---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 9 - Evidence - November 28, 2006

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 205, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at 5:26 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.

[English]

The Chairman: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. This evening we will examine Bill S-205, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water). This bill seeks to amend the Food and Drugs Act to include water from a community water system, among other places, as a food that is subject to regulation under the act. Appearing before us this evening is Senator Grafstein, who is not only the sponsor but also the author of this bill.

My name is Tommy Banks. I am a senator from Alberta and I am the chair of this committee. Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to introduce the members of this committee.

Senator Ethel Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador, is the deputy chair of this committee. She holds a masters degree in education from St. Francis Xavier University. She also serves on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and on the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Senator Willie Adams, from Nunavut, was appointed to the Senate in 1977. He is an electrician and businessman by trade. His entrepreneurial ventures have included serving as the owner of Kudlik Electric Limited, Kudlik Construction Limited, Polar Bear Cave Investments and Nanuq Inn at Rankin Inlet. He also serves as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Senator David Angus is from Montreal. He is a lawyer with an extensive record of community and public involvement, and is currently a senior partner in the Montreal office of the firm of Stikeman Elliott. He is also the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

Senator Nick Sibbeston is a lawyer, a distinguished member of the Northwest Territories legislative assembly and a former premier of the territory. Senator Sibbeston has dedicated his life to public service, particularly to the needs of Aboriginal people in the North. He is currently the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Senator Claudette Tardif has been recognized for a long time as one of Canada's foremost advocates and defenders of minority, linguistic and cultural rights, and for her considerable contribution to both secondary and post-secondary education. Appointed to the Senate in 2005 from the province of Alberta, she is currently a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

Appearing before us today is Senator Jerry Grafstein, the author and sponsor of the bill before us, Bill S-205, which has to do with clean drinking water. You have the floor, Senator Grafstein.

The Hon. Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein, sponsor of the bill: First, thank you for giving me the distinct privilege and pleasure to talk to this committee. The chairman will recall that this is my second appearance. The last time I appeared before this committee on the same subject matter of this bill, the committee gave it a thorough review and unanimously recommended it to the Senate.

I want to say to you, chairman, and to the committee that the committee is developing a fabulous reputation in Canada for being a staunch defender of one of our most precious resources and that is water, whether it is pure water in our lakes and streams or our drinking water.

I commend you and I want to commend every member of the committee on this excellent report Water in the West: Under Pressure, which highlights one aspect of drinking water.

We hear a lot about the charter and we hear a lot about equality. When it comes to drinking water, which is the basic living resource in everyone's daily diet, it is strange that while we clamour for equality of health care and access to health care, we do not provide, in the 21st century in Canada, equal access to clean drinking water across the country.

The most basic resource for human beings is drinking water. Our doctors tell us we must drink eight glasses of water a day and still we do not provide or have available on a daily basis clean drinking water to every family in this country.

Let me give you a brief history of this bill because the bill is not something that I imagined, it is something that grew out of a series of events in my region, the province of Ontario. I became curious about it and began to collect a file which is now voluminous; it now runs three or four feet. I just brought you a short rendition of it. It turns out that clean drinking water is a problem not just in my province but also in every region of the country.

Some years ago I started on this lonely quest. This is the history of this bill because back in May of 2000 we received a wake-up call in Walkerton, a small town in Ontario, that had a horrible problem. The people of Walkerton discovered there were contaminants in their drinking water system. It started a huge Canadian debate about drinking water. After the events in Walkerton, similar problems occurred in North Battleford, Saskatchewan and then in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. As I started collecting anecdotal information, I discovered there was not a region in the country that could say that it had a clean, pure, consistent and sustainable drinking water system. That information was shocking to me.

We had local advisory reports sprouting up in Quebec, north and south. Just this summer, as an example, swimming pools were closed down in the heart of Montreal because of E. coli. Senator Cochrane is from Newfoundland and Labrador and today in Newfoundland and Labrador, women still boil water in order to provide clean water and sustenance for their families. This is the 21st century.

This is an issue in Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, the Aboriginal communities, in every region of the country, and that is why I concluded that this is a national problem and not a regional problem.

Our responsibility as senators is very clear: When an issue emerges from one particular region, we try to remediate it as best we can. We are here to represent our own regions, but when it becomes a national issue, it moves from a regional to a national concern. That is why we have the bill before us.

The question is why is it that this issue scorches the national conscience? If you examine the media, as I have, local water advisories are local issues that emerge in a particular community. It will be a note, perhaps, in a national newspaper, but no one correlates those reports across the country. If you studied all of the reports, you would arrive at three indisputable facts.

Fact number one is that we need clean drinking water every day for every individual in Canada, no matter in which province or territory he or she lives. That is indisputable; there is no question about it.

Here are the indisputable facts that we do not know: We do not know the cost of the lower standard of drinking water to the health system. We do know that the burgeoning costs of health care are almost destroying the federal and provincial budgets. We do not know the sources of some of those outbursts and we certainly do not know the direct costs to our health system, but we have anecdotal information. We also do not know the economic cost of loss of jobs to the economy when people are sick because of bad drinking water.

I first introduced this bill as a private members' bill back in February 2002. Second reading was approved, it was referred to the committee, it was referred out of this committee, then it was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It died on the Order Paper, I reintroduced it, it died on the Order Paper again, and here I am for the third or fourth time. The situation has not changed; in fact, in some communities it has become worse because of the expectations that successive Prime Ministers have promised: Do not pass this bill. We will probably hear it again from the current government. Do not pass this bill because, guess what? We have a better plan. We have heard it from previous governments. Yet, when you look at the facts, there is no better plan. We spent $4 billion trying to fix up the plan and we are no further ahead today than five years ago and people are getting sick.

I bring the situation in Vancouver to your attention. One of our colleagues is a former Mayor of Vancouver, Senator Campbell. When I raised this problem, he said that it was not a problem in his fair city. Yet, — this is November 22, 2006, just a week ago, in The Globe and Mail — as a result of some run off, the water was contaminated in the greater Vancouver area.

Here is the interesting history. I quote from The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, November 22, page A3. `We knew that it really wasn't a good idea to drink it when it's turbid,' advisor says. ``Turbid'' means not clear but coloured in some fashion. The article goes on to quote the water commissioner, ``When I came on board in 1997, the medical health officers were essentially saying turbidity was an aesthetic issue, that the sediments were not a risk to the health they just made the water look bad...''

Further, in the article Wendy Stueck, the author says:

But a consultant involved in Greater Vancouver Regional District in water studies in the mid-1990s said it was common knowledge that heavy rains could trigger slides and create high turbidity — and potentially dangerous water.

The consultant went on to say that ``Notwithstanding the fact we were not telling people that the water isn't safe, we knew that it really wasn't a good idea to drink water when it's turbid.

Let that sink in for a moment senators: We knew the water was not safe and it was not a good idea to drink turbid water, but nothing was done.

The consultant continues:

Through my conversations with engineering and water-quality staff, I got the conclusion that although the water was probably okay, there was an element rolling the dice. People were aware in 1996 that the presence of extreme turbidity would hamper primary disinfection and that was understood.

In 1996, an engineering firm prepared a report for the Greater Vancouver Water District. The Globe and Mail found that report and it states, ``...high turbidity will compromise [the] ability of chlorine to disinfect the water.'' The water is neither safe nor sound.

The article went on to say, ``...that the biggest concern related to the use of chlorine is that ``even at higher doses, will not provide...giardia inactivation during high turbidity events.''

Further in the article the author states:

It is now understood that turbidity can make it harder for chlorine to kill micro-organisms, such as giardia and cryptosporidium and therefore can pose a health risk.

For the GVRD, a turning point came in 2000 after a Health Canada study found a link between muddy drinking water and gastrointestinal illnesses in the Lower Mainland.

I will make a copy of that newspaper article available to all members.

I asked for that report and subsequent reports but I have been unable to get them. Why so? Why is this information not available to the public in those communities? To my mind, it is unfair and unaccountable. This government stands for accountability, we respect that; it stands for responsible government; we respect that. However, it is unaccountable and unforgivable that people should live in a modern age and have health reports not made available to them so that they can choose to do something else to help save the health of their families and their children.

