. If there are a few
fatalities, a few cases of illness, a commission is struck.
There is no uniformity, and the information is not even shared.
What we are saying is that the federal government must be in a
position to bring together all partners in order to put criteria
in place, standards for across Canada. There is nothing
dangerous about a standard for all of Canada. It will be a
minimum, one that will need adjustment, of course. It is not
good for 30 years; adjustments will need to be made within a
certain timeframe. This is an evolving situation, and so
standards will have to be adjusted as we go along in order to
keep our water drinkable.
The greatest reserve of drinking water is in Canada. People
drinking Canadian water have been dying. Although the situation
does not really lend itself to such a comparison, if we were the
top beef producer in the world and people were dying from eating
beef, a whole industry would be at risk.
What do people do when there are problems with their
drinking water? Instead of putting pressure on all levels of
government, including the federal and provincial governments,
they walk over to the convenience store and buy bottled
water, because they have no choice.
This does not solve the drinking water problem in Canada.
1300
What we are saying is that time has come for the federal
government to assume its responsibilities. We are not
necessarily talking about a bill like those that used to specify
which screw, hose or pipe to use. We are not talking about
hardware; we are talking about global issues.
We must ask our partners in confederation to assess the
situation and to take action. This is a public health issue.
I am telling my colleagues from Quebec “Do not be afraid, this
is not a Liberal motion”. I know that the Liberals are in
office. I know it is disturbing and tiring. It is upsetting to
see the government introduce bills. It is always messing
around with the grey areas, in terms of jurisdiction.
However this is a motion from a political party that is respected by
the regions and provinces. We need help to push the government
in the right direction.
This motion does not jeopardize the jurisdictions of the
provinces. If they want to do the job, let them do it. Are we
not part of a country? The federal government has a role to
play. It must contact its partners, so that they can find
solutions together.
Do not start a war, do not start fighting over provincial
jurisdictions. We know all about that. In any case, the supreme
court is there, should the federal government get involved in
provincial jurisdictions. Under the constitution, an appeal is
possible. The problem is that there are some grey areas in the
constitution.
We are saying that people must get together.
Drinking water is under provincial jurisdiction, but its export
is a federal matter. In this House alone, is there a minister
responsible for water in general? Is there one? No. Five or
six ministers at least are involved: the ministers of health,
public works, intergovernmental affairs, the environment,
fisheries and oceans, and so on. Everyone has a say on
water issues, and more specifically, on drinking water.
My provincial colleagues, including those from Quebec, should
not be afraid to support such a motion. They should tell
themselves one thing, which comes from the civil code of Quebec,
and that is, we have to act reasonably, according to the spirit
of the civil code. If we act reasonably, we can avoid many
problems when they arise.
We invite the members to set a course, to look in partnership at
the best solutions and standards. Standards change. If there
is ever a problem, we in the Progressive Conservative Party
cannot be accused of doing nothing.
This is only a motion, and we are an opposition party. This is
why we hope that both the government and the opposition will
work together to ensure respect for jurisdictions. It is time
to stop getting our knickers in a twist. I know it is difficult
with the government opposite. We must stop and recognize that
there is a real problem. If one province does its job, so much
the better. If there is one that does not, or if public health
is at risk, no one better come to me saying it is a
jurisdictional issue. It is an issue of accountability, and
that starts here in parliament.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with a number of the
points made by the hon. member. About six years ago when I was a
councillor for the region of Waterloo there was an outbreak of
cryptosporidium. It is not a pleasant thing to go through.
Fortunately for us we had an alternate water supply and other
ways of coping. However it was nothing like what the people of
Saskatchewan are going through and what the people of Walkerton
went through.
This is a very important motion, one of great concern to
Canadians. It behoves us as parliamentarians to review the
things Health Canada has been doing in this area in terms of
setting out guidelines and publications, researching the effects
of water on human health, and looking at different treatment
additives and devices.
1305
People are looking into the issue in a meaningful way,
especially the people at Health Canada. Can we do more? We can
always do more on such an important health related issue. In
budget 2000 the government committed $2.65 billion over the next
six years to infrastructure, green projects and other things
commensurate with what we are talking about today.
I was interested in the member's comments on jurisdiction. There
are always sensitivities relating to federal, provincial and
territorial discussions. There are sensitivities when it comes
to who is doing the work and who is mandated to do it.
I would like to hear the member explain a little more how he
thinks the process could and should work. Perhaps he could use
Quebec, his home province, as an example and explain how best to
make sure jurisdictional squabbles vis-à-vis water supply are set
aside in this case in the best interest of Canadians wherever
they live in this great country. I would be interested in the
member's opinion on that.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. Jurisdictions are part of our everyday life in
government. They must be respected.
That being said, a jurisdiction shared by everyone is called
leadership. We are saying that it is not because there is a
jurisdictional problem that the federal government does not have
a unifying role to play.
This morning, our leader, the member for Calgary-Centre, said
that this was what co-operative federalism was all about. The
fact that there is a problem in a jurisdiction does not mean
that I will not help it. One does not leave someone to rot
because one is not supposed to be on his sidewalk. One gives him
a hand, while respecting jurisdictions.
We are saying that it is not a case of setting norms or
standards, call them whatever, and then imposing them on the
provinces. That is not what this is about. There must be
consensus with our partners. Once this has been obtained and
created, then yes, a national standard can be drawn up.
As for the issue of drinking water, there is no getting away
from it. It is a matter of life and, unfortunately these days,
a matter of death. The federal government must play a unifying
role, all the while respecting jurisdictions. For us in the
Progressive Conservative Party, respect for the provinces is
probably the most important, because it also involves respect for
the regions and the people who live there.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question will be very brief.
I have a little trouble with the statement that they will
respect jurisdictions and that that is what must be done. I have
a problem with that because it involves the consensus just
mentioned. They come along and step in and we have a national
standard. When it comes time to raise these standards or change
them, Quebec will have its hands tied in its own jurisdiction.
Would the member for Richmond—Arthabaska comment on this?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, when regulations are set by
consensus, they have built-in mechanisms that come in handy when
it is time to modernize these regulations. Any analogy is lame, I
agree, but the five main principles of the Canada Health Act are
pretty vague. Provinces can do almost anything they want as long
as they maintain a minimum level of service. The problem with
this legislation is that it is not reviewed on a regular basis.
As far as public health is concerned, we should have
shared national standards. Of course, these would be implemented
by the provinces, which would be done again by consensus or under
an agreement with the federal government. Jurisdictions clearly
have to be respected.
The constitution is very clear on this issue: court challenges
are always possible. Quebec has not gone much to the supreme
court recently to get an opinion on a constitutional matter.
Still, all the provinces and even the federal government have
the power to do so.
So, I do not think it is really a problem. Maybe we just need to
change the players on the other side. If we all agree to work
together, I believe that we can get the people opposite untwist
their knickers, so to speak.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague, the member for Fundy—Royal, who moved our
opposition day motion today.
It is rather timely and certainly rather topical. The member for
Fundy—Royal has been working on the issue quite a while, even
before the current problems in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.
The issue was on the minds of Canadians even before the terrible
happenings in North Battleford.
1310
I congratulate my other colleague, the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska, who as we all know was the previous mayor
of Asbestos.
I will deal with two areas. One relates to my previous
municipal experience. I will also touch briefly on the area of
federal responsibility, as the federal government has a large
responsibility for first nations people in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan.
We accept the motion and hope members of the government and
other opposition parties accept it. No commodity in our world,
our country and our municipalities is more sacred than water. If
we do not have food, clean air and water then what we know as
life cannot exist. We must put our priorities in perspective and
water is one of them.
In 1993 the federal government and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities put an infrastructure program into place. It was
a tripartite arrangement between the federal, provincial and
municipal governments.
I mention that for specific reasons. First, co-operative
federalism has worked in all provinces. All levels of
government, municipal, provincial and federal, got together and
said they had needs which could best be served by working
together. We all work for the same people. Our constituents are
the constituents of all three levels of government. It is
therefore important that we work together to provide the best
services we can.
The infrastructure program was about dollars. We are talking
about standards. We can, through compromise and consensus among
all levels of government, put proper standards into place that
benefit all provinces and peoples throughout the country.
In 1993 my community had access to millions of dollars and I
played a role in decision making. We put the majority of those
dollars into the sewer and water infrastructure our constituents
needed to be able to work and live in the community. We put most
of the money into water. As mentioned, single source communities
like North Battleford are running into serious issues of
contamination. My community spent millions of dollars to find a
second water supply. We spent those dollars knowing full well
our constituents needed an uncontaminated water source.
We also put millions of dollars into the sewage treatment plant
which sends sewage into the rivers. It was necessary to treat
the effluent so people downstream would not suffer problems. I
say with great pride that we spent those dollars in the right
places.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says Canadians are the
second highest users of water. It says Canadians use 300 litres
of water per person per day. That is a huge amount. It is
something we have taken for granted. We must put standards into
place to make sure those 300 litres are of proper quality.
A member of the government mentioned that $2.6 billion over six
years had been identified by the government to go into
infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has
indicated that infrastructure to ensure quality water for
Canadian citizens would require some $16.5 billion. When $16.5
billion is needed, $2.6 billion over six years is but a drop in
the bucket.
I suspect we can work together, provincially, municipally and
federally, to put the necessary standards into place.
We have a substantial number of first nations people in Manitoba,
particularly in Saskatchewan.
1315
I would like to quote from an article in which Chief Matthew
Coon Come said:
“Walkerton made news across Canada,” the national chief of the
Assembly of First Nations said. “But about one out of eight of
our aboriginal communities are threatened by unsafe water, which
each year kills our newborn and our elderly.
These deaths don't make the front pages of Canadian
newspapers...
This accurately sums up the problems that are evident in our
water supply in our aboriginal communities. One out of eight
aboriginal communities today do not have proper water quality for
the people they serve.
The national chief's statement is also supported by a 1995
Health Canada report that found that 171 reserves, or one in five
at that time, had water systems that could affect the health and
safety of the community if the problems were not addressed. Those
problems were not addressed. Today there is still one in eight
communities that still suffer through an inadequate water supply.
Drinking water became so bad a few years ago that aboriginal
residents were told by health experts to give only bottled water
to their pets because the quality was so bad. The assembly of
first nations recently reported that 79 communities or 12% had
what Health Canada called potentially dangerous drinking water.
These statistics demonstrate the severity and the extent this
issue has impacted those communities.
National water safety standards must take into account not only
what is happening in our rural urban centres across Canada, but
also in our aboriginal communities.
When I say that there is a need for us as Canadians to identify
the need for water purification, I cannot underestimate the
seriousness of that statement. The motion before us today sets
those standards. We currently have guidelines that can or cannot
be followed dependent upon how the jurisdiction wishes to follow
them. We have no specific standard.
You have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to travel across the
country as I do. I go from Manitoba to Alberta, to British
Columbia to Quebec City or to the maritimes. When I take a glass
of water I believe that, as a Canadian, I should be convinced
that that water is of sufficient quality to drink and should not
be afraid for my health, welfare and well-being. That is where
we have to set the standards.
Right now in Canada we do not have a standard or guideline set
for the testing of cryptosporidium, that very little parasite
that is causing all that trouble in North Battleford. There is
no need by our guidelines to test for that. That is utterly
insane. The United States has a requirement, a guideline and a
standard to test for cryptosporidium. When I go to my friend's
in Alberta, I expect that the water supply not to be contaminated
with cryptosporidium. However right now I do not know that.
That is why we are here today suggesting that the government,
with the co-operative federalism, that wonderful buzzword, work
in concert with provincial governments, as well as municipal
governments, to put forward the standards which could be
accepted. so that when I and my family travelled across Canada we
would not have the possibility of encountering a water quality
that would not be good for our health.
The Progressive Conservative party did not put forward this
motion simply because of what has happened in the last number of
days. In our policy statement and during the last election we
indicated that this was a very serious issue. The PC party said
that if we were in government we would introduce a safe water act
which would legislate and ensure safe drinking water quality
standards for Canadians. That would be harmonized with the
provinces and territories.
Everyone across Canada should have that same security in knowing
their water is safe. That comes from an election platform back
in the year 2000. We put our money where our mouth was. We put
our water where our platform was. I suspect that the government
should embrace what our platform was.
The Conservative party also said that we would enshrine into law
and harmonize with the provinces and territories Health Canada's
guidelines for drinking water.
As a result, any municipal water source in non-compliance would
be immediately disclosed to the public. Transparency concerning
the water supply would build the confidence that Canadians
deserve. We had that policy in our platform, so we speak from
the heart and from a policy that was put into place that speaks
to this very issue.
1320
I thank the House for the opportunity and the time to speak to
what I consider to be one of the most, if not the most, important
issues facing Canadians today.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I
explained in the House earlier, Quebec has been working on draft
regulations since June 19, 2000. A final draft designed to make
standards far exceed those being proposed for Canada will be
submitted to the Quebec cabinet.
It has already been proven that Quebec has the best water
management system. What scares me about this motion, as noble as
it may be, is that programs already exist. Again it will look
like duplication. Even experts will not know where to turn, and
we will be dividing this concentration of expertise. Who will be
the looser in all this? The environment.
I also heard the member for Toronto—Danforth tell us earlier
that the government wanted to respect this jurisdiction, because
water was too important. Something else is important, however,
and I am talking about respecting jurisdictions provided for in
sections 91 and 92 for over 100 years. These jurisdictions have
already been divided, I am supposed to believe that there is
no danger of opening the door to encroachment when water is a
provincial jurisdiction, therefore Quebec's jurisdiction, and the
establishment of national standards is being proposed.
How are you going to convince me that these national standards
will not create the same situation we saw in other areas, such as
the millennium scholarships, education and health? How are you
going to assure me that the government will respect this
jurisdiction? I do not believe it will.
In light of what I just said, what do you think about these
remarks?
The Deputy Speaker: Before I give the floor to the member for
Brandon—Souris, I would like to remind the member for
Châteauguay that any comments, questions and interventions must
be addressed through the Chair, and not directly to the member.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for
Châteauguay was actually working through the chair. He was just
looking at me and that is why his comments may have seemed a bit
more pointed.
I say to the member for Châteauguay that the Bloc is losing its
raison d'être. We do know that there are certain provincial
jurisdictions in the provinces. Having been in another level of
government, I recognize that those jurisdictions are selfishly
guarded, as well they should.
The member for Châteauguay said that there would be standards
set within the province of Quebec. Good for the province of
Quebec. I hope those standards would be set at a higher level and
a higher bar than perhaps the standards would be set at a federal
level because they would then take precedence. Those standards
would take precedence within the provincial government and those
would be the standards they would try to achieve. I say good for
the hon. member. I hope he does have the highest standard of
water quality within our country.
However there are other provinces that perhaps may not set those
same standards. What I am saying is that when I go to Quebec
City, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, I expect to
have water quality that I can depend on. I expect also when I go
to Winnipeg, Manitoba or Dauphin, Manitoba that the level of
standard, that bar, should be attained. I see the member for
Dauphin—Swan River, whose area had some serious water quality
problems.
As for the jurisdiction, absolutely. Co-operative federalism is
a buzzword we have heard in the House so often. I wish we could
finally put it into effect. We should have co-operation among
the provinces, the territories, and I have even thrown in the
municipal governments. It is necessary that there be a
tripartite co-operative relationship and a tripartite funding
relationship.
1325
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, congratulations to my colleague and to all members
who have taken part in the debate.
With respect to the question from the hon. member for
Châteauguay's question, I say to my friend from Brandon—Souris
that there is nothing which would in effect harm Quebec's
standards to adopt and accept the motion that has been put
forward. In fact it would very much embrace a situation that he
has quite rightly pointed out. If Quebec has legislation
pending, and I take him at his word, which would try to set a
higher standard in the province of Quebec, that is perfectly in
keeping with the notion of co-operative federalism. In fact, I
will be the first to acknowledge that in the area of criminal
justice with young offenders Quebec set a very high standard
which other provinces can strive to match or exceed.
Does my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris not see that the
motion is consistent with Quebec's approach, that is to always
strive to put water safety, in terms of Canadians' health first
and we should be trying to match if not exceed Quebec's example?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was absolutely correct in
reconfirming what I had said earlier. We hope and wish the Bloc
Quebecois and its members will support the motion for the very
fact that they on behalf of their constituents would now be
setting a benchmark and standard throughout the country which
would have water quality as its raison d'être. If the province
of Quebec wants to raise that bar even higher and set those
standards higher, we would applaud that.
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time. It is certainly a pleasure to be back
in the House. If they say “your house is your home” I guess I
am back home. I have been away the last weeks attending to the
my new son, Cade Andrew, who was born on April 17.
The issue is very important on the heels of the recent tragedy
at North Battleford and certainly last year's tragedy in
Walkerton. It is critical to the health of all Canadians, and is
something that is very close to my heart.
As a parent with a 22 month old and a newborn and knowing that
contaminants have a more serious effect on the newborn and the
elderly, I am very concerned.
Having been an alderman in the Village of Perth-Andover, I am
also familiar with the issues from a municipal perspective. They
are very serious, and all municipalities take them very
seriously. In funding crunches, I also understand the
administration and construction of the municipal facilities.
As an engineer for the last nine years, I worked in the
environmental sector, specifically in the area of water quality,
water and waste water quality. For the last five years, I have
been president and/or vice president of the New Brunswick
Environment Industries Association. One of its goals is
educating the population of New Brunswick on environmental
issues.
I would also add that as part of that association I was allowed
to see a lot of the Canadian technologies, as far as drinking
water goes. Companies such as ADI in the riding of Fredericton,
Zenon and Trojan Technologies in Ontario have internationally
renowned technologies on clean water.
Last June I also helped initiate and co-chaired a clean water
conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick, entitled “Your
Drinking Water: Ensuring Its Safety”. Three hundred people
attended from across Atlantic Canada to talk about drinking water
issues. The goal of that conference was to educate the people on
the perils of unsafe drinking water, how to remediate unsafe
drinking water if they ran into that situation in their
communities and how to protect their communities against unsafe
drinking water. It was very much an educational conference, and
I am proud to announce that I will be doing it again this
September.
As members can see, from a parent's perspective, from a
municipal politician's perspective, from a professional
perspective and certainly from a personal perspective, this is
one of the issues I feel very strongly about and have some
background in. In fact part of my platform during the last
campaign was clean water issues. One of the reasons I came to
Ottawa was my strong beliefs in clean water.
On the specific motion, I do not agree with the honourable
intent of the motion. It is an excellent motion but I have some
concerns. The hon. member's goals are very honest and productive
for society in Canada.
1330
As recently as last night, at, I assume, a multiparty dinner,
the leader of the PC Party mentioned that one of the policy areas
on which he would like to co-operate with the official opposition
was specifically in the area of a renewed or healthy federalism,
which he said was to respect the rights of the provinces. Some
would see it as flying in the face of a renewed federalism, which
is respecting the rights of provincial jurisdictions.
I will turn to our Liberal record on water quality and some of
the initiatives that we have undertaken. In the 2000 Liberal
election platform, Opportunity for All, we committed to
addressing the issue of safe drinking water by funding
improvements to municipal water and wastewater systems through
the infrastructure Canada program.
We also committed to working with provincial, territorial and
municipal governments to create the first building code for
municipal water and wastewater facilities. Such a code would
help improve the ability of municipalities to meet water quality
standards.
In the 2000 budget the Liberal government committed $2.65
billion over six years to fund improvements to infrastructure
across Canada. We created the $25 million green municipal
enabling fund and the $100 million green municipal investment
fund to help municipalities improve energy efficiency, water and
wastewater treatment, solid waste treatment and public
transportation.
The Liberal government is providing leadership on the protection
of clean drinking water through the Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment. As recently as May 1, council members agreed
that the protection of surface and groundwater quality was a
priority. The council agreed to collaborate on water research,
to share best management practices, to accelerate the development
of water quality guidelines and to link existing water quality
monitoring networks to provide comprehensive access to timely
information.
The government has shown a commitment to safe drinking water for
all people in Canada by focusing on stronger national guidelines
for water quality and by strengthening the role of the National
Water Research Institute. The institute has an excellent well
water monitoring and modelling program, that it is working on
now, by funding improvements to municipal water and wastewater
systems, and by investing in research and development on better
land use practices.
One of the major issues is the healthy federalism that I spoke
about. We have to consult with the provinces to see if they
support us in taking the lead on this issue. Do they want us to
establish enforceable national drinking water standards?
I understand the need to address this issue and I respect the
sincere intent of the motion. I commend the hon. member for
Fundy—Royal for his quick action and for his attempt to find a
quick solution to the serious situation. We must consult, liaise
and ultimately, in the words of his own leader, respect the
provinces.
Although I have concerns regarding the healthy federalism in
consulting with the provinces, it is an important enough
solution. I am proud to say to my constituents and to my family
that I will vote in support of the motion.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too, as most members of the House, wish to thank the
member for Fundy—Royal. When it comes to a health issue that
affects the lives of every person in the country, it is
imperative that we put aside partisan politics and work toward
the best interest of everyone in the country. The motion does
that.
The motion respects all members in the House and it tries to put
an issue forward that would be fundamentally helpful for the
whole system. It would help the federal, provincial and
municipal governments to work together to make certain that these
kinds of tragic incidents that happened in Walkerton and North
Battleford do not repeat themselves time and time again.
When I was first told that there was a boil water order in the
municipality that I live in, I found it difficult to accept here
in Canada. We talk about boiling water or not drinking water
when we travel to some third world countries but not many of us
thought about that situation happening here in our own country.
It did bring shock but it also brought awareness.
1335
Everybody in the country must be made aware that we have to do
all we can, at all cost, to ensure we have safe drinking water
and a safe supply of other items such as food and so on. It is
clearly an issue that affects the lives of everyone. The barrier
to this point has been that public opinion has not moved forward.
When I was the mayor of Kingsville much of the municipal fund
was spent in trying to improve the water system. Our small
community was looking at $1.5 million year after year to separate
the water system so that raw sewage was never pumped into the
Great Lakes. A great deal of work was done on the water system
to make sure that safe water was available.
We now find that systems are getting older, but we can now test
the systems to find bacteria or micro-organisms that create
somewhat of a problem. Places like Walkerton and North
Battleford raise our awareness of what is happening. It is
important that we have standards across the country to make
certain that no one can be threatened under any circumstances by
our systems.
It is extremely important we make sure that frequent sampling is
done on a regular and consistent basis. The national guidelines
structured between the federal government and the provinces show
us a good direction to head in. They point out where we need to
go.
The issue is to ensure that those national guidelines are
enforceable. That is what the debate is about today. It is
about ensuring that water pollutants are treated properly so that
our water is safe, that the aesthetic concerns about water which
Canadians demand are met, and that we test water on a frequent
basis to make sure it is safe for all Canadians. As I understand
it, the national guidelines have been accepted in Alberta, Quebec
and Nova Scotia. Hopefully that program will continue and cover
the rest of the provinces as well.
