| OTTAWA, Thursday, October 25, 2001
|
| The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment
and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S-18, to amend
the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at
9:36 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
|
| Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
|
| [English]
|
| The Chairman: Senators, I call the meeting to order.
|
| I would ask the two witnesses to introduce themselves, please.
|
| Ms Louise Comeau, Director, Sustainable Communities and
Environmental Policy, Federation of Canadian Municipalities:
I am Louise Comeau from the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. I am the director of the Sustainable Communities
and Environmental Policy Department. With me is Sylvestre Fink,
who is our environmental policy analyst. Mr. Fink supervises the
day-to-day activity on our water program.
|
| Thank you for inviting us to present to you. Our organization is
interested in the activity of the committee and in Bill S-18. The
Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been working with its
membership on issues around water, which are of increasing
concern.
|
| The FCM is the national association of municipal governments.
Our 1,000 municipal government members represent about 80 per
cent of Canadian municipalities. We operate using a grass-roots
oriented structure. Our 72-member board meets regularly to
manage our work day-to-day. We also hold an annual conference,
which usually attracts 1,500 to 2,000 municipal representatives. It
was at our June 2001 conference in Banff that we matured our
position on water, drinking water and waste water.
|
| The position that was approved by our membership, and is now
our mandate, uses a pollution-prevention approach, as opposed to
cleaning it up after the fact. The latter approach was taken with
respect to Walkerton and North Battleford. We have decided that
certain significant kinds of material coming into the system
should be controlled at the source.
|
| Our pollution-prevention approach focuses on land-use
planning and watershed management; consideration of
drinking-water quality standards; monitoring and testing of water
sources and treated water, particularly source water protection;
and managing impacts by agriculture and other industry sectors
that put materials into the water system.
|
| A major concern of ours is full-cost pricing, particularly in
those communities with the population base to support a cost
structure that covers capital and operating costs of water systems.
Full-cost pricing is not the case anywhere in Canada today. We
are working on our federal budget submission, which I will
address later, on infrastructure investment. In addition, we believe
our approach should focus on operator training.
|
| The approach we have adopted is based on the principle that
every Canadian should have access to water that is pathogen-free.
Bill S-18, a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act, is one way of
attaining that objective.
|
| You will have heard in some presentations already, particularly
from the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, which
represents the staff component of the municipal family as we
represent the political component, that historically drinking water
has been lumped in with water in the environment and is
considered a natural resource. As you have clearly indicated with
this bill, drinking water is not a natural resource. Municipal
drinking water is an asset that is part of a system that delivers safe
drinking water to citizens. Emphasis should be placed on water
safety and the quality of the environment to ensure the health of
citizens.
|
| This point is particularly important because many of Canada's
drinking water systems were not designed to cope with the
volume and kind of various materials currently being flushed into
the system, particularly by the agriculture sector. This is why a
multi-prong approach is necessary.
|
| You also heard from the CWWA and Health Canada that a
system is currently in place to set water quality guidelines and
that this system currently works well. Some confusion remains to
be addressed about who does what and who should do what
when. Inconsistencies in approach have appeared as provinces
have accepted these guidelines and converted them into
regulation, but we are seeing movement in this area.
|
| Turning the guidelines into national standards could ensure
consistency across Canada. Initially, however, it may be more
feasible to focus on national standards for microbial parameters
on components that we are trying to manage, like E.coli, as
opposed to everything in our water. Switching to the new
legislative framework envisioned by the proposed bill may be
confusing and may not produce better results than improvements
and modifications to the current system.
|
| Bill S-18's reporting and inspection requirements that would
parallel the current system could prove to be quite onerous. We
certainly have concerns about the Criminal Code aspect of it and
issues related to criminal liability. The implications of such
liability are unclear at this time. They could become financially
debilitating and place water distribution systems and their
operators at risk. Municipal governments are particularly
concerned about managing these responsibilities given that water
systems were not originally designed to handle all the materials
now in them. We need a two-prong approach consisting of a
major investment in infrastructure and an upstream control.
|
| The current state of our infrastructure does not allow a move to
national standards at this time unless accompanied by the kinds of
dollars we need to match the investment to the responsibility.
