36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 177
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 9, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-470. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| PETITIONS
|
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Bulk Water Exports
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Peace Tax Legislation
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1010
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| MacKay Task Force
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Freshwater Resources
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Motion
|
1020
1025
| Mr. John Finlay |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1030
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1035
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1040
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1100
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1115
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1120
1125
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1130
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Mr. John Herron |
1135
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1140
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1200
1205
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1210
1215
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1220
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1225
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1230
1235
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1240
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. John Duncan |
1300
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1305
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1310
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1315
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1320
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1325
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1330
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1350
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INJURY PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
1400
| CALGARY AND QUEBEC CITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS INTERPRETERS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1405
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| SISTERS OF CHARITY OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT GLOBE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1410
| NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| THE LATE DENISE LEBLANC-BANTEY
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| CONSCIENCE RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| DEVCO
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| APEC INQUIRY
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| KING OF JORDAN'S FUNERAL
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1430
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| APEC
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1440
| YEAR 2000 BUG
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| Hon. John Manley |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1450
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| JEAN-LESAGE AIRPORT
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1455
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| EXPORT OF CANDU REACTORS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| PUBLICATION INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Devco
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1505
| The Speaker |
| Health Canada
|
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Randy White |
1510
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Justice
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Freshwater Resources
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1515
1520
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1525
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1530
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1535
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1540
1545
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1550
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1555
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1600
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Mr. John McKay |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1635
| Mr. André Harvey |
1640
1645
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1650
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1655
1700
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1705
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1710
1715
1740
| Allotted Day—Health
|
| Motion
|
1750
(Division 312)
| Amendment negatived
|
(Division 313)
| Motion negatived.
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF CANADA
|
| Motion
|
1805
(Division 314)
| Motion negatived
|
| ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
|
| Motion
|
1815
(Division 315)
1820
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
|
| Bill S-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1825
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1830
1835
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1840
1845
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1850
1855
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1900
1905
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1910
1915
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1920
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Transport
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1925
| Highways
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1930
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 177
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 9, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
1005
CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-470, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act (prohibited provision in a
collective agreement).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to
introduce a bill aimed at banning orphan clauses from any
collective agreement which might be covered by one of three
pieces of legislation: the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary
Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Staff
Relations Act.
The purpose is to eliminate any discriminatory provision,
particularly those affecting young people and setting out
working conditions for them which are often not as good as those
of their elders.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present 104 more pages of petitions with
2,355 more signatures of concerned citizens from nine different
provinces, including Quebec.
The government has finally united Canada from coast to coast and
Canadians are united in opposition to the federal government's
fatally flawed gun registration.
My constituents have asked me to keep a running total of repeal
Bill C-68 petitions. Since last April I have introduced 1,855
pages of petitions with a total of 43,265 signatures. The
petitioners are demanding an end to the government's billion
dollar gun registration scheme because it will do nothing to
curtail the criminal use of firearms, it is not a cost effective
way to address the violent crime problem in Canada, it is putting
tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy, and it is opposed by the
vast majority of police on the street and four provinces and two
territories, comprising more than 50% of Canada's population.
It may be interesting to note that there is an increasing number
of petitions coming from Quebec.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on the subject of human rights from a number of Canadians,
including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that human
rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in many
countries, especially Indonesia. The petitioners also point out
that Canada continues to be recognized as the champion of human
rights internationally. Therefore the petitioners call upon
parliament to continue to condemn human rights abuses around the
world and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for
such abuses.
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present petitions from citizens throughout
British Columbia who are calling upon the government to take
action on the issue of providing sovereignty over Canada's water.
They ask for a ban on bulk water exports to the United States.
This brings to 29,215 the number of residents of the Kamloops
area who have signed this or similar petitions.
PEACE TAX LEGISLATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions this morning on
two subjects. The first petition is signed by residents of
Alberta and British Columbia and notes that the Constitution Act,
1982 guarantees freedom of conscience and religion in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1010
The petitioners urge parliament to establish peace tax
legislation by passing into law a private member's bill which
recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for
the military and within which the government would declare its
commitment to apply that portion of taxes that was to be used for
military purposes toward peaceful purposes such as peace
education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental aid,
housing and other peaceful purposes.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition deals with the MAI, the multilateral
agreement on investment. The petitioners express grave concern
about the implications of the MAI for Canada's sovereignty and
they call upon parliament to consider the enormous implications
to Canada with the signing of the MAI. They ask that it be put
before the House for open debate and that a national referendum
be held for the people of Canada to decide.
MACKAY TASK FORCE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to stand on
behalf of many constituents of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and
other people across the country. This petition pertains to the
MacKay task force recommendations.
There are a number of people from Beauval, Strasbourg, Regina,
Lanigan, Earl Grey, Duval and a number of communities who have
signed this petition. They are very concerned about the MacKay
task force report which recommends that the banks get into the
insurance business. These people support the independent
insurance brokers of Canada. They do not support the banks
taking over the business of the independent brokers association
and its members. They call upon parliament to totally reject the
recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the
entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
They strongly urge parliamentarians not to give in to the
pressure of the banks on this matter.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr. Speaker,
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, 1998 I placed
Question No. Q-84 on the order paper, asking how many violent
crimes had been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved
the use of registered and unregistered firearms. In accordance
with Standing Order 39 I asked for a written answer within 45
days. My constituents have been waiting 335 days.
The commissioner of the RCMP wrote to me on July 6, 1998
referring to his answer to Question No. Q-84. The RCMP gave its
response to the government 218 days ago.
I raised this point on October 28 and again on December 7. The
parliamentary secretary said that the response was being
finalized.
Question No. Q-84 is the oldest unanswered question on the order
paper. For the third time, when is the government going to give
my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite
correct, he did raise this matter with me before and I looked
into it on the last occasion. The answer was being prepared. I
assure him that I will this very day once again look into the
whereabouts of the response to Question No. Q-84.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the
proceedings as I know this is an important occasion; however, a
member of the official opposition has asked if we could have
unanimous consent to return to committee reports.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
revert to presentation of reports by committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st
report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to
chapter 10 of the September 1998 report of the Auditor General of
Canada on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal panel. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of
the House of Commons, the committee requests the government to
table a comprehensive response to this report.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FRESHWATER RESOURCES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and interbasin transfers in order to assert Canada's
sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater
resources for future generations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of
my caucus today with respect to this motion. I will read it into
the record one more time:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and interbasin transfers in order to assert Canada's
sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater
resources for future generations.
May I begin by saying I will be sharing my time
with the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
This is a very important motion. We have hope on this side of
the House, in the NDP particularly, that there may come a day
when parliament could express itself perhaps even unanimously in
favour of this motion. It would be a historical moment. For the
first time as far as I know, parliament would have said clearly
that there is a need for the government to act immediately with
respect to a moratorium, and that there is a need for the
government to proceed quickly to bring in legislation in the
context as well of a larger national water policy that has been
absent since the beginning of time in spite of Liberal promises
to the contrary.
There have been many occasions when the Liberal Party in
government and in opposition made commitments to bring in a
national water policy, to ban the bulk export of freshwater from
Canada and we have had no action on this. We asked the question
of the government in the House last Thursday and we had no
commitment to legislation or to a moratorium.
This motion forces the government, we hope, to focus its
thoughts on what needs to be done here and to join with us and
hopefully with colleagues from other parties in the House of
Commons in saying something decisive today, on February 9, 1999,
about what Canada's intention is with respect to the export of
freshwater, particularly with respect to bulk freshwater exports
and interbasin transfers.
Water is something that all Canadians have a common image of in
our country. Water is as Canadian as hockey, the RCMP and the
beaver. We want to make sure that we do not have happen to water
what has already happened to hockey and to the RCMP. We know that
hockey has gone south for all intents and purposes and has become
Americanized. It has become an export over which we have no
control. This is very much at the expense of the way in which
hockey used to be done in our own country. We know the RCMP has
sold its copyright to Disney.
Let us make water a last stand. Let us make sure that at least
when it comes to freshwater resources, we as a country show some
fortitude and determination, that what has happened to many other
aspects of our country both with respect to natural resources and
culture will not happen to water. This is the intent of this
motion.
This motion is very important and I urge the government to
consider it. The government may also have an opportunity to
consider, in the course of reflecting upon our amendment, their
own dark side on these issues. The dark side for the Liberals on
this issue as in others is the international trade and investment
agreements, in particular those which they have had a penchant
for signing even after they ran against them and even after they
said they would not sign them.
1020
Let us say the government votes for this motion, and the
Liberals pat themselves on the back about their determination not
to permit the bulk export of freshwater. We do not want to be in
the situation three, five, or ten years from now where the
Liberals say then what they are saying now about magazines and
about drug patent legislation. “Oh well, yes, we were against
extending the drug patent legislation and we are for protecting
the Canadian magazine industry, but what can we do because we are
in NAFTA and we are in the WTO. It really does not matter what
we said before. It does not really matter that we vigorously
opposed the drug patent legislation or that we were vigorously in
favour of protecting the Canadian cultural sector. We are hapless
victims. We are at the mercy of these trade agreements”. Of
course many of those agreements, particularly NAFTA and the WTO,
the Liberals themselves signed.
We have had enough of this self-inflicted powerlessness. That
is why we intend to move an amendment which would ask the
government to go beyond the initial motion and give some
indication of whether or not the Liberals would have the
fortitude on behalf of the Canadian people to not be a party to
any international agreement which in future was found to compel
us to export freshwater in bulk against our will.
I look forward to that debate. I look forward to hearing from
other members of my party on this. I also look forward to hearing
from the Liberals as to whether or not this is just an expression
of goodwill and good intentions that will once again be thwarted
by the victim mentality that has overcome Canadian governments in
the last several administrations, whereby they want to do the
right thing but they cannot because of the trade agreements they
have signed.
We also bring forward this motion in the context of knowing that
we need a much fuller debate in this country, not just about
exports but about water management in general. It is not just a
question of exports, although the motion addresses itself
specifically to that. It is about the lack of a national water
policy in general. It is about the lack of any commitment on the
part of this government or any other government to make sure that
water, even when it is not exported, remains in the public
domain. It is about water not becoming privatized as it has
become in so many other countries and not being treated like any
other commodity such as oil, gas, wheat or whatever.
Canadians think and say very clearly that they see water as
being very different. They see water as having a national
dimension and also an environmental dimension that they feel
should not be threatened by coming to view water as any other
commodity.
To those who say, quite rightly in the geopolitical sense but
wrongly in principle, that water will be the oil of the 21st
century, we say no. We do not want water to be treated like oil.
We do not want water to be treated like any other commercially
exploited natural resource.
By this motion today we hope to contribute along with others who
are acting in an extra-parliamentary sense, like the Council of
Canadians who I believe are having a conference and a press
conference on water today. We hope to stimulate a national
debate about conservation of water, about a national water
policy, about water management and about the environmental
dimension of the water question.
Having said that we should not be involved in the bulk export of
freshwater from Canada, I think we should also admit as a country
that we cannot do this from the high ground of being a country
that looks after its water, of being a country that is committed
to strict conservation of water and therefore in a position to
lecture other countries about water conservation. We are not in
that position.
1025
Let us not be self-righteous about it. Let us admit that not
only do we not want to export water but we have a need to treat
the water which we keep within our boundaries a lot better than
we do and to conserve it.
There are all these things. There is the environmental
dimension. There is the public-private dimension. There are the
free trade and investment agreements which could prohibit us from
prohibiting bulk water exports.
I look forward to hearing from other members of my party and
members from other parties on these issues today. Hopefully at
the end of the day, we can look back on this day as a time when
we entered a new political period with respect to the attitude of
parliament and the country toward our freshwater resources and
look to the government to finally act on this particular issue.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with interest to my colleague across the way. I agree
with much of what he says, certainly about conservation, the
environmental nature of water and so on, and let us not be
self-righteous. I do not think we are doing nearly a good enough
job on looking after our water.
We understand that we have about 25% of the world's freshwater.
Our population however is minuscule compared to that. I know my
friend is compassionate and concerned about everyone and about
Canada's place in the world. I would like to know what he thinks
the eventual outcome will be. Are we going to build a wall? Are
we going to mount machine guns? Are we going to stop the rivers
flowing south? What are we going to do when people outside our
borders need freshwater, as they will in a few years or more and
we have it all?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good
question. It is precisely why we think the government should
bring in legislation. It is precisely why we think there should
be a national water policy. In the context of actually having
something on the floor of the House of Commons, that is to say in
the context of actually having the government act, these kinds of
issues could be addressed.
I do not think we should assume that under any condition or
under all conditions that we would be open to this sort of moral
demand which the member talks about. We need to create a regime
in which if we want to make exceptions when there are people who
need rather than want our water we could do so. We are not
anywhere near that particular point in time. We are at a point
now where our water resources are vulnerable to the trade
agreements and vulnerable to the absence of a national water
policy.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to say a couple of words and then ask my
colleague the member for Winnipeg—Transcona a question.
I congratulate the member for moving this motion and the
seconder, the member for Yukon, and the NDP caucus for taking
this issue to the public once again and for trying to get the
consent and support of the House of Commons in this very
important issue.
As Canadians know, we need three elements for life on this
planet. We need good soil, clean air and water.
I want the members and the people who are watching this debate
to understand that we have international agreements when it comes
to the flowing of rivers and other bodies of water south. These
agreements are agreed upon. We have to release a certain amount
of the water that flows into these basins and that is something
that will remain status quo. We are not planning to dam the
waters if this motion is passed. Those waters will continue to
flow freely.
We are very concerned about the great water supplies that we
have. I do agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona
that we should be husbanding our resources. We should be
conserving them. We should be recycling water. We should be
reusing water as many countries are now doing. We have not done
enough of that.
The question I want to ask is extremely important to many
Canadians, not just on the issue of water but on other issues
pertaining to trade agreements.
The United States has in all its trade agreements, whether the
NAFTA or the WTO, a public interest clause which says that if it
is in the public interest of the United States, its governments
can make decisions superseding trade agreements.
1030
I ask the member how our amendment would sit and whether we need
to go further on the trade agreements to have a public interest
clause for Canada as the United States does?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we do not think Canada
should be a party to any international agreement that compels us
to do things against our will, particularly when it comes to our
freshwater resources. I think this is very clear.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague
from Winnipeg—Transcona for introducing this motion today.
Perhaps by the end of the day we will look back at this being an
historic occasion, when the Parliament of Canada for the first
time in history says it considers water as unlike any other
natural resource in Canada and wants to give it a special
priority that it has not given other natural resources.
It is fair to say that one of the major issues of conflict in
the early part of the 21st century will be access to freshwater.
We understand that Canada has a relatively unique role in this
regard in that we are the world's largest reservoir of freshwater
with 9% of the globe's volume. If we look at the almost 200
countries identified in the world today, only 3 have an adequate
supply into the future of fresh potable water. Canada is one of
those.
The issue is crucial for us. As my friend from
Winnipeg—Transcona indicated, it is absolutely mandatory that we
have a thoughtful and strategic water policy in place as soon as
possible. Today we call on the Parliament of Canada to send a
very clear message to those who would like to export bulk water
from Canada into other jurisdictions as a business commodity. We
are calling for an immediate moratorium on bulk water exports and
we are asking for immediate legislation to protect Canada's water
and to exert our sovereignty over this critical resource for the
future.
We know to what extent nations will go to secure access to oil.
We have seen wars over this issue in a variety of areas. Let us
face it, water is a whole lot more valuable than oil even today
where we take it in a rather cavalier way. Today a litre of
water costs more than a litre of oil. Still we waste this
resource more than any other country with one exception, the
United States. It wastes more water than we do but we are
second.
Some ask with all this water, why not sell it? We have sold
every other resource. Foreign interests have access to every
natural resource in Canada except one. As my friend indicated,
why not make a stand as a country and say “This is it. We
consider water to be unlike oil, coal, codfish, timber or wheat.
This is a resource of life itself”. We can go without eating
for seven or eight weeks but we cannot go without drinking water
for more than a handful of days. It is life itself. Today we
have to say clearly that Canada has no excess water to export.
There is no such thing as surplus water in an ecosystem. The life
along a river's course and watershed is the product of both the
high flows and the low flows. If you alter them you change the
river.
Diverting water from a salmon river will mean traditional
spawning grounds along the river bank will not flood. Taking
water from the mouth of a river will deprive the estuary, one of
the most productive biological areas on earth, of vital
nutrients. Clearly water is not a resource like all others and
requires special protection and special strategy in terms of how
we are to use it in the future.
My friend has indicated there are many concerns. Being a country
that holds 9% of the world's freshwater, it is crucial that we
have a water policy in place as soon as possible.
1035
I cannot imagine a single thoughtful person in this country
saying that we should not do this and that we should not do it as
quickly as we can.
Let us not loose sight of the fact that today could be the
beginning of a movement down this crucial pathway to developing a
strategic water strategy for our country into the 21st century.
Passing a motion in the House does not necessarily accomplish
that. The will has to be there as well. In 1989 the House
unanimously passed a motion to eradicate child poverty by 2000.
Unfortunately things have become a lot worse since then. We have
a long way to go before we meet that goal.
Again, it is fair to say that we want to advance this cause. We
want to ensure that water in our country is preserved for the use
of future generations. Let us face it, if an American community
becomes dependent on Canadian water we can imagine the reaction
if in some future point we decide to cut it off. We can replace
wood with products from another country or with some other
building material. But we cannot replace anything with water.
Water is a strategic resource. It is a crucial life giving
resource.
When it comes to dealing with water Canada's reputation is
anything but sterling. We have more water diversion projects
than any other country on earth. We have 600 dams and 60 large
diversion projects that transfer water between basins. Most of
them are part of large hydroelectric projects. We have shown
ourselves more willing to alter the life of rivers and lakes for
commercial purposes. No other nation even comes close to us in
that respect. As my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona indicated,
when it comes to dealing, preserving and conserving freshwater in
our country our track record is anything but sterling. Perhaps
today is the beginning of a new era and a new trend to preserving
and conserving Canada's water for the future.
In light of the fact that a number of people have referred to
many of the international agreements we have signed, it is
difficult to pass legislation that would protect Canadians,
protect the Canadian environment, protect water resources and
protect the health of Canadians. I refer back to the MMT issue
of not long ago where in spite of the efforts of the elected
representatives to preserve and save the health of Canadians by
passing legislation banning MMT, the government backed off
because of the pressure it felt was coming from the United States
as a result of agreements that we had made.
I would like to propose an amendment to today's supply day
motion:
Between the words “transfers” and “in”, insert,
“and should not be a party to any international agreement that
compels us to export freshwater against our will”.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
He made reference to the trade agreements and moved an amendment
to the motion which has to do with international agreements under
which trade agreements would fall. He will know that the
government has often said that when it comes to NAFTA water
exports are not covered. Yet if not covered by NAFTA, and this is
the position officially taken by the three governments involved,
why is it so difficult to get the Canadian government to seek
from these other governments an unambiguous memorandum of
understanding having international legal standing equal to NAFTA
which says so so that the matter can be cleared up once and for
all?
1040
In the absence of the Canadian government being willing to seek
such an international memorandum, the suspicion lingers that
somehow NAFTA does involve the bulk export of freshwater.
Otherwise, why would the government be so reluctant to seek an
unambiguous statement that it does not?
I wonder whether my colleague would like to comment on the
Liberal reluctance to seek such a statement.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say
that many in the legal field have argued that under agreements
like the FTA and the North American Free Trade Agreement certain
commodities were clearly excluded. Beer, logs and culture were
named as exclusions and therefore, by implication, presumably
everything else is left in. Bottled water was also mentioned.
It is clear that once water enters a container for sale it
becomes a good, a commodity or a product. Whether that container
is a vessel, a canal, a pipeline or whatever, the concern
Canadians have is that we are not protected by the present
wording of international agreements like NAFTA. I agree with my
hon. friend that if the will is there by all countries then we
should.
Let us face it, the northern part of Mexico, particularly in the
Maquiladora zone where the big industrial belt is now developing
as a result of NAFTA, and in the American southwest which is
referred to as the sun belt where the large industries and
populations are developing in the agricultural sectors, they are
running out of water. It is clear that they are running out of
freshwater. The wells and rivers are drying up and every
conceivable ounce of that surface water is either being used or
is locked up in legal agreements.
As those populations increase they are looking north to Canada
as their obvious source to bail them out when the time comes, no
pun intended. The issue of having as many cards in our hands as
we can when the dealing begins is absolutely crucial.
While people will argue that we can pass legislation here
banning exports and pass legislation in the provincial
legislations of the country or wherever else, that trade
agreement between three sovereign nations takes priority over
national, state, provincial or local jurisdictions.
We have to do whatever we can to ensure that freshwater is in
adequate supply for future generations of Canadians and that is
why this motion is before the House of Commons today.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in one of
the comments from the other side there was concern about the
export of water, sharing our resources with other parts of the
world. I wonder if the member could reference the fact that this
motion does deal with the bulk shipment of water abroad.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon.
colleague. We acknowledge that today there are a number of
agreements sharing water between Canada and the United States on
the small scale. I am thinking Coutts, Alberta and Sweet Grass,
Montana and others across the country.
However, let us also acknowledge that the country that wastes
more water than any other is the United States. Crops are being
grown in parts where they should never be grown. Swimming pools
are filled with water from one end of Los Angeles to the other.
Green lawns are all over southern California. There is a car
wash every third block.
The day is not far off before the United States runs out of
water because it abuses it so much. It pollutes and misuses its
water resources. We want to send a clear signal that we are not
going to be an easy source of bailing it out.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to participate in this debate and certainly welcome
the motion.
Some of the exchanges in the debate would lead me to put forward
the thought that one of the reasons why previous governments have
not taken the water issue seriously is a lack of knowledge or a
lack of individual knowledge about the state of water in this
country.
1045
For instance, my colleague on this side suggested that Canada
held 25% of the world's freshwater supply. Across the way the
statement was 9% and in the notes I have information that it is
20%, so this is an indicator that the message is not clear.
What is clear is that water is a renewable resource. The water
cycle replenishes our water supply on a continuing basis, but
there is an old adage that you never miss the water till the well
runs dry. This year in the province of Ontario the wells ran
dry. There are wells that are still dry in Ontario. Farmers in
the riding I serve are having either to buy water for their
cattle or are having to move their cattle to other farms which
have wells that are supplying water.
This year is the worst drought in recorded weather history in
the province of Ontario. That should give us an indicator that
we must be very conscious and very careful about the way we treat
water and the way we look at it.
Until the present time it has been very difficult to convince
municipalities and engineers that create domestic water supply to
conserve water. It has always been the business of searching out
bulk quantities of water without regard for water conservation.
Yet many techniques could be put into place not only to help us
conserve our water but to raise the consciousness of Canadians
about the necessity to protect our water.
The concerns of members are very well founded. This is a
domestic and global priority. Canadians feel strongly that water
should not be removed from our country in bulk form. There are
global shortages at the present time. The location of water is
paramount. There may be demands placed on Canada's water in the
future.
For environmental considerations more than anything else we need
to protect our watersheds and the health of the ecosystems. The
government is acting now and has acted in the past on behalf of
all Canadians to preserve what is one of our most precious
resources.
An hon. member: Where is the legislation?
Mr. Julian Reed: Wait for it. Not only has it been
federal policy since 1987 to oppose bulk removal of water by
tanker, diversion or other interbasin transfer. Our provincial
partners have or have been developing similar policies or
legislation to protect our natural waters from commercialization
beyond current usage. Canadians can be assured that Canada is
not on the verge of a major water giveaway.
There are federal and provincial responsibilities for the
preservation of water. I will try to spell out the differences
between the two. The federal government has a particular
responsibility for boundary waters and transboundary waters along
the Canada and U.S. border. Extending back to the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909 it is a responsibility that this government
and many before it have taken very seriously, so much so that the
government announced its intention—and my hon. friend raised
this suggestion—to seek an agreement with the U.S. to make a
reference to the International Joint Commission.
We have been consulting with provinces to ensure that our
reference to the International Joint Commission will produce the
kind of findings that will be useful to all governments. We are
confident that the IJC will produce sound recommendations, as was
the case with the 1977 reference on the Garrison diversion
project, with the 1985 reference on diversions and consumptive
uses in the Great Lakes, and with the 1997 reference to the Red
River flood. We will soon be in a position to announce the terms
of reference to the IJC.
1050
There are legitimate concerns about trade obligations. A
handful of critics believe that through the North American Free
Trade Agreement Canada has somehow ceded control of our water
resources to multinational corporations. The member has called
for immediate steps on the part of the government. I state
categorically and for the record that water resource management
in Canada is in no way subject to the whims of multinational
corporations. Nor is it directed by NAFTA. Water is a public
good.
There is nothing in NAFTA that would prevent Canada from taking
steps to prohibit the commercialization of our water resources.
These principles date back to the 1947 General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade. They are not new. For the information of the
hon. opposition member I refer to the 1993 joint statement of the
governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States following
NAFTA which reads as follows:
Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a
good or product, it is not a good or product.
That may seem like an obvious truth, but it leads to the next
part of the same sentence which states in reference to water
which is not a good or product that it “is not covered by any
trade agreement including the North American Free Trade
Agreement”. The statement goes on to affirm our sovereignty over
water by stating:
And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either
exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water
in any form.
Nothing forces us to export water particularly in bulk. That
leads to the final explanation of the 1993 statement:
Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs,
aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product, is
not traded and, therefore, is not and never has been subject to
the terms of any trade agreement.
Canada does not now take water from its natural state and
package it in bulk form for sale. We do not support the
commercialization of water in bulk for any reason.
We have chosen to put water in smaller quantities into bottles
and to offer it for sale, but the total effect of such shipments
is very small compared with the net effect of large scale
removal. Consistent with these provisions we will shortly be
announcing measures aimed at preventing water from being taken
from its natural state and converted into a good. I hope all
hon. members of the House will endorse that.
The provinces have a responsibility as well. We consulted with
the provinces especially during the last half of last year. Under
the Constitution provinces have the responsibility for water
management within their borders. Permits to draw large
quantities of water for an reason from natural sources are
provided by provincial authorities. Our provincial partners are
opposed to interbasin transfers, so clearly the federal policy of
1987 was on the mark. They agreed the proper management of water
resources is first and foremost an environmental issue.
Perhaps what we have learned most from these consultations with
the provinces is that a collective approach to water protection
by governments is needed now before too many mistakes are made.
We were impressed by the degree of consensus with the provinces
that exists on these issues. Our measures will be built on
established and comprehensive environmental principles and on the
concerns of all provinces and territories, not just on the
question of exports but on the overall management of our water
resources.
1055
Such an approach is prudent and justified. Not only must we
work with the provinces and territories to develop this
understanding. We must work with our closest international ally,
the United States, with whom we share the Great Lakes, the
largest freshwater resource in the world.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member
but his time has expired. He might be able to summarize his
remarks in questions and comments.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has perhaps inadvertently made the case
for why we are so concerned about the NAFTA.
I am not sure whether the statement issued in 1993 amounts to
some kind of combination between a tautology and a catch-22. In
any event it is not very reassuring when they say that water will
not be treated as a good unless of course it is treated as a
good, and it will be treated as a good if in any circumstance it
becomes commercially exploitable.
That is precisely the point we are making. We do not want it to
become commercially exploitable and, if it ever should, under the
conditions of NAFTA there would then be no turning back. By the
very act of commercially exploiting water in bulk we would be
committing an irreversible act. From there on other partners to
the agreement in NAFTA would be able to argue that it has become
a good and is therefore now to be treated like any other
commodity.
Our point is that what is wrong with NAFTA is not whether it is
treated as a good but rather that should it come to be treated as
a good it would come under the terms of the agreement.
What we want is an exemption stating that water is exempt
whether it is in its natural state or whether it is being
commercially exploited. We do not want it to be commercially
exploited, but we also think an agreement which states that
should it ever become commercially exploited it is then to be
treated like any other commodity is not a good agreement either.
It does not seem to me that the hon. member gets that about
NAFTA.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, obviously there was a
concern in 1993 about this whole question and about the
interpretation of when water is a good and when it is not a good.
To suggest an amendment is required in NAFTA is not on because
there is nothing in NAFTA now that obliges any export of water.
Canadian would make a decision as to whether to declare water in
bottles are a good or not a good. There is nothing in NAFTA that
demands an amendment. I do not know how much clearer I can
possibly make it. It is not there.
Yes, we are concerned about the future of water. Yes, the
government is taking action on it. I am sure the hon. member
will agree with the statement when it is made, which we hope will
be very soon. The fact is that it is not part of NAFTA.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in his speech the hon. member was talking about
consultations with the provinces. He stated that the provinces
have a consensus. They are opposed to interbasin transfers. He
made no statement about whether they were opposed to bulk water
exports.
Could the hon. member give us a clarification on where the
provinces add up on that?
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can make it
much clearer than I have. The provinces to this point are
opposed to interbasin transfers. We have so far arrived at a
consensus among the provinces that they share our concern. I do
not know how much further I can take the member on that.
1100
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member about comments in the 1993 red
book where the Liberal Party said that it would take the
opportunity before signing the NAFTA to correct any flaws that
existed in the original free trade agreement.
There are a number of Liberals who are currently sitting in this
House who are on record as saying that one of those flaws was
that Canada did not get protection over its water and that it
would be part of the agreement.
Why did the Liberal government not take the opportunity to
correct those flaws before it signed the agreement?
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I will clear up a couple
of things, if I might. My hon. colleague asked about bulk water
export and that is within the purview of the federal government.
I should have known that off the top.
The fact is that in the NAFTA there is no provision. Yes, there
was concern about it and the concern was very legitimate because
we do not want there to be any export of bulk water. However,
after examining the NAFTA we found that it was not there.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the House for the opportunity to address this
motion.
The motion has been amended. The original motion reads, in
part:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and inter-basin transfers—
The amendment reads:
The original motion then continues:
Clearly our water is of critical priority to all of us. It
directly affects Canada's agricultural sector, regional economic
development, rural infrastructure, sustainable development, our
environment and potentially our economy.
Reform agrees with the basic principle of this motion. The
issue here is sovereignty and we agree that this House needs to
take action to protect and control our water. I believe that all
sides of this House would not have any problem with that comment.
However, how we deal with the problem I believe is the question
of this debate.
This motion is only a temporary solution. It will not fix the
problem that Canada is now faced with as a result of this Prime
Minister's actions. A temporary moratorium on bulk water exports
will buy this government some time to negotiate a solution, a
permanent solution. That solution is an amendment to the NAFTA
which explicitly excludes water from the NAFTA.
It is interesting to note that before the Liberals came to
power, when the Mulroney government was negotiating the NAFTA,
the Liberals opposed the NAFTA deal and voiced their concerns
about protecting our water.
During the 1993 election campaign the Prime Minister promised
that he would renegotiate the NAFTA to exclude bulk water from
the deal.
On November 19 the Prime Minister insisted “Water and the North
America Free Trade Agreement do not mix. Water remains under the
control of the Canadian government. I can guarantee that”.
Here are more quotes from our present Prime Minister: “I will
make sure it is like that. It is one of the elements I intend to
discuss with President Clinton. I want Canada to maintain
control over our own water. It is not for sale and if we want to
sell, we will decide”.
1105
Clearly the Liberals are leaving the door open for water to be
sold.
The Prime Minister said he had a message for President Bill
Clinton, which was “I don't even dream that the NAFTA gives the
United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is
because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not
mix”.
Those are nice quotes, but they simply do not reflect reality.
The reason we are debating this motion today is because Canada
does not have control over its water. That is a clear fact.
The Mulroney government insisted that the NAFTA applies only to
exports of water in containers and not to large scale transfers
or diversions which the government maintained was never even
discussed during the NAFTA negotiations.
Clearly there has been a lot of misinformation and
misunderstanding over this issue. Since the government came to
power it has denied the fact that when the Prime Minister signed
the NAFTA without renegotiating to specifically exempt water
Canada lost its control.
The Conservatives failed in 1988 and the Liberals failed in 1993
to protect our water.
When I raised this issue in the House during the last parliament
in my motion calling on this government to take steps to protect
Canada's sovereignty over water, the government denied that our
sovereignty had been compromised.
Here are some of the facts. My colleague, our international
trade critic, will be speaking later to clarify some of the
issues regarding the NAFTA and the free trade agreement.
The NAFTA implementation act states that nothing applies to
water, except bottled water, and water is not excluded from the
free trade agreement itself.
Article 309 of the NAFTA prohibits controls by Canada covering
the sale or export of any goods destined for either the United
States or Mexico.
The only specific permission that the NAFTA gives for export
controls is for Canadian logs and unprocessed fish. This, in my
mind, is the answer. Right now Canadian logs and unprocessed
fish are not in the NAFTA. They are exempt. If we add water to
that list, that gives us the control that we are looking for.
That is the solution.
It is also likely that if the government were to propose
legislation to ban the export of bulk water, as proposed in the
NDP motion, we could be challenged under the NAFTA. Our
legislation could be shot down by a trade dispute panel as
unacceptable interference in the free market.
This is a dicey point and it is the difficulty I have with the
NDP motion. The motion proposes that by banning the export of
bulk water the problem will be solved. That is not the problem.
The problem is the sovereignty, ownership and control of our
water, which the Liberals have failed to fix. If we fix that we
do not need to worry about the rest. Provincial control of the
resource will then handle the next issue.
In passing any law banning water exports Canada would define
water as a commodity and it would trigger the national treatment
provisions of the NAFTA. Trade experts say that Canada could
face a challenge under international trade rules if we explicitly
define water as a good by passing legislation banning its export.
The Minister of the Environment stated that she wants to ban
water export through legislation. However the minister has
publicly stated that the government does not know how it will do
this, simply because by putting water in legislation it will
become a commodity.
We often hear about the trilateral statement made by the Prime
Minister, President Bush and the Mexicans that we have a side
deal which protects our water. We do not. All that side deal
says is that if we do not export bulk water, then it could be
okay. However, as soon as we export it we cannot turn the tap
off. That is all that side agreement was about. It had nothing
to do with fixing the problem.