By making sure that all provinces move in an appropriate way to
correct the systems that need correcting is the important issue
of the day. Yes, the Liberal government did take action. No, we
cannot correct all things in one quick sweep. I do not believe
many people 5 or 10 years ago would have thought that we would be
faced with the dilemma we now have with our water systems.
During the Walkerton incident there was a great deal of
discussion about water safety across Canada. As an election
platform the Liberal government looked very carefully at the
infrastructure in the country. The government may not do all the
things that need to be done, but by working in co-operation with
the provincial and municipal governments and by directing $2.65
billion toward infrastructure it will go a long way in the next
few years to ensure that the needed safety factors are in place.
It is important we also realize that we as the federal
government do not do things alone. As our minister said
yesterday, passing a law is not the only way to resolve a
problem.
1340
It is important that we have consultations with the provinces,
territories and municipalities. We must make certain that we
take their expertise, technology and their advances into
consideration so that we build a system that would be workable
and safe for all Canadians. We must ensure that municipalities
spend what is required to make certain that the municipal water
systems and waste systems are state of the art technology. Canada
must go in that direction to make sure that we are there.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on May 1
put an agreement in place to protect surface groundwater quality,
making sure that it was a priority for all governments across
Canada. It agreed to collaborate on water research. That means
we can bring together the experts who know systems that are
workable and the solutions available and who can make certain
that all municipalities and all provinces have all the
information required to use the best technology possible to work
on this problem.
It also agreed to share best management practices. Oftentimes
training and management practices are not necessarily as they
should be. It is important to realize that under proper
management systems it is possible that the Walkerton situation
may have been averted.
We have heard testimony from Walkerton. We are all aware that
there were some very difficult situations in their management
system. That should not happen and we must make sure that anyone
operating a system maintains it at the best possible level. We
need to accelerate the development of our guidelines. They would
be structured to make sure that we have a system where everyone
could share in what needs to be done and share in the monitoring
of all systems across the country.
When we look at the issue it is critical to support the motion
which has a tremendous amount of merit. It can take away
partisanship in the House. It can make certain that we are all
working together to ensure that Canadians have a system that is
workable, that is better for everyone than some of the systems of
today, and yet takes into account all the technology, costs and
resources required to move forward.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. Does
the hon. member believe there should be more money put into basic
infrastructure in the country and, if so, how much more than is
presently going into it?
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as
we move along as a society there is a definite requirement for
money to be put into infrastructure. We have a problem today in
water systems, perhaps many water systems across the country, but
new guidelines are being structured and set. New goals and
targets are being worked on. It is important the experts sit
down to look at what is the most cost efficient and yet
achievable goals to make certain the system works.
Chlorination was a system used in the past. Today new systems
in chlorination and other systems have been developed. I do not
know what those costs are. For me to suggest that putting in
more money would resolve the question is naive, to say the least.
It is also naive for me to say that we do not need more money,
but what is clear is that we need a safe system.
We need experts to look at the costs. We know that costs in the
past have traditionally been shared by the municipalities and the
provinces. We know that the federal government has tried to come
into the system with a program of infrastructure. Since first
elected in 1993 until now the Liberal government has provided
infrastructure dollars to assist municipalities and provincial
governments to achieve the goals that need to be achieved.
1345
I believe it is extremely important to look into what the costs
are, at how those costs could be shared, at what the role of each
level of government is and then make the decisions there. It is
not just a simple matter of money. It is a matter of safety, a
matter of technology and a matter of what needs to be done in the
systems before I could possibly make that commitment.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I take the comments
with a grain of salt. Members of the military did training
exercises in my area before they went to Bosnia. They had a
portable water treatment system. They went to the sewage lagoons
at one of our local towns and pumped the water out of the sewage
lagoon into that system, and out came potable water. I do not
buy into that statement that Canadians can wait for studies,
government bureaucracy, cost effectiveness or technology. We
cannot wait for that.
The systems available now are state of the art, but
municipalities cannot afford them. We need a commitment from the
federal government for money for basic water system
infrastructure. As well, as far as roads are concerned there is
no special engineering need for roads. They are a disaster
across the country. We need infrastructure money for our
municipalities, our cities and our towns.
Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I could agree with my
colleague across the way if we had to sit back and wait. However,
I also believe that many municipalities have looked very
carefully at problems if they have had problems. They have had
people working at it.
I mentioned my union system. I was shocked. The administrator
for the municipality of Leamington chaired a committee to look at
what needed to be done with that system and at what corrections
needed to be made. The committee made certain suggestions within
technology. Chlorination was one of the recommendations, not
only at the source where they are pumping water out but in
different areas in the municipality, where they do injections of
chlorination in order to resolve the problems in the system.
I believe each system has specific problems in specific areas,
which we must deal with. As a result, I would suggest that every
municipality has its own area to struggle with and work with. I
am not saying it is a blanket, but it is something that has to be
dealt with system by system by system.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
The motion before us, including the amendment, would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should act
immediately with the provinces and territories respecting their
jurisdiction, to ensure enforceable national drinking water
standards that would be enshrined in a Safe Water Act.
I support this motion, for certainly clean drinking water is a
trust for basic public safety and standards must be ensured
across Canada. Due to local jurisdiction, there must be a
national will for co-operation. All must work together with the
provinces and the municipalities in setting standards.
We must engage in a full assessment of Canada's domestic
consumer water supply, the state of municipal infrastructure,
source water protection and land use planning.
Sadly, the misplaced priorities of poor Liberal management are
revealed again. Money targeted for infrastructure goes to golf
courses rather than water safety. Other bad spending happens
when essentials are ignored, such as the HRDC boondoggle and in
other ways.
The water is polluted because we pollute it. Standards will not
solve the problems in themselves: water, water, everywhere and
some not fit to drink.
Although water quality is a provincial responsibility,
municipalities operate water treatment plants and have direct
contact with the customer. This is why the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities may ask the federal government to help
establish mandatory national drinking water quality standards.
It could require a constitutional challenge and an act of
parliament to enable the federal government to apply enforceable
standards nationwide. Overall unfortunately, many provinces do
not give sufficient support to municipalities for local water
systems.
We are not calling for the federal government to assume all
responsibility for water standards.
The first step is to have provincial and territorial governments
legislate guidelines for drinking water and include enforcement
and mandatory testing. Until provinces take positive action, we
can expect more needless deaths from drinking water.
1350
However, there is a federal role.
In the case of North Battleford, Saskatchewan, how could it
possibly be that a modern city in an industrialized country
builds a water treatment plant's river intake downstream of its
sewage treatment discharge?
Moreover, this incident would not have occurred if we had the
political will to insist on tertiary sewage treatment. How can
we possibly find it acceptable to be discharging dangerous sewage
into waterways given the obvious environmental and water crises
that the world is heading toward? The days of dilution being the
solution for pollution are long gone.
Canadians who enjoy a high standard of living need to wake up to
environmental reality and demand that more of their earnings of
today go to preventing disaster in the future. Every province
should be implementing tertiary wastewater treatment policies and
zero toxic industrial discharge.
Water is without a doubt the single most important natural
resource of Canada. We must protect it. Water is supplied as
part of municipal services, yet when there is a drinking water
crisis people are advised to boil their water or use bottled
water. No one seems to even want to notice that the bottled
water comes from private companies. Private citizens and
government officials apparently trust the quality of privately
supplied bottled water and then rally against privatizing the
nations supply of tap water. What we do not pay much for
directly, we do not value or protect.
The public health crisis in North Battleford shows signs of
easing, but questions about who to blame are getting louder. In
a city with a drinking water intake downstream from a sewage
treatment plant outflow and dozens of residents sickened by
waterborne parasites, there could be plenty of blame to go
around. Three deaths have been linked to the cryptosporidium
outbreak in the city of 14,000. The number of confirmed
infections is expected to rise as lab results come in. Reports
from doctors and emergency room staff suggest that the outbreak
is stabilizing, as health officials said on the weekend.
It is clear that the provincial environment department,
Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, has been
worried about the city's water system since late summer last
year, but it took no immediate action. As well, the city said it
complied with the provincial guidelines in its water operations.
However, in September the city issued a drinking water advisory
because of bacteria in one section of its distribution system.
The city has already acted on some of the recommendations,
including some improvements to the water treatment facility, but
some findings were a surprise. One surprise was that the sewage
treatment plant was operating over capacity. The North
Battleford sewage plant is two kilometres upstream from a
drinking water plant built in the 1950s that draws water for part
of the city from the North Saskatchewan River. The plant was
built by a nearby psychiatric hospital to provide for its own
needs after the sewage plant was in place and was eventually sold
to the city.
However, if the plant is properly run and operated it should be
able to deal with any effluent that may be discharged upstream.
The city plans to build a new sewage treatment plant, but it will
not be in place until 2003 without any financial assistance from
the provincial and federal governments to speed up the schedule.
Gerhard Benade, the medical health officer for the Battlefords
Health District, faced questions on the weekend about his
apparent delay in acting on a warning about a possible outbreak.
A local physician, Geoffrey Lipsett, said that he called Dr.
Benade at home on the evening of April 12, just ahead of the
Easter long weekend, after one of his patients tested positive
for the parasite and the patient's family began displaying
similar symptoms.
Dr. Lipsett said that he began to think the problem was more
widespread when he discovered that a local pharmacy kept running
out of diarrhea medicine. “It suddenly clicked” he said. “I
told him I think we might have a problem”.
Regional health authorities did not launch a full investigation
until April 17, the Tuesday after Easter, when they began
checking local hospital records for evidence of other cases. A
boil water advisory was issued on April 25 and hardened to a boil
water order on April 27. “It was not possible over the Easter
weekend to get all the emergency room statistics” said Dr.
Benade.
He said there are typically between two and five isolated cases
of cryptosporidiosis each year. “We investigate every single
case” he said. “You can't issue an advisory based on a single
case. A single case of cryptosporidium is not a public health
crisis”. Dr. Lipsett agreed that his case did not necessarily
indicate an outbreak “but that, plus the selling out of the
diarrhea medicine, is what made it click in my head” he said.
The motion calls for the public to be informed of results that
fall below federal guidelines. Fear that contaminated water is
flowing from Canada's faucets has brought calls for national
standards and the vote in the Commons should draw attention to
this priority. Right now there is no legal requirement to inform
the public whether the water is safe or not, even if there is a
test that actually says the contrary. I do not think Canadians
would think that is responsible leadership.
1355
Key to the motion is a requirement that municipalities inform
the public as quickly as possible of any test results that do not
comply with the water quality guidelines issued by Health Canada.
Three people in North Battleford, Saskatchewan have died this
spring during an outbreak of cryptosporidium, a parasite from
manure that invaded the city's water supply. Last spring, a
virulent strain of E. coli bacteria killed seven people and made
thousands seriously ill in Walkerton, Ontario. Water warnings
have been issued in every province in the past year.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is to call on Ottawa
later this month to endorse national standards on drinking water
that could see repeat polluters fined or even jailed.
Freshwater is a scarce resource, even where it seems plentiful.
The issue is as much about water quantity as quality. We need to
focus on managing our excessive demands for this scarce resource
first before we run off to look for more supply. We must
consider water as a resource in its full cycle, not just when it
is supplied to us from nature, fresh and free of charge. Clean
and usable water is not free and we will get what we pay for.
More infrastructure will mean more costly supply lines to extend
our gluttonous demands even further. Stricter standards to
mandate cleaner water will set even more obstacles in the path of
the recovery and reuse of wastewater. Throwing more subsidies at
the problem will further insulate consumers and corporations from
the real costs of the present excessive demand.
We need to look at the health of whole watersheds and what is
regionally going into the water table for wells. It is a
lifestyle choice. It is municipal land zoning use. Pollution is
deficit spending, wherein we all pay. National standards would
help reduce the shifting of costs and would create a level
playing field that all must live up to with significant
preventive investments.
I support the motion today.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in the document entitled “Guidelines for Canadian
Drinking Water Quality”, dated April 1999 and prepared by the
federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking water, the process
was described in this way: it must be stressed that the
development of Canadian drinking water guidelines relies on a
flexible process that must accommodate the diversities of various
jurisdictions.
My question to the hon. member is this: if this is the case, is
it possible for the government to come up with one set of
guidelines for the country?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the
phrase the race to the bottom. There is a role for general
standards across the country, but of course the various methods
of technology for providing clean and safe water must be flexible
at the lower levels.
In the greater Vancouver area, the regional district supplies
drinking water in a somewhat sophisticated system from protected
watersheds, but it is not the same on the prairies or in other
places. Certainly there must be an accommodation of local
flexibility and a co-operation among all levels of government,
but there is a role for the federal government in eliminating the
race to the bottom or those who would not make sufficient
investments. We need some national standards.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to stand today to applaud the nurses of our communities and
our country on National Nursing Week.
Nurses deal with difficult circumstances daily, both emotionally
and physically, as frontline medical staff. Their jobs are
tremendously challenging and they face many difficulties every
day. Our nurses are our everyday heroes.
I would like to pay a special tribute to the nurses of Humber
River Regional Hospital in York West for the wonderful job they
do, and especially to Cathy, my daughter, an emergency nurse at
Humber Hospital.
I wish to say God bless all of them, and on behalf of the
constituents of York West, I wish to express our thanks.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended the 10th anniversary Traffic
Safety Conference in my constituency in Golden, B.C.
While 95% of traffic accidents are caused by drivers, national
statistics prove that divided highways reduce accidents and save
lives.
The cost of building highways in my constituency is absolutely
gigantic. A $5 million project in the Kicking Horse Canyon will
construct only 200 metres of the highway.
The Trans-Canada Highway between Salmon Arm and the Alberta
border, with a traffic count of over 15 million, saw 150
fatalities.
In the same period the Coquihalla highway, with 25 million, had
only 66. These statistics unfortunately will be proven again
during the upcoming Victoria Day holiday weekend.
1400
The transport minister knows full well that the federal
government contribution to national highways is inadequate. The
question is this: what is it going to take to get this
government to recognize it has a responsibility to ensure the
upgrade of the Trans-Canada Highway? This is literally a life or
death situation.
* * *
[Translation]
ALLERGY-ASTHMA AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
the month of May has been declared “Allergy-Asthma Awareness
Month”.
More than six million Canadians suffer from allergies or asthma.
In many cases, their conditions can be life threatening.
The Allergy/Asthma Information Association helps people with
allergies and asthma cope with their symptoms and improve their
quality of life. It provides educational services as well as
support to people with allergies and asthma and their families.
Thus far in 2001, this volunteer health organization has been
flooded with inquiries from all over the country.
Congratulations to the members of the Allergy/Asthma Information
Association on their accomplishments, and best wishes for a
successful Allergy-Asthma Awareness Month.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year we celebrate National Forest Week from May 6
to 12. Canada is richly endowed with 10% of the world's
temperate and boreal forests.
[Translation]
A successful future depends on the sustainability of these
forests. We are protecting the world's forest resources by using
sources that can be replenished for our lumber and wood products.
[English]
Moreover, by moving into the value added wood products market,
Canadians continue to benefit from the resource and maintain
employment opportunities at home.
[Translation]
At this point in time, the forestry companies are engaged in
consultations with aboriginal and environmental organizations
with a view to determining what shape the decision-making process
will take in future to ensure sustainable forest management.
[English]
For its part, the Government of Canada is working hard in its
role in forestry. It is promoting our forest management
practices to increase our access to international markets, as
well as contributing to scientific research and development to
ensure a sustainable and economically viable forest industry.
* * *
ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is National Elizabeth Fry Week and a time to
reflect upon the principles that Elizabeth Fry held regarding the
treatment of prisoners and their families. We also remember her
accomplishments in reforming the prison system of her time.
The majority of female prisoners are the sole caregivers of
their families at the time of their arrest. These mothers,
during their incarceration, become unable to support their
children nor can they even visit with them on a regular basis.
Children are sentenced by association when their mothers are
jailed.
I am calling on the government to examine this unfortunate
situation. It is time we recognized that mother-child separation
is a harmful practice with consequences that extend to future
generations.
It is time that we take a page from the book of Elizabeth Fry
and take steps to reform the system. We must not punish the
children of our society for the actions of their parents but
provide alternatives that are more understanding to the needs of
all involved.
* * *
KOREAN WAR VETERANS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on the 56th anniversary of VE Day,
Canadians would like to think that our government has done all it
can to remember our war veterans. I am sad to say that this is
not so.
When Korean vets asked the government to contribute to a
monument in Korea for next year's 50th anniversary of the end of
the Korean war, DND and the Department of Veterans Affairs said
they would not. This is an all too familiar story.
Korean vets raised $110,000 for a life sized bronze replica of a
Canadian soldier, and with that monument are two replicas of
Korean children each holding 16 maple leaves to symbolize 16
Canadians whose graves could not be located. The names of 516
Canadians who died in Korea will be inscribed, and with them, the
inscription, which came from the Koreans, “We will never forget
you, brave sons of Canada”.
Korea has not forgotten. Too bad our government did.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE WEEK
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform hon. members and Canadians that May 7 to 13 is
National Palliative Care Week.
[English]
Hospice palliative care is aimed at relieving suffering and
improving the quality of life for persons who are living with or
dying from advanced illness. This type of care includes the
person and the family in planning treatment and care so they can
make choices based on knowledge and understanding.
Hospice palliative care offers social, emotional and spiritual
support to the person as well as the family from members of a
diverse team that includes physicians, nurses, social workers,
home care planners, volunteers and other therapists.
Please join me in commending the dedicated volunteers,
caregivers and professionals who provide hospice palliative care
and the Canadian Palliative Care Association and its affiliates
that are working to ensure the comfort and dignity of the dying
and their families.
* * *
[Translation]
ALEXANDRA SOROCÉANU
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the old saying
that one can go far without having lived long truly applies to a
young 18 year old student from the Séminaire de Sherbrooke,
Alexandra Sorocéanu, who was the big winner of the Quebec finals
of the science fair known as Expo-sciences.
Her analysis and popularization of a study on the expression of
a protein in people who are diabetic or glucose intolerant not
only impressed jury members, but earned her an invitation to the
International Engineering and Science Fair to be held in
California in July. Alexandra will also take part in the Canadian
finals, which will take place in Kingston, from May 13 to 20.
Alexandra, who wants to attend medical school, developed an
interest for that profession by volunteering for several years in
a hospital, in geriatric care.
This is a person who deserves our admiration and who is a fine
illustration of Quebec youth, which makes us proud and has the
potential to build tomorrow's Quebec.
Congratulations Alexandra.
* * *
SOCIÉTÉ ZOOLOGIQUE DE SAINT-FÉLICIEN
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 4, the Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State
for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec announced a contribution of nearly $10 million to the
Société zoologique de Saint-Félicien for the construction of the
Centre de conservation de la biodiversité boréale.
This major project will put the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region
into a world class niche, that of conserving biodiversity and
promoting sustainable development.
The project will also benefit the regional economy. There is
talk of consolidating the 175 existing jobs and creating more.
This is an excellent example of action by our government to
develop Quebec's resource regions in co-operation with dynamic
individuals such as Ghislain Gagnon, mayor Bertrand Côté, Adrien
Grenier and the whole team.
Congratulations, everyone.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is National Nursing Week and time for Canadians to
celebrate nursing and nurses' accomplishments and promote their
contribution to the health of Canadians.
Today 230,000 nurses provide care to Canadians in hospitals,
clinics and home care settings. Every day and every night nurses
do their work to relieve pain, to promote recovery and to provide
comfort.
Nurses are indeed a pillar of our health care system. However,
the last decade has been a trying time for them. Federal health
care cuts led to massive layoffs, a decrease in enrolment in
nursing schools and a brain drain to south of the border. Stress
and burnout are common among nurses in the current environment.
National Nursing Week is a time for Canadians to recognize
nurses and their important contribution. It is also time for the
government to restore dignity to this profession.
I ask members to please join me in congratulating and thanking
our nurses.
* * *
[Translation]
OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
year the TD Bank financial group awards a series of scholarships
to recognize outstanding community leadership.
This year, 20 young Canadians will receive scholarships of up to
$50,000. Valérie Côté of the Sainte-Foy CEGEP will be one of
them.
Valérie set up a program to collect and distribute school
supplies to less fortunate children. In addition, she set up a
committee to promote student's self-esteem, including raising
awareness of anorexia.
This does not include the hours she spends tutoring or her
participation in a mission of humanitarian aid to Mexico.
Yesterday, she also received the Governor General's gold medal
for academic excellence among the 6,000 students in her CEGEP.
These students are the next generation of young people. To all
the winners go our most sincere congratulations.
* * *
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, May 9
marks the 10th anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, where 26
miners lost their lives due to gross negligence and a wilful
blindness to workplace safety.
It has been almost a year since the justice committee
unanimously endorsed a motion directing parliament to amend the
criminal code to make directors of businesses truly accountable
for the working conditions in any enterprise under their
direction.
1410
Now the minister says she wants to consult further with business
and industry before she takes any action. The best way for
industry to have its say on this issue is to table a draft bill
and let industry make its representations to the standing
committee.
The Canadian people want parliament to amend the criminal code
so that when corporate greed leads to corporate murder, there
will be a corresponding corporate accountability and corporate
responsibility.
Ten years is long enough. The government should implement the
recommendations of the Westray inquiry and should do it in this
session of parliament without delay.
* * *
[Translation]
MENTAL HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May
2001 is the 50th anniversary of Mental Health Week in Canada.
To mark this occasion, the Quebec division of the Canadian
Mental Health Association is organizing various activities so
that the public can learn more about the particular problems of
mental health and give them some thought.
Through its mission of promotion and prevention, the Quebec
division of the Canadian Mental Health Association is an
important partner among the providers of essential services.
This organization carefully harmonizes its activities with the
strategies of Quebec's department of health and social services,
as set out in the Quebec policy on health and welfare.
We are never immune to mental health problems. Let us remain
sensitive to those suffering from such problems and grateful to
all those looking after their well-being.
Congratulations to all the members of the Quebec division of the
Canadian Mental Health Association, and a big thanks to them
for the quality work they do.
* * *
[English]
XAVIER GORDON
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to extend congratulations to an outstanding young
constituent of mine, Mr. Xavier Gordon, who is here today to
accept the Toronto Dominion Canada Trust scholarship.
Received by only 20 students nationwide, this is one of Canada's
most prestigious scholarships, awarded for outstanding community
leadership. The award is worth up to $50,000 for him to attend a
Canadian university of his choice.
Xavier's long list of achievements, through persistence and
determination, include the founding of a multicultural council at
Meadowvale Secondary School. Through his hard work, the interest
and participation of both students and teachers has increased
dramatically in a wide range of multicultural activities.
Xavier plans a career in aeronautical engineering. I am certain
he will achieve any goal he chooses and will reach the very top
of his field.
* * *
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, May 7 to 13 has been dedicated as National Nursing Week.
The slogan this year is “Nurses: Champions for Health”.
The Canadian Nurses Association is the professional voice of
nursing in Canada. Its purpose is to advance the quality of
nursing in the interests of all Canadians. The association is a
federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations
representing more than 110,000 registered nurses.