There is a major deficit in our infrastructure, particularly in the
smaller communities. Larger centres are managing, as they have
the population base. Please note that Walkerton and North
Battleford were small communities surrounded by agricultural
operations.
|
| The distribution system is ageing. There are gaps in our
knowledge of the overall state of the infrastructure. We continue
to take stock and we work with the numbers that we have, but we
actually are not confident that we understand the full state of our
infrastructure. We use the CWWA estimates. In 1997, these
showed that a $5.4 billion additional investment would be
required through 2012 to bring all water and waste-water
treatment plants up to the latest equipment and techniques and to
extend central water supply and waste-water collection systems to
all residents of municipalities. These figures do take into account
expected population growth.
|
| As I mentioned, FCM has been working actively on the federal
budget process. We have proposed some ideas, which I believe
represent a maturing of the approach and the understanding of
municipal governments. We are seeking a change in the way that
the federal government, together with provincial and municipal
governments, invests in infrastructure. The problem is that a third
infrastructure program, which is now in place, is short term and
ad hoc. In fact, this type of program has had the effect of
interfering with long-term planning of municipal governments.
Long-term planning and major capital investments wait until
municipalities know whether or not there will be another
infrastructure program.
|
| We are arguing for a permanent approach to infrastructure
investment. This approach should start with water. We know that
that requires a change from the status quo, as it is not appropriate
to subsidize water systems in perpetuity.
|
| We know there is a base level of investment required for any
community. Communities with smaller populations that would
never have the revenue to cover capital, therefore, operating costs,
would remain as part of the present tripartite system.
Communities with larger populations, the larger urban centres,
would have access to a revolving fund. This model is similar to
one in the United States where municipal governments have
access to low-interest or no-interest loans. However, they are
required to generate the capital and operating revenue to repay
their loans.
|
| Over time, we are moving to full-cost pricing, a principle FCM
members have been working on. We believe that this approach,
combined with upstream, comprehensive source protection and
watershed planning, is fundamental.
|
| In our budget submission, we urge that analysis be undertaken
now around how these measures would work. We seek to phase in
a permanent infrastructure program, particularly for water, as the
existing program phases down, within the next two to three years.
It would include different funding mechanisms to meet different
needs, for instance grants for watershed planning, source
protection and operator training.
|
| Although the bill appears well-intentioned, FCM finds that it
has the potential to create confusion among regulators,
policy-makers and municipal operators. Rather than enacting new
legislation, FCM believes the best strategy at this point is to
provide stable funding sources to municipal governments and to
invest in specific water-related programs like the rehabilitation
and construction of water and waste-water infrastructure, full-cost
recovery, and conservation of the most effective and cost-effective
ways to ensure safe drinking water for all Canadians.
|
| Senator Spivak: I want to congratulate you on your work. The
municipalities are now beginning to flex their muscles, as they
should, because that is where the local authority is.
|
| In your presentation, you did not really address the problem of
agricultural pollution. You probably have seen the recent report on
the Great Lakes.
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes, I did.
|
| Senator Spivak: That appears to be an urgent matter. I wanted
to ask you about approval and disapproval. In my province of
Manitoba, there are frequent disputes between the municipal
authorities and others who want to intervene in municipal affairs.
These disputes are resolved in various ways. How urgent, do you
think, is the threat of agricultural wastes in the water system?
How should decisions to respond be reached?
|
| Ms Comeau: We believe the agricultural-waste threat is urgent.
Manure management, for example, and a move toward large
factory livestock operations are having a significant impact on
municipal water systems. This is why we are arguing that a more
upstream approach be taken instead of efforts at cleanup after the
fact. Through the watershed planning process and source
protection process, we could identify ways to restrict. This would
not necessarily be at the municipal end; this would clearly involve
the province. The process requires all stakeholders to accept the
watershed-planning principle, and crosses political boundaries, as
one watershed contains more than one municipal government.
|
| We are looking to models where communities have overcome
this problem. New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, is one example, where
all of the municipal governments and stakeholders have come
together within a watershed to develop a watershed plan.
