Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - June 11, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 208, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Grant Mitchell (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Deputy Chair: I am Grant Mitchell; I represent Alberta in the Senate of Canada. I am the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, but I am chairing the meeting today because our colleague, Senator Angus, is unable to be here.
I welcome my colleagues in the Senate, as well as members of the public in the committee room and members of the viewing public as well.
For those who are not aware, this Senate committee is responsible for reviewing legislation at the committee stage as a piece of legislation progresses through the Senate, and it also undertakes special studies from time to time.
Today, we are convened to review a particular piece of legislation. By way of background, I point out for those in the viewing public, who are perhaps unaware, that several kinds of legislation are considered by the Parliament of Canada. One is government legislation, which can be initiated in the House of Commons. Less frequently, but not rarely, government legislation can be started in the Senate. In any case, any piece of legislation, to become law, must go through both houses; so whether it starts in one or the other ultimately is immaterial to the outcome.
Also, there is private members' legislation by non-government members of Parliament. Elected members of Parliament, and senators can initiate legislation. It is that kind of legislation we are here to consider today.
The legislation before us today is BillS-208, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (clean drinking water), which deals with ensuring that Canadians' drinking water is clean. I will allow the sponsor of the bill to describe the bill to all of us and to people watching on television as well.
This act, I think, is now in its fifth presentation since 2001 in the Senate. It progressed all the way through to third reading and was approved by the Senate, I think in 2007, and it was advanced to the House of Commons for the next step, which is a great accomplishment for a senator on a Senate bill. At that time, the bill died on the Order Paper because of prorogation.
In any event, we are honoured to have with us today Senator Jerry Grafstein from Ontario, the sponsor of this bill. He is noted, among other things, and it is demonstrated in this fifth presentation, for both his commitment to public policy solutions to problems facing Canadians, and also for tremendous persistence. On that note, I welcome Senator Grafstein and ask that he make some comments to the Senate committee. Then, we will open up the floor for questions and answers.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, chairman and members of this committee. There are new members here and members that have been here longer. I first want to thank you for your indulgence and your patience. This quest to make drinking water an issue of public policy in this country has been almost a decade long. It arose out of concerns when we entered into a horrible crisis in Walkerton, followed by North Battleford.
Meanwhile, my Aboriginal colleagues here, Senator Charlie Watt, the esteemed dean of our house, Willie Adams, Senator Sibbeston and others reminded me some years ago that, while Ontario had a problem and a dramatic problem in North Battleford had a revolutionary effect across the country to look at clean drinking water, which we take for granted across this country, in the Aboriginal communities they do not have clean drinking water in modern times. I will document that situation. I had hoped the situation would improve in the last decade, but in some instances, it has become worse. All of this information has been documented.
Before I commence and review key issues around this policy, I would like a motion by the committee. I cannot put this motion forward, but I suggest a motion to the committee that the evidence that has been before this committee in previous reiterations of this bill is made part of this record so anyone looking at this bill will have the entire record in front of them. I hope you will move that motion. If that is the case, I will then highlight previous evidence as opposed to having to read it all into the record yet again.
The Deputy Chair: Can someone move that motion? We have a mover, Senator Banks. Do you want to speak, Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: Yes; I appreciate the senator's words, but I was not at all those committee meetings. I do not know what the record was, to be perfectly honest. I do not know what discussions took place. I do not ask for a long iteration of that discussion again; I think we can deal with it, but I am not sure I am comfortable with saying all that material should be part of this record. I was not here, and I can see a few faces around the table that also were not here. Maybe everyone else was there, but it is different to me. You will help me; I am new here. You will take testimony from the year 2000 or when it first started, eight or nine years ago and say that it will be part of what is on the docket today? I am not sure about that move.
Senator Lang: I share that concern. I have taken the opportunity to read some of the "evidence'' that was provided. If I had been at those meetings, I would have questioned how factual they were, no offence to the witness.
I have some problem saying that it is part of the record; inferring that everyone around this table was part of those discussions. This is the year 2009; it is not 2000. Things have changed, in some cases dramatically.
First, how common has that approach been in the past as far as precedence is concerned? Second, what is the inference if we take that approach?
Senator Peterson: Was making it part of the record only for information? I presume that the committee at that time made any decisions based on the information provided. Therefore, it is carried over with the committee unless it was only information. Otherwise, the witness could read it all again. That would take some time.
Senator Grafstein: I do not want to try your patience. I hope that those senators who have not had the opportunity to read previous testimony will do so. There is a shortcut to this process. A good summary was in the evidence before this committee, which was chaired by our esteemed colleague Senator Banks on Tuesday, April15, 2008; and on Thursday, April17, 2008. Those meetings were on this bill. There has been no change to the bill. That information is relatively current. If you cannot make it part of the record, then I urge senators to inform themselves.
The purpose, Senator Lang, is not to convince you that the evidence is correct; it is to inform senators about the depth and the extent of this problem. It is information that was given here not only by me but also by the Auditor General. I thought that information was particularly pertinent. I will refer to it yet again. It is not only the departments giving us information; it is the Auditor General giving an oversight of what that evidence is. I think that information is pertinent and relevant. That evidence was provided in 2008, a year ago. I do not want to urge the committee to do anything it does not choose to do by consensus. I hope, then, that they will refer to this information. I will highlight some of that evidence today.