We have all at one time or another experienced the kindness,
patience, wisdom and competence of our nurses and are grateful
for their dedication to our health care.
On behalf of all members, I wish to extend thanks to our nurses
across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pleasure that I inform the House of Canada's first
Information Technology Week.
This initiative is the result of a partnership between the
Department of Industry and the Information Technology Association
of Canada. Canada is advanced in this field, in terms of both
Internet connectivity and innovation in the use of information
technologies.
In 50 years, this sector has become the fastest growing in
Canada, which has a positive impact on other industries and
encourages the development of Canadian communities.
This week will be a celebration of Canadian skills and
achievements in information technology. All Canadian communities
are invited to participate in the various activities: symposiums,
workshops, exhibits, contests and more.
Long live Canada's Information Technology Week.
* * *
[English]
CRYSTAL SIEMENS
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
to recognize the talent and dedication of a young woman from
Saskatchewan, Crystal Siemens. Crystal was recently named
fashion designer of the year by the city of Toronto.
Growing up in rural Saskatchewan, Crystal moved to Toronto in
1985 to attend Ryerson Polytechnic in its well respected fashion
program.
Ever since she has been a force to be reckoned with, starting
with her own signature line of clothing and following that up
last year with her uniform 808 line.
1415
Crystal is looking to expand this year by moving to Vancouver
and then to Montreal. She hopes to move west to the rest of
North America and then to the eastern and western hemispheres.
Crystal is the daughter of proud parents George and Pat Siemens
of Fiske in my riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. I join
George and Pat in congratulating Crystal on her award and in
wishing her the best of luck in what looks like a very bright
future indeed.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the 2000 red book there are some
interesting quotes from the Liberals. They go to great lengths
to tell Canadians that they are concerned about water safety and
security.
On page 20 of the red book they go as far as to promise real
action on water safety and security. They obviously saw the need
then. The need is even more acute today. When will the federal
government take real action on water safety and security for
municipalities across the country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have put forward, and it is an application at this
time, a $2.6 billion program as the federal portion of
provincial, municipal and federal action.
We have said that we want this money to be used for programs
like water safety. Whenever there are applications by municipal
and provincial governments we will be very happy to pay our third
out of this fund.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, many studies including a recent one
from McGill point out that Canada's water system is the oldest
and most dilapidated of the entire aging infrastructure in our
municipalities. That has been since the red book.
We need to know if the federal government has the increase in
funds that will be required to meet the true need on a priority
list. Where does that fit on its list of priorities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the red book of the last election we talked about it.
We put in $2.6 billion effective January 1, 2001.
When the provincial and municipal governments have projects to
improve the quality of the water in their localities, the federal
government will be very happy to pay one-third of the cost.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated today
that he has never discussed with the finance minister the
parliamentary reforms we are reading about in the newspaper.
It is a great opportunity today for him to get a jump on the
finance minister in terms of parliamentary reform by indicating
to us whether he will allow his MPs to vote freely today on
behalf of their constituents on the issue of water safety and
security.
It is an issue that is coming up right away. I know he is
resisting the urge to say something else, but will he allow his
MPs to vote freely on this issue today and get a head start on
the finance minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we always have discussions within the party. We have
had more free votes under this administration than ever before.
When we look at the previous seven years there has been a lot
more free votes on this side than on the other side and less
members have been kicked out of caucus.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
you will notice that there was no answer to that question. Just
a few months ago the government House leader and the member for
Toronto—Danforth had been exploring a very interesting idea of a
parliamentary committee on the issue of water.
That seemed like a pretty good idea to this side, and it turned
out the Prime Minister said no way. Will he say today that a
parliamentary committee on water would be an excellent idea? Yes
or no.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House leaders' meeting will
be this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. I am very much looking forward to
the meeting this afternoon to discuss this and any other issue.
The hon. member said that it was this side of the House that
refused it before. He should get his facts straight by speaking
to his own colleague.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, let us get this plain and clear. The member for
Toronto—Danforth and the House leader approached with an idea
and that idea did not go through.
Will these two individuals, along with the support of the Prime
Minister, today commit that we will have a parliamentary
committee on the issue of water? Yes or no.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know which part of yes
the hon. member does not understand this afternoon. We have
indicated before that this is what we wanted. We are still
obviously in favour of that which we wanted. Let us hope that is
the case.
In any event, the hon. member can listen to the deliberations
later this day or consult his own colleague to see whether yes is
something that is agreeable to everyone else.
* * *
[Translation]
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
Quebec City summit, the Prime Minister declared that chapter 11
of NAFTA governing disputes between investors and government
worked well.
Yet the Prime Minister should know that Canada is
accumulating setbacks under chapter 11. Following Ethyl
Corporation and S.D. Myers, a tribunal has found in favour of
Metalclad over Mexico, in a matter of expropriation, despite
Canada's opinion to the contrary and its intervention.
In the light of all these examples, will the Prime Minister
acknowledge that chapter 11 creates problems, since it severely
restricts countries' sovereignty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
repeat that we have an agreement with the United States and
Mexico. NAFTA was established in 1994. There are a few cases
where we did not win.
I said, and I repeat, that in all of the trade we have, for
example, with the United States, which amounts to over $1
billion a day, the number of cases is not very great.
We have said that when we negotiate the agreement with all the
Americas, this chapter will be re-examined by all the other
countries, and we will be in a position to assess—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
would be worth knowing the Canadian position, especially in
reference to the last case mentioned, that of Metalclad, in
which the Mexican town of Guadalcazar, which wanted to establish
an ecological reserve and denied Metalclad a permit for its
toxic waste burial site, will have to pay out compensation in
the amount of $25.5 million.
Since the Prime Minister sees only petty disputes under chapter
11, does he find if fair that a country has to pay out millions
of dollars to a company that wants to establish a dump—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not in a position at the moment to analyze the situation in
Mexico and whether land acquired has been expropriated and
permits have been given.
I think, in the case of Canada, we have been well served. There
is always room for improvement, but under the relations that we
have, for example with the United States, the number of cases
is minuscule, compared with the volume of our exchanges with
them.
As I said, and I repeat, in the negotiations with the countries
of the Americas, all the countries will have an opinion on
this chapter, and we will see whether we need to change it.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition to
those three defeats Canada has sustained, there is the UPS case.
This delivery company is taking the federal government to court
for $230 million in damages.
UPS's claim under NAFTA, chapter 11, is that Canada Post's courier
service is unfair competition to it.
Does the Prime Minister still maintain there is no problem with
chapter 11, when the integrity of a public service as essential
as Canada Post is in danger?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime
Minister has said and as the minister has repeated, given the
full context of our trade with the United States, chapter 11 is
working reasonably well.
The opposition cited the case of Metalclad just a moment ago. It
is interesting to hear the president of Metalclad decrying the
fact that he sees the ruling as a loss for his company.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, until very
recently, the government's web site said, to quote from this
famous Internet site, “Canada is not advocating the replication
of NAFTA investor-state rules in the FTAA”. Strange to say, this
position on investments has disappeared from that site.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what position on chapter 11 the
Minister for International Trade has gone to Washington to
defend today in his meetings with his Mexican and American
counterparts?
1425
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has
noted, the minister is having the opportunity this week to raise
the issue of chapter 11 and other issues with trade
representative Zoellick and with his Mexican counterpart.
The fact of the matter is, as the Prime Minister has said, the
clause works reasonably well. One would think the sky was
falling, to listen to the Bloc. There is a grand total of five
cases involving Canada. Quite frankly we have done pretty well
in these disputes.
* * *
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
one of Canada's most eminent ecologists and water experts, David
Schindler, said last year that water quality had become another
casualty of federalism. That would seem to be what happened to
the Tory motion today, that it has become a casualty of
federalism.
Does the Prime Minister not see that what is needed in the
country at the moment and what there is a mandate for in
parliament and across the country is national leadership on the
establishment of national enforceable standards, not guidelines
but standards? Will the Prime Minister show some leadership in
this regard and say that he will lead Canada into a century of
clean water?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just explained that we have a program of
infrastructure that is available to all municipalities to improve
the quality of water everywhere in Canada. It is there.
The hon. member says that we should not respect the
constitution. We can have national standards but we cannot
impose them unilaterally. We have to discuss with the provinces,
but the water supply is generally speaking a responsibility first
of the municipalities and after that of the provincial
governments. We have established some guidelines that we invite
all provinces to follow. If they want, we would be very happy to
make them a federal law.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister there is no constitutional
mandate that he has to only offer one-third of the cost for a lot
of the infrastructure development that needs to go into place.
Why can they not up what they are prepared to share in terms of
the cost?
While they are at it, why do they not do it in their own
jurisdiction on aboriginal reserves where they do not have any
provinces to deal with? That is a place where the federal
government can establish an example that provinces could follow
and do on reserves what needs to be done right across the
country: have standards and have them enforced.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as the federal government is concerned in our own
jurisdiction. Where we are responsible, we take the necessary
steps. In the case of northern Saskatchewan it is not an Indian
reserve. It is a municipality within the responsibility of the
Saskatchewan government, an NDP government.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Will the minister tell
the House whether the government would agree to act immediately
with the provinces and territories respecting their jurisdiction
to ensure enforceable national drinking water standards, not
guidelines, that would be enshrined in a safe water act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the member that I am prepared to work with my
provincial partners toward making sure that Canadians have the
safest drinking water possible.
The House has heard the word leadership over the last couple of
minutes in connection with water. The way the government and the
Prime Minister have shown leadership is by having twice annual
meetings with provincial governments to talk about the guidelines
on water safety. We continue to do that. Provinces then meet
their responsibilities to make sure water is delivered safely to
Canadians.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the tenor of the Minister of Health's response but,
having said that, Canadians are looking for more leadership from
the federal government.
What is the Government of Canada prepared to do to expedite the
concern of Canadians over their drinking water?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are prepared to continue working with provinces to make sure
we have a consensus on levels of concentration of chemicals and
other materials in water to keep Canadians healthy and to make
sure they have the drinking water they need. That is what we
have been doing for the last eight years with provincial
governments.
I am quite happy, as I have already said, to work with my
provincial counterparts and ask them if they think that their job
of delivering that water would be made easier if they had a
federal statute.
1430
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would
care to stand today in his place and make a commitment that
communities in crisis, such as North Battleford, will get
immediate emergency, and I stress emergency, federal funding to
resolve their water crisis. Will he do that today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in North Battleford, just as last year in Walkerton, Health
Canada has sent in emergency teams to work with provincial and
municipal authorities to do the chemical analysis, to try to find
the source of the problem and to provide assistance to those in
need. Health Canada is proud to be part of that team. We are
working very well with the people of North Battleford and we look
forward to that continued collaboration.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we already know what the problem is
and it will take $20 million to fix it.
I want to ask the government to do something today. Will it
step up to the bar and come up with some emergency funding to
help us avert this crisis? It will take $20 million. Is the
government up to the challenge?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the hon. member that in the most recent of the two
infrastructure programs the government has invested in, we have
committed $56 million to Saskatchewan alone, and that was just
our share. That was one-third of the total outlay to put in new
water and sewage treatment plants, and new infrastructure in
cities and towns. It comes to a total of over $150 million when
all three governments' contributions are combined. I believe
that is a very significant contribution. We are prepared to
continue along those lines.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONE DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under this
government, the number of francophone deputy ministers is
constantly declining. Francophone deputy ministers now account
for only 22% of the total, that is seven out of 31.
How does the government explain this drastic decline in the
number of francophones holding positions of authority in the
public service, with the proportion of francophone deputy
ministers having gone from 32% to 20%?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
must take into account all the senior positions in the public
service, because some assistant deputy ministers have more
responsibilities than deputy ministers.
Francophones account for 41.2% of all associate deputy
ministers. Overall, francophones account for 29.2%, while they
make up 24% of the population. Francophones are very well
represented in the public service.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, his deputy
ministers will be proud of him.
When francophone deputy ministers accounted for 32% of the total
number of deputy ministers, a political scientist, who is now
the minister responsible for official languages, said that this
situation reflected the government's political will to improve
the fate of francophones.
Following the same logic today, how can we not conclude that
there is a blatant lack of political will on the part of this
government to improve the situation of francophones in the
country, since the number of them holding positions of authority
is constantly declining?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
29% is more than the percentage of francophones in the overall
population. I wonder if anglophones account for 29% of all
deputy ministers in Quebec City.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it has finally happened: Beware of drinking water. More and
more Canadians are under a boil water order and are being told
not to drink water from the tap. As usual, it seems as though
the government has no plans.
Will the government take a leadership role and together with the
provinces and territories develop a comprehensive plan on safe
water?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government provides leadership by sitting with provincial
authorities, health experts and scientists to make sure there are
guidelines in place to assist provinces in their responsibility
to provide safe drinking water.
I cannot let the question pass without observing that when we
introduced legislation some years ago, Bill C-14, to deal with a
federal responsibility, namely the quality of the materials
through which the water passes, that party opposed it and said
that the legislation was unnecessary. I gather it has changed
its tune.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that party is good at passing the buck, blaming someone
else and blaming the provinces.
1435
We are talking about leadership. We are talking about taking a
plan and putting the plan into effect.
We hear about the dollars are being sent to the provinces and
the municipalities, $4 billion dollars. They say it is not
getting to them. The municipalities say they need over $16
billion just to handle the problems they have now. When will the
government live up to its commitment?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are happy to debate
ideas but we do think that gamesmanship is really unnecessary.
Let us look at the Alliance Party's position on this very issue
when I introduced Bill C-14. The member for Macleod said:
Doom and gloom is always wonderful, but Canadians do enjoy a
pretty good standard of drinking water. Maybe some individuals
who say that environmental legislation is totally ineffective
should reflect upon the success we have had.
The member went on to say, referring to my bill at the time:
What a change we have had across the way.
* * *
[Translation]
STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year's
Statistics Canada census will not yield any valid data on ethnic
or cultural origin, because it deliberately skews responses by
offering the additional category of Canadian, which has no
scientific basis whatsoever.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the cabinet's manipulation
of the census questions makes it impossible to monitor the rate
of assimilation of this country's francophones?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no manipulation when
it comes to questions. As a matter of fact let me quote the
privacy commissioner who feels very confident with what is
happening. He said “I am satisfied that the questions are
reasonable and appropriate from the point of view of privacy”.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister did not understand my question, does the Prime Minister
realize that the government's manipulations are in the process
of transforming a scientific tool into a propaganda tool and,
furthermore, cast doubt on the very principle of the
independence of Statistics Canada?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only propaganda we hear
comes from the Bloc Quebecois side not the Liberal government
side. I am sad the Bloc Quebecois has taken this initiative to
collect the statistics and to manipulate them.
Let me repeat again what the privacy commissioner said. He said
“I am satisfied that the questions are reasonable and
appropriate from the point of view of privacy. I am satisfied
that all appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the
privacy of individuals”.
* * *
GOVERNMENT LOANS
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the industry minister said in the House
that a $32 million loan to Buhler Versatile Inc. was a simple
transfer of an existing loan. Wrong. The truth is the new loan
has a lot more zeros: zero interest rate owing, zero security,
zero jobs, zero respect for the Canadian taxpayer.
The political criteria for the loan was that it delayed layoffs
in a Liberal riding until after the last federal election. What
other criteria if any must a company meet in order to receive a
gift like this from Industry Canada?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative, former
Reform and now Alliance member is wrong, wrong, wrong. This
loan, which had no guarantees attached to it, was given in 1987
by the former Conservative government. The premier and industry
minister of Manitoba wrote to this government asking them to
support the transfer.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, there is incredible ignorance on that side of the
House on this issue.
Since the member obviously does not know, nor do any of the
other members it seems, I would like to inform them that BVI is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Buhler Industries. It was created
solely for the purpose of assuming a $32 million loan. BVI never
owned the plant or the plant assets. The plant assets cannot be
taken back as payment if BVI cannot pay the loan. At the time
BVI received the unsecured loan, totally unsecured, it had total
assets of $100. I have to ask on behalf of the Canadian
taxpayers and the members of the Canadian Alliance, why did—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry.
1440
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad he used the word
unsecured because that is what that party is all about today. The
loan was unsecured thanks to the former Conservative government.
Let me quote what the premier of Manitoba asked. “The
consequences of the Buhler bid did not begin—”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the
question but the Conservative Party here feels threatened.
The Speaker: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary
wants to answer and we all want to hear the answer.
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is why it is now
the fifth party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I can only help the parliamentary secretary
so far.
* * *
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians
are celebrating National Forest Week, I have a question for the
Minister of Natural Resources.
As hon. members know, a great many Canadians rely on our forests
for their well-being. With the increased demand on our forest
land, will Canadians be able to count on our forests to
contribute so much to our way of life in the future?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to draw attention to
National Forest Week.
Nearly half of Canada's land mass is covered by forests. We are
home to 10% of all the world's forests. The sector employs more
than 750,000 Canadians in more than 350 communities and
contributes nearly $20 billion to Canada's GDP, plus immense
social, cultural and environmental value.
All Canadians must be dedicated to sustainable forest
management, as is the government. To get the full story, people
can consult the Government of Canada online at www.nrcan.gc.ca.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Minister of National Defence.
The minister knows that this week George Bush's officials are in
Canada lobbying for the national missile defence, the new star
wars, and that last year his officials stated in a briefing paper
that while NMD does not require Canadian involvement, intercepts
would occur over Canadian territory.
U.S. defence analysts have said that Canada might want to
request extra funding for hard hats, but that there is not much
else that can be done. The debris will not fall on Toronto, we
hope, but who knows?
I want to ask the minister when the government will finally
stand up to the United States and say no to this insane
escalation—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the United States is concerned, as we all should be
concerned, about the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Whether or not this is an appropriate response is
one that will be determined over the next few months in terms of
consultation that is now being undertaken.
Canada will be part of that consultation, as will many other
countries. We want to know the specifics of what the United
States has in mind. It has a broad range of options. It is
important that we know what its intentions are so that we will be
in a position to then make a rational decision on the matter.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
four years I have been pressing the government to pay attention
to the drug health crisis in Vancouver's downtown east side.
Thousands of lives have been needlessly lost and public safety is
at risk.
The Minister of Health expresses sympathy but people are still
dying. Now even the head of the RCMP drug enforcement program is
calling on the government to look at safe injection sites as part
of a comprehensive strategy.
Will the Minister of Health finally save lives by taking action
on this matter and supporting safe injection sites?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have been working with Mayor Owen who has shown real
leadership in Vancouver with his report on the options available
to deal with this tragic issue.
We have met with the mayor and have examined his proposals. I
know he is consulting on them now. We have put money into the
community to develop a resource centre. We will continue to work
with local authorities to find the best solution possible.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
all know that rural Canada has been under siege in the last
number of years.
The Canada infrastructure program that was announced last year
does have a component for rural communities to improve their
water treatment plants but the demands far exceed the amount of
dollars there.
1445
Will the minister responsible for rural Canada commit today that
funding will be put into place which will allow rural communities
to have the same dependable safe water as urban communities?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right.
The Canada provincial infrastructure program this time does
include a component for rural Canada so that the infrastructure
in rural Canada can be upgraded, as well as the infrastructure in
the rest of the country.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure the Prime Minister is troubled by the deteriorating
situation in Zimbabwe, including the intimidation of Canada's
high commissioner and the director of CARE.
The foreign minister told parliament last week that a response
to Zimbabwe by Canada might wait until the next Commonwealth
heads of government meeting some months away.
Bearing in mind the leadership that Canada showed in fighting
apartheid, would the Prime Minister not agree at least to call
home the Canadian high commissioner to Zimbabwe for consultations
and consider other urgent action now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will look into this possibility. If it is a useful
thing to do, we will do it.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, having met over the weekend in Manitoba with former
employees of the Sagkeeng Reserve Virginia Fontaine treatment
centre, I am appalled over the lack of accountability of the
facility by Health Canada officials and the inability to treat
the substance abuse of patients.
Now we have learned that Health Canada officials are refusing to
turn over vital documents to the RCMP in order to complete the
pending forensic audit.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and North Development can talk
all he wants about accountability, but how can Canadians believe
the government when they see this kind of thing happening?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are three things. First, this is the minister who shut
down funding to that centre when we could not be satisfied the
money was being used properly.
Second, we undertook a forensic audit. That will continue and
will be completed.
Third, we have given every document to the RCMP that it needs to
do its investigation and we hope it now gets it done.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I invite the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development to sit down with some of
these former employees and they will hear the real story.
While many past employees of the Virginia Fontaine treatment
centre wanted to treat substance abusers, the truth is that there
was a lack of trained staff and helpful programs in place to do
anything about the problem.
The past employees with whom I spoke on the weekend compared it
to a babysitting service. Why did Health Canada officials fail
to recognize these problems long ago and take action to make sure
those who needed the help really received it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we were satisfied that the services being provided were of the
quality that is appropriate for centres of that kind.
Let me add another thing for the hon. member. We have centres
across the country. For example, some of them are now treating
some of the children from the Innu communities of Davis Inlet and
Sheshatshiu which are making a real contribution to the safety,
the health and the lives of those kids. Health Canada is proud
of the work we are doing in that regard.
* * *
[Translation]
STATISTICS CANADA
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the census is one of the tools used by the government to enforce
the Official Languages Act and identify the needs of communities
throughout Canada.
Will the Prime Minister admit that it is very worrying to see
the minister responsible for the application of the Official
Languages Act endorsing the manipulation of scientific data
concerning the ethnic and cultural origin of citizens who
complete the census?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Statistics Canada is an organization which has built up an
excellent reputation over the years and which conducts the census
in the best interest of all Canadians. The nature of questions
must take into account all the laws of parliament, including the
law on the right to privacy.
Under the circumstances, I think that Statistics Canada is doing
its best, and we believe that the statistics will, in any event,
tell us the percentage of francophones in Canada.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the manipulation of such sensitive figures will mean
that thousands of people, particularly Acadians and francophones,
may no longer appear in the official data.
Does the Prime Minister realize that this manipulation is one
more thing that will distort the real figures on the rate of
assimilation of francophones, thus opening the door in the medium
term to a decrease in bilingual government services?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone is entirely free to indicate their mother tongue in this
questionnaire. All francophones and others may indicate their
mother tongue. Some may refuse to do so and that is apparently
their decision.
However Statistics Canada is taking the necessary steps to ensure
that we have the best statistics possible in the circumstances.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last week Canadian travellers saw
their choice in airlines reduced yet again when Air Canada
announced that it intended to acquire a substantial share of
Roots Air. This is clearly an attempt by Air Canada to enter the
discount airline market by the back door.
Discount carriers like WestJet and Canada 3000 could now face
competition from two Air Canada airlines. Given the dominant
position of Air Canada and this latest blow to the freedom of
choice, what action is the minister prepared to take now to
ensure fair competition?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that the air restructuring process
has gone remarkably well because there is competition. There is
choice on all major city fares in Canada and prices have come
down.
The problem with Roots Air is indeed distressing to all of us
that want competition. The commissioner of the competition
bureau has said that he will treat this as a full merger and will
look into it.