|
| Senator Spivak: Often, it is the province that is luring all of
these hog operations to come in - so they basically override the
initiatives of the municipalities. Are you saying that stakeholder
coalitions can combat this trend?
|
| Ms Comeau: Without a doubt, lobbying activity and the
perception of economic benefit have permitted major
development of livestock operations. These operations have had
significant environmental impact, which has not been properly
addressed.
|
| My view is that public concern and pressure as a result of
North Battleford and Walkerton are beginning to change that. For
the first time, we have publicly acknowledged and identified the
contribution of the agricultural sector to this problem. That was
not the case two years ago.
|
| Senator Spivak: Given the urgency of this problem, I think a
sharp, surgical strike is needed. This bill and the penalties that
would flow from it will strongly focus attention on the need to
address the problem. We have to cut through the internecine
fighting within agricultural development and the trend towards
agri-business.
|
| Bill S-18 sets firm requirements. It provides criminal penalties.
That is why I believe it is a good approach. I am wondering why
you are lukewarm about it.
|
| Ms Comeau: We have identified the question of liability and
where it would rest, to avoid the possibility that it may come to
rest on municipal governments with no capacity to control
materials entering the water system and no access to resources to
actually fix the water system.
|
| Senator Spivak: I do not know where that liability lies.
|
| Senator Adams: I would like to thank the witnesses for
appearing here today. You said that your organization represents
80 per cent of the Canadian population and that you have a
72-member board. How far north does your membership extend?
Nunavut, where I live, is a long way from Ottawa. Are you based
in Ottawa?
|
| Last May, your organization met to discuss the issue of
drinking water. In Nunavut, we call most of our small
communities hamlets, rather than cities or anything like that.
|
| How much sway does your organization have with
municipalities?
|
| Ms Comeau: Regarding membership, FCM has direct
membership from individual municipalities, including those in the
North. Within our membership and on our board, all provincial
and territorial association are represented. Through that network,
all municipal governments in Canada are members.
|
| Our team works hard to increase membership. Our national
office is in Ottawa. We work directly with members and with
provincial and territorial associations. Our mandate is to represent
municipal governments at the federal level.
|
| Senator Adams: In Nunavut, we do not farm or raise cattle.
The capital of Nunavut is where our own government is based.
Without consulting the municipalities, or the hamlets, our
Department of Public Works will go ahead and build a sewage
lagoon. We had problems a few years back in Baker Lake with
such a lagoon. It was an issue of the lagoon being located at the
top of a hill and the sewage draining downhill into the lake. We
would like to have notice of such lagoons being built before the
government goes ahead and builds them. What I really want to
know is if your organization is active in the North.
|
| Ms Comeau: Our organization does have participation from
the North. Iqaluit is part of FCM and represented on our board,
although travel costs have been prohibitive.
|
| We have two effective mechanisms through which to work on
projects with municipalities. Although we do not set rules for
municipal governments, we do develop policies that they approve.
We work with them to implement approved policies at our board
and membership level. As well, we have developed an effective
program called the Green Municipal Funds. In the February 2000
federal budget, FCM received an endowment to encourage
municipal investment in projects with a high standard of
environmental performance. Qualifying projects must perform at
least 30 to 55 per cent better than currently. Forty per cent of
these projects concern water. We are working hard to increase our
capacity and experience and understanding of what the
opportunities are.
|
| We have a green funds water project with Iqaluit. Because of
the weather conditions up there, we are looking at on-site systems
for purification of water, as opposed to distribution, which can
freeze and so on. The same program is operating in Dawson City.
|
| We do, therefore, have mechanisms through our policy work,
our advocacy work and our program work. The department that
Mr. Fink and I represent has 25 staff. In addition to green funds,
we manage several programs that help municipal governments
retrofit buildings, look at renewable energy technologies and
make progress on climate protection. We are now working on
brown fields redevelopment, which we hope will be expanded in
terms of our green funds.
|
| Hence, while we do operate within a legislative framework, we
have good opportunities to make use of peer pressure.
|
| Senator Adams: You spoke earlier about sewage lagoons.
