Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 161 (Official Version)

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Privacy Commissioner on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act for the year 2006.

[Translation]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

* * *

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

* * *

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the National Governors Association winter meeting, Innovation America, in Washington, D.C., February 24-27, 2007.

* * *

[Translation]

Committees of the House

Finance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, as agreed on Wednesday, May 30, 2007.

* * *

[English]

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In accordance with the motion adopted on Monday, May 28, your committee recommends that the government provide the committee an opportunity to study and provide recommendations to the terms of reference of any review of Canada Post prior to its commencement.

Also, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, your committee has considered Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 and 75 in the main estimates under transport for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, and reports the same.

* * *

Terminator Seeds Ban Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-448, An Act to prohibit the release, sale, importation and use of seeds incorporating or altered by variety-genetic use restriction technologies (V-GURTs), also called “terminator technologies”, and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table this private member's bill. Many in Canada share the conviction that Canada should join the ranks of countries like India and Brazil whose governments have already legislated bans on this technology in order to protect their farmers.

It is time to make a commitment to our farmers and the international community so that terminator seed technology will not be allowed to take root in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Canada-Portugal Day Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-449, An Act respecting a Canada-Portugal Day.

She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill which seeks to declare June 10 as Canada-Portugal Day in appreciation of the Portuguese Canadians' contribution in Canada and in celebration of the friendship between Portugal and Canada.

On June 10, in Canada and throughout the world, persons of Portuguese origin remember their cultural roots by celebrating the life of Luis de Camoes, the author of Os Lusiadas, the epic poem about the history of Portugal prior to 1500.

Portuguese Canadians have a long history in Canada. Back in the 15th century, on the south and east shores of Newfoundland and the Strait of Belle Isle, Portuguese fishermen caught cod and dried them ashore. Names of Portuguese origin are found along the Atlantic coast of Canada. Canada and Portugal continue to work together and the first annual meeting of the Canada-Portugal committee on fisheries cooperation took place in Lisbon March 16-17, 2006.

In the 1950s, many Portuguese immigrants came to Canada to farm and helped construct railways. Since then, thousands continue to arrive to build our cities and towns. Today almost half a million people of Portuguese descent call Canada home.

With the declaration of June 10 as Canada-Portugal Day, Parliament will recognize and express gratitude for the contribution of the Portuguese Canadian community to Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I hope you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44, except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

(1010)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

* * *

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1)(a) I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44 except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform moves pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1)(a):

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 25 members having risen:

The Speaker: Fewer than 25 members having risen the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

[Translation]

Committees of the House

International Trade

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Friday, May 18, 2007, be concurred in.

I am very pleased to rise in this House and discuss a motion made by the Bloc Québécois and adopted by the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 15.

I should mention that the Conservatives did everything in their power to block and delay the adoption of this motion, but the opposition parties set aside partisanship to address this issue, which is crucial to the sovereignty of Canada and the Quebec of the future.

Before I go any further, I would like to read the motion, as adopted by the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and the motion adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 your Committee recommends:

Whereas Canada’s water resources must be protected;

Whereas NAFTA covers all services and all goods, except those that are expressly excluded and water is not excluded;

Whereas this situation puts the provincial and federal laws concerning the protection of water including the prohibition of bulk water exports at risk;

Whereas a simple agreement by exchange of letters among the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico specifying that water is not covered by NAFTA must be respected by international tribunals as if it were an integral part of NAFTA;

That the Standing Committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

Considering that the primary responsibility of democratically elected political parties is to represent the people and defend their interests, it is difficult to imagine that a party would refuse to support a motion intended to protect Quebec's and Canada's resources. Such a position has no basis in logic. Many people are afraid to embark on such talks, because reopening NAFTA would be like opening Pandora's box, especially since the winds of protectionism seem to be blowing south of the border.

These concerns are understandable, but it is possible to exclude water, without completely reopening the agreement. Far from being eloquent, the Conservatives' argument is mainly that there is no risk, so why talk about it?

Most of the people who appeared before the committee did not show the same gullibility or naiveté as the Conservatives. In any event, assuming that the Conservatives are right, nothing would stop them from taking a stand on this issue. This would reassure all Quebeckers and Canadians, and would firmly show our American and Mexican neighbours that Canada has a consensus.

Refusing to take a stand on this issue shows the current government's lack of goodwill. Speaking of goodwill, the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade were shocked by the attitude of the committee chair, particularly when it came to the process for discussing and adopting the water motion, which we are talking about today.

We now all understand better what happened: the chair was only doing as he was told. It was a good try, but democracy won out, which goes to show how essential the Bloc Québécois is to the current Parliament.

To get back to the water motion, the question is whether or not bulk water can be considered a good. I would like to warn you that the Conservatives will mainly refer to water in its natural state. What is water in its natural state? It is water flowing down a river, or sitting in a basin. What is water if it has been removed from a riverbed or a basin? Since it has been altered, it is no longer in its natural state.

(1015)

This distinction is essential in this case. Water in its natural state is effectively protected, but as soon any type of modification is made, water is no longer in its natural state and can therefore become a commercial good.

That is precisely what is pointed out in a document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade:

Water does not become a good until it is removed from its natural state and enters into commerce as a saleable commodity,

That is very close to what we are saying, is it not? But let us go further. Again, according to the document from the department:

Water in its natural state can be equated with other natural resources, such as trees in the forest, fish in the sea, or minerals in the ground.

Can the government confirm that the forests, fish or minerals are not covered by NAFTA? Obviously not or the problem goes well beyond the debate we are engaged in today.

Therefore, by comparing water to those other natural resources, the government is confirming that water could very well become a commodity regulated by NAFTA. That shows how important it is to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. The threat is very real, indeed, too real.

In simple terms, water could be a commercial product, but as the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec (BAPE) has recognized it is only the lack of profit in water exports that has so far protected Quebec water from being exported in bulk.

In 2000, the BAPE noted that the commercial value of water did not make it profitable to export water in bulk. But what would happen if the commercial value of water increased to the point that it made such a project profitable?

Given the climate change that our world is facing, our neighbours to the south expect increasing drought, which will have major repercussions, especially on the American economy. It is because of that very real possibility that we must act now to specifically exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

In its report, entitled L’eau, ressource à protéger, à partager et à mettre en valeur, the Commission sur la gestion de l'eau au Québec asked the question, “Should Quebec export its fresh water in large quantities?” and answered with an emphatic “No”.

The report pointed out that maintaining the status quo would be an unwise strategy given the current state of knowledge and the uncertainty related to climate change. That uncertainty is becoming more of a certainty. Climate change is increasingly considered to be a real and significant threat.

Since the publication of the BAPE report in 2000, scientific advances, such as the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known as IPCC, have confirmed the fears raised in the BAPE report.

The report clearly indicates:

In the short term, Quebec must make the Water Resources Preservation Act permanent. On the federal side, the possibility of the renegotiation of NAFTA must be closely scrutinized.

That is what the BAPE had to say.

In other words, the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois is perfectly in line with the recommendation made in the BAPE report on water management. Given that natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government must not encroach on provincial jurisdictions; rather, it must fill in the gaps in trade agreements, such as NAFTA, which do fall under federal jurisdiction.

Water, in and of itself, is under provincial jurisdiction, but have the provinces done their homework?

(1020)

Will the federal government alone protect this resource? Quebec legislation prohibits the export of water in bulk, and every Canadian province, except New Brunswick, has similar legislation.

However, there is no guarantee that this legislation will withstand a possible dispute by the Americans under NAFTA, which is the problem that this motion aims to resolve. The government says that NAFTA in no way limits our ability to protect our water resources. However, the situation is not so straightforward. Water is not specifically excluded from the scope of NAFTA. Most experts agree that water, in its natural state, is not subject to NAFTA. This protection, quite frankly, does not mean much. As already mentioned, water is in its natural state when it is not being used. The Americans would not purchase water from the Saguenay, only to leave it in the Saguenay. They would want to purchase water from the Saguenay in order to use it south of the border. Thus, it would not be in its natural state.

If a proposal to take water for export is put forward, we can no longer say that the water is not being used. If a contract is signed to that effect, a commercial transaction exists and trade agreements apply. Unless a commodity is specifically excluded from NAFTA through an exception under chapter 21 or a reservation, NAFTA applies the moment a commercial transaction is concluded.

In the absence of an exception, it is not the nature of the commodity that determines whether it is a marketable commodity. In other words, a U.S. company would simply have to put forward a proposal to export large quantities of water in order for NAFTA to apply, namely in terms of non-discrimination, national treatment or investment protection.

What about the witnesses who were kind enough to appear before the committee, that is, those who were allowed to speak? I must say that at the May 10 meeting, I was never more ashamed to be a parliamentarian. Preventing a witness from addressing the committee was not just embarrassing, but literally unbearable. Witnesses who had truly travelled from across Canada to provide us their testimony were silenced by the committee's chair. Again today, given recent revelations in the media on the Conservatives' code, we understand things better, but this is still inexcusable. Some had the chance to be heard. I should say “listened to”, but for members of the government I use that term quite loosely.