As Minister of Transport empowered under the act that was passed
last year, Transport Canada has the ability to look into the
public interest. We are very concerned about this development.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that the minister
is concerned. Last week's demise of Roots Air proves that small
carriers cannot compete with Air Canada on major routes.
This morning the standing committee on transport heard testimony
from the competition bureau that Air Canada did not currently
face effective competition on a national basis and that the
provisions of the Competition Act would not be sufficient to
create a competitive domestic market.
Is the minister now prepared to create real competition by
allowing limited entry of foreign airlines into the Canadian
market?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is consistent with their right wing friends for
cabotage.
However let me say this. The United States government, the
United States carriers and the United States air unions are not
interested in serving point to point within Canada. There is
some limited interest on the part of Virgin Atlantic to do that.
Once we allow any of those foreign carriers in, we know what
they will do. They will run on the main trunk routes where the
money is to be made: Toronto to Vancouver and Toronto to Calgary.
Who will suffer? It will be WestJet. It will be Canada 3000 and
it will be Air Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Canadians in rural and remote communities face unique health
needs and challenges.
Could the minister tell this House what innovate action the
Government of Canada is taking to address those needs?
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle for his question.
It affords me the opportunity to announce the Government of
Canada's commitment to better meeting the unique needs of rural
and remote communities.
Just last Friday, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of
State for Rural Development announced $440,000 for three rural
health projects in Shawville, Quebec. This is part of the $50
million Innovations in Rural and Community Health Initiatives.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board stated that no legislative changes
were required to give organic growers an exemption from the
Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system. However a published
paper of the Canadian Wheat Board states:
If an exemption were presented as an option to farmers it could
not be done right away since there is no clause in CWB
legislation to allow an exemption and the legislation would
therefore have to be amended.
Is it necessary to change the Canadian Wheat Board legislation
to allow exemptions from the monopoly? Yes or no.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I pointed out in the House last week was that when
the original legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act
was put forward in the predecessor to Bill C-4, we attempted to
include a specific procedure for dealing with the jurisdiction of
the board, either the expansion or the diminution of that
jurisdiction.
It was at the insistence of the opposition that explicit
procedure was removed from the draft legislation.
1455
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if the minister would have listened
to the opposition we would have a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board
today.
Ron Tetoff is an organic producer in Kamsack, Saskatchewan. In
February he had arranged a sale to a buyer in Europe that would
have given him $9 a bushel for organic wheat at his farm gate.
The sale fell through and Mr. Tetoff was forced to go through the
Canadian Wheat Board's buyback system.
The price the board charged him for his own grain made it
impossible for Mr. Tetoff to complete his sale to Europe. Why is
the government stifling value added organic farmers like Mr.
Tetoff?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I make the point that the place to begin the
dialogue with respect to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat
Board is with the duly elected directors of the Canadian Wheat
Board where farmers make the decision and not politicians.
I point out that on December 8 of last year the Canadian Wheat
Board board of directors announced a new producer direct sale
program for organic producers. Producers will now have an
expanded and improved option for marketing their organic wheat
and barley themselves.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the
ministerial tours in Quebec paid for with public funds, we are
now learning that the government is using the financial
resources of the Canada Information Office, the CIO, to conduct
a poll for political purposes, this for a mere $193,000.
Will the minister of public works admit that this further
evidence that the government is using the CIO's resources for
partisan purposes and that it confuses the interest of its party
with that of the public?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CIO has been conducting polls
three times a year, in January, May and October, since 1998.
This is the ninth poll. Therefore, these polls are not partisan
measures connected with an election.
I also remind the hon. member that these polls are available to
all, since they are on the CIO's Internet site.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for the infrastructure program in western Canada. Why
is the federal government taking so long to make funding
decisions under the Canada-Saskatchewan infrastructure program?
People are looking for answers because communities such as North
Battleford need help to deal with their problems right now.
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of decisions
have already been made. There will be a number of additional
decisions this coming Friday.
Let us remember that the deadline for applications on the first
round was February 1. Over 1,500 applications have been received
from western Canada, roughly 600 of them for pure water and water
disposal projects. I think that is extraordinary.
I might add that by the end of the program six years from now
over $6 billion will have been spent throughout Canada, with $2
billion for western Canada.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Doyle Kemp, like a growing number of
wheat farmers in Saskatchewan, is now a registered organic
grower.
He has found his own market. He has found a customer who wants
to buy 3,000 bushels of his organically grown durum wheat, but
before he can make that sale he has to turn over $1,750 to the
Canadian Wheat Board. That is what is called a buyback. Why
does the government continue to penalize western farmers for
diversification?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman and his constituents to
discuss the procedure directly with the board of directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I would also point out, as I said in response to a previous
question, that under the directions of the Canadian Wheat Board
there is now a producer direct sale program in place with a lower
administrative charge that can be of assistance in these
circumstances.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
SPACE SHIELD
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two American
experts on nuclear armament and anti-missile defence will soon
meet with Canadian officials.
Today, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois sent a letter to the
Prime Minister in which he asked for a meeting with these two
envoys.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to respond
favourably to the request made by the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois by making it possible for opposition parties to meet
these two experts and thus get all the information available?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will take that matter under advisement. It is
still to be determined as to what the schedule will be of the
consultation and at what levels the consultation will occur.
I want to assure the hon. member that ultimately this parliament
will play a key role in dealing with the matter of missile
defence decisions.
* * *
NURSING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is somewhat ironic and telling, in this week set
aside to honour the work of the nursing profession, that a report
has just been released showing that nurses face higher injury
rates than police or firefighters and are more likely to miss
work due to illness or disability.
Is the Minister of Health, in this week of all weeks, prepared
to start addressing the serious situation facing nurses in Canada
today, put in place a national strategy and deal with the nursing
shortage.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to bring the member up to date. I was present this
morning in Toronto for the launch of that excellent report by the
Canadian Institutes of Health Information for which provincial
and federal governments paid.
On the question of nursing, the information in the report today
reflects the situation on the ground. Last September and October
I worked with provincial ministers to develop a national strategy
on nursing in Canada in order to address many of these very
problems we have talked about.
I also opened an office of nursing policy at Health Canada so we
could have someone available to the federal Minister of Health to
make sure that the nursing perspective would be reflected as we
go about the business of managing health care.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the
debate on water.
Let me begin by commending the member for Fundy—Royal on his
motion. I believe it is long overdue. Unfortunately, it takes a
tragedy to bring attention to this most basic of human needs. I
find it almost unbelievable that after the tragic experience in
Walkerton, we are now experiencing the same kind of problems in
North Battleford. What we see demonstrates that we require more
leadership, certainly on the part of government.
I would like to take us back to pre-Walkerton history. As the
former mayor of Dauphin, I had to live through the same kind of
experience, so I will speak from my experience as a municipal
leader who had to shepherd a community through an outbreak in
giardia back in 1995.
If we look at the records in 1993, Milwaukee, Wisconsin had a
cryptosporidium outbreak which took many lives. We called it
legionnaires' disease. Then on we go to Waterloo. An hon.
member across the floor mentioned this morning the problems that
Waterloo had with cryptosporidium and giardia around the
mid-1990s. In Kelowna there was an outbreak in 1996 of
cryptosporidium.
This is not new. We have known about the problem for at least a
decade. What has the government done about it? Not an awful
lot. It has pointed the finger at the provinces because it is a
provincial jurisdiction, but it needs to show more leadership.
Canadians expect their health to be protected. Consumption of
potable water is part of that health and safety need.
Our water systems and water treatment plants, for those
communities that have them, go back to the 1950s vintage. That
was when most of them were built. There are a lot of communities
that do not have water treatment systems. They rely on surface
water or well water. In fact inclusive in the topic of debate
today, we really should be looking at the whole issue of sewage
treatment because sewage facilities built back in the 1950s and
the early 1960s are all falling apart today. In other words,
they will and have become a problem to the environment just as
much as to potable water.
In 1995 a boil water order was issued for Dauphin, which is
where I come from. At that time I was the mayor. Obviously when
people cannot drink the water what can they do? Little does one
realize that without water there is not a lot one can do. However
when people have to boil the water to use it, it creates a lot of
difficulties.
Imagine a community being under threat of not having potable
water for a period of almost two years. That is why I believe
there needs to be an emergency funding provision put in place by
the federal government for communities, such as North Battleford,
that need it.
In essence, one of the key responsibilities for the federal
government is to provide tax dollars to build these facilities.
1510
Building water treatment facilities are not ordinary mundane
activities at the municipal level. It takes huge amounts of
dollars. In the case of Dauphin, Manitoba, we were very
fortunate, through the PFRA and through the co-operation of a
fellow by the name of Erminio Calagary, we managed to get the
support of the federal government, the provincial government and
the municipal government to put the dollars together and built a
brand new water treatment plant. It amounted to something like
$9 million.
That $9 million to a community of about 10,000 people is a huge
tax load. It is easy for the federal government to say that it
will throw some money here and there through its infrastructure
program and hopefully then tripartite agreements will get some
money to build water treatment plants or sewage plants.
I was very deeply involved with the 1993 infrastructure program.
That money was distributed on a per capita basis, which did not
account to very much especially when we knew the cost of water
treatment facilities. The federal government has to ante up.
After all that the money does belong to the people.
I agree with the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
and its lobby to ensure that fresh or potable water is always
available to all communities. There are over 4,000
municipalities. The FCM resolution number 26, which was adopted
in the year 2000, states:
Further to this statement, perhaps it is time the federal
Liberal government recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of
the municipalities of this country.
I still remember in 1996 listening to the Prime Minister in
Calgary. He stated that the municipalities played a huge role in
this country, that they were very important, that they were the
first level of government and that they were closest to the
people. I am still waiting for the Prime Minister of the day to
recognize the legitimacy of the municipalities. Until that
happens, the municipalities will always be bantered about between
the provinces and the federal government.
As we know, the provinces always say the municipalities are the
children of the provinces and that the federal government has no
business dealing with them. It is long overdue, when it comes to
health care and water issues, that the municipalities be at the
table. It is no different than if the topic of discussion was
roads.
Therefore, water is essential and it impacts all of us. It is
time the federal government recognized that water should be
treated the same way blood is treated. When we get a transfusion
most of us think the blood is safe. Likewise, when we pick up a
glass of water we should not question the safety of that glass of
water. As we know, that is not the case at this point in time.
I would like to talk about the lack of support for potable water
development for aboriginal reservations. In my riding I have 13
reservations and I know that they are in dire need of
infrastructure development. In fact, when will the federal
government move on this? Hopefully it will not wait for someone
to lose their life before it makes some concerted effort to deal
with the deplorable conditions of drinking water on many of the
reserves.
I have many Metis communities in my riding. Health Canada has
to put its foot down and be more assertive in making sure that
funds go to water and sewage infrastructure development in those
communities, rather than just handing the money over to the Metis
provincial organizations and letting them give out the money.
In many cases basic issues like water and sewage are left out
altogether.
1515
We need specific programs for water and sewage. The government
should avoid the word infrastructure. In the last round of
debate the definition of the term was wide open and
infrastructure dollars were used in many areas. A government
that wants to lead and be accountable should set up water and
sewage programs. If we do not do it at this point it will be the
tip of the iceberg in terms of the problems that confront
Canadians.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member on his remarks. He is on a similar page
with the Progressive Conservatives on the issue. Last week at
the immigration committee we were more often than not on the same
page as well.
He touched on the need for the federal government to protect
water quality on Indian reserves. The hon. member for
Toronto—Danforth said in the House today that we could make a
model for Canadians based on how we handle water on reserves.
The Yellow Quill Indian reserve in northeastern Saskatchewan
close to Kelvington has had a boil water advisory since 1995. As
the reserve is under exclusive federal jurisdiction, I ask the
hon. member if he believes the Government of Canada should clean
up its own act and address the situation.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I lived in a community that had a boil water order for
two years and could not imagine what it is like to have a boil
water order for six years.
There is a lack of commitment on the part of the government. If
the government sees a problem it must deal with it and not make
excuses. People on reserves need to be treated no differently
than people off reserves. Until the government takes its
responsibilities seriously nothing will change.
In terms of the whole country it is the same thing. If the
government understands the need for potable water and good sewage
facilities across the nation it must change its current position
and approach. It needs to take action, not put money into fancy
programs for political purposes. If the government understands
the importance of the issue it must do the work that is asked of
it.
That can only be demonstrated through action. The government
must make long term commitments. It must have plans in place. It
must sit and talk to people to find out what their needs are. The
government has sole responsibility for Indian reserves and it has
no excuse for not dealing with problems that affect them.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member has been involved in municipal politics and
we are talking today about municipal water supplies. I have a
difficult question for him about jurisdiction. These issues
should be dealt with primarily among municipalities and perhaps
provinces.
To what extent does the hon. member want the federal government
involved in organizing municipal water infrastructure?
1520
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elk
Island for his question. The issue with both water and sewage
facilities is money. Application of the act falls under
provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces have their own water
acts. However the cost of facilities is out of reach for
municipalities which do not have the resources.
If we deem water and sewage an essential health and safety issue
we should treat it no differently than public health. The
responsibility therefore lies with the federal government.
Municipalities do not have the tax base. We cannot expect
communities to boil their water for decades if they cannot come
up with the money for infrastructure.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I say at the outset that I intend to share my time with the hon.
member for Mississauga West. I welcome the opportunity to take
part in the debate today and I thank the member for Fundy Royal
for framing it by tabling his motion.
I begin by expressing, I know on behalf of all members of the
House of Commons, our concern and sympathy for the residents of
North Battleford who this week are dealing with an unexpected and
what must seem an overwhelming burden. Health Canada is working
alongside municipal and provincial officials in North Battleford
to provide what assistance we can to that beleaguered
municipality.
I intend to vote in favour of the motion as amended, but I will
make some comments explaining why. I will also respond to the
suggestion which has underlain most of the discussion from the
opposition benches that in some way the Government of Canada is
not fulfilling its obligation to ensure clean drinking water.
That is simply not true.
The Government of Canada has fulfilled completely its obligation
as a partner in the federation to work with those who have
responsibility for delivering fresh, clean water. We have taken
a number of steps and are active in a variety of ways. We are
working with provincial and municipal governments in that effort.
I will identify five of these steps in the few moments available
to me. First, we are contributing to the cost of maintaining
appropriate water and sewage treatment facilities so that local
municipalities, rural and urban, have facilities to treat water
and make it suitable for human use.
Last year the federal budget identified $2 billion to be
available over five years through the infrastructure program to
help provinces and municipalities in this effort. When that
money is leveraged by matching funds from the other two levels of
government it will total over $6 billion in the coming five
years. That money will be spent on infrastructure that will make
the difference between water that is fit to drink and water that
is not.
We heard today from the member for Saint Boniface that $2
billion of that $6 billion will be spent in western Canada and
that he has already received proposals for 600 projects that
relate to water and sewage treatment in western Canada.
Second, we have made a commitment, in working with provinces and
municipal governments, to create the country's first building
code for municipal water and waste water facilities. The code
will improve the ability of municipalities to meet high standards
for water quality and ensure that Canadians from coast to coast
have access to comparable facilities for producing potable water.
Third, we committed in the Speech from the Throne to making
clean water one of our top three environmental priorities along
with clean air and conservation. We also recognize that as
trustee of one of the world's largest supplies of freshwater
Canada has a particular responsibility to preserve that legacy
for future generations, and we shall.
1525
Fourth, in the Speech from the Throne we committed to developing
stronger national guidelines for water quality by enhancing
scientific research and continuing to work with provincial
partners. As part of that we promised to strengthen the role of
the National Water Research Institute whose world class work
provides the basis for our action in sustaining freshwater
ecosystems.
Fifth, we committed to investing in advanced information systems
to make better use of our land and protect surface water and
groundwater from the impact of industrial and agricultural
activity. Such systems would help monitor what happens on the
ground and measure the impact of agricultural and industrial
activity on the underlying water supply.
With those five measures the government has demonstrated that it
is doing its part to help provide safe, clean water for
Canadians, a responsibility all governments in the federation
must share.
There has been talk opposite about the need for a national
standard. Since 1983 the Government of Canada has met twice a
year with provincial officials, scientists, chemists and
environmentalists. Together they have developed a consensus on
the level of purity for Canadian drinking water.
That consensus is reflected in national guidelines that are
reviewed twice a year. The guidelines are provided to the people
on the ground who inspect water and provide, furnish, maintain
and operate the equipment which purifies it. The guidelines
apply to all public and private water sources across the country.
While the approaches taken by provinces might vary, the
guidelines reflect a Canada-wide consensus on water quality.
It is unfair and wrong to suggest we do not have national
standards. The guidelines reflect those standards. The process
by which the guidelines are developed reflects how the country is
organized and who is responsible for what. We share part of the
responsibility. We do not deny that. We accept it and meet it
by working with partners every year, year in and year out, to
make sure the guidelines are appropriate.
The Government of Canada has clear responsibility for drinking
water on first nations lands. Since 1995 my colleague, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has invested
over $400 million in first nations communities throughout Canada
to make sure facilities are in place to provide fresh water.
More generally, Health Canada maintains national surveillance
for infectious diseases including those linked to contaminated
water. In Walkerton, Health Canada scientists led the
epidemiological investigation which identified the extent of the
outbreak and the sequence of events leading up to it.
Last July, Health Canada consolidated the various components of
our emergency response capacity into a single entity, the Centre
for Emergency Preparedness and Response. Through the centre
Health Canada is positioned to respond more quickly and
effectively in an emergency.
I mention these responsibilities because I want my colleagues in
the House to know that we are actively doing our share, not just
today or this week but continuously.
Members should be careful before they say the issue of safe
drinking water can be resolved by the adoption in parliament of a
federal statute or by the imposition of a federal law even if it
contains penalties. The hard reality is that life is not that
simple. The hard reality is that all of us must work together
and do our share if we are to produce the results we want.
1530
There is no doubt that we could go across the country and find
areas where there is room for improvement, whether it be in grade
schools, primary education or in hospital administration. No one
would suggest for a moment that the solution is to have the
Government of Canada pass a law to improve primary or grade
school education and take over that field of endeavour. The
solution, as in any successful federation, is for governments to
work well together in good faith. That is what motivates Health
Canada and the Government of Canada.
We must continue that work. I welcome the motion which I will
vote in favour of. I undertake to the member for Fundy—Royal
and to the House to raise the issue with my provincial
counterparts the next time we meet in order to determine their
willingness to work toward establishing a safe water act. If
they believe it would be helpful we shall be there to do our
part.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the indication of the Minister of Health
that members on the government side will be supporting the
motion.
However I want to express concern about the minister's tentative
and very modest support for the idea of national guidelines,
standards, and legislation on the matter of clean and safe
drinking water.
The minister talks about hard reality in terms of ensuring an
adequate supply of safe drinking water. I want to say to him
that the hard reality today is that people are dying from the
failure of our water supply and the quality of our water in the
country today. People are worried about contamination, sickness
and problems associated with inadequate standards and
legislation.
Would the minister concede that in a time of crisis when the
public good and the public need are clearly at stake, it is
necessary to have legislation, guidelines and standards that are
enforceable and must be lived up to in order to ensure that the
public good—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hon. Minister of
Health.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of a
national strategy. There is one. That strategy is found in the
very elements I described today, namely working together with
provincial and territorial governments, helping to finance from
all levels of government the construction of appropriate
facilities, and a continuous review of the guidelines. The
member speaks about national standards. I suggest that those
guidelines are national standards.
The member goes a step further and says to legislate them, have
them in a federal statute. I assume she would say that if the
statute is not complied with, the offender would face a criminal
sanction. I assume she is referring to the criminal law power.
The member has failed to demonstrate whether the provinces are
supportive of that approach or whether it would help. She makes
a leap of logic by asserting in the House that which she does not
know, namely that the problems in Battleford arose because we did
not have federal legislation. A commission of inquiry has just
been announced. It will look into the question of causality. I
would be very much surprised if the problem were caused because
of the lack of federal legislation. I suggest that we shall find
it was something far more local and practical than that.
It is one thing to have federal legislation and another thing to
follow through, to have the facilities in place, operate them,
and maintain them to ensure that we produce the result we want.
Everyone in the system has to do their part for it to work well.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to applaud the Minister of Health for his support of the motion.
The tenor of the debate was to try to have language that could be
accepted by all members of the House regardless of partisan line.
I understand the government's concern with respect to
federal-provincial jurisdiction. That was how we shaped the
question in our election platform last November.
The Liberal Party of Canada has always been a little
trepidatious around this issue since the national energy program,
which we all remember.
1535
Now that the wording says “to begin the process of developing
national standards on drinking water immediately”, what is the
first step the Minister of Health plans to initiate?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the first
step. I spoke with the health ministers from Alberta and Nova
Scotia this morning. I will continue those discussions and
explore the possibility of the approach the member described.
I would like to make something clear. I happen to be, by my
political philosophy, very much in favour of the Government of
Canada being an active government and fully asserting its
constitutional authority in this federation. The country will
not hold together or succeed unless it has a strong Government of
Canada that does its full part.
However, I am not sure, in this particular field, that equates
with federal legislation mandating standards with penal
consequences if they are not obeyed. I do not know of a province
in the country that does not accept and tries to put in place the
guidelines that we have all agreed upon. I do not know of a
municipality in the country that does not do its best. The
answer is not as simple as that, and that is my point today.
Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. During question period, in response to a question I
asked, a member opposite revealed a desire to understand more
about the nature of a loan agreement between Industry Canada and
a company in my province. I have obtained some documents and,
with the consent of the House, would like to table them for the
member and other members of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to table the documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are having an interesting debate this afternoon. In addition
to the minister, I suspect there will be substantial support on
this side of the House for the motion. I certainly intend to
support the principle of the motion.
However, some things need to be put on the record as a result of
this kind of reaction where perhaps the NDP will use
fearmongering by asking if we are going to wait until more people
die. We also have a reversal by the official opposition, an
opposition that was opposed to government interference and
involvement in provincial jurisdictions and which is now changing
its mind as a result of its constituency undergoing some pressure
in the area of clean water.
We are seeing some rather substantial flip-flops in positions in
party policy. Given the difficulty that the opposition is going
through on that side of the House, I am surprised it can even
spell the word policy these days.
What we are seeing here is a move that I would call
constitutional reform by attrition. I will explain what I mean
by that. Provincial governments across the land, most notably in
Ontario, have been bailing out of areas that have for a long time
been considered to be areas of provincial jurisdiction and
responsibility. I will cite the example of Ontario. Premier
Harris has succeeded in turning the entire relationship between
governments upside down.
I served for almost 10 years as a municipal councillor. In
those days, 1978 to 1987 and a bit, municipalities always went
after the provinces to support them in certain areas, such as the
provision of funds and transfer payments, because the
municipalities were creatures of the province.
What the government of Ontario has done now is it has passed a
law entitled the fewer municipal politicians act. All of a
sudden it has managed to make municipal politicians look like the
bad guys. Through amalgamations it has reduced the number of
municipalities in Ontario from approximately 850 to 450. On the
surface that seems like a good thing.