Were you referring to the type where the water is sprayed and it
freezes in the process? I know of a company here in Ottawa that
operates such systems. Something like that would be ideal where I
live. The only problem there, however, is that blowing air at high
pressures is difficult because of the low temperatures. Such
systems are only good to about minus 20 degrees Celsius. As you
know, refrigerants are no good at that temperature. Is that the type
of stuff you were talking about? Do you know if that company
here in Ottawa has gone bankrupt?
|
| Ms Comeau: I have heard of the project. I am not familiar
with whether the company has gone bankrupt, but I assure you
that the projects we are working on in the North are really trying
to focus on on-site purification of the water. This means splitting
the grey water from other water and making sure that the system
itself within the building manages whatever the community needs,
as opposed to relying on central plans and distribution systems.
|
| Senator Christensen: I am not surprised that Mayor Everitt of
Dawson City is involved with this project. I was on your board of
directors 25 years ago, but expect times have changed since then.
|
| I expect the farm problem and contamination were major
discussion topics at your recent conference. I would like to know
how the road-salt issue is being addressed. Road salting is a
municipal program. It is contaminating our groundwater, rivers
and lakes, and ends up in our drinking system. Will Bill S-18
address this problem?
|
| Ms Comeau: Road salt is about to be regulated under CEPA.
We have been working on this initiative. After heavy debate at
board and membership level, our members have been encouraged
to accept three important conclusions. First, the science panel
conclusion that road salt can reach concentrations harmful to the
environment is a fact beyond question. Second, there are
cost-effective ways of reducing the amounts of road salt used. We
have worked on identifying those methods and informing our
members about them. Third, Minister Anderson will shortly
announce his intentions. Once that is gazetted, it launches a
two-year process that will focus on the risk-management
opportunities with road salt. We will then be engaged and intend
to work with our members in the CTA to ensure that our members
know of all the opportunities they have at their disposal.
|
| In summary, we believe that road salt is toxic, that it needs to
be managed and that there are ways to reduce its use and save our
communities money. We intend to work with our members to
have them focus on those aspects of it. We do not share the view
of the Salt Institute that this problem must be stopped at all costs.
|
| Senator Christensen: Do you believe that Bill S-18 will be
another tool to help in that area?
|
| Ms Comeau: I am not sure. There are parallel processes in
play. Road salt will be regulated under CEPA; therefore, we will
have to manage dual compliance regimes. This could lead to
difficulties.
|
| The Chairman: In addition to that, I read a headline recently
that Calgary is proud to be introducing calcium chloride to
replace sodium chloride order to keep the streets free of snow.
Does calcium chloride behave differently than sodium chloride? I
know it melts ice faster, but what does it do to the environment?
|
| Mr. Sylvestre Fink, Policy Analyst for Environmental
Issues, Community Energy Systems, Federation of Canadian
Municipalities: The problem with calcium chloride appears to be
its cost. Right now, it costs 15 to 20 times more than conventional
road salt.
|
| The Chairman: What does it do the snow and the road
surface?
|
| Mr. Fink: Studies have shown that calcium chloride is as
effective as road salt when used in a brine solution, which means
mixed with water; when applied before snow falls; and when
using all other best practices available. The problem is the price.
That is why the CTA has concluded that there are no viable
alternatives to road salts right now.
|
| If more municipalities used calcium chloride, the price would
come down.
|
| FCM has concluded that road salt can be managed and that the
negative and harmful effects can be brought to manageable levels
in the following ways: by introducing proper management
techniques, by using best practices, by using brine solutions, by
building smart road systems, with sensors in the roads, and by
storing the salt properly. Much more road salt leaches into the
water system because of improper storage than through its
application on roads.
|
| Senator Finnerty: Why not use sand?
|
| Mr. Fink: Salt is used mostly in the eastern provinces, Quebec,
and Ontario. We have encountered the most resistance to banning
road salt in these areas because sand on its own is not as effective.