The only way for Canadians to regain control of their water is
for the federal government to negotiate a side agreement to the
NAFTA that specifically excludes bulk water from the agreement.
1110
The situation is getting urgent. The U.S. is facing water
shortages. There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale
diversions of water from the Great Lakes to the U.S. Clearly the
situation is quite volatile because we have read in the papers
that companies such a Sun Belt of California, the Nova Group of
Ontario and the McCurdy Group of Newfoundland are pushing to get
permits. It is the job of this government to fix the problem,
and the problem is getting control over our water.
As well, there are jurisdictional issues affected by this
motion. The management and protection of water as a natural
resource is constitutionally provincial. It is a provincial
responsibility. The only time the federal government gets into
it is if it concerns trade. Any legislation that the House is
prepared to bring in clearly has to have the agreement of all the
provinces. My understanding is that that agreement would not be
forthcoming at the moment.
I call on the Liberal government to take concrete steps to
protect sovereignty over our water. I call on the Prime Minister
to negotiate a side deal that specifically exempts water from the
NAFTA, as he promised in the 1993 election, as he has promised
all along and as he has failed to do up to this point in time.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the New Democratic
Party for this motion today.
My first campaign in Broadview—Greenwood was all about the free
trade agreement. I can remember that about a week into the
campaign I received a phone call from an associate of mine from
Houston, Texas who was close to Clayton Yeutter who was the free
trade negotiator for the United States. He said “Dennis,
Clayton Yeutter spent his whole life studying water. In fact he
did his doctoral thesis at the University of Nebraska and in 1961
published `North American Water Management'. You had better make
sure that when you are going through this free trade agreement
you understand exactly where water sits in the agreement because
this is a man who has dedicated his entire life to water”.
I took the time to get a copy of Clayton Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis
from the University of Nebraska. I urge all members to get a
copy of it. It is a 600 page thesis. If there was ever any
doubt in members' minds as to whether water was a part of the
free trade agreement, this Ph.D. thesis will take that doubt
away. It is a part of the free trade agreement.
In my very first speech in the House of Commons I begged former
Prime Minister Mulroney to get a one page protocol letter from
Ronald Reagan saying that water was exempt. The then government
would not do it. I wrote several letters to Clayton Yeutter
asking him to acknowledge that water was not a part of the free
trade agreement. He never responded to those letters. I have
them on file. I also know that in the last few days someone has
talked to Clayton Yeutter and he will now publicly admit that
water is in fact a part of the free trade agreement.
Canadians do not even have a proper inventory of what our water
assets are. We waste a lot of water. Before we export a gallon
of water we should take stock of what we have.
I would ask the member the following question, keeping in mind
that we have not done an inventory of water in our country.
Let us imagine that we went through that exercise and discovered
that we did have some excess water. If it were properly metered,
priced accordingly and Canadians were looked after first, would
the Reform Party member then consider the notion of selling?
Again, I want to say that would only be after it was excluded
from the free trade agreement.
What would the member's views be on sharing and selling of water
only after we took the necessary time to take stock of it as an
issue, province by province, region by region?
1115
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Madam Speaker, the issue of inventory
is clearly under provincial domain. The provinces own and
regulate the water and it is for them to decide what they have
and what they will do with it.
The member said he pleaded with former Prime Minister Mulroney
to get water out of NAFTA. Has the member made the same plea to
the current Prime Minister as he is now on the government side to
make that happen? The issue we are debating today is to get
control over our water. I would hope the member would approach
his government to fix the problem. The member has identified the
problem. Now it is up to the government to fix it.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, permit me
to start with a quote from Plato. This Greek philosopher proved
unequivocally the value we should place on this wealth, and I
quote:
Water is the greatest element of nutrition ... but is easily
polluted. You cannot poison the soil, or the sun, or the air,
which are the other elements of nutrition ... or divert them or
steal them: but all these things may very likely happen in
regard to water, which must therefore be protected by law.
Water then has been of concern to humanity for thousands of
years.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot support the NDP's motion. It means a
significant step backward for the provinces in the area of
responsibility for water, because the NDP is asking the federal
government to intervene in two areas: to place a moratorium on
the export of bulk fresh water and inter-basin transfers, and to
introduce legislation to permanently ban fresh water exports and
inter-basin transfers to affirm Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve its fresh water resources for
generations to come.
We cannot agree with such a motion and such a procedure, which
impinge on the rights of Quebec and the other provinces to
legislate and manage their own water resources as they see fit.
Once again, Quebec and the provinces of Canada are responsible
for this resource and must remain so.
One thing is certain: this responsibility must be assumed by the
provinces and they must legislate and manage this resource in
co-operation with regional stakeholders, because it is they who
are familiar with the problems and are close to the realities
and consequences of good day-to-day management.
Section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides, and I
quote:
Quebec must protect this resource the best way it knows how.
In my remarks, I will show, with two examples from the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, the importance and the absolute
need to have those closest to the resource, such as our rivers,
lakes and underground waters, manage them and be responsible for
them.
1120
Humanity's need for water has skyrocketed in the 20th century.
In 50 years, the world's water consumption has increased more
than fourfold. Meeting our need for water in the centuries to
come is the challenge for which we must prepare. Each of the
provinces therefore has a responsibility to manage this resource
carefully, in co-operation with the public, for one thing is
sure: it is a resource that will be highly prized in the
future.
Just as an example, there are various approaches that the
provinces could consider and where the federal government would
be of no help: create structures, functions and responsibilities
with a view to integrated management of water resources;
recognize users of environmental water in order to get them more
involved, and be able to identify minimum water requirements of
aquatic ecosystems; develop exchanges of information and
educational strategies in order to improve the dissemination of
information, the results of pilot projects, best practices, case
studies, and much more; develop environmental impact assessment
procedures in order to improve the water resources management
knowledge base; and, finally, encourage the public to get
involved and give it additional responsibilities and a greater
say in the planning and management of water resources.
The objective of all of these is to clearly illustrate the
necessity for the provinces to be masters of their own water
resource legislation.
Water belongs to everyone. It must be managed intelligently by
the proper government levels. The Government of Quebec offers
an excellent illustration, moreover, of responsibility in this
connection. It has just announced broad public consultations on
water management in Quebec, to be carried out by the Bureau des
audiences publiques de l'environnement, a body which has
unequivocally demonstrated its efficiency and its readiness to
listen to public concerns. This body is one of the best
examples of successful public consultation anywhere in the
world.
Its purpose in carrying out consultations in all regions of
Quebec encompasses four basic and fundamental orientations:
improving the quality of life for Quebeckers; responding to the
social needs and individual aspirations of the people of Quebec;
respecting environmental quality and the need for sustainable
resources; and, finally, achieving the greatest possible equity.
Attaining this is possible only if four major objectives are
given priority: ensuring that the health of the public is
protected, since water is necessary to life, health and
well-being; seeking the sustainability of the resource, since it
is our duty to leave future generations with the water supply
needed for their development; raising awareness of the resource
on the social, environmental and economic levels; focussing on
balancing uses, so that legitimate needs are met.
Promoting and raising awareness of water means also raising
awareness of the great diversity of its uses and the conflicts
that can ensue.
This set of objectives are a clear illustration of Quebec's
desire to have its own water policy, one that reflects the
concerns of the people of Quebec. This resource belongs to us,
and we are fully in charge of deciding what we want to do with
it.
As for the expectations of the Government of Quebec with respect
to this consultation, to quote Minister of the Environment Paul
Bégin: “Our bottom line is to define a water policy to serve the
interests of Quebeckers, while at the same time ensuring the
protection of a vital resource that is part of the heritage of
humankind.”
This ultimate goal illustrates clearly Quebeckers' intention to
determine the use of this resource according to the need for it.
1125
In addition, the Quebec premier said in a speech that water
management should be built on sustainable development, hence the
need for careful and responsible management. This management
must serve the public and its needs.
These statements and this consultation in Quebec on water will
provide a clear picture for future Quebec water policy. The aim
of the Government of Quebec is responsible management of this
invaluable and vital resource.
I would like to quote remarks made by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, on February 4, 1998:
We now have to determine the most effective means and mechanisms
for ensuring Canada can effectively manage its water resources.
That includes the very active involvement of the provinces
because within their own jurisdictions they have full authority
over water resources.
The remarks by the minister are reassuring, given that not very
long ago, the federal government, with its Bill C-14 on potable
water, unacceptably meddled in provincial jurisdictions by
setting up national standards on the quality of drinking water.
It is clear, even for the federal government, that our resource
should be protected under the aegis of each of the provinces,
which are responsible for this resource.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Jonquière for her thoughts
on this very important issue. I believe Quebec has done more on
evaluating and studying the issue of water than any other
province in Canada.
Over the years I have been amazed at the public service
commitment to this issue and some of the creative ideas on
pollution control and security of the resource, et cetera.
I believe passionately that the Government of Canada must speak
for all of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that we can have
all the consultations in the world but let us look at the
challenge we will face in time of the stabilization of the Great
Lakes. Most experts on climatic control in this country will
tell us that in time we will need to stabilize the Great Lakes.
We share those lakes with the United States. If we go through
the exercise of stabilizing the Great Lakes, the Americans in my
humble opinion would have to pay their share of that
stabilization exercise.
My question for the member for Jonquière is whether she can see
and support the notion that the Government of Canada must be the
ultimate voice for a national water strategy and policy?
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, before replying to the
member opposite, I must say that I do not see the point of his
comment. Right now, we are talking about drinking water, and
which level of government has jurisdiction over that.
1130
My response to the NDP proposal is to again refer to the
Constitution of Canada, which says that:
My authority is a constitutional document that says, beyond any
doubt, that responsibility for the management of water resources
rests with the provinces. This leaves the provinces free to
develop a mechanism for managing the resources within their
territory and ensuring that members of the public are truly
protected and involved in decision making.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify the term
riparian rights. Dealing with the common law that has
accumulated in Canada over a number of years, riparian rights
have been misinterpreted as water rights. Riparian being derived
from the French language, the member may have an insight into the
difference between riparian rights and water rights.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Pardon me, Madam
Speaker, but I did not quite catch the beginning of the member's
question. Could he please repeat it?
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, when we are dealing
with a national resource, such as water, which we deem to be of
vital importance, our legal statutes and our legal history of
common law have dealt with riparian rights but that does not deal
with water rights. Riparian is more about the shore bed and
property adjacent to water, but with respect to the actual body
of water and the rights to that water, there is no legal history
in this country.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Madam Speaker, I can
only repeat what I told the hon. member opposite.
From a constitutional point of view, the management of water
resources is a provincial responsibility. It is up to them to
pass legislation in line with what the public wants—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
member, but her time is up.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the NDP
supply day motion which stipulates that the federal government
act in co-operation with the provinces. I have to emphasize that
very much. I want to pick up on what my learned colleague from
Jonquière spoke about. It is imperative that the federal
government recognize that there are jurisdictions with respect to
water; they are provincial in nature rather than federal.
Having said that, the Progressive Conservative Party will
support the intent of this motion that an immediate moratorium
should be placed on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and
interbasin transfers and that legislation should be introduced to
actually do so.
Perhaps no country in the world lives off its natural resources
more than Canada does. It is intrinsic on us to ensure that we
have a viable environment for us to cultivate a number of the
industries which actually make our economy work.
I would like to bring a little bit of perspective to this
debate. In January 1984 the Conservative government established
an advisory committee to make recommendations for a federal
government water policy. It was known as the Pearse commission.
It reported in 1985 and formed the basis of the 1987 federal
government document entitled “Federal Water Policy”.
The policy clearly stated that the federal government would not
support the bulk export of freshwater, nor would it support the
interbasin transfer of water for the purposes of export.
1135
In 1988 amid growing fears from the public that water exports
would be permitted under the FTA, the Conservative government
introduced Bill C-156, the Canada water preservation act. This
reiterated the same position taken in the federal water policy
document. An election was called and the bill was dropped from
the Order Paper. However, when parliament resumed, the
Conservative government opted instead to amend the Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act to specifically exclude bulk water
for the purposes of export from the agreement.
The debate resurfaced again during negotiations for NAFTA. Once
again the government was forced to argue that the agreement would
not compel Canadians to turn the tap on for their American
neighbours. Michael Wilson, the former Minister of Industry and
International Trade, said in this House on April 1, 1992 “Let me
state categorically that there has not been under negotiation,
nor will there be under negotiation, any provision for the large
scale export of water”.
Nonetheless to calm the reoccurring fears of Canadians, the
government promised to introduce a side agreement at the time of
ratification with the U.S. and Mexico that ensured Canadian
sovereignty over domestic waters. Charles Langlois, the former
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and
International Trade, said the following in this House on February
4, 1993:
As for water exports, Canada's position is clearly stated in the
federal water policy adopted in 1987. This policy forbids large
scale water exports from Canada through the diversion of lake or
river water. Furthermore, section 7 of the law implementing the
FTA between Canada and the U.S. clearly states that the agreement
does not apply to water, except for bottled water to be drunk or
stored in reservoirs. This law has been in force since January
1, 1989. Similarly the NAFTA does not include large scale water
exports: the law implementing NAFTA will have a clause confirming
Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.
The new Liberal government received the credit for the signed
commitment as it was in power when the deal with respect to this
issue was ratified. The Liberals said in their red book promises
back in 1993 that they would bring forth further accords with the
Americans with respect to ensuring that Canadian sovereignty over
water would be held true. However, they are in the sixth year of
their mandate and they still have not brought forth any
substantive legislation.
The NAFTA and the FTA ensured we did not ship bulk water
transfers to the United States or any other country, but things
have changed. The world's desire for water has increased so it
is imperative that we take this to a new level now and bring
forth legislation.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who made clear his
party's intention with respect to the main motion. Unless I
missed it, he did not say how his party feels about the amendment
which states that Canada should not be a party to any
international agreement which compels us to export freshwater in
bulk form.
The member made an argument about NAFTA and the FTA which I
might have expected from someone from the party that was the
original architect of the FTA and NAFTA. I contend that his
analysis of NAFTA is wrong and he is free to contend that it is
right.
Should the hon member's analysis prove to be wrong over time,
would he or would he not agree with the following which is
contrary to his own analysis but not contrary to mine? If NAFTA
proved to be an agreement whereby at some future date, after we
had in some way commercialized the export of water and therefore
subject to the terms of NAFTA were not able to put an end to
that, should we no longer be a party to such an agreement?
1140
Just to elaborate, under the investment provisions of NAFTA when
the discussion here today has focused so far on whether or not
NAFTA would prevent us from banning exports or putting a ban on
exports after we had begun to commercially exploit our water
resources for export, it might also be that the investor
provisions of NAFTA would be a hindrance to the Canadian
government acting. We already know that there is a company in
British Columbia which is bringing an action against the Canadian
government pursuant to NAFTA in the investor state provision
because of a provincial ban.
There are a lot of reasons to believe that the member might be
wrong on this. If time proved him wrong, would he be willing to
support the kind of action we have recommended in our amendment?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I do not think it would
be in Canada's interest to belong to any kind of an accord where
we would be compelled to sell anything that we did not really
want to sell, that being bulk water.
With respect to NAFTA as it currently stands, I would like to
quote the current Minister of Foreign Affairs when he stated in
the House last week “The minister knows from past decades that
the issue debated in this House is whether or not Canada is
obliged under NAFTA to export water. Of course, it is not”.
I would also like to refer to another position. Tom Hockin who
was the minister of state for small business and tourism stated
in this House on September 17, 1992 “Here are the provisions
under NAFTA. As in the FTA, only water packaged as a beverage or
in tanks is covered in NAFTA and water itself was not discussed
during the NAFTA negotiations with the U.S. or Mexico”.
If we engage in some kind of a trade dispute with the Americans
or another country pertaining to water, should we step aside from
the free trade agreement? I would think that would be very wrong
for Canadians. I would like to point out to the member that if
we have had any kind of record growth in this economy over the
last number of years it has been largely due to our resource base
and our export driven economy. Our trade with the Americans prior
to free trade was about $90 billion in 1988. Today it is well
over $240 billion.
Free trade has been very good for Canada. It has been very good
for the growth of our economy. However, Canadians want to ensure
that we maintain our environmental sovereignty including that of
bulk water.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to suggest to the member for Fundy—Royal that
the fact that Clayton Yeutter who was the free trade negotiator
spent his entire life studying and planning North American water
management should give us a heads up. Clayton Yeutter is now on
the record as saying that water is a part of the free trade
agreement, something he would not say 10 years ago.
It is very important that this House gets its head around this
issue.
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member and
the government really were that concerned over this issue, they
have had six years to bring forward legislation and that has not
been done.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I am very honoured to have an opportunity to speak on a very
crucial issue, the debate on water.
The motion before us challenges the federal government to
consider that the export of bulk freshwater could be a major
detriment to this country's ecosystem and that the federal
government act on this.
1145
We have also seen a diminishing responsibility by the federal
government by its transferring of responsibilities to the
provinces. Water is fundamentally different from any other
natural resource on earth. Without water life would cease to
exist.
When we look at countries that are asking for our freshwater
resource we must ask ourselves whether the unnatural transfer of
water is enough to sustain everybody on the planet. Interbasin
transfers would require water to be moved over tracts of land
that historically may not have been bodies of water. We know
that when hydro development floods areas the mercury
contamination of that body of water is of vital concern.
Environmental, ecosystem and human health concerns must be a
large part of the debate.
When we look at Canada's freshwater on any geographical map or
when we fly in small airplanes in northern Canada, we view Canada
as an indefinite supply of freshwater. I believe hon. members
would see through that mirage because that is all it is. The
gift of water that has been given to us is very limited. We have
to treasure it for our use and under the principles of
sustainable development extend it for future generations. We
must do this in a collective manner.
The motion also deals with Canada's sovereign right to water.
Before any trade agreements are even considered or implicated in
the issue of water our in house issue of sovereign right to
jurisdiction over water must be addressed.
As I have had a wake-up call, I must remind the Chair that I am
sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
I will give a lesson to the secretary of state by referring to
Winnipeg. Winnipeg is a Cree term, Winnipek. It means dirty
water. If we deem the sources of our water to be unclean, just
imagine what we have done to the country and its sources of water
with the impact of the industrial revolution on the continent.
An hon. member: The Winnipegization of North America.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: The Winnipegization of North America.
I challenge the House to clearly define the jurisdiction of water
in the country. When the country was negotiated under treaty
with the aboriginal peoples the term and rights to water were not
defined. Referring to the oral history of treaty negotiations, I
will read a passage from a report called “Aski Puko” which
means the land alone in which Daniel MacKenzie asked:
When the land was sold what exactly was sold? When the treaty
obligations were made, was that just dry land or did that include
the lakes and rivers of this country?
1150
In the treaty there is no mention of water being transferred,
negotiated or sold. The people mostly make their living from the
water and also from the land. However in the treaty there is no
mention of water.
The water was assumed as the lifeblood for all nations and all
people. Ownership of water was assumed. It was assumed that
everybody had access to it. When we discuss interbasin
transfers, bulk export, the whole concept of the ecosystem and
the impact, obligations under the treaty are in breach.
Let us look at our opportunities under sustainable development.
Our challenge is to look after our environment and social and
economic needs in an even manner. Water will play a major role
in our future.
If we start transferring water to deserted areas such as the
desertification of the southwest, climate disruptions are
forecast by science. We have seen evidence of that. If we
transfer water prematurely it may not address the needs of urban
and growing populations to the south or the urban populations of
countries that need our exports.
We have to look at how we can sustain our lives in this country.
As more people move to Canada and find a home here they must have
a place in which to live. We cannot recklessly abandon our water
resources.
China will be the first country in the world to literally
restructure its economy to respond to its water scarcity.
Countries are making such changes. We see examples of cities
collapsing in some countries because water is no longer usable.
We also have a UN commission on sustainable development that
found water usage growing at twice the rate of the population
increase.
If we have an abundance of water in Canada we may be abusing the
gift of water as we have it now. Jurisdiction is of vital
importance. There are communities in northern Canada, most of
which are aboriginal communities, that do not have running water
or sewage treatment plants because the economic and commercial
interests of those regions cannot afford it.
We have an opportunity to create clean, fresh water in the
country. In terms of federal jurisdiction there was a major
change in the early 1990s when Environment Canada started cutting
budgets to deal with the science and research of water. We must
revisit our federal obligations to the rightful use of fresh
water, to our jurisdiction over water in dealing with our
provincial, federal and aboriginal obligations. The Manitoba
Natural Resources Transfer Act indicated in 1930 that traditional
lands and waters for social and economic benefits must be
considered.
All this debate about water is by no means complete today. It is
an opportunity for us to review the federal jurisdiction over
water and to put a moratorium on the export and interbasin
transfer of water.
1155
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to an issue that is very timely, very critical.
I feel strongly about the issue.
Coming from the province of Manitoba, I would like to start my
remarks by pointing out that I have some personal knowledge and
background of how striking it can be when people get seized of
the issue of moving water around on a grand scale in terms of
moving water from one basin to another.
As a carpenter working on hydro projects, I personally witnessed
the diversion of the Nelson, Churchill and Burntwood River
systems to feed water to power hydro electric dams and the
devastation that caused, certainly the flooding of the area, et
cetera, they had to reclaim to create this great reservoir and
the impact it had on aboriginal communities. I think of that
first and foremost as we deal with this subject.
I want to share a story with the House because it points to the
absolute fixation generations have had on moving water around in
a grand scheme. Another reason I raise Manitoba as an example is
that the current Premier of Manitoba is an engineer by trade. His
engineering thesis was on an idea to use nuclear blasts to blow
up the Red River Valley to divert the water from Lake Winnipeg
and reverse its flow, as unbelievable as that sounds, to sell the
water to the States.
This is recent history. We are talking the mid-1960s. People
were seized with the issue. People in universities were playing
with ideas that today sound almost comical. They are ridiculous.
Serious people were dealing with the idea of moving our water
around, never mind the impact on the environment or on future
generations.
Contrary to what Brian Mulroney said in 1986, I believe Canada's
water is not for sale. I believe our freshwater is a public
trust and not a private commodity.
Last May the foreign affairs minister of the current government
promised to take measures to protect Canadian water after a
public outcry greeted the news that companies were on the brink
of exporting bulk water to foreign markets. We were anxiously
awaiting measures that might satisfy the fear of Canadians in
this regard and nothing has been forthcoming. It is all the more
timely that the NDP used its opposition motion today to raise
this critical issue.
A drain on our freshwater is a drain on the public trust. This
generation of Canadians has been charged with the responsibility
to care for this precious commodity. I use that term not in the
marketing aspect. It is a commodity, as the previous speaker
pointed out, that is more precious than any dollar value we could
possibly put on it, given the nature of the health implications
of access to free water for any successful community.
Increasing water scarcity and the world-wide destruction of the
health of the aquatic ecosystem are creating a global water
crisis. It is not overstating it to point out that virtually
every country of the world, especially the developing nations,
are seized with the issue of access to freshwater as a primary
concern.
It is not only the developing nations. Obviously the main
pressure on Canada is our partner to the south, our main trading
partner, which has serious water problems. It should come as no
surprise to us that the Americans are very interested in any idea
that might help them to alleviate these problems.
The Colorado River runs dry before it hits the ocean. One of
the great water systems of North America is being so taxed and
resources are being siphoned out to such a degree that it no
longer reaches the ocean. There is such a screaming demand as
the population booms in California that the Americans are willing
to entertain any idea no matter how ridiculous it may seem to
Canadians to get access to something we have an adequate supply
of at least currently.
When I lived in British Columbia I remember one of the ideas of
Wacky Bennett, another premier under whom I have lived who had
some questionable ideas about water. This was Wacky Senior, the
original Wacky who wanted—this is wacky in itself—to flood the
Skagit valley.
He wanted to divert rivers to flood the Skagit Valley. Those
members who have been to B.C. would know what a massive
undertaking that would be, to divert huge river systems down that
valley again into the United States and ultimately to the
insatiable market of California.
1200
These ideas keep springing up. This is what is truly worrisome
to most Canadians. Often free marketers, often right wing
governments, will do almost anything to make water a marketable
commodity. It is very much a worry of ours when we heard the
Minister of International Trade say: “Today's water will be
tomorrow's oil”.
Any time we allow ourselves to think along those lines we are
leaving ourselves open to the many people who would like to see
water become a real trading commodity and would like to build it
into free trade agreements, somehow have a default mechanism or
some kind of tied selling mechanism. If we buy into the aspects
of a trade agreement that we want and are interested in, we are
also going to be tied into some aspect of having to share our
water, maybe in a way far beyond whatever we wished or
contemplated.
I would think the two examples I pointed out would be disastrous
for the well-being of North Americans, using nuclear blasts to
blast out the Red River Valley and divert Lake Winnipeg and then
flood the Skagit Valley. Those are only two schemes. All
throughout history we have been hearing these ideas, recent
history certainly.
In 1959 there was an idea put forward by T.W. Kierans of Sudbury
called the GRAND project, the great replenishment and northern
development canal. His idea was that the rivers feeding James
Bay would be dammed up and a series of pumps would then lift the
river flow upstream and over the great east-west divide and from
there into the Great Lakes.
On that kind of massive restructuring, how could we contemplate
being so arrogant as to use the technology that we now have to
irreversibly change the flow of water, the great divide? Imagine
the impact on the ecosystem. We talk about environmental impact
studies. We have never thought of anything on that grand a
scale.
In 1964 General McNaughton, chair of the Canadian section of the
international joint commission, talked about the North American
Water and Power Alliance plan, which again is to flood the Rocky
Mountain trench.
Now we have people wanting to flood the Skagit Valley and flood
the Rocky Mountain trench and turn it into a giant reservoir for
North America, again to divert water to the U.S. and Mexico.
Is it any wonder with ideas like this being floated by credible
people, by knowledgeable scientists of the era, Canadians are now
forming alliances to try to protect ourselves from those very
ideas?
As we speak today the Council of Canadians is in Ottawa speaking
to this very issue, voicing its concern that water is to be the
next marketable commodity and we are going to be somehow tied
through free trade agreements to a relationship that we are not
comfortable with and not ready for dealing with water.
Look at the way our free trade agreements tie us into heating
fuel, for instance. There are clauses in the NAFTA and in the
FTA that if we run short of heating fuel domestically, we are
tied to selling at the same rate we are selling it currently to
our partners to the south. We are very fearful of similar things
coming along to do with water.
There are a few things we must keep in mind. There is a global
water crisis. There are corporate water giants eager to use
water as a for profit basis to serve the world's needs and our
government has not done anything to clearly state what our policy
is to be on the international trade of bulk water or the
diversion of water from one basin to another.
I hope this opposition day motion is dealt with favourably from
all sides of the House. We can feel comfortable that as we form
new trade alliances water will not be one of those marketable
commodities that we would forfeit.
1205
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to make a short comment to the member.
I am going back a few years, long before he was born I suspect.
I was not very old myself but I can remember a certain situation
regarding the state of Colorado, the state of New Mexico and the
state of Texas with regard to the Rio Grande River which starts
in the state of Colorado and flowed down through the other states
supplying a much needed water source for both drinking and
irrigation purposes, as these farm areas are reliant on water for
irrigation.
Somewhere around the 1940s, I believe, the state of Colorado
decided to build what it called a continental reservoir. It
dammed up the Rio Grande River at its head in an effort to try to
conserve much of the spring run-off and then distribute it over
the year through some kind of agreement it tried to come up with.
I can remember during those years the emotions and how high they
ran over water. I never saw a group of people more emotional, to
the point where they were ready to take up arms and have range
wars. They were willing to do anything over this supply of
water.
I am thinking largely of tributaries that start in Canada and
run through to the states. What extent does the member think this
country should have over a natural resource such as water that
flows to other areas of the world, particularly the United
States? What kind of control should we have over that water
situation? If he feels we should have strong controls, how do we
enforce that without creating the emotional disturbance that I
can guarantee it would cause through trying to control a water
source?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very
reasonable question and a good example.
I think there are relationships that have been developed dealing
with water rights even within rural municipalities where one
creek will run through one person's property and on to another.
At no time is the property owner allowed to cut off the supply of
water altogether to create a backwater, a slew or a lake on their
own property, a reservoir of any kind.
There are water rights agreements that are negotiated. Right
back to the Magna Carta there is reference to water rights I
believe. I do not think anything in our motion deals
specifically with that international flow of natural sources of
water. We were more specifically talking about the bulk sale of
water and the diversion from one basin to another to make water
move in an unnatural way and force it into another basin.
To answer the member's question, which is very legitimate, I
believe there are international water rights treaties currently
in effect just as there are interprovincial treaties. The most
relevant example I can think of is the Garrison diversion project
in southern Manitoba which deals with farmers in North Dakota.
The river actually dips across the international boundary many
times as it snakes its way along the North Dakota-Manitoba
border.
The farmers in North Dakota, worried about source, wanted to
build the Garrison diversion project on the American side
obviously which would nip off the flow back into Canada. That
has been stopped by very rancorous negotiating between the
provincial government and the state government.
I am comfortable that we have the wherewithal to negotiate the
free movement of natural sources of water across international
borders. Our motion does not specifically deal with that natural
flow of water.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
Usually when I speak on the identity of Canadians I find myself
speaking on our health care system. Today I am pleased that I am
able to speak on what is truly our Canadian heritage which is
clean lakes and rocky shores.
1210
This discussion is a welcome response to the efforts begun by
the federal government over the last year to review and update
the 1987 federal water policy. Last summer we began a dialogue
with all the provincial and territorial agencies with an interest
in water management and on the development of a federal
freshwater strategy. Provinces and territories indicated their
interest in working with us on solutions to the full range of
freshwater issues. Their involvement is important given their
primary responsibility for water management in Canada.
The Government of Canada recognizes the priority that Canadians
place on clean, productive and secure freshwater resources and
ecosystems. It recognizes its responsibility to provide
leadership. We believe that stewardship over waters is the
responsibility not only of governments but of all Canadians. This
dialogue in the House today advances participation, decision,
commitment and action by all of us on the entire spectrum of
concerns.
I would like to put the discussion on this topic in perspective
in the context of our endowment of freshwater resources from
coast to coast to coast and the full range of issues which
challenge us.
The proposed federal freshwater strategy will focus on issues
where we can strengthen co-operation and ensure a more effective
response to the challenges we share in the management of our
inheritance. It will provide a snapshot of the state of
freshwater in Canada, a review of the federal policy over the
last 10 years and an overview of federal objectives, principles
and strategies and a summary of issues and policy directions.
When the hon. member prepared this motion I am sure he was
struck by the breadth, depth and complexities of the issues that
define the scope of freshwater policy in Canada today. I hope we
can all agree that the policy concerns that face us are much
broader and pervasive than the single issue of bulk water
exports.
In Canada we are in situation unique in the world. Our supply
of water is abundant. In our rivers almost 10% of the world's
renewable supply of water flows to the sea. Our lakes cover more
than 7% of our land and our wetlands cover almost 15%. Our needs
for water are many. Essential for all life, water is required
for irrigating crops, supporting fish and wildlife, commercial
fisheries, farm animals, recreation, tourism, transportation,
manufacturing, for living in a city or at home. Most of our
industry and population is located within that narrow band along
our southern border. Most of our rivers flow north to the Arctic
Ocean.
As a group, Canadians are not doing a very good job of managing
our supply of water. At home each of us uses more than 300
litres a day, twice as much as the average European. But there
is good news. Manufacturers are making steady progress toward
more efficient use of water. In the steel, pulp and paper
industries new technology, recycling and higher efficiencies are
substantially cutting the amount of water used in production
processes.
As elected officials, custodians of our natural resources, we
must meet the challenges of conserving, enhancing and passing on
to our children and grandchildren our great wealth in water
resources. Some of the opposition today raised concerns about
drinking water and sewage systems in our cities and towns. This
is an issue that must be addressed in the full context of
managing our waters. The provision of municipal water and sewer
infrastructure is primarily the responsibility of provinces,
territories and municipalities in Canada. They are facing
significant challenges. Demand for water is increasing while
water revenues have not kept up with maintenance costs. Canadians
rank second in the world in their per capita water consumption
and pay only half the costs of water supply. Over the next 10
years the costs of maintaining this infrastructure are estimated
at $40 billion to $70 billion.
Federal water policy has been clear on this issue since 1987.
We want to ensure that Canadians have ready access to safe, clean
drinking water and to protect our freshwater systems from
pollution for municipal sewage systems. We have also worked
through the council of Canadian Environment ministers on a plan
to encourage municipal water use efficiency.
One of the best ways we have to protect our water is to reduce
the demand. Canadians must begin to take steps to conserve this
precious resource. In recent years the federal government has
contributed over $700 million to water and sewer infrastructure
improvements in Canadian communities.
In another area public attention is focused on atmospheric
change. Human induced changes to the atmosphere including
climate change, ozone depletion and pollution have the potential
to profoundly affect the health and viability of ecosystems.
Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases may play a role in
increased frequency of floods, tornados, severe storms and
similar events.
1215
These could cut down our supplies of clean, productive and
secure freshwater sources in various parts of our country.
The government will continue to co-ordinate and conduct research
on the impact of atmospheric change on our freshwater ecosystems.
The federal government's commitment to research into our water
resources is reflected in the science, impacts and adaptation
component of the climate change action fund. This fund, which
was created in the 1998 budget, commits $50 million per year for
the next three years.
Pollution is another important issue. Merely looking at the
lakes and rivers in our country, let alone entering the water or
drinking it, makes it obvious that pollution is a most urgent
concern. Federal legislation in recent years, along with such
programs as pollution prevention, a federal strategy for action,
has achieved some success in preventing the growth of pollution.
Increasingly aggressive management of toxic substances has
responded to Canadians' concerns about the protection of public
health. The federal government is committed to having strong
legislation and effective programs to protect human health from
all forms of pollution, especially those that threaten safe
drinking water.
The federal government is co-operating with provincial and
territorial governments to advance the science of flood
prediction and provide information and services for weather
warnings to enhance our forecasting capabilities.
I have indicated the water context in which this motion should
be considered. There are many aspects to federal freshwater
policies and programs as urgent as bulk water exports.