Senator Banks: I am not a procedural expert by any means, but I think there is an aspect of the rules — and, senators may know this rule better than me — such that when a reference is made to a committee to continue a study, if the study is a continuation, often in the Senate, a motion is made that allows the committee to take that continuation into account so that a committee has proper possession of previous testimony taken. I think that is the point. I do not think the presumption is to say — and, correct me if I am wrong, Senator Grafstein — that everyone here will be deemed to have full knowledge of that testimony. Absent such a motion — I ask the clerk to confirm this point — however it might be worded properly, I do not think this committee would have proper possession of, or be able to refer to, such testimony in previous Parliaments. Do I have that rule right?
Lynn Gordon, Clerk of the Committee: There is some debate over this rule, but all the evidence and everything is now public with respect to what Senator Grafstein refers to. You are absolutely correct; referring the papers and evidence from the Thirty-ninth Parliament is a procedural motion that the committee can undertake. It means only that the committee is therefore advised of that information. It is up to the committee.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, clerk. I know that Senator Grafstein has made this suggestion in an effort to help the committee. However, all this information is public. That is reassurance to us. Obviously, we have access to it. Those people viewing these proceedings have access to it as well by going to the Senate website, pursuing the leads and obtaining it.
As chair, I will make the commitment to review this procedural possibility if we need to formalize the committee's acknowledgment of that information and that testimony without in any way demonstrating a commitment to it or an endorsement of it. I will finish this item by thanking the committee for their input, understanding that I think we have a consensus that we do not want to do anything precipitous right now on the matter, and we will allow Senator Grafstein to proceed.
Senator Grafstein: For those of you who are not familiar with the bill and for those who are watching, this bill is a simple bill in concept. Essentially, it takes an existing federal agency, the food and drug agency that is responsible, using the unquestioned federal power of the criminal law to support it, to establish enforced provisions for our public health as it relates to food. This bill amends that Food and Drugs Act to add water as a food. There was a debate initially in the Senate as to whether water is a food. That problem was resolved in previous testimony, when it was made clear that water is food if it has nutrients or ingredients in it that are healthy. There is no question that water is food. There is no question at all that under the Food and Drugs Act, water is already regulated. It is regulated in bottles, ice, bottled water, and soft drinks, which is almost 99percent water.
The federal government already regulates and establishes national standards that are enforceable for water. In addition, the federal government regulates water on national transportation instruments, for example, on trains, airplanes and in parks. This regulation is not new to the federal agency. This bill makes community drinking water subject to the same criminal power. In Canada now, the federal government establishes voluntary guidelines that are adapted or adopted by individual provinces, regions and territories.
Senator Banks: Or not.
Senator Grafstein: Or not; they are voluntary. Effectively, this bill says that we will establish regulatory standards that are enforceable. The current guidelines are not enforceable. The provinces can or cannot choose to adapt or adopt those voluntary guidelines. That issue is the heart of the bill. It is not complicated.
It brings the criminal power to bear because, under the provinces, if someone falls below a particular provincial standard, as took place in North Battleford, in Ontario, or in many communities across the country — there is not a region in the country that has not had serious problems with drinking water in the last couple of years — this legislation provides federal government oversight to municipalities, provinces and regions that do not perform their work.
In the United States, this oversight occurred after debate in 1974. People also ask for comparative analysis. We now have the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, and the European Union that have enforceable standards. In Canada, we have a patchwork of regulations and voluntary guidelines. There is inconsistency, frankly, in the Senate about this issue. Several weeks ago, we passed a human pathogens bill. We then decided to bring the criminal power to bear for those people dealing with human pathogens. Senators passed that bill unanimously — it went through the Senate in only a few days.
It struck me as a great irony that I have been working on this bill for 10 years and the same bill dealing with the same principle, human pathogens in science, was passed. If you look at the appendages of that bill, you will find the bill dealt not only with human pathogens but with human viruses, bacteria and a lot of contaminants with respect to human pathogens. We passed that bill into law within several days because we felt it was a national emergency to deal with the question of public health as it relates to the outcome of human pathogens.
I urge senators to read that bill. In addition to the bill, I think something like 300 or 400 various viruses and bacteria are outlawed to protect public health.
Here, the bill is about water, which people drink everyday. According to Health Canada, we should drink eight glasses of water a day. We do not have a standard for that water across the country. However, when it comes to scientific laboratories, we now have that standard because that gap was filled in recently.
There is a bit of an irony to that situation. A lot of the contaminants in that schedule are part of the contaminants which, effectively, are not in the guidelines established by the department.
By the way, the fact that multiple departments are involved is a problem. There is no national water policy; it is fragmented over a number of departments — six or eight departments are involved in this issue. There are the Aboriginal communities, of course; the Department of Health; the Department of Transport; and others. Regulation is a mish-mash. That is one thing the Auditor General told us: it is all over the place.
We have a lot of regulations but we do not have a consistent standard. We do not have enforceable standards, except with respect to the Food and Drugs Act with bottled water and so on.
The whole heart of this bill is to bring us into the 21st century and have a national, enforceable standard that Europe and the United States have but which Canada does not have.
What is the heart of the problem? It is the contaminants themselves. If you look at the evidence back in April2008, we heard from the department that these guidelines include something like 40 or 50 contaminants.