However, it all comes down to best practices. We are advocating
the use of sand as well.
|
| Senator Cochrane: I think sand is effective. I have seen it
used in my province of Newfoundland, on the hills and so on
during wintertime. To me, it is just as effective as salt. I would
prefer sand.
|
| Ms Comeau: When looking at alternatives to salt it is
important to consider the life cycle of the product. Sand has
significant impacts on ecosystems. When sand runs off, it covers
the bottom of the water systems, it can interfere with fish
reproduction, and it has an effect on turbidity of the water. You
have to look at the trade-off here. It is important not to trade-off
typhoid for malaria. Sand is effective, and we use it in Aylmer,
where I live. However, what happens to the sand in the spring run
off has implications for the environment.
|
| Each element that we use, no matter what it is, will impact the
environment somehow. The issue, therefore, is first to minimize
what you use. The smart road system helps in that regard. Our
society takes a "slop and drop" approach in the application of
materials. Smart road systems can save us materials and money.
They identify road temperature and send a signal to the municipal
operator to apply material before icing occurs. Presently,
municipalities apply material to melt ice after it has built up.
However, if it is applied before there is ice, far less material will
be used to maintain road safety.
|
| A second key step to improve road safety in winter conditions
is to slow down. Rather than adapting our driving to weather
conditions, we would prefer to use large amounts of salt. An
effective approach should involve changing our driving behaviour.
|
| Senator Cochrane: I would like to ask you about the positions
the FCM has adopted at its conference this year. You mentioned
that some municipalities are doing an excellent job, and you
mentioned New Glasgow as an example of a model municipality.
|
| Could you give us some other examples of what these model
municipalities are doing, how they are doing it, what we can learn
from them, and how it is that only these municipalities are able to
undertake these projects?
|
| Ms Comeau: Part of the answer is that they have the
knowledge. Part of what we do at FCM is to make sure that we
spread information on new approaches, best practices and so on.
We do this by focusing on peer teaching.
|
| The other part of the answer lies in strong municipal leadership.
The mayor of New Glasgow happens to be a real go-getter.
Mayor McLean ensures that she makes whatever political
connection is needed on an issue. That kind of energetic
leadership is not always present, nor the connections and
commitment to build a political structure.
|
| However, increasingly, communities are looking at these issues.
For instance, more of our members are approaching us for
guidance on how best to do watershed planning. It is a very new
concept. It is not something that we have been involved in at a
municipal level. In Ontario, watershed planning has been done by
conservation authorities.
|
| The Grand River Conservation Authority is another excellent
model. The community there does all the land-use planning, the
water conservation, and the management of its water systems
around the ability of its watershed to cope.
|
| I would say that scarcity drives the interest in most of our
environmental initiatives. For example, the communities doing
more work on waste management are the ones running out of
landfill space. Communities with significant limitations on their
watershed, such as availability of water, quality of the aquifer, are
driven to take a look at their opportunities.
|
| Most communities are not in that situation. In the area of waste
water, many communities take sewage sludge from their
operations and use it as agricultural fertilizer. The concern is that
agricultural fertilizer from sewage sludge can have significant
heavy-metal material in it and that needs to be managed.
|
| Toronto, as an example, wanted to improve the quality of its
bio-solids by limiting what could come into the waste-water
stream. They wanted to pass a sewer-use bylaw restricting what
industry could put into the waste-water stream and mandating
development of pollution prevention plans. Fines of up
to $100,000 dollars would be levied for non-compliance. To
develop and pass a sewer-use bylaw, Toronto had to seek the
Ontario government's permission.
|
| Municipal acts are very prescriptive. Instead of general
provisions permitting municipal governments to act in a broad
range of fields, there is what we call prescriptive legislation,
which in the case of Ontario can go on for hundreds of pages,
listing specifically what the municipality can do. If it is not listed
they cannot do it. To act outside of the prescriptive list, provincial
permission must be sought and is not always granted. After many
years, Toronto finally received permission to enact a sewer-use
bylaw, one of the first in the country.
|
| The Chairman: Yesterday, we heard from the Canadian Water
and Wastewater Association. They suggested that, instead of this
bill going through, the twice-proposed Drinking Water Materials
Safety Act would provide the legislative framework and provide
the basis for federal involvement. Are you at all familiar with
that?