Let me for a moment address the opposition's concern related to
the interbasin transfers of water. The federal government, as
clearly articulated in the 1987 federal water policy, does not
support in principle interbasin transfers because of the
potential impact on the social, economic and environmental
integrity of our watersheds. Most provincial water management
regimes also respect this principle.
Examples of impacts on interbasin transfers include the
potential biotic transfer and contamination, the fragility of our
ecosystems, particularly northern ecosystems which are very
vulnerable to even small changes and recover slowly or not at
all, the concerns of first nations whose ways of life are
intimately tied to the cycles of abundance of water, depletion of
water resources available to downstream communities and the loss
of recreational and commercial benefits.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for initiating a dialogue
in the House on this important issue. However, when we consider
what legislation and regulation is required, it is vital that
these encompass all the major issues. We must not approach
legislation piecemeal.
We must work in co-operation and collaboration with provincial
and territorial governments which have primary and direct
responsibility for the water resources of this country.
This debate is timely. We can support those parts of the
proposed motion that call for co-operative action with the
provinces and territories and for a focus on the prohibition of
interbasin transfers. The federal government continues to work
with the provinces and territories to protect, preserve and
conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.
We are applying a comprehensive approach that will examine the
demands and environmental pressures on Canada's watersheds and
water basins. We will be inviting interested Canadians to
participate in the development of a federal freshwater strategy
this spring. I look forward in the future to a debate on the
full range of issues which comprise a proper federal freshwater
strategy.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the context
in which today's motion takes place, and I agree that it is a
much larger context than simply the focus of the motion. She
referred on a number of occasions to the co-operation required
between the federal government and provincial and territorial
governments.
Could she comment as to whether she sees any role at all for
aboriginal people in this co-operation and consultation process?
Would she agree that, in spite of what some have referred to as a
renewable resource, water is not necessarily a renewable
resource? If we upset the ecosystem or the drainage basin or
whatever, we may find ourselves in a situation where it is no
longer a renewable resource. I think of the Aral Sea situation.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, this past summer
being in Nunavut and recognizing the importance those people
place on water and how important it is to their everyday lives
and in terms of the international perspective they feel in terms
of Canada's responsibility to make sure the world, the north and
all the polar nations look after their water, I heartily agree
with the hon. member.
1220
I believe that consultation with the first nations is an
extremely important part of this government's next step in terms
of the consultation process and that they will be involved.
I think the hon. member is right. We must on a daily basis
remind all Canadians that we cannot count on anything. We can
ruin this resource and that we have to always be prudent
caretakers of our most precious resource and that calling it
renewable, if we are not taking care, is indeed incorrect and
foolhardy.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an appropriate time for the House to discuss this motion
regarding the issue of water exports.
I rise in support of the motion before the House today calling
on the government to work in co-operation with the provinces to
implement an immediate moratorium on the export bulk freshwater
shipments and interbasin transfers and to implement legislation
giving this moratorium greater force. I think that is very
important.
Not only are Canadians very concerned about this vital resource,
global demands for water are continually increasing and this
trend is unlikely to stop in the near future. We must act now to
ensure not only that domestic water resources are protected in
times of future demand but that in times of plenty we maintain
control of our water resources so as not to damage the ecosystems
on which we all depend.
Several members have today mentioned the vital role which water
plays in all our lives. This cannot be emphasized too much. We
cannot live without water. That is obvious. It is a source of
life not only for human beings but for plants and animals and the
entirety of our complex ecosystems.
In many ways we are in a privileged position today with roughly
20% of the world's freshwater supplies falling within our
borders. It would appear at first glance that we have little to
worry about when it comes to protecting our water from
commercialization by domestic and foreign investors. After all,
since we have so much of it, it seems reasonable to suggest we
might sell some of it off to increase our tax base or give it
away to those in need.
Perhaps it appears too reasonable. In reality it is simply not
that simple. With privilege comes responsibility. While we all
understand in the most basic terms how water contributes to our
daily lives, to agriculture and to industry, we do not understand
the full extent to which water fuels each and every mechanism of
life. If we abuse our privilege we may neglect our
responsibility.
We have so much water in so many different forms, frozen, in
marshlands and some of the world's largest lakes and underground.
These different forms are interconnected but we do not fully
appreciate how. We cannot afford then to permit actions, the
consequences of which are uncertain. The cumulative impact of
numerous withdrawals of water, whether for export or not, is a
serious concern to all Canadians.
In a 1985 study the international joint commission repeatedly
highlighted this issue in particular with respect to the Great
Lakes. Individual export projects of apparently minor effect
could create pressure to open the Great Lakes and other bodies of
water to other commercial initiatives. To be certain the
consequences are unpredictable.
[Translation]
We have a duty to protect our water. We have a duty to continue
to develop advanced water management and conservation
techniques, since the world's water resources are heading toward
exhaustion and other countries are looking to Canada for
leadership.
[English]
We can best fulfil our future role in this regard by taking
actions now to protect our water for future generations. While
there may be debate among members present on how best to prohibit
future bulk water removal projects, whether for export or not, it
is important that any public dialogue on this crucial issue be
undertaken from a position of truthfulness.
How can I be clearer? Canada is not on the verge of opening the
floodgates.
1225
The first reason is grounded in simple economics. No removal of
water in bulk export from Canada now occurs because at present
the bulk export of water is not economically viable. Shipping by
tanker, pipeline or other means is prohibitively expensive due to
the high costs of shipping, infrastructure and the low present
value of the product. Entrepreneurs continue to explore and
propose export initiatives but the likelihood of a profitable
venture is remote. For those few exceptions that do occur, none
is undertaken for commercial purposes. They are limited to the
sharing of treated water with a few neighbouring U.S. communities
and a few instances of the trucking of small quantities and
volumes of groundwater to the United States.
We do not expect a water export boom now or in the near future.
Without the immediate threat of a water export boom or even a
mild flow it is essential that we approach this very complex
issue from a position of responsibility, bearing in mind that the
global need for water could rise dramatically one day. We must
take steps now to ensure the protection of the health of our
environment for future generations. We must not be lured by the
idea of quick votes or band-aid solutions.
The comprehensive approach that recognizes shared
responsibilities for water management is exactly what is needed.
We must work with our provincial and territorial partners and
others to develop an all round strategy that gets it right the
first time. We must ensure that in moving to stop bulk exports
of water we do not mistakenly infringe upon existing uses of
water, for example the case of the bottled water industry.
Value added products like bottled spring water are profitable
exports. There is little evidence available to suggest that
small scale removals can be justifiably prohibited on
environmental grounds. Export trade in bottled water amounts to
240 million litres annually at a value of approximately $173
million.
A few moments ago I mentioned a second reason why Canadians
should not be unduly alarmed by the threat of multinational
corporations thirstily waiting to suck our lakes dry. Thanks in
large part to the Canadian Constitution the provinces have
embraced their responsibilities for water management. The
federal government has responsibilities for boundary waters under
the boundary waters treaty of 1909. Provinces have
responsibility for water within their boundaries.
Through its consultations this past summer and fall, the federal
government discussed with the provinces the growing network of
policies, regulation and legislation in place or that soon will
be implemented to prohibit the interbasin transfer and removal of
water in bulk from within provincial boundaries. Six of ten
provinces are pursuing or have formal legislation, regulations or
policy dealing with exports or bulk removal from watersheds. For
example, in western Canada British Columbia's water protection
act prohibits the removal of water from the province except in
containers of 20 litres or less in existing tanker truck
shipments.
Alberta's 1996 water act amendment came into force with the
promulgation of regulations on January 1, 1999. It prohibits the
export of untreated water with special legislative approval.
Manitoba opposes interbasin water transfers. Saskatchewan
recently announced that it will continue to introduce legislation
regarding the removal of water from its watersheds. Ontario has
a new policy prohibiting the transfer of service water out of
Ontario water basins, including the Great Lakes. It has recently
announced its intention to implement regulations to give this
policy greater force. Quebec is conducting a public review of
provincial water policy at this time. Nova Scotia will soon
release a water resource management strategy.
We have every reason to believe the provinces will address the
issue of water export. We know that will happen in the very near
future. These many legislative mechanisms are already in place
or are in the works. It seems clear that the support of today's
motion will extend well beyond the confines of this House which
is important to note. I look forward to the results of today's
vote so we can move forward quickly on this very important
matter. There is much work to be done in this area and I look
forward to it.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to take part in the debate on the NDP supply day motion.
The broad thrust of the motion is essentially to protect Canadian
sovereignty over our water. While I take issue with the way the
NDP may want to achieve that, no Canadian would probably disagree
with the objective that Canadians need to have control over our
water.
We need to decide what we will do with it and Canadians have to
come first in that equation.
1230
It has been a longstanding Reform policy that we support the
idea that Canadians have sovereignty over their water supply. We
indicated that we would have liked to have had the Canada-U.S.
free trade agreement and the subsequent NAFTA amended to reflect
that position. Unfortunately that was not done, and we have to
ask why.
In 1988 when the Conservative government negotiated the free
trade agreement with the United States water was not dealt with.
Essentially the result of that left some concern as to whether
water was on the table. There was a great deal of debate as to
whether water was subject to the free trade agreement between
Canada and the United States.
Leading up to the negotiations for the NAFTA there was a lot of
debate and an opportunity to correct any misinterpretation that
might have existed under the free trade agreement itself.
The current Prime Minister was on record on several occasions
stating that water would not be on the table in any agreement
that he signed. The Liberal red book said that the NAFTA was an
opportunity to correct any flaws that existed within the free
trade agreement with the United States. Some of the comments
made by the Prime Minister at the time suggested that this was a
flaw, that water was not properly protected.
I will quote a couple of his comments to verify what I am
talking about. On November 19, 1993 the Prime Minister said:
Water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not mix.
Water remains under the control of the Canadian government. I
can guarantee that.
I doubt that is the case and I will explain why in just a
moment.
A few days prior to that he said:
I will not allow any large water exports to take place as long as
I am Prime Minister. Nor will I sign any international bilateral
trade agreements that obligate Canada to export water.
Let us examine for a moment what in fact he got. When the NAFTA
was negotiated the Liberal government said it would not sign it
unless there was a labour and environmental agreement within the
main body of the NAFTA. Presumably from his comments the Prime
Minister was going to make the case that he would not sign the
NAFTA unless he also received a specific exemption for our water.
He got exemptions for raw logs and unprocessed fish, but somehow
a provision concerning bulk freshwater exports was not included.
What he got was a side agreement that was not adequate. It does
not in any way address the concern because it is an appendix. It
is not a part of the agreement itself.
The side agreement states:
The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any
Party to the Agreement. Unless water, in any form, has entered
into commerce and becomes a good or product, it is not covered by
the provisions of any trade agreement, including the NAFTA. And
nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA Party to either
exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water
in any form.
The essential portion of the side agreement states “Unless
water, in any form, has entered into commerce and become a good
or product...”.
What does that mean? When could the United States or Mexico ask
for Canadian water? As we are aware, water comes under
provincial jurisdiction. Presumably any province could say that
it wanted to export water, but I do not think that would happen.
But that is not enough to cover it.
1235
Water only has to come into commerce. It can be done
domestically between companies in Canada. Then we could not say
that American or Mexican companies do not have have access to a
particular body of water.
The Prime Minister blew it. He said he was going to protect
Canadian sovereignty over freshwater, but he did not achieve
that. He got a side agreement which essentially says that when
bulk water comes into commerce, even domestically in Canada, then
under the provisions of the NAFTA and the free trade agreement
before it all parties have access to that particular body of
water.
Let us examine how that could take place. There have been
several proposals put forward by the provinces to have that come
into effect. If one province decided that it was going to drain
a lake and sell the water to a Canadian company, that is all it
would take to trigger the mechanism. Then, under the
non-discrimination aspects of the NAFTA, that province could not
deny access to an American or Mexican company.
That may not be a bad thing, but let us not try to fool the
public. We do not have sovereignty or control over our water as
a result of the agreement signed by Canada, Mexico and the United
States. It simply does not exist. The only way that we can stop
the export of water is to work co-operatively with the provinces
to build the awareness that if water from a particular source
comes into commerce other companies will have access to it.
It is important to support the NDP motion because we want to
ensure that Canada maintains control of its water. We need to
set the agenda and that is one way we could do it. The provinces
do not have to give a licence to any particular company to build
a domestic industry on water exports. The provinces have the
right to say yes or no, just the way they do when they give
access to forest products. In forest management areas in Alberta
or British Columbia the provincial governments have the right to
say “You have access to a certain amount of trees in this forest
management area”. However, the provinces do not have the right
to deny access to an American or Mexican company if a Canadian
company has access.
We have to be careful of that provision. Let us not try to fool
people. That is the only way that control over our water can
actually take place.
I am not sure what the Minister of the Environment envisions in
the legislation which she will be introducing in a couple of
weeks, but it appears that provincial-federal co-operation is
necessary if we are to maintain control.
It is important that Canadians maintain control over their
water. What we decide to do with it has to be our agenda. I am
not suggesting that at some point down the road Canadians may
decide there needs to be some sale of water, but I do not think
that is the case now.
This is a very emotional issue. Bottled water is sold on a
commercial basis. Then there is the other extreme, that of the
interbasin transfer of water which scares the heck out of people.
I farm in Alberta. I know what can happen when people change
water routes. It is a very emotional issue.
It is very important that we give serious thought to the NDP
motion which is before us today. We will be supporting the main
motion and we encourage others to do so to try to bring some
sense and reason to the whole idea that we need to have
federal-provincial co-operation in order to have control over our
Canadian waters.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the jurisdiction of water was a major aspect of the hon. member's
debate.
I had raised in a previous speech jurisdiction over aboriginal
rights to water. Maybe he would like to share his views on that.
1240
The motion states “the government should, in co-operation with
the provinces”, but there seems to be unfinished business with
the treaty obligations that were made during the acquisition of
this country and the rights to resources.
Water is a major concern, along with a lot of the aboriginal
rights that have been discussed recently.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding
that under the Canadian Constitution water is a natural resource
that is under provincial jurisdiction.
If there are concerns in the area that my hon. friend is talking
about, those concerns need to be discussed at the provincial
level to see if some kind of an agreement or arrangement can be
worked out.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, another situation
concerning jurisdiction is the issue of Canadian sovereign rights
over the freshwater resources of this country.
What is the member's view on the privatization of some of the
water sources in this country, either drawn from wells or
aquifers, at municipal sites? I know that everybody has assumed
that municipal and local governments have jurisdiction over and
manage water, but there have been recent developments in some
provinces which have privatized water and sanitary services.
What is his view toward this evolution of privatizing those
sources of water, which inevitably might be a concern for
freshwater as well?
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with
the whole aspect of water in terms of groundwater sources
available to Canadian residents as a primary water supply. It is
a very important issue.
In Peace River a lot of our neighbours farm. We have an oil
industry that also uses freshwater from aquifers to recover more
oil from the fields.
It is a very important issue that has just been raised. We have
to make sure that we protect the water supply for residential use
as a primary responsibility because there are other sources of
water available to industry.
Saltwater aquifers can also be used to flood those oil
formations. They do not have to use freshwater. It is a concern
that I have.
A number of people in the area that I live have water wells
which are either drying up or levels which are going down. That
has probably been happening because the industry has been pumping
for something like 100 years. I do not think the industry in
that case should have the right to our aquifers of freshwater
that have taken in some cases hundreds of years to develop into
the quality of water that we have now.
We have to be very careful in allowing industry to use potable
water. It is a precious resource that takes time to develop. It
seems to me that industry should be allowed to use water in these
endeavours, but it should have to use water that is not potable
and does not compete with residential usage in Canada.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak to the issue of control over our
water.
I come from an area that was initially explored by Palliser, who
went back to the old country and said “It is uninhabitable.
People cannot live there”. However, we do live here and we have
turned it into a garden of Eden where we grow specialty crops.
1245
We have created cities, towns and villages in the area. We have
a strong diverse agricultural base and it is all because of water
irrigation.
My constituency is also unique because the Oldman River flows
through the city of Lethbridge and eventually flows through
Medicine Hat goes east and north and ends up in Hudson Bay. The
Milk River in the south end of my constituency flows south and
eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico.
Water is a diverse, strange and important part of our lives.
Actually water is the backbone of our life. It is our most
important natural resource. It is not a resource like any other;
it is unique because without it, we cannot live. We could learn
to live without coal. We could learn to live without wood and we
could probably learn to live without precious metals. Technology
today has enabled us to become less dependent on raw natural
resources but it has not enabled us to live without water.
Although every Canadian household pays for water every month on
their utility bill, it is impossible to put a price on the value
of freshwater to people, plants, animals and ecosystems.
In Canada especially, water has a certain mystique. It has the
power to evoke strong emotions in the hearts and minds of
Canadians. It is no wonder then that when it is threatened, it
provokes powerful emotions. Today we are here to discuss the root
cause of these strong emotions. We are here to discuss the
future of our most precious resource, a resource that is being
threatened.
My NDP colleagues have introduced a motion that would
immediately act to protect Canada's control over its water. The
motion with the amendment reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and interbasin transfers and should not be a party to any
international agreement that would compel us to export water
against our will, in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations.
Although I am glad that we are finally being given the
opportunity to discuss this issue in the House, I am sorry it has
taken so long. The Liberal government has promised time and time
again that it would introduce legislation that would protect our
water. Still there is nothing.
In 1993 the present Prime Minister promised that he would obtain
a special exemption for water under NAFTA. Exemptions were
already obtained by Canada's negotiators for raw logs, cultural
industries and some fish products.
In November 1993 our Prime Minister assured Canadians that our
water was not for sale. He said “Water is not in NAFTA. Water
remains under the control of the Canadian government. I want
Canada to maintain control over our own water. It is not for
sale. And if we want to sell it, we will decide”.
Of course, we know all to well that NAFTA was signed into effect
without exempting water. The problem was that water was never
discussed in the appropriate fashion. It was never given the
weight of importance it needed to have in those discussions, the
importance that it has to Canadians.
In March 1996 the member for Kamloops introduced a bill that
would prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers. It
was during debate on that bill that the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for International Cooperation assured the House
that the Liberal government was consulting Canadians, that his
government was currently conducting a review of its programs and
legislation relating to sustaining Canada's water resources. He
promised that through this review a comprehensive approach to
water could be developed, including legislative measures to
address water export. This debate ended several years ago, and we
have not seen a single line of legislation that would protect
Canada's sovereignty over its water.
On May 15, 1998 the member for Davenport asked the Minister of
the Environment if she had plans to introduce legislation to ban
the export of bulk freshwater. The member was assured that he
had nothing to worry about because the introduction of
legislation respecting our water was a priority for her
government.
Again in October when the government was asked about a national
water policy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs assured the House that water was of prime
importance to the country and that his government would be laying
out a comprehensive strategy on the issue in the fall. I have not
seen any comprehensive strategies laid out by this government
since the fall, let alone one on the protection of our most
valuable resource, freshwater.
1250
As time goes on, the issue of freshwater and its control becomes
more and more important. We have seen in recent times some
actions by foreign countries in regard to our water.
Time and again this Liberal government has failed to protect the
interests of Canadians. I am concerned about the future of our
freshwater resources. We all know that Canada has the world's
largest reserves of freshwater, possessing 25% of the world's
supply and 9% of the world's renewable freshwater. I would like
to give some scenarios and examples of what has happened in the
world and some of the things that have been proposed for our
water.
In the last century many of the wars fought across the world
were fought over oil. Oil was always considered our most
precious resource. It was worth more than its weight in gold.
During the 1970s oil crisis our economies were almost shut down
because they were denied access to cheap oil.
We have here a resource far more valuable than oil. We have a
freshwater resource. It is estimated that the world's
consumption of freshwater is doubling every 20 years. By 2025
almost two-thirds of the world's population will be facing
restricted water supplies.
The U.S. is the world's largest per capita user of water. Much
of the pressure to export our water has come from the Americans.
Because of this, some scenarios have taken place in the past. One
scenario which has been looked at is the North American water and
power agreement, an agreement that would divert the headwaters of
the Yukon, Skeena, Peace, Columbia and Fraser rivers for storage
in a huge Rocky Mountain trench before it would be diverted to
the thirsty American south. The Grand Canal was another massive
engineering project that would divert Canadian rivers to feed
American industry. I might also add that a member of the Liberal
government has recently called for studies to re-examine the
feasibility of some of these plans.
As populations shift and move and as droughts intensify, more
and more water becomes the topic of discussion. The point I want
to make with these examples is that it is more critical now than
ever before in Canada's history to protect the power to manage
our freshwater resources in the best interests of Canadians. We
need a comprehensive water policy, one that has been negotiated
with the provinces to ensure the control over our water stays in
the hands of Canada and the Canadian people.
The provinces were given control over their natural resources
under our Constitution. The federal government is responsible
for international trade. It is crucial therefore that this
government move immediately to enter into discussions with the
provinces to establish a clear and comprehensive policy.
The Reform Party supports the protection of Canada's sovereignty
over its water and waterways. It recognizes Canada's unique
position as a steward of freshwater resources and the need to
protect the quality of our water as an inherent part of our
national heritage to maintain biodiversity, to protect health and
safety, to support the quality of life for Canadians and to
facilitate responsible economic development. It is unfortunate
that this government does not share those views.
It is true that water is not specifically mentioned in NAFTA. We
allow the export of bottled water. However it is still
recognized through a side agreement that water in its natural
state in the lakes and rivers of our country is not considered a
good. There is concern among trade experts that this side
agreement does not go far enough. My colleague from Peace River
mentioned earlier that we must open NAFTA through a trilateral
discussion and demand that water be given an exemption similar to
the exemption that is given to some other natural resources.
The government, in fact the Prime Minister promised to all
Canadians that he would protect Canada's water. He guaranteed
that water would remain under the control of the Canadian
government to be managed in the best interests of Canadians. He
has not done that. He has not reopened NAFTA and he has not
obtained an exemption for freshwater. In short, he has not
adequately protected Canada's freshwater resources. This failure
to enact legislation has led to chaos and confusion, and as we
have seen, some challenges to our sovereignty not to mention
hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
It is time for this government to act immediately to protect
Canada's freshwater resources. The time for talking has passed.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is certainly creating a challenge of the
jurisdiction of water and for the federal government to act.
1255
I wanted to highlight for the record and for the knowledge of
the hon. member that the legal status of Canadian water law seems
to encompass riparian rights under common law that there is no
right to ownership of water found in its natural state. The
underlying policy to this rule is that the public at large has a
right to reasonable use of water, in such cases as fishing and
navigation.
It is only when water is contained or controlled by someone that
the characterization of personal property can apply. Examples
would be swimming pools and bottled water and that personal
property can now be sold. In its natural state under our law,
nothing is said on the ownership of water.
We can look at surface water and surface bodies. We know that
rivers flow and lake bodies hold the water that flows into them.
But the underwater, the aquifers, is a situation where owners of
land not adjacent to water have no common right to the water. But
when groundwater is governed by the rule of capture, an owner of
land can take as much subterranean water as he can capture. That
is a question of our law.
When we use the legal term capture, does that mean it is
contained or controlled? That is a major concern of the
privatization and potential purchase of our water resources,
either they are subterranean, underground, or surface. That is
the uneasy journey we are taking as Canadians here.
Unless the federal government acts and clarifies these
jurisdictions, responsibilities and rights, we are going into the
millennium with uncharted water so to speak, because we are not
protecting it for future generations of Canadians.
I think the challenge is to deal with that now.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for Churchill River for his question. We spend a lot
of time together on the environment committee and I appreciate
his concern and his background in environmental issues and
certainly in aboriginal issues and how they pertain to the
environment. Some of the member's revelations have been very
revealing to us in how our native people look at the environment
and how it interacts with their lives. Certainly the member's
comments are what we are here for today.
We have a resource that is important; it means life to
everything. Without properly managing this resource many
scenarios and different laws come into effect. Some people think
that after building a dam, the lake behind that dam is a
container. Once that is done, is that water in a container? Is
it then treated differently? Aquifers are treated differently.
Certainly we have to take the time and the government has to
take the time to sit down with the provinces and work this issue
out. We have called for it. It has not been done. The fact
that it has not been done has added to the confusion, has added
to the concern of Canadians. Canadians want control over their
water. Plain and simple. Overwhelmingly. Very few issues can
stir up emotions as discussions of water can.
Over the 20 years of my involvement with municipal politics,
clean water and a source of water to feed the citizens of our
communities has been on the top of the list for every
municipality in this country. To ensure that we have the
sovereignty over that, we have to get this government on the road
to developing that policy.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, water is quite an emotional
issue with most Canadians. We have great sensitivity to our
reputation that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Under the NAFTA agreement, unprocessed logs are an exemption.
Would it not be most appropriate if water also fit under that
same category?
1300
I think that was addressed in the speech but I want to carry it
a bit further. A contradiction in view has become apparent this
morning, that is the role of the federal and provincial
governments in terms of the whole question of bulk water exports.
The parliamentary secretary said that this was federal
jurisdiction. We certainly have outstanding permits in Canada to
this day where provinces have actually issued bulk freshwater
export licences.
Would my colleague like to comment on the role of the provinces
from his perspective?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, my home province of Alberta
recently passed a water act to control water and to deal with the
issues we have come up with. When it comes down to it, the fact
that parliamentary secretary has said it is a federal issue, it
is not. The provinces have to be involved from the start to put
the policy together.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question water is one of the more important
topics we will be discussing in the future. There is a real
perception of that now. The hon. member was talking in
particular about groundwater.
In terms of the world's freshwater supply, water in the ground
in aquifers, which are basically slow moving rivers, accounts for
over 90% of the freshwater on the planet. Many people think it
is the lakes, rivers and glaciers, but the reality is that 90% is
through the aquifers which are connected to lakes and rivers by
the hydrological cycle.
One very important issue is who is exactly responsible for what.
Certainly in the province of Ontario it is the provincial
government that gives permits for the drawing of water. On the
Great Lakes we have international treaties, but the fact of the
matter is that a watershed is under provincial control. It also
passes to federal control and across the border because, as I
said before, aquifers are slow moving rivers.
This takes me to another point which is a very important part of
the debate. We need to be vigilant in protecting the aquifers.
There are many examples where very good quality potable water in
aquifers becomes contaminated and is lost for many decades until
there is some way of taking remedial action.
I will put a question to the member from the Reform Party in
terms of the debate on water. He mentioned municipal
governments, provincial governments and the federal government.
Would the member agree that we virtually need a high powered
conference on this matter to set—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time has expired
for questions. On a brief response, the hon. member for
Lethbridge.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, certainly discussions
should take place at a very high level, the highest level
possible because of the importance of the issue.
1305
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
seems to me only fair to say at this point in the debate that
there seems to be fairly unanimous consent and support for the
motion today, particularly on the part of those who believe in a
role by the Government of Canada in protecting the interest of
Canadians in all provinces.
There seems to be, however, some confusion in connection with
the alleged link between water and NAFTA. Some speakers who
preceded me seemed to labour under the impression that water is
in the NAFTA. It might be desirable therefore to dispel this
notion once and for all because it only damages Canada's position
vis-à-vis the United States and the NAFTA partners.
There is no reference to water in NAFTA except for bottled
water. The sooner we put our thinking to rest on this matter the
better, so that we do not raise in the House the notion that
water is in the NAFTA. It is only in the form of bottled water.
Anyone who can read and takes the trouble to read that portion of
the NAFTA will see for himself or herself that is the extent to
which water is mentioned in that agreement.
Therefore any debate on the motion which brings in through the
back door the impression that we have to deal with the NAFTA only
tends in the long term, and even in the short term, for that
matter, to weaken Canada's position because certainly what is
said in parliament has a certain weight.
The motion, which is highly laudable, puts the emphasis on
matters related to trade and that is where the pressures are
coming from at the present time. It is refreshing, however, to
read what the British Columbia Wildlife Federation wrote some 15
years ago as quoted in the report entitled “Currents of
Change”, the final report of the inquiry on federal water
policy, a commission launched under the Trudeau government in
1983. It says:
The issue is much broader than the consideration of habitat for
fish, more than irrigation or energy development, more than jobs
or recreation. It is fundamental to the overall human condition.
This is how water is described. It is important to amplify the
point of the B.C. Wildlife Federation because it is so well put.
There is also the issue of how Canadians relate to water. We
have heard some very passionate interventions this morning on
this subject and I would like to add one from the “Currents of
Change” report on page 130 where it reads:
Water evokes special feelings among Canadians. On the surface it
appears unreasonable to object to exporting a renewable resource
like water while supporting exports of non-renewable resources
like minerals, coal and natural gas. The explanation lies, at
least in part, in the special heritage value that many Canadians
attach to our water resources.
I underline the word heritage because it is extremely important.
Those were inspired words by Mr. Pearse who was the head of that
commission, who reported to the Conservative government in 1985,
and whose recommendations are still waiting for action.
Mr. Pearse at that time recommended a full range of water
related policy initiatives including drinking water safety,
research programs, intergovernmental arrangements and water
exports.
The central message of the inquiry's report, it must be said at
this point of the discussion, in the words of Peter Pearse was:
We must protect water as a key to a healthy environment and
manage what we use efficiently as an economic resource.
1310
We certainly can say that a lot of time has gone by. Members of
the opposition have already stressed that point. We are now at
the point where a decision must be made in this respect, not only
within the confines of the motion but also going beyond so as to
encompass water quality, conservation and the concept of
security.
Security needs to be redefined. We have to move gradually away
from a concept that limits itself to military security to one
that is related to natural resources. Certainly water plays a
major role in providing the sense of security that any society
needs for its present and future.
Today as we speak we can recite a number of applications on
water exports that have been proposed in recent months: one in
Ontario, one in British Columbia and very recently one in
Newfoundland. Evidently we have to take action at the federal
level and give the necessary leadership.
As recently as last July an interdepartmental panel of officers
representing foreign affairs and Environment Canada debated in
Toronto the matter of water. A considerable amount of work has
been going on within departments. Now it is a matter that will
have to emerge at the political level.
In the ultimate, as the motion suggests, it will have to be a
decision that will assert the sovereign right of Canadians.
Therefore parliament and the Government of Canada must play a
leading role.
The question of quality of water deserves to be given greater
emphasis than so far. The confidence of Canadians in drinking
water has over recent years declined as demonstrated by the
increased sales of water filters, bottled water and the like.
There is an impression which has not been dispelled to the effect
that the quality of water is not as high as it used to be.
Therefore we have to pay attention to that fact either by
restoring confidence or by taking measures to improve the quality
of municipal water as provided by municipal suppliers.
The addition of chlorine is an issue that emerges from time to
time in reports by the International Joint Commission. In one of
its reports three years ago it indicated its concern about that
particular substance as it affects human health. Evidently we
are dealing with a very difficult issue because we all know the
advantages of the use of chlorine in disinfecting water.
Nevertheless we have signals to which we have to pay attention if
our major concern, as I am sure it is for everybody in the House,
is for the quality and the health aspect of water.
I have been given an indication that I am splitting time with
the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford. Therefore I will comply
with that request in the assumption that my time is up.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for his support of
the motion.
I also raise a concern with respect to the issue he identified
around NAFTA and the implications of NAFTA for bulk freshwater
exports.
1315
The hon. member is a very distinguished and longstanding member
of this House. He knows that there are serious questions at this
time about the possible impact of NAFTA. There have been a
number of challenges by American companies that seek to take
advantage of what they allege are the provisions of NAFTA with
respect to bulk water export.
Judging by the lawsuits that have been launched, for example Sun
Belt claiming over $100 million in damages under the provisions
of NAFTA, does the hon. member not agree that if Canada, the
United States and Mexico really believe NAFTA does not apply to
freshwater exports that there could very well be a memorandum of
understanding that would have equal force and effect as the NAFTA
itself just to clear up any misunderstanding?
In the absence of that, of course, there is still the
possibility of ongoing legal harassment and actions. In light of
that, would the hon. member be prepared to support both the
amendment and the main motion?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
having raised again the question of NAFTA and water.
I could allege that the moon is made of Gorgonzola and
ask for a memorandum of understanding that it be disclaimed.
Having read several times the portion of the NAFTA that covers
water, I am fully satisfied that the only reference
in that section is to bottled water. If there are
certain business interests in the United States that wish to
allege the contrary that is their business.
However, I do not think we should fall into the trap of those
who claim that assumption in the NAFTA because we just reinforce
that kind of notion. The text is clear. It refers only to
bottled water. There is no way Canada would go for any agreement
in the NAFTA arrangement that would include water. I do not think
any government in its right mind would ever agree to that.
Therefore I must confirm what I indicated earlier. This motion
ought to be disallowed and should not be given new life in this
parliament because it just gives credence to those outside
parliament who would like people to believe that water is
included in NAFTA.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Davenport may be missing the point. Because water
is not specifically excluded, it is therefore in. The problem is
that it is in the pot. Raw logs and unprocessed fish are
exempted from NAFTA because they are on the list.
What we are suggesting is that we add water to that list. It
would take water out of NAFTA. Because it is not specifically
excluded, it is by definition in. That is the difficulty we are
dealing with today.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, there may be a long
list of items that are not specifically excluded that one would
like to have reference to. However, the fact is what the
agreement states is what the agreement is all about. If the
agreement specifies water in its bottled form and nothing further
than that, it seems to be pretty clear and evident.
1320
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a major issue that we address today and one that
relates very much to my riding of Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford,
impacted as we are by the health of and the need to preserve one
of Ontario's major lakes, Lake Simcoe.
Canada is a water rich nation. We are stewards of 9% of the
world's renewal freshwater. But in the context of the motion
under debate it is important that members realize that export is
but one facet of how we manage this life giving resource.
While Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of clean
water in the world, pollution remains an important problem in
some of our waters. In some areas people cannot swim or eat the
fish they catch or drink the water without it going through
extensive purification.
The quality of Canada's freshwater and marine areas is affected
by three major water pollution problems, toxic substances, excess
nutrients and sedimentation. Toxic substance from industrial,
agricultural and domestic use form major pollutants in our water.
These include trace elements of PCBs, mercury, dioxins, furans
and some pesticides. Some of these substances accumulate through
the food chain rather than breaking down in the environment.