One ought to read the most recent material on this subject from the United States. I urge all senators, if they are interested, to read a book called Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It. It is about bottled water but it has an interesting analysis about how bottled water is tested in the United States and elsewhere. I will sum it up quickly for you and provide examples.
If you look at the contaminants, we have a voluntary guideline. The Auditor General told us — and it is clear, there is no question about this evidence — that we are four or five years behind. The United States tested something like 195 contaminants and we test something like 144 or so. Effectively, the guidelines are not up to date. The last time we had evidence before this committee, those guidelines were not up to date by about five years. The Auditor General clearly said that.
I beg honourable senators to look at the Auditor General's report. It is absolutely clear that the departments with these voluntary standards have fallen behind. I do not wish to be totally critical of the departments because they have gone about these voluntary guidelines on a voluntary basis.
They asked the provinces what they thought. We heard last time from Newfoundland and Labrador, who has made progress, but I will describe to you why that progress is still not adequate. Newfoundland, in the 21st century, still has a number of communities that do not have clean drinking water. The oil-rich Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has undertaken a lot of good measures to reform its water regime. Still, we were told by the Newfoundland and Labrador officials before this committee that they have really reformed it and now they test the water regularly — sometimes once a month.
Then I compare that rate of testing to the United States. New York City alone tests all their water sources once a day. The city has a whole group of scientists and research laboratories in New York City, one of the largest cities in North America, and officials test the water once a day. They test at the sources, in the Hudson area in New York, at all the aquifers and so on.
In addition, because this system is not perfect, they also test the water once a week in every neighbourhood of New York City. Why do they do so? They want to ensure that the source is correct but they also want to ensure that, when the water goes through the pipes and all the rest of it, it is safe and sound at the other end.
Some cities like Toronto are blessed. We have a lake beside us. We have good drinking water. As a matter of fact, our drinking water is healthier in some instances than bottled water. I will not go into the whole debate of whether bottled water is good or not. I always found it strange to go to charitable events in Toronto and find a bottle of Fiji water on my table as opposed to the better water that comes from the tap of Toronto.
We have not been astute about this issue. Somehow, bottled water has this mystique that it is pure or better. I am not criticizing Fiji water, but it is sold for $4.50 a bottle. It is sold in bars at $8 a bottle. It is a $6-billion business, yet people say there is not enough money to provide equality of water treatment to every Canadian who cannot afford bottled water. There is something strange about that situation.
I urge you to review the contaminant situation and discover that we do not match the standards adopted in the United States, even under the voluntary guidelines. The U.S. now tests for about 185 contaminants and we, on a volunteer basis, probably test for up to 140 or whatever. There is no question about this situation. It is not me speaking; this is scientific evidence.
Let me start with the worst case and move to even worse cases. The worst case is obviously the Aboriginal community. I am delighted that Senator St.Germain is here. He undertook excellent work in looking at this question before the Aboriginal community.
However, he came to the same conclusion I did: the situation is lousy. If you believe in the Charter — and I am a "Charterist;'' I believe in the Charter — I think every Canadian is entitled to equal treatment and to the equal treatment of clean drinking water, particularly the Aboriginal communities.
Only last week in the Senate, we heard about the Aboriginal drinking water situation. There was no question about this issue. Mary Simon from Nunavut was there. Senator Sibbeston knows her well, as we all do. I asked her how the drinking water situation is in her area. What did she tell us? She almost broke down, and indicated it was not good.
I urge honourable senators who sat there in Committee of the Whole to re-read her evidence, which was last week. In the Aboriginal communities, we heard evidence again before various committees.
By the way, I congratulate Minister Strahl and the government. This government has made progress as it applies to Aboriginal communities. We now discover that communities at risk, which, at one time, were almost 80percent or 90percent, are fewer. Now there is only one-third that may be at high risk; only one-third.
In addition, we have other evidence. I will not go through this evidence but it is also clear: The number of Aboriginal communities from high- risk water systems has been cut to 97 from almost 200 in March2006. I am reading from an Ottawa Citizen press report from 2008, and some progress has been made since.
The bad news is that there is little difference, based on recent evidence, between a high-risk community and a medium-risk community. We have discovered that a high-risk community can quickly go into a medium-risk community and back again in a weekend because no constant testing and surveillance is conducted.
This bill, essentially, requires that the federal government take responsibility. Then the question is always raised: Senator, what about the money?
I will tell you about the money. In Toronto — and our system is good — one-third of the water goes through leaky pipes. We pay for 100percent of our water but we receive only two-thirds because one-third is lost through leaky pipes that have been there for 100 years.
The reason for that situation is because there is no public pressure; the City of Toronto is not pressured to improve its water system. The stimulus package provided by the federal government makes available money to any municipality that wants the money to clean up their water system. The City of Toronto does not ask for money for its water system. We ask for cars, or cars. There is a huge inconsistency.
I want to go to the heart of the cost issue, which is the health problem. Reports of the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian scientists all say that we do not have a good drinking water policy in Canada. Dozens of reports criticize the drinking water policy. It is not I who is taking on this particular government. The problem is a systemic one that occurred under previous governments and has never been corrected.
Honourable senators will recall that I began this quest when there was a Liberal government. I received as much satisfaction from that government as I am receiving from this government. This bill is not partisan.