Allow me to cite Peter Fawcett, Deputy Director at the U.S. Transboundary Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who appeared before the committee on May 10. Mr. Speaker, I presume you will allow my loose translation of what he said, which was, “I just want to emphasize that this is the approach we've taken to deal with water—as a natural resource, in its basin”. What happens when water is no longer in its basin? The witness was unable to give us an answer.

Another witness left quite an impression on the committee: Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, who addressed the committee on May 1. Her remarks were clear, precise and easy to understand. Ms. Barlow has published a number of books specifically on water. Allow me to quote a few excerpts from Ms. Barlow's testimony in the committee:

One is that you won't see the word “water” in NAFTA. What you'll see is the reference to the definition of a “good” that was in the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. When you go to that, you will see water in all its forms, including ice and snow. NAFTA adopted the old GATT tariff notion of a good, so water absolutely, definitely, is in NAFTA, which supersedes the provincial laws; not one of the provincial bans on water exports would stand up to a NAFTA challenge. We have to remove water as a good, an investment, and a service in NAFTA. We need to do that.

(1025)

Ms. Barlow went on to say that:

[The Conservatives are] wrong in saying that NAFTA does not impact on the provinces and does not take precedence. A treaty between two countries, signed by the federal government of those two countries, is the overarching legislation. It implies everything and involves everything about the provinces. Of course the provinces don't have jurisdiction higher than that treaty.

I have here in my hand all of the legislation of the different provinces. It's a mishmash. New Brunswick has nothing--and they mean nothing.

Ralph Pentland, now retired, is considered Canada's leading senior bureaucratic authority on water issues. He is very clear that water is in NAFTA, as are all the legal opinions that you will find from everybody on all sides of the border--and when I say “border” I mean the political border. We even met with lawyers from the Canadian government when the Liberals were in power, and they all said the same thing: water is in NAFTA. You don't see the word. You have to go to the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to get the definition of a good, and there it is. It is in there as an investment.

There is much to talk about. In short, for a brief period of time British Columbia exported water to the United States, specifically to a region experiencing a shortage. However, the province quickly changed its mind at the cost of a secret out-of-court settlement based on the provisions of the infamous chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

Canadian water will not be at risk so long as Americans do not challenge provincial laws, which are all different, and demand the export of water as a commercial good governed by NAFTA.

Although the issue is complex and the implications far-reaching, the solution may be simple and achievable. Excluding water from NAFTA is an obvious example that simple measures often do the trick.

When the government's argument against a motion is summed up by “it is no use”, while representatives of civil society are using every platform to make government aware of the extent of the risk, we should be asking questions.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to have introduced this motion, which is a good example of how the Bloc Québécois supports democracy in this House.

In closing, I will quote a few lines from the Libre-Opinion piece that appeared in Le Devoir on May 30, 2007:

The recent adoption by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade of a motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois, and supported by the opposition parties, to exclude water from NAFTA, deserves to be applauded.

It is in this context that I ask this House and all members to support this motion calling on the Government of Canada to begin formal talks with Mexico and the United States for the purpose of excluding water from the scope of NAFTA.

The Conservatives have told us repeatedly that water is not covered by the NAFTA, that it is excluded. Then why not spell it out? If the government and the Conservative members insist on being unclear, there must be something wrong. This motion is crystal clear.

(1030)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member said he is tremendously anxious about water quality and the sale of water. Why, then, is the Bloc prepared to support the Conservatives' new fisheries act given that Bill C-45 gives corporate polluters a free hand to dump toxic substances in many of our lakes, rivers and oceans?

The St. Lawrence River, for example, is intimately connected with the Great Lakes, which are under tremendous stress and pressure. This Parliament should strengthen our laws to protect our water, so why is the Bloc supporting any bill that weakens the protection of our water? How can we talk about exporting water when our water might be further polluted or contaminated?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a possible export of water and the fact that NAFTA might permit the exporting of water.

I do not imagine that anyone would want Canada's and Quebec's water if it were completely polluted, other than to use for very rudimentary needs that would have no implications. When we are talking about the bulk removal of water, it is just as important, if not more so, to talk about water quality. The water we are conserving will have to be good quality, clean and pollution-free.

After the oxygen we breathe, which is essential to life, the second element that is essential to life is water. We must first ensure that the air is as pure as possible; and our water must then also be as pure as possible. Not only must it be pure, but it must also be protected. Water is not just a natural resource, it is a resource that is essential to life.

For example, I will cite a few situations that have occurred in the world. Let us recall the Aral Sea, which has practically dried up because of irrigation and because the water table was affected. We cannot allow this to occur. In the United States, there are developments being built in the desert, where housing complexes are being constructed and top dollar is being paid to have an oversized artificial lake. This will lead to a need for water. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention. On the other hand, the American need for water will mean that the United States will one day be wanting Canada's and Quebec's water.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question that is similar to that of my colleague. If we are really concerned about freshwater and water transportation, then we have to look at the largest reserve of water. Let us look at the Great Lakes, which hold 22% of the world's unfrozen freshwater. That is a significant amount of water. Our obligation on both sides of the border should be to protect that water and to make sure it is as clean and as usable as possible, generation after generation, as far ahead as we want to look.

We have been doing a poor job of that. This past weekend the Canada and the U.S. met and I know it is as large an issue on the United States side as it is on our side. We have to work collectively together to deal with that.

However, when we are talking about this motion and NAFTA and removing freshwater to a foreign country, which would obviously be the United States, that is absolutely not in NAFTA. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding on that, in 1993 there was an agreement among the three countries to make that absolutely clear. The NAFTA deal only talks about this if it is a good. It is only a good if it is processed, either put in a bottle or put into some kind of process. In its natural form it is not a good and it is not part of NAFTA.

I do not understand where this motion is going and why there is a problem here. There is a problem, but the problem lies in dealing with that 22% of the freshwater in the world, not in this motion and not in removing freshwater to the United States in a form that would be obligated by NAFTA. I wonder if my colleague would respond to that, because those are the real facts.

(1035)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Conservative member, is using a bit of a diversionary tactic. What I am talking about is water in the context of NAFTA; he is talking about the water in the Great Lakes. We all know that when it comes to the Great Lakes, we have the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and that this is under federal jurisdiction, of course. As well, it involves the International Joint Commission. In that respect, when the member says that there are major problems, he must probably be meaning to refer to the problems that the Conservatives are encountering in negotiations about boundary waters.

The fact remains that Canada has to preserve its water. It must also work with the United States, because there are two parties here: the United States and Canada. They must work in the same direction to protect these great bodies of water.

That cannot be done without a firm will to protect not only the quantity of water, the whole range of watersheds, but also the quality of that water. A drop in the water level can have a horrific impact. The Americans will certainly be tempted, of course, to pump water from the watersheds, but because of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, we must ensure that these great bodies of water are protected. That much is obvious.

Once that protection has been granted, under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, we must still consider the question of water that is not expressly excluded from NAFTA. Yes, there are letters. Yes, there is an implementation act; but when will there be action? Is wood not a commodity, just like fish or ore? They are not commodities when they are in their natural state, but as soon as they are no longer in that natural state, they are commodities.

And that is what the United States wants to do, in the relatively short term.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it seems as we move along with the trade agreements we signed many years ago that some of these issues still are not resolved.

I had the opportunity to make a presentation to an environmental assessment panel in Quebec City this winter on the relationship of energy to NAFTA in terms of the liquefied natural gas imports proposed for Quebec. Once again, there is no clarity on the nature of some of these products under these trade agreements.

Does my hon. colleague not agree with me that it is very important to push forward with our position on products, goods and services and to put our case forward as strongly as possible from the government and this Parliament to ensure that our trading partners understand where we are coming from? That is what I think this effort from the committee is working toward and it is certainly something that should be supported.

(1040)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin:

Mr. Speaker, I have here a note that I have to read to you to put things into context. Let us recall that, at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the U.S. president told a reporter that he saw Canada's water resources as part of America's energy security.

We know very well how the negotiations are conducted. For the SPP, the security and prosperity partnership, for instance, there have been discussions between firms of pretty important lobbyists, or at least ones with considerable political influence, from the three countries involved: Canada, the United States and Mexico. They have gotten together to talk about the water issue. That too comes under the security and prosperity partnership of North America and it shows how much the United States cares about energy security.

In this respect, certainly efforts have to be made. Efforts have to be made to defend the interests of Canada and those of Quebec, of course, in any of these forums, because the SPP is doing things that go against the values of Canadians and Quebeckers. There is therefore a need for greater democratization. Canada has to assert its place in these negotiations, but it also has to speak for the values, aspirations and needs of the people, both Canadians and Quebeckers.

The government must therefore show great resolve, so that any dealings with the United States are conducted fairly and everyone wins. Above all, we must not be exploited or let anyone exploit us.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, for raising this today. We all recognize how important water is.

As well, of course, with all the discussions we are having of late about the environment and what is happening with our environment and the quality and quantity of our water, I think it is a relevant debate. It is misleading, of course, because of the premise of the motion we are debating, and I was part of that debate in committee, where I tried to raise the facts for the opposition members, who were not prepared to listen.

We heard a little lecture from that member this morning about committee procedures. I would beg to differ in regard to when a witness comes to committee and is totally off the topic that is being discussed that day and the chairman asks if the witness could please bring it back on topic. I supported our committee chair because we had called in a witness to speak on a specific subject. Our chair made the right decision.