I can give you case after case. I have put these cases on the record and they can be found in Hansard. The speeches are all available to you but let me tell you what this bill does. Bill S-205 is not complicated in that it simply adds clean drinking water to the Food and Drugs Act. The FDA is recognized from coast to coast to coast. This proposed legislation would see the agency pass mandatory regulatory oversight and penalties in the even that standards of good health are not maintained. Rather than the provinces following a voluntary guideline, a mandatory guideline would be in place. That guideline would bring to bear the agency's criminal powers.

Some members of the government have suggested that this is unconstitutional, but that is not so because we have a clear-cut understanding of the legislative regulatory and policy framework for water in Canada. The outstanding jurist, the Honourable Dennis R. O'Connor is the author of the report entitled Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues. A similar opinion was reached in Saskatchewan when that province had its water problem.

I offer the committee this excerpt from Part I of Mr. O'Connor's report:

There provincial jurisdiction over water is not, however, exclusive. The Constitution Act, 1867, grants the federal government powers to regulate various aspects of water resource management.

Mr. O'Connor makes it clear that it can use the criminal power. In Quebec, neither the criminal power nor the food and drug power has ever been challenged so Quebecers cannot say that somehow, they are different from the other provinces and will take care of their own problems; and they have not done this.

Senator Angus is a great expert on this but I cannot recall when the federal criminal or the federal food and drug power was ever challenged in the Province of Quebec. We cannot use Quebec as an excuse for a lack of federal exercise of its jurisdiction.

Mr. O'Connor also states on page 445,

The federal government has also regulated water pollution for the ``peace, order and good government'' of Canada, and to protect the health and safety of Canadians. It has used its criminal law power to support regulations concerning the release of toxic substances into the water. In addition, under section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982, specifically provides that both the federal and provincial governments are committed ``to providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.''

There is a curious and humorous provision of Mr. Justice O'Connor's analysis of the law. He states that under the Fisheries Act, we have an obligation to ensure that the fish swim in clean and unpolluted waters. Think about it senators. We have a clear-cut federal regulation and regulatory power not challenged by the Province of Quebec or anyone else to ensure that our fish swim in unpolluted waters. We have regulations on the fish but we do not have regulations to safeguard our drinking water.

There is another anomaly. For Aboriginal communities, the federal government cannot in any way, shape or form, say that it does not have direct jurisdiction. We have evidence of the federal government in Debates of the Senate, June 20, 2006. Before I read it, I want to commend Senator Adams and Senator Watt. When I started my journey some five and a half years ago, Senator Adams and Senator Watt encouraged me to ask people considering this bill to do so from an Aboriginal perspective. We went forward and we followed the question. As a matter of fact, we had a forum two summers ago and I discovered things that I could not believe would occur in the 21st century Canada. A woman in Grassy Narrows, an Aboriginal community, came to us and gave evidence. She said that if she wanted to have a healthy baby, she would have to leave her reservation for three years to cleanse her womb and rid her body of the toxic waters that could infect her body and result in a deformed child.

Think about it. If a woman wants to have a healthy body in that Aboriginal community, she has to leave the community for three years to cleanse her womb so as to not give birth to a deformed child. Amazing. Is that just a local problem? No, it is not. I quote the Debates of the Senate on June 20, 2006. A staunch representative of the government, when asked about another bill that will measure watersheds — a companion piece to this bill but not essential to it, said:

Almost 500 drinking water systems are at risk, despite the fact that nearly $2 billion has been spent on improvements in Canada's First Nations communities.

I repeat: 500 drinking water systems. I thought that the number would be between 150 and 200. That is what Senator Adams and Senator Watt told me when I looked at it. Senator Janis Johnson speaking to Bill S-208 said that in Hansard on June 20, 2006. That is government evidence. I will read it again:

Almost 500 drinking water systems are at risk, despite the fact that nearly $2 billion has been spent on improvements in Canada's First Nations communities.

It is a scandal, but calling it a ``scandal'' understates the problem. What has changed since the crisis in Walkerton? Not a heck of a lot. We have had problems in Vancouver, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in Newfoundland and Labrador. I love Newfoundland and Labrador. When I talk about Newfoundland and Labrador I think of some of the proponents to this bill who are from Newfoundland and Labrador. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, a number of families in a number of villages throughout the province are boiling their water to provide clean water for their families.

Let us take one more step, Mr. Chairman, and I will not belabour the point. What has happened? What else does the government tell us, as best we can find out? It tells us that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for enforcement of standards. We discovered from the Auditor General when she appeared before the Energy Committee that those volunteer guidelines are about 10 years out of date. Not only do we have a voluntary guideline but also we have a guideline that is not maintained on a regular basis. If it were maintained, it would still be out of date. That was the evidence heard before the Energy Committee by the Auditor General; that is not my evidence.

The federal government has announced yet again another strategy — I believe it to be the second or third strategy since the tabling of this bill — to save and sanitize the drinking water of the communities. We have heard Minister Prentice make that comment. I applaud him for it, as I applauded Mr. Martin's government when it said it and Mr. Chrétien's government when they said it, et cetera. However, nothing has happened. I talked to my colleagues Senator Adams and Senator Watt and they tell me that very little has happened.

Statistics Canada has said that in the years 1999-00, more than 2,100 of 100,000 children reported cases of a giardiasis — a stomach ailment arising out of bad drinking water. In 2002, Manitoba passed the Drinking Water Act. Since then, concentrations of carcinogenics have been found in the Winnipeg water system. ``Carcinogenic'' means the cause of cancer. In rural New Brunswick and Quebec last summer, some communities had boil water advisories every week. You have to dig out the incident stories because they are not coagulated in any one place.

We hate the Americans because they are so imperialistic but, guess what? We might not like them overseas but let us look at what they provide in their domestic economy. The U.S. is experiencing the same kinds of problems as Canada because of jurisdictional splits between state and federal governments. In 1972, it got to such a point with numerous outbreaks that the U.S. government passed the Clean Water Act.

It allows what my bill would do, which, very simply, is allow federal oversight, giving responsibility to the federal government not to build the water systems, but to provide federal oversight, to act as a safety valve when officials do not do the job they are supposed to do.

Harry Truman once said his job as President of the United States was to make sure that people did the job they were supposed to do. I will give you one startling example of how oversight could have prevented health outbreaks. In 1972, they did that. Now in the United States, you can punch up your zone on the federal website. If you live in area code 905 or 613, you can find out what the water advisory is that day or that week, so the public can know what the water condition is in their particular zone. That is not difficult or costly to do, but it would put the points of pressure where they should be — as the responsibility of public officials.

In conclusion, I will return to the startling report by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor. On page 7 of that report, he says:

It rained heavily in Walkerton from May 8 to May 12: 134 mm of rain fell during these five days. The heaviest rainfall occurred on Friday, May 12, when 70 mm fell.

During the period from May 9 to May 15, Well 5 was the primary source pumping water into the distribution system. Well 6 cycled on and off periodically, and Well 7 was not in operation.

On Saturday, May 13, Frank Koebel performed the routine daily check of the operating wells. The purpose of the daily checks was to record data on pumping rate flows and chlorine usage, and, most importantly, to measure the chlorine residuals in the treated water. However, for more than 20 years, it had been the practice of PUC employees not to measure the chlorine residuals on most days and to make fictitious entries for residuals in the daily operating sheets. Stan Koebel often participated in this practice.

It was a practice not to follow the practice. As a result, we had a horrible outbreak; millions of dollars were spent in economic dislocation; untold hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars were spent on health. The result was, as it says in the report:

Had Mr. Koebel measured the chlorine residual, he would almost certainly have learned that there was no residual — a result that should have alerted him to the problem so that he could take the proper steps to protect the system and the community.

I am not asking to misplace, displace, or dislocate the Province of Ontario, the Province of Quebec or the federal Aboriginal or First Nations administration. All we are saying is provide a spot check and a mandatory guideline so that people from coast to coast to coast can be satisfied that their federal government believes in the three words, peace, order and good government.