These substances enter our water in a variety of ways, including
industrial sources such as mining, steel production, accidents
such as oil or chemical spills, and contaminated sites such as
the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia, municipal waste water
effluents and atmospheric deposition from Mexico, the U.S. and
Europe in Canada through rain and snow.
Excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous compounds come
mainly from municipal sewage and farm run-off containing
fertilizers and animal waste. These nutrients can cause excess
growth of aquatic plants which then die and decay, depleting
water of dissolved oxygen and killing fish.
Sedimentation which we have difficulty with in Lake Simcoe is an
increase in the amount of solid particles in water caused
primarily by human activities, coming from farming, from forestry
and construction. When sediment settles it can smoother the
feeding and spawning grounds of fish and kill aquatic organisms.
[Translation]
Water pollution affects our health, our environment and our
economy. Some of the toxic substances in water have been found
to cause cancer. Others pose a threat to reproductive and
immune systems and have already been found in the milk of some
mothers. The health of all Canadians is threatened, especially
that of young children, seniors and natives in the north, who
depend on local wildlife for their survival.
Pollution lowers the value in the eyes of industry and raises
the household cost of this resource. The economic value of
Canadian fresh water used in homes and industry is estimated to
be between $15 million and $20 million annually.
[English]
Canada has made progress in reducing many important water
pollution problems. For example, 30 years ago Lake Erie was
largely considered to be dead due to excessive nutrients from
municipal waste. Today several of the original wildlife species
have returned and the lake supports a commercial fishery.
Recent improvements in water quality have resulted in a decline
in levels of DDT detected in the breast milk of mothers in
southern Ontario and in Quebec since the early 1970s.
Pulp mills have reduced dioxin and furan discharges since 1988
as a result of tougher federal and provincial regulations on pulp
and paper effluents. Many B.C. shellfish and bottom fish
harvesting areas which we closed because of these pollutants have
now reopened.
Ecosystem initiatives in several major watersheds have helped to
improve water quality. Under the St. Lawrence action plan
pollution from 50 priority industries has been reduced since
1988. Under the Great Lakes action plan the harbour in
Collingwood, Ontario is restored. The Fraser River action plan
has led to a 90% reduction in the release of toxic wood
preservative chemicals.
1325
[Translation]
Treatment of wastewater has also evolved. For example,
municipal treatment systems process up to 75% of Canada's
wastewater. Through its infrastructure program, the federal
government has given communities $700 million to help them
establish and improve their water and wastewater treatment
infrastructures.
[English]
The Government of Canada is now addressing water quality
concerns through various actions, including a renewed Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, and the development of a
federal freshwater strategy.
The minister of the environment and the standing committee on
the environment are engaged in the process of developing a new
CEPA which must improve enforcement as well as control toxic
pollutants and other wastes. The freshwater strategy is founded
on the need to work co-operatively with provinces and territories
in order to better integrate the environmental, economic and
social dimensions of freshwater management.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry and
communities are also working together to take action on the worst
toxics and the worst polluters, broaden the participation of
Canadian businesses and establish Canadian-wide standards.
Canada has significantly reduced the flow of pollution into its
waters, but the future continues to hold tremendous challenges as
environmental issues become larger and more complex. Global
demands for pesticides, manufactured chemical goods and products
are rising. The number of substances known or strongly suspected
to be toxic continues to grow.
The challenge for Canada is to continue to build international
co-operation, in particular on heavy metals and persistent
organic polluters. Domestically we must continue to build and
encourage leadership and partners with communities, industry and
provincial and territorial governments. But it is the federal
body which must provide the leadership and initiative to provide
the legislative framework which will ensure the protection of
Canadian water.
It is this broad approach and not just a focus on water export
alone that will provide Canadians with the clean water they need
now and in the future. At this critical time I would agree with
the motion before us that the government should in co-operation
with the provinces and the territories place an immediate
moratorium on interbasin transfers and the export of water.
Interbasin transfers can negatively impact the social and
economic well-being of people who live in watershed areas. In my
community around Lake Simcoe we are tremendously impacted by a
watershed area. Indeed it is this major concern that we are
debating here today.
This action should be a joint action taken in co-operation with
provincial and territorial governments. I have promoted these
policies with my colleagues and I stand in the House to do so
today.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the comments of my hon. colleague. I am particularly
pleased to hear her highlight the Sydney tar ponds as an area of
concern. I look forward to the commitment of some funds in the
budget to help remedy that site.
I think her comments are well informed and indicate how
important and how scarce freshwater is becoming, given the
environmental problems and the whole environmental context she
discussed.
1330
Would she support a ban on the export of freshwater from this
country?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon.
member's question and share with him a grave concern about the
acute problem in Nova Scotia. It is one that I think will leave
us with memories of the Love Canal for those of us who are old
enough to remember.
As I have said, I endorse the motion before us for a moratorium
on bulk water exports and interbasin transfers. I believe it is
the beginning. It allows us for the time to move in a
legislative manner in future.
It is ours to show the lead but it is ours also to continue the
feeling, the spirit that has been engendered by our recent
signing with the provinces on health and social policy, to
continue that spirit as well in this very important endeavour.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on her comments. She focused on two
areas that I think are critical.
One obviously is that this is an environmental issue. The other
is the importance to Canadians, particularly in municipal areas.
My riding of Oak Ridges is part of the Oak Ridges moraine, a
very sensitive area in Ontario and one where there are studies
being done currently to deal with water issues. We have rivers
such as the head waters of the Don.
A few years ago a commentator made the pronouncement that the
next conflicts in the 21st century will be over water, that water
is the critical issue. I certainly support the comments I have
heard from all sides of the House today.
With regard to the issue which clearly involves federal,
municipal and private sectors, what type of elements does she see
as critical in the development of a federal freshwater strategy
for Canadians?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I agree with an emphasis
the member has brought to the discussion on the need to be
working with colleagues at the municipal level because they are
perhaps most closely connected with the issues on a daily basis.
In that regard, I make reference again to Lake Simcoe, a very
large and major lake in Ontario, one impacted tremendously by
growth and development in the watershed from urbanization and
from the agricultural and industrial base as well.
As he mentioned, it is imperative that in developing a
freshwater strategy we work closely with our municipal partners
as well as our provincial partners to contain and to deal with
those issues they are encountering on a daily basis as a result
of watershed problems.
We look to an overall freshwater strategy as one that has to
encompass before us today, the export of bulk water and a
moratorium on interbasin transfers but we look at a larger view.
We will be looking to legislation that we know is in process with
regard to a freshwater strategy from the federal perspective but
again in partnership with our provincial colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak on the motion before the House today on the
marketing of water.
Before getting into the commercial aspect, I would like to
address the environmental aspect. We are all familiar with
water, as we use it on a daily basis. We need it as part of our
diet and for washing.
1335
But that is not our only use of water. Water is found in the
environment, in the form of rivers, lakes and oceans. By fresh
water, we mean water that contains no salt, the water in
streams, lakes and rivers, as opposed to that in oceans.
Where does this water come from? It comes from rain, which runs
off hills and mountains to become streams, which flow into
rivers, which become lakes, which in turn empty into streams,
and then rivers to finally reach the ocean.
If these patterns are disturbed, we change the way in which the
lands through which these waters pass are irrigated. If we
change the way in which these waters reach the ocean, we will
eventually alter the salinity of parts of the ocean.
Water, however, does not just irrigate land or quench our
thirst. It also transports heat. And one of the by-products of
differences in salinity is that ocean currents transfer heat
from the south to the north, where waters cool, drop to the
bottom of the ocean and return south.
This creates a thermal equilibrium on the planet and large-scale
changes.
Therefore, if quantities of soft water were to end up in a
specific part of the ocean, its salinity would be affected, and
this could have a significant impact on the climate of the
planet. When reference is made to transfers between catchment
areas, we are speaking specifically and definitely of measures
which could affect the runoff of freshwater into an ocean or
oceans. The consequences of such a transfer might be
considerably greater than we were able to foresee.
The greatest caution is therefore necessary, on the engineering
level alone, when contemplating changing the movement of water
from one basin to another.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns that have been expressed
by a large number of members of this House since this debate
began this morning.
We must, however, touch on the aspect of commercialization. Here
it is possible that the Bloc Quebecois has concerns that are not
shared by all hon. members in this House, particularly if they
do not come from Quebec.
Where the commercialization of water is concerned, we are
looking at water as a natural resource to be exploited, and no
longer as an element of our environment. I have already
addressed the question of the environment, and it must not be
lost sight of.
Let us look as the aspect of exploitation of a natural resource,
nevertheless. Small quantities of water are readily moved from
place to place to meet humanity's needs.
For instance, a municipality can draw water from a lake to pipe
it into our homes. In the country, people drill up to hundreds
of feet below the ground to tap the groundwater table for their
drinking and washing water. These are small transfers.
If, however, these small transfers multiply, the consequences
can be dramatic. In the southwestern United States, for
instance, farmers and municipalities have made heavy use of the
groundwater table for agricultural irrigation as well as other
needs.
1340
The water table has been lowered and is drying up. We recognize
that water, our natural resource, must be treated in a very
circumspect manner.
Water does not renew itself quickly or readily. Today, as it
rains, there is an abundance of water. Next year, maybe it will
rain less, maybe there will be less snow. The level of the
lakes will drop. We must be very careful therefore on matters
involving water; still, it remains a renewable natural resource.
So the question arises: Whose responsibility is it to manage the
use of this resource on a daily basis? I think that, in all the
provinces and in Quebec, municipalities have regulated the
careful use of drinking water. A number of municipalities
already meter the quantity of water used, ensuring that
consumers are aware of the quantity consumed, and keep the cost
down, with consumption limited to what is needed.
Other municipalities have regulations on watering. Occupants of
even-and odd-numbered houses water their lawns on alternate days.
Why? To make careful use of a limited natural resource.
The municipalities are also treating the environment with
respect by processing waste water.
Waste water containing matter in suspension that could harm the
environment is not released back into nature, either
domestically or industrially. Who is responsible for making
sure such measures are in place? To my knowledge, it is the
provinces.
In short, water as a natural resource may be used commercially,
industrially or municipally in compliance with regulations that
are put in place and applied by the provinces and by Quebec.
Today, we have a motion indicating clearly that this government
should adopt regulations and impose measures to make better use
of our fresh and drinking water resources.
I am very aware of the importance of caring for our natural
resource, water.
But I also have a dilemma: the federal government has never had
to do anything to ensure communities' access to water resources.
It was the provinces, and Quebec, which introduced water
conservation, protection, filtration and purification measures.
Quebec and the provinces have always shouldered their
responsibilities in this sector. So why is the federal
government butting in now?
I can understand the federal government, in consultation with
the provinces, being given a mandate to make representations
internationally, in order to negotiate international accords and
amendments to agreements such as NAFTA. This was done in the
past, and will no doubt be done again in the foreseeable future.
But if we are talking about authority for marketing the natural
resource, I think the federal government is overstepping its
bounds. Furthermore, this is an issue in which Quebec has taken
an interest for many years and one which has already been in the
news for several months in Quebec.
All of a sudden, the federal government wakes up and begins to
make a fuss, without realizing that others have already taken
the matter in hand, for the very reason that it was their
responsibility to do so, not the federal government's.
1345
While I share the concerns of our friends in the New Democratic
Party, I differ with them on who has responsibility for
marketing this natural resource. We in the Bloc Quebecois will
therefore be voting against this motion, which would basically
deprive Quebec of its historic rights to manage its water
resources and turn those rights over to the federal government,
which, to all intents and purposes, has never really concerned
itself with them.
I would submit to the House that, if it were serious about
playing a useful role in this respect, the federal government
would have done so 50 or 60 years ago, by protecting the Great
Lakes against the shameful pollution that travelled down the St.
Lawrence River, turning it into a gigantic sewer for a number of
years.
I can remember swimming in Wolfe's Cove, in Quebec City, in my
youth. On a nice summer day, there were 5,000 people on the
beaches at Wolfe's Cove. There were beautiful sandy beaches and
the water was clean enough for swimming. Only 10 or 15 years
later, the water had become a public sewer. And as members may
suspect, the City of Quebec was not to blame for all this
pollution; it was coming from down from the Great Lakes.
Today, with the international agreements on both the American
side and Ontarian side, pollution has been controlled to a large
extent. In another 10, 15 or 20 years maybe, we can look forward
to having our river back, and swimming will be safe and will not
pose a health risk.
As members can see, the federal government's record on
protecting our environment and the issue of freshwater and
drinking water is not great. I have a problem with a motion like
this one being put forward today as if this government, here in
Ottawa, were some kind of saviour for the planet, the country or
Quebec. So far, the provinces have successfully taken their
responsibilities. Arrangements are already in place in British
Columbia, and steps are being taken in Quebec. What business
does this House have debating a motion on a topic under
provincial jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can remember my very first question in the House of
Commons. It was 11 years ago and it was to the then environment
minister for the Conservative Party who is now the Premier of
Quebec.
My first question dealt with the challenge that the national
government had in cleaning up the hot spots of the Great Lakes,
including the St. Lawrence River. I remember vividly how Mr.
Bouchard stood in the House of Commons to courageously and
proudly proclaim the responsibility of the Government of Canada
to deal not only with the problems of the hot spots on the Great
Lakes, but also the St. Lawrence River. In no way shape or form
did Mr. Bouchard ever walk away from the responsibility of the
Government of Canada to deal with issues related to water.
I do not think for a second that the national government can
absent itself from this debate, we well as the fact that it has a
major national role to play. Any suggestion by the Bloc
Quebecois that taking inventory and managing our water resources
is strictly a provincial issue is something I would oppose to the
death.
I think the record will show that over the years the Government
of Canada, the people of Canada, not just in Quebec but in
Ontario, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars not only
attempting to reclaim some of our water resources but also making
sure that the proper infrastructure is in place so the water
resources can be maximized through municipal infrastructure,
grants and programs.
1350
The NDP has put the motion before us. Let us approach it in
such a way that we work as a national government with the
provinces.
I urge members of the Bloc Quebecois not to become so parochial
or territorial so as not to interact. These waters flow back and
forth from one province to another. We share the Great Lakes. I
would appeal to Bloc members to view water as a national issue.
The Government of Canada must have a responsibility and a role to
play and the Bloc should encourage the Government of Canada to
assume that role.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, if, at some point in
time—and I am talking about 40 years ago, not 11—the
Government of Canada had taken appropriate measures to make sure
our American neighbours did not dump their wastewater into the
Great Lakes, thus polluting the St. Lawrence River, which is the
backbone of Quebec's development, we would not have the pollution
level that exists today.
But this is not what the federal government did 40 or 30 years
ago. I am not surprised that the issue was raised 11 years ago
in a question.
I do not have the wording of the question or of the answer, but
the crucial role that the federal government had to take in
negotiating with the Americans to ensure the protection of the
quality of our water was overlooked. In fact, the same question
could be raised on acid rain. The federal government had, and
still has, a duty to negotiate on a bilateral basis with the
Americans regarding this issue.
[English]
Speaking of water in Quebec, the member said that it flows back
and forth. I am sorry, with Quebec it is only forth. It comes
from here. It goes down to our place.
[Translation]
Quebec has assumed its water management responsibilities for 400
years. The hon. member's claim that Canada has a major role to
play in showing us how to do things right—something which it
has never done, while we have been taking action and achieving
good results—is just not valid. The water in Quebec belongs to
Quebec.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to point out to my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that I
find it most unfortunate that he would once again be so
narrow-minded in his interpretation of this rather broad motion,
which encompasses the federal government and the provinces. I
would like to inform him that, when there was a major federal
program on cleaner water for Canada, in the 1970s, Quebec was
the only province that did not take advantage of this program.
Quebec was the last province—and I know what I am talking about,
having been the Quebec minister of the environment—to establish a
water purification program. To start telling us that this is a
purely federal, or purely provincial, affair, that Quebec is as
pure as the driven snow in this matter, and that the federal
government has full responsibility for this, is to once again
start up this business of picking quarrels, blaming the other
guy, without even looking at one's own faults.
This is most unfortunate, because the question of water goes far
beyond narrow-minded parochialism. It is a question that defines
the cycle facing us. We should look at the far bigger picture,
and try to associate ourselves with a motion that refers not
only to the federal government but also to the association of
federal and provincial governments in the development of a
shared water policy. This, I feel, is the key to everything.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This is not
narrow-mindedness, Mr. Speaker. The motion before us is very
clear. It states that the government should place an immediate
moratorium on the export of bulk water shipments. It goes on to
say “in co-operation with the provinces”. Such co-operation ought
to precede the motion. It ought to be verified with the
provinces, and with Quebec, whether the moratorium is necessary
and desirable.
1355
They are putting the cart before the horse, and yet when we
protest about this happening, we are told that we are being too
narrow-minded. No, we are not, but we are capable of reading
between the lines and capable of protecting Quebec.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INJURY PREVENTION
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
recently published study is telling Canadians that the economic
and social costs of unintentional injuries in Canada are
staggering.
From this study we learned that each year these injuries leave
47,000 Canadians partially and permanently disabled. For
example, in the Niagara area alone we had more than 30 deaths
this year all due to vehicle accidents.
The officer in charge for the Niagara region at the public
health department wrote to me, saying that citizens of Niagara
Falls should find this figure totally unacceptable, especially
when it is known that 90% of these deaths are both predictable
and preventable.
There is a need to acknowledge and seriously address the
magnitude of this staggering health and economic problem. Today
I am adding my voice in support of those who are calling for a
national injury prevention strategy to be established. We must
take action so as to cut costs for all Canadians and ultimately
save lives.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just received the following e-mail message: “Fraud alert.
Persons receiving an envelope from an organization calling itself
Revenue Canada should treat the contents with great suspicion.
“This group appears to be operating a scam in which it claims the
recipients owe it money to pay for the essential operations of
the Government of Canada. The money is actually used to fund an
endless list of inefficient and pointless social engineering
programs.
“Revenue Canada also has ties to a shady outfit known as the
Canadian pension plan, whose paycheque deductions have been known
to end up financing the same type of wasteful government
boondoggles supported by Revenue Canada.
“If a solicitation for funds is received from Revenue Canada,
keep in mind that the entire annual taxation scam originates not
with it but in the office of the Minister of Finance. It is time
that he was held accountable for bilking so many hard working
Canadians out of billions of dollars every year”.
* * *
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation. Recently the minister responded to the
strong and united voice of the Ontario Liberal caucus by ensuring
that co-op housing funded by the federal government will not be
part of a transfer of the management of social housing resources
to the Government of Ontario.
As a result, some 21,000 individuals and families in Ontario
will have their homes preserved in federal hands.
In my riding of Etobicoke North, members of the Comfort Living,
Summerlea Park and West Humber Community Co-operatives are
fiercely proud of their community lifestyle and applaud the
minister for protecting their co-operative.
They, like other co-op members from across the province, will
now sleep better knowing that their housing is in safe hands.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on February 2, the Canadian government announced an investment
of close to $1 million in the regions of Quebec, under the
Canadian Rural Partnership Program. Of that amount, $475,000
will got to 11 regional projects in Quebec.
Our government is committed to strengthening rural communities
and helping rural citizens take advantage of new economic
development and employment opportunities.
This type of governmental action has a direct impact upon the
communities concerned. We hope to continue this partnership
with as many rural communities as possible, in Quebec as well as
in the rest of Canada.
* * *
1400
[English]
CALGARY AND QUEBEC CITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the pleasure to
attend le Carnaval in Quebec City. I would like to report to
this House that it is possible for friendly people and good cheer
to overcome chilly temperatures.
One thing I noticed this past weekend was that there were a
number of Calgarians attending the Quebec carnival. I later
found out that Calgary and Quebec City signed a new agreement to
co-operate in promoting the exchange of information in the areas
of science, technology, economics and tourism.
The two cities also renewed an agreement on the youth exchange
program. This agreement has all the elements of improving the
prospects for national unity in this country: goodwill, direct
communication and above all else, keeping the federal Liberal
government out of the process.
* * *
HOUSE OF COMMONS INTERPRETERS
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 40 years ago, on January 16, 1959, the House of Commons
took the innovative step of providing simultaneous interpretation
in English and French thereby giving Canadians an opportunity to
follow the debates in the language of their choice.
Today I would like to pay tribute to those individuals who have
been our partners ever since.
I urge all members of the House to join with me in paying
tribute to the invaluable contribution of our interpreters. They
make it possible to share our ideas and everything we feel most
passionate about in both official languages as well as in sign
language.
Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Translation
Bureau can take pride in having such professionals on their
staff. Their work does parliament proud.
Congratulations to all of our interpreters. Félicitations.
* * *
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is something wrong with the government when the Department of
National Defence spends $1,000 on a tricycle. That is one sample
of the insane spending in my latest waste report. It shows that
there is plenty of rot in the system. Taxpayers deserve better
than this.
Taxpayers' blood will boil when they hear that foreign affairs
spent $113,000 on Royal Doulton china and that an admiral had a
$120,000 hotel bill while some of our sailors were standing in
line at the food bank.
Finally, the government is spending $4,000 on the provincial
flags unity project. The concept is to express national unity,
which is quite appropriate because if it keeps spending money
like this, Canadians will all be in the poorhouse together.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-55 is imperative for the continuing success of
the Canadian magazine industry.
Advertising revenues represent the single most important source
of revenue for Canadian periodical publishers. These revenues
have allowed them to nurture the careers of some of our most
important literary figures and social commentators.
Without Canadian magazines, how would the first works of future
Canadian authors and poets find their way to Canadian readers?
Would large foreign publishers print the poetry of a future
Margaret Atwood or the historical commentary of a future Jacques
Lacoursière?
Advertising revenues allow Canadian publishers to provide a
venue for thousands of Canadian photographers, journalists and
editors. These revenues help pay the salaries of many creative
Canadians.
Allowing foreign publishers unlimited access to the Canadian
advertising services market would mean the death of a vital
cultural industry, an industry that has played an essential role
in the cultivation of Canadian literature, photography and
political thought. This is what is at stake in Bill C-55.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday community members in Toronto held a vigil in memory of
a homeless man known only as Al who died on a heating grate
across from Queen's Park.
In January I travelled across Canada and saw for myself the
devastating impact of this government's deliberate policy to kill
social housing. How many more people will have to suffer? How
many more people will have to die before the Prime Minister
responds to this crisis?
Ten mayors and more than 400 organizations have endorsed the
Toronto Disaster Relief Committee's urgent call to recognize this
as a national disaster.
A few hours ago, busloads of homeless and poor people left
Toronto for Parliament Hill to demand a meeting with the Prime
Minister. His response? He turned them down flat. This is an
outrage.
I want to know, will the Prime Minister have the guts to meet
with the poor and homeless people who are coming here tomorrow?
Will he visit the sites of this national disaster and see the
devastation firsthand? Does this government have any compassion?
* * *
YEAR 2000
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week is
Year 2000 Preparedness Week. Yesterday I had the pleasure of
tabling the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Industry
outlining Canada's state of readiness in several key industrial
sectors.
1405
The committee found that most Canadians and Canadian companies
and institutions are well aware of the year 2000 problem.
However, many small and medium size enterprises have not yet
addressed the issue. Firms should begin testing now if they have
not already done so. Businesses must realize they could be fully
accountable for failure to act. Firms need to prepare
contingency plans and business resumption plans to ensure that
their business thrives in the new millennium.
There is help for those organizations that do not know where to
begin. The year 2000 first step program is a joint Industry
Canada and CIBC initiative to give Canadian SMEs access to an
affordable customized first step for preparing for the year 2000
challenge.
If we all plan for the worst and hope for the best, we will be
able to ring in the new year and millennium with a small sigh of
relief.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an article in a weekend newspaper has
left me with a feeling of deep concern.
In the article Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
Antonio Lamer indicated that judges may avoid making unpopular
decisions in cases of heinous crimes rather than suffer severe
public criticism. I can empathize with Justice Lamer's comments.
No one likes to be publicly vilified. However, I urge our
judiciary not to succumb to the kind of bullying that we often
hear from Reform Party members.
An essential part of our judicial system is the independence of
judges to make decisions according to their understanding of the
law. There can be no compromising of that, even in the face of
irresponsible acts by the Reform Party.
The recent controversial decision on child pornography offended
many Canadians, myself included, but there is an appeal process
to deal with that. This is not the time to lose faith in our
judges. The rule of law must be respected.
* * *
[Translation]
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF QUEBEC
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
our history books often forget or minimize women's contribution
to society's development.
For this reason, I would like to honour the very significant
contribution to society made by Sister Marcelle Mallet, who, 150
years ago, founded the Congrégation des Soeurs de la Charité de
Québec, and 140 years ago, the Couvent de Lévis, now the
Marcelle-Mallet school.
The Congrégation's history was marked by all the women who, in
Lévis and elsewhere, taught our daughters and, in recent years,
our sons. We owe them thanks for that, but they did more. They
also visited prisoners, supported victims and helped the sick.
They fed the poor, protected orphans and sheltered the aged.
As the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, I would like to
thank the Sisters of Charity for all they have done for us and
for what they continue to give us.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, tonight
we resume debate on Bill S-11. It will add “social condition”
to the Canadian Human Rights Act and will help put an end to the
discrimination faced by our most marginalized citizens. The
Liberals have indicated that they will not support this bill.
While many Canadians do not have the luxury of maintaining
adequate housing or the ability to open up a bank account, the
PMO last year spent a whopping $7.5 million federal tax dollars
on travel expenses, making the much criticized $465,000 Mulroney
trip to Russia seem like mere pocket change.
An examination of the public accounts reveal that the Prime
Minister spent $1.3 million for a trip to Italy last May with 58
personnel tagging along. An overnight trip to New York took just
over $175,000 out of the coffers to accommodate the PM and 18
advisers.
This blatant disregard for taxpayers must end. I urge this
Prime Minister to rethink how he spends our money.
* * *
JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT GLOBE PROGRAM
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to
your attention a special project that is presently taking place
in the Pontiac.
The Pontiac CFDC in Campbell's Bay in partnership with
Industries Davidson Incorporated and Junior Achievement are
offering a unique opportunity to local students at the Pontiac
high school in Shawville. Students will replicate an
international business by forming student run, joint venture
collaborations with another school located in Jakarta, Indonesia.
The Junior Achievement Globe program is a new dynamic high
school program that teaches the value of international business
and trade. Through this intensive business experience students
will learn practical skills necessary to function in today's
business market.
Student exchanges are a component of the program and serve to
promote cultural understanding.
Permit me to extend our warmest welcome and congratulations to
the three student visitors from Jakarta and their student
sponsors from the Pontiac high school.
* * *
1410
NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to join all Canadians in congratulating the National
Film Board of Canada on its 63rd Oscar nomination received today
from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the
category of documentary short subject for its production entitled
Sunrise Over Tiananmen Square.
Directed by Shui-Bo Wang, this animated short film offers a
personal perspective on the sequence of events that led up to the
June morning in 1989 when government troops opened fire on
student demonstrators in Beijing. Shui-Bo Wang is a Chinese
artist who was part of the student demonstration that occupied
the square for almost a month. This film was produced for the
National Film Board by Don McWilliams, Barrie Angus McLean and
David Verrall.
We should also be proud of the National Film Board receiving a
technical achievement award later this month. This award honours
the work of National Film Board scientists Messrs. Zwaneveld and
Gasoi who along with colleagues from the private sector developed
a post-production technology known as DigiSync Film Keykode
Reader.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE DENISE LEBLANC-BANTEY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a remarkable
person, an ardent sovereignist and promoter of women's rights,
Denise Leblanc-Bantey, died yesterday. The Bloc Quebecois wishes
to pay tribute to her and thus perhaps dispel some of our
sadness at her passing.
Born into a family whose livelihood was fishing, and a teacher
by profession, Denise was elected MLA for Îles-de-la-Madeleine for
the first time on November 15, 1976.
She brought a breath of fresh air to politics, as only someone
who hailed from the Islands could do. Re-elected in April 1981,
she was appointed Minister of the Public Service with
responsibility for the status of women.
Having worked with her in Quebec's National Assembly, I can
speak to the exceptionally energetic and dignified manner in
which she fulfilled her duties as an MLA and as a minister, as
well as her extraordinary ability as a woman to achieve the
perfect combination of professionalism, enthusiasm and humanity
in both her public and private lives.
Thank you, Denise, and au revoir.
* * *
[English]
CONSCIENCE RIGHTS
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
why is it that the rights of a number of a Canadian nurses have
been violated? Some of them have been forced out of jobs for
choosing not to participate in abortion procedures or acts of
euthanasia.
The rights of freedom of conscience and religion have long been
recognized in Canada. So why has this happened to these nurses?
Doctors have the right not to participate in abortion procedures
and euthanasia, so why not nurses? This is a genuine instance of
discrimination.
I have introduced to the House Bill C-461 and I would ask my
hon. colleagues and this House to support it. The purpose of that
particular bill is to ensure that health care providers will
never be forced to participate against their will in procedures
such as abortion or acts of euthanasia.
Incredibly there are medical personnel in Canada who have been
dismissed because the law is not explicit enough in spelling out
their conscience rights. This bill would make those rights
explicit.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
four unions representing Devco employees met with the Devco
president on February 3, 1999 to discuss many details. At the
end of this meeting Devco supplied the unions with the employee
listings of those who would qualify for pensions and those who
would not.
Of the 1,184 employees who have long term service, the list
shows that hundreds will not receive pensions. The UMWA list
shows 852 members who do not qualify. The CUPE list shows 86
members who do not qualify. The CAW list shows 86 members who do
not qualify. The IAM list shows 60 members who do not qualify.
Mr. Drake, the president of the UMWA suggests that “we believe
this battle should be recognized across Canada as a reasonable
request by reasonable people for fair and just compensation”,
and we concur.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I
hosted an information breakfast on the year 2000 problem in my
riding of Markham. About 100 people joined me to learn how some
of the Canadian leading firms are addressing this issue. Whether
it was listening to Gary Baker from the Arthur Andersen
consulting group, Al Aubry from IBM or Rod Morris from CIBC,
breakfast attendees were reassured that the private sector by and
large is ready for the millennium bug.
Unfortunately the federal government cannot make that same
claim. According to the most recent auditor general's report
various important government systems remained at risk as of last
June. Furthermore the auditor general concluded that some
essential government services may be interrupted at the start of
year 2000.
1415
As this is year 2000 awareness week I urge the federal
government to follow the lead of the private sector to take
stronger and more effective action so that Canadians can easily
rest assured about indispensable public services.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
look who is in question period today. I guess he had 24 hours
notice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member
to please not refer to attendance.
Miss Deborah Grey: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I do not want
to even ask a question about that appalling lack of judgment, so
I will ask another one.
Yesterday a new memo marked “secret, no copies” was released
from the Privy Council Office to the APEC hearing. It quotes the
Prime Minister in his own words promising he would do whatever it
took to keep Canadian protesters from embarrassing Suharto.
Is the Prime Minister still saying he had nothing to do with
security arrangements at APEC?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I replied to this question many, many times since last
fall. There is an ongoing inquiry and it will look at all the
facts.
The government is collaborating with the commission. We are
making all documents and people available so that the commission
can report.
I repeat what I said before. I never discussed security with
anybody involved with the security arrangements of this meeting.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact there was a new memo, new information released in
Vancouver yesterday. Do you know where that is, Mr. Speaker? It
is a 20 minute chopper ride south of Whistler.
It quotes the Prime Minister in his own words. He begged
Suharto to come. He promised he would use whatever it took to
suppress the protesters. He even bragged about how he had done
it before for the Chinese premier. It is all out in the open
right now.
Why is he so stubborn that he still refuses to accept
responsibility even now that he is caught?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an inquiry into the incident. The commission
will start to hear all the witnesses and look at what happened in
Vancouver, at whether the police acted properly or not.
If it needs to ask more questions, we said that everybody in my
office and in the government is available. Let the commission
look into the facts and do not draw conclusions before knowing
the facts, as the hon. member is very good at doing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is really only one witness who could probably tell the
whole story.
In all these major issues—the Somalia inquiry, hepatitis C,
child pornography and APEC—the Prime Minister is always more
concerned about how he looks than in doing what is right. How
far is he willing to go? If he is subpoenaed to the inquiry,
will he refuse to go there too?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should wait for the commission to do its
work. I said in the House, and I repeat, that in Canada the RCMP
is known to be very efficient police. The commission is looking
at whether they acted properly at that time.
We said we will offer all the collaboration needed by the judge
who is presiding over the commission, so that he knows all the
facts and can inform the public. I always said, and I repeat,
that in many, many instances in the past when we have visitors in
Canada, including at the G-7 meeting in Halifax, the RCMP acted
extremely well.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of the commission and the judge, he has recommended
funding for the students so that this is a fair process.
The solicitor general has had another 24 hours to take a look at
that. I know it is a very difficult question but let me put it
to him again. Is he going to fund the students? Yes or no.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague
yesterday, I have received a letter. I will review it with my
staff and when I do so I will make it public.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously this very difficult question is beyond the capacity of
the solicitor general, so let me ask the Prime Minister.
1420
Considering that Justice Hughes has asked for funding for the
students in order for there to be a fair process, will the
students receive funding from the government? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the solicitor general gave a very good answer
earlier.
* * *
[Translation]
KING OF JORDAN'S FUNERAL
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has the unfortunate habit of not admitting that
he is capable of making a mistake. Yesterday, the Bloc
Quebecois gave him the benefit of the doubt, but the facts are
overwhelming.
In an attempt to cover up his error in judgment,
the Prime Minister cited scheduling problems as an excuse for
his failure to attend the King of Jordan's funeral. This was
another error in judgment, because the facts are there for
examination.
What explanation can the Prime Minister give us today for the
fact that he preferred skiing to fulfilling his official
responsibilities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member must know that the Department of National Defence
informed me and my office that it could not make the necessary
arrangements to get me to the funeral in time.
We had done all the planning and a PMO team was already on site
but, because there were less than 24 hours between the death and
the funeral, it was unfortunately impossible for the Canadian
armed forces to get me there.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
United States showed more consideration and foresight in
planning for a precipitous departure, and there were even three
former presidents in the delegation accompanying President
Clinton.