I will stand behind our chair's decision. We were trying to bring the debate around to the topic of that day. Not only did that individual show great disrespect for our chair, who has spent as much time in that chair as you have, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that our committee chair should not be required to subject himself to disrespect any more than you should, Sir.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to this important debate. As I have said, water is an important matter and an important resource for Canada. Compared to other parts of the world, Canada possesses a relative abundance of freshwater. My hon. colleague from Yellowhead has pointed out the volume of water that is within Canada's--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Wascana is rising on a point of order.

* * *

Points of Order

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Points of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the parliamentary secretary. I do not mean to interrupt his speech. He will have an opportunity in just a moment to continue, but this has to do with another matter that occurred in the House earlier today at the beginning of the session.

I rise on a point of order concerning the government's use of Standing Order 56.1 to dispose of the committee stage of Bill C-44. This occurred earlier today.

I would like to refer specifically to a ruling by the Speaker on September 18, 2001, in which the Speaker said the following:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Mr. Speaker, that appeared in Hansard on September 18, 2001.

Therefore, in light of this ruling that is already provided, and referenced, I might say, in Marleau and Montpetit, acknowledging that the committee stage of a bill is a stage of consideration, the government can use Standing Order 78 to limit debate at this stage or at any other stage.

As indicated by the Speaker in the quotation that I referred to, Standing Order 56.1 “was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages”.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, respectfully request that you look at the motion adopted by the use of Standing Order 56.1 this morning and rule explicitly that the motion is out of order in relation to Standing Order 56.1.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the aboriginal affairs committee is meeting very shortly and that is why I have raised the matter at this time. Your ruling in a timely manner would be most welcome on this issue so that the standing committee can know where it stands.

(1045)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, a similar motion was moved and adopted on October 3, 2006, concerning Bill C-24, the softwood lumber bill. That motion was challenged and the Speaker ruled the motion in order. The Speaker said at that time:

In fact, the effect of the motion is not unlike the effect of adopting a motion under Standing Order 26, which provides for the continuation of debate on a matter before the House, which is to say that it provides for an open-ended extension of the sitting for purposes of continuing debate on a particular matter. This, it can be argued, can be seen as the House managing its business and arranging its proceedings.

As I read the motion moved by the hon. the government House leader and adopted by the House, every member wishing to speak to the amendment and the main motion, who has not already done so, will be able to participate. The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure. Instead it simply extends the sitting of the motion then before the House. That is a significant difference. The precedents available to me, including my own previous rulings, are therefore insufficient in my view for me to rule the motion out of order on this occasion.

The motion the government House leader has moved is not unlike the motion moved on October 3rd. The only difference is that it concerns a bill that is before a committee. There is no deadline dictated to the committee as a time allocation motion would propose. Members are free to sit as long as they wish to consider Bill C-44. There is no deadline for reporting the bill back, except to direct the committee to report the bill back when it finishes its consideration of Bill C-44. The motion does not presuppose that the committee is going to adopt the bill. It simply says that if the committee adopts the bill, that it ought to report it back. That is what would normally happen.

With respect to committees being masters of their own destiny, that principle does not preclude the House from giving committees some direction. Committees are subordinate to the House. In fact, the House is the sole source of direction for committees through the Standing Orders and other motions. This is covered on pages 805 to 809 of Marleau and Montpetit. In part it says:

Standing committees are permanent committees established by Standing Order. They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy or to exercise procedural and administrative responsibilities related to Parliament...other matters are routinely referred to them by the House for examination: bills, Estimates, Order-in-Council appointments--

It also says that the House can give an order of reference including “--conditions that the committee must comply with in carrying out the study--”.

I submit that Standing Order 56.1 is the proper means to achieve the objectives outlined in the motion. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to section (b) of the Standing Order which says that Standing Order 56.1 is to be used:

--for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment

As with the motion that dealt with the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the motion dealing with the committee stage of Bill C-44 can be seen as the House managing its business and arranging its proceedings.

(1050)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Liberal House leader in asking you to rule this motion out of order and to prevent the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development from meeting today to finish its work on this bill.

Like the Liberal House leader, I interpret this motion as being one of time allocation. As such, there are already precedents on this matter, including a Speaker's ruling on September 18, 2001. In his ruling, the Speaker said that Standing Order 56.1 should not be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate. Further on, with respect to government attempts to speed up business, he added:

The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Consequently, the Bloc believes that the motion was misinterpreted and that it should therefore be ruled out of order, as I said earlier.

Furthermore, this is a common sense issue. The witnesses we need to hear in order to debate this bill come from as far away as Saskatchewan and Alberta. This affects aboriginal communities. If the committee is forced to meet today to study this bill, members of the committee will not have access to all of the information they need to make an informed decision. There is nothing in either parliamentary privilege or precedence that justifies the motion before us.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer up the support of the NDP caucus to the point of order of the House leader of the official opposition in that we believe it should be ruled out of order.

I will not go into the clauses and references. That has been done quite adequately. However, I would add the arguments that the NDP have in support of the point being made.

The first one is that we should not be and cannot be using a routine motion to effectively impose time allocation. In particular, we should not be using a routine motion when there are other motions available.

There are three versions of time allocation that would actually be applicable to this particular situation, of which the government has not availed itself, and there is also closure. As much as we may not like closure, it is still a legitimate tool that the government has available if it wishes to apply time allocation to this matter, rather than again using the routine motion provision.

The other thing is, quite frankly the current Speaker and previous Speakers have reiterated that we cannot go through the back door when the front door is available. For that matter, we cannot go through the back door when the front door is not available. The fact is that the government ought not to try to go in through the back door using a routine motion for something that is one of the strongest powers that the House has, which is to shut down debate.

Therefore, if the government feels it wants to go down this road, it should get this back on track and we should proceed with one of the other tools that is available. However, we do agree wholeheartedly with the notion that this particular route is not appropriate, and in our humble submission to you, Mr. Speaker, we believe also that it should be ruled out of order.

(1055)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their interventions, although I believe that you will find in your ruling that there has been precedents set, as was in the case of Bill C-24, and you will rule this motion in order.

I just want to respond to my colleague, the hon. House leader for the Bloc Québécois, who was making the argument that perhaps in some manner, witnesses coming from far afield would be inconvenienced. In fact, just the opposite is true. Witnesses are already here, witnesses from Saskatchewan and other provinces, since there is a committee meeting starting in approximately four minutes.

Therefore, there is absolutely no inconvenience to any witnesses. In fact, it gives them an even longer opportunity to present their case before the committee so that the committee will have the ability, should it choose to sit extended hours.

I would argue that there is more opportunity for not only witnesses but committee members to discuss this bill and in fact, that is quite the opposite of closure. It is giving all committee members an opportunity to speak for as long as they wish, which I think, quite frankly, is entirely democratic.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Are there any other interventions on this same point of order?

At this time then I will begin by saying that it is unfortunate, although it was in the nature of the circumstances perhaps, that members did not have an opportunity to make the point of order when the actual motion was brought forward. However, it is in the nature of the exercise, so to speak, that members are not intended to be here when it is brought forward.

I have listened to the arguments. I think that the argument that the ruling in the fall somehow has bearing on this particular procedural move by the government is not entirely sound in the sense that that particular event had to do with the business of the House and not with the business of the committee.

I think that use of Standing Order 56.1 to direct the business of the committee, of any committee, is a new development in the House and one that I find out of order. The reasons will be provided in the future by the Chair, in the near future I trust, for the decision that is being made at this time.

I accept the point of order and I find that the use of 56.1 in this particular case was inappropriate.

* * *

Committees of the House

International Trade

[Routine Proceedings]

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, because of that interruption, I would hope that the hon. member for Wascana would now stay and listen to this stimulating debate. We are talking about a very important issue, an issue that is important to all members of this House, especially those from Saskatchewan.

As I was saying, Canada has an abundance of fresh water compared to other parts of the world. All of us who represent ridings across this country that are surrounded by water or have water passing through our ridings in the form of creeks and rivers realize this.

Along with our friends and partners to the south of the border, we are joint stewards of the largest group of freshwater lakes on this planet, that being the Great Lakes, as referred to by my hon. colleague from Yellowhead. Communities situated around the Great Lakes depend on this important resource and they look to their governments at all levels to work together to protect it.

That is why this government takes very seriously the protection of our water resources. Let me be clear at the outset that Canada has and will maintain full sovereignty over the management of water in its natural state in Canada. In doing so, we are in no way constrained or bound by trade agreements, including the NAFTA.

The opening comments by the hon. member for Sherbrooke are factually incorrect and in a lot of ways are very misleading. Some of the witnesses that he referred to I would suggest have not done their homework on the realities of what this government is doing to protect that resource.

There is no need to begin talks with our American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA because we already have such an agreement, since 1993, before the NAFTA even entered into force. Canada has a strong, comprehensive and internationally recognized regime of protection for our water resources.

The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act prohibits the bulk removal of water from boundary basins. It has been that way since 2002 when new amendments to the act came into force strengthening Canada's ability to protect this important resource. The provinces and territories have also developed legislation, regulations or policies to protect the water resources within their jurisdiction.