If we were to talk to people on the street I think they would
say that if the overhead of carrying government bureaucracy was
reduced and consolidated, that would be a good thing. In the
city of Toronto, for example, if we were to amalgamate six fire
departments into one I think the people would say that also
sounds good.
However the results can be summed up in the words cause and
effect. For every action there is a reaction.
1540
Provinces have been saying that they are not in the business of
providing social housing. It should fall to the municipalities
and they downloaded it.
All we have to do to experience firsthand the impact on
infrastructure is to drive along Highway 401 in the greater
Toronto area. People would think they would lose their vehicles
at any moment. The roads are deteriorating on a daily basis.
Why? It is because the provincial government has decided to get
out of that area. It has passed the entire cost of the public GO
Transit in the southwestern sector of Ontario on to the municipal
sector. How does that relate here?
I do not hear my friends from the Tory Party, who moved the
motion, talking about the provincial Conservative government.
Many people think they are more a reform style government. Did a
cause and effect occur when the provincial Conservative
government slashed the environment ministry, when staff was
dramatically reduced in Ontario, when municipalities were told
that it was now their responsibility to send their water out to
private laboratories, in many cases 100 kilometres or 200
kilometres away, and wait for some technician in the facility to
test the water and get back to them on whether or not there was
an E. coli problem or any other kind of problem?
Somehow the Ontario provincial government seems to have washed
its hands of responsibility. Walkerton happened in my personal
opinion as a direct result of the provincial Conservative
government deciding that less government was better, that a
smaller ministry of the environment would be more efficient, that
fewer staff to inspect would be beneficial. It could then send
out $200 tax rebate cheques to everybody in the province saying
“Look at me, am I not wonderful?”
It is cause and effect. There is no question there was some
personal culpability in the reports that came out, but one was
dealing with people who were not trained properly on the job. Why
were they not trained? It was because it was left up to a small
rural municipality that did not have the sophistication or
technology to deal with it and as a result people died. Now we
see it spreading.
I personally believe it is a problem. One of the reasons I
support the hon. member's motion is that it could be the tip of
the iceberg. I agree that the federal government has to get
involved. It must put in standards and ensure that provincial
governments are not simply passing on tax cuts in the name of
some form of fiscal responsibility while they put the safety of
their residents in jeopardy.
This is an example of utmost irresponsibility. Members know
full well that the ministry of the environment at the provincial
level works with local municipalities to provide safe water. It
has not been a responsibility of the federal government because
we have had trust and faith under the terms of the constitution.
Under the terms of our relationship we would never question
something as basic and simple as clean water being put at
jeopardy because of a political right wing agenda that simply
wanted to find ways to get re-elected.
1545
In reality that is a trend that has occurred. It may be
somewhat different in North Battleford, but the result is a sense
that someone else will take care of it, a malaise, a sense of
complacency. It is most unfortunate.
We have heard members opposite say that the government should
stop doing this or the government should stop doing that. As a
result of cause and effect people are now saying that there is
actually a role for government.
What is the number one responsibility of any government? I
submit it is to provide good health, safety and quality of life.
Everything else falls from that.
The jurisdictional battles will occur. The provinces want to do
this and that. Who should regulate this or who should regulate
that? The bottom line is that if collectively as governments we
are unable to provide something as basic and fundamental as safe,
clean water and safe sewage disposal in Canada in 2001, then
shame on all of us at every level of government.
We must do it. Our government is committed to it. If it means
entering into new agreements, whether it is through the
infrastructure programs we have talked about or a new kind of
national standard, that is what we will do. The government
believes it is our responsibility to provide health, safety and a
good quality of life for all Canadians.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for the intention to support the Progressive
Conservative motion. From the human health perspective it is
time we had national drinking water standards so that we know the
quality of the water we consume is of the same quality, whether
in Saint-Jean, Quebec, St. John's, Newfoundland, or Fort St.
John, British Columbia.
A key word in the motion is the word immediately. Canadians
demand action and leadership from the government. It is quicker
for us to actually provide legislation for a poet laureate than
to provide standards for drinking water. How fast does the
health minister have to move to his satisfaction to address this
very critical issue?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play
games, but I am looking for the word immediately. Maybe the
member has a different copy of the motion than I have.
Regardless, the point is what the motion calls for is that we
should act with the provinces and territories to establish—
Mr. John Herron: Immediately is in there.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It does not say immediately. It
states:
When I see members of the Tory caucus and members of the
Canadian Alliance caucus parading around on the nightly news in a
joint fundraiser, trying to somehow come together to resolve
their problems, what concerns me is the party that put this
motion before the House is being sucked into the vortex of the
extreme right wing of the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian
Alliance was opposed to it. It was opposed to a committee. I
suspect it will continue to be opposed to it in some form of
trickery that it may use.
We think it should occur but it must occur with quality
negotiations with our territories and our provinces. This member
knows it. Any time the government tried to be heavy handed in
dealing with the provinces, there were screams and howls of
outrage from the opposition benches.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am interested to know from the member why two
government bills going back to 1993 were allowed to die on the
order paper. Specifically I mention Bill C-76 first read on
December 11, 1996, and Bill C-14 first read on October 30, 1997.
1550
Why were those bills allowed to die, given the fact that the
government does and did have a majority?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I guess we could all ask
each other questions like that. Why did members opposite not put
a similar motion when Walkerton occurred? Were the deaths in
Ontario somehow not of as great concern to members opposite?
Certainly there has been a responsibility with the provincial
and the municipal governments to resolve these problems. We have
had charges of interference. We have been told to stay out of
the jurisdictions that belong to the provincial governments by
members opposite, although not necessarily the NDP. The NDP
would have us go after everything we could. We would have
national standards for everything we could possibly conceive and
probably eliminate provincial jurisdiction.
The other side of the extreme is these people say that the
government should cut back, should slash, should burn, should
reduce, should do nothing to provide good quality health, safety
and quality of life for Canadians. We will not allow that to
happen. We will make sure we provide those items.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after such a passionate flight of oratory, which seems
right out of left field, I hope we will be able to come back to a
much calmer, serene and enlightening debate.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, recognize at the outset that water
quality in our communities is a very important issue. Recent
events in Saskatchewan and also the problems we saw in Ontario a
few months ago make the elected representatives of the people of
Canada aware of the importance of providing their fellow citizens
with a safe and clean water supply.
However, I do not like the way the Conservatives are trying to
politicize this issue, and I will explain why. Only yesterday,
the Conservatives were asking members on this side of the House,
mainly members of the Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois, to join
them in proposing a new form of decentralized federalism that
would respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and the
specificity of some of them. Today, on the day after their plea,
they bring forward in this House a motion calling explicitly for
Canada-wide national standards in areas of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
Let me give my Conservative friends a warning “You cannot have
your cake and eat it too. You cannot claim to be promoting a
decentralized Canada and then want to implement Canada-wide
standards in areas that do not come under federal jurisdiction”.
Quebecers will not be fooled. One cannot serve them this kind of
double talk without having to live with the consequences at some
point down the road. That was my introduction.
We have some problems with the motion in its current form.
First, there is the fact that water is a provincial jurisdiction.
The first problem is a matter of principle: water is not the
responsibility of the federal government.
Moreover, our position is influenced by certain elements that
have to do with current circumstances. For example, in the
inaugural speech, the premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry,
announced the imminent implementation of a national, meaning
Quebec-wide, water management policy. It is a very laudable
initiative, particularly since we know that Quebec is already
known as the best province, in terms of the quality of its
drinking water.
On June 19, 2000, the government of Quebec announced new draft
regulations on the quality of drinking water. The draft
regulations are being finalized and have been submitted to the
Quebec cabinet. The final version should be released soon.
1555
First, these new regulations would change quality standards
according to Canadian recommendations as well as drinking water
quality standards currently in place in the United States, which
would result in proposed standards that would go beyond the
Canadian recommendations.
Second, they would increase substantially the number of systems
subject to mandatory controls.
Third, they would establish the minimum frequency for bacterial
analysis.
Fourth, they would provide for a periodic review of the
standards.
Last, they would require operator qualification, which would be
renewable every five years and which would take experience into
account.
With these new standards, and we are not the only ones saying
this, even the Sierra legal defence fund rated Quebec first among
the provinces, in terms of having the strictest drinking water
standards in Canada. So, we have no need for more standards, at
least in Quebec.
However there is a problem. Liberals have come up with an amendment
to the motion that says “respecting their jurisdictions” or
something like that. The government cannot have it both ways.
It cannot have, on the one hand, national standards enshrined
in legislation and, on the other hand, respect for provincial
areas of jurisdiction, because it is, in fact, an area of
provincial jurisdiction. It is a bit like appreciating open doors
as long as they are closed. It is nonsense. Because of the
Liberal amendment, there is a deep, inherent contradiction in
this motion, which no longer makes any sense.
It is also interesting to see the federal government getting
involved in this area, since the cuts it made in transfer
payments to the provinces, among other things, have caused
several problems. The provinces are stretched to the limit; they
have just enough money to keep their heads above water, but then
the municipalities have had to take the brunt of it. Although they
were getting a lot of money from Quebec, they were hard hit by
the federal cuts. The federal government has some gall to
interfere when it is partly responsible for some of the problems
a number of communities are having.
We also have to ask ourselves how a federal system would help
improve things? For most people, the federal government is far
away.
The federal government's habit of interfering in matters that are
far removed from it reduces it's efficiency, because those who
are accountable for such things are much more remote in the
federal government than they would be at the community or
provincial level.
There is also the fact that, because things are not going too
well in certain provinces, they use that to justify duplicating
something that works well in other provinces. We are still
talking about duplication and, as far as I am concerned, that is
also a problem.
I will move an amendment to the amendment that the House would
support I believe. The Bloc Quebecois could vote in favour of the
motion thus amended.
I move :
That the amendment be amended by
adding between the words “jurisdiction” and “to ensure” the
following: “, while allowing for full opting-out by any province,”
If this amendment to the amendment were agreed to, the Bloc
Quebecois would support the motion. We could be unanimous in the
House in saying that provinces willing to abide by Canada-wide
standards could do so. Also, those who would not want to, who
want to protect their turf, their jurisdiction, would be free to
do it.
1600
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The amendment to the
amendment is in order.
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In order to introduce another amendment in this regard, I think
you would have to seek unanimous consent to put the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In this case it is a
subamendment and not another amendment. Therefore, it is
permissible under the rules and procedures.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
a few comments that I would like make.
I have a lot of respect for the hon. member and in the approach
he has taken in the House. He also knows that the tradition of
the Progressive Conservative Party is to be very respectful of
jurisdictional concerns between the federal government and the
provinces. We would support an opting out provision, if a
province had a piece of legislation that was equal or higher.
I would like to speak to the history of this issue. In 1990 the
then minister of the environment had concerns about three
legislative gaps that were not in existence in Canada. They were
our capacity to protect species at risk, the need to renew our
pesticide legislation and the need to have a safe drinking water
act. The then minister was the hon. Lucien Bouchard. Mr.
Bouchard was right then, and that piece of legislation is right
now in this regard.
This is a shared jurisdiction. However does the member
understand that the jurisdictional component, as it applies to
the federal government, is the Department of Health when we
legislate toxicity with pesticides, chemicals or exposure
therein?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member
from the Conservative Party, for his question. He is someone
with whom I get along well and agree to disagree.
In answer to his preamble, I will say this. He stated that
throughout history the Conservatives have always been very
respectful of jurisdictional boundaries. First, it is my opinion
that the motion says the reverse. Second, during the first
election campaign I ran in, in 1997, the Conservative platform
under the leadership of Jean Charest explicitly mentioned
national standards for education, which is very clearly an area
of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Furthermore, with all due respect, I must disagree with the
member when he says that this is a shared jurisdiction. Water as
such is local in nature.
Under section 92 of the Constitution, I want to pull out, but in
the meantime we might as well abide by it, everything listed
there is a provincial responsibility.
The member's premise is completely wrong. This is an area of
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Again I question the need for
the federal government to stick its nose into this.
1605
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague for his speech on this important
issue. I remind the House that not only does the Quebec
government believe it would be wrong to set national standards
on drinking water, but also this is what was reported yesterday
regarding Sylvain Laramée of the Réseau environnement du Québec,
and I quote:
Earlier in the day, the head of the Réseau environnement,
Sylvain Laramée, said publicly that he wished that Ottawa would
not intervene for reasons that were not partisan, but technical,
adding that Quebec and the provinces in general were better
equipped to deal with drinking water problems in co-operation
with the municipal governments, taking into account the
geographical context.
I believe we are on the verge of reaching a consensus in Quebec
on this issue. Is it not true that what our Conservative
colleague is saying shows how little is known about the way
things are in Quebec in this particular area?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie that the Conservative member's motion
shows a misunderstanding of Quebec's specificity, but that is not
all. It also shows a lack of common sense.
We must ensure that those responsible for something are as close
as possible to the people they serve. The closer, the better. In
Europe, this principle is called subsidiarity.
Here, we should ensure that those responsible for a program are
as close as possible to the people so that, if people have
something to say, they have access to that person and are able to
hold him or her accountable.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
rise in the House today, it is first and foremost to support the
amendment to the amendment moved by my colleague from
Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, whom I want to congratulate and
thank for his excellent work.
The amendment to the amendment moved by my colleague totally
changes the motion of our Conservative colleagues. I truly
believe that, once again, the federal government is trying to
gain public support in an area that is not its responsibility.
However that is nothing new from the federal government since it does
that in several areas, such as parental leave and education, to
name just two.
Is there, under the Canadian constitution, an area that is more
clearly under provincial jurisdiction than education? Yet, the
federal government insists on interfering in that area.
When I hear this government say that it wants to establish
national standards, I find it absolutely scandalous. I have here
a Transport Canada document, an inventory of contaminated sites.
It says that a single department has contaminated 41 sites in
Quebec.
So if we take one department of the Government of Canada and
we multiply that by 10 provinces, it means that about 400 sites
would have been contaminated by that department throughout the
country, unless it only contaminated sites in Quebec because it
likes us so much.
In my riding alone, there are about five sites that are totally
contaminated and for three years now the Bloc Quebecois and the
member for Manicouagan have been urging the federal government to
assume its responsibilities, that is to apply the polluter pays
rule.
How can we trust a government that continues to pollute, that
does not assume its responsibilities and that is trying to preach
to the provinces by saying: “We will set national standards”?
Before lecturing anyone, I think the federal government should
assume its responsibilities.
1610
This is why the amendment to the amendment put forward by my
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is very important. I am
confident that all the members in this House will support this
amendment to the amendment, which will make it possible for us to
vote in favour of the motion.
I would say that the motion before the House is a legitimate one
because what could be more legitimate than to want to provide the
public with drinking water. As usual, the government has decided
to infringe upon areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The
federal government is trying to demonstrate to Canadians that the
provinces cannot handle it without its help, when we know that it
was the federal government that created this problem in the first
place by cutting, as it did, transfer payments to provinces and
funding that would have helped provinces to provide these
services to the public.
Now the federal government is getting ready to spend money in
provincial areas of jurisdiction because, as we say in Quebec, it
has the cash to do it. It cut the funding to the provinces in
order to better control them afterwards.
Well, Quebec has news for the federal government. Water
management is an area of provincial jurisdiction and the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to any federal involvement in this area.
Some may say that the Bloc sounds like a broken record, but this
is the root cause of the problem we have in this country. The
federal government is always trying to interfere in provincial
jurisdictions.
As far as the issue at hand is concerned, it is clear, since we
are talking about water, we could say as clear as spring
water, that water quality and availability come under provincial
jurisdiction.
Why would the federal government want to get involved? The
problems in provinces like Ontario and Saskatchewan do not
justify duplicating a system that is working just fine. We have
seen the standards established by Quebec and Ontario, and, as my
colleague indicated this afternoon, Quebec ranked first.
Quebec emphasizes prevention more. The standards on byproducts
of water disinfection are stricter in Quebec than in any
other province. Parasite removal requirements are also more
stringent. With the standards in the new draft regulations about
to be passed by the Quebec government, its water quality
standards will be the highest in any province. Why would the
federal government want to interfere in a situation that is so
clear?
The Bloc Quebecois objects categorically to federal involvement
and maintains that the only thing the federal government should
do in that area is to correct the problems of its own making,
when it has contaminated the water table and thus deprived people
of safe drinking water.
This, as members will have guessed, is part of the numerous
representations I have made, with the support of the Bloc
Quebecois, to have the government solve the problem of the
beaches area in Sept-Îles. Time and again, we have heard the
government say “We did everything that had to be done to correct
the situation”. Today, we are once again asking for a real
solution.
On June 19, 2000, the Quebec department of the environment
announced new draft regulations on the quality of drinking water.
These regulations are being reviewed by the provincial cabinet
and, as I mentioned earlier, are about to be adopted. Instead of
trying to copy what was done in Quebec, the federal government
must do all it can to correct the situations for which it is
responsible.
Since Quebec ranks first, emphasizes prevention more and has
stricter standards for water disinfection byproducts, as I said,
the Bloc Quebecois supports the initiatives of the Quebec
government and objects to the federal government interfering in
this area in such an unacceptable fashion.
1615
It has to correct the situations it itself caused. I mentioned
these at the beginning of my speech. They include the pollution
of the beaches at Sept-Îles and even at Havre-Saint-Pierre, in my
riding, where the airport site was affected.
If the federal government wants to look after drinking water the
way it is looking after decontaminating the beaches water, that
will be just great. We have been asking the federal government
to decontaminate the beaches for three years. There are other
sites we are demanding they decontaminate as well. Now it tell
us it is going to adopt national standards. Just because
certain provinces have problems does not mean that the federal
government has to charge in where it has no business. Once again,
it is interfering and duplicating provincial responsibilities.
Since my time is running out, I hope that, once again, members
of the House will support the amendment to the amendment of the
member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier and that we will all
finally be able to vote in favour of a motion which will improve
the public's drinking water.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we heard the member for Manicouagan
say that he supports the amendment to the amendment proposed by
his party because it totally changes the motion before us.
There is a problem there because, in principle, an amendment to
an amendment should only change the amendment and not the entire
motion. However let us not dwell on that. He said it changed
everything. Well, I think he said something that calls for
comment at this time.
The basic proposal before us, not everybody has been following
the debate since this morning, is that the federal government
should join with the provinces in establishing national
standards. We brought forward an amendment, which was agreed upon
with the Progressive Conservative Party, to ensure that
provincial jurisdictions are respected.
So far, so good. All the parties who spoke seemed to support the
idea of working together to establish national standards if
provincial jurisdictions were to be respected. Then an amendment
on the amendment was put forward, saying that any province that so
desired could opt out.
A province that so desires, that could be a province that has
not met the standards or it could be one that has met or exceeded
federal standards could opt out. This means that members of the Bloc Quebecois
are simply saying no to national standards because they want to
allow any province that so desires to not to endorse such
standards.
My question to the member for Manicouagan is this: Does he
realize that the wording of his amendment to an amendment leaves
the door wide open for a province that would not have met the
federal standards to opt out?
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, when I said that this
changes everything, I just wanted to say that this unequivocally
clarifies the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague for
Anjou—Rivière-de-Prairies.
The Liberal government and the members opposite, who claim to be
people concerned with clarity in issues related to acts and
regulations, find some clarity in the amendment to the amendment
put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. It is clear that we know where
we are going.
As for the question asked by my hon. colleague, the answer is
no. I think we have to trust provincial governments. As for the
Quebec government, I fully trust it. Besides, if my hon.
colleague has read the regulations on the environment and
drinking water that will soon be adopted in Quebec, he will see
that the federal government has nothing to teach the Quebec
government in this regard.
1620
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all remember the consultations held by the Bureau des
audiences publiques sur l'environnement or BAPE. Paul Begin had
then invited all Quebecers to put in their two cents worth on
water.
I would like to quote a comment made during the hearings:
As to the quality of the water in Quebec, it is “generally
good”; it is in the southwest, in the farmlands of the St.
Lawrence Lowlands that the quality is at its lowest level. The
St. Lawrence River, which supplies water 45% of the Quebec
population, is still suffering contaminated, particularly
downstream from Montreal.
As to water quality, which is an important issue, and I am still
quoting:
From 1989 to 1995, more than 800 people were affected by 24
epidemics related to the drinking of surface water. These figures
could represent a mere fraction of the actual numbers, because
several cases were never reported.
With regard to the Lower St. Lawrence and water quality, can the
member, who comes from a remote area, tell the House if it is
possible that nobody has been affected by water problems in
Quebec in the last few years?
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, first, my colleague
referred to the BAPE. I would tell him that indeed the BAPE
recommended that Quebec develop its own policy on drinking water
and environment.
I would also remind him that in my riding, there is no
contamination attributable to Quebec, to the government of
Quebec. None whatsoever.
There is contamination in Sept-Îles and in my area, for example
in the beaches area, where 1,000 people are without water, but
this contamination is due to the government that my colleague is
a member of.
Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In
the heat of political debate in the House, especially during
oral question period, we sometimes get carried away. I have to
admit that it happened to me today, when the member for Chambly
was putting a question to the public works minister.
I hummed a song that was inappropriate in the House of Commons.
I would like to apologize to anyone I might have hurt,
especially to the public works minister.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Your message is clear and
your apology is accepted.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member
for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
This particular debate is an excellent occasion that illustrates
the kind of conflict and ideology that political parties get into
from time to time, because what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a motion
calling on the government to act essentially in an area of
provincial jurisdiction. I think we would all agree in this
House, on all sides of the House, that the right to clean water
is something that should be shared by all Canadians. All
Canadians should be entitled to obtain clean water, to use clean
water anywhere in the land. It is fundamental in the same sense
that every Canadian should expect the same standard of justice,
the same standard of safety and the same standard of health care.
The government over the years has provided in those areas.
But in fact, when it comes to the safety of water, this has been
something that has been mostly under provincial jurisdiction. We
are now faced with the problem where we have had several tragic
incidents where the water supply in communities has been
dangerously polluted and it has led to some deaths. Quite
rightly, in my view, we have a motion before us calling on the
government to be in the forefront of establishing enforceable
standards of water quality.
1625
Here is the rub. Three of the opposition parties who have been
stressing the need for enforceable national standards for water
quality today, those three parties, when you press them, are not
willing to have those standards imposed upon the provinces
because those three parties, part of their ideological structure
is that they believe that fundamental political life should begin
with the lowest common denominator, normally the provinces,
certainly in the case of the Bloc Quebecois, but also in the case
of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives with the
municipalities.
In Ontario, and I cannot speak for all of the nation on this
issue, but in Ontario I can remember when the average citizen
could test his water for free. Mr. Speaker, you would take it
from a tap, take it to your local medical officer of health who
would have given you a proper container, and that water would be
tested. Indeed for many, many years in Ontario the province was
responsible for ensuring that municipalities had their water
tested properly.