I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think his first
error in judgment was to head off skiing last Thursday, instead
of remaining in Ottawa, when the entire world knew that the king
was near death?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if I had had a Boeing 747, as President Clinton does, I could
have made the trip non-stop.
The Prime Minister of Canada does not have a jet at his disposal
for travelling around the world. The hon. member should perhaps
move that a Bombardier aircraft, a Global Express, be bought for
that purpose. If the opposition asks me to buy one, I would be
pleased to study the proposal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has been trying for the past couple of days to
rationalize his error in judgement in failing to attend King
Hussein's funeral because he could not get there in time.
How could the Prime Minister give such a lame excuse, when the
Liberal members of the Canadian delegation had been on standby
in Ottawa since Friday, ready to leave for Jordan on short
notice?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
had been preparing for a possible state funeral since last week
and expected to receive adequate notice so that I could attend.
However, since the funeral was held on less than 24 hours'
notice, it was impossible for the Canadian Armed Forces to take
me where I wanted to go, in spite of the fact that I had made
arrangements to attend the funeral.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister was so prepared to go that the opposition was notified
at 8 a.m. and the Prime Minister at 10 a.m., Ottawa time.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the only thing we know for
sure in this whole affair is that the decision not to travel to
Jordan had been made before he even left for Vancouver?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's assertion is totally wrong, because I have
been in constant communication with my office throughout the
weekend and I was planning to go.
What was not planned was for the funeral to be held within 24
hours of King Hussein's death.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister was too busy skiing to attend the funeral of King
Hussein. Now we have learned that the Prime Minister is too busy
to meet a delegation of Canada's homeless who will be in Ottawa
tomorrow, too busy to think about the plight of hundreds of
thousands of Canada's homeless.
What sport will the Prime Minister use as an excuse this time?
1425
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member likes to make personal attacks.
I did make time while on holiday to attend the funeral of the
Inuit who were killed by the avalanche in New Quebec. Also, the
same day that an attempt was made on my life, I took a plane to
attend Premier Rabin's funeral.
I had made all the arrangements to attend King Hussein's
funeral, but the Canadian Armed Forces said they could not get
me there. Regarding the delegations, our ministers are there to
receive people. There is a well-established procedure and they
follow it.
The Speaker: The leader of the New Democratic Party.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for the
Prime Minister winter is fun: skiing, skating, snowboarding,
whatever. However for Canada's homeless winter is hell: huddling
in doorways, sleeping on open grates, lining up at soup kitchens.
These are not imaginary homeless people. These are real men,
women and children. Will the Prime Minister reconsider? Will he
go to see for himself so the government will finally provide some
relief to the human horror—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is the
minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
He made a statement a few days ago and, in the past few weeks,
new money has been allocated to deal with this problem. I wish
the hon. member would take the time to look at the facts before
making totally unfounded accusations as she does all the time.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, we learned
this morning that peace negotiations on Kosovo are in jeopardy.
Did the Prime Minister consult the Minister of National Defence
before making his announcement in Switzerland, as to whether or
not Canada could send to Kosovo troops that are well trained and
well equipped?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I was in Davos, I indicated that Canada would be prepared
to participate, should this be necessary.
I did not make a commitment. I said we would be prepared to
consider participating in Kosovo, as we have done in the part of
the former Yugoslavia that is experiencing problems. NATO has
not yet made a decision. Negotiations are currently taking place
in Rambouillet, close to Paris, and we will await the outcome of
these negotiations before making a decision.
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in an answer to my question about Kosovo yesterday the Minister
of National Defence said that Canada had not been formally asked
for ground troops.
Has Canada been informally asked for ground troops for Kosovo?
If so, who and when?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that preliminary
plans were being developed by the NATO military command with the
possibility of there being a peacekeeping force in Kosovo if it
should be agreed upon in the peace agreement talks now going on
in Rambouillet, France. If that becomes the case then Canada
certainly would consider what possible role it could take part
in.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under this finance minister Canadians are paying more and getting
less, and that is a fact. Since 1993 Canadians have seen their
taxes rise by $38 billion.
This year the finance minister will take $38 billion more out of
their pockets than five years ago. At the same time savings
accounts for Canadians have diminished by $38 billion.
How can this finance minister bill himself as a tax cutter when
he is ripping $38 billion out of people's personal savings and
their pocketbooks every year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that government revenues from personal
income taxes have increased. It has done so because over the
course of the last 12 months there have been 526,000 new jobs
created. That why it has happened.
Over the course of the last year there have been over 200,000 new
jobs created for young Canadians, 44,000 in the last month. The
Canadian economy is clicking on all cylinders and it is because
the Canadian private sector is operating in a climate of—
1430
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
notice how the finance minister did not answer the question. He
kind of ran away from the question.
Why in the world is this finance minister running around billing
himself as a tax cutter when Canadians' taxes continue to go ever
upward, $38 billion higher than they were five years ago? There
have been 38 tax hikes since this minister came to power. How
does he square the two? How does he tell Canadians he is a tax
cutter when all we get are cuts to health care? How does he do
it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raised the spectre of cuts to health
care.
I would ask him to do two things. First, I would ask him to
wait for the budget next Tuesday.
Second, I would ask him to answer the question that was put to
him yesterday. Where is he going to find the $7 billion to $16
billion in cuts his party is advocating as a result of its tax
package? How will it justify this and when will it tell
Canadians it wants to cut pensions, equalization and health care?
It wants to slash the fabric of the country. That is its agenda.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs said yesterday that it was the
Quebec government that refused to include the notion of distinct
society in the social union agreement which, as we know, Quebec
did not sign.
Instead of overreacting as he has since the beginning and
threatening to impose that agreement on Quebec against its will,
should the minister not check with the Prime Minister to see if
he agrees with him that Quebec should be deprived of its fair
share, as the minister has been threatening in the past few
days?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the chances of finding ourselves in a disagreement such
as the one referred to by the hon. member and by the Quebec
premier yesterday are greatly reduced, since the Government of
Canada has pledged to comply with the framework agreement on
social union, which will significantly increase our ability to
work in partnership for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because he
is upset at Quebec for not signing his social union proposal,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is threatening to
deprive our province of funds.
How can the minister claim to feel bound by the government's
motion on distinct society, when he is resorting to blackmail to
get Quebec to fall in line with all the other provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not at all concerned about this type of issue,
because I am very confident that, as the debate goes on, it will
focus more and more on the content of the agreement.
Perhaps I should mention just one clause and ask the hon. member
to reflect on it: “A provincial government which, because of its
existing programming, does not require the total transfer to
fulfill the agreed objectives would be able to reinvest any
funds not required for those objectives in the same or a related
priority area.”
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, here is a reality check for the finance minister.
Under his watch taxes are up $38 billion, health care funding
has been slashed $16 billion. We know taxpayers deserve better
than that.
When will the finance minister stop his high tax, health cut
agenda?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in order to have a legitimate debate over tax policy it is
important for each political party to lay down its assumptions.
In the budget next week we will do ours as we did ours in the
last budget where we cut $7 billion.
The Reform Party has said it will taxes substantially but it has
not said where it will find the spending cuts to pay for those
tax cuts. The Reform Party owes it to the Canadian people to
basically set out its agenda. Whether it is hidden or not it
should now see the light of day.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): We are
here today to debate your policies, not ours. We will get there
next time round.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to direct his
statements through the Speaker.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, how can the finance
minister continue to defend this ridiculous shell game he is
playing, forcing Canadians to pay more and get less?
The legacy is high taxes, 38 tax hikes, health care slashed,
180,000 people still in waiting lines. When will it stop?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, either the Reform program and those tax cuts are real,
in which case there are spending cuts that will justify them, or
the numbers are pulled out of thin air.
The only issue now before the Canadian people is do Reformers
have some kind of policy or are they nothing but windbags?
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to be judicious
in their choice of words.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has always said that the RCMP Public Complaints
Commission would be able to cast full light on his involvement
in the APEC affair.
Yet, last December, its chair stated: “The Prime Minister is not
part of my mandate”.
How is it that the Prime Minister has told us on numerous
occasions that the commission could investigate his involvement,
when the chair of the commission says the opposite?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission reviews
complaints brought to it by civilians against the RCMP, which is
exactly what it is doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to secret documents, the Prime Minister discussed security
concerns and the comfort of dictator Suharto with the Indonesian
ambassador.
The Prime Minister apparently even boasted of Canada's
experience in managing such politically sensitive visits.
How could the Prime Minister claim to have never discussed with
Suharto's people any questions relating to his security and
comfort, when there are secret documents revealing the very
opposite?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated many
times in the House that he and his ministers will co-operate
fully with the public complaints commission, and that is what we
will do as a government.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister huffs an awful lot
about Reform ideas to deflect from his bad record, but he knows
absolutely nothing about economic freedom.
The truth is the finance minister has taken $38 billion extra
from Canadians' pockets since he came to power and has greatly
hurt health care.
I am ask simply and directly why he is promising some tax relief
yet going to give tax hikes? Will Canadians get real tax relief
this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Wait for the
budget.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the House has heard how the finance
minister spins a line and says everything is okay while average
Canadians are hurting from the tax man.
There is another fact. Since 1993 he has taxed back 155% of
wage increases of Canadians. This is not good enough to pay for
the increases. He also wants to go after the savings.
I will ask him this simple question again. Will Canadians pay
less on the bottom line this year, yes or no?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we brought in tax relief in the last budget. We are
going to bring in tax relief in this budget.
On the other hand, I can understand that this member might have
missed it. He might have slept through the budget.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the women's
program has been reorganized at the expense of women.
In fact, Status of Women Canada has decided to do away with the
support component of its program, and this has deprived women's
centres in Quebec and in Canada of thousands of dollars.
As the strategy to provide financial support to women's centres
produces excellent long-term results, can the Minister of State
for the Status of Women commit, for the good of women, to going
back on her decision and restoring this funding immediately?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the women's program has been
funding women NGOs in this country for many years. There is a
fair share campaign that has been asking for more funding and we
are looking at that issue. We would welcome more funding.
However, the issue of the funding of the women's program is that
it has managed to do so much with the budget we have. No women's
programs have been cancelled in this country as a result of the
funding of the programs to date.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
YEAR 2000 BUG
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
There are only 325 days left until the end of the century, and
the public is concerned increasingly about the year 2000 bug.
[English]
Members of the House have heard about what the government is
doing regarding Y2K readiness and what businesses should be
doing.
Has the Minister responsible for consumer affairs forgotten
Canadian consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is right, 325 days left is not very long. We have
not forgotten about consumers.
This week we are delivering brochures to every household across
this country hoping to give Canadian consumers an indication of
the kinds of things they ought to be concerned about as they
prepare for the change of the millennium. Some things will be
affected in their household, many will not.
In that context I commend the work of the industry committee
which this week released its second report on the Y2K problem. It
is another important contribution to ensuring that Canada is one
of the most prepared countries—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Justice.
In Montreal two men are convicted of a brutal rape. In Ottawa a
woman is convicted of killing her husband with two bullets to the
head. In Ottawa a man is convicted of killing his mother. What
do all these crimes have in common? They all went home instead
of going to jail.
When will the Minister of Justice change this law so that those
convicted of these violent crimes go to jail instead of going
home?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as I
have said in the House on a number of occasions, there are five
cases from five different courts of appeal that will be heard by
the Supreme Court of Canada this spring.
If after hearing those cases it appears that changes need to be
made to the law, I can assure this House I will make those
changes.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to get out of the
classroom and get down to real living.
These people convicted of these violent crimes are going home.
That does not mean locked in at home. They are going to movies
in their neighbourhood today. They are going shopping today.
When will the minister take the action she should as Minister of
Justice and make sure no more cases like what happened in Ottawa
this last weekend happen anywhere else in Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of
timeliness.
He is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. In April 1998 I wrote to the standing committee asking
it to review judicial sentencing. I asked it for its advice and
its input as to how the law, if at all, should be reformed. Have
I heard a word from it? Not one word. I am waiting.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, of 13
military officers who took anthrax while stationed in Kuwait last
year, 8 of them still have visible lumps on their arms from the
injections, some lumps as big as loonies.
All 13 officers and their families have lumps in their throats
as well. All are distraught and concerned about the health and
safety because of the potential side effects that they are only
now beginning to hear about. These men and women want straight
answers which might help them deal with fear of the unknown they
are experiencing.
When the minister and DND enlighten these Canadians with the
best up to date information available?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that some people are
still experiencing difficulties in this regard. I am sure that
our people in the medical profession of the Canadian forces would
want to do everything they can to assist them.
The vast majority of people who took the anthrax serum had no
problems whatsoever. The United States forces, which had the
same serum, had a very small percentage of people who had any
reaction at all.
Our medical people believed that was is a safe serum to
administer. Given the threats that existed in the gulf at the
time it was the appropriate thing to do as a safeguard.
1445
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Master
Corporal Dennis Biden is a decorated 19 year veteran of the
forces who says he will never again trust his superiors since
learning that they knowingly injected him with the stale-dated
anthrax vaccine.
This father of two wants to know: Was DND aware that the
vaccine was outdated? Was the Canadian government aware in
advance of the re-labelling? Was it aware that some vials
contained moulds? Was any pre-testing of the vaccine done? Will
the minister ensure that those forced to take this chemical
cocktail will be eligible for a medical pension as the long term
effects are truly unknown?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of those questions have been answered
and I think the member well knows the answers.
Nobody was given anything that was stale-dated or mouldy or
anything else that would be harmful to them. It was all tested
and re-tested and medical professionals approved the ultimate
giving of those inoculations.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, Yvon Duhaime
misled federal officials about his criminal record, has a track
record of not paying his taxes or his creditors and sank the
first instalment of his federal handout straight into his
personal bank account.
In short, he has all the wrong credentials for getting
government money, except that he bought a hotel from the Prime
Minister and his friends. We already have reports that
contractors for the hotel expansion have not been paid.
Can the Minister of Industry assure this House that Duhaime is
using the $615,000 loan for the hotel expansion and not for any
outstanding personal debts?
The Speaker: I think the first part of the question would
be in order, but I do not know how the minister would know
anything about the second part.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): I agree,
Mr. Speaker.
What we know is that the loan was granted in the ordinary
course. It was a commercial loan. It was part of a broader
financing package that included financing given by private sector
lenders. It was not only the Business Development Bank of Canada
which advanced money. It was secured by a mortgage, a
hypothèque, on the property. It was at commercial rates.
If the member has a problem with the Business Development Bank
lending on hotel properties, then he ought to raise it at
committee.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, no ordinary
Canadian would loan Yvon Duhaime $100, let alone over $800,000 in
loans and grants courtesy of the taxpayer. Then again, no
ordinary Canadian can spend millions of other people's money on
lavish travel. No ordinary Canadian can find high paying
political jobs for their relatives.
I ask the Cadillac Prime Minister, who happily cut the ribbon—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
* * *
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food announced in December that the Government of Canada
would provide $900 million of assistance to help producers get
through the current farm crisis.
Where are the cheques?
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is
absolutely right. Last December we did announce a $900 million
whole farm national disaster assistance program.
In the interim the provinces have been giving money to farmers
in need because our payout will be based on income tax returns.
At the February 23 and 24 national safety conference in Victoria
the minister will be announcing the final details. Applications
will become available in March and the final payout will be made
in June, whether or not the provinces are on side.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to a recent human resources development audit
it was reported that there is a one in ten chance that essential
seniors' benefits could be compromised by the millennium bug
problem.
Recently the industry minister launched a PR campaign about the
Y2K, telling Canadians not to worry about buying powdered milk.
1450
When was the Minister of Industry going to tell us about the
devastating potential effects on essential services to seniors
which could possibly leave them high and dry?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these government-wide mission critical systems, as they are
called, are being tested regularly. In particular, those
mentioned by my hon. colleague have already been tested and we
have been told they will work perfectly well, so there should be
no fearmongering, especially among senior citizens because their
federal pension cheques will be paid.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-LESAGE AIRPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Jean-Lesage airport is an important infrastructure for Quebec
City's economic development.
However, the manager of the
airport transfer, Daniel Paiement, recently stated that the
Government of Canada had neither a specific plan for the airport
nor any requirements as to its future cost effectiveness.
Does the Minister of Transport interpret the situation in the
same way as his official, with no specific objective regarding
cost effectiveness?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a policy on national airports, and this policy
works well. We are currently discussing the future of this
airport with the people of Quebec City, and I think it will have
a great future.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP is short staffed 400 constables. In seven
years more than half of the 16,000 member force will be eligible
for retirement but no new cadets are being trained at the RCMP
training depot in Regina.
Last week the solicitor general said he was giving the RCMP
“the tools it needs to fight crime”. What action will the
solicitor general take to make sure we have enough RCMP to use
these tools to fight crime and can he assure us there will be
sufficient funds in the budget to address this dangerous
development in police protection?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I will indicate what is
in the budget, but I will indicate that I and the RCMP have been
dealing with Treasury Board with respect to any shortcomings in
funding for the RCMP. We will train the RCMP as we always have
in this country.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for months
Canadians have been reading about possible U.S. retaliation over
Canada's introduction of Bill C-55. The U.S. has threatened to
impose sanctions against a number of our industries, including
lumber and steel. The international trade minister's occasional
wavering in light of these threats has effectively caused fear
amongst our Canadian industries.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage assure Canadians that Bill
C-55 is an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any
possible U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA? As well, could
she confirm that it conforms with Canada's charter of rights?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and his party, and
in fact most of the parties in this House for their steadfast
and unwaivering support for Bill C-55.
I can say that it is the position of the government that this
bill respects every one of our national and international
obligations.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. No one
likes to pay taxes. We assume that the system is fair to every
Canadian taxpayer. What has the minister done to make the tax
system fair for every Canadian?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we all understand, fairness is very
important. That is why last March I initiated a fairness review
to ensure there is fairness for all Canadians.
This morning I launched a seven point action plan to ensure to
all Canadians that there is fairness in our tax system and that
we will provide better service and fairness.
* * *
1455
YEAR 2000
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government's own audit reports that there is a one
in ten chance that essential services could be compromised by the
Y2K problem and we just heard the minister say that the
government is working on the problem.
What assurances can the minister give Canadian seniors that it
will not affect the essential services which are provided to
them?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the systems that apply to senior citizens, in
particular those that affect their pension cheques, are of course
critical to the government and we have been dealing with them.
The department of human resources has spent millions of dollars
reviewing its systems. They now indicate that these systems are
ready and will work on January 1, 2000.
* * *
[Translation]
EXPORT OF CANDU REACTORS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Trade.
In December, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade released a report recommending, and I quote:
“That the Parliament of Canada conduct a separate and in-depth
study on the domestic use, and foreign export of, Canada's
civilian nuclear technology”.
Why is the Minister for International Trade delaying a
moratorium on the export of Candu reactors until all the dangers
involved in the use of this reactor are known?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been shown that Candu reactor
technology is a leading technology not only that we wish to
export, but we also have the faith of using it here in Canada.
We have promoted Candu technology. It is not only safe, but it
is also affordable and certainly superior to any other existing
technology. It needs to be seen as an alternate to burning dirty
coal, as many countries around the world still do, which is not a
solution to the important issue of climate protection.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
few hours ago busloads of poor and homeless people left Toronto
to come to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister, but the Prime
Minister flatly refused to meet with this group.
What happened to Liberal compassion? Was it axed too, along with
social housing? Canadians want to know why the PM is ignoring
this crisis of homelessness and poverty and why his government is
so callously abandoning those most in need.
This is an emergency. What action is the Prime Minister going
to take?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of
Liberal compassion. We have contributed $300,000 to the Ann
Golden report. CMHC is committing $750,000 to research related
to the homeless. CMHC provided mortgage insurance to the
Woodgreen Red Door emergency family shelter, a 50-bed homeless
shelter in Toronto. CMHC is actively supporting a partnership
among governments and the private sector to develop affordable
housing to address problems faced by the homeless. Twenty-eight
hundreds units were built in 1998 and 3,000 will be built this
year.
* * *
PUBLICATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, for months
Canadians have been reading about possible U.S. retaliation over
Canada's introduction of Bill C-55.
The U.S. has threatened to impose sanctions against a number of
our industries, including lumber and steel. The occasional
wavering of the Minister for International Trade in the light of
these threats has effectively caused fear among our Canadian
industries.
Can the minister of trade assure Canadians that Bill C-55 is an
ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible
U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA, or is this another MMT?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only does the member have something
in his water but his ears are obviously plugged because the
minister of heritage answered that very question moments ago.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
year taxes will be going up $2.4 billion. We know that for sure.
The finance department has been floating figures that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1500
The Speaker: Order. I want to hear the question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: No manners, Mr. Speaker.
Taxes are going up $2.4 billion this year. The finance
department is saying it will cut taxes by $2 billion. That means
Canadians are going to be worse off again this year for the sixth
year in a row under this finance minister.
How does the minister square his self billed proclamation as
being a tax cutter when taxes are going to go up once again this
year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we made it very clear in the last budget as we will in
the next and in fact in each and every budget, that we will be
bringing down taxes. In addition to that, we are going to
preserve the health care system. In addition to that, we are
going to invest in productivity and research and development, in
the very sinews of our modern economy. We are going to give
Canadians the tools they require to triumph in the 21st century.
The Speaker: There are two questions of
privilege and then I will go to a point of order.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
DEVCO
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria last
week raised a question of privilege which involved the hon.
Minister of Natural Resources.
I believe, if I can put it into context, that there was a
meeting which took place either in or near the member's riding.
He said, I believe, that he was unable to make it and a member of
his staff was not allowed to enter the meeting. Is that correct?
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it was a lock-up in my riding having to do with the announcement
regarding Cape Breton Development Corporation. I received notice
of that meeting early in the morning. I made arrangements to be
in my riding. During the lock-up, my understanding is that
journalists were allowed in and my staff was not.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member. The hon. minister
who was named is here. Perhaps he could respond.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to address the complaint that was raised by the
member for Sydney—Victoria after question period on Monday last
week. It had to do with two separate events associated with the
announcement of the government's plans with respect to Cape
Breton Development Corporation.
In commenting, I am at a bit of a disadvantage because I was not
personally involved in either event. However, I have been
assured by those with direct knowledge that the following is an
accurate recounting.
The first issue raised by the member dealt with the scheduling
of the announcement. On January 27 at about 9 o'clock in the
morning the member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton were in the waiting room of my office in the
Confederation Building. At that time the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton indicated that she had heard that an
announcement with respect to Devco was coming in the next two or
three weeks. The members were told by a member of my staff that
an announcement was imminent and that it would take place sooner
rather than later.
In fact later that day, January 27 at about 5 o'clock in the
afternoon, we received confirmation from the Privy Council Office
authorizing me to make an announcement on the future direction of
Devco.
1505
So there can be no confusion, allow me to once again emphasize
the chronology of that day. On January 27 at about nine o'clock
in the morning my staff informed the two MPs that an announcement
was imminent and that it would take place sooner rather than
later. At about five o'clock in the afternoon on that same day,
that is about eight hours after the conversation between my staff
and the two MPs, my office received a call from the PCO informing
us that we were authorized to make an announcement. Given our
desire to end the uncertainty faced by the people of Cape Breton,
the decision was made to announce the next day.
The second issue pertains to a media briefing by officials which
took place on the day of the announcement. My office advised a
staff member in the office of the member for Sydney—Victoria
that the media briefing was, as the words themselves imply, for
the media. In addition his office was also told that it would be
receiving a copy of the information package prior to a media
conference at which the announcement would be made. Copies of
that information package were hand delivered to both the
Parliament Hill and riding offices of both the member for
Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. As
promised by my office, these packages did arrive prior to the
beginning of that media conference.
However the key point is that the media and the members for
Sydney—Victoria and Bras d'Or—Cape Breton were not the only
people to receive the information prior to the media conference.
While officials briefed the media, I met personally with union
leaders and others and most important with miners and their
families to describe the impending announcement and to answer
their questions. I can confirm that the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton was in the room for that discussion with the
miners and others and the member for Sydney—Victoria and/or his
staff could well have been there too. Both members of parliament
were present at the subsequent media conference for the
announcement itself.
It is clear that we tried very hard to treat everyone fairly and
appropriately in what were very difficult and emotional
circumstances. It was certainly no one's intention to cause any
offence.
The Speaker: The matter has been raised
by the member and he put his case before the House. It is always
sad when all of the things we would like to mesh in our busy
lives do not mesh. It seems that we have a grievance on the part
of the member that neither he nor his staff were present at the
meeting he mentioned. We now have an explanation from the
minister. This is an interpretation of the facts.
I would rule this is not a question of privilege.
HEALTH CANADA
The Speaker: I want to address myself to the whip of
the Reform Party who sent me a note during question period with
regard to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Macleod. This question of privilege named specifically the
Minister of Health who is here in the House.
This is my problem. Whereas I have ruled in the past that the
two members who are involved should be in the House at the same
time, for whatever reason, the member for Macleod is not here
today. Although we have asked the hon. Minister of Health to be
here, I believe that in keeping with our precedents of the past,
we should hold until the Minister of Health can respond directly
to the member for Macleod. Unless I get some direction
otherwise, or there is full agreement, that is the way I would
rule.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to your comments I would be most happy, with the
unanimous consent of the House, to stand in for the member for
Macleod and to listen to the conversation and deal with it.
The Speaker: As all members know, by unanimous consent we
can do whatever we want in this House. Do we give ourselves
permission as a House to hear a response by the hon. Minister of
Health on a question of privilege? Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1510
The Speaker: I will now give the floor to the
hon. Minister of Health. Does he understand the point raised in
the point of privilege?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
you are very kind.
I thank my colleagues opposite for raising this point, having
brought to my attention that some days ago a news release left my
office in relation to the appointment of a Liberal Party caucus
committee on an issue. The news release was inappropriately on
the stationery of Health Canada. It ought to have been on the
stationery of my riding office or my office as a member of
parliament. I am grateful to the member for bringing it to my
attention and to the House's attention. He is right. It ought to
have gone on the other stationery and I regret that it did not.
I want the House to know that I asked the member for
Waterloo—Wellington to look into this issue because we are very
concerned about the issue of youth smoking. At the end of the
day I hope that members will agree that that issue and how we do
something about it is more important than the issue of
stationery.
The Speaker: As I recall the circumstance, the issue
that I was looking at primarily was that this announcement went
out on paper from the department and that was the point of
privilege which was brought up.
Now we have the hon. Minister of Health, the member of
parliament, rising to tell us that indeed it was an error. From
my understanding he has said it was an error and he is correcting
it as best as he can.
I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth but basically
he apologized for what went on. Is that correct?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: Just a small one. It is going to be so
small that by the time I hit I am up again.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I thank
the minister for that. It has also been posted to the Health
Canada website. In other words it is on the Internet. I would
just like assurances that it has been removed from there as well.
I accept the minister's apology and thank him for that.
The Speaker: Could the hon. Minister of Health address
himself to the point on the website?
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will direct that it be
removed from the website and put in the appropriate place.
The Speaker: Good. This matter is settled and I will not
have to rule on it.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
JUSTICE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order to clarify an answer I gave yesterday to a
question by the member for Wild Rose. May I be permitted to
continue?
The Speaker: If it is clarification, it has to be very
short. It is not debate so make the clarification now.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question
was raised by the member for Wild Rose regarding two cases
involving sentencing of aboriginal offenders. I stated that
these two cases were on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
when in fact there are two other cases. There was confusion in
terms of the cases that were before the supreme court under
section 718.2(e). One of these cases, R. v Gladue, has been heard
and is on reserve. The other, R. v Wells, also involves
conditional sentencing and has not yet been heard.
I want to also put on record that the sentencing judges clearly
stated that although they considered the offenders' aboriginal
background, this was not a factor that affected the sentences
that were ultimately imposed.
An hon. member: Shame.
The Speaker: Order, please. I think we have got to the point
where the hon. member has made her clarification. The rest is
debate.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—FRESHWATER RESOURCES
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, of all the defining issues of the next century, indeed
of the next millennium, water has to be the most important one.
1515
As our pulse beats every 60 seconds we lose 50 hectares of
forests around the globe. That means every year we are losing 30
million hectares of forests or well over twice the size of Nova
Scotia. As a result the desert is gaining ground at the rate of
10 million hectares per annum or almost the size of Nova Scotia.
The environmental organization UNEP, United Nations
Environmental Program, has shown through its statistics that if
we were to add the desertified lands of the world together we
would have a surface in deserts equal to North America and South
America combined. This gives us an idea of the immensity of the
water challenge.
Our forests are disappearing. The desert is gaining ground at
an exponential rate. Our rivers are silting and drying up. Our
groundwater is being depleted again at a huge rate. For all
these reasons a country's water resources have become its most
precious asset, its most valuable resource.
Many of us live under the comfortable but false assumption that
our water resources are so immense as to be inexhaustible.
[Translation]
But it must be remembered that our freshwater resources
represent only a fraction of the planet's total water resources.
In fact, 97% or more of the planet's water resources are salt
water. Only 3% are freshwater. And of these, the freshwater
resources visible to us, our lakes, our rivers, the waterways
that seem so never-ending to us, represent only a tiny proportion
of the total freshwater resources, the great bulk of which lie
beneath the earth's surface to form the water table.
The fact of the matter is that, in many American states today,
particularly in the West and Southwest, the water table has been
seriously depleted.
The more the water resources of certain American states dwindle,
the more the U.S. has its eye on our resources in Canada.
Certain companies, even in this country, see this as a golden
business opportunity.
[English]
Thus pressure grows for Canada and its provinces to sell our
water resources for commercial reasons and for profit. Those who
would sell and buy our water resources would argue that we are
blessed with water resources which are among the world's most
prolific. This is true. Indeed the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes
basin alone accounts for something like 20% of all surface fresh
water of the globe.
I think we should put this in perspective. May I take the
example of the same Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin to show
how much we use, overuse and abuse our water. Every day out of
the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence we draw 655 billion gallons
of water or 2.5 trillion litres of water. This is equivalent to
putting water into 19 million jumbo tank cars each 65 feet long
and with a capacity of 34,000 gallons. If we strung them
together one after another they would stretch for 237,000 miles
or 9.5 times around the earth at the Equator.
These mind-boggling statistics give us an idea of how much we
have abused and used, day in and day out, the resources of just
one water basin.
1520
We should reiterate that of all our natural resources water is
by far the most precious. I back the remarks of my colleague
from Davenport that NAFTA has nothing to do with that. NAFTA
provides for water in bottled form. We should not be constrained
by ideas that we have to ask the Americans for permission to
protect our water resources.
I congratulate the mover of the motion. We cannot at any price
sacrifice our water resources for export whether on a large
scale, medium scale or small scale. As parliamentarians and as
Canadians we must send strong signals to the Americans and
anybody else, to those who would sell our water for profit, to
those who have grand designs for grand canals and small canals
and bulk exports to make money, that our water and our water
heritage are not for sale. They are not for sale at any price,
not now, not tomorrow, not the day after, not the day after that
or at any time thereafter.
This is why I agree with the motion. We must move without delay
to protect our water resources. This is why I will support the
motion when it comes to the vote.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the hon. member and his colleague
from Davenport for whom I have tremendous respect for their work
on the environment committee.
He is saying that we do not have to be concerned over the NAFTA
when it comes to bulk water shipments or sale of our water. We
recently lost a court decision. Actually we did not lose it. In
our perspective we caved in to the MMT decision and gave the
Ethyl Corporation $13.5 million U.S. We were unable to ban
within our borders what is known as the manganese additive in
gasoline which is a neurotoxin.
Is he and his party that confident in terms of the current court
case in California against the British Columbia government? I am
assuming from his projection that they will not be successful in
the courts in suing British Columbia or the federal government in
their prevention of bulk water shipments from British Columbia.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Madam Speaker, there is a very
significant distinction between the MMT case as it was
adjudicated in the internal provincial-federal trade tribunal.
The gist of the case was the banning of interprovincial trade in
MMT which was found by this particular tribunal to be invalid.
In the case of water it is very clear that this issue does not
arise. It is also clear that NAFTA, as my colleague from
Davenport underlined, does not refer to water except for bottled
water. The very fact that it mentions bottled water and no other
water means that the design or the intention of the drafters was
not to cover other water resources than bottled water.
It would seem to be begging the question to try to introduce
into NAFTA something that is not there in the first place. Also
it is such a huge issue for us, far larger than any other, that
we should move forward. We should produce legislation. We
should challenge the Americans with the fact that this is our
natural heritage. It is our water. They are our water
resources. We have every right in the world to protect them and
we will. I really believe our resolve should be there.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I wish to
congratulate our colleague, whom I had the pleasure of working
with on the national marine park bill. His contribution was a
constructive one.
1525
I would like some clarification from him with respect to
municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions. As I see it,
there is no issue more important to the province, the nation, or
the continent than the issue of freshwater.
Would he comment on the issue of respecting jurisdictions? This
is an issue that should lead to a very close partnership.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with
the hon. member for Chicoutimi. In fact the gist of the motion
is that the entire issue of protecting our water is one that
naturally affects all jurisdictions.
One cannot think of water as coming under the jurisdiction of
one government or another. All governments must work together,
that is the meaning of the motion. My reading of the motion,
which I support, is that there must be closer interaction
between the provinces and the federal government. I think that
all of the municipalities must be involved as well.
I am totally in agreement with the hon. member, that this must
become a matter of the highest degree of partnership, and that
is what the motion is all about.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
after a long period of drought no one can deny the feeling of
exhilaration and renewal that a summer rain provides. I remember
that as a small child wearing a light summer dress running along
the street of my neighbourhood I was drenched while the rain came
pouring down from the sky. The joy of the refreshing shower
dances in my memory to this day.
As a child I grew up in Port Arthur, now part of the city of
Thunder Bay, along the shores of the largest freshwater lake in
the world, Lake Superior. At night snuggled deep under my covers
I would listen to the fog horns guide the ships safely to and
from the harbour. I would play on the beach and swim with my
cousins in the chill bracing waters of Lake Superior. With my
father and mother I would walk along the harbour and watch the
sailboats zip along its chalky blue surface, their tiny white
triangular sails filled with the full force of the wind.