This solid regime is the result of a number of policies that have been put in place over the years including in response to the 2000 report from the International Joint Commission, the IJC, which recommended that we take further steps to protect our Great Lakes, not just at the federal level, but at the provincial and territorial levels also.

In fact since the release of the report, the IJC has commended the Government of Canada for the added safeguards that it has put in place. I think Canadians can take immense pride in the work that their governments at all levels do to protect this important resource.

From a trade perspective our current regime is actually stronger than an all-out export ban could ever be. Water is protected in its water basin, in its natural state, before the issue of its export ever arises. This is an environmental protection measure of general application that helps preserve the integrity of the ecosystems that rely on this water for their health and vibrancy.

An export ban would not provide nearly the same high level of protection. Such a ban would only focus on water once it has become a good or a product, that is, processed or bottled, for example. The NAFTA parties have clarified that water in its natural state is not a good, and therefore is not subject to trade agreement. Under the current regime our water in its natural state is not subject to trade agreements.

I know that media reports, along with the members opposite, have focused on a set of private think tank meetings discussing future options for trilateral discussions relating to water. Let me be clear. Studies from private think tanks do not reflect Canadian policy. They are not funded by the Government of Canada and they are not part of our efforts to make North America more secure and more competitive.

(1100)

However, I do think there is much scope for making Canada more competitive in the North American context. The NAFTA has given us a great start. There is no doubt that our partnership with the U.S. and Mexico has stimulated business, created jobs, and brought higher wages to Canadians. We continue to work with our partners to strengthen our trading relationships under the NAFTA and boost competitiveness and prosperity in all three countries.

For instance, we are working on reducing export related transactional costs and enhancing industry competitiveness through the NAFTA region. We are also working to bring our standards and regulations closer together to create more efficient supply chains and help our businesses compete. We are examining how all three countries might collaborate in trade agreements with other countries and how elements of newer free trade agreements might inform improvements to the NAFTA.

This focus on competitiveness is essential. When we look beyond North America, we see the continued rise of hugely competitive economies, nations like China, India and Brazil. We see the formation and the consolidation of trading blocs like the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Canada must be able to compete. Our position in North America is not only the basis of our national prosperity, it is a huge competitive advantage, one that we should continue to use for our benefit. That is why we will continue to work closely with our friends and partners in the United States and Mexico through the NAFTA and also through the security and prosperity partnership to bring down remaining barriers to trade and investment and make our economies more competitive on a global scale.

Through the NAFTA we have created the largest free trade zone in the world. Our competitors from around the world look at us in envy as having that opportunity to be part of that large of a trading zone. We have created one of the world's great economic partnerships. We have shown the world how three sovereign independent nations can collaborate for mutual benefit.

This government is committed to ensuring that the North American partnership continues to work for Canada and brings prosperity to Canadians from coast to coast. We are committed to doing this while protecting Canadian interests, including that of our water resources. We have a strong, internationally recognized regime of protection for our water resources. I can assure this House that we will continue to work with the provinces and the territories to ensure this regime protects our interests throughout the country for years to come.

(1105)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the international trade committee and the problems that the committee had the other day with the witness. I was at that committee meeting as well and it was very clear to me that the witness was speaking to the subject and was a Canadian expert on the subject in terms of energy security as it fit under the SPP.

For the witness to be characterized in that fashion in the House of Commons, I simply cannot agree with that. The witness was speaking to a matter of great significance to Canadians, that of energy security. How it fits under the security and prosperity partnership is extremely important to Canadians right across this country at this time. For that witness to be muzzled by the committee chair was inappropriate. How does my hon. colleague see that the subject of energy security did not fit under the topic that was being discussed at the committee?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, I almost wonder if we were at two different meetings when I hear the comments from my hon. colleague sitting on my right, I might suggest, not necessarily on my right but sitting on my right.

The witness was obviously off the topic of discussion.

We could invite witnesses from all across the country. There are knowledgeable, credible witnesses from all across the country. We chose a witness we thought was going to talk about the security and prosperity partnership that we were discussing at committee that day and on a number days.

It is a very important issue. As I alluded to in my speech, it has created a prosperity for this country, not on the backs of anybody, but to the benefit of all. It has been beneficial to Canadians. It has been tremendously beneficial to our Mexican counterparts and to our American counterparts. We have a huge opportunity that some opposition members fail to recognize.

To have an individual, belligerent at best, who was clearly off the topic of promoting trade, promoting security, promoting the environment that allows us to prosper from this to provide new jobs in Canada, we have been speaking a lot in this House lately about jobs in Canada. It is not just about protectionism. It is about allowing our Canadians companies the opportunity to compete internationally. That is what the NAFTA does.

My hon. colleague from Sherbrooke this morning went so far as to suggest that we should reopen and renegotiate NAFTA. Heaven forbid. We would never achieve the kind of agreement that has the benefits to Canada, the benefits to Mexico and the benefits to the United States that we have in this agreement now because of the increased protectionist mood south of the border.

(1110)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation of the parliamentary secretary to the international trade minister. Judging by what he had to say, it seems to me that his first priority is clearly international trade. He quickly mentioned the environment that is to be protected and water quality, but I do not think that he is really very aware of how valuable a natural resource quality water is.

In the bad old days, we did not pay much attention to this valuable resource and polluted it. Now we are cleaning up our water and want to conserve it because this valuable resource has been destabilized by human activity. It is being polluted very quickly.

The purpose of the motion introduced today is to protect this valuable natural resource, which is synonymous with Canada all over the world because we have so many waterways. They bring tourism to Canada.

I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about the issue of the environment, which is not necessarily protected by our big neighbour, the United States, when we look at the development of the oil sands. The development of the Alberta oil sands is responsible for 40% of all the greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The Americans are purchasing great quantities of this oil and encouraging further development.

The parliamentary secretary must be happy about this from the standpoint of international trade. However, the economic effects of this pollution on our environment fully justify the establishment of some kind of protection for the valuable natural resource that is water because our neighbours to the south are certainly not very concerned about it.

I would like to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about the pollution caused by this activity, with American encouragement and financing.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member to suggest that I passed over the environmental impact of this too quickly, I would suggest to the hon. member that in my former life I was a dry land farmer and, therefore, water is very important to my livelihood and to the livelihoods of my constituents in the riding of Macleod.

We live in the drainage of the Rocky Mountains. We have wonderful volumes of freshwater but that freshwater can be polluted. It has been suggested that we are polluting it through our oil and gas explorations. We take great exception to that because we are working diligently with the exploration companies that are working within my riding and all across this country to ensure we are protecting this environment.

The environment minister is working very hard to get this new plan in place, the first plan, I might remind the House, that any government in Canada has ever had. In fact, we are quite excited about the fact that our Prime Minister can now go to the G-8 conference with a plan. We have never had a Canadian prime minister who actually had an environmental plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, which my hon. colleague spoke about.

I want to share some of the things we are doing. Yes, oil exploration in the tar sands has been using too much freshwater so companies have taken the initiative to look at new ways of extraction and are using CO₂ to extract the oil from the sands. We are working on that. These industries have taken the initiative, with the support of this new government, to ensure we are protecting the environment.

(1115)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington:

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare occasion when a New Democrat gets to ask the parliamentary secretary a couple of questions.

He talked about the tar sands and the level of protection for the water but he ignored the fact that there is an exemption on air pollution from the tar sands that is moving forward under his government's bills. He is ignoring one of the main sources of pollution that ends up in our water stream from the tar sands, which is the air pollution that eventually settles on the land and then works its way into the water system.

With the expansion of these oil sands without proper controls over air emissions of NOx, SOx and volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, which will eventually end up in the water stream, does the member not admit that this will be one of the largest sources of pollution in his own region of the country over the next 20 years?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is no. The premise of the question is almost objectionable because the hon. member makes it out like Albertans do not care. Of course we care. We have done a lot.

As I said in my previous intervention, companies have taken the initiative to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and they are becoming quite effective. Some of the smaller oil companies are now able to use CO₂ to extract the lower producing wells that some of the larger companies have moved beyond. This will contribute beneficially to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It will benefit the issue that we actually started to talk about, that being water.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this very important debate on the ninth report, which is a very straightforward report with a very straightforward recommendation.

I will talk about two components of the report and the first component reads:

Whereas Canada’s water resources must be protected;

That is very straightforward. It is not complicated. This report really emerged out of a discussion that we had with respect to the security-prosperity partnership. We had multiple meetings on that subject matter where we discussed this initiative. This initiative was brought forth in 2005 by the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

The former prime minister launched this partnership with respect to establishing a common approach to security, to protect North America from external threats and to prevent and respond to threats within North America, while ensuring the free flow of goods and services across the border.

It is anticipated that this will be achieved through the implementation of a number of specific initiatives, including improved regulatory cooperation and increased sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology and other areas, and reduce costs of trade.

The three countries will also work together to handle stewardship of the environment, create a safer and more reliable food supply and protect citizens from infectious diseases.

This mandate is very straightforward but the SPP brought forward some concerns with respect to accountability, transparency, access by certain civil societies and unions, and the lack of, perhaps, public involvement and public engagement. Those were all legitimate concerns about process.