Senator Cochrane: I understand that this bill, or a version of it, was previously sent to our colleagues in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Can you tell us how the Legal Committee dealt with the bill? Were there any objections or concerns about the bill at that time? What is your assessment of the response that it received in that committee?

Senator Grafstein: The evidence of that committee is clear-cut. It is available to you. I will not go back through that committee report. To my mind, that was just a delaying tactic by the government that did not want to deal with the bill at that time.

I am prepared to rely on the opinion, which is available in the public record, of Mr. Justice O'Connor.

Senator Cochrane: Could you give me the date of that meeting?

Senator Grafstein: The date of this report.

Senator Cochrane: No, the meeting that was held with the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Senator Grafstein: I do not have it.

Senator Angus: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this witness refusing to answer Senator Cochrane's question? It was a very clear question. Why do you not answer it, senator?

Senator Grafstein: I do not recall exactly what the committee said. I will get the committee report and I will make it available to you.

I have looked at opinions since and before and the opinions are clear-cut. The federal power for food and drugs has never been questioned. Let me tell you what is regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.

The federal government regulates water on planes, boats, water in parks, bottled water, soft drinks and ice, but it does not regulate drinking water. There is absolutely no rationale or logic that would allow someone to say that if you can regulate bottled water and water in planes and boats, you cannot regulate community drinking water.

The Chairman: With respect, Senator Grafstein, let me ask you two questions with respect to Senator Cochrane's question.

Did the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs actually issue a report on the bill?

Senator Grafstein: I do not believe they did, but I would have to check that and make it available to the committee.

The Chairman: If I recall correctly, my recollection is that they did not. I think they did not report and that is where it fell off the Order Paper.

Senator Grafstein: It died on the Order Paper. I think you are correct. I do not think they came to a conclusion on the report, but I made the same arguments there as I did to this committee.

The Chairman: With respect to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, would you undertake for us to find out if there was such a report?

Senator Grafstein: I will and I will do that next week.

Senator Angus: Or tonight.

Senator Grafstein: I will try to do it tonight.

Senator Angus: You might ask Mr. Dion what he thinks about it and why he did not do anything.

Senator Cochrane: It is important that we have this. If Senator Milne was here, she might have been chair of that committee at the time and she might have been able to report to us as to what was said and done and so on. That is where I am coming from. I was not on that committee so I am not sure.

You appeared before us before and we have new members on our committee now. I would like you to tell the whole committee the legal and constitutional objections to your proposal when it was before us then.

Senator Grafstein: There was some concern raised — as I recall, and it will be in your transcript — by some officials, but the committee concluded that there were no constitutional objections to this bill. That was the committee's report. The committee was unanimous in its report and all members agreed. They found that the bill should go forward to the committee without amendment or change. That presupposes, to my mind, that they were satisfied constitutionally that this did not present a problem.

Senator Angus: You do not know the history of this committee.

Senator Grafstein: I am only taking it because it does not matter if it is your committee and my committee, Senator Angus. If we report on a bill, we have, in effect, agreed that the bill does not have a constitutional problem.

Senator Angus: There are exceptions to that at this committee.

Senator Grafstein: That is a precondition to any bill.

Senator Cochrane: Was it not reported that clean drinking water was the responsibility of the provinces?

Senator Grafstein: No, that was not the report of this committee. This was the subsequent view after the report came in. This was the view of some members, namely, that it had a problem to it; but, to my mind, it was a question of opinion.

We have, senator, a clear-cut opinion from Mr. Justice O'Connor about it. It is stated here. I have given you the quotes and the pages and that can be made available to all the members of the committee.

Senator Cochrane: Since then, have you had any discussions with the departmental officials?

Senator Grafstein: No.

Senator Cochrane: You have not had anything.

Senator Grafstein: No.

Senator Cochrane: You left the report when you were at this committee before and now you are coming back to us with the same bill; am I right?

Senator Grafstein: The bill died on the Order Paper after this committee unanimously approved it without amendment. I then reintroduced it after it died on the Order Paper and since that time, I reiterated all the arguments and tried to update my files as best I could. It was passed on second reading. You will recall that in second reading there were some questions raised by Senator Keon, and he was satisfied that the bill should go forward to the committee. The Senate approved it without division, unanimously, in second reading. I assumed that if there were any objections, I would have heard about them in second reading. I think I met all the objections in the Senate on second reading and I have heard nothing from the officials since.

Senator Cochrane: I still want you to remember that we have new members on the committee.

Senator Grafstein: I understand that we have new members.

Senator Cochrane: Could you be as explicit as possible for our new members.

Senator Grafstein: I appreciate that. That is why I took a bit more time to review the history of this matter, so that new members could be caught up to speed.

Senator Angus: Welcome, Senator Grafstein. You are making quite a career of going to the committees these days. I saw you on TV at the House of Commons committee on some bill the other day, dealing with terrorism, Bill C-25.

Senator Grafstein: Yes senator, I was there on behalf of your committee, sir, and my committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

Senator Angus: It is a wonderful thing you are doing with these private member's bills. I know how much work it is, and I think you are doing it out of a spirit of — well, I can only say — public interest, as opposed to any private interest or any partisan interest, and I commend you for that.

However, I have not had the pleasure, up to now — and I know how thorough you are — of knowing the full details of this bill and the background of it. I do know how thorough you are and what a photographic memory you have, so my guard immediately went up when you could not quite remember what the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs said about the bill. It is the first time I ever heard you acknowledge that you did not remember something.

Senator Grafstein: The short answer is that they did not do anything and therefore there was nothing for me to remember.

Senator Angus: If that is true, that is fine. That is not what you said.

Senator Grafstein: If they said something I am sure I would have remembered. Senator Banks reminded me and maybe I had a senior moment.

Senator Angus: As well as being trained in many things, you are also learned in the law. That gives me comfort, because you respect the law, you are an officer of the court, and you would not try to sneak something through the parliamentary system that you did not feel pass muster. I say that in all seriousness. I am informed that to try to address very legitimate, very serious constitutional issues in having the federal government regulate drinking water, you have had to craft a framework, if I can use that expression, to get it within the federal jurisdiction and to have water declared to be a food so it comes under the auspices of the Food and Drugs Act. I know I am oversimplifying, but is that how you are getting around this.

Senator Grafstein: I am not trying to get around it. If you want to really understand why I came to the Food and Drugs Act, you and I, senator, respect the taxpayer's dollar. The last thing you and I would want to do in any private member's bill is to increase the cost to the taxpayer of something that would set up a new agency, a new set of responsibilities. When I came across this problem again at the urgings of Senator Watt and Senator Adams, I said: What is the most cost effective way of remediating this problem? The obvious answer was to look at the Food and Drugs Act. In effect, the first question I had to ask was whether water is a food. Perhaps you will recall, but Senator Morin, a former senator, said it was not a food.

Senator Angus: Then you muscled him.

Senator Grafstein: No, I found it astounding for a doctor of such great repute to say that. He was a senator. I then immediately consulted with doctors in Toronto and I consulted with Dr. Keon. Every doctor told me the same thing: Water is clearly a food. Why is it? It is a food because it contains nutrients and in other words, the test of whether something is a food or not, is whether it contains nutrients that help the human body.

With all due respect to Senator Morin, after he resigned from the Senate, he said to me — I hope I am not quoting him out of context — one of the things I regret in the Senate was opposing your bill. It could have helped public health.

Senator Angus: I have read your comments, and I listened to your speech at second reading.

Senator Grafstein: Senator Angus, I was not trying to be cute or tricky on this, but, frankly, if you look at the federal agencies and you have a problem that has not been dealt with, how do you fit it within the federal structure that is constitutionally appropriate and cost effective. It was a natural fit. Privately, I have been told by others, experts, that this was a very neat solution to a very complex problem. It did not entail setting up a whole new regulatory regime. The regime was already there, and it does exactly the same thing. It establishes already, under its regime, a federal- provincial relationship, a voluntary guideline, and the guideline is the test. So it is already there. It is taking it and instead of making it voluntary, making it mandatory.