But in 1996 the current Conservative government in Ontario
basically downloaded the obligation of water quality on the
municipalities, on the one hand, who had to look after
maintaining such standards as there were, and the province
basically privatized the testing of water and took away the free
program of water testing through municipalities that up until
1996 led to I think 400,000 tests per annum in Ontario of water
quality. All that disappeared.
The problem with this motion and particularly with the amendment
to the motion, particularly the amendment that is indeed
supported by our side, is if you cop on national standards to
protect citizens, then you have to have a way of guaranteeing
that those national standards are acted upon.
In response to a question I posed earlier in this debate, the
leader of the Conservative opposition said well, yes, we can have
enforceable standards, but he believes that we can come to
agreements with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what if you cannot come to an agreement
with a province? What if a province decides it does not want to
spend the money on water quality? What if you have a case, as
you have in Ontario, when the province downloads the
responsibility of water quality to the municipality?
We talked for a little bit about infrastructure. This is not
just a question of drinking water. This is a question of the
proper treatment of sewage and that kind of thing. What we have
in my own municipality, we have a situation where the province
downloaded the responsibility for sewage treatment and that kind
of thing to the municipality and it has privatized it.
In Hamilton a private corporation runs the sewage treatment
plant and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence indicating that
that sewage treatment plant is in a lot of trouble. The problem
is because the province downloaded to the municipality who
privatized it. No one knows whether that sewage treatment plant
is functioning properly.
I submit that all across Ontario and indeed all across the
country that no one knows for sure that the water treatment
plants in communities like North Battleford or communities like
Collingwood or other communities across the country, that they
indeed are looking after their water quality to a standard that
guarantees the safety of the people using it.
The other thing that is overlooked in this debate is we have
talked only about municipal water supplies. I do not think I
have heard a single person mention the tens of thousands of
Canadians who get their water from wells. Again, Mr. Speaker, in
Ontario it used to be possible to test water in your well. As a
farmer or a cottage person, you could take it to the local
officer of health and you could have that water tested. That no
longer exists.
Now that we have the industrial farm where there is an increased
risk of truly deadly bacteria getting into the water table, we do
not have free water treatment even though two decades ago or 15
years ago we did have. So we are regressing, not progressing. My
difficulty with this motion is not the original motion. It is
the amendment to the motion that says that we must respect
jurisdictions.
1630
We are afraid in the House to stand up as members of parliament
and say that when it is a case of national safety, when it is the
safety of Canadians, whether it is a criminal code, a justice, a
law or a medical issue, we are afraid to stand up in this House
and say that we should have national standards for water quality
across this country, and we have to impose them upon the
provinces if they are not willing to do it.
I do not think that is going to happen. Today I heard the Prime
Minister say in the House that we had to respect provincial
jurisdictions. It is going to be very difficult to turn that
around considering what we have heard from the opposition. I
note that only the NDP was prepared to suggest that the water
quality standards that were being proposed should be mandatorily
enforced.
If we are not going to intrude on provincial jurisdictions, then
I suggest this national government has to do something, and it
has to do something practical. Quite frankly, this is a feel
good motion and does not do a darn thing. It just makes it look
as though we MPs on both sides of the House are taking action
when in fact I do not believe real action is being taken.
Therefore, I would like to suggest something to my own
government. The government should invest in free testing for all
communities and individuals across the country. If we cannot
enter into provincial jurisdiction to fix the water treatment
plants, then at least give Canadians, whether they are on a farm
or in a municipality, an opportunity to test their water to see
whether it is safe. If they find the water is unsafe, then they
can go to their local politicians, be they municipal or
provincial, and demand action. However right now it is a
complete darkness, a complete void. People are drinking water
and have no idea whether it is safe, and of course they are
unwilling to test it themselves and often cannot afford to.
My suggestion, my contribution to this debate is that as far as
the motion is concerned I am not at all happy with it. I just do
not think it goes anywhere. However I am delighted to at least
have had the opportunity to offer what I think is a constructive
suggestion to the government, and that is to institute a
nationwide free water testing program.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the member. For the most part
his remarks were certainly on target.
I understand his reservation with the federal government trying
to enforce their wishes on the provinces. If I heard the member
correctly, I believe he was referring to leadership at the
federal level where sometimes the federal government has to
exercise its power to force the provinces to do something.
Is the member suggesting that maybe the government or the Prime
Minister should do that or are we not acting simply because we do
not want to get into a tug of war or head-butting with the
provinces?
I just want a little clarification on that. From time to time
the federal government has to spend some of its political capital
doing things which may prove to be unpopular in the short term,
but obviously the right thing to do in the long term.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am
proposing. I think the federal government should meet with the
provinces and set the standards. Once the standards are set,
then they should be enforceable, and the federal government
should ensure that they are mandatory and enforced.
The difficulty is that in any province there may be a change of
government that has a mantra of tax cuts, for example. This is
precisely what happened in Ontario. Because of the desire to cut
personal income taxes, spending on the environment, water quality
and all these things was slashed overwhelmingly.
I believe that we have to give the provinces the opportunity to
work in their jurisdictions. Where we go wrong is when we allow
the provinces or the municipalities to take actions that actually
affect the safety of Canadians.
I would say that yes the government should do what is unpopular.
However the reality is, the opposite side and the member who
spoke for his party have suggested that the federal government
should not intrude into provincial jurisdiction in this matter if
there is reluctance on the part of provinces. I say it should,
although I do not hold much hope that that is what is going to
happen.
1635
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in
his speech, which I was delighted to hear, the reference to the
millions of Canadians, including myself, that had their own
wells.
When we talked about rural water supplies, some of these
communities are rural and have a central water supply supplied by
the village which is still considered by definition rural. There
are millions of Canadians who depend on their own well water. It
is a much bigger problem which goes to the care and the concern
for the environment. Some deed that we might do might
contaminate our neighbour's well water.
Maybe the member could talk about the responsibility of
individual Canadians in ensuring that our water in those rural
areas is kept safe.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in my region the local
municipality is allowing developers to group houses together,
drill their own wells and maintain their own water supply in
their neighbourhoods. There is no scrutiny on this at all. They
are required to meet an original or basic standard, but then it
is up to that small neighbourhood or community to maintain that
water quality and keep testing it.
That is no good. Whether it is one of these small
neighbourhoods or individual farms scattered across the country,
this is really the enormous problem. Unless we come up with a
program whereby the federal government actually requires or
provides the funds for free water testing, we are always going to
have this danger.
This debate has only been about communities. It has not been
about the millions of Canadians who get their water from private
sources. This is where the government could act and should act.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Vancouver East, Health; the hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest, National Defence.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on water
quality. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency both play a crucial role in ensuring that
Canadians have a safe and clean drinking water supply.
Protecting water against agricultural runoff is a challenge that
our government is taking very seriously. Most of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada's initiatives in this area focus on prevention,
that is on ways to prevent problems from arising.
However, as many Canadians know, municipalities and provinces
are mainly responsible for providing drinking water to Canadian
families.
Local governments must first find suitable water sources to meet
present and future needs of the community without endangering
the environment. Then they must treat the water to eliminate any
trace of impurities or contaminants. Finally, municipalities
must build and maintain a system to supply water to the
consumers.
The last stage, and not the least, consists in building
treatment and evacuation systems to make sure that wastewaters
do not harm the environment. In short, it is a complex process
in which the margin of error is very small.
While water supply systems are being developed and are in
service, municipalities and provinces often need scientific data
on the farming and agrifood sector.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has undertaken a research
project on nutrients in fertilizers and manure, to
reduce the risk of water contamination by these nutrients.
This task is not easy as Canada is a huge country with many
different ecosystems. Moreover, every community has specific
needs and challenges.
Another example of scientific data supplied by Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada is the development of a series of agricultural
and environmental indicators, several of which are linked to
water quality.
These indicators, which track environmental trends over the
years in various regions of Canada, make it possible to identify
areas and resources still at risk. Moreover, they serve as a
starting point to focus action on areas where risks are the
highest.
1640
For example, when provinces and municipalities are considering
using some lands for agricultural purposes, the indicators and
background data help scientists determine if farming might
involve the risk of nutrients or other substances contaminating
water. The indicators help in developing measures to evaluate
and reduce as much as possible the risk of water contamination
due to farming.
As everybody knows, the semi-arid prairies present unique
problems with regard to water supply. Ensuring supply in these
areas is often a bit more difficult.
However, I am proud to mention that the Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Administration supports the main part of the
research and technology transfer the Prairie communities need to
manage their water supply. The administration is currently
conducting numerous projects relating to water supply,
conservation and protection of water resources and improvement
of water quality.
For instance, the rural water development program provides
technological support for projects to develop wells and improve
water quality. The administration also works together with its
rural clients and local producer groups to promote better
practices to protect surface water and ground water.
In the area of research, scientists with Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada are looking into other means of protecting
drinking water against contaminants. Numerous Canadians are now
aware of the dangers associated with bacteria like E. coli.
As part of the fight against E. coli and other pathogenic
agents, researchers at the Lethbridge research centre have
discovered and tested several promising solutions which could
help to check and eliminate those organisms at all points in the
food chain, from the farm to the consumer. The Canadian beef
industry, our partner in research, plays a major role by
financing this initiative in the hope of finding a solution.
I am pleased to inform hon. members that producers are playing
an active role in the protection of the environment.
Many of them took the trouble to prepare and implement an
environmental plan for their operations. For some time now,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been providing them with
financial assistance to do so.
In co-operation with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, farmers
have developed many other initiatives, so that Canadians may
enjoy a cleaner environment and cleaner drinking water. Those
initiatives are financed through the Canadian adaptation and
rural development fund and implemented with the help of the
provinces.
The environmental stewardship initiative in agriculture, which
is part of the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund,
will make $10 million available to farmers over the next three
years to help them launch projects dealing with water quality
improvement, soil decontamination, wildlife habitat and
biodiversity conservation in agricultural areas and the use of
farming practices that will help prevent climate change.
Another activity funded by the Canadian adaptation and rural
development fund is the environmental stewardship initiative in
livestock production. It has a $1.3 million budget for research
and technology transfer to assist producers in adopting
environmentally friendly practices. This initiative will also
help to create an environmental certification system for the hog
industry.
These are some of the measures taken by Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to help protect
Canada's water supply.
Members will have to agree that we have accomplished a lot with
the provinces and the producers, our partners. However, we will
continue to do more and to work relentlessly because we take our
responsibilities seriously. Canadian farmers and the public
expect no less from us.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to talk about another aspect of
water protection that Canadians may find of interest. To be
quite square, this was in the Progressive Conservative platform
in the election this past November. The issue originated from
work done by the provincial Progressive Conservative government
and the minister of environment, Kim Jardine. She made a very
progressive approach to water stewardship for which she should be
commended, and I think the nation should do that.
1645
Would the hon. member subscribe to what we are advocating, that
new guidelines be drawn up in a co-operative fashion by
provincial, territorial and federal governments that determine
which activities can take place next to municipal wells, water
sources, lakes or whatnot? The most profound example might be to
prohibit gas stations or laundromats from opening within a
protected perimeter around municipal wells. Would the hon.
member support such an initiative?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question put
by the hon. member, I would like to review what has been
happening, especially in the last two years.
The waterborne diseases we saw in Ontario last year and in
Saskatchewan recently have brought to our attention the issue of
access to safe drinking water in Canada. We know that these two
tragedies are not isolated incidents. Several people have died
and thousands got sick. I share the grief of all the people and
the families who were affected by this. This situation is
becoming all too common in Canada. As parliamentarians, it is
not easy for us to find out that some people have died from
drinking contaminated water.
There is something else that must be taken into consideration.
If we talk about wells, we know that, in Quebec, many lakes are
near some municipalities. For several years now, only one lake
has been constantly monitored by the Quebec Department of the
Environment, only one lake out of more than 500,000. Who is
looking after the other lakes in Quebec?
The same thing goes for wells. The federal government is not
monitoring all the wells in all the provinces. It is not easy,
especially in remote areas. We have the same problem with ground
water. In Quebec, 20% of the people living outside urban areas,
as well as hundreds of businesses and farm operations, use
ground water as their water source. However we know almost nothing
about where they are located. That is what is happening right
now in Quebec.
We do not know how renewable these water reserves are and we
know nothing about their users. Only the municipalities that use
that water source or water bottlers are accountable for their
water management.
In answer to the member's question, I am not familiar with the
report he is referring to. He would have to provide me with a
copy. However, we know that there is a considerable lack of
knowledge in the provinces, in Quebec for instance, on the state
of their water supply.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to speak
to the motion. I compliment the Progressive Conservative Party
and its leader for raising this very pressing issue.
If there is one thing of critical importance to all human beings
it is the quality of our water. Access to potable safe water has
been a given in society for a very long time. Canadians over the
years have come to expect and perhaps take for granted that a
country with a population of 32-odd million, which possesses some
11% of the world's reservoir of freshwater, would have safe
drinking water. As we have seen, however, circumstances in
Saskatchewan and in Walkerton have shown something very
different.
I will quote a senator from the other place who said very
poignantly that lack of access to safe water has become a clear
and present danger to society.
How have we come to ignore that which is the essence of life on
our planet? A document put out in 1987 set very clear guidelines
for water quality in our country. The document said there could
and must be co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments in developing national standards to allow every
person in Canada access to safe and potable water. Have we seen
any action since 1987? No, we have not.
1650
The government has been in power since 1993. Surely it has had
an opportunity to address the issue, bring forth national
standards and give Canadians confidence in the water that comes
out of their taps. We have not seen that. It is now 2001 and we
are sitting here trying to shake up the government to work with
the provinces and develop national standards so that our drinking
water is safe for everyone from coast to coast.
How bad is it? Recent reports estimate that 357 of 645 Ontario
drinking water systems fail to meet even provincial standards.
Twenty-five per cent of Newfoundland's water systems have serious
problems, to such an extent that boiling water and relying on
bottled water has become the norm. Let us imagine a province
where 25% of the drinking water is unfit for human consumption.
It is completely absurd.
Canadian drinking water guidelines set out safe recommended
limits for various polluting substances in raw, untreated
drinking water, recreational water and water used for industrial
or agricultural purposes. The guidelines are designed to protect
and enhance the quality of water in Canada.
However the guidelines apply only to inland surface water and
groundwater and not to estuary and marine water. There are large
holes in the system. Those holes need to be plugged and they
needed to be plugged yesterday. Failure to do so will result in
more deaths such as we have seen in Walkerton and Saskatchewan.
Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg. It is only
by the grace of God that it has not happened more often. It
quite surprises me that we have not seen more outbreaks of water
borne diseases in Canada.
The guidelines limit the concentration of pollutants according
to their potential health effects or aesthetic appearance.
However are they reasonable? Has anyone questioned whether the
guidelines are safe? Should the limits be higher or lower? We
do not know.
Even if the guidelines are violated and water is high in
coliform, pesticides or other substances, what is the penalty?
Nothing. There is no penalty because there is no mechanism to
enforce the guidelines. We desperately need enforceable
guidelines. What is the point of guidelines without a mechanism
to enforce them?
This is not an academic issue, as we have heard today. The
issue is fundamental to the health and welfare of Canadians. As
a physician I know that some water borne diseases do not affect
healthy adults but they certainly affect the most vulnerable in
society. Water borne diseases selectively take out the most
vulnerable such as children and the elderly. They are the ones
who pay the price in an outbreak.
Canadian drinking water guidelines are used by provincial,
territorial and federal agencies to assess water quality problems
and manage competing users of water resources. However the
guidelines are not law.
The government's response to this has been to put a bit of money
forward. That is easy to do. It is easy to stand and devote
money, but there must be a plan. We know the municipalities and
provinces are responsible for this. However there must be a
co-ordinated effort by all parties.
In our country, whether in regard to water quality, health care
or other issues, we have fractured jurisdictions and often the
left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The
ministers have a great opportunity. They can bring together
their provincial and municipal counterparts and develop a
co-ordinated system of enforceable guidelines, based on science
and fact, that will protect our society.
1655
This is an issue of the future. Make no mistake about it. The
lives of millions of Canadians will rest on it.
Over the last 10 to 15 years we have seen disturbing things in
the ecosystem. There has been a massive die-off of amphibians
not only in our country but around the world.
The scientific evidence of late points to a direct correlation
between the die-off of amphibians and the use of pesticides. In
addition to the die-off there are massive and grotesque
deformities. There are frogs with eyes on the top of their
heads, amphibians with multiple legs or two heads, and fishes
with gross deformities. These are very serious problems.
The reason this is a bellwether, the proverbial canary in the
mine, is that the skin or outer covering of amphibians is very
permeable. It is not like our skin which is tougher. The skin
of amphibians is permeable and absorbs substances much easier.
This makes them the canary in the mine. Amphibians tend to
visibly manifest the cancer causing, teratogenic and mutagenic
capabilities of the substances they absorb.
We ignore that to our detriment. Epidemiological studies have
shown clear health risks in communities that are close to areas
with high concentrations of pesticides. Pesticides, fungicides
and fertilizers are necessary but they must be used in an
appropriate way. We are now seeing grave health risks in some
communities near the areas where they are used.
Higher rates of birth deformities, teratogenicity, neonatal
morbidity and mortality are all being observed. They are red
flags waving in front of us but we are not responding. That is
very serious.
A number of substances are being released into our environment
that will be here not for a few days but for years or hundreds or
even thousands of years. Large amounts of nucleotides or
radioactive material from Russia are being bioaccumulated within
our ecosystems in the north.
As a result, Inuit people and many large aquatic and terrestrial
mammals have large amounts of radioactive, cancer causing and
teratogenic substances within them. We see higher rates of
cancer, birth deformities and neonatal morbidity and mortality in
the north than in other communities. Science clearly indicates
that individuals in the north are suffering because they eat
mammals that bioaccumulate these dangerous substances in their
bodies.
That is what is happening. We and others have warned the
government for some six years about this but have seen no action.
The government knows about this. It is very aware. Perhaps it
feels impotent to deal with it, but it is not. The only way to
deal with these issues is to work with the international
community. We must deal seriously with the release of these
substances into our environment.
On the issue of fertilizers, we have seen changes in the pH
levels of our water quality and acidification of the water as a
direct result of pesticides being leached into it. As a result,
a number of water tables have been polluted. If we measure the
outflow of water into larger basins, we see that the
concentrations are very high.
1700
We know our farmers need good fertilizer and pesticides to give
us the food we require. We have to allow them to work by using
these fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides in a reasonable way.
However we do not see enough studies nor action on the side of
the government.
In fact, the environment commissioner has repeatedly mentioned
to the government the ways in which it is falling flat on its
face with respect to being the guardian of our environment. The
environment commissioner, like the auditor general did with
finance, has waved the flag many times. He has given specific
solutions on what the government could do, and has a moral
responsibility to engage in, to improve our environment. It is
there in black and white.
The environment commissioner's reports have come out in black
and white. They are good reports, fair reports and are
constructive. We can only hope that the government will push
hard and listen to what has been said in these reports and to the
other signs, so it can build an environment that will be fairer
and cleaner.
An issue that is very important on the west coast of British
Columbia, because a large number of people rely on salmon, is
what is happening to our salmon stocks, which have been
decimated. We believe part of the reason for this decimation is
the conditions and changes taking place with respect to the
water. The water temperature is going up. As a result, there has
been change in the mackerel population which is eating the
salmon fry and the fingerlings. That is in part contributing to
the very small numbers which are returning. It is decimating the
fish populations, particularly the salmon populations, on the
west coast.
Do we know why this is happening? No. We certainly have some
theories that it is related to global warning. In fact the
oceans are now believed to be a CO2 sink that is taking up a lot
of the unrecognized carbon dioxide being released.
It is incumbent upon the government, and indeed the Minister of
the Environment, to work with his provincial and municipal
counterparts across the country, rather than have a balkanized
system of environmental standards which benefits absolutely no
one, to develop safe water for all Canadians.
Potable water is essential. It is our life blood. I can only
encourage the government and say to it that we as a party
together with the Progressive Conservatives and others will push
hard to make sure that the government lives up to its
responsibility to ensure that all Canadians will have access to
potable water, such as the type we are all drinking.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to take time to pose a question to my
colleague.
In my other life I was the mayor of a town in southern Alberta
of 1,700 people. The quality of the water and the concern about
supplying safe water was always paramount in our minds. We had
to go through different scenarios with different standards being
presented. The standards would change and we would have to
increase our ability to treat our water.
In subsequent years there was a problem. The mayor at the time,
the council, the staff and others worked very hard to correct it.
I still live in that town of 1,700, and it is spending over $1
million in upgrading the water treatment plant to meet standards
for supplying safe, secure water for the community. That is just
one community that is spending spending well over $1 million to
upgrade its facility.
The idea of standards that are binding is one thing. We support
the motion brought forward today by the Conservatives to have
something put in place to deal with that.
1705
I would like to ask my colleague a question about the science
needed to test the systems which are in place and the funds
required to come up with a water study in Canada which would
absolutely place, in some parameters, the condition of our
present drinking water systems in Canada. What emphasis does he
think should be placed on the science, as well as the standards
needed to supply that safe water?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a pertinent
question. Whatever we do, the guidelines we put forth have to be
based on good science. Science would give us the basis upon
which we could have guidelines that were reasonable, that were
safe in terms of health care aspects and guidelines that were
doable. Sometimes we set standards that are not attainable. We
need to have attainable standards that are safe for the public
and that are imminently doable, and we can do it.
A lot of the science has already been done. One very
interesting thing is that a number of new water achievement
capabilities have been discovered around the world. We need to
extract the best information from around the world, and on a case
by case basis utilize water purification mechanisms appropriate
for given communities.
In my area of Victoria sewage is dumped out after only primary
treatment. To my knowledge, that is not much of a problem
because of where the water is and the velocity of the tides. I
am sure that it would give comfort to people in Victoria to have
a secondary water treatment system where we could remove a number
of other substances that are bioaccumulating in our environment,
the likes and consequences of which we do not know at this point
in time. The bottom line is base the guidelines on good science.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot think of an issue that could come before the House where
Canadians would have a greater sense of resolve, purpose and be
of a common mind, than the issue of clean drinking water in our
country.
The debate today has been very interesting. I thank the member
for Fundy—Royal and the Progressive Conservatives for bringing
the issue forward. It is important that we have this debate.
I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. It seems to me there is an agreement
that we all want to see clean water, but the issue before us is
whether or not the federal government is willing to take a stand
and show the leadership to provide enforceable national drinking
water standards, and to do that now, not at some point in the
future. I heard my colleague say that he supports that.
On a related matter, it seems to me that he also raised the
question of the use of pesticides and how they can contaminate
our water systems. He gave some very alarming examples of what
can happen. We have to remember that in the environment
committee a very excellent report was issued on the use of
pesticides, particularly for cosmetic use. My understanding is
that the Canadian Alliance issued a dissenting report. It did
not agree with the main report.
We have to be very clear about the positions being put forward.
Either we agree that there should be clean water for Canadians,
and that it should be backed up by enforceable national
standards, or we think that somehow various jurisdictions such as
the marketplace would take over. I believe the former.