Therefore, we felt as a committee, much to the reluctance, possibly, of the current government, to spend a substantial amount of time discussing the security and prosperity partnership. In that process, we wanted to get a better understanding of that to ease some of the concerns brought forth by the Canadian public with respect to accountability and transparency.

We heard various testimony with respect to bulk water during that discussion and debate and I want to allude to one very troubling committee meeting. Based on what we heard and saw over the past few weeks, I believe it was a reflection of the government's book of dirty tricks that it was going to deploy in committee, a book on how to disrupt committees, how to antagonize certain witnesses who they disapproved of, how to control the agenda and how to create a lot of ruckus and noise in committees in an effort to disrupt Parliament and committees from functioning.

During that particular committee meeting, an individual from Alberta was speaking to the very important subject matter of bulk water. Although he was completely on topic, because the security-prosperity partnership is such a wide ranging initiative, as I just described earlier, the chair abruptly stopped the meeting and walked out. It was unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary did the same thing and accompanied him out. I would have expected better of him. It was very disappointing to see that.

That kind of committee behaviour leaves a bad taste with Canadians who send us here to represent them, to have a debate and discussions on meaningful issues such as this very important subject matter.

I want to speak to our position on bulk water but first I will define bulk water removal. According to Environment Canada:

Bulk water removal is

the removal and transfer of water out of its basin of origin by man-made diversions...tanker ships or trucks, and pipelines. Such removals have the potential, directly or cumulatively, to harm the health of a drainage basin.

Having said that, I would like to add a nuance in this definition, and I mentioned that there would be many. The small scale removal, such as water in small portable containers, is not considered bulk. The portion on bulk water removal has not been updated or reviewed since October 29, 2004.

(1120)

The facts speak for themselves. When we were in government we did much to protect Canada's water supply. I will be referring to some of these facts from the Environment Canada website on Canada's watersheds and bulk water removal.

For those who are watching today's debate, I would like to define why Canada must continue to protect our water as a natural resource and not commodify it as bulk water for export.

Canada's major watersheds contain approximately 7% of the world's renewable freshwater supply and 20% of the world's total freshwater resources, including water captured in glaciers and in the polar ice cap.

Water is the lifeblood of the environment. It is essential to the survival of all living things, plants, animals and human beings. We have seen the combined effects of such things as climate change, although some in the government are still grappling with this concept, and the industrial and agricultural uses that have had such an irreversible negative effect on our water supply. Bulk water removal projects could have a further effect on our watersheds.

Canada's watershed is a fundamental ecological unit in protecting and conserving both the quality and quantity of water resources. Over the years, provinces, territories and the federal government have adopted a watershed approach as a key principle in water policy and legislation. The watershed approach recognizes linkages of water systems and the need to manage water within drainage basins, rather than a river by river or lake by lake basis.

The protection of Canada's watersheds and the ban on bulk water exports are important for the health and integrity of our environment, our communities and all Canadians. While we were in government, Canada's strategy to prohibit the bulk removal of water from major Canadian water basins, including for the purpose of export, was both environmentally sound and consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. It was built upon sound water management principles and the need to protect the integrity of Canada's watersheds.

As I stated earlier, Canada's water is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments and each have an important role to play in protecting Canada's freshwater resources. The strategy recognizes that provinces have the primary responsibility for water management and that the Government of Canada has certain legislative authorities in the areas of navigation, fisheries, federal land and shared water resources with the United States. Actions by territorial governments are also becoming increasingly foreign as they assume greater responsibility over water resource management.

All governments have an important role to play in achieving a permanent Canada-wide solution to the prohibition of bulk water removal, including removal for export purposes. This strategy respects Canada's trade obligations because it focuses on water in its natural state. Water in its natural state is not a good or a product and, therefore, is not subject to international trade agreements, but we need to be crystal clear about this.

As I have indicated before, the Liberal Party does not support the bulk water export diversion and commoditization of Canada's water resources. That is our clear-cut position. I will tell the House why we supported this motion in committee. As I alluded to before, I was very disappointed with the government's behaviour with respect to how it conducted itself in committee by not allowing witnesses to express their thoughts. The idea of committee hearings is to get a wide range of viewpoints on various subject matters. The security-prosperity partnership is one of those key issues that needed to be discussed in committee.

If we look at the government's track record, not only did it try to disrupt the committee but, with respect to this particular motion, it tried to filibuster. We discussed this motion numerous times. We finally had to make it clear to the government that we were willing to stay in committee as long as needed to ensure this motion was passed. I think the government finally came to that realization and eventually called this motion to a vote.

I was very disappointed with the government's behaviour and, hopefully, it can explain its behaviour in the question and answer session today.

When we look at the government's track record with respect to how we define our relationship with the United States, one clear-cut example of the government during its mandate was the softwood lumber agreement. In that particular agreement we clearly saw that the government sold out Canada's position. That raises an alarm. I will clearly articulate in a short time period why that is.

(1125)

First, the government imposed a restrictive quota on the industry. Now it is beginning to realize the ramifications of this. Not only is there a decline in the price of softwood lumber, not only is there an increase in the strength of our loonie, but we also have to deal with quotas and this is really hurting our softwood lumber industry.

Then the government broke a promise, and that is nothing new. The government promised that it would collect the entire portion of duties held by the United States, but left $1 billion on the table. We only collected 80¢ on the dollar. Again, this is a clear cut broken promise. A lot of money was left on the table.

At that time, the government asked us to allow it to leave $1 billion with the United States and the U.S. lumber coalition because it would give the industry some sort of stability and security for seven years. The government misled the industry. All the NAFTA and WTO rulings went completely out the door. We cannot use them to our benefit in terms of setting precedents. We can only refer to them. All the hard work of litigation and the many years of winning court battles went completely out the door. What happened? Seven months into this so-called new softwood sellout agreement we find that there is a possibility of arbitration in the very foreseeable future.

When it comes to the government and why we have issues with respect to its ability to protect Canada's interests, this is a clear cut example of how it sold us out.

I had the opportunity to travel to beautiful British Columbia last week to talk with some of the key stakeholders with respect to the softwood lumber industry. I see the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam sitting here today. He is an individual who fully understands the importance of the softwood lumber industry, and has talked about this. Maybe, as parliamentary secretary, he could talk to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade as well and really convince the minister to acknowledge that the government made a mistake on this file and that it has completely sold out the industry.

If we look at this issue in general with respect to bulk water diversion, why do we have such concern? Why do we want something in writing with the United States or Mexico? It is because of this example with the softwood lumber industry.

As I said, I was talking to stakeholders in B.C. who were completely devastated by how they were misled by the Canadian government and by the Minister of International Trade. Sawmills are being closed and people are losing their jobs. The agreement is just absolutely crippling the industry's ability to compete. This has been systematic and problematic throughout the government's administration over the last year an half, since being in power.

The motion is a reinforcement of the opposition parties coming together and reminding the government that it has an obligation and a responsibility to protect Canada's interests on its vital resources. It is a way to ensure it stands up for Canada. It is not simple, political rhetoric. The government must ensure that it genuinely does this. The government has really turned its back on the industry with respect to the softwood lumber agreement.

I have articulated before the position of the Liberal Party on bulk water, which is very clear. The Liberal Party does not support the bulk water export diversion and commoditization of Canada's water resources, plain and simple. When we were in government, we took all possible measures to ensure that. We encourage the current government to do the same as well.

This is a very straightforward report. I hope that after listening to my remarks, the parliamentary secretary can encourage the minister and his government to reconsider their position on this very important motion and unanimously provide support in the House. Hopefully, we can send a clear cut message to Canadians that we will protect this vital resource. We respect our relationship with the United States. We respect the fact that it is our number one trading partner and our best friend. However, we will not be bullied. Nor will we compromise our position. We will do the right thing and stand up for Canada.

Again, I encourage the government to take a clear cut position on this issue, reverse its position on its motion and support us and the other opposition parties in ensuring that bulk water export diversion and commoditization does not take place.

(1130)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by some of the hon. member's statements.

First, let us remind ourselves that we are actually talking about water. We have talked about oil sands. We have talked about softwood water. We have talked about many things. However, with the importance of water, we should try to keep on topic.

Following the lead of my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Brampton South, who talked about the softwood lumber agreement, my recollection in committee is the Liberal members of the committee, in recognizing their failure over 13 years of not getting an agreement in the softwood lumber dispute and simply fuelling the litigation, supported us. Prior to that infamous election, where the Conservatives finally took back power, the Liberals claimed they were awfully close to an agreement. We have seen some of the language around that agreement. The argument that we left $1 billion on the table is peanuts compared to what the Liberals were willing to leave on the table.

However, we must thank the Liberal Party for helping us get that softwood lumber agreement through because it has brought some stability to this industry. We realize they realized the error of their ways and came around to supporting us.

I do also want to clarify something. The hon. members might be aware of the statement by the then environment minister, now Leader of the Opposition. He said:

Let me say something that will not change. The law of the land in Canada is that we do not allow bulk water removal, period.

Does the hon. member support his leader's statement?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member. The parliamentary secretary has a couple of portfolios that he manages, so he has a lot on his plate.

I will very quickly touch upon the softwood lumber agreement to which he alluded. Then I will answer his question with respect to my leader's remarks.