Senator Angus: I agree with you. On the face it, giving this Parliament jurisdiction to address the matter, you may have well have found a good way.

However, it does not deal with the other issue of cost effectiveness. You have stressed that issue. I believe you agree with the proposition that the provinces have jurisdiction to regulate and to ensure safe drinking water. I believe you also agree that each province has a regime of one sort or another in place.

Senator Grafstein: I agree.

Senator Angus: Perhaps, at the time that you first brought in this bill, Nunavut was not up and running as it is today.

Senator Grafstein: There was a regime there, too.

Senator Angus: There was.

Senator Grafstein: Of course.

Senator Angus: I have to ask you first off, are you doing this because you feel the provinces are not doing a good job?

Senator Grafstein: I am doing it because the evidence is overwhelming that the provinces are not fulfilling their mandate under the Constitution, which is to provide healthy drinking water to each of their citizens; that is clear.

Senator Angus: You and I have laboured here for many years on issues where, in a bipartisan way, we have been dismayed by the lack of action, by the successive governments, be they Conservative or Liberal governments, in not doing anything. You have given us quite, I think, succinctly in your opening comments, commentaries that the governments, federally successively, have failed also. Why do you think that is?

Senator Grafstein: Let me give you some thoughts about this, because I have been perplexed by this question. I have been practiced enough in the Senate, I have been here for 22 years, to know why governments do or do not do things, and one of the first rationales that I was given, which I think is a synthetic rational , is if we do this we in effect take responsibility for it. Therefore, if we do a regulatory oversight, as you proposed, that is what you say is going to happen, but in practice what will happen will be the demands on the federal government to, in effect, take over and fund. That is the argument.

Senator Angus: That question begs the question.

Senator Grafstein: Let me give you the other side of the coin. The federal government does know the answer to this question. When I was asked that question, my response was to look at it from a taxpayer's standpoint. What is the cost to the public with respect to health costs, economic losses and community health from bad drinking water?

Dr. David Schindler, you will recall, worked with me to develop a logarithm to figure out how we would do this because the federal government does not keep track of this information. Is that because the government does not want to take responsibility or fulfil its public mandate? When the constitutional question is raised Senator Angus, you have to understand that government has ultimate responsibility for public health in this country.

Under the Health Act, the Minister of Health is responsible for public health. If the minister knows something and does not remediate against it, he might have personal responsibility. Maybe there is plausible deniability and maybe government wants to keep this issue at the provincial level. Meanwhile, we know that it is a factual problem and an economic problem, and that it is impinging on our health costs. Again, Dr. Schindler provided me with an estimate of between $2 billion and $4 billion per year in direct costs. What about indirect costs? We are talking about billions of dollars wasted because the various levels of government are not taking their responsibilities seriously.

Yes, I can argue that the government might raise expectations about infrastructure costs. I have looked at the City of Toronto from a city standpoint. We have excellent drinking water in Toronto. We draw our water from Lake Ontario and we have had very few water problems, but we are fortunate being on the Great Lakes system. Now, we are looking at the infrastructure problems. I was deeply involved in the mayoralty campaign and somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion is necessary to remediate and modernize the drinking water system in Toronto. There are concerns that it is too old and falling behind.

If someone were to do the costs right across the country, it would be in the billions of dollars. Let us assume it is in the billions of dollars, sooner or later it will catch up to us. My mother taught me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we can prevent future problems, we will be saving health costs and economic costs down the line. That has to be factored in. When the government responded to me and said it would take responsibility, I said that it already has responsibility but it has not added it up, and that is irresponsible.

Senator Angus: I understand that is your point, and I am trying to pursue it further. I grant you there appears to be a way to get some foundation in federal jurisdiction to do something. You know how difficult it is. You and I are involved in a debate in another area in regulating security transactions in this province, and we think there should be one common regulator under federal jurisdiction but it is does not happen for reasons well known to all of us. In like fashion, there are other areas under provincial jurisdiction, although there are concurrent elements. One of these is very germane to this committee. Currently, we are engaging in two things that are germane to your bill. First, we have been doing a study on water generally in this country.

Senator Grafstein: By the way, that work has been outstanding.

Senator Angus: We have been quite dismayed, frankly, by the lack of action by all jurisdictions and how primitive, in effect, we are in terms of having proper mapping of the aquifers in this country, the proper sources and the protection of sensitive lands that used to be proper aquifers now being allowed to dry up. Perhaps climate change is leading to droughts in the West and the recession of the glaciers, et cetera. We are very up-to-date on this, having heard from Dr. Schindler before the committee, as well as other experts on water. However, we keep getting the push-back in terms of costs. Let me put it another way: I do not favour duplication where it is not necessary.

In my province of Quebec, for example, the provincial government adopted in June 2001 the regulation respecting the quality of drinking water, establishing standards and controls that are amongst the most rigorous in North America. This new regulation positions Quebec amongst world leaders in water management.

I am not a Québécois but I am a Quebecer, and there is a big difference. I am a member of one of the other founding nations. I also find our drinking water very good in Quebec. I would have a problem because we need funds from the federal government and elsewhere for health care, which is more pressing than our water system, which is already working well.

The Chairman: Is that in Montreal?

Senator Angus: In Quebec, generally, but I would argue that in every province there are greater needs for health care. The incidents to date are fairly isolated.

In your province, Senator Grafstein, the Ontario government has also enacted the Nutrient Management Act, the Safe Drinking Act, 2002, and the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, 2002, to provide the authority to act on many of the recommendations set out in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Report of the Walkerton Inquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related Issues.

I could continue to outline and delineate what is being done in other provinces. It is simply a natural part of our frugality, which was elaborated on by Senator Banks in the Senate today when you were not there. We tend to be frugal by nature and protective of the common wheel. Why would we want to duplicate all of this good work? That is my problem for you. We will be inviting department officials to appear before the committee. Let us hear from them why this might be not the best way to spend our federal dollars.

Senator Grafstein: Let me deal with it in three parts. I want to separate the Aboriginal communities from the rest of it only for the sake of argument, because I do not believe that any Canadian, whether Aboriginal, Québécois, Quebecer, Franco-Ontarian, or other, should be dealt with in any way other than equally. I believe in equality and so do you.

Senator Angus: I do.

Senator Grafstein: Having said that, we already know, based on the evidence provided by your government and by your spokesperson in the Senate, that there are drinking water systems at risk in the Aboriginal communities as of June 2006. You can say that all the mechanisms and promises are in place but this is your evidence of your government in the Senate on June 20, 2006.

Senator Angus: It does not mean that the feds should intervene and pass this act.

Senator Grafstein: Let me make the argument.

Senator Angus: I put a question mark. I started by saying no expert.

Senator Grafstein: We have one disputed fact that despite five years and $4 billion of money invested, the situation is no better today than it was five years ago. That is pretty cogent evidence. Let us deal with Quebec. I do not have quarrel with your position but for you to substantiate your position, how many water advisories did we receive this summer? Were they coagulated in one place so that you could add and subtract them and figure out the impact on the communities in Quebec? Nowhere could I find that evidence. I know that from time to time there were a number of water advisories this past summer, despite the fact that you have one of the best water systems in the world, the bill was passed in 2002 and there are no excuses. It is the same in my province and in Vancouver two weeks ago.

Senator Angus: One of those advisories was on the lake where I live. The problem was with the blue-green algae. As we speak, the committee is conducting a study on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the 37 other acts that make up the framework of environment protection.

It is a natural part of my Scottish heritage; I do not like to be penny-wise and pound foolish.

Senator Grafstein: My Jewish heritage is exactly the same; I am very frugal, and you know I am frugal when it comes to the taxpayers' dollars. You and I share that common bond.

I think it is important to be sceptical. The one thing we learn as senators, in a chamber of sober second thought, is to be sceptical. When the government says something or officials say something, they may be right, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt; but I want to hear what they have to say and I want to hear the evidence before us.