What is the position of his party on the use of pesticides?
Would it agree that it is a central point in whether or not we
have a clean water system? Would he agree that we need to have
strong enforceable standards, not just for the water but for all
of the stuff that goes into those water systems, like pesticides?
1710
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has
asked a very important question. It is important to remember
that the government is using a federal water policy from 1987,
which is obsolete. We have to deal with this issue now.
We are in support of the motion put forward by the member for
Fundy—Royal and his party to develop enforceable guidelines
based on science.
With respect to pesticides, there are pesticides and there are
pesticides. For us to have access to safe food stuffs and enough
food to eat, there is little doubt that pesticides are required.
However it is important that we use pesticides wisely and
whatever pesticide is utilized, it is used on the basis of
science not on the basis of emotion.
I would encourage the House to continue to look at whether we
need to use pesticides for cosmetic reasons. If so, what kind do
we need to use? I would encourage the NDP member to work with
the rest of us, as I know she will, to develop those kind of
standards, which we would support.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of this
motion. I know that other members of the NDP caucus have spoken
in strong support of this motion from the Progressive
Conservative Party. We consider this to be a very critical issue
facing Canadians.
The confidence of Canadians has been very severely shaken given
recent events in both Walkerton and now in North Battleford,
Saskatchewan. This raises the question as to whether or not any
Canadian can rely upon our water system. It is something that
many Canadians over the years have taken for granted.
We live in a country of immense natural resources with a huge
abundance of freshwater. Canadians believe that our water
resources are protected, clean and safe for drinking. Yet the
events that have unfolded in the last year have seriously
undermined what it is that we believe in in terms of clean water.
This leads me to the question of the motion before the House.
While there needs to be negotiation and collaboration between the
federal jurisdictions, provinces and territories, the critical
issue is to arrive at a place where we have enforceable national
drinking water standards that are enshrined in a safe water act.
If we cannot agree on that in the House, then why are we here?
We are talking about a basic necessity of life. We are talking
about the provision of a resource for human consumption that
should be safeguarded at all cost. I do not think it makes a
difference whether one lives in a small or rural community where
reliance is on well water or whether one lives in a large urban
centre where reliance is on very complex water filtration and
chlorination systems. No matter where people live, they should
have the assurance that the water is safe.
In my community in Vancouver there have been significant issues
about water quality through the greater Vancouver regional
district. We have fought many battles to try and stop logging in
the watersheds where the reservoirs are to ensure the quality of
that water. This has been a very hotly contested local issue.
Many activists have taken it on over the years.
If we had a safe water act and enforceable standards along with
a federal government that was willing to put that into law and
provide a guarantee to every Canadian, then it seems to me that
we would not have the severity of the problems that we are facing
in Canada today.
Along with my colleagues I wholeheartedly support the motion, as
I hope every member of the House does, that we act in the public
interest to uphold the public interest in terms of the provision
of clear and safe drinking water.
1715
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is
on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1745
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Laframboise
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Ménard
| Paquette
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne – 30
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Casson
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Skelton
| Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich – 217
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
lost.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think if you seek it you would find unanimous consent
that those who voted on the amendment to the amendment be recorded
as voting on the amendment now before the House with Liberal
members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yea to the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no on this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative vote yes to the motion.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that
I will be voting with the Canadian Alliance caucus on the motion.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Cuzner
| Day
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harris
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manning
| Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood
| Yelich – 207
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Laframboise
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
1750
The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous
amendment be recorded as voting on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
proceed accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
are voting yes to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Casson
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
| Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harris
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jordan
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Rajotte
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
|
Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood
| Yelich – 218
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
| Crête
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Laframboise
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Ménard
| Paquette
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne – 30
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the main motion, as
amended, carried.
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill
C-18, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third
reading stage of Bill C-18.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find consent that members who voted on the previous motion, with
the exception of the member for Calgary Centre, be recorded as
voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
proceed accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting no to the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no on this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate
the whip's help from the Liberal Party. However, the Progressive
Conservative members will be voting yes with the exception of the
right hon. member for Calgary Centre who had to catch an
airplane.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
|
Carignan
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Finlay
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Perron
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Roy
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 182
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Comartin
| Cummins
|
Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Peschisolido
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
|
Yelich – 65
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion at the
second reading stage of Bill C-6. The question is on the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
1755
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be
voting no to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Burton
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Peschisolido
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood
| Yelich – 206
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Brien
| Cardin
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
|
Guay
| Laframboise
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Ménard
|
Nystrom
| Paquette
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 41
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill S-2, an act
respecting marine liability, and to validate certain by-laws and
regulations, as reported (without amendment) from the committee
and of Motion No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded divisions on report stage of Bill
S-2. The question is on Motion No. 1. A negative vote on Motion
No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed
accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
members will be voting yes to the motion. The member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast will be voting with the Canadian
Alliance caucus on the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams
|
Yelich
– 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that the vote just taken on the previous motion be
applied to the motion now before the House.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be
voting yes as in the last motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be voting yes to
the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
| Davies
|
Day
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams
|
Yelich
– 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
.Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1800
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic
Party vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
|
Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
|
Casson
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
Day
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Mitchell
| Moore
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peschisolido
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Rajotte
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Schmidt
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
|
Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
|
Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Volpe
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich – 237
|
NAYS
Members
Lill
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Nystrom
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Wasylycia - Leis – 11
|
PAIRED
Members
Augustine
| Bergeron
| Bulte
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Dion
| Gauthier
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Minna
| Patry
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development be authorized to travel to Paris, France from May
13-17, 2001 to attend an OECD conference on environmental and
economic issues.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the parliamentary secretary to table the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 6 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
immediately commit its one-third share of the funding for the St.
John's harbour cleanup
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on my private member's
motion I submitted for debate here in the House of Commons
concerning St. John's harbour.
Why, hon. members may ask, is St. John's harbour worthy of
special mention here in the House of Commons? How is St. John's
harbour special in the context of the business here in the House
of Commons?
Let me tell all hon. members here in the House that St. John's
is not just another city. It is one of the oldest cities in the
new world. It is the most easterly city in North America and, as
such, is Canada's easternmost gateway. It is a capital city
where responsible government took root long before there was a
nation called Canada.
St. John's is history and it is culture personified. This year
we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of Marconi's wireless
speech. The site of these celebrations is up on Signal Hill,
just above the harbour.
St. John's harbour is the recipient of 120 million litres of raw
sewage every single day. That is more than 43 billion litres per
year.
The narrow entrance to the harbour prevents the sea from
effectively flushing the harbour of pollutants. As a result, the
Sierra Club in 1994 gave St. John's harbour an F on the national
sewage report card. In 1999 it downgraded that F to an F minus.
1805
In 1993 the St. John's harbour ACAP committee was formed. ACAP
stands for Atlantic coastal action program, a program set up by
Environment Canada to assist Atlantic Canadians in restoring and
sustaining watershed areas in adjacent coastal towns.
With regard to the St. John's harbour cleanup, the ACAP
committee is doing a very good job in keeping the harbour
pollution issue in the public eye. It is a problem that the
mayor of the city of St. John's and the adjacent municipalities
of Mount Pearl and Paradise are working overtime to cure.
The mayor of the city of St. John's is in the gallery here
today. He held a press conference in Ottawa today in an effort
to draw national public attention to what is a very serious
environmental issue.
The leader of the opposition in the house of assembly in
Newfoundland, Mr. Byrne, was in the gallery today. He travelled
here to show his support for this particular issue.
One might ask why the federal government should be involved in
the cleanup of St. John's harbour. The federal government must
have placed a priority on these projects at one time because the
Atlantic coastal action program is a federal program. I do not
understand why the federal government would set up a program like
that if it were not prepared to help out financially in the
process of environmental cleanup.
The federal government is already involved in that project in
that it did commit a paltry $1.5 million to the project. However,
those token gestures on the part of the federal government are
not enough. We need the federal government to kick in its
one-third share of that $93 million project.
Federal funding has been applied for but to date there has been
no response. There has been no indication from Newfoundland's
federal cabinet minister that he is even remotely interested in
this project. We should not need a special program to deal with
a $93 million project like harbour cleanup. From a multibillion
dollar national infrastructure program, Newfoundland gets only a
minuscule amount simply because these funds are distributed on a
per capita basis.
Some 93% of Canadians who are serviced by sewer systems have at
least primary sewage treatment. Less than 50% of the people of
Atlantic Canada have any kind of primary sewage treatment. We
have much less than that in Newfoundland. We probably only have
5%, 4% or 3%. The bottom line is that our need is much greater
than the rest of Canada and that fact should be reflected in the
amount of funding we get.
A Memorial University economist by the name of Dr. Wade Locke
did a cost benefit analysis of this project. If we consider the
tax revenues to the Government of Canada during the construction
and over the 25 year lifespan of that project, the analysis shows
that the government would take in more than twice the $31 million
cost of that project. In other words, in terms of the national
treasury, over the long run the federal government would be money
in. If the Minister of Industry is unable to take anything else
to the cabinet table, he is able to take that fact to convince
his colleagues to make money available for this project.
This was a big issue during the national federal election
campaign. During the dying days of that campaign, the Minister
of Industry, flanked by his two St. John's candidates, called a
news conference on the waterfront of St. John's. The people of
St. John's held their collective breath expecting the minister
would make a financial commitment to the harbour cleanup project.
1810
Instead, all we got from the Minister of Industry, as usual, was
bafflegab and a firm promise that he would work very hard on
making money available for the St. John's harbour cleanup.
The minister is now back in Ottawa and all we have heard from
him on the harbour cleanup project is dead silence. The Minister
of Industry has done nothing.
Because of that inaction, I submitted the motion today for
debate in the House of Commons. Since it has been several months
since the federal election, I would ask the minister today what
he has done to advance the cause of the St. John's harbour
cleanup. Obviously the minister has done nothing.
The Minister of Industry is an individual who loves to deliver.
Since the federal election he has made the rounds of the entire
country announcing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
projects in every conceivable industry in city after city,
everything from genetic research to building airplanes, but still
not a single penny for the St. John's harbour cleanup project.
I am sorry to be continually yapping at the heels of
Newfoundland's industry minister. I know it must be an awful
distraction from his leadership ambitions. However, let me say
that he might as well get used to it because as long as I am in
the House the Minister of Industry will not get off the hook on
this one. He made the promise and he will have to deliver. This
is a very serious environmental issue for the city of St. John's
and it will not go away.
Let me also say that this is a minister who has taken on the
senior and leading role in the government. However, in the
Newfoundland context, so far at least, he is no Don Jamieson, no
John Crosbie and no Jim McGrath. These gentlemen not only stood
tall in the nation, they delivered at home as well. This
minister is not delivering the goods to fix the problem that is
an environmental hazard and a major deterrent to tourism in North
America's oldest city and one of the most beautiful cities in our
country.
What will the minister do to advance the cause of the St. John's
harbour cleanup?
At the beginning of the last election, the Prime Minister and
the industry minister contributed about a half billion dollars to
give Toronto harbour a facelift. I supported that. However, the
reason they made that contribution was to make Toronto harbour
more aesthetically pleasing and to get it ready for an Olympic
bid. Again, I support that. The Olympics are very important to
Toronto, fine and dandy, but, I ask members of the House, where
is the fairness in that kind of approach? It was a half billion
dollars to a harbour in Toronto to make it more aesthetically
pleasing for an Olympic bid and thumbs down on St. John's that
has a very serious environmental problem.
The environment minister was recently mentioned in his local
paper for getting $4.5 million for Victoria harbour, Canada's
most westerly capital city. I support that. It is a good
project and it should have money. However, it looks like the
ministers from Ontario and B.C. know how to deliver the goods.
What is wrong with our minister? Why can he not deliver?
Perhaps he has other ambitions or priorities. I hope he does not
because he has a duty to his province and to his province's
capital city. He loves to use the jargon “we are working on
that file”. Let me say to him that he should get to work. This
file needs national attention. It is time for the minister to
keep the promise he made to the people in November on the
waterfront in the city of St. John's. The minister is not good
at keeping his promises but he had better start because this one
will not go away.
1815
If Newfoundland's minister feels lonely at the cabinet table
when he is looking for money for St. John's, he should remind his
mainland colleagues that Newfoundland became part of Canada back
in 1949. If Canada wants our fish, paper, iron ore, hydro power
and oil, it should treat us like we are part of Canada.
We are not being treated like we are part of this great nation.
We have made our contribution to the nation and it is time that
the nation came to our aid on this issue. When we are faced with
a group of Newfoundlanders being forced to live among sewage, we
are faced with a group of Canadians that are being forced to live
among sewage.
When a German tourist looks over the rail of a cruise ship at
the mess floating in St. John's harbour, he does not ask how
Newfoundlanders put up with that. He wonders how Canadians put
up with that kind of mess.
St. John's is Canada's easternmost city. It is a gateway. Due
to the history and culture of the place, and being a port of call
for the American and European cruise ships, tourism is a very
important industry; it is a growth industry. The mayor of the
city of St. John's and his council have done a fantastic job in
attracting cruise ships. They have doubled the number of cruise
ships coming into St. John's. They deserve a great deal of
consideration and compliments for what they have been able to do,
but they do not have the federal government and the Ministry of
Industry at the moment helping out with their great effort.
This harbour is a health hazard. Studies have shown that
sediment on the bottom of the harbour is laced with chemical
pollutants and heavy metals. St. John's harbour is a septic soup
that is an environmental time bomb. What has the Minister of
Industry, Newfoundland's federal cabinet minister, done about it?
He has done absolutely nothing. He has given no indication that
he even cares. It is about time the minister came to the aid of
this very important project.
The harbour cleanup project is not an optional nicety. We are
not looking to dress up our harbour to grease the wheels of an
Olympic bid. We want to lessen the health risks to our people
and at the same time help to develop a fledgling tourism industry
that the mayor of the city of St. John's and his council are
working very hard on.
St. John's is North America's oldest city and it plays a very
historic role in the country. Newfoundlanders should not have to
get down on their knees begging, scratching and pleading with the
federal government to make money available for this project. The
federal minister representing Newfoundland should be front and
centre on this issue. He should go to the office of the mayor of
the city of St. John's and to the various municipalities in the
province and offer help on this project because they are doing
such a good job.
The minister has done nothing on this project. He refuses to
even be in the House today to talk about this issue and to hear
what is being—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I was listening
attentively as all other members were and I would remind members
that we cannot refer to the presence or, more specifically, the
absence of members. We all know our time requirements and that I
do not want to take anything away from the passionate and strong
feelings of the hon. member and other members who might join in
the debate.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
this is another environmental issue. There have been many during
the last eight years I have been here. Again we look at promises
and at the politics being played with the issue of the
environment.
I had the privilege of going to St. John's during a byelection.
I saw the harbour and the history of the place. It is a
beautiful spot. One of the things that I was shown in the
harbour was the emission of raw sewage into the ocean.
At first I did not understand. I could not imagine that in a G-8
country, in an advanced country called Canada, we would be
dumping raw sewage into the ocean. I would expect that in
developing countries. They have little choice. They have no
resources to take care of sewage, but I did not expect that in
Canada.
1820
Then I found out that it is not the only place where we are
dumping raw sewage. We are dumping raw sewage into the ocean in
the beautiful city of Victoria. When we say we have a problem
and there is too much sewage lying around on our beaches, the
answer is that we put the pipe out a little farther into the
ocean.
That is hardly sewage treatment. That is hardly something hon.
members would expect in a country like Canada. As I mentioned
earlier today in the debate about water, we sell our technology.
We sell water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants to
developing countries. In Canada we have at least two cities
where we are putting raw sewage directly into the ocean. That is
a disgrace.
In St. John's harbour, 120 million litres per day of raw sewage
are dumped directly into the ocean, letting the tides carry it
away and becoming someone else's problem. All members should be
shocked by that kind of information. We should be reacting to it
immediately. There are bacteria, pathogens, phosphorous,
nitrogen, heavy metals, visible pollutants lying everywhere, and
baby diapers, condoms and needles lying on the beaches.
The hon. member who raised the issue talked about the numerous
cruise ships going by. What do they think about Canada when they
see and hear about that sort of thing? There is not only the
health hazard the hon. member has mentioned, but the shame and
the embarrassment that we as Canadians have to live with.
I see the money that is wasted in planet Ottawa and some of the
programs that are funded. It is shocking that we would even need
a private member's motion on an issue as basic as water and
sewage.
I see how politics are played. I do not say I understand
politics in Atlantic Canada all that well. I hear how people are
told at public meetings that if they vote a certain way the money
will be made available for a sewage treatment plant. That is not
the way the government should play with environmental issues. It
is not a partisan political issue. Taking care of sewage is a
basic thing that a country does. Whether Canadians vote Liberal,
NDP, Conservative or Alliance should not matter when it comes to
putting raw sewage into the ocean.
I also looked at the Sydney tar ponds, which our party has been
looking at for eight years now. Again we see how little is being
done and how much politics is being played. There is a face-off
between the industry minister and the environment minister for
who can have the dirtiest harbour. That is not something I would
like to say I represented if I were either the industry minister
or the environment minister. I certainly would not want to list
on my credentials that my city's raw sewage is going into the
ocean. It is certainly not something we would want to talk
about.
How do we deal with environmental issues? Obviously the list
could be very long. What we do or what we expect from our
federal government is leadership. It should not pass the buck.
It should not say that it is this level of government or that
level of government. It must recognize that environment is a
provincial issue and in many cases is a municipal issue.
What should be the role of the federal government? Its role
should be one of leadership, of providing research money and
expertise to the provinces and territories to help them help the
municipalities.
1825
We do not even know what our aquifers are and whether or not we
are polluting them. We do not have nor do we use the technology
to look at our water supply.
Sewage is another matter. We really do not use the most modern
technologies in many cases. We do not have a set of standards
for testing. Some have primary treatment, some have secondary,
some have tertiary and some have none. Obviously, that is not
the sort of Canada that most of us want environmentally. The
federal government should provide leadership and initiative to
deal with these kinds of basic problems.
The matter of garbage is a favourite of mine. I have been
visiting garbage landfill sites in different countries to see how
they deal with garbage for probably 35 years. I remember sitting
next to the mayor of Vienna. I asked him casually over dinner
what his city did with its garbage. I told him that I had looked
at the garbage facilities in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London, Miami,
New York and a lot of Canadian cities as well.
He told me that he would show me what they did. At 11 o'clock
at night we drove downtown and came to a building that looked
like an apartment building. Inside was a recycling facility and
an incinerator.
Vienna's biggest problem is that it cannot get enough garbage.
It is now purchasing garbage from surrounding communities and
bringing it in train loads so that the plant is kept fully
functional.
That is the kind of thing that Canadians should be promoting and
utilizing whether for recycling, composting or incineration. The
technology is there. The technology to handle the sewage problem
in St. John's harbour is not rocket science. It is just a matter
of getting the job done and being committed to doing it.
We should also look at our air situation. I will give an
example that is similar to St. John's harbour or Victoria. There
is an area in the Fraser Valley that is the second most polluted
air shed in Canada. Southern Ontario is the most polluted and
this area is the second.
California is short of energy. It cannot build power plants
there because they pollute. Washington does not allow high
tensile lines to go over the top of populated areas. Guess what
they are going to do? They have decided to build power plants
along the border on the Washington side. California gets its
power and Washington gets the profit. Canada gets the pollution
and the high tensile lines.
That is the sort of thing that Canadians cannot allow. We
cannot allow raw sewage into the oceans. We cannot allow
pollution to come across our border without raising a fuss about
it. We have to deal with our sewage problem and modernize our
garbage disposal.
Canada's environmental record needs to be improved. At the
present time it is dismal. We need to stop playing politics with
the environment and get on with the job of creating a cleaner
environment for all Canadians.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue
for each and every Canadian no matter where they live. I would
like to respond briefly to the member for St. John's East who
spoke with such passion about this very important issue.
1830
However, I find it very unacceptable and disheartening when a
member in the hon. House tries to destroy a member by saying that
he does not care and that he has not participated.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, you were a member of the House at
that time and you remember very well when he was the minister of
fisheries. He went to bat for the province and the Atlantic
provinces. He brought the issues front and centre and got
results and spoke with passion.
The hon. member knows that very well. It is unfortunate that he
did not stick to the issue at hand but tried to politicize. As
the hon. member from the Alliance said, let us take the politics
out of it, and I agree with him. This is not an issue of
politics.
Let me point out that the Government of Canada has made and will
continue to make serious commitments to the protection of our
environment and to the reclamation of our threatened lands and,
of course, waters.
The current situation, whereby untreated sewage empties into St.
John's harbour, is unacceptable to me, to the minister, to the
Prime Minister, to the government and I know to the country as a
whole. It is important that the situation be addressed in a
manner acceptable and feasible for the city of St. John's, the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of
Canada.
I am fully aware that the municipal and provincial governments
have committed to cost sharing the necessary cleanup. I believe
that this approach will expedite our efforts to address this most
important issue.
For this reason, we are working to identify an appropriate
mechanism for funding this kind of undertaking. The estimated
cost for the construction of a required primary treatment plant
is $93 million. The only program currently in place to
facilitate federal contributions to municipal infrastructure is
of course the Canada infrastructure program, which is cost shared
with provincial and municipal governments.
The existing Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure works program
has committed funds totalling $153 million over five years. These
funds were allocated to assist in building and improving
infrastructure in more than 400 communities, incorporated areas,
of course, and the local service districts in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The municipal infrastructure requirements in this,
Canada's fourth largest province, are broad based, pan-provincial
and in some cases very urgent.
There are, for example, as many as 240 boil water orders in
effect right now on any given day in areas that do not enjoy the
basic advantage of reliable, safe drinking water.
On October 13, 2000, the Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure
agreement was signed, with an allocation of $51 million in
federal funds for Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to
point that out.
Unfortunately the existing program, while substantial, cannot
meet the existing demand. For the current fiscal year alone,
$250 million in water and sewer management projects have been
proposed for the province. The $93 million required to put an
adequate sewage treatment facility in place in the capital city
of St. John's is not included in that sum.
The Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure works program has a
specific mandate to provide assistance in the ongoing development
of appropriate and essential infrastructure in communities
throughout the province. It would be inappropriate to commit in
excess of half of that funding to one project.
This in no way diminishes the importance of finding a solution
to this unacceptable situation in St. John's harbour. It would
be inadvisable and counterproductive, let me say, to make short
term, reactive promises in response to an issue of this
importance.
I would like to assure the hon. member, members in the House as
well, and of course the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that
the minister will continue to work with his cabinet colleagues
and municipal and provincial partners to find an appropriate long
term solution to the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion
by the hon. member for St. John's East.
The position of the Bloc Quebecois, and mine by the same token,
is based on the opportunities cities had in the past and which
they lost over the last few years. They are slowly getting them
back, but they are far from meeting all the needs of Canadian
municipalities in infrastructure, and waste and water treatment.