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes, we are. I will let Mr. Fink take that question
because he has been working closely with Mr. Ellison of CWWA.
|
| Mr. Fink: What Mr. Ellison explained to me that the proposed
Drinking Water Materials Safety Act would have worked within
the framework of the system established by the current drinking
water guidelines. These bills deal mostly with microbial
standards. However, the provinces have all adopted the microbial
guidelines already, so we are already at that standard of care. The
acute health risks come from microbial contamination. The
provinces have accepted the guidelines, as set by the
federal-provincial drinking water team, as their standard of care.
|
| The Chairman: Are you saying that they have moved up to
that standard but we still need this amendment to the Food and
Drugs Act?
|
| Mr. Fink: The proposed Drinking Water Materials Safety Act
would not have changed the current system; it would only have
made what we have now the standard. Bill S-18 will shift the
responsibility to the Food and Drugs Act. This will entail an
entirely new regulatory regime and, particularly, a new
compliance regime. We argue this is unnecessary, because the
current system already works quite well.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Let me start with the premise of the bill
and your municipalities. FCM has 1,000 municipalities. In the last
two years how many of your members have had boil-water
advisories?
|
| Ms Comeau: In Newfoundland, there have been about 200
boil water advisories. Some boil-water advisories have occurred
as well in Saskatchewan and B.C. I do not have the total number.
|
| Senator Grafstein: You have told us that everything is fine
and that FCM is moving along. How many boil-water advisories
have your members issued in the last two years as a total number
of the thousand members you have?
|
| Ms Comeau: First of all, I do not have the number of
boil-water advisories with me. Sorry about that. I think you may
have the numbers.
|
| Senator Grafstein: How would I have the numbers?
|
| The Chairman: Order! Senator Grafstein, you have numbers.
The witness has said that she cannot answer your question. We
understand that.
|
| Ms Comeau: I realize that has been a major priority of yours,
which we appreciate. Provincial governments, not by
municipalities, issue boil-water advisories. They are a provincial
responsibility, and our members are working to comply with
existing provincial regulations, standards, and guidelines.
Boil-water advisories do not always represent serious health
crises. A boil-water guideline is not necessarily an E.coli
situation.
|
| Senator Grafstein: I did not say it was.
|
| Ms Comeau: We are aware that major investments have to be
made in terms of upgrading these systems, particularly in Eastern
Canada. We have been working for 20 years to try and improve
infrastructure investment. We know there is an issue about
adequate supply of infrastructure and so on. We know
Newfoundland is actively engaged on boil-water issues with our
members there. Newfoundland has had the worst case in the
country.
|
| The Chairman: I think the witness has made her point now.
|
| Senator Grafstein: I have read through your brief carefully. In
order to use our limited time best, it would be most helpful if you
were responsive to the questions. If you cannot respond, it is okay
to say so.
|
| I understand the Sierra Legal Fund, who will be here, did a
study about boil-water advisories. The truth is that your
association does not keep track of these advisories. The reason is
that there is no interest in the municipalities keeping track of this
on a national basis.
|
| The facts are that, in the last two years, it has not only been
Newfoundland. There are serious problems in Quebec, and they
have tried to address them, and in Ontario. Saskatchewan, British
Columbia and the North have also had boil-water advisories. The
number that I obtained, and I do not know if it is accurate or not,
is 800. Eight hundred municipalities have had a boil-water
advisory, and the issue is not just E.coli, so that is a foul ball.
|
| I wanted to know whether your association recognized the fact
that they have a clear and present danger in their communities.
When I look at the evidence I collected out of newspapers, there
is a clear and present danger to public health.
|
| I also wish to address your cost model. What does it cost per
day, on average, a household in municipalities across Canada for
their average intake of clear drinking water? We have evidence to
suggest that an average household uses 360 litres per day. My
question is, what is the cost per day on average across the country
for drinking water through the drinking systems?
|
| Ms Comeau: We would go to CWWA for that information.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Do you know what the consumer is paying
for bottled water in each of your member communities?
|
| Ms Comeau: These are not FCM's issues.
|
| Senator Grafstein: I would like to deal with the question of
accountability now. You have been very candid by saying there is
confusion about who, what, and when. Do you agree that there is
confusion about accountability?