Here we had this evidence, and it was not my evidence. I read The Globe and Mail article last week in Vancouver, where it said that despite everything, despite the amendments and the laws, thousands of people were sick because of that mishap.

If, in fact, we would have had a federal oversight and someone would have kicked the tires, there would have been at least a 50/50 chance on a cost-effective basis that we might have saved lots of money. Oversight is not ultimate responsibility; it is oversight. To my mind, the American system is working very well; it is working cogently and effectively. If you think they do not believe in states rights, they do, just as we believe in federal and provincial rights and responsibilities. However, when it came to an overwhelming issue, where the system was broken down, then the federal government has a responsibility; that is my argument.

If you can satisfy this committee, Senator Angus, and me that there is cogent evidence to say that things are working lickety-split right across the country, throw the bill out — I would be the first one to rip it up — but I do not believe that the system is working. I certainly do not believe it based on the evidence I received from this government in June concerning the Aboriginal communities. It is a scandal.

Senator Angus: Whatever it is, it is certainly of concern. We are all collectively concerned about the quality of not only our water, but also our air.

Senator Grafstein: Bear with me a moment. Well, senator, if we already have an administration in place and a minister promising to do this, why would you want to have another oversight by another agency?

Senator Angus: Are you reading my mail? That is my next question.

Senator Grafstein: Of course, and I will answer it.

Senator Angus: Are you spying on us again?

Senator Grafstein: No, I know you have a brilliant logical mind and I try to follow you sometimes. I was trained by Jesuits too. At the end of the day, what is the responsibility? The responsibility is to take a look at an agency of government and that is why we have an Auditor General.

What has the Auditor General said to this committee? Ladies and gentlemen, says the Auditor General, the voluntary guidelines that are supposed to be in place are years out of date and called it a scandal. That was last year in this committee.

My point is that somehow you need checks and balances. This would be a very cost-effective check and balance on making sure that federal mandated employees — ministers — do the job they are appointed to do. In my province, we fixed it up, but it is not satisfactory to my mind. Certainly, it was not in Vancouver this summer. We have glaring evidence that says the contrary to what you have suggested.

Senator Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my time here with a comment on Senator Grafstein's reference to Justice O'Connor's so-called learned opinion. It is not a reasoned opinion; you have just taken a bald statement. Whereas there are legal opinions, as you well know, I believe, saying that there are issues.

If we have the Grafstein bill go through this process and become statute that is good; however, I do not want it to be ultra vires or subject to attack — and that is Senator Cochrane's point. There are reasoned opinions out there. I am not saying they are right; but I mean to find out, and so does Senator Cochrane, during our hearing on this bill. The O'Connor report does not go far enough, in my opinion.

Senator Grafstein: Can I just give a factual analysis? I have studied the Constitution since I have been here; I was taught by one of the greatest constitutional professors and judges in the country, the late Bora Laskin. I respect the Constitution, I believe in it, and I believe a job of the Senate is to make sure that bills are constitutional. However, there is also a factual base; there is a practice and there is a base. There is absolutely nothing in the Food and Drugs Act that would prevent us constitutionally from adding water to it, which is already regulated by that act. Water is water is water. What is the difference if the water comes out of a tap or a bottle?

Senator Angus: Senator, there is a big difference.

Senator Cochrane: Senator Grafstein, I have the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality of March 2006. I am just wondering, have you read the guidelines? Senator, if you have read the guidelines what is your view of them.

Senator Grafstein: What is your question?

Senator Cochrane: The question is have you read them. I would like to get your opinion on them. These are guidelines from March 2006.

Senator Grafstein: When you are asking my opinion, are you asking my scientific opinion, or my legal opinion or my senatorial opinion?

Senator Angus: First, have you have read them or not?

Senator Grafstein: I know they are there, and I must say that I would not quarrel with the guidelines. However, I would have to then check with the Auditor General to see whether or not the Auditor General believes that her report, which criticized those guidelines, has been answered in that report. Surely, this is something the committee could do.

Senator Cochrane: These guidelines are from March 2006.

Senator Grafstein: I realize that. I heard the date. We have also had evidence before this committee last year, or whenever, that those guidelines were out of date. If they have brought them up to date since, I think it would be a good thing to ask the Auditor General to opine as to whether or not they are up to date. The Auditor General came to this committee and said that the guidelines are out of date and they have been woefully out of date for years. If they have brought them up to date, I would think the best way to deal with that is to go to the experts and ask that question. I could not, from an expert's standpoint, opine on that issue.

Senator Cochrane: You cannot tell me whether they are effective or not.

Senator Grafstein: No.

The Chairman: There is a second question with respect to guidelines, as we all know. Let us assume that the guidelines are perfect, and that if they were followed, everything would be perfect. The question is, are they followed?

Senator Grafstein: We are back to my basic argument. By the way, I will try to read them and get some expert opinion on them. I am interested.

Senator Angus: We will have them translated in Toronto.

The Chairman: I have read them and they are pretty good.

Senator Grafstein: They taste good, do they?

The Chairman: Meanwhile, everything has not been fixed. Before we go to Senator Sibbeston, I have a question with respect to the question Senator Angus asked about the means by which you have devised to make water controllable, if that is the word, under the act by adding the words ``water from a community water system for human consumption.'' Before that, in the same act as it exists, it says, ``Food includes any article manufactured, sold or represented for use as food or drink for human beings.'' Therefore, things that we drink are already recognized in the act as being food. By way of being clear, is orange juice covered under federal regulation?

Senator Grafstein: Yes.

The Chairman: No matter where in Canada it is produced or bottled or distributed?

Senator Grafstein: Yes.

The Chairman: Is Coca-Cola and Gatorade?

Senator Grafstein: Yes.

The Chairman: Is Evian water and Perrier water?

Senator Grafstein: Yes.

The Chairman: Water that comes out of the end of my tap is not covered.

Senator Angus: The difference is between a natural resource and something that has had human intervention by putting it in a bottle and adding something.

The Chairman: Or cleaning something.

Senator Grafstein: That is not totally correct because the federal government does have direct responsibility for water that comes out of a tap in any national park, or out of a tap in any airplane or boat or any facility that is under federal jurisdiction. It already has responsibility for regulating water in areas of pure federal jurisdiction, hence the Aboriginal communities.

The Chairman: I apologize for interjecting.

Senator Sibbeston: Senator Grafstein, I do find you persuasive, and the evidence and facts that you relate are compelling that something ought to be done. Obviously, the federal government must be concerned and aware of its involvement. If it were to support your bill, might it think that the provincial governments would see that support as an intrusion into their jurisdiction.

Do you think it may make a difference that there is a change in government and that this new government may see all of your efforts and all your logical arguments differently and respond positively to your initiative?

Senator Grafstein: I do in this sense: Again, Senator Angus and I are both partisans, we are on the committee, but you put it very well. When it comes to the question of the national interest we are not partisan, we try to do our very best. I was delighted to hear that Minister Prentice took it upon himself as one of his first priorities to resuscitate or to reinvest in the water treatment in the Aboriginal communities. I took that as a plus.

The problem, Senator Sibbeston, is that I have heard it before; I have heard it twice before and I end up knowing there is little change. I have talked to Senator Adams and Senator Watt and they have told me there is very little change.

To be fair to the government — I want to be fair in terms of the evidence — we have Senator Johnson's statement about the 500 drinking water systems at risk in the Aboriginal communities. It is hard to dig out this information; it is not readily available and therefore, you must rely on spokespersons from the various communities. Earlier, Chief Phil Fontaine said that at least 100 reservations had bad drinking water and were on regular boil-water advisories. That was two years ago.

I am not suggesting that Senator Johnson's evidence is overwhelming because I tried to indicate that there is on the one hand Chief Fontaine's statement of 100 reservations. Based on my own research, which is all anecdotal, I came to the conclusion that there were about 150 reservations that were badly in need of water plants.

On a cost-benefit basis, Senator Sibbeston, here is one of the ironies of life: We send drinking water systems — and I have spent a bit of time looking at them — to Darfur, Iraq and Afghanistan, but we do not send drinking water systems fast enough or complete enough to the Aboriginal communities in Canada. Is there something strange about that?