Dr.Schindler, one of the great experts on public health, testified before the committee. I said to him that I needed help in determining the cost to the public health system for people with bad drinking water. We heard about the problems in Battleford, Saskatchewan, and in Walkerton, Ontario, where 17,000 people will be chronically sick for the rest of their lives because of the bad drinking water system. Think about the cost to the tax system. We pay for that cost. There is no zero sum in this issue.
When people become sick and develop systemic sickness, we all pay for it through our tax system. This bill is budgetary as well, in a sense, to try to save money over the long term. It is a prophylactic to save money to do more in the area of prevention than on the cure. Everybody knows the age-old adage: An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Dr.Schindler and I worked out a kind of logarithm. The federal and provincial health departments do not keep track of ailments, illness, loss of work time, or loss of jobs due to bad drinking water. Some places keep track but there is no systemic record keeping. In my view, this lack is benign neglect. The departments of health do not want to keep track because if they did, they would have to do something about the issue. Then, they would say they could not do anything about it because of budgetary restrictions.
It is a mug's game. With this bill, we are trying to unravel the issue, go to the heart of the problem and refocus and reshape what the experts and I consider necessary in the 21st century: clean drinking water for every Canadian.
We worked on two models. Dr.Schindler said, based on his prepared logarithms, that $2 billion to $5 billion per a year is the health cost for people who go to hospitals or other medical facilities because of bad drinking water. However, the Canadian Medical Association and others have indicated, based on another logarithm, that about 32 million cases related to bad drinking water occur in Canada each year. No one has quantified this problem, although I have tried, through talking with public health officers. In total, the amount is in the billions of dollars. It is not a question of wasting money that we do not have but rather a question of saving money if we did our job.
Senator Lang and others have voiced objection that this issue is not the federal government's business. Some have said that the provinces and the cities do a great job so why would the federal government do this?
Senator Lang should read about the Fathers of Confederation and our Constitution. In our Constitution, the purposes of the federal government were to provide not only laws in federal jurisdiction but also to ensure that provincial laws were properly implemented so that the public, which does not separate itself between the two levels of government, is treated fairly by both.
Is it important that we have oversight in this country? Yes, it is important. Will it be costly? I do not believe that it will be, in the long run. Do we have stimulus money to deal with this issue now? Yes, we have that money. Does the Government of Canada believe that public health is an issue? Yes, they do. Do they pass laws that outlaw certain contaminants? Yes, they have done so. This is the last part of the situation, and I will come to my ringing conclusion, if I may, on water scarcity.
We do not pay attention to water because in Canada we believe, and we have been taught in schools, that we have limitless water. However, water is not limitless. Last week, I met with an interesting group from Ducks Unlimited that is working on watersheds and water sources. Another bill will come forward that deals not only with downstream water, as does this bill, but also with the preservation of upstream water. The watershed bill — my sister bill — is before the Senate. Experts from the department said that we have to take a holistic approach and deal with the upstream and the downstream, which we will do with these two bills.
We discover in this country that while we have 8percent of the world's fresh water, much of it is polluted; but we do not know how much that is. In the Aboriginal communities, it is a disaster. No one can convince me that we have done a great job there. However, we have done a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have shipped mobile water systems, but not in Canada.
My point is that in every region of the country there is a serious problem, and I will not debate the boil water advisories. We do not keep track of those advisories and we had the debate in committee last time. One honourable senator said to me that the advisory is a good thing because it shows we are keeping track. Remember, we do not accumulate all the boil water advisories in the country, but we know that Aboriginal communities face boil water advisories every week, which means the water is bad.
I have two last points: First, Ducks Unlimited said that because we have not preserved our wetlands, we have 20percent fewer wetlands today than we had 20 years ago. Water sources are decreasing. That means we have to be much more careful with the water we have.
Second, last week in The Toronto Star, an articleindicated the amount of water utilized to produce one bottle of pop. Eight quarts of water are used for each bottle of pop. We are using water at an astonishing rate, and yet we are not preserving and safeguarding the water that goes to the essence of our health through drinking eight glasses of water per day.
We have good drinking water here every day, and we are okay. However, some of the Aboriginal communities and other major communities cannot be confident today that when they drink a glass of water it will be good for them. They cannot be satisfied that all the contaminants have been removed from the water. It is a mega crisis that will worsen before it improves unless the Senate of Canada helps to do something about it.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Grafstein, that information was most helpful.
Senator Merchant: Senator Grafstein, I know that you are passionate about this issue. I note your last comments about our utilization of clean drinking water. I water my lawn several times each week and wash laundry with clean drinking water. Is there a way for us to use less water? Would that save resources?
Senator Grafstein: That leads to a broader question. We have a belief in this country that we have limitless water. I live on a lake in Ontario. North of us, there are hundreds of lakes, but a number of them are polluted. We all do the same thing. For example, I have a swimming pool and I water my lawn, so I am not as conservation-minded as I should be.
When it comes to drinking water, I always have this big argument my wife. I tell here that I do not want to buy bottled water because the drinking water is good. Whenever I go to a restaurant, I say, "I want Chateau du tap.'' I want water from the tap.
My focus is on this particular bill. I have discovered that the narrower one's focus, the more successful one is. The issue here is narrow and precise. Dealing with water preservation is a different question. I hope to address that question in my other bill. I do not think water preservation is relevant to this particular bill. The issue here is, once we have the water, we must ensure we can drink it out of the tap and it is clean.
