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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Aubin

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)