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes. Absolutely.
|
| Senator Grafstein: As I understand, your solution is to
continue with business as usual and ask $5.4 billion from the
federal government.
|
| Ms Comeau: No, I do not think that is appropriate.
|
| Senator Grafstein: That is what you have said.
|
| Ms Comeau: May I return to my point on the boil-water
advisories? I have to explain why you might perceive that FCM
would do things that are simply not appropriate for us to do. I
would like to be clear on that. When a boil-water advisory is
issued, it is because current guidelines are not being complied
with. The boil-water advisory is a move toward ensuring
compliance. The issue is not whether we need new guidelines.
The issue is determining how to enforce our present guidelines.
That is a provincial responsibility. FCM is a federal association
and is concerned exclusively with federal jurisdiction. Therefore it
is inappropriate for me to comment on provincial responsibilities.
|
| On accountability, we have taken a comprehensive position. In
this presentation, I have not said a word about money and, in fact,
we got to infrastructure as the last point.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Well, it says under your paragraph you do.
|
| The Chairman: Pardon me. The request for $5.4 billion was
made of Minister Paul Martin by the Canadian Water and
Wastewater Association.
|
| Senator Grafstein: The FCM reaches the conclusion in this
paper that additional funding is required.
|
| The Chairman: That is true. However, the figure is taken from
a presentation given by the Canadian Water and Wastewater
Association to Minister Martin in October 2001.
|
| Ms Comeau: It is unfair to take the view that municipalities do
not comply with existing guidelines is because people do not care.
The reality is that municipalities do not have the funding to deal
with these issues. You cannot continue to year after year
under-spending in these areas and expect nothing to happen.
|
| We are not in support of such non-compliance.Our position is
that the guidelines are in place and should be enforced. However,
enforcement does require resources to ensure the infrastructure
can manage the problem.
|
| We also believe that significant changes to water management
are required. Critical changes include watershed planning, source
protection, operator training and more regular testing. Funding is
needed because those areas currently are not being well managed.
Resources should be focussed on these areas.
|
| It would be unfair to say that we did not take a more
comprehensive position. We know the issue of water management
is about more than infrastructure. The question this committee is
looking at, however, is whether new guidelines are needed and
whether legislation is needed to do that.
|
| The Chairman: Bill S-18 is not a guideline. It sets out the
objectives to be attained. You are presenting arguments for more
funding, but you have come to the wrong committee for that.
|
| Ms Comeau: I am not asking for more funding.
|
| Senator Grafstein: I find your brief confusing because, while
you talk about full-cost pricing, you do not know the price of
water in your municipalities. Perhaps you could obtain for this
committee a cost model from your members. You have raised
full-cost pricing, but we do not know what you are talking about.
|
| Senator Adams: We are paying over $2.
|
| Ms Comeau: That cost probably does not include your
full-cost capital and operating costs. We are working now to
develop a sustainable model that most municipalities can use. It
has been developed on a model used in Hamilton, for which we
can provide documentation. The Hamilton model demonstrates
that pricing there does not cover the full capital and operating
costs of the Hamilton system, but falls short by 80 cents per litre.
There is a significant split between the price the consumer pays
and the cost to provide the water. We have identified that
problem.
|
| Senator Grafstein: How can you know that? You said you did
not have the numbers.
|
| Ms Comeau: We have a study from Pollution Probe that lays
out an interesting example in terms of Hamilton, which is one of
the communities that has gone, in their view, toward fuller-cost
pricing. There is this huge gap, which we now have identified.
|
| We have engaged a firm to help us develop a model that
communities can use for sustainable asset management. Anybody
who applies to our green funds will receive this model and will be
required to use it before they receive a grant.
|
| I think we are operating within our jurisdiction and within our
mandate.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Do you know the costs to the health
system caused by of health problems arising from bad drinking
water in Canadian communities?
|
| Ms Comeau: I do not.
|
| Senator Grafstein: I would ask you to read for us a part of
your brief, which, although insightful, seems to contain a
contradiction. That is the third paragraph on page 3. Read that out
for us, and then I will have some questions about this.
|
| Ms Comeau: That paragraph reads as follows:
|
| These would be funded from a permanent infrastructure
fund...
|
| That is tripartite and does not just include the federal government.
|
| - modelled after the US Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds, this Fund would provide local
entities with the possibility of borrowing funds at zero or
local low-interest rate for the purpose of capitalization.
|
| This is what occurs in the United States today.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Do you know what the precondition of that
funding is?