Water is inextricably linked to all forces that create and
sustain life. As human embryos begin and develop they are
sheltered within the watery womb of their mothers. Water makes
up 70% of our bodies.
Healthy economies depend on healthy potable water. We need
clean water for agriculture to grow our food, to manufacture our
goods, and to mine minerals and metals from the earth.
We need the waterways that are provided by this tremendous
natural resource to ship the foods and goods we grow and make.
Our waterways provide natural playgrounds throughout all of
Canada's seasons to allow us to recreate and refresh ourselves,
to play together as individuals, families and communities.
In my riding of York North, Lake Simcoe has provided economic,
social, recreational and spiritual benefits to all people who
have lived there on Simcoe's islands, along its shores and within
its watershed. From the Chippewas of Georgina Island, the first
nation who claimed this area as its ancestral homeland, to the
most recent immigrants and visitors to Canada and to the area,
Lake Simcoe is crucial to the future well-being of York North.
Some think that Canada has an overabundance of water. It is
true that Canada has one-fifth of the world's freshwater.
However, Canada's water must not be for sale. Water is a
blessing and as a people Canadians are well blessed by our many
natural resources. However we cannot take our natural heritage
for granted.
We fall into the trap of thinking water is a renewable resource.
We must never forget that only 1% of the waters of the Great
Lakes are renewed each year. The other 99% was stored at the
time of the last glacial melt 20,000 years ago and was gradually
renewed over time.
Water is not a limitless resource. It is finite. We must not
only conserve the amount of water used. We must also protect our
water quality from contamination.
1530
Worldwide water consumption is doubling every 20 years, more
than two times the rate of increase in human population.
Canadians at all levels must act to conserve water and reduce
consumption.
Governments can provide leadership and incentive for businesses
and individuals to use water more wisely through new production
practices, recycling waste water, low flow toilets, et cetera.
Toxics enter our aquatic ecosystem through land and airborne
means, jeopardizing water quality.
Strong legislation to control toxic substances is crucial to
ensure safe potable water for Canadians and for Canadian
industries. Canada needs a federal sustainable water strategy.
The Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Great Lakes
United, in their recent document “The Fate of the Great Lakes:
Sustaining or Draining the Sweetwater Seas”, have outlined a
fundamental first step for preserving the Great Lakes basin.
While this strategy deals with the Great Lakes basin, there are
important insights for a federal water strategy.
The plan should include a water conservation strategy, plans to
reduce the impacts of agriculture, the power industry and the
mining industry on water levels and flows, guidelines for
communities to live within water supplies available within their
watershed and a determination of ways to avoid the negative
impacts of privatizing water services, of free trade and of
diversion.
Today members from many public interest groups are gathering in
Ottawa. They have an event called water watch. It is a kick-off
to a major initiative to raise awareness of water issues. I
encourage all members of the House and Canadians watching today
to follow this very important initiative.
Each level of government should adopt the strategy I just
outlined in a way that makes it legally binding and by changing
their laws, regulations and programs to ensure that the water
strategy is carried out.
The motion before the House asks the government to place a
moratorium on water exports and interbasin transfers and to bring
in legislation that prohibits bulk freshwater exports and
interbasin transfers in order to assert Canada's sovereign rights
to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations. I urge all members to support this motion.
Canadians expect their federal government to preserve our
natural heritage. Depletion of water through use or by pollution
is not acceptable. Water is not a commodity that can be sold to
further a single economic interest.
Canada's water belongs to all of us. It is our responsibility
to conserve it and protect it. It is our blessing to share as a
people.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, in
addition to living things, our ecosystem is made up of four
non-living things, and these four must be shared by all of the
living things on this planet.
These are, of course, the air, the water, the earth, and the
sunlight. As far as air and sunlight are concerned, members
will agree that there is not much we can do to control them. As
proof of this, a disaster can occur in Russia, and we bear the
consequences three or six months later here.
That is what happened after the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl.
The radioactivity spread to the Canadian north, where the
animals were the victims of the disaster in the food chain.
We can, however, control the water and the earth. When my
distinguished colleague says that Canada is the sole manager of
its water, I beg to disagree. In the Chicoutimi region, ground
water is part of a natural resource.
1535
Natural resources, whether you like it or not, are a matter of
provincial jurisdiction. They are not going to seize on today's
motion and use the need to manage and share water as an excuse
to appropriate another area of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like the member who sits on the Standing Committee on
the Environment to be more specific on the management of the
water table.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. Certainly the hon. member was a very
active member of the standing committee on environment and
sustainable development in the previous session of the House. I
think it is important to note, as I outlined in my speech, that
we have to think about the quantity of water we have to preserve
and about the quality of water.
I talked about airborne pollutants and pollutants that come by
other means. These pollutants and toxic substances enter into
our ecosystems and they enter into our groundwater as well. As
the hon. member well knows, there was a recent case at the
supreme court which upheld the federal government's role in
controlling toxic substances, that it was indeed a matter of
federal jurisdiction. We all know as well informed members on
both sides of the House that pollution knows no boundaries.
I suggest that if we want to ensure the quality of our
groundwater to ensure that Canadians, whether it is in their
homes or in their businesses or on their farms, have access to
good quality water, water that is coming from the ground.
Groundwater, as the hon. member has pointed out, is a
responsibility of the federal government in that the federal
government has by the Supreme Court of Canada clear jurisdiction
in the area of managing toxic substances.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for her reply to the member for
Charlevoix and also for her fine speech.
The member spoke about the importance of water quality. I
wonder whether she would like to elaborate for a moment on her
thoughts as to how the quality of water could be improved at the
present time.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, in a recent study
on environmental attitudes in a wide variety of countries it was
very clear that the vast majority supported strong environmental
legislation for the protection of our ecosystems and for the
protection of our health.
It is not just in Canada that we have a group of enlightened
citizenry but indeed globally citizens are enlightened.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the
time has run out.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vancouver
East.
I am pleased to speak today on the motion by the New Democratic
Party to ban the bulk export of our water. This issue is very
important to me and to my constituents in the riding of Churchill
and indeed to all Canadians.
One of Churchill's most important natural resources is its fresh
water. My riding is known for its clear blue lakes and rivers.
They are one of our best tourist attractions. Every year they
draw thousands of campers, cottagers, hunters and fishers. The
waters are also the lifeline of our commercial fishing industry.
The health of our lakes and rivers is the backbone of that
important industry. Lakes and rivers are also extremely
important to the way of life of my aboriginal constituents. They
too understand the environmental damage that would result from
the bulk export of our water.
I am very disappointed in the lack of action from the Liberal
government to protect our freshwater up to this time. Its lack
of action is what has prompted the New Democratic Party to bring
forth this motion before the House.
1540
It is not as though the Liberal government did not know this
issue was coming. Last May the Minister for International Trade
said: “Today's water is tomorrow's oil”. We all know we can
live without oil but we cannot live without water, and it is the
telling tale of this government when it considers water as a
commodity like oil rather than the vital element it is.
For years the government has been assuring Canadians that the
North American Free Trade Agreement would not affect water. Now
we see that these assurances are not holding true. An American
company is suing through NAFTA because of a B.C. law that bans
the bulk export of water. At least B.C. has a law to strike
down. The Liberal government has done nothing at the federal
level to protect our water. It has left B.C.'s New Democratic
Party government to fight alone to protect Canada's freshwater.
The heart of this issue is whether we are to treat water as a
market commodity. Some free market theologians argue that
everything should be a commodity. We in the New Democratic Party
have nothing against free markets. However, we believe there are
things that belong outside the free market. There are things
that society should make a conscious decision to deal with
differently and not leave to the whims of the market.
I am sure most Canadians would agree with this. One good
example of something that most Canadians think should not be on
the free market commodity is drugs. To steal a line from film
maker Michael Moore, if absolutely everything was a free market
commodity, General Motors would sell crack. This seems like a
funny and strange thing to say, but it shows that some things do
not belong on the free market. Society has decided that drugs
should not be available on the free market and government has
made the laws to make that happen.
Another thing that Canadians do not want to see treated like a
commodity is health care. All we have to do is look south of the
border to see what a disaster it would be if we treated health
care like something to be bought and sold. Millions of Americans
do not have the security of health insurance. The American
health care system also blows away the argument that the free
market is always more efficient than a public system. Americans
spend more per capita than Canadians on health care. Yet
Canadians have universal coverage. Our public system of health
care costs us less and covers the entire population. So much for
the myth that free market is automatically more efficient.
Canadians rightly believe that health care is a right. It
should be available to everyone, not only to those who can afford
to pay for it on the free market. This is the principle that
drove New Democrat Party founder Tommy Douglas when, as premier
of Saskatchewan, he introduced public health care to Canada.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that freshwater, like
health care, should not be treated like a commodity. Like health
care, water is a necessity of life. We all need it to survive.
We use it to water our crops and raise the animals we eat.
Comments like the trade minister's comparison of water to oil
show that the government does not see it that way. The trade
minister apparently thinks water is a commodity.
Removing large amounts of water from our ecosystem would be a
disaster. It would damage our forests and our fish habitats.
These habitats are vital to our tourism and our commercial
fishing industries. On top of all that, we cannot predict how
exporting large amounts of water from our ecosystem will affect
our rain and weather patterns. If I were a farmer on the
prairies I would be very concerned about this.
Our ecosystem cannot afford to lose those large amounts of
water. If the government is sincere about wanting to protect our
water and our environment, it will support our motion and it will
move with great speed to initiate the required legislation.
Canadians are tired of the government telling them our hands are
tied by trade deals. We have seen a pattern of cave-ins from the
government. It caved in on protecting Canadian magazines. It
caved in on MMT.
Each time it points to the trade deals and says “it is not our
fault, we have to obey our treaties. It is the government's
fault. If our trade deals are to prevent the government from
doing what is right for Canadians, then we should not be signing
those deals. I am all in favour of trade deals but we should use
some common sense and not sign deals that strip away power from
our democratically elected governments. If this government will
not stand up for Canada's sovereignty, it should move aside and
let someone else.
Whenever I hear the Liberal government say we have to honour our
trade deals, I cannot help but think about our treaties with the
first nations, treaties that are as legitimate as the trade deals
with other countries like the United States. I cannot help but
notice the double standard. The Liberal government treats its
treaties with foreign countries like they are carved in stone but
feels free to ignore aboriginal treaties whenever it wants.
It is interesting to note that our treaties with the first
nations include rights and title to water resources, but it does
not just apply on reserves and it applies to all traditional land
use.
1545
This motion is a chance for the government to do the right
thing. It is a chance for it to stand up for the environment, a
chance for it to say that water is the lifeblood of our
environment and not a commodity to be sold. I urge my colleagues
from all parties to support this motion which is so important for
the future of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Churchill is firmly opposed to selling freshwater.
In my riding, there are a number of places that sell water.
Obviously, it does not mean redirecting a river or emptying a
lake, I agree. It is a natural resource. All the parties are
satisfied, including the producer, that is, the owner of the
farm where the water is drawn, and the companies that buy this
water of exceptional quality. Everyone is happy in this market.
And I do not think I am exaggerating.
What if the people of Alberta were asked, for example, to stop
selling oil because it is not renewable—there is a limited
quantity of oil in the subsoil and once that is used up there is
no more—what if someone came up with a similar motion, whereby
the sale or extraction of oil would be banned, and the oil would
be kept for domestic use? I do not think that would be so
intelligent, because we in the east import oil.
Some countries do not have enough water. We, it appears, have
over 20% of the world's drinking water and we say “We are going
to keep it just for us, regardless of what you might offer us”.
I remind you that while there is one extreme, there is another
extreme too.
I wonder whether the member for Churchill could tell us how far
we could go with her motion.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question. I do not think there is any question
that the reasonableness of what happens with water in general is
of concern here. We do not want to see the bulk export of water
and large quantities of waters going outside their normal area.
No one has ever argued that the sale of water in bottles should
not take place.
What is really coming into question is the export of water to
the point that we need something in place where we are not going
to have a pipeline that brings water out of Canada to somewhere
else. I was in Arizona during the break for a very short period
of time and saw thousands of Canadians down enjoying the weather
and also listened to those thousands of Canadians saying they are
getting back up to Canada after because they know it will get too
hot down there. They also commented on the way the water is being
used there and how dried up the water is by the time it hits the
Mexican border. If we take the approach that it is okay to send
the water down to one area and use it all up, there will not be
enough for everybody.
There is reasonableness out there. No one is saying that if
people are dying of thirst somewhere that Canada is not going to
help them out. That is not what we are talking about. We are
talking about using water as a money making, money grabbing way.
We are talking about the owner of an area selling his water where
he can make the most money, and for what. For someone to have an
extra swimming pool. That is what we are talking about. We are
talking about having water available for things that are not the
necessities of life and they want the export of Canadian water to
do so.
That Canadians would not be understanding if countries or people
were in need of water would not happen. Canada is not that kind
of country. We are saying that we need to protect the resources
we have.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there is nothing in NAFTA that obliges Canada to take water from
its natural state and convert it into a good.
1550
Management of water is a shared responsibility between the
provinces, territories and the federal government. The federal
government has key responsibilities for boundary waters,
primarily the Great Lakes, and for transboundary waters along the
Canada-U.S. border. This is all under the aegis of the boundary
waters treaty of 1909.
The government's position has been consistent. We stated our
position in 1988 and stood by it in 1993. We stand by it today.
The government has consulted with the provinces and the
territories and we continue to work to protect our water. Would
the member care to dispute any of those facts?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, with regard to the
NAFTA situation, I do not think we are absolutely comfortable
that NAFTA would protect the water. There is no question that
the government caved in on MMT. We did not wait for an absolute
ruling to take place. It settled ahead of time. It has left
Canadians feeling vulnerable to what could happen with water.
I do not want to wait until they say sorry, NAFTA does not
protect your water. Why not put something in place to ensure
that the water is protected? They have a lot more faith in that
agreement with NAFTA than I have.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very proud today to participate in the debate on the motion
from the New Democratic Party. It is a very important motion, as
a number of members have already noted.
The motion calls on the House to place an immediate moratorium
on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and to assert Canada's
sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater
resources for future generations. This is something that
obviously is very significant. It is important that it be
debated in the House.
Listening to the comments of my colleague in the NDP from
Churchill and understanding that in her constituency of northern
Manitoba, water as a resource, as a way of life, as a part of the
environment, as part of the history of that province, is very
important.
I represent a very urban riding. Water does not pop up on the
agenda every day. I deal with issues of drug abuse and
homelessness and poverty. Yet when I talk to constituents in my
riding of Vancouver East about the importance of having a sense
of national purpose around the very precious resource of water,
there would be very strong agreement.
I am certainly not an expert in this area and many of us in the
House are not experts. However, we fundamentally understand as
Canadians that one of the things that makes this country very
great and one of the things we are very proud of is our natural
environment.
As Canadians we have a very strong sense that one of the
purposes and roles of our federal government is to preserve and
protect the natural resources we have been endowed with. We are
the custodians of those resources for future generations.
That is why the motion before us today is very important. It is
here to be debated because regrettably we do not have a national
policy about the protection of this resource. That is why we are
here debating this motion today.
We have certainly heard from members opposite, from the Liberal
government. We have heard many debates, many promises, many
campaign slogans that water as a natural resource is something
that will be protected by legislation and by national policy.
We have yet to see that happen. I think it is a real tragedy.
I hope today in debating this motion there will be an
acknowledgement and a recognition that this issue is now very
critical.
In my province of British Columbia I am very proud that we have
had a provincial government with the courage to enact legislation
to protect water as a very precious resource. That legislation
is being challenged by a foreign corporation under NAFTA which is
now claiming damages in the order of $300 million from the B.C.
government.
On the one hand, it is very important for us as parliamentarians
and as policy makers to make it very clear that we do agree there
should be national legislation, that there should be a moratorium
as an immediate measure to prevent the bulk export of freshwater
from Canada to other places.
1555
But we also need to take action to show that we support that
legislation in British Columbia. It is something we need to have
right across the country. We have already heard in debate today
that different promises have different kinds of policies around
this question.
In the New Democratic Party we are saying this issue goes to the
very heart of what it means to be a sovereign nation. It goes to
the very heart of what it means for democratically elected
governments to be able to enact public policies around issues
like health care or the management and protection of water. That
is what this debate is about today.
I think Canadians would agree that we cannot afford to continue
along a direction where basically water is up for grabs in this
country where under different situations provincially we may have
various licences that are handed out, we may have bulk export and
it becomes something that a province may or may not pass
legislation about.
We need leadership from the House. We need leadership from the
federal government to make it very clear that there is a
commitment to put into place what has been stated so many times.
There is a public consciousness about this issue.
The Council of Canadians, which has a very broad and diverse
network and membership across Canada, has made this one of its
key issues. In its recent Canadian Perspectives there is a
very good article entitled “Our Water's Not for Sale” by Maude
Barlow:
Before this goes any further, we need a public debate in Canada.
I believe that water is a public trust. It belongs to the
people. No one has the right to appropriate it or profit from it
at someone else's expense. An adequate supply of clean water for
people's daily living needs is a basic human right and is best
protected by maintaining control of water in the public sector.
I wholeheartedly agree with those comments and call on the
government to basically bring in that legislation that has been
promised.
I hope this will be a unanimous vote in the House of Commons
today. I have heard debate from all sides of the House and I
think we understand the importance of this issue. We need to
unite on this issue, represent the interests of Canadians and
protect the future of our environment and say that we are willing
to stand up for this resource and not just see it treated as a
good or commodity that can be traded away for vast profits.
We must take the honourable course and say there is a public
interest here that overrides private interests. The public
interest is that we have to protect that water resource.
I urge all members of the House to basically support this motion
and for Liberal members to ask themselves why their government
has not brought forward the legislation and see this motion as a
first step to a real commitment to take the legislative steps
necessary to make this motion a reality in terms of protecting
this resource. I urge all members to support the motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
think the hon. member of the New Democratic Party is right to
say that the federal government was all talk in the past. It has
been all talk and no action with respect to the export of
drinking water. Nothing has been done to protect the quality of
our water, this vital resource for humanity.
That is what I am so uneasy about in the NDP motion before the
House today.
After all is said and done, this government has indeed done
nothing. Some provinces, like British Columbia, passed
legislation on water exports. Others have seen to it that
anything having to do with their freshwater or drinking water
requires legislation to be passed; this way they are in control.
This motion would be putting in this government's hands Canada's
sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater
resources for future generations.
1600
I am sorry but I think that what this motion is saying right now
is “You the provinces have done what you had to do; now that the
bandwagon is on the move, let the Canadian government jump on
and take over everything you have done”.
I do hope that is not
the intent, but that is how I interpret it.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her comments and her question.
I want to point out the intent of the motion presented by New
Democratic Party. Very clearly the motion is calling on the
government, in co-operation with the provinces, to place an
immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments,
et cetera. I think we are very mindful of the fact that in this
day and age we need to develop an approach to federalism that is
co-operative and responsive to provincial needs. That is why the
motion was written in that way.
I do not think the motion has been brought forward because all
of a sudden we have noticed there is a problem. This has been an
issue of public debate for a very long time. There are
environmental groups, organizations, individuals and even members
of the Liberal cause, as well as other members of the House, who
have campaigned to ensure there is a sense of national purpose
around the preservation of this precious resource. This motion
has not suddenly popped up on us today.
However, I would point out that there is a very critical
situation in B.C. because of claims being made by Sun Belt, which
is, in effect, taking on the B.C. government. It is very
important that the response to that be based on what is our
national policy. Unfortunately we do not have one. It is very
important to have that so it is not one province at a time which
is trying to take on this issue.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member will know that the Sun Belt case is not about our
right to manage Canadian waters.
I have a brief question for the member. She probably is aware
that the government does not support the bulk selling of water
and that in fact the motion states support for the existing
government policy with regard to the export of water.
Is the member suggesting that this motion is to reaffirm a
position which this government has already taken?
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, first of all, the issue
involving Sun Belt is about dealing with this resource and
managing it in terms of the public interest. It raises very
serious questions about the kinds of trade deals we have signed,
like the NAFTA, which place in jeopardy our ability to have a
public policy around these issues. Therefore I would disagree
with the member's assumption.
In terms of it already being policy, I think that begs the
question: If it is already in place and operable, then why do we
have these kinds of situations developing? The fact is, there is
no national legislation, and legislation has been promised by the
Liberal government.
If the member believes that it is already in place, then I would
assume he would enthusiastically support the motion and carry it
further to ensure the legislation comes forward.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.
Recently I had the occasion to be in Washington. While there, I
and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to speak with
Ambassador Chrétien about this particular subject. His comments
were quite interesting.
1605
He made the point, which I thought was very valid, that in some
states in the United States a litre of water is actually more
expensive than a litre of gasoline.
When we talk about water we get into all kinds of emotional
conversations about nationalism and how precious this resource is
and things of that nature, but I think the point the ambassador
was making was that water has already been reduced to being a
commodity. It is a commodity with a price. It is a commodity
that can be bought and sold, and the pressure for it to be a
commodity will ever increase upon us.
The irony is that a litre of gasoline or coal, or oil for that
matter, is a litre of product that is dug up, transported and
consumed, much like a litre of water can be transported and
consumed. Therefore the question becomes: What is the
significant difference between a litre of water and a litre of
any other product?
As other speakers have alluded to over the course of the debate,
the real difference is that a litre of water is something on
which life depends. Therein lies the distinction between a litre
of another resource based product, a product that is dug up,
transported and consumed, and this particular product.
I want to continue to emphasize the point that water is a
commodity that will continue to be subject to trade disputes and
that it is a limited resource.
In Canada we live under some illusions. We occupy something in
the order of 7% of the world's land mass and we have about 9% of
the world's freshwater resources. That would be good if we
stopped there, but of that 9%, 60% drains north, while 90% of our
population is south. Therefore, 90% of our population has access
to only about 40% of our water.
Given the population spread and the concentration of our
population that should be adequate. But, arguably, we are not a
water resource rich country. We have more water resources than
do many countries; nevertheless, we do not have water to
squander. We do not have water to give away. We do not have
water to use in a way that would be an improper stewardship of
the resource.
How should we, as a House, respond to the resolution that is
before us? It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in
co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on
the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers
and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater
exports and inter-basin transfers and should not be a party to
any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater
against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations.
I would refer my hon. colleagues on the government side to the
joint statement made by the governments of Canada, the United
States and Mexico following the NAFTA in 1993, which reads:
Unless water in any form has entered into commerce or become a
good or product, it is not a good or product covered by any trade
agreement, including the NAFTA.
Nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either
exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in
any form, and I emphasize “in any form”. The thrust of the
resolution, as I understand it, is that it is with respect to
bulk transfers.
The joint statement goes on to affirm that Canada and every
NAFTA partner has sovereignty over their water.
Water in its natural state—in lakes, rivers, reservoirs,
aquifers, water basins and the like—is not a good or a product,
and that is critical phraseology with respect to these trade
agreements.
It is not a good or a product. It is not traded. Therefore it
is not and has never been subject to the terms of any trade
agreement. Nothing forces us to export water in bulk.
1610
I suppose the distinction is that water is a resource on which
all life depends. Therefore it is a resource that is
significantly different than other resources.
I refer to the text of the NAFTA, but I also refer to the fact
that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Usually at this
point in my speeches I tend to beat up on the Government of
Ontario because I profoundly disagree with the attitude of that
government in many areas. But in this particular case I think
the Government of Ontario is moving in the right direction.
Initially it had a bit of a brain cramp. It issued an export
license with respect to what is known as the Nova project. It
was prepared to export water and saw nothing wrong with doing
that.
However, quite a number of people saw something wrong with it.
Representatives from the United States governments, both at the
state and federal levels, saw something wrong with it. Many
federal members as well saw something wrong with it.
Initially and immediately the Ontario government revoked its
license. It has entered into a public process to review how
licenses are to be granted pursuant to the Ontario Water
Resources Act, which states “The purpose of this regulation is
to provide for the conservation, protection and wise use and
management of Ontario's surface water because Ontario's water
resources are essential to the long term environmental, social
and economic well-being of Ontario”.
It goes on in article 3 to talk about the considerations that a
regulator is to enter into with respect to export licenses. These
are the issues: protection of the natural functions of the
ecosystem; private domestic uses; livestock and other uses;
municipal water supplies; groundwater that may affect or be
affected by the proposed surface taking; other existing and
planned uses; whether it is in the public interest to grant the
permit; and such other matters that seem expedient to the
director.
In my view, those are intelligent regulations which need and
deserve the support of this House and this government. The
resolution of the Government of Ontario is worth supporting,
which is something that I frankly thought I would never say in
the House.
Canada is not a party to any agreement which compels it to
export water in bulk. It is not a party to any agreement in the
NAFTA. It is not party to any agreement outside of the NAFTA. In
fact in the joint management provisions under the International
Joint Commission, the reference that that body acts in the best
interests of the basin, as opposed to the best interests of each
individual country or jurisdiction, is an area that is well
protected.
Ontario has done something which is quite cleaver. It has
entered into the protection of the watershed area. That, in and
of itself, takes it out of the trade jurisdiction.
In summary, water is a product. The pressure is building. It
will continue to be a product and we need to be wise stewards.
Jurisdictional initiatives on the part of the federal government
and on the part of the provincial governments are, in my view,
wise initiatives.
1615
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Lavoisier, the great 16th century scholar, brought us the
principle of the conservation of matter. There is a set amount
of water on the planet and this amount does not change.
Earlier, my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi, reminded me of
the floods in the Saguenay region and in Manitoba. The fact
that it rained heavily in these two places does not mean that
there is more water on the planet. If more rain falls in
Chicoutimi one year, less will fall in Washington, Tel Aviv or
Paris the following year.
The planet's resources in water—or ice, of course—x number of
years ago are the same resources it will have x number of years
from now.
This is known as the water cycle, and we have Lavoisier to thank
for our understanding of it.
I have a question for the member for Scarborough East and I will
use Newfoundland as an example, rather than Quebec. I am sure
the member has seen Churchill Falls. The number of cubic metres
of water that go over it per second is mind-boggling.
Newfoundland could fill a huge ship with containers of water and
sell it somewhere like New York. It is said that, in that city,
a litre of water costs more than a litre of gas. Newfoundland
could make a lot of money that way. It would be more lucrative
to sell water than oil.
If we are to believe what we are hearing, Newfoundland will not
have this opportunity.
If not just a truckload, but a whole boatload of water is
removed from the Churchill River as it flows to the Atlantic
Ocean, nothing is lost and the water will eventually return to
the Atlantic Ocean via New York, because of the principle of the
conservation of matter.
Obviously, I too will object to major changes in the courses of
rivers or to draining lakes dry, but when we look at examples as
simple as these, I do not see why the sale of water in
containers would be prohibited when, in fact, it does not
deplete the ecosystem in any way.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question
has a certain logic to it which needs to be addressed in an
unemotional and logical way. It is true that the volume of water
remains constant in the environment. It may be placed here or
placed there or misplaced or misused.
The response to the question as to why not, that if the people
of Newfoundland can make a bit of money what is the harm, is
another law of physics which is for every action there is an
equal opposite reaction. I do not think we are at the point
where we can remove water in bulk and not expect an ecosystem
reaction of some kind or another.
The Ontario government's regulation in this area is wise. It
deals with the entire watershed, the entire basin, and how all
the streams, rivers and lakes, et cetera, are impacted with
respect to the removal of water in bulk.
I think that is the response to his very logic question. In
principle there should be no good reason but there inevitably has
to be a reaction of some kind once water is continuously removed
in bulk. It is not as if the boat backs up and takes it once.
It is there time after time after time.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the
debate today. Parliament needs to debate important national
issues, and certainly the debate today on freshwater is such an
issue.
Water is very important to all of us. In Canada we must learn
how to care for this resource.
Freshwater, a primal resource, has always been valued highly
throughout history and has often been referred to as the font of
life. Water is a substance of great spiritual and sacramental
significance for Christians and for those of many other faiths
and beliefs.
1620
Freshwater sustains our life and health on a daily basis. We
depend upon water for food production, transportation, commercial
purposes, recreation and tourism. The sight, sound, feel and
taste of clean water nourish our sense of well-being.
For Canadians freshwater has important real and symbolic value.
Nine per cent of the world's renewable freshwater resources and
twenty per cent of the world's freshwater resources including
waters captured in glaciers and polar ice caps are found within
Canada. We are proud of our beautiful lakes, our powerful rivers
and waterfalls and the majesty of our natural heritage which
frames our water resources.
Yet even in Canada our abundant water supplies are vulnerable on
a daily basis to a host of outside influences and activities.
These range from inadequate waste water treatment to hydro
electric generation, industrial activities, pollution and the
effects of climate change, cycles of flood or drought that have
devastating impacts on people's lives. As well, how we as
individuals treat our freshwater resources is an issue for
consideration.
Canadians rank second in the world for their per capita water
consumption and yet pay for only half the cost of water supply.
Over the next 10 years costs for maintaining this infrastructure
in Canada are estimated to be $40 billion to $70 billion.
Therefore we as custodians of freshwater must manage this
resource wisely not only for today but for our grandchildren.
The federal government is leading several initiatives to
restore, conserve and protect major Canadian watersheds. Current
initiatives are focusing on the St. Lawrence River, the Great
Lakes, the Fraser River and Georgia Basin, the Atlantic coastal
action plan and the northern rivers ecosystem initiative in
Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
A study of the northern river basin has provided information on
the cumulative impact of development of the Peace, Athabasca and
Slave rivers. The new northern ecosystem initiative is in the
design phase and will focus on Canada's Arctic regions.
These initiatives are built on the principle that we cannot
manage water simply on a resource or sector basis. We must take
an integrated ecosector approach that looks at the full range of
pressures affecting both water quality and quantity.
Each of these initiatives addresses specific regional needs and
priorities in each watershed, promotes partnerships that involve
all sectors and encourages community involvement. Each results
in the development of basin-wide action plans to resolve complex
environmental issues, particularly deteriorating water quality
that threatens human and environmental health in these areas.
Through these programs we have seen a 96% reduction in toxic
effluent discharges by 50 major industrial plants along the St.
Lawrence, reductions in contaminant levels of targeted pollutants
in the Great Lakes, clean-up of contaminated harbours such as
Collingwood harbour, the implementation of best practices and
pollution prevention plans in many businesses and industries
along the Fraser River.
[Translation]
Watersheds include much more than lakes or rivers. They are
complete ecosystems in which the waters are drained toward a
common waterway or drainage basin. A single watershed, such as
the Great Lakes, can include a large segment of the Canadian
landscape because, in addition to the lakes themselves, it
includes all the waterways and their tributary streams.
Whether it is through a channel, by ship, by water tanker truck,
or through a water system, the removal of large volumes of water
from a watershed has a direct and major impact on water
resources and the environment.
Bulk removal can adversely affect the quality of a watershed. It
is important to better understand the immediate and cumulative
effects of such removal, and to know how to improve the
management of our freshwater resources. By contrast, the taking
of small volumes of water for the purpose of bottling that water
does not have the same adverse effect.
[English]
Major water extraction may change the environment, altering the
habitats of native species and possibly introducing new exotic
species not normally found in that ecosystem.
These changes to the ecosystem could also impact on how people
live and work. Water resources everywhere face growing pressure
from urbanization, industrial activities and the sheer growth in
the number of people on the face of the earth.
1625
Climate change affects how much water is available and
determines water quality. Because it is a renewable resource
water is vulnerable to the potential effects of climate change
and variability. We have already seen what happens to water
resources when there is not enough rain or average temperatures
increase over an extended period.
Recently we have seen the flow rate of the Ottawa River which
feeds the St. Lawrence Seaway drop 50% below normal levels due to
unusually warm weather last fall. At the port of Montreal water
levels dropped to 30 year lows. The impact on river
transportation was immediate.
Just before Christmas the Ottawa Citizen reported that the
shipping industry was losing over $1 million per week in freight
rates.
[Translation]
How can we prepare for an impact that has yet to be fully
measured? The answer is through research. Water is a major issue
that transcends science, the possible impact and the adaptation
of the climate change action fund.
This fund, which was announced in the 1998 federal budget, shows
the federal government's firm commitment to support research on
our country's water resources. In each of the next three years,
$50 million will be allocated to the fund.
That fund will help us better understand the basic scientific
data that will support a sound and inclusive process to develop
the national implementation strategy. This information will help
individuals participate in the national effort to think globally
and to act locally. This initiative will speed up the
development and implementation of a greater number of
technologies that are respectful of the climate.
[English]
Concern over freshwater led to the development of a federal
water policy more than a decade ago. The time has come to update
it and include the full range of issues which threaten our
watershed, one of which is the bulk removal of water.
There is a host of other programs and strategies in play ranging
from ways to improve water quality in the St. Lawrence River
basin, the Fraser River and the Great Lakes to local grassroots
initiatives.
To address the issue adequately there must be more co-ordinated
national action on water. Internationally the federal government
has responsibility for foreign affairs that relate to water such
as the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Domestically
the federal government has a large role in fisheries, navigation
and water on federal lands.
The provinces have primary responsibility for water management
within their borders.
[Translation]
This ecologically oriented approach is what underlies our
approach to environmental strategies. This essentially holistic
approach is more effective because it focusses on causes, not
symptoms.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and I will describe the main
thrusts of a new strategy aimed at protecting and managing
Canadian hydrographic basins.
Along with the provinces and territories, we shall address the
main issues relating to water in Canada. Along with our
American neighbour, we shall address problems affecting boundary
waters, through the International Joint Commission.
Canada does not export huge quantities of freshwater at the
present time, but in recent years there have been a number of
proposals relating to exports of large quantities of water, via
pipeline, tanker or diversion canal.
[English]
These ideas have supporters in some areas because they say we
have an abundance of water. The fact is we do not have enough
scientific and technical information on the long term effects of
such withdrawals either on an individual basis or cumulatively.
The elemental nature of water requires a comprehensive approach
and one that is based on co-operative stewardship if it is to be
protected and well managed.
To do anything less would fail to provide Canadians with the
assurance that our watersheds are protected for our children and
future generations.