Senator Sibbeston: I already know that with respect to the Aboriginal water situation, without question, it is federal jurisdiction; Constitution Act, 1867, section 91.24. I am aware that the federal government is responsible for water on Indian reserves; there is no question about that.

Your initiative relates to all of Canada, namely that the federal government have some responsibility for water. In making this amendment, you feel it will force the federal government to be more involved than it has been to date. You refer to the United States as an example of federal involvement in water situations since 1972. Has that changed the dynamics in terms of federal-state relations? Has it made a difference with the federal government having to spend a lot more money?

Senator Grafstein: I cannot give you the exact numbers, but when I went down to the U.S. I talked to officials about that because there are the same problems down there. There was tremendous reaction, both at the federal level and at the state level against this measure. The states did not like it because that meant they had to spend more money. The federal government, or advocates for the federal government, said they did not like it because it would mean they would have to spend more money. It was a push-shove situation in the United States. The result of the situation in the U.S. was that the officials were forced to do the jobs they are supposed to do. That was the cost-effective aspect of the federal involvement in water quality; they use an Internet site. Using a simple, uncomplicated Internet system people can look at their region and the most recent water advisory; Americans can just punch a button and find out the state of the water in the region they are visiting or living in.

We could have the same system and the system itself ensures that pressure remains on the officials that are in charge of monitoring the water quality. There is a coercive effect of the public knowing and having the availability of that information. It does not cost a lot of money to do that. We have modern technology and we are more connected in Canada than they are in the United States. There are cost-effective ways of ensuring that officials do not do what this guy Koebel did, which was just ignore his responsibilities.

That is all I am asking. I do not want the big, heavy toe of the federal government on the neck of the provinces. I want to establish a standard of equality across the country. If you are in the Aboriginal community, I cannot comprehend why a child in the Aboriginal community should be treated differently from a child in Toronto when it comes to drinking water. What is the argument against that? That is our Constitution.

The more I read about this, the more upset I become because it is so clear to me and it is so cost effective that we can do this. The Americans did this after a big hustle and bustle, but they had in mind a simple thing — the health of every American, whether in an Aboriginal community, whether First Nations, Navaho Nations or so on.

I am finding it difficult to understand why we have not been able to do this already. We have the elements in place. There is no new money here, no big money. It is just reorganizing us in an envelope fashion to make the whole thing cogent and make the public aware. The only thing that stopped this event was public awareness and an inquiry for millions of dollars. The public has a right to know about their health system.

Senator Sibbeston: I certainly support the initiative of Senator Grafstein and laud him for the initiative, energy, and effort he is putting into this important issue. You are the only person as it were now that is involved in this with your private member's bill and I suppose I could see you having knocked on government doors for quite a few years.

My question is will the new government help you. Will some Minister of Health or some Minister of the Environment in this new government be a bit more open to your initiative than the past governments have been? Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel?

Senator Grafstein: The good news is that I heard Minister Prentice on that initiative. That was similar to the initiative my Liberal government made. That is all to the good; I do not quarrel with that. The problem is I do not really see it changing the attitude about this in the Ottawa bureaucracy. The Auditor General's report was a devastating report. You heard the report; you got it. It was a devastating report. We have to respond to that report. I do not see any evidence that we have responded to the report.

Maybe, Senator Cochrane, this new guideline is an answer to that, it might be up-to-date, but just publishing it does not make it so. The question is: What do you do with it once it is published? Is it being enforced? All I want to do — the bill is very simple — is to take that regulatory guideline and make it enforceable so federal officials can spot check across the country. If they spot check bells will ring and whistles will sing. If a provincial official is culpable of an offence under the Food and Drugs Act that is big news. Use the power of the state in a cogent and cost-effective fashion and it will help every Canadian. The law has a purpose.

The Chairman: There is much federal environmental legislation in areas of shared jurisdiction with the provinces, which is seldom, if ever used. It is a kind of safety net or a hammer that says — not in this bill but in other cases — if the other order of government with which this jurisdiction is shared fails to act then the federal government may act. However, that is not the case with this bill.

Senator Grafstein: I agree with you it is not the case in this bill.

The Chairman: That is not what would happen with this bill.

Senator Grafstein: That is not the case in the Food and Drugs Act. The federation made it clear that it wanted food to fall under a national standard. Therefore, nobody, to my mind, unless someone can give me some evidence to the contrary, has ever questioned the federal exercise of its power with the Food and Drugs Act. The heart of it is to ensure that food was safe in every community across the nation.

The Chairman: The question comes down to whether water is food.

Senator Grafstein: It is.

The Chairman: That is the question.

Senator Grafstein: The question has been satisfied, quite frankly, by Senator Keon. You can call any doctor in this country and ask him that question; I am satisfied. I have talked to dozens of doctors, and when they heard what had happened in the Senate, that food was not water, they laughed. We became a bit of a laughing stock.

The Chairman: Maybe they should have looked at it before we did.

Senator Grafstein: To be fair to Senator Morin — he is not here — but he did say to me that he thought it was wrong for him to do that, and he would not have done so had he thought about it. I can tell you what happened. He was compelled because of party politics to do what he did and that was a wrong thing to do. Sometimes you have to stand above party politics.

Senator Adams: We heard from Senator Angus that Quebec had a good water law. I think the health department regulates everything in medicine. Is that true? Does the government regulate and approve any kind of medicine?

Senator Grafstein: Absolutely.

Senator Adams: Water should be no different.

Senator Grafstein: That is my view. If we do it for medicine, we should certainly do it for water.

Senator Adams: I live in a community where I see the water system, but not every community where I live has a water and sewer system. You have water delivery by truck. There are only three communities where we have a water and sewer system: Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit and Resolute Bay. All other communities have to pump out water.

Senator Grafstein: Is that bottled water?

Senator Adams: No.

Senator Adams: You have a big 2,000 gallon tank and water is delivered to every house. Every house has a pressure system. You have a septic tank, and you must pump it out every week, depending on how big the family is. If you have a 200- or 300-gallon tank in the house, you have a 500-gallon sewage system underneath the building.

All of our communities and municipalities have more control over the delivery of water. We do not have technicians for testing water every so many weeks. Last June in Rankin Inlet, we had contaminated water, and everyone, about 2,500 people, at Rankin Inlet could not drink water from the tap.

Senator Grafstein: That was when and for how long.

Senator Adams: That was for two months.

Senator Grafstein: That is current information.

Senator Adams: Even now, they are saying that you should not drink the tap water. I hear some of the people saying, ``I hope someone picks up my tank and goes up to the river two miles out of Rankin Inlet to give me fresh water. I want nice water to make tea. No chlorinated water in the house.'' They prefer freshwater.

Contaminated water was found in Rankin Inlet last summer. We used to have a lake close to the community, but we cannot use it anymore. In case a fire starts, we need that water. We have about a 50,000-gallon holding tank in case a fire starts. That holding tank has not been tested for many years.

Senator Grafstein: What is the population?

Senator Adams: It is about 2,800 people. I asked the secretary manager in the municipality who controls everything that happens in the community, such as the garbage pick up and water and sewer system. That tank is closed in like a four to five gallon drum. Some of the fire trucks started to use a hydrant and that overflowed the tank for the fire hydrant. It became contaminated and got into the drinking water. That is what happened in Rankin Inlet last year.

I see that the provinces have better regulation, but we need some way, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to do the same. The government should regulate anything done by the municipality. We should have more guidelines to ensure that this does not happen in the future. That is what you are trying to do right now in the bill, not forcing the government to do it but to allow for that oversight.

Senator Grafstein: I think you have it, Senator Adams.

Senator Adams: After Walkerton, we had some people from the Department of Indian Affairs come to us at committee one time, and they said you have a good system. They said we will look after the community to ensure that your water is not contaminated. They told us that here in the committee about two months ago. I heard there were about 33 reserves here in Ontario that had to boil their water.

Senator Grafstein: That was in the summer.

Senator Adams: In doing your research, did you find out that Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a department to ensure that people in Nunavut have a department to ensure that we have clean water?