Senator Merchant: That was only an aside. My question was on the evidence from 2008 when the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was before you. They seemed to say that more regulations cannot solve a problem that comes down to overstrained fiscal resources and capacity. Municipalities believe it does not matter how good guidelines and standards are if they do not have the fiscal or human resource capacity to meet the guidelines.
You have spoken with municipalities. Are some of them supporting you? What is the status of this discussion?
Senator Grafstein: No, I think I tried to explain the situation with municipalities. My own city of Toronto has to renovate its water system to maintain its excellence. It has not undertaken that renovation. There was no request by the City of Toronto in this current round of stimulus spending. There are criteria for every municipality to ask for money from the federal government. I know it will be forthcoming, if requested. The City of Toronto requested street cars in the current round. This problem is not a financial one in the sense that money is available presently to renovate their systems if they chose.
The real issue is whether the federal government is prepared to expand its scientific efforts to ensure they can deliver online, on-time test results. We have a public health organization currently in Winnipeg. If New York City can provide scientists to do this testing, there is no reason why this testing cannot happen across the country.
We are about to approve the Cree bill, and I spoke to the Cree chiefs yesterday. Clean water is part of their priority. They think they will have funding in place. They are concerned they may not have proper training mechanisms or testing. It is not only the cost of the water system itself; it is the maintenance and operation of the system on a constant basis.
We could do this. It would not be new money. Ultimately, I think it would save money, time and energy. You have to put the health losses together with the costs. If you work it all out as Professor Schindler did, there would be a cost benefit. It is up to the departments to do that, but it is all over the place currently.
The Deputy Chair: We have seven people on the list and we are targeting ten o'clock to finish.
Senator Grafstein: I will be briefer.
Senator Neufeld: I will try to be brief too, Chair.
Regarding bottled water in Toronto, to be perfectly honest, even if the federal government created standards, there will still be bottled water in Toronto. People like bottled water for whatever reason.
If plastics are completely banned at some time, bottled water may be reduced or bottlers may change to glass. Bottled water is used all over the country, all over North America and all over the world. It will continue regardless of what regulations are in place. I agree that over-use is not something covered in this bill.
You talk about First Nations bands. I do not disagree that there are problems. We have a First Nations member here that can relate to that situation. However, I do not think all reserves have bad water.
I will speak about the constituency I live in. I do not know it 100percent, but I have lived there all my life. There are seven bands. I had regular contact with the chiefs and councillors over many years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly there. I do not recall them ever telling me their water was polluted. They live in a huge part of British Columbia. From that experience, I do not think all First Nations reserves have water problems.
I want to go back to the federal government role. There is a saying that as long as they put regulations in place, the world will be safe. I tend not to believe that. I will tell you why: I lived in Fort Nelson, British Columbia for 19 years. The federal government put in a water and sewer system. The community was unincorporated when they installed the system. They used a settlement pond for the sewer and the outfall ran into the Muskwa River above the outtakes. I do not believe the federal government has all the wisdom all the time to put things into place that are great for people.
You may be correct in this information. You say Canada has eightpercent of the world's water and it is mostly polluted. Are there absolute statistics that say that? Some water is polluted that humans have not touched. We know that. To say those things strikes fear in people's hearts. The Walkerton issue woke up many people across Canada.
I believe we have a good system in British Columbia. Is it perfect? No. Would it be perfect if a federal government system came in? No. It would be another set of regulations on top of the ones the province already has. The provinces and municipalities work well together.
Your example of Toronto not applying for stimulus money for their water system is interesting in that a person from the federal government — a senator — is starting to talk about what Toronto should do with stimulus money. That is why we elect councils. I do not know why Toronto did not apply for the money, but for some reason they had other priorities. They must have felt their water was okay or they would have done something. It demonstrates that in the federal world we sometimes say that as long as it comes from us, it is the right thing to do.
I think we should leave the situation as it is. I am not in favour of putting more regulations in place. As Senator Merchant said, more regulation does not mean we will have good clean water simply because we have more regulations. I believe the provinces have responsibility, they should take that responsibility and I think they are taking it. I do not think you can go to any provincial politician who will say they do not care about clean drinking water. I think that is wrong. They are like us.
I will go back to First Nations reserves. The federal government has responsibility for them. Why is the situation so terrible? Maybe that is where we should start. Why do you not start there?
Senator Grafstein: I believe in equality. The problem is not only in reserves. I cannot think of a province that does not have water problems both in urban and smaller communities.
You have raised two issues to which I will respond. First, this is not another set of regulations. The federal government already provides voluntary guidelines that the provinces turn into their standards. The Auditor General says they are a patchwork quilt across the country and they are not up to standard. The regulations and guidelines that the federal government provides to the provinces to develop their guidelines are out of date.
Therefore, the guidelines you are talking about in your province are out of date. The public health officer in Vancouver happens to be a relative of mine. She is an outstanding woman. I discussed this problem with her. I will not quote her, but I can tell you that the City of Vancouver once did an analysis for one year and found that 17,000 people were sick from bad drinking water in the City of Vancouver. Senator, I hope you will go back to British Columbia, Vancouver and Fort Nelson, and ask for the number of boil-water advisories in your province at this moment.