He said today that a $1 billion is peanuts. That is on the record in Hansard. Can members believe that? He should tell that to the companies that are laying off their employees. He should tell that to people in northern Ontario, Quebec, B.C., Alberta and across the country who are losing their jobs. A billion dollars is not peanuts. That is a substantial amount of money that the industry gave up because it believed in the government. It believed that it would get seven years of stability. What did the industry get? Seven months and it is back in the courts, back into arbitration.

We all want stability in our business environment, but the government misled industry and misled Canadians.

With respect to the Liberal Party's position with respect to bulk water, I have been crystal clear in my remarks that we do not support bulk water export.

What is wrong with sending a simple letter to our counterparts in the United States of America to confirm that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. What does the government have to hide? Is this another initiative that it plans to pursue in the SPP?

(1135)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the member for Mississauga—Brampton South, and I appreciate his work on committee. However, I cannot let the comments that he just made go by. I have a lot of respect for him personally, but to say now that the Liberal Party suddenly woke up to the fact that the softwood sellout has been incredibly detrimental to the softwood communities across the country just defies imagination.

The softwood sellout came from a Liberal minister who crossed the floor and brought it to the Conservative Party. The only good environmental thing the Conservatives ever do is recycle old Liberal policies. The Conservatives brought it to trade committee. As the parliamentary secretary even admits, Liberal members on the trade committee forced through the softwood sellout, even though we knew it would result in thousands of lost jobs. Then the Liberals Senate pushed it through before Christmas.

Liberals have their fingerprints all over the crime scene. Yet the member for Mississauga—Brampton South tries to pretend that the Liberals woke up to the fact that 5,000 jobs were lost within weeks of this incredibly irresponsible sellout being put into place, Conservatives being assisted by their accomplices in the Liberal Party.

I cannot let that go by. It simply defies imagination that anyone could try to pretend the Liberals were not duplicitous and explicitly involved in every stage of the softwood sellout.

I want to come back to the member's point about the Liberal Party and water exports. The Liberals, among the many promises that they broke after 1993, had promised to ban the commercial export of water, but never did so, which is why we are in this precarious position today. In 2002 a Liberal government actually opposed installing water as a human right.

How does the member, who I respect a lot, mesh all these contradictions with the comments that he just made in the House?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains:

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the enthusiasm and the energy of my colleague, but I remind him that we opposed the softwood lumber sellout. We opposed it, and he should be made aware of that. When we stood in the House, we opposed it. We understood that it was a bad deal. It was a bad deal for Canada and it was a bad deal across the board.

If we asked the premiers now, if we asked the lumber industry experts now, they are incredibly skeptical. Why? Because they were told seven years of peace, of stability, but in seven months we are back in the courts.

A billion dollars, which the parliamentary secretary has said is only peanuts, is not peanuts. Thousands of jobs were lost. The most important element of it as well is the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam knows full well that in his province Canfor and West Fraser are closing down mills. Imagine, these large, successful companies are closing down mills because of the softwood sellout. I hope the government can explain this to industry as well.

Going back to the member's question with respect to the Liberal Party's position on bulk water, we have been very clear. We have always stood up for this. We did so during the NAFTA debate. We did so when we were in government. Today, again, we take a clear-cut position that Liberals do not support the export of bulk water.

(1140)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it does remind me of that famous C.D. Howe quote “what's a million”. I guess with inflation now, it is now “what's a billion”. A billion is peanuts now.

I direct the hon. member's attention back to the matter being debated. It says “water resources must be protected”, which seems agreeable. It says that NAFTA expressly excludes water from NAFTA, which seems sensible. There is a prohibition on bulk water exports, which seems perfectly sensible. All it is requiring is a simple agreement among the various affected parties, Canada, U.S. and Mexico to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

Then bizarrely, the Conservative Party submits a dissenting opinion, which says absolutely nothing. What does the member think of the Conservatives' position on this? This is strange indeed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains:

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very clear-cut. Yes, we did divert a bit by starting to talk about the softwood lumber agreement, and understandably so because it is a very important issue, but nevertheless this report clearly outlines in very succinct fashion what the issue is here. We want to make sure that Canada's water resources are protected.

We want to do this, as I said earlier in my remarks, with a simple agreement by an exchange of letters. I do not understand, and I too am completely baffled, why the government would have any issues or difficulties with respect to following this procedure.

We heard from various witnesses in committee during the security and prosperity partnership discussion about the issue of water diversion, bulk water export, and that is what prompted this report. This report does not say anything that would compromise the government's position. In fact, it would actually show to the Canadian public that the government wants to stand up for Canada's interests, so I again want to encourage my colleagues across the floor to make sure that they change their position. They have done it on interest deductibility. They can do it on this as well and take a position to support this report.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Island North.

I am pleased to speak in support of this motion that has come forward today. As we know, this motion is coming forward as a result of the work of the NDP in this Parliament. The SPP hearings, the hearings on the security and prosperity partnership, or deep integration, which the NDP forced at the international trade committee, have resulted in the first piece of what will have to be many different pieces of debate and discussion in this House of Commons.

We know that the SPP agenda started by the Liberal Party in 2005 is another piece of legislation recycled from the Liberals to the Conservatives. As we have seen in so many cases, the change in government has meant simply a change in entitlement. Now the Conservatives feel they have the entitlements that the Liberals used to feel they had, but essentially many of the policy directions are exactly the same.

Such is the case, of course, when it comes to the SPP, the security and prosperity partnership, or deep integration. A Liberal agenda was put in place and essentially organized behind the scenes, away from parliamentary scrutiny, away from public debate, and we have seen the Conservatives simply leap onto that bandwagon with enthusiasm, continuing the secrecy and the lack of public consultation. They are continuing to have decisions being taken behind the scenes that are extremely important to Canadians and are kept away from parliamentary scrutiny.

The NDP forced these first hearings on the SPP. What have we learned from these first hearings? They simply expose the tip of the iceberg, really, in terms of the overall agenda that is in place for the SPP put in place by the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives. Below the surface there are many other areas that need to be brought out into public scrutiny and public debate for meaningful public consultations. They need to be brought out for parliamentary debate.

We have learned just within these first few hearings about a number of things that should be very worrisome to Canadians. First off, we learned that the Conservative government is now pushing for more pesticide residue on the food that we eat in Canada. In an effort to eliminate these impediments to trade, the Conservatives are willing to allow a greater amount of pesticide residue.

The United States has the weakest environmental regulations in the western world when it comes to pesticide residue, far weaker than Europe's, for example, and yet this Conservative government is now pushing forward so that Canadians consuming food in Canada will have a greater amount of acceptable pesticide residue.

We know that pesticides are directly tied to many diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, but the Conservatives, like their Liberal predecessors, do not seem to be concerned about the health implications for Canadians. They are simply pushing through these regulation changes that would allow for more pesticides to be consumed by Canadians, unbeknownst to them, of course. It is completely unacceptable. As we know, the vast majority of Canadians want to see safer regulations. They want food that is much safer, yet we have seen the Liberals and Conservatives pushing exactly the opposite way in an effort to appease Washington.

Another example is safety regulations. Again, started by the Liberals and continued under the Conservatives, we saw the same attempt to try to diminish the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights. Flight attendants are extremely important in evacuation procedures. In the event of a major disaster with an airplane, it is the flight attendants who assist the passengers, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, in getting off the plane.

Again, this SPP agenda wants to diminish the number of flight attendants on Canadian planes. In the event of an accident where an evacuation needed to happen, there would be fewer flight attendants to assist those passengers. As we saw with the Air France disaster two years ago, it is vitally important that the flight attendants be there. In the Air France case, the flight attendants saved lives. In the case of any other potential disaster, it would be the same thing. The NDP pushed back and we stopped the government from doing this.

Those are just two examples of the types of initiatives the Conservatives are taking behind the scenes.

(1145)

There are over 300 different regulatory areas in which this is happening, hidden behind the scenes, away from public consultation, away from any sort of public debate, and away from parliamentary scrutiny. This is taking place. It is an example of to what extent the Conservatives are willing to implement the Liberal agenda and to push through what is bad policy for Canadians.

Why are they doing this behind the scenes? As their allies, the corporate CEOs around the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said, they did not believe that the public really wanted to have debates on these issues. As for what that means, what they are saying is that if the public found out what the Conservatives are doing, which is like what their Liberal predecessors did, Canadians would be profoundly disturbed by the direction the government has taken.

That is why they do not want this debate out in public, to the extent that we saw the chair of the international trade committee shut down the committee hearings on energy sovereignty. Gordon Laxer, an Albertan representing the Parkland Institute, one of the most respected Alberta institutions, came to speak in Ottawa on behalf of most Albertans who are concerned about the giveaways we have seen from both the provincial and the federal Conservatives.

An Albertan from the Parkland Institute, an important and reputed Alberta institution, came to Ottawa to give testimony on energy sovereignty, on what the Conservatives have given away, like the Liberals before them. Under proportionality, Canada is the only nation on earth that supplies a foreign country before it meets the needs of its own citizens.

Mr. Laxer was providing testimony to that effect. Most of eastern Canada now is supplied by offshore resources coming from the Middle East and other foreign countries. In the event of a supply shortage if that imported oil is cut off, we actually are forced to continue to supply the American market first, which means literally that Canadians freeze in the dark because of the Conservatives and their Liberal predecessors being completely incapable of standing up for the national interest.