Senator Grafstein: The bottom line is that Indian Affairs has direct responsibility. There is not a constitutional issue, and there has not been a massive change since I started this process. You live in an Aboriginal community. I do not know, Senator Sibbeston, if you do as well. I do not know if you have noticed a marked change or not. All I do is I look at summertime boil-water advisories, and they are no less than they were five years ago, right across the country.

If the department of health has evidence to say that the problem is being solved, that is up to them. The onus is now on the Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to come forward to say, ``We are doing a good job,'' and then give us affirmation that they are making progress. I just do not see it. I am being honest.

The other thing Senator Angus raised was the question of water as a whole. It is not just the drinking water that is bad in the country, but we have the second largest resource of fresh drinking water in the world, and now that is heavily polluted. Senator Angus knows that I am working with Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Committee and our American counterparts. There has been a magnificent bill in the United States passed called the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act, which is to make the Great Lakes a target for investment by the American government to clean up the Great Lakes. Here is what has happened in the Great Lakes. There is nothing new about this either; it is fresh water. We passed this bill a decade ago. There were 36 hot spots along the Great Lakes which were polluted, 22 on the American side and 14 on our side. Only two spots have been cleaned up in the last 10 years. That is the bad news.

The good news is that with this new Democratic legislature in Congress, one of the leading Democrats is a proponent of this bill. The Bush Administration passed the bill, and now the question is will the funding come in to clean it up, as it did for the Everglades? Our Banking Committee and the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Committee will be working hard with our American colleagues to try to convince them to fund that bill, which will benefit all of us.

That will also help us on the clean drinking water problem because many of the cities along the Great Lakes, in my region, get their drinking water from the Great Lakes. It is a huge problem there too.

This is not a simple problem. I have decided, having looked at this and having spent a lot of time with the larger and the smaller question, is that you have to make incremental starts. If you look at the big picture, it never happens. It happens inch by inch. My mother says, ``A stitch in time saves nine,'' and I still believe in my mother's theories.

There is a larger question and a smaller question, but we must start somewhere. This, to my mind, would place pressure where it should be placed, on the provinces, to do the job that they are mandated to do under the Constitution.

Senator Adams: In some places, at the beginning, when the government came into the North, at that time it was all we had. Hudson's Bay at that time was a small community. There was nothing but the lake for the drinking water. In the old days, the people just got pails of water and brought it home. Today, in the some of the communities, they must build a water reserve.

Senator Grafstein: A clean reserve?

Senator Adams: They had to build a lake for people to have drinking water in the community and they have to pump that water.

Senator Grafstein: Where is that?

Senator Adams: It used to be called Eskimo Point. Now we call it Arviat. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the MP, lives there. They have to pump the water in the summertime. About two miles out of the community, they built a reserve so that the community has water in the wintertime. That is how some of those communities operate. Some of the lakes are 200 or 300 feet deep. Some of the communities have to build a reserve so that they have water in the summertime. They have to get the water from the water reserve in the wintertime and pump it from the lakes in the summer. That is what is happening now.

Senator Grafstein: Perhaps I might leave you with this thought: There is a magazine called the Canadian Magazine for Responsible Business, Corporate Knights with Waterlution. It is about water. The title of the 2006 issue, volume 5.2, is ``The 2006 Water and Pollution Issue.'' It is an interesting issue. Again, it is the irony, Senator Cochrane, of living in Canada.

In this article is a chart entitled Water at Risk, which sets out the Canadian companies that are deeply involved in helping those populations lacking a sustainable water supply overseas. It has a long list of Canadian companies, all of which are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. It includes Lavalin, EnCana, Barrick Gold Corporation, Alcan, Stantec, First Quantum and Golden Star. It lists all of the companies that are involved in water in these areas based on their industrial work or whatever they are doing. It talks about Afghanistan and Chad.

Here is a list, which I find amazing, of Canadian companies investing overseas in countries, 20 per cent of which do not have any water at all. They are trying to solve the problems overseas based on their investment policies. Yet somehow, for some reason, we are not doing it here in Canada. Is that not ironic?

I will leave this with the committee, because it is another one of these amazingly funny charts. It states:

Listed below are water-intensive companies from the S&P/TSX composite as of June 2006 that operate in countries with severe water shortages.

Think about that.

The Chairman: We are getting there.

Senator Grafstein: I will leave that with the committee, because I find it to be another great irony.

Senator Sibbeston: This is also interesting and ironic. The North is a land of snow and ice. When you see the North, it is all white. The biggest technical problem in the North is getting fresh water into homes, because for nine or ten months of the year the Arctic is frozen. It is all snow and ice, but to get water into the homes is a real technical problem. I have been in government in the Northwest Territories and have been minister responsible for providing water, and it is a big technical problem.

In the North, it is impossible to have water and sewer systems in the ground. None of the systems available to the people in the South is applicable to the North. You cannot have water and sewers in the ground. Only three communities have utilidor systems. Any system has to be over the ground, heated, and closed, and water and sewage has to be hauled in and out. It is very costly and technically very difficult. Therein lays the problem.

Thus far, the best that they have been able to do, where there are no nearby lakes, they spend millions of dollars excavating and creating a reservoir into which, in the summer, they pump water. In the wintertime, by going beneath the ice and taking the water by truck to each individual house, that is the way that water is supplied to people in the North. It is very expensive. I can see that it would be easy to contaminate the water. They put an enormous amount of chlorine into it.

When I get home, I go down to the bank to get water, or else I get some crystal snow so I can have good, clear tea water. I think everybody in the North does that. In Simpson, we get water delivery, but the water that is considered good enough is highly chlorinated. I do not know what kills you first: the chlorine or the bacteria. That is a problem we have in our part of the country.

Senator Grafstein: I have two comments. First, I do not think that we have done a good job in Canada of taking a look at best practices when it comes to water in Aboriginal communities in the North.

I have talked to colleagues from Norway and Sweden. I am in Europe four times a year and I speak to them regularly, and they have solved their problem. I have not had the time to look at it, but one of the things the committee might do is to invite ambassadors from Norway, Finland and Sweden to come as a panel and tell us what they have done with their northern communities and why it is that they have solved their problems there and we have not.

They have the same standard of living and the same tax regime as we do. They are unitary governments; they are not confederated governments, so they do not have the constitutional barriers. It would be interesting to look at their best practices.

In Europe, the good news is that there is competition for clean water. At one time, whenever one went to France, one would never drink water in France; one would drink bottled water. That is how we got Evian and bottled water. It is curious that people used to come to Canada and could drink water right from the tap and feel free to do so. Now we have an industry in Canada that is in the billions of dollars and we import rainwater from Fiji. It has become a multi- billion dollar business. It is weird that we have the largest freshwater drinking source in the world and we are importing fresh water from Fiji.

Tonight, when Senator Angus and I go out for dinner, we will decide whether we buy a bottle of wine or a bottle of fancy water, and the fancy water will cost more than Canadian wine. There is something strange about this country.

The Chairman: That depends on the quality of the wine.

Senator Grafstein: Yes it does.

The Chairman: You said this would not cost any money. I am sorry, there is no such thing as a regulatory regime that will not cost any money. The question is: Is it worth the money it would cost to create the regulation?

You expressed a concern or a fear or someone else had, if this were to happen, quite over and above the money that would be spent on the cost of regulation — of inspectors, inspections and the regime required to accomplish it — that the federal government would be asked in some cases to come in and take over the provision. That is not necessary.

With respect to the federal government regulation under the Food and Drugs Act, we do not subsidize the manufacturer of corn flakes. We regulate Sweet Marie chocolate bars, what goes into them and their healthfulness, and there are penalties under this act if they are not regulated. We do not subsidize the making of those chocolate bars. We regulate the manufacture and distribution of ginger ale, but we do not subsidize ginger ale.

That concern expressed to you about the federal government having to come in and spend money creating water as opposed to regulating water, where would that occur?

Senator Grafstein: I believe it was trying to divert me from the problem that they did not want to end up with a federal-provincial dispute. They did not want some provinces saying if you want to help, you must write a cheque. Frankly, that was not a proper analysis of the problem.