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes.
|
| Senator Grafstein: What is that precondition?
|
| Ms Comeau: The communities have to have in place the
proper planning structures to manage their water systems. These
include full-cost pricing.
|
| Senator Grafstein: No, the precondition is to meet the federal
drinking water enforceable standards; failing that, they receive not
a cent.
|
| Ms Comeau: I understand that, but the U.S. federal
government has clearer jurisdiction in this area.
|
| Senator Grafstein: No, they do not.
|
| Ms Comeau: In our view, that may be how the Americans
have moved forward.
|
| Senator Grafstein: Do not confuse us. The committee will
deal with the jurisdiction problem. You have your own problems
and we have ours. At the end of the day, however, FCM is
proposing a model.
|
| Ms Comeau: That is right.
|
| Senator Grafstein: That model is premised upon the American
model.
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes.
|
| Senator Grafstein: The American model is premised upon
federal, regulatory, quasi-criminal, legally enforceable standards.
It is not based on peer pressure or guidelines.
|
| Ms Comeau: That is right. Senator Grafstein, the way the
American model works, the liability is to the state and the funds
go to the state. The state capitalizes the funds.
|
| Senator Grafstein: That is not so.
|
| Ms Comeau: It is true.
|
| The Chairman: May I suggest, Ms. Comeau, that you submit
to us in writing a detailed description of how this infrastructure
model in the U.S. is used.
|
| Senator Spivak: That would be helpful.
|
| The Chairman: It is a good point.
|
| Senator Spivak: For years, a lot of non-governmental groups
and environmental groups have argued for water standards like
the United States. You do not seem to be in favour of approach.
What is wrong with a system that has laws instead of guidelines?
I believe the Sierra Club argued for that.
|
| Ms Comeau: That may be so, but I happen to work for the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and they have a position.
Our members have endorsed consideration of national standards.
|
| The question is whether Bill S-18 is the proper vehicle through
which to achieve national standards. Despite our brief time to
present our position on this bill to this committee, we have tried
to emphasize our main concern, which is the liability question.
We have also tried to explain to you the other ways in which we
are addressing the issue. That is as best as I can say it.
|
| The Chairman: You mentioned the short time. You are quite
right. I wanted you to think about making another written
submission to us. You have heard our questions and our concerns.
Therefore, to make up for the fact that you did not have a whole
morning, perhaps you could write to address our concerns.
|
| May I compliment the FCM on its consideration of land-use
planning and watershed-based management. In the West, where I
come from, that is very important to us because the water is badly
contaminated by the time it reaches the end user, at great expense.
Throughout the West, not only in Alberta, we have agricultural
products, oil and gas products, and manufacturers' products. The
surface water run-off from our cities carries salt, PCs, fertilizers
and herbicide. We treat our sewage but not our surface water. It is
different if the water hurts the fish. We have a law in the West that
if the water kills the fish there is a penalty. If it kills people, that is
different.
|
| Senator Spivak: If we need you back, would you be willing to
return and continue this discussion? This committee is a broadly
based group and may need to address these matters further with
you.
|
| Ms Comeau: Yes, I would be willing.
|
| Senator Watt: My question is an extension to Senator Adams'
question regarding to your membership. Do you also have
members from Nunavik, Labrador, and the Indian reserves?
|
| Ms Comeau: We represent municipal governments, not First
Nations. We do have members from Labrador and Newfoundland,
to the degree that there are municipalities there. The board of
directors is elected from the membership, based on population
and other factors. We have four or five members from
Newfoundland and Labrador, and then it builds across the country
in terms of population.
|
| Senator Watt: I wonder if you can provide us with a list of
your membership, including members from Nunavik, in the north
of Quebec.
|
| Ms Comeau: Certainly.
|
| Senator Watt: Thank you.
|
| The committee adjourned.
|