1630
I believe that collectively Canadians share a strong desire to
manage and protect our watersheds and that all jurisdictions in
Canada can work together co-operatively to prohibit the bulk
removal of fresh water and interbasin transfers, including water
for export, in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to
protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for
future generations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the minister. The time has expired.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, my question is very brief. Does the government
consultation with the provinces have all-province consensus on
bulk water exports?
Hon. Christine Stewart: Madam Speaker, the consultation
with the provinces has taken place over the last several months
on the part of officials in my department and myself in meetings
with my environment counterparts. The discussion has been
thorough.
The concern from coast to coast is mutual and we do see the need
to study, analyse and protect our freshwater resources and make
sure we have the capacity to prevent the withdrawal of bulk
water.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, perhaps the minister could indicate a couple of things.
She talked about consultation with the provinces. Has there been
a dimension to this exercise that her department has been going
through in terms of consulting with aboriginal people who have an
obvious interest, many of them in water resources?
Second, is the minister saying to the House that government
members intend to support the motion, in particular the main
motion?
Hon. Christine Stewart: Madam Speaker, I was not able to
conclude my remarks but my last statement was to be that the
government and I support this motion.
To answer the hon. member's previous question, yes, it is the
practice of my department. I have asked that my department on
every occasion possible consult with aboriginal peoples as we
develop our policies.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
in the Minister of the Environment's speech, she spoke of a
number of past or present proposals relating to the bulk sale or
purchase of freshwater.
Could the minister tell us more about these proposals?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart: Madam Speaker, I think the member
is aware of a few of the proposals that have been very public
over the last part of the year, in particular the Nova request to
withdraw water from Lake Superior. There is also a request by a
company to withdraw water in Newfoundland. There was a request
to withdraw water from B.C.
Since our discussions have begun several provinces have taken
action to put in place laws, regulations and policies with regard
to the extraction of bulk water from their provinces.
So there is a lot of work together in light of the growing
concern that we may see yet more requests for withdrawals. If we
do not have policies, regulations and legislation that can
protect us, it could get out of hand.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I was
pleased to hear the minister's reference to the Arctic. I do not
know if she has been there but the Arctic is really very lush and
quite stunning with the amount of water.
1635
The Gwich'in refer to water in their name, Gwich'in. The
territories have a different standing in our Constitution which
heightens their vulnerability to exploitation, plus the fact that
there is not a high number of people there to object.
I would like the minister to reaffirm the protection she is
stating toward the people and the land and water in the north.
Hon. Christine Stewart: Madam Speaker, the federal
government is conscious of the enormous resources in fresh water
that do occur in the far north of our country and the concern of
people who live in the north for their freshwater.
The federal government is in the process of providing the same
capacity to the territories to regulate and control waters within
their territories as the provinces now have.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I understand the time is going to lapse for the minister
in questions, but because she is the minister and we seldom have
the opportunity to question individuals on these issues, I would
ask for unanimous consent to extend question time for her for a
period of five or ten minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to extend the period of questions for five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, transport;
the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, highways.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, I would first
like to say that our party will be supporting this motion, not
because we find it a rigorous or well defined motion but rather
because we find it a motion that sounds a sort of alarm with
regard to freshwater.
The main point of the motion is simply to act to ensure that
throughout Canada there is an effective freshwater management
plan.
What is a little hard to accept is the fact that the NDP motion
gives us the impression that life starts today only.
I would point out to my NDP colleagues that considerable effort
has been made in recent decades—not 100 years ago, but in
recent decades—because that is a fact. Parliamentarians, like
their fellow citizens, evolve at a normal rate. Problems arise,
we become aware of them and we develop ways to resolve them.
The current government and the previous governments acted to
protect flora and fauna, for example with the acid rain treaty.
We realized that massive destruction was going on. The
agreement was signed by the previous government, and I think it
was effective. Sometimes we forget too easily.
In the area of the St. Lawrence action plan, I can tell members
that tens of millions of dollars have been invested to protect
our waterways, particularly the Saguenay fjord, where whole
pockets of shrimp have been flooded with industrial waste. Some
changes take place slowly, but at an acceptable rate.
I do not think we should address this motion as one that is
dogmatic and that will make everything better. No, indeed. The
issue requires realistic treatment. Things were done in the
past.
Our NDP colleagues put everything in terms of the free trade
agreement. People have spoken today confirming that the
agreement protects this aspect, protects our country against
massive exports of freshwater.
1640
I will quote later from the speech that was made at the time on
the protection afforded freshwater by the FTA and NAFTA.
This proposal is also somewhat petty and lacking in solidarity.
Freshwater is Canadian property and international property as
well. My colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic referred earlier to
the whole commercial aspect of renewable resources. I think we
must devise a work plan for efficient management, “in
co-operation with the provinces”, as the motion states, I might
add.
It is important that commercialization not be excluded from the
word go. We can never tell what the future holds. At present,
there are situations which we feel could potentially take on
dramatic proportions around the world. In the early stages of
developing a management plan, one cannot say “We are closing the
door completely on providing any support to countries where
there is a clear lack of other resources”.
Will the technology ever be developed to take salt out of
seawater? Maybe, maybe not.
We must put in place an efficient management plan. That is what
makes me say that there can be no jurisdiction. This is an
objective we must set for ourselves as a nation, in fact as a
continent.
Nothing more clearly transcends municipal, provincial, national
and continental jurisdictions than the introduction of a plan
that will help us improve management of our resources on a large
scale.
Large-scale plans are fine but, as a general rule, this calls for
effective municipal action. I remember the water purification
program of the 1980s. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons,
many municipalities in Quebec were denied the benefits of the
national water purification program, but there is no doubt about
the importance of having such a plan in our municipalities,
however costly or technically challenging. Furthermore, it has
not yet been completed.
We must approve this motion for its very laudable goal of having
all levels of government work together to implement something
sensible and intelligent, without closing the door to
continental or international exchanges of assistance, because
one never knows what the future holds in store.
It is also important that the government be able to react
positively to this issue, because major changes are under way.
Right now, we are not in a position to forecast future climatic
changes. These changes are apparently happening faster than
anticipated. This is therefore one more reason to urge the
government to take rapid action in a sector that we feel is
vital to our future.
It is my hope that, as was the case for the St. Lawrence action
plan and the creation of a marine national park in my region,
among other initiatives, the development of a national,
provincial and even continental plan can take place without any
bickering, since this would only make us waste time. I have
often seen a lot of time being wasted during federal-provincial
negotiations. In the end, the losers are our fellow citizens.
I was pleased to see government members confirm that both the
FTA and NAFTA guarantee total protection against bulk exports of
freshwater. Indeed, I was pleased to see this confirmation from
government members, since they voted against free trade at the
time.
1645
The 1988 election campaign was run on that issue. The Liberals
claimed that the Americans would come and take all the water
from our lakes. It was going to be terrible. Yet, at the time,
we had confirmation that freshwater exports in very small
containers were the only thing that had been agreed to during
the negotiations.
This shows that demagoguery often rules in politics. We must
live with that reality. Over the middle and the long term,
history eventually vindicated those who negotiated that
agreement in good faith.
I have a quote that shows the position taken at that time. It is
from Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Industry, Science and
Technology and Minister of Foreign Trade, who said “Permit me to
repeat what the free trade agreement expressly provides, and
which will also go for the North American free trade agreement
as well. It is clearly understood that neither this nor the
agreement applies to water, meaning surface and underground
water”.
He continued “What I said in my initial response describes the
position and the policy of the Government of Canada with respect
to the export of water. Water may be exported in bottles. Bulk
export of water, especially the diversion of waterways, is not”.
It was clear at the time.
In short, we will support this motion, which is a motion of
principle sounding an alarm on the importance of having a
management plan, in co-operation with all other levels of
government, and I thank my colleagues for putting it to the
House.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party for
his support for the NDP motion.
If he believes that NAFTA protects bulk water shipments and
Canada's sovereign right over water, why does he believe then
that the United States, especially the state of California, has
launched a $220 million lawsuit against the province of British
Columbia? The province has forbidden bulk water tanker shipments.
I refer again to the MMT case in which Canada capitulated and
gave $13.5 million U.S. to a foreign national and maintained the
gasoline additive MMT, which is a neurotoxin, within our borders.
I suspect that the state of California and the companies that
are there suspect they may have a legal loophole or a legal
avenue in which to approach or sue the Government of Canada.
I want to ensure, from his way of thinking, that they would not
have a legal approach and that they are basically blowing hot
air.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement was
signed; the North American free trade agreement was signed.
There is a tribunal to provide dispute arbitration. As far as I
know, the trade agreement exists. In the past ten years, as far
as I know, James Bay and the Great Lakes have not been moved to
Las Vegas.
We must look to the future. We had legal guarantees in the
agreement. Now, in the spirit of the motion, it is vital Canada
do everything possible to create an effective plan to manage
freshwater. It is a finite resource.
We must not forget it represents 3% of all the planet's
reserves. That means that we have about one quarter of one per
cent of these reserves.
It warrants effective management, but it must be management in
consultation with local governments, both municipal and
provincial, and the federal government, which has the vital job
of co-ordinator.
Nothing moves like water. It transcends jurisdictions and we
call on the goodwill of all involved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
speaking of comparisons, I would like to remind my hon.
colleague from Chicoutimi that, if one compares the planet to a
grapefruit, a single seed would be the equivalent of all the
water there is on the planet, just one seed. That is not much,
compared to a whole grapefruit.
Of that amount, 98% is salt water, and only 2% fresh. Of that
2% freshwater, 20% is located in Canada, and a very large
proportion of that in Quebec.
1650
The hon. member for Chicoutimi said he agrees with the NDP
motion, because it is a matter of principle, and because we must
take care of our water, which is a vital resource. Everyone
agrees with that.
I would, however, ask the hon. member for Chicoutimi whether he
would be in agreement to the extent of seeing areas of
provincial jurisdiction, including that of Quebec—he being a
Quebec MP—encroached upon, in order to comply with the motion by
the NDP. I await the response of my colleague and friend from
Chicoutimi.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Frontenac—Mégantic, who always has highly pertinent questions,
and whom I have the pleasure of seeing in the House on a daily
basis.
Concerning this question, yes indeed, I see that as inevitable,
since this matter, in the framework of negotiations, while
honouring the respective jurisdictions of the various levels of
government, calls upon common sense as well as upon a concept
very dear to the heart of my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois,
the concept of partnership for attaining objectives of
importance to our people.
This is the spirit in which all governments must pool their
efforts in order to find a global solution. This affects not
only the riding of Chicoutimi, but the riding of
Frontenac—Mégantic as well, not only just Quebec or Ontario, but
all Canadians, and all the people who live on this planet.
We must, therefore, speak to each other. There is nothing on
this earth that brings out interdependency more than anything to
do with the environment. I believe that a healthy dose of
common sense is needed if we are to come up with any worthwhile
results.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the attention being paid today to protecting Canada's
freshwater resources. I am also very pleased that this concern
extends beyond potential trade of our water resources. I refer
more broadly to how we manage our watersheds and specifically to
the need to prevent transfers of water between drainage basins or
watersheds.
Indeed the watershed is recognized as the fundamental ecological
unit in protecting and conserving our water resources. Bulk
transfer or removal of water, whether for use elsewhere in Canada
or for export purposes, could potentially have a significant
impact on the health and integrity of our watersheds. It is
important that Canadians work together to ensure that we take a
comprehensive and environmentally sound approach to protect our
resources and our watersheds.
Water is an essential part of all ecosystems, from the functions
and life support provided by lakes, rivers and streams to the
role of the hydrological cycle in sustaining water in its various
forms.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have to
interrupt the hon. member. I am afraid I have made a mistake. I
had not seen the hon. member of the Conservative Party and it was
his turn to speak. If you do not mind, he has 10 minutes and
then we will carry on.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants, my apologies.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, we
understand the occasional mistake and that is fair.
My apologies to the hon. member from the Liberal Party for he
unwittingly was taking the space of a Conservative, which they
seem to have done a lot of since 1993. That being the case, that
will not always be the case so they can enjoy their time in the
sun at this juncture.
The issue and the motion before us is one of critical
importance. It is very positive that the New Democrats have
brought forward this motion for an important debate today and for
an important debate in the future on the issue of water and more
specifically on bulk freshwater exports.
I have some concern about the motion upon first glance.
I will quote the motion specifically. It recommends that the
government “should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk
freshwater exports and interbasin transfers”.
1655
I would support and our party is supporting this motion. We
want to ensure that a debate on this very important topic occurs
here in the House of Commons.
We believe that the government should introduce legislation such
that there can be a debate in the House of Commons on this issue,
a full debate that can delve into this extremely serious issue.
That being the case, I think we all need more information before
we would necessarily support in the future the legislation which
the government brings forward in terms of prohibiting bulk
freshwater exports and interbasin transfers.
We will be supporting the motion today because of the importance
of this debate. That being the case, if and when the legislation
is actually brought forward, we would appreciate the opportunity
to debate fully the pros and cons of the legislation.
It was noted earlier, and it is very important to recognize,
that the PC Party did in the NAFTA negotiations move to protect
freshwater. During an earlier exchange between my hon. colleague
from the New Democratic Party and a member from my party, some
questions were raised as to the sanctity of water and the
protection of water under NAFTA.
The fact is that trade agreements and trade negotiations are
ongoing. This is not a static process. A trade agreement is not
reached and then that is the end of it. An ongoing process of
negotiation and discussion occurs, not just between countries,
but between subnational governments within a sovereign state like
Canada. That is an important issue which has to be discussed more
fully within this House once the legislation is brought forward.
We have to discuss the jurisdictional authority over water within
Canada and the roles of subnational governments with the federal
government in terms of the jurisdiction and beyond that, the role
in terms of the conservation of water.
Water is a unique commodity. It is more fundamental obviously
to human life than any other commodity and certainly any
potentially exportable commodity.
It is not just a trade issue, it is not just an environmental
issue, it is even a foreign policy issue. In a post cold war
environment with an increasingly complicated world in terms of
foreign affairs, with the declining role of the nation state,
water is going to be—it is not a matter of will it be—but water
is going to be the source of conflict in the future. In the past
it may have been oil or some other commodity, but water in the
future will be more important in the role it plays in our foreign
policy and in terms of world conflict.
In an age where we talk more of human security versus national
security, water certainly plays a role in both. Those will be
issues that we have to delve into with significant debate. This
type of debate has to exist in the committees for example,
environment, trade, intergovernmental affairs, as well as in this
House.
The U.S. and Canada have no shortage of things to fight over.
We have beer, wheat, lumber, magazines, all kinds of trade issues
to deal with on an ongoing basis. Canada has 20% of the world's
freshwater supply, most of it in the Great Lakes. The remainder
is pouring unchecked into three oceans. The United States with
one-tenth of our freshwater has nearly nine times as many people,
a great deal of whom want to live in the scenic but dry
southwest, but all of whom need water.
Certainly there is growing pressure on Canada to export water in
bulk. These attempts of course have run afoul of
environmentalists, the Canadian government and Canadian
nationalists. Naturally it has ended up in the courts as part of
the ongoing process of international trade engagement.
The latest battle in California between Sun Belt Water company
and the province of British Columbia is just another example of
the types of ongoing negotiations and legal battles that we will
have within the NAFTA framework.
1700
We should always expect that these will occur periodically.
It is very important that we do not dismiss at hand the export
of water. Some estimates are that 60% of our freshwater supply
is wasted. All someone has to do is spend a rain soaked winter
in Vancouver to recognize that we have a significant supply of
freshwater. A significant amount of our water is running
unchecked into oceans.
Certainly water is different. Maude Barlow and the Council of
Canadians argue that water is different. Maude Barlow and the
Council of Canadians believe that nothing should be traded. She
and her organization do not believe that in any way, shape or
form trade can benefit Canadians. I disagree fundamentally with
that principle.
We are supporting the motion today because we feel it is an
important debate. We will not be supporting the amendment,
however, because the amendment is unequivocal and says that
Canada should not be party to any international agreement that
compels us to export freshwater against our will. The word
compels has its inherent ambiguity.
I do not believe that any member of this House has all the facts
to make that kind of unequivocal judgment at this time. We need
the debate.
Currently the government will dither and dilly-dally as it is
wont to do with a number of these types of issues. Water export
opportunities are appearing. In Gander, Newfoundland McCurdy
Enterprises, formerly a construction company, has a proposal to
load water from Gisborne Lake into oil tankers and ship it to
parched souls in Asia. There are issues in British Columbia.
There is an economic opportunity but we cannot partake in
economic opportunities if they compromise our environmental
policy in this country. That is something I would argue no
member of parliament would want to do.
We cannot separate economic and environmental arguments. The
separation of economic and environmental arguments has led over
the years to the degradation of the environment. It is
extraordinarily important that these two areas, economics and the
environment, are inextricably linked in public policy. We have
to get our heads around this.
We will be supporting the motion. We will not be supporting the
amendment. We look forward to a legitimate debate in the House
of Commons about this very important environmental and economic
issue.
We would hope that when that debate occurs we can consider all
the spheres of influence involved, including our foreign policy,
our policy in terms of foreign aid and our obligations to people
in a human security and not just a national security context, and
that we deal very seriously with an issue that could very easily
be turned into a political issue and not a public policy issue.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
just like to ask the hon. member about being compelled. That is
part of the amendment we have put forward here.
I would like to ask him how he would describe the whole MMT
issue that occurred recently with the federal government. The
federal government was challenged on its legislation banning MMT
by the Ethyl Corporation which sued it for damages and won.
It seems the federal government capitulated entirely in face of
the NAFTA challenge. I would say it was compelled to capitulate
by the nature of the trade agreements we have entered into.
1705
Compelled is a strong word but we have to start using some
strong language at this point given the history of what we have
seen happen on the trade floors and in the courts.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
her question. It is a very important question. We have two
areas of government policy in question here. One is domestic
legislation on the environment brought forward by the current
minister of trade when he was minister of the environment, and
the other is trade policy. There are two separate areas.
I would argue the MMT legislation brought forward by the current
minister of trade was badly designed legislation that was not
designed to effectively stand up to the rigours of NAFTA and to
the questions of national treatment.
National treatment is a fundamental part of trade agreements and
our obligations under NAFTA. But national treatment simply means
we are obligated in Canada to treat companies from another
country with the same treatment that we would provide to our
domestic companies.
If legislation is designed effectively that would apply for
instance to our domestic companies in a non-discriminatory way,
to protect the environment, that legislation would be tenable
under NAFTA. If legislation is designed very specifically to
target one foreign company it may not be tenable. That is why we
have to become more rigorous as legislators in developing
legislation that can stand up to the rigours of national
treatment and the questions therein. I would argue that it was
bad legislation. It was poorly designed and it did not stand up.
The whole question of national treatment boils down to one
fundamental question. If we would not allow a Canadian company
to participate in environmentally unsound behaviour then we would
not allow a foreign company to participate in environmentally
unsound behaviour. It is a national treatment issue. Pollution
and environmental externals do not know national boundaries.
I do not see and have not been convinced by any of the opponents
of liberalized trade how national treatment can jeopardize our
environment if legislation in Canada is designed to stand up to
the rigours of those trade agreements that we have signed and
received the benefit of as Canadians.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the attention being brought to the House today regarding
the protection of Canada's freshwater resources.
I am pleased that this concern extends beyond potential trade of
our water resources by referring more broadly to how we manage
our watersheds and specifically to the need to prevent transfers
of water between drainage basins or watersheds.
Indeed the watershed is recognized as the fundamental ecological
unit in protecting and conserving our water resources. Bulk
transfer or removal of water, whether for use elsewhere in Canada
or for export purposes, could potentially have a significant
impact on the health and integrity of our watersheds.
It is important that Canadians work together to ensure that we
take a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach to
protecting our water resources and their watersheds.
Water is an essential part of all ecosystems, from the functions
and life support provided by lakes, rivers and streams to the
role of the hydrological cycle in sustaining water in its
various forms.
Access to adequate supplies of clean water is crucial to our
health, to our quality of life and to Canada's competitive
position. Much of our economy and jobs are tied directly or
indirectly to our supplies of water, from farming, forestry and
industrial development to tourism and the recreational sector.
With 9% of the world's renewable freshwater resources it is easy
for us to assume that Canada has an abundance of water. Given
that Canada's land mass is approximately 7% of the world total,
9% of its water does not seem disproportionate.
1710
If we consider the imbalances in geographical distribution of
water resources, the question of abundance becomes more relevant.
About 60% of Canada's water flows northward while 90% of the
population and most of Canada's industrial activity are found
within 300 kilometres of the Canada-U.S. border where freshwater
resources are increasingly in demand and some areas are polluted
and unsafe.
In addition to these geographical variations in water abundance,
Canada also experiences significant variations over time in water
availability. For example, the Red River in southern Manitoba
has experienced flows ranging between 1 cubic metre per second
and 2,700 cubic metres per second. The Great Lakes watershed,
which is home to 9 million Canadians and 33 million Americans, is
experiencing its lowest level in 15 years.
Compounding these short term variations, climate change is
expected to result in significant changes to water availability
in different parts of the country. Thus although Canada would
seem to possess substantial water resources, there are regions in
Canada in which scarcities exist or will exist.
We must therefore have a strategy to ensure that water resources
are managed and protected for future generations. It is clear
that interbasin transfers involving man-made diversions of large
quantities of water between watersheds have the potential to
cause the most significant social, economic and environmental
impacts.
However, we cannot ignore other means of bulk water removal such
as by ocean tanker or pipeline which may cumulatively have the
same impact on watersheds as large scale interbasin transfers.
For this reason I consider it of paramount importance that the
issue of bulk water removal, including for export purposes, be
considered in its entirety and that we not develop solutions to
one problem at a time at the expense of a more comprehensive
approach.
Over the last 30 years concern about large scale export of
Canadian water resources has risen primarily as a result of
proposals to divert massive amounts of water to the United States
to deal with water shortages or to allow for increased
agricultural, industrial and urban development in areas of the
United States with limited water supplies.
Several of these proposed megaprojects are worth mentioning. One
of the largest continental water transfer proposals and probably
the best known is the North American Water and Power Alliance
project of the 1960s. This project would have involved the
diversion of water from Alaska, northwestern Canada and
watersheds surrounding Hudson Bay and James Bay to arid areas in
the western United States, the prairie provinces and northern
Mexico.
Another proposed megaproject was the grand recycling and
northern development canal which would have transferred James Bay
into a freshwater lake by building a dike between it and Hudson
Bay and impounding the rivers that empty into the bay. The flows
of rivers would have been reversed to deliver water to the Great
Lakes and from there to other destinations in North America.
These megaprojects, while having the potential to create jobs
and investments in Canada in the short term, would not benefit
Canadian society in the long term.
The federal water policy of 1987 addresses Canada's experience
with interbasin transfer projects by advocating caution in
considering their need and by endorsing other less disputed
alternatives such as demand management and water conservation.
The current focus of water exports proposals, however, is by
tanker ship using water from lakes and streams such as last
year's proposal to export water from Lake Superior to Asian
markets, or by tanker trucks or pipelines carrying water from
surface to groundwater sources.
Not only have the economics of water export clearly changed in
terms of capital investment needs, but so has our understanding
of the scope and the extent of potential environmental social and
long term impacts. As I have already stated, bulk water removal,
including export, must be viewed from a watershed approach.
This leads to the second concern that we take action to address
the broad range of concerns facing freshwater in a comprehensive
way rather than limiting ourselves to one export of water.
I support this motion. I believe a comprehensive approach is
what Canadians deserve and what Canadians will get.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith any question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion, as amended, agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I would
like to ask for unanimous consent to consider the clock as being
5.30 p.m. so that we can proceed with tonight's votes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1740
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I think Canadians who have been
watching the debate all day should know that the motion that was
debated today and the amendment proposed, by the NDP, passed the
House unanimously just a few minutes ago. A statement has been
made about water exports.
ALLOTTED DAY—HEALTH
The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion
and the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February
4, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the amendment relating to the business of
supply.
1750
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 96
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Bradshaw
|
Byrne
| Canuel
| Charbonneau
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Fournier
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Longfield
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
Sauvageau
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next
question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the main
motion now before the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that.
I would just like to add the member for Souris—Moose Mountain to
the Reform Party's numbers.
The Speaker: He will be added.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 97
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 161
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Bradshaw
|
Byrne
| Canuel
| Charbonneau
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Fournier
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Longfield
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
Sauvageau
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, before the vote, I wanted to
make sure that, with respect to the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, the
Clerk or the Chair heard me say “on division” in the vote on the
motion before the last vote. I thought I heard the Chair say
“carried”, but it should have been “carried on division”. That
is what I said when I got to my seat and I want to make sure the
Chair heard me.
The Speaker: We will come back to this after the other votes
have been taken.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF CANADA
The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 4,
1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Motion No. 380 under Private Members'
Business.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. We will take the
division row by row. The mover will be on my left and the mover
will be the first vote, and then we will begin as we usually do
with Private Members' Business from my left, from the last row
forward, and then from my right, the last row forward, with those
who are in favour of the motion.
1805
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 105
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 151
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Bradshaw
|
Byrne
| Canuel
| Charbonneau
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Fournier
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Longfield
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
Sauvageau
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, February
5, 1999, the next deferred recorded division is on Motion No. 300
under Private Members' Business.
We will begin on the left with the mover of the motion and will
then take the back rows and move forward, and we will do the same
on the other side.
1815
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Provenzano
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 212
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Brien
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hubbard
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp – 38
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Bradshaw
|
Byrne
| Canuel
| Charbonneau
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Fournier
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Harb
| Longfield
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Proud
|
Sauvageau
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
About the point of order, I asked the speaker who was in the
chair at the time and she did not hear the words. But I will
inquire further. I will check Hansard and review the videotape
and report back to the House as soon as possible, probably
tomorrow.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I think this can be sorted out
fairly easily. I presume it could be done with the unanimous
consent of the House. Not much is changed, but all day long we
have spoken against the motion and it goes without saying that
we were going to vote against it. I did say “on division”, but
I was at the back and may not have been heard.
Could I get unanimous consent to say that the motion was agreed
to on division?
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I do not think we could give unanimous
consent.
If unanimous consent was being sought to start the process all
over again with respect to the supply day motion and the
amendment, that would be one thing. But the fact of the matter
is that we did not stand as we had planned to cause a vote to be
taken on the motion and the amendment because we were under the
impression there was unanimous consent, that no opposition had
been expressed, in spite of the fact that the motion had been
talked against throughout the day.
If we are going to rewrite history, then we need to go back to
square one and start all over again.
The Speaker: The Speaker in the chair at
the time did not hear the words “on division”. The Speaker did
not hear them. Therefore I would rule that no one having heard
it, unless you give me time to review Hansard, perhaps it
was heard there or on television, then I would come back. We
would then put it before the House and see what was happening at
that point.
If the House is in agreement, that is what I propose to do. Is
that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1820
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. It being
6.20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of
Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The House resumed from November 17, 1998, consideration of the
motion that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the merits of supporting Bill S-11, an act to
amend the Canadian Human Rights act.
This bill, sponsored by my colleague the hon. member for
Shefford, was originally proposed in the Senate by my friend and
Progressive Conservative colleague Senator Erminie Cohen.
I have been fortunate enough to speak to a number of very
important bills since being elected in June 1997. I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill
because it addresses probably the most important right of all,
that of human rights.
Senator Cohen comes from a province with an outstanding
tradition of championing human rights issues. Gordon
Fairweather, the former member of parliament for Fundy—Royal,
the riding I represent, was also Canada's first human rights
commissioner.
John Humphreys, the world renowned principal author of the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was born
and buried in the town of Hampton which is in my riding.
Senator Cohen, like our fellow New Brunswickers, understands how
difficult times affect Canadian families and the community as a
whole when the local plants shut down. Families have to make
sacrifices that they never dreamed would happen to them. She
knows about the closures at the Potocan mine and the impending
job losses at Lantic Sugar. These are hardworking Canadians with
an uncertain future.
I do not think that anyone should be surprised that Senator
Cohen has tabled this bill. Bill S-11 shows her ability to care
for individuals. I have known Senator Cohen for a number of
years. I also know the member for Shefford. They are caring
individuals who want to ensure that we do the best for those
persons at the margins of our society.
This bill is about ensuring access to the basic tools people
need to get back on their feet. It is about maintaining pride
and dignity despite the tough times life sometimes has to offer.
Currently the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin,
colour, sex, marital status, family status, disability,
conviction of an offence for which a pardon has been given, and
sexual orientation. By explicitly listing Canada's vulnerable
groups, the poignantly absent qualification in the 22-year old
act is a reference to social condition. Seven out of ten
provinces in Canada prohibit discrimination on the basis of
social condition, social origin or sources of income in their
respective human rights legislation.
According to the United Nations in its review of Canada's
compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights signed in 1976, this great nation of ours
received a failing grade on our ability to protect the rights of
the poor. We parliamentarians have an opportunity to take a
tremendous leap forward and rectify this tragic situation by
supporting Bill S-11. The time for Canada to bring forward
federal legislation is long overdue.
On December 10 we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I already mentioned,
this document was drafted by native New Brunswicker and former
resident of my riding of Fundy—Royal, John Humphreys.
1825
The declaration states essentially that all human beings
regardless of their circumstances are born free and equal in
dignity and rights. This bears repeating. All human beings
regardless of their circumstances are born free and equal in
dignity and rights.
It is a shame that Canada's own human rights act does not fully
respect the goals and the intent of this important document, a
document drafted by a Canadian.
The 50th anniversary of this world renowned declaration also
marked the end of the first year of the United Nations
international decade for the eradication of poverty. However,
being poor in Canada continues to be one of our greatest hurdles
for achieving equality. There is no better time for us to act
than now.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty. We recognize
that when children are poor, it is because their families are
poor. As Canadians we are fortunate enough to live in a wealthy
country but the marginalized are in need both physically and
psychologically.
In my riding we try to address the physical needs of the poor
through food basket programs run by great charitable
organizations like the Sussex Sharing Club, the Lakewood
Headstart Association, Kennebecasis Valley Food Basket, Chipman
Community Care, the Minto Community Resource Centre and the
Hampton Food Basket. I am very proud of the sense of community
that exists in my riding of Fundy—Royal.
Bill S-11 addresses this inadequacy in our Constitution and
offers the poor relief from negative stereotypes that affect
their psychological well-being. It promotes human dignity, the
very essence of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
While provincial legislation addresses the rights of the poor
for issues under that jurisdiction, the federal human rights act
covers issues under federal jurisdiction such as banking, housing
and telecommunications. As it stands today, the poor are too
often denied housing or barred from opening bank accounts.
Bill S-11 does not provide any special status for the poor.
There is nothing contained in the bill that is not already
afforded to other Canadians. There is nothing to fear from
endorsing this plan, yet I understand the government has no
intention of supporting the legislation. It instead promises to
review the human rights act in its entirety for several possible
changes.
This promise has been on the table since the Liberals took
office and still no new legislation is planned. Senator Cohen
and the member for Shefford chose to take action now.
It is our duty as parliamentarians to serve on behalf of all
constituents. That is why it is incumbent on us to support this
bill. If we choose not to, then we are nowhere near the great
moral authority our Prime Minister likes to call Canada.
In 1989 the Progressive Conservative government took bold and
persuasive action and succeeded in unanimously passing a
resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Since
that time, Canadians are unfortunately no closer to their goal
due to the massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces by
this current government.
Today we have the possibility to announce to Canadians that
discrimination on the basis of social condition will no longer be
tolerated. Let us not waste that opportunity.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want to begin by stating that contrary to what was said, the
Minister of Justice strongly endorses the premise of Bill S-11
and the hon. member's desire to take a concrete step forward to
assist the poor in Canada.
To be denied services, accommodation or employment because one
is poor is totally unacceptable in Canada and totally
unacceptable by this government.
All Canadians are justifiably proud of their human rights
protection. We believe strongly in the inherent worth and
dignity of each member of society. If we are serious about
protecting the poor, I believe we should do it right.
This government will soon be announcing a comprehensive review
of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This review will give us the
opportunity to look very seriously at how we can best enhance
human rights protection for the poor in this country.
If we really wish to ensure adequate human rights protection for
all Canadians, then we must proceed in a thoughtful and
principled manner. We need to look at what human rights need to
be protected and how they can be protected in the federal sector.
In our opinion, this can best be done in the context of examining
the Canadian Human Rights Act as a whole.
1830
[Translation]
The present government is proud of its human rights
achievements. We amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and
we brought in legislation requiring that all victims of
discrimination be accommodated.
Recently, we passed a bill to facilitate the integration of the
disabled into the criminal justice system.
We also increased compensation to victims of human rights
discrimination and improved the structure of the human rights
tribunal. We have brought about advances in the protection of
human rights in Canada.
Our government's efforts to improve the rights of the disabled
recently won recognition. During a visit to the United States,
our Prime Minister was presented with the Franklin Delano
Roosevelt award, an award given to the country that has most
advanced the rights of the disabled.
[English]
The government has improved the CHRA in a time when some would
limit or dismantle the protection given to the most vulnerable in
our society. The Minister of Justice is not content to rest on
these improvements. She is committed to an examination of the
act in its entirety.
In September the auditor general indicated, first, that the
current act needed to be modified to better serve Canadians and,
second, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission needed updating
in order to process complaints more efficiently.
These are some recommendations that merit a careful review. We
understand that there are other concerns that also need to be
addressed. This is why the Minister of Justice will soon be
announcing the process for the comprehensive review. It is
because we are launching the review that I am saying let us wait
for the review to examine how we can best prevent discrimination
against the poor.
It seems curious that we would begin to launch into examination
of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA on the
eve of a more fulsome review of all aspects of the legislation.
To simply add a new ground that is not well understood and may
not produce the results that we all desire will not help the
poor.
An overly simplistic response in the absence of a detailed
analysis on this very important issue could result in endless
litigation. That is not what we all want. We want changes to
policies and programs to ensure that the already disadvantaged in
our society are not further disadvantaged by attitudes and
treatments that do not respect the dignity of all members of the
human family.