I make this one single prediction. If, in fact, this committee chose to accept the principle of a mandatory guideline —

The Chairman: That is an oxymoron. There are regulations or guidelines.

Senator Grafstein: I am saying that the guideline would be made mandatory into a regulation. That alone would immediately tighten up the provincial oversight. Just the announcement would immediately put every provincial official on notice that he or she has a dual responsibility. There is the responsibility under the provincial act as well as the federal hammer that will arise from time to time to tap you on the back of the head.

The Chairman: Is that because there would then be a consequence of failure to measure up?

Senator Grafstein: Yes, under the Food and Drugs Act. I am not changing the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. I am saying, just the passage of that law alone as mandatory law, enforces the provinces to move more swiftly to concur.

Remember, the guideline is not a federal guideline alone. Under the regime, it is based on a federal-provincial cooperation to establish a guideline that both sides believe is satisfactory. We already do that. The question is changing it from a guideline to a mandatory standard.

The Chairman: Regulation.

Senator Grafstein: Yes, a regulation or standard. The announcement of that alone would immediately tighten up regulatory oversight, both within the federal regime amongst the Aboriginal communities, the administrations responsible for that and the provinces. That is what happened in the United States.

I am not looking at a regime that is costly. The add-on is placing this on a website that the federal government could fund that must be updated by the provinces. To my mind, that would be a very simple and cost-effective measure, a few million bucks. I can tell you that would immediately cause improvement.

There are options available here. We do live in a knowledge economy. We are connected. These are not costly measures. I misspoke when I said it would not cost something. I am saying it would be a simple insurance premium against the health costs in the billions. We know it is in the billions. I am not talking about billions of dollars; I am talking about much less than that. I am not talking about the gun registry.

Senator Angus: I will focus just on one point. I know, as I said earlier, how thorough you are.

You alluded to discussions you have had with the past two federal administrations to the effect, as I understood your comments, ``Senator Grafstein, please hold back, we are doing something as a government.''

Did you explore with them as to whether there was a plan, as far as you were able to determine, to deal with the constitutional question in the same way you are dealing with it?

Senator Grafstein: Again, they were not precise discussions. They were general, and I am giving you my impression of those discussions. Essentially, my sense was that they would make a fresh commitment to the Aboriginal communities to invest more money directly to solve this particular problem.

Senator Angus: That is a clear area of federal jurisdiction.

Senator Grafstein: There is no question about that.

Senator Angus: They would not have had a national oversight.

Senator Grafstein: No. They said they will address that problem. My argument was equality, and it should apply to both. They said the provinces are doing this, we should be doing that and that is our responsibility. My response was that it did not happen provincially. Then there is the question of equality. I cannot get it through my head that we have a Constitution that says that each Canadian is supposed to be treated equally, and the Aboriginal community is not being treated equally.

Senator Angus: However, that is a different issue.

Senator Grafstein: No, it is not.

Senator Angus: That is the nature of our federation.

Senator Grafstein: It is not the nature of our federation. To my mind, it is something that was there before the Charter. The federal government had responsibility to treat the Aboriginal communities on an equal basis. It was not supposed to be separate.

Senator Angus: It is a trust.

Senator Grafstein: It was a stewardship. We have heard the words. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said. I listened to those words. They are important.

Having said that, not only had they let down the Aboriginal communities, but we have also let down the other communities because we pay the shot. The taxpayer pays the shot for health costs. It is the biggest issue in every budget, and it is ripping provincial budgets apart.

Senator Angus: These are all interesting issues.

Senator Grafstein: This is in response to your question.

Senator Angus: It is stimulating to try to level the playing field, but we are talking about water and healthy community water systems.

The present government, for example, as I understand it, to the extent any of us know anything these days about their plans, is indicating that their approach to environmental matters, if I may use that expression, is to approach the individual Canadian and determine how they are directly affected health-wise by environmental factors such as unclean air or unclean water.

Have you had discussions with officials? Have you had any pressures with this current government? This is piggybacking a bit on Senator Sibbeston's question.

Senator Grafstein: No.

Senator Angus: Your answer is no?

Senator Grafstein: The answer is no. Quite frankly, the silence has been awesome.

Senator Angus: That is neither here nor there. I do not think you have any personal way of suggesting to us that the federal government has nothing in the pipeline right now.

Senator Grafstein: I can only suggest this to you, and I say this openly. I have a number of other private initiatives before the Senate. I must say, on these other initiatives, I have heard from the government directly through ministerial representatives as to their views of my various pieces of private member activities. On this one I have heard absolutely nothing.

Senator Angus: That should be encouraging to you.

Senator Grafstein: It is encouraging.

Senator Angus: We will be consulting with those people. If they determine it is fine, we are off and running and it will become the Grafstein Law.

Senator Grafstein: I know Senator Banks and Senator Cochrane will afford me this privilege, but I cannot attend all your hearings on this bill.

Senator Angus: We are here.

Senator Grafstein: I cannot because I have other responsibilities that are not as important, but important nonetheless.

I will undertake to read the transcripts very carefully and at the end have an opportunity to respond if I feel that the evidence is not fair. If that is your wish — and you are not compelled to agree to that, but I am prepared to do that — I will undertake to read the transcripts.

If necessary, if I seek additional information that I think is incorrect, I will try to bring it back to this committee. I think the committee is seized of this matter. I know Senator Banks and Senator Cochrane are fair-minded people. We want to get at the facts.

I started out by saying clearly that the information that I am presenting to you is anecdotal. I do not have a research staff. It is me and my secretary and my friends in the Senate who help me from time to time, and outsiders who write to me. I will undertake to read the transcripts carefully. Perhaps you will allow me an opportunity right at the end before you opine to perhaps come back and respond. I may not see the need to respond if you feel you are satisfied with the evidence, but if you have some serious questions, I will do that. This is an important bill. I have spent close to six years on this bill, and I am not doing it for my own sake because my city and region is covered off by this. The city of Toronto has clean drinking water, but I do not think it is fair that the city of Toronto should have clean drinking water when my friend Senator Adams' community does not.

Senator Angus: You will read those guidelines, as Senator Cochrane asked, and get back to us if you have any special comments.

Senator Grafstein: I will. Remember, I am not an expert on those guidelines.

The Chairman: As you have seen from Vancouver, it is not necessarily the case that we can rest assured that big cities have good water treatment systems, because sometimes they have systems that are not up to unforeseen events.

Senator Grafstein: Let me give you some cities. Winnipeg had a problem. Vancouver has a recurring problem. Moncton had a serious problem. There is not a city of any size in Canada that in the last 10 years has not had a problem.

The Chairman: We are not only talking about rural and Aboriginal systems.

Senator Grafstein: No.

The Chairman: In the same sense that we have an obligation to provide clean water, if that is found to be the case, we also have an obligation to ensure that the consequences of not delivering it properly are the same in X as they are in Y and Z.

Senator Grafstein: I agree.

The Chairman: I think we are finished our questions for the moment, Senator Grafstein. We will ensure that you receive transcripts of all our deliberations in respect of this bill, and we may ask you to appear before us again. We will go in camera for two minutes for the purpose of determining who our next witnesses will be on this bill.

Senator Grafstein: As I have undertaken to do, I will read the transcript, but I think that the departments have a deep statutory responsibility. The Minister of Health has a statutory responsibility for the public health of the nation. That is clear. I have always asked the question, is there liability that goes beyond the statutory responsibility? That is a moot question, as you know, Senator Angus. I would hope that the committee would call on Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Indian Affairs. Call them to account. Again, I would ask you get outside evidence to test the veracity of their conclusions. Then I will read the transcripts and help this committee come to a fair and open-minded decision.

The Chairman: We will always do that, senator.

Senator Grafstein: I appreciate that.

Senator Angus: I would like to thank you, Senator Grafstein, and also to commend you for this initiative.

Senator Grafstein: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned pending our going into camera for a few minutes, senators. Senator Grafstein, thank you very much.

The committee continued in camera.

---