This bill is not redundant regulation; this bill improves the regulatory standard for the provinces, the federal government and the Aboriginal communities. There is a problem in British Columbia. The way to test is to find out the number of boil-water advisories. The problem is that British Columbia, which is no different from any other province, does not publish the boil-water advisories regularly. In the United States, they can punch in their 905 code and access the most recent boil-water advisory from the federal government that week in their own community. They can decide if that week their drinking water is safe for their kids. That is what the federal government has done, and we can do it by high-speed easy technology.
In British Columbia, the problem is not only in the Aboriginal communities. By the way, we knew there was a problem in the Nisga'a communities because we had the debate when the bill was adopted. They had a real problem but they said they would address it. It had not been addressed. Fort Nelson had a drinking water problem. There were boil-water advisories in Fort Nelson. I am not sure how recent that data is.
In Vancouver, whenever there is a storm or rain there is a problem with drinking water. The problem is that there is no public constituency to cry out against this situation.
Senator Neufeld: I did not say it was perfect, Senator Grafstein. I said we have problems and there are boil-water advisories. I do not care what kind of regulations or standards we put into place across Canada, boil-water advisories will still happen.
Senator Grafstein: I do not disagree with that statement either.
Senator Lang: I want to put one thing on the record. In your opening remarks you referred to me in respect to reading the Charter and the Constitution and how it is designed to treat everyone equally. Yes, it is designed to treat everyone equally, but I am also from the West and I experienced the National Energy Program. I can tell you that we were not treated equally.
Senator Grafstein: I do not disagree with that either.
Senator Lang: There is another thing I want to leave on the record. I appreciate the senator's enthusiasm and commitment to the cause but, for the record, in my research it is not a crisis and is not a mega-problem within Canada. There are problems and they have to be rectified, but I think the record should be corrected with regard to the audit that I believe you referred to in the 2005 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. A report has been brought forward since then. The report made two points about the improvements that have been made. It says that the government now has a process in place to set priorities with plans and timelines for regularly updating the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and for producing new guidelines as appropriate.
The update further goes on to say that the process also addresses the backlog that Senator Grafstein referred to of old guidelines in need of review, and the department has updated a significant number of guidelines since 2005.
It is important for the record to show that improvements are being made. The big question here is whether a federal agency should be put into place, the costs related to that agency, and whether it would improve the situation we presently have. The reality is that although there may be different standards across the country, I am told — and I have no reason to disbelieve it — that the standards in place across the country are some of the highest in the world. The provinces and territories should receive some credit.
Senator Neufeld made a valid point in respect to the reserves across this country. The situation in some of these areas is sad, there is no question. However, as Senator Neufeld said, and I reinforce this statement — it goes back to Senator Grafstein's premise that if the federal government does it it will solve the problem — the fact is that the federal government has been responsible for these reserves ever since their inception. If anyone sits around this table and says the federal government did a good job, I want to hear it.
Meanwhile, last year the Government of Canada — and this point is important for viewers out there to realize — invested $330million in water treatment and other aspects for updating their reserves. This year there is $500 million — one half a billion dollars — to be implemented over the next two years in Native communities across the country. Part of that money is for water treatment where it is needed.
Steps are being taken in that direction. Further, the federal government is working with the First Nations to implement a policy for guidelines for the purposes of water treatment in the reserves across this country. Steps are being taken.
Will a new federal agency improve this situation? At the end of the day, we have a system in place that in my research is working, and I think Senator Grafstein can take some credit for that, because of highlighting this problem as an issue.
My question is: How do we go ahead and implement this legislation without the provinces concurring? I realize we can say we have constitutional responsibilities, but the provinces are not in favour of a federal agency. Why would we start another conflict with the provinces when we are in a situation such as this recession? Why would we proceed over and above the consent of the provinces?
Senator Grafstein: We already did, last week. The delivery systems for health and science are essentially at the provincial level. Obviously, to protect public health because of human pathogens, the federal government decided the provinces were not doing a good job in human pathogens in research. We have already done that.
Thank you so much for that compliment. This committee has done a great job in educating not only the federal government but the public about the need for clean drinking water. This committee has made an impact through television and otherwise. By the way, this federal agency is not new. That is the point. It is the existing federal agency that already regulates bottled water and ice. There is no difference between ice and water; ice is frozen water. We regulate ice but not clean drinking water. We regulate pop but not clean drinking water. We regulate drinking water in the parks, but we do not regulate drinking water with enforceable regulation in the Aboriginal communities: national parks, yes; Aboriginal communities, no.
Back to your update, yes, "guidelines have improved.'' There is no question about that. Yes, there has been significant improvement, but statistically the improvement is nowhere close to where it should be. Yes, in some parts of the country we have excellent standards. I do not question that.
I represent Ontario. I love my province, and I think we have done a great job in many ways, but when it comes to drinking water, to this day I do not think we have done a great job. At the end of the day, the senator and I are not too far apart here. The only question is how to get the job done. This bill is not an additional round of regulation.
Senator Lang: I am concerned about the terminology used here: that it is a mega-problem; that it is a crisis in the country. I am thinking of the viewers out there. If it is a crisis across the country, why is it that the only one I have heard it from is from Senator Grafstein? I have not heard it from the provinces and municipalities, and they are responsible for clean drinking water.