1835
In a not too distant previous incarnation, just last year, I
quit as president of the Union des municipalités du Québec. I can
say that Canadian cities have been hard hit by the deep cuts in
federal transfers to the provinces made in 1992.
In 1998 alone, Quebec municipalities have contributed $730
million to the Quebec government to help erase the deficit and
meet the needs in health care and education. Since 1992, with a
government of the Liberal Party in 1992 and of the Parti
Quebecois in 1998, Quebec municipalities have had to make a more
significant contribution.
In Quebec, this was a bill that was paid in part to the
government of Quebec, but the municipalities saw their budgets
cut by $730 million.
I am sure that a similar situation exists right across Canada,
with the federal government's cuts in health and education. Let us
not forget that in 2001 federal transfers to the provinces for
health care will only he as high as they were in 1993. No miracles
are made with the taxpayer money and we all know that people do
not want more tax increases.
What did the provincial governments do? They reduced in turn
their transfer payments to the lower levels, basically the
transfers and support they were providing to the cities for
various programs, including the water purification program.
I am not surprised to see that in 2001 the City of St. John's,
Newfoundland is faced with a sewage problem, which it has not
yet found a way to solve, and a horrendous $30 million bill. The
problem is simple. The level of government funding for the
tripartite infrastructure program is insufficient.
The speech that the government member just gave proves it. What
he said was that there was not enough money to respond to the 400
demands in the province of Newfoundland alone.
The problem is much larger amounts need to be earmarked for
infrastructure programs. Since 1992, cities have had to
contribute to the higher levels of governments' deficit reduction
efforts.
The federal government started things off by shifting the deficit
burden to the provinces and provinces then dumped their problems
partly on the municipalities and partly on various other health
and education institutions.
We are just coming out of a large operation to put public
finances back in order, but let us not forget that municipalities
provide frontline services to the population. We tend very easily
to think that this costs nothing, but when we get up in the
morning and flush the toilet or turn on the faucet, we must never
forget that the quality of life we enjoy in our beautiful
provinces and also in Canada is largely due to the municipalities
that take care of water treatment, wastewater treatment and
garbage collection.
Those are things we often forget. People too often forget that
there are costs involved and that the municipalities have to meet
them.
I sympathize with the mayor of St. John's, Newfoundland. That
city should have the resources needed to treat its
wastewater. It should have, in the year 2001, the amounts
required to deal with what is now one of life's
necessities, wastewater treatment.
In this regard, we could recommend that the government be
receptive to all municipal applications regarding the needs
identified as a result of studies. A major study had to be
conducted by municipalities across Canada before they could
submit their applications under the tripartite program.
In Quebec municipalities need $10 billion
to deal with infrastructure problems of all kinds. The $10
billion will only be spread over the next ten
years.
They need $10 billion dollars to maintain their water systems,
sewage treatment systems and transportation systems in reasonably
good shape.
The tripartite infrastructure program announced in its last
budgets by the federal government will only
give Quebec $1.5 billion over the next five years, which is 15%
of what Quebec municipalities need. I am sure the situation is
the same across Canada. It is too little, and in the case of St.
John's, Newfoundland, it is too late, because considerable damage
is being caused to the environment by not dealing with such a
serious problem as water purification. We are always waiting for the
federal government because that is how we are able to calculate
investments made by the provinces and municipalities.
1840
I would even go as far as to say that, on top of that, all
municipalities along the St. Lawrence River, along the St.
Lawrence Seaway and along Canada's entire coastline need a
specific envelope for decontamination and cleanup to repair the
damage caused by nature and man in the last few years.
These municipalities need special assistance. There should be a
special envelope for municipalities along the coasts of Quebec
and Canada, including along the St. Lawrence Seaway, in order to
meet this urgent need to fight pollution and to be
environmentally correct, if we want our country to be at the
forefront of the fight against pollution.
The Bloc Quebecois will support all municipalities and cities
that try to take charge of their own destiny and need money to
compensate the big revenue loss caused indirectly by the federal
government since 1992. Cities had to part with billions of
dollars to help provincial governments and Quebec deal with
health care and education problems.
It is inconceivable that in 2001 federal transfers to the
provinces are at the 1993 level. When health care was
implemented in Canada, the federal share of the costs was 50%.
It stands now at 25%, while costs keep rising for the provinces.
In Quebec health costs will double over the next five years.
Obviously, federal transfers will not increase at the same rate,
even if we are told that agreements have been signed. True
enough, the provinces have signed agreements on infrastructure
programs.
We are supposed to be glad with everything that is being signed.
Of course, half a loaf is better than no loaf. Premiers sign
agreements with the federal government because it is better than
nothing and because it will help their communities and
citizens. However we should not forget that Canadian cities need
much more.
I will say it again, St. John's deserves this federal
investment. It deserves to have the federal government pay one
third, and the provincial government and the municipal
government will also each pay one third.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is appropriate that this private member's bill is
being brought forward today given today's debate in the House on
water and the obviously detrimental effect it has on the citizens
of this country and on their health when it is not adequately
protected.
That, to a great degree, is what the bill is about. I would
like to thank the Progressive Conservative member for St. John's
East for having brought forward the bill and giving us this
opportunity to debate it.
I will take this opportunity to quote some material. One of the
quotes I found is from the Telegram newspaper in
Newfoundland from October 24 of last year. This is how the
harbour was described: “The harbour, a noxious stew of feces,
condoms, tampons, rubber gloves and everything else that gets
flushed down the thousands of toilets in the metro area, has long
been an environmental embarrassment”.
What is interesting is the date that the article appeared in
that paper because of course it was not long before the last
federal election. The present Minister of Industry was quoted at
that time as saying that he would “work as hard and as smart”
as he could to bring sewage treatment to the region,
appropriately so, as we also have the Minister of the Environment
in the government—again I am paraphrasing but reflecting the
positions he has taken—on the record, recognizing that the lack
of sewage treatment is a serious threat to the sustainability of
coastal communities, affecting human health, constraining
economic development and compromising ecosystem integrity through
the release of toxic substances into freshwater and marine
ecosystems.
1845
He should also be working as hard and as smart as one of his
other fellow ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who
went further than the Minister of the Environment in his
threatened legal action against those poisoning the waters of the
Atlantic by the discharge of raw sewage. I am talking about the
city of St. John's which the fisheries minister is to sue.
After all the work that has been done and the history in terms
of the amount of pollutants being released into the water in that
area, we still have no involvement of any consequence by the
federal government. It is important to recognize the amount of
work that has been done by both the province and the municipality
in terms of their one-third shares. They have to be acknowledged
in that regard.
In the legislature of Newfoundland yesterday Mr. Harris, a
member of the New Democratic Party in that house, asked the
premier what was happening in terms of the cleanup of St. John's
harbour. Basically he received this response:
Unfortunately, I do have to report that we have no definite
commitment from the Government of Canada yet with respect to
their one-third share. We have made a firm request, repeatedly,
that they participate with a special fund, and a separate fund,
for an initiative as important as the clean up of the St. John's
harbour.
Then he indicated they would continue to do that and were
expecting at some point that the federal government would come
through. He went on to acknowledge the comment that Mr. Harris
had made earlier about the fact that the provincial government
and the municipality involved had committed their one-third
shares. Yet there has been no action by the federal government.
I come back to where we were today in the debate on water and
the motion we passed earlier in support of setting national
standards. It is typical of the federal government that it is
willing to support that type of motion but when confronted with
the reality of the necessary action we see no response.
We have the municipality kicking in its $31 million. The
provincial government in Newfoundland is kicking in its $31
million. They are prepared to do so and ready to go. They even
have a design of the plant and the piping required to make the
system work appropriately and safely for the protection of the
environment and the health of the people of St. John's.
They have done all that work and the only missing piece is a
commitment from the federal government. They still do not see
it. If the federal government were serious when it supported the
motion that was passed earlier, it would act when an occasion
like this one comes forward. We are in strong support of the
motion and of the needed action and would vote accordingly.
1850
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by
the hon. member for St. John's East respecting the proposed St.
John's harbour cleanup.
It always behoves me to remind the hon. member for St. John's
East, being a good fellow from St. John's, that there are other
issues, other harbour cleanups that have been proposed for other
parts of the island of Newfoundland and indeed throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would like to promote the concept of a harbour cleanup in
Corner Brook. The Atlantic coastal action program, the Humber
Arm group, have been proponents of that endeavour for quite
some time. I would have liked to have as well included in this
motion in terms of its context and wording a more all inclusive,
a more encompassing debate and a more encompassing discussion
written right into the text of the motion itself.
This being a debate, we are allowed to go the full gambit of
basically how it will proceed. I would like to provide some
discussion about priorities and about expanding the mandate. The
House engaged in a discussion just this afternoon about
priorities. This is an opposition day on which we discussed at
length the need for national regulation on clean, clear drinking
water as a priority matter. It was put forward by the
Conservative caucus, by the Conservative Party as the priority.
If we look at the recent round of infrastructure programs put
forward in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we did
respond to what our people, the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, said were their priorities, as would be noted by the
hon. member from the Conservative caucus. We invested literally
tens of millions of dollars into clean, clear drinking water in
communities and as a matter of fact in rural communities. This
is something of which I am very proud and has to be explored.
On the issue of harbour cleanup, the hon. member has put forward
that the municipality of St. John's has put up $31 million. The
rubber is ready to hit the road. The pedal is ready to be put to
the metal. The province has also put up $31 million. A total
$62 million is committed.
I would like to pose a question. Is it possible with $62
million already sourced that the project could now begin? Given
the fact that it probably would be initiated over a 10 year
period, an extended period of time, that the commitment is
genuine and real and that the need is there, which I think the
hon. member opposite has proven quite effectively, could the $62
million be put into play immediately?
We determine our priorities and our commitments and put forward
money for municipal infrastructure that provide for clean, clear
water. We put money forward for municipal sewer systems in rural
communities. If St. John's harbour cleanup is the priority, as
the hon. member says, and I agree with him, we have an
opportunity to put $62 million in play, not tomorrow, but today,
right now, on the floor of the House if the hon. member consents.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the inadequate time that
I have been given to address this very important issue. I offer
my support and congratulations to the member for raising the
issue in the House. I would also like to pay some deserved
tribute to the mayor of St. John's for his continued efforts on
behalf of the constituents that he shares with the member.
This is an issue which has been treated in an excessively
partisan way by the government opposite in that during the
federal election campaign it made eminently clear to the people
of St. John's when the industry minister travelled there that the
project was one he supported. That was borne out by the fact
that as premier of Newfoundland he supported the project himself.
During the federal election he went further than that and
encouraged the people of St. John's to vote for the Liberal
candidates, arguing that would give him allies and encourage him
in his ability to generate funding support for the project. That
is where we step over the line. That is when we make
partisanship blatant. When we do that we remove any credibility
to argue that fairness is the basis upon which funds are
allocated for projects such as this one.
This does not need to be a partisan issue. This is an issue of
a dirty harbour that needs to be cleaned up. I know the member
opposite would agree that is the issue we should be talking
about.
1855
I raised a simple question in the House with the environment
minister in question period. I asked him why he would tell the
mayor of St. John's that there were no funds available from his
department and subsequent to that announce that funds were
available for a project in his own riding.
I thought it was a very fair and reasonable question. An
opportunity was provided for him to respond. All he did was
launch into personal attacks about me. That was not fruitful. It
did not lend any credibility to the government's rationale for
its criteria and priorities on issues such as this one.
Opportunity was provided today for both ministers to rise in
their places to participate in the debates by saying what are
their priorities and how they determine the criteria for
allocating funds to these kinds of projects. Rather they give
the mayor of St. John's the runaround and waste his valuable
time. As hard as he wants to work for the people of St. John's
he would like to have a partner in the federal government. I can
understand that.
There is only one taxpayer out there. We have heard many times
that one taxpayer pays provincial tax, municipal tax and federal
tax. One taxpayer expects to get services from government. It
is a shame when government seems to insist on being partisan to
an excessive degree and interfering with the basic co-operative
approaches that should be taken on infrastructure projects such
as this one.
That is what we are seeing with this project. We are seeing a
willingness to put partisan self-interest ahead of fairness. It
is clearly evident. The Liberal candidate in St. John's East was
asked on the night of the election whether St. John's would be
punished by its refusal to send Liberals to the House of Commons.
His answer was that it had nothing to do with punishment but with
reality.
If that is the reality of government members opposite, they
should stand and be honest about it. If this is about
partisanship and rewarding ridings that vote Liberal, the
government should say so. It seems clearly evident that is the
case. That is most unfortunate, because the project is deserving
of support. I stand in support of the member and encourage the
government to take action on this resolution so it can go
forward.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank all of my colleagues for their submissions on this very
important issue. I thank the Alliance members, the NDP members,
the Bloc members, members of the backbench and the Liberal caucus
for their remarks as well.
It is too bad that we have to come to the House of Commons to
make a case for a project that is very basic and vital to the
development of one of North America's oldest and most beautiful
cities. However we have to come here because of the inaction of
government. We have to come here because politicians make
promises during election campaigns that they have absolutely no
intention of ever keeping.
It is getting all too common that this type of politics is
infiltrating the country. People stand and make promises. They
have no intention of ever keeping them. They want to get through
a couple of weeks or months in an election campaign. They hope
the public will have a very short memory and that it will all go
away.
The public does not forget. We cannot let the industry minister
forget the promises he has made to the people in St. John's to
get this project moving. This project deserves to be moved
along. Some 120 million litres of raw sewage a day is going into
one of the most beautiful harbours in the world. If we do the
mathematics, 43 billion litres of raw sewage per year go into St.
John's harbour. Is it any wonder that in 1994 the environmental
watchdog, the Sierra club, gave this project an F and in 1999
downgraded it even further to an F-minus? I do not know how much
further it can go than that.
1900
I want to make a comment about the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Industry who came here with a prepared text
today. I am really surprised that he did not even run the
remarks by his boss before he came here, saying that we could
take advantage of the Canada-Newfoundland infrastructure program
to fund the project.
There is only $50 million from the federal government over a
five year period. There are hundreds of small municipalities for
that $50 million over five years or $10 million a year. The
Minister of Industry himself has indicated that we cannot apply
under that program to have St. John's harbour cleaned up. It has
to be a separate side agreement.
Let me say to the other Newfoundland member, the member for
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, who said that since we have $60
million committed to it now why would we not proceed. We cannot
proceed. There is an agreement involving the municipalities of
Mount Pearl, Paradise, St. John's and the provincial government
and it cannot kick in until the federal government comes up with
its share of the funding.
It is conceivable to say that the project will never move ahead
unless the federal government comes up with its share of the
money for the project.
I want to compliment the people who do so much work on this from
year to year and who do not get discouraged. The city of St.
John's has been working very hard on it, along with the mayor.
There are the ACAP people who put their backs into it on a daily
basis as well and try to keep it in the public eye. They are the
people we should be complimenting for the work they have put into
it, not the politicians.
If the Minister of Industry has any feeling that getting the
money would somehow give some credit to me or the member of the
Alliance or NDP for the very limited submissions we have made, he
can forget about it. That is not the case at all. Making money
available for this project would be saying thanks to the people
who have made such a difference, people like the mayor of the
city of St. John's, the people on the St. John's city council and
the ACAP people. They are the people who deserve the real credit
for the effort that has gone into this so far.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Industry is back in his
office somewhere listening to this and will take it into account,
into consideration, step up to the plate and make money available
for what is a very good project.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order is
dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to again rise in the House of Commons to
speak to an issue of utmost urgency concerning the people of east
Vancouver.
On several occasions in the past two months alone, including
today, I have pressed the government on its lacklustre response
on the health crisis of drug use, overdoses and safety. In fact,
for four years I have been raising this and will keep on until I
am satisfied that the federal government and the Minister of
Health are doing all that can be done to save lives, improve the
health and safety of my community and stop the criminalization of
injection drug users who are dying at an alarming rate.
There are now so many expert reports, including that from the
city of Vancouver, that it boggles the mind that leadership and
action are so slow to follow. One of the most recent studies
shows that female drug users are twice as likely to be infected
with HIV-AIDS as men. This is the first time that this has
happened in the developed world.
Since 1997 I have been pushing for a comprehensive strategy. I
have called on the Minister of Health to adopt multicentre heroin
prescription trials, safe injection sites, better housing and
social support to users. All of these things will significantly
improve the health of injection drug users as well as safety in
the community. It will also reduce crime. If there is any doubt
about this we have only to look to Europe to see the success of
such an approach.
1905
I do want to acknowledge that the federal government has
provided some response. I am glad that the minister has
responded to some of the concerns and has provided support for
drug users, for example, by supporting the drug resource centre
which unfortunately has yet to open. It has been mired in
development permits and appeals in the city of Vancouver. Also,
there is now talk of a feasibility study on clinical trials for
drug maintenance. In my several meetings with the minister, I
have always found him to be knowledgeable and sympathetic.
Up to now the RCMP has been opposed to safe injection sites and
clinical trials for drug maintenance. Therefore it is very
significant that the chief superintendent of the RCMP's drug
enforcement program is now saying that the government should
consider safe injection sites. This is a significant development
and cannot be ignored, but it would require federal approval from
the Minister of Health.
I want to say to the government today, for heaven's sake, let us
get on with it now. I ask the government to be courageous and
listen to what its own experts are saying.
In Australia the first legal heroin injection room opened a few
days ago. Canada can be next. Canada can and must move on this
issue. We can prevent needless deaths. We can prevent crime,
which causes so much distress in my community and other
communities across the country. We can stem the flow of wasted
resources in law enforcement and judicial systems. We can change
Canada's drug laws, which are badly in need of reform. What it
takes is political will.
I ask the Minister of Health to stand tall, to be resolved to
take this issue on and to listen to what his own experts are
saying.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the questions
raised by the member for Vancouver East regarding clinical trials
to assess the effectiveness of heroin in treating heroin
addiction and HIV/AIDS in injection drug users.
[English]
Mayor Owen has met with Health Canada to discuss Canada's drug
strategy and continued collaboration between Health Canada and
the city of Vancouver. Health Canada is also a formal partner
with the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia
on the Vancouver agreement.
Mayor Owen's report on the injection drug use situation goes
beyond any one initiative. A comprehensive response is required
and the issue goes far beyond Health Canada. I am pleased to
report that federal and provincial-territorial officials
representing issues related to drugs, AIDS, hepatitis C,
corrections, enforcement, justice, aboriginal peoples and
population health have been working together to develop
strategies to reduce the harm associated with injection drug use
in Canada.
[Translation]
With regard to HIV/AIDS infection rates, the study results
mentioned by the member in her original questions were
preliminary. Health Canada takes into account the vulnerability
of community members with a higher risk of infection, by working
with other federal departments and public administrations within
the framework of what is known as the Vancouver agreement.
With this in mind, Health Canada has just funded two projects in
Vancouver downtown east side. One deals with alternate ways of
providing counselling and education in order to help women get
off the streets. The other targets the network of drug users in
Vancouver and is aimed at providing advice and services to drug
addicts.
[English]
Canada recognizes the gender implications of this global
pandemic and has undertaken several initiatives such as the
Canadian strategy on HIV-AIDS which supports research and other
activities that meet the specific needs of women and girls in
Canada and around the world.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, you have been more than generous to the people who have
preceded me and I appreciate that.
I am here tonight in relation to a question regarding Lancaster
Aviation which I have asked the Minister of National Defence on a
number of occasions.
1910
Lancaster Aviation, for the benefit of the general public and
those who are interested, was awarded a contract by the federal
government in 1997 to sell surplus military equipment spare
parts. The concern is that the spare parts contract grew to
include, without a tender process, 10 Challenger jets and 40
helicopters, far exceeding the original contract.
How could a company such as Lancaster Aviation go from selling
spare parts to selling 10 Challenger aircraft and 40 helicopters?
It is very obvious. There was an escape clause in the contract
that allowed the government to do this. I guess it did it to
reward its friends, if it wished.
We have a number of concerns on this file, one of them being
that the Challenger aircraft, which were Government of Canada
aircraft, were sold on the international market by a company
called Lancaster for less than 50% of their value. The
helicopters were sold in the same fashion. How is something like
that allowed to happen?
Then we found out that Lancaster Aviation closed its doors in
Milton, Ontario. It took the equipment, up to $70 million worth
of Canadian goods owned by the Government of Canada, and housed
it in Florida in a warehouse owned by a convicted felon who is
under contract with Lancaster Aviation.
Our concern is how and why those spare parts were allowed to
leave Canada. Lancaster Aviation closed up its operations,
closed its warehouse in Canada, only to move goods owned by the
Government of Canada across the border.
Incidentally, the individual has not yet been sentenced, but he
is up on money laundering charges and on leading an international
prostitution ring. We do not consider the individual to be a
good corporate citizen.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is simple. Why would
the Government of Canada allow this to happen? What security do
we have on the assets now lying in a warehouse in Florida owned
by a convicted felon who is awaiting sentencing? The laundered
money was through the selling of drugs. What happens to his
assets? What happens to the contractual agreement between
Lancaster Aviation and the individual in Florida? How much at
risk are the parts owned by the Government of Canada?
I have a second part to my question. When did the Government of
Canada realize that its goods were stored in a warehouse owned by
a convicted felon? When did the minister know, how much did he
know, and what action is the government taking today to secure
the assets owned by the people of Canada and in a warehouse in
Florida?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public
Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to the erroneous statements made by the hon.
member tonight.
The government has had a competitive arrangement in place with
Lancaster Aviation since 1997 for the disposal of surplus
aerospace assets, not just spare parts as the hon. member has
said.
The solicitation process was a rigorous one. It made sure that
the successful bidder met three criteria: first, that it had the
knowledge to sell such assets; second, that it could market the
assets worldwide; and, third, that it could achieve the best
return for taxpayers.
The contract was competed for in June 2000 and Lancaster
Aviation was the successful bidder. How could the hon. member
refer to it as an escape clause to help friends when it is the
same company that won the competition?
1915
Allegations that the contractor disposed of Twin Huey
helicopters and the Challenger aircraft were sole sourced are
false. It was a competitive process. The 1997 RFP contemplated
special projects such as the sale of the planes. When such a
need arises the process calls for an amendment to the contract to
legally bind the parties. That is what we did with the sale of
the Twin Huey helicopters and the Challenger aircraft.
I want to assure the House that the sale of the surplus aircraft
was conducted to the letter of the law and in the interest of the
Canadian taxpayers. Lancaster was paid a fair commission, as per
the terms of its contract. It had an incentive to sell the
aircraft at the highest possible selling price.
Lancaster Aviation has warehoused these assets in Florida and
that is true. They are not owned by a convicted felon. They are
owned by Air Spares Inc., a company in Florida. The member
should know that the assets are in Florida because that is where
the market is. Lancaster Aviation is using a facility in Florida
strictly for warehouse purposes. It remains solely responsible
for the marketing and sale of those assets.
The assets are not in danger. They are the property of DND.
They are only in the custody of that contractor. No parties
other than the crown have any right to those assets.
With those facts, clearly the member has presented to the House
a set of erroneous statements and facts, which he should know
better.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24.
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)