When Mr. Laxer provided that testimony, the chair of the international trade committee tried to cut him off because he simply did not want Mr. Laxer's testimony to get out in the public domain. When the committee overruled him, the trade committee chair, unbelievably, showing profound disrespect to Albertans and all Canadians who are concerned about this issue, walked out of the meeting, trying to adjourn it.

For Canadians who are watching today, let me say that we now have that testimony restored, and they can find out what Mr. Laxer said about the incredible recklessness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government in giving away our energy resources without looking to Canada's interests first.

That brings us to the question of exports of water. Essentially, within the Conservative implementation of the Liberal agenda we now have, unbelievably, the issue of water exports back on the table. The vast majority of Canadians are opposed to water exports and water diversion. They are opposed for a number of reasons. One is because of the environmental devastation that results from this, and we have seen this in case after case where Canadians have spoken out on these issues, but also they are opposed because it makes no public policy sense whatsoever.

We may have a bank account that is rich in that we have 20% of the world's freshwater, but we only have about 6% of the world's renewable freshwater. In a very real sense when we talk about our water resources, that is our bank account. That is the 20% of standing water resources that is largely invested in our lakes, streams and rivers across the country, but its renewable resources are actually only equivalent to those of the United States.

The United States has been reckless with its use of water. Unfortunately, even though many Americans are speaking out on this issue, what we are seeing from those who now would seek water, rather than apply environmentally sustainable polices, is pressure to simply take Canadian water, as if somehow having a few more years of freshwater supplies from Canada is going to avoid the environmental catastrophes that many people apprehend in the United States.

It is simply not acceptable to share our water. If any bulk water exports or diversions start, under NAFTA right now they cannot be stopped. That is why the NDP is supporting this motion. We need to make it very clear that bulk water exports and water diversions are unacceptable and they are not environmentally sustainable. The NDP corner of the House will be fighting the SPP agenda and fighting water exports. That is why we in the NDP support the motion.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member has talked passionately, and I have worked in committee with this member as well, about his party's position on water diversion and bulk water exports, and I think there is unanimity among our party members as well.

However, in his comments he did not specifically mention a discussion that was touched on earlier. The member comes from British Columbia and he resides in that beautiful province. I would like to hear his remarks with respect to concerns and issues surrounding the softwood lumber agreement.

I would like to ask how he sees that unfolding in the next few months in terms of the feedback that he is getting from industry, from workers, from the province, from the provincial members of the legislative assembly, and what their thoughts are on this very important legislation that has really compromised Canada's position in terms of its ability to protect and support a very vital industry that generates thousands of jobs and billions of dollars worth of exports. I would like to hear his views on that as well.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Brampton South for his question. Unfortunately, he is not going to like my response because I have to repeat the issue of the Liberal involvement in the softwood sellout. If the Liberal Party had chosen to work with the NDP, it would have been able to stop the softwood sellout.

The former Liberal minister crossed the floor with the original draft softwood sellout that came from the Liberal Party and brought it over to the Conservatives. I realize he was not a member of the trade committee at the time and that is unfortunate, but the Liberal trade committee members pushed with the Conservatives to get it through, despite the consequences. They wanted to get it through no matter how many thousands of jobs were lost, no matter how they compromised Canada's position.

We actually won in the Court of International Trade, so the Americans were obliged to pay every single penny back. We were a few months away from the finish line of winning every single cent back and unimpeded access to the American market, and the Conservatives, instead of saying, “We now have a court decision that gives every penny back, subject to one appeal”, blew it up and destroyed it because they simply did not understand the file. The Liberals on the trade committee helped get it through. Liberals in the Senate then adopted it, when they could have stopped it.

Unfortunately, I cannot give the answer the member is looking for. The results have been disastrous. Why did the Liberal Party not try to work with the NDP to stop this deplorable, reckless--

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster a question about the Great Lakes.

One of the interesting things that was recently brought forth by the United States was to actually turn the Great Lakes into firing ranges for gunboats, which would have put lead and other types of contaminants in the water, as well as safety hazards.

The New Democratic Party was the only party to actually make a submission opposing this. I want to ask him what his confidence is in the government's negotiations because what was interesting was that the government's response was late. It was past the deadline, so it actually had no official commentary made to the United States. Luckily for ourselves, many Canadian and American organizations and groups actually opposed this, got submissions in and we had that ceased.

I would like to ask him what his confidence is in the government in terms of negotiations, when it cannot even meet a simple deadline to protect one of the most important water sources on this planet.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Windsor West for his work on that file. This was extremely important, and in this corner of the House, the NDP always seems to be on top of our files.

That is why we have pushed against the SPP, the only party in the House to do so. That is why we fought against the egregious softwood sellout, the appallingly bad and irresponsible softwood giveaway, which certainly will leave very few Conservatives standing in British Columbia after the next election. They well know that is why their numbers are collapsing in British Columbia. British Columbia has been at the epicentre of the thousands of lost jobs because of this egregiously bad policy.

Do I have any confidence in the government's ability to negotiate? Do I have any confidence in Mickey Mouse or Daffy Duck negotiating on our behalf, any more than the trade minister? For goodness' sake, softwood lumber, the firing ranges on the Great Lakes, and now we have the South Korea agreement. Giveaway after giveaway--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me today and for his work on the international trade committee. We have heard his passion and dedication. His work on this file is where this motion comes from. It is a result of the direct work that the NDP did at this committee. I know the hon. member works long and hard there.

I want to talk about water policy and water in general. Water is vital to people's health and livelihoods. In Canada we do not have a national water policy. We do not have a strategy to address urgent water issues. We have heard that there is no federal leadership to conserve and protect our water.

Our federal water policy is over 20 years old and is badly outdated. There is a growing list of the crisis facing our freshwater, including contamination, shortages, and pressures to export to the United States and Mexico through pipelines and diversions.

The government needs to implement a comprehensive national water policy. What should that policy include? For starters, it should include a ban on the bulk export of water. Water is a finite resource and Canada has about 20% of the world's freshwater supply but only 7% of the world's renewable freshwater. The rest of the water is trapped in ice, snow and glaciers. Unfortunately, we are losing that part of our trapped water supply.

Canada and the United States share interconnected water systems. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 45 million people. The Great Lakes charter annex agreement was signed back in December 2005 by Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states. This will allow diversions through permissive exceptions, but it does not guarantee a strong role for the Government of Canada to preserve and protect our water supply.

North Dakota is just one state that is facing water shortages. It is looking north for a new supply through diversions and inter-basin transfers.

Bulk water exports and diversions would leave Canada's water vulnerable to environmental depletion and to international trade challenges that could permanently open the floodgates to the parched U.S. states.

A new national water policy must ban the export of water, implement strict restrictions on diversions, and affirm the role of the federal government in international water issues. Once water is a commodity, there will be no chance to turn off the tap.

In April of this year, as my colleague mentioned, we learned about a document produced by a Washington think tank revealing that business and government leaders in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are actively discussing bulk water exports. They met in Calgary on April 27 of this year to discuss the issue in a closed door meeting as part of a larger discussion on North American integration. This is something that thousands and thousands of Canadians are totally opposed to.

These meetings have many Canadians concerned about the government's direction with regard to the protection of this precious resource. I support the recommendations that the government quickly begins talks with their American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

Our thirsty neighbours to the south do not lack sufficient water resources. What they have is unsustainable urban sprawl and mismanagement of their resources. It is important to exclude water from NAFTA because NAFTA is designed to protect trade above all else. Water could be traded and exported even if it had a negative impact on Canada. We see that with our oil exports. We export 60% of our oil to the U.S. Even if Canada had a shortage, we would still have to do that.

There are many reasons why Canada needs a national water policy. In the year 2000 seven people died in the community of Walkerton, Ontario, when their drinking water was contaminated with the E. coli virus.

In 2001 more than 7,000 people were made sick during a three month period by parasite infected water in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

(1200)

In 2005 the people of Kashechewan, a Cree community in Ontario, were forced to evacuate their homes because of water contamination, and there are still problems in Kashechewan today, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has so passionately pointed out on many occasions in the House.

According to the Government of Canada, municipalities issue hundreds of boil water advisories a year, most as a result of water contamination.

Since December 16, 2006, hundreds of boil water advisories have been issued for first nations communities in Canada. This is an alarming trend. We see ourselves as a very clean, safe country, yet issue hundreds of boil water advisories. A new national water policy must create national clean drinking water standards, something that we do not have.

Communities across this country are in desperate need of money to pay for water pipes and filtration systems, which are now the responsibility of municipal governments. These governments are looking to private investors to rebuild infrastructure through public private partnerships.

Water is a public health and safety concern and is best managed, regulated and financed by public systems that are accountable to their communities. If we lose that accountability, we lose control of our water.

When for profit interests control drinking water, the quality decreases and costs increase, and there are many examples of municipalities which have gone down the P3 road far enough to learn that it is a bad deal for their communities.

The federal government has tied infrastructure money in its 2007 budget to public private partnerships. It is forcing municipalities down a very slippery slope to privatization and the loss of control of municipal water supply and management. A new national water policy must commit to the federal government investment plan for municipalities.