Senator Grafstein: It is not me. All I am doing is echoing the views of the Walter Gordon report, of the Auditor General and of the scientists. Two hundred scientists recently issued a report on the subject of drinking water. It is not me. The problem is that the message has not been heard. The federal government, because of a lot of other things going on, has not decided that this is one problem it can solve. The provinces, frankly, take pride in the progress they have made since Walkerton. In my view, Newfoundland and Labrador does not meet the minimum standards of testing that they should, but they have drastically improved. They have gone from zero to better, but it should be much better. We are talking about public health here.
Senator Brown: Senator Grafstein, I remember discussions about Newfoundland and Labrador last year. We had, I believe, the water commissioner before us, who told us that they have the largest number of boil water advisories of any province, for the simple reason that they are mostly on wells. When it rains, those wells contain sediment that takes them beyond what normally is considered potable water. As a result, they are told they should boil their water.
When the commissioner was asked why they did not put in more strict regulations with regard to chlorine, her answer was that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not like chlorine, and they would rather boil their water than add chlorine to it. That is one answer to my concern.
With regard to Alberta, despite the fact that cities like Calgary and Edmonton have extremely good water systems, they can be overrun in less than 24 hours with high rainfall. Only a few years ago, Calgary had almost 24-hour rainfall in a period of about three days. Their water system absolutely could not handle the filtration because of the excessive amount of water, so the city limited the amount of water people could use. They could not wash their car, water their lawn, and so forth. The lawns were probably saturated anyway. That was their answer, until they could reduce the sediments and until they could handle that amount of filtration. However, no one in Calgary ever became sick as a result.
That situation happens, I think, right across this country. Any time we have unexpected rainfall, water systems will have problems. The people who are at the door of where the water leaves the plant are responsible.
In the Walkerton system, the people responsible were not responsible. Some of them were charged criminally because they did not treat the water properly and some people in Walkerton died. I do not think there is any dispute about that problem.
All I am saying is that 99percent of our water systems in Canada are handled properly by the people who are charged with looking after them. If we have a bad system, do you not agree that it is within the Aboriginal communities? We hear that all the time. We have been hearing it for years.
Why do we not focus the regulatory bill on the Aboriginal Peoples, where we have more federal control than any other place, and determine that we will apply the act to the Aboriginal Peoples to ensure they are supplied with the kind of filtration and water purification that is needed, no matter what the cost, and get it done?
That is a small part of the water system in this country. I think we can afford to do that easily and apply this act to the Native act, whether it is still called the Indian Act or whatever. We can apply the regulations to that source, and if we find other areas that consistently have unsafe water, then we can apply the regulations there as well. However, I cannot see implementing a regulatory act across this country because of one situation.
Senator Grafstein: I do not disagree with much of what Senator Brown has said. Let us look at Calgary and Edmonton. I agree with you that sometimes the situation is due to weather, and sometimes there are boil water advisories. I disagree with you that there are no health problems as a result of that situation, for two or three days, because a lot of people shrug it off and do not address the situation or report the cases. That was the point of Schindler and others; that we do not keep track of these cases and there is an ensuing health risk.
There are matters that arise because of the federal government's involvement with regard to Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Vancouver and the resources of fresh water and the filtration systems, which vary in each community because of the different geographical resources. A federal government initiative of this bill would compel municipalities to look at water sources and to protect those water sources much more acutely. If a weather issue recurs, they would say to themselves that they have to deal with this situation as a priority.
The purpose of the law is not necessarily to penalize people. The law compels people to act with a higher standard of care. The experience in the United States is that once the federal government became involved, it compelled all municipalities to look afresh at their water sources and say: By the way, the federal government is now involved; we have to ensure that our water sources are more secure and safe.
In Vancouver, they have a weather problem and a source problem. In Calgary, they have a weather problem as well as a source problem. They do have a source problem, but I will not debate that point. Talk to officials in British Columbia. If you explore this issue, you will find that there is scientific disagreement about this issue.
My point is that the purpose of federal law is to draw attention not only to the downstream but also to the sources of that water in each community and to ensure that steps are taken to offset regular weather conditions. There are measures that can be taken. The question is, how do you get things done and how do you put an issue on the agenda? The way to do it is by federal law.
Senator Peterson: Thank you, Senator Grafstein. You mentioned North Battleford. My understanding there is similar to what Senator Neufeld said; the sewage outfall was upstream of the water intake. In First Nations communities, in most cases, the problem is lack of qualified personnel to operate the water treatment plants. I am interested to see how your bill will help or focus those issues.
Senator Grafstein: I read all the testimony in the 700-pagereport out of Ontario. In North Battleford, essentially, there was a problem with the operation, supervision and testing. Water systems were not tested or supervised properly, and there was improper supervision of the supervisors. There was a failure of the system. Harry Truman once said: What is the job of the president of the United States; It is to get people to do the job they were hired to do in the first place.
This bill addresses the criminal power, and that was the problem with the enforcement of the supervisors in Ontario. They could not use the criminal law as a threat to evoke a higher standard, so they ended up going through a long, convoluted process. That is why the Food and Drugs Act was established in the first place, to ensure that food in this country was, beyond question, safe and sound. We have a great reputation in this country. The food and drug industry has a worldwide reputation for excellence. All I am trying to do is use the entire powers of the agency that exists, and to expand the power to drinking water, which would then compel provinces and municipalities to ensure that the water is tested on a much more regular basis, with higher standards.