While we believe it would be responsible at this time for the
government to expand the prescribed ground of discrimination to
take into account the real needs of the poor, I would like to
make it clear we are not suggesting for a moment that we do not
need to ensure that the act provides protection for the poor. For
example, I am well aware of the recent provincial report on
homelessness released in Toronto known as the Golden report which
clearly demonstrates the need to address many of the problems
facing the poor.
At the top of the list the problems confronting the poor in
Canada is the issue of affordable housing. I would like to
discuss this problem in some detail as it is a problem raised by
some of the senators in supporting the bill and by many of the
witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee.
Without question discrimination and accommodation is a serious
problem that must be addressed. Individuals on social
assistance, particularly single, separated or divorced mothers,
face many burdens in obtaining any form of accommodation. The
Golden report documents that the face of homelessness has changed
and indeed there are now entire families that are homeless.
An Ontario Board of Inquiry, the Human Rights Code, December 22,
1998 decision in Kearney v Bramale Ltd., questioned the rules
pertaining to the portion of an individual's income that can be
allotted for accommodation. This income testing rule was held to
be unfair as it unduly limited the small pool of housing
available to the poor. There is a wide divergence across Canada
in human rights codes and the use of terminology covering
discrimination against the poor.
In Ontario, for example, the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits
discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance. It
is this ground, along with the grounds of sex, marital status,
citizenship, place of origin and family status, which is used in
the Kearney case to challenge the income testing rules used by
some landlords to determine eligibility to rent an apartment and
which has as its impact the effect of denying housing to many
individuals with a low income. It should be noted that the
existence of a social condition type ground in Ontario is limited
to occupancy and accommodation situations.
By comparison, in British Columbia the residential tenancy act
prohibits discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income.
Yet it is interesting to note that these two provinces only use
this ground to prohibit discrimination in the field of
accommodation.
1835
Let me continue to review the provincial human rights
legislation on this issue. In addition to Ontario and British
Columbia, which I have already mentioned, in Alberta the human
rights and multiculturalism act includes source of income as a
prohibited ground of discrimination. Manitoba and Nova Scotia
have a ground called source of income. Newfoundland protects
social origin. Saskatchewan protects receipt of public
assistance. Yukon, Northwest Territories and P.E.I. do not
protect any poverty related ground directly. New Brunswick on
December 9, 1998, introduced an amendment to the human rights act
to add social condition.
Overall we can see there is diversity in the use and application
of the term social condition. For the most part the term is used
to apply to situations involving accommodation. In the federal
sector there is very little residential accommodation outside
housing for military, RCMP or foreign service officers.
Adding the ground of social condition to prohibit discrimination
in housing is not necessarily a practical solution as housing is
primarily a provincial matter. In this it may be that in the
provincial context that the ground of social condition may have a
greater impact.
[Translation]
At the present time, Quebec is the only province to ban
discrimination on the basis of social condition. It added this
to its legislation texts in 1976. It would be worthwhile to
examine the repercussions arising in Quebec from its inclusion.
The term “social condition” refers to an individual's place in
society. This is determined by a number of factors,
particularly family background, employment, level of education,
and physical capacities. The connection between social
condition and the discrimination must be proven. A cause and
effect relationship must be demonstrated in each case.
Even in Quebec, where the definition of “social condition” is a
broader one, the majority of complaints relate to cases where an
individual has been refused accommodation.
[English]
In this province there has been a few limited cases involving
employment situations. In the case of Lambert v. Quebec,
ministère du Tourisme, the complainant was in receipt of social
security benefits. He participated in a government work program
that provided him with less than the minimum wage. To permit
someone on social assistance to receive less than the minimum
wage was held to be discriminatory.
Now let us turn to the federal context. As I have stated, there
is less scope for discrimination against the poor in the context
of residential housing as this field is primarily a provincial
jurisdiction. However there are other issues that do need to be
examined in the federal sector.
We have all heard from Canadians about concerns raised with
regard to situations that may arise in the banking and the
telecommunications sectors, although the banks have made more
recent changes to ensure that low income individuals have better
access to banking services. Groups such as the National
Anti-Poverty Organization have alleged that the banks may in
certain situations discriminate against the poor. I am not in a
position to judge or even comment on these allegations.
However, before we can amend the law we need to know the exact
nature of the problem and how and whether we can resolve it with
the human rights legislation. In other words the government is
proposing a comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act
in order to make sure that we do it properly.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, when I saw the bill come before the House I specifically
asked to speak to it. I immediately thought that the bill
encompassed both some of the best intentions and worst ideas that
I have ever seen in a piece of legislation to come before us.
It is not uncommon for good intentions and poor execution to be
commingled in the same political project as we have before us
today, which of course is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
to essentially prohibit discrimination on the basis of social
condition, whatever that means.
I am disturbed that this is a Senate bill originating in that
other place which would happen to be the one that does not have
any democratic legitimacy. That would be the chamber filled with
unaccountable, unelected, patronage hacks. Dozens of thoughtful
private members' bills have come forward from members of this
place who happen to be elected and accountable, whose ideas
happen to come from the voters and not from their ivory tower.
Private members' bills that originate from this place ought to be
deemed votable by the private members' bill committee but rather
it gave one of the very few votable spots available to empower
individual MPs to a senator in the case of Bill S-11.
1840
That in my humble opinion is sufficient grounds to vote against
this or any other bill that originates from a completely absurd
anachronism of an institution which should have died with the
19th century from whence it came.
I do not think there is a member of this place or citizen of the
country who does not oppose poverty and unjust discrimination. I
certainly do not. I prefer to demonstrate my compassion for
those who have economic circumstances less fortunate than my own
through private charitable activities and contributions. I happen
to believe that compassion as Mother Teresa reminded us literally
means to suffer with. It does not mean to legislate good
intentions.
When I hear the intentions of the movers of the bill, when I
hear the member for Shefford say, as I believe she did in this
place, that Canada's obsession with the debt and the deficit
demonstrate that we really despise the poor, I frankly find that
bizarre in a country that has spent untold billions of scarce
resources by taxing money away from struggling families, many of
whom are below the so-called poverty line. In this enormous
project of wealth redistribution to say that Canadians somehow
despise the poor because they want to pay their bills is a gross
statement of hyperbole which does not belong in this place or
this debate.
What would the bill seek to do? I do not think anybody really
knows. I read the transcripts of the Senate committee where Bill
S-11 was examined. Witness after witness was asked how social
condition is defined. There appeared to be no clear consensus or
no clear definition.
One thing is clear. To prevent the public sector, parliament,
from discriminating against people on the basis of their social
condition, it would have some very interesting but unintended
consequences. For one thing it would take what is right now a
steeply progressive tax system and turn it into a completely flat
tax system. Right now the top 1% of income earners, those who
report income of over about $150,000 a year, represent about 9%
of the income reported in Canada but pay over 20% of the taxes.
The current tax laws very clearly discriminate against people on
the basis of income. The lowest income people, I would argue
quite appropriately, pay no taxes. We have this enormous case of
discrimination on the basis of social condition.
Do the movers of the bill intend that it ought to be interpreted
in such a way that the tax laws of the country would no longer be
able or that social benefits should no longer be able to be
targeted on the basis of income?
Do they suggest the clawback that exists for various social
payments ought to be eliminated and that billionaires ought to
have the same entitlement to social payments as do the indigent
poor? Probably not but they have not addressed that question.
What is it that they are attempting to do? I would suggest they
are trying to impose a radical egalitarian, frankly socialist
idea which is Marxist in its origins on the private sector to
restrict liberty and freedom.
We just heard the parliamentary secretary suggest that if this
law were passed it would change the way that banks deal with the
poor, with people who are in poverty. What do these people mean
by that? Do they mean that if such a statute or amendment were
passed a bank or a financial institution would be compelled by
force of law, as interpreted and implied by an unelected and
unaccountable human rights tribunal, to supply a loan to somebody
with no income, no assets and no reasonable prospect of assets or
income?
1845
Is that what is implied? If it is not, then why have we not
defined that kind of interpretation in the bill?
The lack of definition surrounding social condition is wide
open. Is it merely an oversight? No, it is clearly not.
Clearly the advocates of this radical egalitarian socialist idea
have in mind allowing a wide open interpretation so that our
friends, the robed Solons on the bench, may interpret and apply
this law in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
In other words, the advocates of potentially radical legislation
such as this do not want to paint a picture for democratic
discussion as to what the consequences of such legislation would
be, they want the courts to do it.
I refer to Professor Martha Jackman of the Faculty of Law at the
University of Ottawa who appeared at some length before the
Senate committee on this issue both in November 1997 and May
1998. She made some very interesting statements defending the
lack of definition.
She says “I would strongly discourage you from including the
notion of a definition within this bill because this would be
anomalous. There is a significant amount of literature about the
idea of race being essentially an artificial concept”. We have
race, religion and other grounds within the bills that courts and
commissions have wrestled with successfully from the perspective
of radical leftists such as Professor Jackman.
She goes on to say “I would discourage the committee from the
idea of defining social condition within the bill because that
freezes the definition at a particular time that is antithetical
to the approach that has been taken in human rights statutes”.
She goes on to talk about the case of Vriend in Alberta where
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the sovereign democratic
legislature of the people of Alberta was contravening the charter
of rights by not having included in a particular statute a term
which now exists in the charter of rights. In other words,
the courts decided to legislate from the bench in the Vriend
decision. She says that if we pass this well-intentioned
amendment of social condition we will be empowering the courts to
do the same thing in respect of social condition as they did with
respect to social orientation in Vriend.
She said “Based on precedence, recognition under provincial and
federal human rights statutes is in itself a criteria for finding
an analogous, non-enumerated ground under the charter”.
What she is saying is “Please, parliament, pass this bill so we
can then empower the courts to use this bill as the basis of
reading in a new constitutionally protected ground of
non-discrimination”.
I submit that if the proponents of this remedy wish it to be
entrenched in the Constitution they ought to do it directly,
honestly and transparently by introducing an amendment to the
charter of rights and freedoms and not through the nefarious back
door of this statute.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today, with a great deal of personal conviction and interest, in
support of the initiative by my hon. colleague from Shefford,
whose bill is aimed at amending the Canadian Human Rights Act by
adding social condition to the prohibited grounds of
discrimination.
It must be admitted that poverty is the worst enemy, not only of
human development, but also of social and economic development,
and represents our civilization's greatest failure. We are
forced to admit that the increase in poverty is a source of
great shame as the third millennium approaches.
The motion by the hon. member for Shefford reads as follows:
That Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in
order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of
discrimination, be now read a second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
We know that the Canadian Human Rights Act is a masterpiece. It
protects against discrimination and guarantees opportunity, but
one of its weaknesses is that it does not directly recognize
poverty as a source of inequality. As we know, the figures on
the increase in poverty, and on everything being poor in Canada
represents, are shocking.
1850
Daily, newspaper headlines remind us, and I will quote a few
“Poverty gaining ground in Montreal”, “Greater Montreal, of all
metropolitan areas in the country, has the most low income
families”. In Saint-Georges, “Moisson Québec distributes over
1,300 Christmas hampers”. And here is another headline “Street
kids, 14 and 15 year olds living one day at a time”.
Around Quebec City “Moisson Québec, two million kilos of food”;
“The agri-food industry manages its stocks much better than in
the past, but now we need to go further to find the items we
need”. Here is another , “The poor children of the universal
declaration of human rights”. Every day, newspaper headlines
recall this sad state of affairs.
It is surprising, to say the least, that the Canadian Human
Rights Act does not recognize social condition as an illicit
grounds, because, as a signatory to many international and
regional instruments on human rights, Canada has made a
commitment to guarantee the rights contained therein for
Canadians, without distinction.
In a number of provinces, much progress has been made in
including social origin as discriminatory in certain codes.
Newfoundland, for example, prohibits discrimination on the basis
of social origin.
The Ontario human rights code prohibits discrimination in the
area of housing, discrimination based on the fact that a person
receives welfare. The Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia codes
of human rights prohibit discrimination based on sources of
income and Saskatchewan's on the receipt of social assistance.
While these initiatives are praiseworthy in their attempt to
eliminate discrimination based on poverty, the provisions are
limited to the fact of being on welfare.
However, we all know that it is possible to work and remain
poor. That is why we may rightly be proud of the Quebec
legislation, which is the only one to include the expression
“social condition” without limiting its scope to apply only to
those on welfare.
That is why the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms is
considered, and rightly so, as the most progressive and modern.
Closer scrutiny reveals that the changes proposed in Bill S-11
are in line with provincial legislation and Quebec legislation
in particular.
Before going any further, we must ask ourselves whether the
issue of poverty warrants such an amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act. In the face of this ever-increasing poverty and
given the ineffective policies developed by the Liberals to
remedy the situation, the answer is clear: yes, and the sooner
the better.
Looking back about 10 years, we can see why. On November 24,
1989, the House of Commons unanimously passed the following
motion:
That this House express its concern for the more than one
million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek
to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian
children by the year 2000.
Strangely enough, nearly 10 years later, the number of children
living in poverty has increased by 60% to a record level of 1.5
million.
Several organizations involved in denouncing poverty and
assessing the various policies implemented by the Liberal
government point at decisions that defeat the stated purpose of
eliminating poverty in Canada, and they criticize and condemn
the government's social policies. These organizations include
the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Council on Social
Development and Campaign 2000.
The National Council of Welfare made the following statement:
The child tax benefit should be fully indexed to the cost of
living effective July 1, 1999.
We are therefore still waiting for this government to take
action. In a report released December 7 entitled “The Progress
of Canada's Children”, the Canadian Council on Social
Development was critical of the fact that, and I quote:
1855
The Council blames the low benefits received by unemployed
workers and also calls for the federal government's contribution
to the national child tax benefit to be increased to a total of
$2.5 billion annually for the year 2000.
This government has its work cut out for it in the fight against
poverty in Canada. As well, on November 28, Canada was accused
of obstruction by representatives of a UN committee looking at
Canada's efforts to reduce poverty and social inequality.
Committee members expressed dissatisfaction because of the
imprecise nature of responses to specific questions on
homelessness, welfare cuts through the Canada social transfer,
and the other social problems.
In its report, which was released last December 4, the UN
committee severely faults Canada for the rapid deterioration of
Canadians' living conditions. Canada is not ranked first, but
tenth, according to the United Nations human development index.
Campaign 2000, a poverty fighting organization, recently
released its 1998 report on child poverty, and its findings are
shocking. The number of children in families with an income
under $20,000 has risen by 65%. The number of children in
families where unemployment is chronic has risen by 33%.
The number of children whose families are on welfare has risen
by 51%. The number of children living in housing their families
cannot afford has risen by 91%.
Despite the fact that all these figures point to the very
opposite conclusion, the federal government continues to claim
that the measures presently in place are appropriate and respond
to the needs of children and families suffering from poverty.
I would like to offer an illustration of why I believe the
government continues to claim that the measures presently in
place respond to the needs of children.
In response to one of my questions in the House, the Minister of
Human Resources Development said “I want to reassure the members
of this House by telling them that eliminating child poverty is
a priority and that all our programs reflect that priority”, but
beyond all these figures and all these observations, there are
men and women and children suffering and they must remain
foremost in our concerns.
Poverty means being hungry and not knowing after the second week
in the month how to find enough food. It means going to school
hungry. It means being cold and having to choose between a coat
for one or boots for the other. It means having one's dreams
dashed and seeing Christmas arrive for others and a hamper for
oneself.
The fight against poverty and social injustice has always been
at the core of my political involvement.
In the light of the devastating effects of poverty and the
Liberals' lack of will to resolve it, we must work even harder
to get this House to do everything to remedy the injustices that
have been continuing for too long.
The proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act
represent a significant milestone. As the Canadian Human Rights
Commission noted in its 1997 annual report:
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to support Bill S-11. Although I may not agree with the
ideology of having a Senate or with the Progressive Conservative
Party, I am proud to stand to support this bill.
This bill is about our Canadian Human Rights Act. Human rights
are our finest instincts, our best wishes, our dreams and our
visions for now and the future. This is about how we will change
this country to make it better; take what is good and make it
solid; take the weak parts, look at them and change them to make
them better and to bring some life to this act.
Canada has always been a place where we could succeed on our
merit, work and determination. Everything is here. It does not
matter if we are born poor. We have public schools.
We have health care. We have homes. We can do whatever we want
in this country. For us to have to step back and look at the fact
of social conditions which generally refers to the poor as being
an obstacle to anyone accomplishing their dreams is really
shocking.
1900
I will give an example. My mother had eleven children. Three
died. My father died when I was young. We were poor. That meant
there were days when there was no food. That meant there were
nights when there was no heat. In the north when it is minus 30
or minus 40, living without heat is no joke. That means living
in a room with all your brothers and sisters, every coat in the
house piled on top of you and you are praying that somehow you
can get some money for food or to get some oil or wood for your
house. Poverty is not a lifestyle. It is not anything anyone
chooses.
My mother was of a generation that went through the war and they
wanted change. They wanted this country to be here for every
child, whether born poor or rich. They had an opportunity. They
fought for it and made changes.
If there was no public school, I would not have had an
education. If there was no subsidized secondary school, I would
not have been able to accomplish that. I certainly would not
have been able to make it to this House.
As our country recedes in the support we are willing to give to
the poor, it means more and more people will be born poor and
they will stay poor.
In the last 10 years we have seen family income go down by 5%.
Twenty-one percent of our families are low income. Sixty percent
of single mothers are poor. There has been a 47% growth in the
number of children living in poverty. For me these are not just
words, they are not statistics. I know what it feels like and I
know what children are going through when they live in poverty.
If my mother were alive I would never bring up the fact that we
were poor because it was a matter of shame. For this woman it
meant absolute shame that she would have to beg for food for her
children, which is what she had to do. She had to go to a food
bank. It was not called a food bank at that time but that is
what it was.
Adding this social condition to our human rights act is
important. It is important because it says of the country that
we care enough to think about poverty. We care enough to want to
say it, to entrench it and to make change that will make a
difference for the people in this country.
We can do it. I think all Canadians want that. We want to make
sure we have health care, education and housing. We want to help
those who are in between jobs, those who lose jobs, to make sure
employment insurance is there for them when they need it so they
do not have to go on social assistance, they do not have to be
degraded every day they are without a job because we place a lot
of value and worth in being able to work and support our
families.
Poverty increases depression, malnutrition, sickness and early
death. I was poor but I was never without a roof over my head. I
cannot imagine living without a home, yet more and more we are
seeing people without a blanket or roof of any sort over their
heads.
The changes that have gone on in our country in the last 10
years have meant that education is farther and farther out of the
reach of ordinary people, certainly out of the reach of the poor.
We have public schools to send children to. If someone cannot
afford a school book or running shoes for their children, they
certainly cannot afford a musical instrument or sporting
equipment for their children to participate in the social life of
their community.
It is a human rights issue. It is an issue on dignity. Even
though there may be reasons not to include this social condition
in the human rights act because it would take a bit of time, it
might affect other laws or institutions that we are not sure of,
it does not mean we should not do it.
I know my Reform colleague said we could force banks to give a
loan to someone who cannot pay it back. That is not the case at
all. That would not happen. But we could expect a bank to cash
the cheque of a poor working person. I know of quite a few
instances where banks refused to cash their cheques.
A woodcutter in Yukon received his payment from the government
because he delivered wood to people on social assistance. This
man would receive his cheque from the government. His working
clothes were torn and dirty because that was the nature of his
work. He did not have a bank account and the bank refused to
cash his cheque. Why? Because he was poor.
Fortunately in this country we are lucky enough to have more rich
people than poor people, but more and more people are becoming
poor. We need to make changes in public policy to make sure the
elements that cause poverty are not there and we also have to
recognize the indignity of living in poverty.
1905
We need not multiply the suffering of people in this country in
word or in deed. If we exclude poor people from our human rights
act then we are indeed heaping more indignity on those who are
poor. We also have to realize the aboriginal people of our
country are the poorest of the poor. By taking this step forward
we would be recognizing their suffering which is far greater than
most of ours.
I support this motion and I sincerely hope we will move for
change.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, it is with
great sorrow that I rise in the House to debate Bill S-11, an act
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as
a prohibited ground of discrimination.
I say with great sorrow because as we continue to debate the
merits of this very important piece of legislation millions of
Canadians are still struggling to survive while living in
poverty.
[Translation]
Based on figures for 1996, the UN report shows that 17.6% of
Canadians, including 20.9% of our children, live in poverty;
Canada ranks 10th out of 17 industrialized countries.
[English]
Putting all political differences aside, the fact is there are
over 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. For such
an affluent country to have such a horrendous record when it
comes to poverty is truly unacceptable.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister himself said this was unacceptable, yet he is
not doing anything to change the situation. I am not sure that
the government grasps how dangerous it is for a society to have
so many young people living in poverty. These children are part
of our future and, unless we find a way to deal with this
threat, a whole generation of Canadians may end up alone,
rejected and poor.
[English]
It is well understood that children who are the products of
families living in extreme poverty have significantly less
opportunity to succeed than those who were fortunate enough to
grow up in a more prosperous environment.
[Translation]
For those living in daily poverty, the possibility of a
prosperous future is almost unimaginable. Every day, I receive
calls from people facing the misery of poverty, and it seems the
problem is not getting better but worse.
[English]
The prevalence of poverty within this country has grown in leaps
and bounds in the past few decades. Food banks, which were
nowhere to be found in the 1970s, now number in the thousands and
can be found in 450 communities. Compounding the problem is the
fact that affordable and adequate housing has now become a full
blown crisis. Almost 400,000 Canadians live in substandard
housing.
All Canadians deserve an equal opportunity to succeed in our
society. However, this is unfortunately not the case.
Despite the often recognizable characteristics of poverty, there
is another obstacle that is often less recognisable or understood
by members of the general public but which is an unfortunate part
of their everyday life.
I am referring to the prevalent discrimination these individuals
are forced to live with on a daily basis. In addition to having
to endure the material hardships that accompany poverty, poor
Canadians are always having to face ostracism and negative
stereotyping, particularly in dealing with financial
institutions, as my hon. colleague from the NDP just mentioned,
businesses and their staff, officials, the legal system,
neighbours, strangers and the media.
1910
Let us face it, as a society we are often very intolerant of the
poor. This is why Bill S-11 is important. The Canadian Human
Rights Act recognizes that some people within our society are
vulnerable and must be protected against discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Act distinctly prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, marital status, family status, disability
and sexual orientation.
Bill S-11 is simply asking that we ensure explicit recognition
of poverty and its related attributes, such as being a welfare
recipient, and to prohibit discrimination against the poor in
areas under federal jurisdiction.
Adding social condition to the list of prohibited grounds of
discrimination in sections 2 and 3.1 of the act will finally
recognize a huge segment of our society that has been
marginalized. It will provide it with the same protection
presently offered to other groups within Canadian society.
[Translation]
The poor have nobody to protect them from the injustice of
society, which too often wants to close its eyes to the reality
of poverty. It is vital that these individuals be given
protection under the Charter.
[English]
It seems that each day I hear horror stories of welfare
recipients being unfairly treated when seeking essential
services. I have been told of chartered banks that refuse to
cash welfare recipient cheques because of insufficient pieces of
ID. Others have been denied the right to open their own bank
account.
Landlords, utility companies, the legal system and even the
media routinely discriminate against the poor either by refusing
them services or by providing them with inadequate service.
Our justice minister's response to Bill S-11 is to wait and to
explore other problems that might exist in the human rights act
before considering implementation or implementing social
condition in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Those living in poverty have been waiting for this government to
implement these changes for years. They can no longer afford to
wait for this government to take poverty seriously. Something
has to be done immediately to try to address some of their
immediate problems.
This government's answer to many of the problems facing
Canadians is to wait and study the situation further, hoping the
problems will eventually go away on their own.
Most recently, this Liberal strategy has come to light with the
justice minister's decision to ignore calls to have the child
pornography decision referred to the Canadian supreme court. The
justice minister would rather let this case proceed through a
lengthy appeal process than come to the defence of defenceless
children.
The federal agriculture minister as well was aware of a farm
income crisis when he was first appointed as minister over 18
months ago, yet he chose to do nothing about it until this
country was faced with the distinct possibility of losing
thousands of our farmers to bankruptcy.
Those living in poverty cannot afford any further delays from
this insensitive government. Action must be taken immediately so
that we can offer renewed hope to those less fortunate.
Bill S-11 was initially introduced and passed in the other place
by Senator Cohen. Since then, both she and my caucus colleague,
the member for Shefford, have worked diligently with concerned
citizens and fellow MPs representing all political stripes to try
to remedy this huge injustice that weighs so heavily against
those who are most vulnerable in our society.
I ask all hon. members to please not turn their backs on those
who need us the most. Help protect the millions of Canadians
living in poverty. Help eliminate discrimination that is
presently based on their social condition by supporting Bill
S-11.
1915
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I support the
essence and spirit behind Bill S-11, an amendment to the Canadian
Human Rights Act to add social condition as a protected ground
under the act.
I believe that the drafters of Bill S-11 intended it to provide
protection to the poor, to prohibit discrimination based on
economic discrimination. That is laudable and should be
supported by members. How could we do otherwise?
My concern is not with the object and aim of Bill S-11, but
rather with an overly broad and confusing nature of the exact
wording. Simply using an open-ended term such as “social
condition” I believe will add confusion to the act that will
result in an endless sea of litigation.
Imagine the hay day the lawyers would have with this kind of
wording. Maybe there are too many lawyers in the Senate. I will
give an example in terms of the remarks made by the hon. member
of the Conservative party. He talked about this government
waiting and studying. That is not the case at all. Where has he
been since 1993? Look at the budgets and look at what we have
done in those budgets for training, education and other things in
trying to grapple with these problems.
The hon. member mentioned the Minister of Justice and the child
pornography issue. We believe in due process on this side. We
do not believe in using the notwithstanding clause every time a
judge makes a ridiculous decision.
Then the member talked about the minister of agriculture and the
farm crisis. It is a little off topic, but I think I should
correct him. The point I am trying to make is that the broad
term of social condition could be given all kinds of different
interpretations.
I think the House can see from my explanation how wrong the
member opposite is in terms of how he views some of the things
this government is doing.
The minister of agriculture acted very quickly prior to
Christmas. In fact, one of the problems that the minister of
agriculture has is getting the Progressive Conservative
government on side in Manitoba to pick up its share of the
funding so that those cheques can get to the farm community.
Mr. Roy Bailey: What about Saskatchewan?
Mr. Wayne Easter: The member opposite asks about
Saskatchewan. I understand that finally the premier of
Saskatchewan has come through this afternoon and is going to pay
its 40% share. That of course is due to the good persuasive
powers of our minister of agriculture and our Prime Minister in
having them come to the table to do what needs to be done to
support the farm community.
I want to get back to the issue at hand, Bill S-11. As I said,
simply using an open-ended term such as social condition will add
confusion to the act that will result in an endless sea of
litigation. I want to re-emphasize that point.
If we are serious about assisting the poor and the disadvantaged
in our society, then we must create opportunities for jobs. That
is what this government has been doing. We must lower
unemployment. That is what this government has been doing. We
must provide education. Look at the last two budgets. Look at
the millennium scholarship fund about which hon. members opposite
are so critical.
We must provide training and we must provide the necessities of
life so people will be able to participate as full and equal
partners in our society. We must provide a remedy through our
human rights legislation for prejudicial treatment of the poor in
a manner that makes that protection meaningful.
This year we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UN
declaration on human rights. It is a fitting time to review our
current human rights legislation to ensure that it protects the
most vulnerable in our society. In Canada we have honoured our
commitment to the declaration for 50 years.
1920
What does the declaration say on economic rights? Article 25
states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself (herself) and of her/his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widow, old age or other lack
of livelihood in circumstances beyond her/his control.
Recently the United Nations in its Human Rights Development
Index Report gave Canada top marks as being the best place to
live based on 1995 data. I believe that Canada received a high
rating because Canadians take our commitment to human rights very
seriously.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that you are indicating I am out of
time. Maybe I can conclude my remarks at a later date.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member will
have approximately four minutes remaining the next time this bill
is before the House.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Parliament Secretary to the
Minister of Transport. It is further to a question that I asked
in the House to which the minister responded that the province of
Nova of Scotia and the province of New Brunswick, in particular,
did not violate an agreement.
Since that time, through the access to information program, we
have become aware of another letter in which the minister said to
the province of New Brunswick that it could charge tolls on this
federally funded highway under two conditions. The first
condition was that the amount of the federal contribution would
still have to be cost shared with the province on a 50:50 basis.
The second condition was that any revenue from the tolls would be
an additional source of funds to be dedicated solely to the
project in question.
I sent to the parliamentary secretary a quote from Hansard
wherein the minister of finance for New Brunswick said “We had
always made it clear that the provincial money we invested in
these sections of road would be recovered”. That totally
contradicts the minister's letter which says that the province
must maintain its cost share ratio of 50:50 on this highway.
There is a contradiction. The province has totally contradicted
the words of the federal minister.
With respect to the second condition, the minister said that any
revenue from the tolls must be totally dedicated to the project
in question. Again I sent to the parliamentary secretary a
newspaper article which quoted the premier of the province of New
Brunswick as saying “Yes, there is some money coming back and
it will be applied to health care”. They used the figure of
$321 million. Again the federal minister said that all the
revenue from the highway must go to the project. The province
now says it is going to health care or general revenues or
whatever.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to address this letter and the
absolutely unambiguous statements and conditions that the
minister applied to the province of New Brunswick if it was going
to charge tolls on a federally funded highway: that is, that the
province must maintain its share, which it has not, and that the
province must dedicate all the revenue to that specific project,
which it has not.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague
asked earlier about New Brunswick taxpayers in relation to paying
tolls for highways and where the money was going.
The member certainly knows that we on this side will investigate
every morsel of information that he has put before us because we
want to be clear and articulate in what we say. He does
understand the issue.
Under the Constitution of Canada highways are a provincial
responsibility.
1925
In the instance of the new Fredericton to Moncton highway, the
federal government did contribute a portion of the highway's
overall costs. New Brunswick has chosen to operate the new
highway as a public-private partnership with the Maritime Road
Development Corporation using tolls.
The hon. member should note that the Government of New Brunswick
has indicated that the federal contribution was already deducted
against the cost base used to establish the tolls and the annual
provincial payment for the remaining capital costs. In effect,
the federal funds have reduced the overall capital costs to this
project for New Brunswick taxpayers.
The concerns raised about tolls and federal contributions
certainly deserve further study. We will grant the member that.
Transport Canada as usual is providing some leadership in
developing a future policy on tolls in the event the federal
government were to launch a new national highway program.
However, with respect to the hon. member's allegation of
inappropriate federal spending, I would like to quote directly
from the auditor general's report: “We found in all the
negotiated agreements that the program objectives, funding levels
and cost sharing ratios to be maintained throughout the life of
the agreement reflected the government's directives”.
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am up on the same topic and the same question to the
minister. I hope that I do not get the same reply from the
parliamentary secretary. He is dodging the real question of what
happened to that federal money when the agreement was broken by
the province of New Brunswick. That is the big unanswered
question in this House.
The only thing I can agree with in terms of what the
parliamentary secretary said is that the federal government is
examining future agreements. It has admitted that this agreement
was violated. It goes beyond the violation of the agreement that
upsets me.
The agreement was made by the former Minister of Transport in
this House, a man by the name of Doug Young. He now happens to
be the chairman of the Maritime Road Development Corporation,
MRDC. His company is taking control of what is truly a
provincial constitutional issue. His company will determine the
weights on that highway, the tolls on that highway and the
maintenance on that highway. Basically, the province of New
Brunswick has abrogated its responsibilities. The feds are
sitting back here nodding their heads in agreement, protecting
their old friend, Doug Young.
That is wrong because at the end of the day it is going to cost
the citizens, the taxpayers of the province of New Brunswick more
money than if they had built the highway themselves. This is
ridiculous.
There is also another difficulty in terms of transportation. It
now costs one single truck $20,000 a year to use that highway if
it is used 365 days a year. That is a $20,000 increase in the
operation of just one vehicle.
They have sat back and allowed them to set those tolls which is
absolutely indisputably wrong. We are asking for a correction.
We are also asking for leadership in this House from the Minister
of Transport to renege on that type of an agreement and to take
the province of New Brunswick to task on that type of agreement.
It is double jeopardy for taxpayers. The toll payers and the
taxpayers are one and the same person. Why should they pay twice
for the same piece of highway? The only reason they are going to
pay twice is because it is going into the hind pocket of their
friend, Doug Young, the former Minister of Transport, who set the
deal in motion right here in this House. They reneged on their
own signature.
The premier of New Brunswick is finally admitting that there is
going to be money coming off this deal. Where is it going? It is
going into what they consider their own little fund but it has
nothing to do with paying off that highway and kicking Doug Young
and the rest of them out of the deal.
That is what we want to see happen: leadership at the federal
level.
Anyone who can stand in the House to defend Doug Young does not
understand how this toll highway works.
1930
We are asking again for leadership from the federal level to
make sure deals like this one do not happen in the future.
Taxpayers can only stand so much punishment and this is
extraordinary punishment brought on by a Minister of Transport
who does not dare to stand up to his old friend.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I sometimes think
this is supposed to be the House of reason, but we had quite a
rant against an honourable former member of this House. He used
the word ridiculous and I would say to the hon. member opposite
that the charges he is laying are in fact ridiculous. He has no
basis on which to make those charges against the particular
individual.
I will quote again from the auditor general's report.
We found in all the negotiated agreements that the program
objectives, funding levels and cost sharing ratios to be
maintained throughout the life of the agreements reflected the
government's objectives.
I said in an earlier response, and I do believe this is
important, we recognize that we do not want to face a system of
tolls right across Canada. The concerns raised about tolls and
federal contributions deserve further study. Transport Canada is
developing a future policy on tolls in the event that the federal
government were to launch a new national highway program.
The member charged that the company of which Doug Young is a
member is doing all these things that he resents. I cannot
recall them all. Really the provincial government decides on its
alignment, design, construction, standards, tendering process and
financing, as well as subsequent operations and maintenance.
If the hon. member is suggesting in his remarks that tolls
create an interprovincial trade barrier, the agreement on
international trade has an established process under which a
province—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the time
has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.33 p.m.)