We know the federal standards and guidelines are not as high as they could be. This bill improves the entire system.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you very much. I commend you for your passion on this issue. As you probably know, I am not a member of this committee, so I have not heard the former witnesses.
On these voluntary provincial guidelines that are made up by the federal government, the provinces and the territories, I understand that some provinces have adopted these regulations. If this legislation goes through, does that mean, for example in Ontario, that we will have provincial and federal regulations?
Senator Grafstein: No; we had this problem when it came to taxes. We had a sales tax and a federal tax, and finally the Province of Ontario — as a number of provinces have — has harmonized the two taxes.
It is my expectation that if there was a higher federal standard, which I hope will be adopted, then all the provinces will ultimately harmonize their regulations. The standard needs leadership. This bill is a question of federal leadership.
I do not think there will be a duality at all because the voluntary guidelines are now at the lowest level. This bill will open up the door for individual provinces and municipalities to go beyond even the federal or provincial standards. Some of them do go beyond those standards. Frankly, the voluntary guidelines are too inept at this moment. We are trying to elevate all the standards.
If this bill is approved here and goes through the other place, I think you will find that the better provinces will quickly harmonize their laws with this legislation. I do not think there will be replication. It will force higher enforceable standards.
Senator Callbeck: If standards are harmonized, will the provincial or the federal government enforce them?
Senator Grafstein: Right now, the provinces enforce the criminal law. The law is federal, but police officers in places like Toronto and Fort Nelson enforce the federal law. This legislation would be a federal law enforced by local authorities. There would not be an additional enforcement process, but if a particular municipality fell below a criminal standard, there would be criminal liability. That is the whole point. That is the whole point of the carcinogen bill, to bring the federal law to bear to force scientists, doctors and hospitals to follow a higher health standard. That is the purpose of the law.
Senator Sibbeston: I have an opportunity to present the perspective of, and the situation in, the North. The North is seen as, and is, a land of snow, ice and water, yet potable water is one of the biggest problems. When I was a minister of the local government, we spent a lot of infrastructure money dealing with drinking water. Oftentimes, the solution is to make big holes in the ground, line it with plastic and have the water gather. Then, the system of providing water is to have water trucks go to each house. We cannot have a sewage system due to permafrost.
The system oftentimes of making the water drinkable is to add Perfex or Javex into the tanks of water, and give the water to people. While they kill the bacteria, the water tastes awful. While they may have killed the bacteria, they have probably bleached the insides of people.
Even this morning, when I drank water in my apartment across the river, it tasted of a chemical. I have always wondered about that taste. While there is less bacteria, what are the effects of the chemicals on our bodies?
The other thing I wanted to say is, you are a rational and convincing person. It begs the question, why is this not a government bill instead of a bill from someone like yourself?
Senator Grafstein: The good news is that since I have raised this matter, there has been a statement about water in every Throne Speech in every government; we will do something about water. Still, we have a bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy is slow to reform. There are debates and turf wars within bureaucracies and so on. Some agencies want to take control of testing.
We found that situation when we had the bill to set up a public health authority in Winnipeg. There was a huge debate as to where the authority should be located. There is also bureaucratic lethargy, turf wars, responsibility, accountability and budget. They look at their budget and say, I want my budget for my objectives.
This bill enforces priorities. We are all familiar with government. Some of us have been elected and some of us have been involved in local and municipal affairs; I have been involved for almost half a century. I found the biggest problem is to motivate people to do what you think should be done, and what everyone agrees should be done. We say one thing, Parliament says one thing and — I agree with honourable senators on this side — bureaucracy says something else.
The whole idea is to keep constant pressure on government. That is why we have an accountability bill. It took us many months to pass that bill to make departments more accountable for their responsibilities. There is nothing new about this bill.
This issue has been on the backburner. That is why former employee after former employee has come out with reports. The last one was compiled by former officials of the department to raise their concerns.
Senator Banks: We are way past our time. I have a time problem, and I assume that we will not now vote on the clauseby clauseof this bill?
The Deputy Chair: No, we will not.
Senator Banks: I will defer, because I do not have any specific questions of Senator Grafstein that will add to our discussion at this point.
Senator Lang: I wanted to make a point for the viewers so people have more information on this particular question. That point is the question of identifying aquifers across this country. You touched on it briefly.
It is important for people to realize that the federal government is working with the provinces on that work. They budgeted over $3 million per year. I believe the number of key aquifers across the country is in the neighbourhood of 30; 12 have been identified. They are accelerating that program so that in the next five to eight years we should have all the information on the underground water that is of concern, and it will be inventoried.
I am putting on the record that things are being done, and water is of concern to all of us around this table, to the provinces and to the municipalities.
I conclude by saying, fortunately, I do not think this situation is a crisis. I think it is a situation for the provinces and the municipalities. The federal government's responsibility is in research. I think the governments are doing the jobs they should be doing.
Senator Grafstein: Briefly, the bill has not been referred to this committee, but there are still constitutional questions that I hope the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will address. If there are remaining comments, it will come back to this committee. I will respond to Senator Lang's concerns and will bring independent witnesses to deal with this concern as well.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Grafstein, thank you for your presentation.
Senator Grafstein: Thank you all for your patience and for your questions. I think we all agree we are trying to do the best thing on behalf of all Canadians.
(The committee adjourned.)