Water is essential for all life, but it is a finite resource. Even in Canada, a water rich nation as I said earlier, one-quarter of Canadian municipalities have faced shortages and currently one-third rely on groundwater, a resource on which we have dangerously little data to provide for daily needs.

Water shortages in the prairies cost $5 billion in economic damage in 2001. We should think what $5 billion could buy in infrastructure for some of these communities which are sorely lacking.

At the same time, Canadians waste a tremendous amount of water every day. A new national water policy must implement a comprehensive conservation strategy and invest in water resource research and monitoring. Simple things such as turning off the tap while we brush our teeth can save an entire swimming pool of water per person per year. It is as simple as that. However, people need information to go on.

The North American Free Trade Agreement defines water as a service and an investment, leaving Canadian water vulnerable to thirsty foreign investors. Once Canada allows water to be withdrawn and transported to other countries for large scale industrial purposes, foreign investors must be given the same national treatment as Canadian companies. A new national water policy must also ensure that water does not become a tradable commodity in current and future trade deals.

Canada should also oppose the privatization of water as it allows for some of the worst human rights violations. We saw this in Ecuador, where the water supply became so expensive after being privatized that ordinary people could not afford it. Only the wealthy had access to water. This caused a revolt in the community when ordinary families had no other alternative but to demand access to their water. Recognizing the right to water would allow international law to address issues of unequal distribution, and safe water for drinking and sanitation in other countries.

Canadians are concerned about the lack of the current position on bulk water exports. The Conservative Party did nothing in the election to address growing concerns about the stability and quality of Canada's water supply.

Canadians know that the free market does not guarantee access to water, that bulk water exports could open the floodgates to trade challenges, that Canada's water supply is limited, that public water is safer, cleaner and more affordable, and that water is essential for people and nature.

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have, as a long sitting member of this House, is that when people read Hansard or when they might be watching these proceedings on television, they might presume that the people in this House are basing some of their comments on facts. Unfortunately, that is simply not true of the interventions by NDP members. They are feeding the black helicopter crowd. They are distorting the facts. As a matter of fact, they are not even coming close to the facts as they actually exist.

I would like to read into the record that through the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the Government of Canada prohibits the bulk removal of water from the Canadian boundary water basins, including for the purpose of export.

The federal government's prohibition is both environmentally sound and consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. It builds on sound water management principles and the need to protect the integrity of Canada's watersheds.

The IJC has commended the Government of Canada for its actions to prohibit bulk water removals.

In the case of NAFTA, Canada, the United States and Mexico clarified, through a joint statement issued on December 2, 1993, that nothing in the agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form.

The difficulty is that the NDP does not understand that there is an agreement to open, as this motion proposes, the--

(1210)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the parliamentary committee was told by the government's own people that once the export of bulk water starts, foreign investors can sue the Government of Canada if they are denied access to bulk water exports.

I think the member is wrong on many levels in his comments. The NDP does understand what happens with the export of bulk water. Canadians across the country are demanding that the federal government withdraw any talks of bulk water exports from any international trade discussions. They know full well, as does the member, that if we go down this slippery slope and export our bulk water that we will lose control of it. We will lose our sovereignty over bulk water.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague in the NDP on her speech. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and we often have similar views on how important it is protect our natural resources and manage them well. However, I do not agree with her proposal to establish a national water policy. The NDP has this mania for constantly proposing centralizing policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Apart from the legislation that was just mentioned, most water management is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

How can the hon. member explain this proposal? Does she not think that her proposal for a national water policy is a 100% infringement on areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do sit on the natural resources committee and her work on environmental issues has been very good and we do share a lot in common on those issues.

However, the one thing that we do not share in common with the Bloc is on the issue of national policy versus provincial policy. The Bloc sees many issues as provincial jurisdiction, whereas we see them as national jurisdiction. Child care is one of them, water is another and environmental regulations, in some respects, is another.

When her party looks at forest policy as being provincial, I must ask my colleague why, in the face of the softwood lumber deal, her party supported that deal when mills are now closing and jobs are disappearing, not only in Quebec but across the country. Now the Bloc needs to go to the U.S. to change its forest policy. On so many levels, we would be better off with national policies as opposed to provincial policies.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I came into the House today prepared to do battle, as it were, with the NDP and the idiocy of this particular motion that says that there is a problem and that we must address the problem.

There is no problem. The Government of Canada has absolutely no intention of entering into any agreement. As I said previously, through the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the Government of Canada prohibits the bulk removal of water from Canadian boundary water basins, including for the purpose of export.

The International Joint Commission has commended the Government of Canada for its action to prohibit bulk water removals.

In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico clarified, through a joint statement issued on December 2, 1993, that nothing in the agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form.

Water in its natural state is not a good and hence not subject to trade agreements. Tariff schedules do not define what is a good. They only determine what tariff applies to water that has been transformed into a good, that is bottled water.

The NAFTA has made all three partners more competitive by providing their firms with preferential access to markets and more than 431 million consumers.

An increasingly integrated market has stimulated capital flows, promoted the spread of technology and contributed to increasing productivity, higher wages, lower prices and more choices for consumers.

Canada's merchandise trade with its NAFTA partners has increased 122% since 1993, reaching $596.7 billion in 2006, accounting for 82.6% of Canada's total merchandise exports. The NAFTA has also had a positive impact on services and investment flows among the three countries.

Again I say to the NDP, on the question as to whether the Government of Canada is preparing to enter into negotiations to export its water into the United States, no. The Government of Canada has no intention of entering into negotiations on bulk water exports.

The NDP members subscribe to the wonderful theories about black helicopters and conspiracies because of a meeting that occurred somewhere. I think it was in Calgary or some such place. Of all things, the meeting was held behind closed doors and the press was not invited. People actually had a meeting to discuss bringing together the positive forces between Canada, the United States and Mexico under the NAFTA agreement and to bring together the synergism that occurs between those three nations, the economic, security and other issues that are common to those three nations. The NDP members continue to call this a conspiracy because, of all things, the meetings were held behind closed doors. I guess it just comes from the NDP members not having the capacity to ever form the Government of Canada.

The Liberals being the former government and our party being the current government, I do recognize that there are certain restrictions and constraints on any leader of any party that has the most members in the House. I also recognize that there are certain constrictions relating to the cabinet that he or she has chosen to form and the bureaucracy, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. However, that does not preclude any government from making choices as it sees fit to give direction. However, nonetheless, it is constrained by the terms and conditions of the agreements and the international treaties under which previous governments have entered.

(1215)

Under those constraints, as I have already read, bulk water is not a commodity. It is not a merchandise.

I find it so unfortunate that the sincere and well-meaning people in my constituency, who I have listened to and talked to, are convinced that just because people make speeches, like some of the NDP speeches today in this House of Commons, no matter how badly informed those members are or how devoid of anything approaching fact they are, somehow we must listen.

In the speech by the member who spoke just before the last NDP member, her major concern was the fact that an American think tank said something, whatever it was that was said, and therefore it must be fact. That absolutely underscores my proposition that the conspiracy theory that the NDP are propagating here today is founded on absolutely nothing except fabrications around black helicopters.

If we were to follow, and heaven forbid that we would, what the NDP members are talking about, do they actually believe that when the NAFTA is opened for this issue the other parties that are covered under NAFTA would not open it up for one, two, five, fifty, one hundred or five thousand other amendments that they would want? Of course they would.

The worst thing in the world that could happen with the NAFTA, particularly frivolously, as this motion is, would be to open it up for a frivolous, vexatious, useless, needless motion like this and then open up the entire floodgate of debate, discussion and renegotiation and put us back into morass.

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that up to 80% of Canada's exports and imports occur under NAFTA. Whether we like that or we do not like that, that is a fact. We are talking about over half a trillion dollars a year of imports and exports. These people, under this motion, would open up a half a trillion dollars a year of trade among our sovereign nations and all the jobs that means and all the issues that means to our joint societies over this frivolous, needless, useless fabrication of an idea.

There is no problem. I would suggest that they might want to take a look at Yogi Berra's axiom, which is, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary used disingenuousness, bordering on dishonesty. He read a phrase without giving the second part of the sentence. When he said, and it is very true, that water in its natural state is not a good under NAFTA, he left out the second part of the sentence, which is that once it is treated as a good it does fall under NAFTA.

That is the unbelievable attempt by the Conservatives to try to mix up a debate that they clearly do not understand.

This is something that Liberals took no action on, and now we see the Conservatives, in the most disingenuous way possible, trying to pretend that because it is in a natural state now they do not need to worry about the fact that once water exports starts we cannot stop them and foreign investors are actually entitled to compensation from Canadian taxpayers. They clearly do not understand the issue.

They throw around black helicopters, which seems to be an obsession on the Conservative side of the House. I do not understand it and I do not think anyone watching here today would understand it either so I will leave that point aside. However, I will go back to NAFTA.

Statistics Canada says very clearly that since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in 1989, 80% of Canadian families are actually earning less in real terms. Yesterday, thousands of laid off workers who have lost their jobs came before Parliament Hill.

My question is very simple. What is it about the Conservatives that they do not understand simple issues like water exports, job losses and the fact that their economic policies have failed and most Canadian families are doing worse now than they were 18 years ago?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott:

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the proposition that Canadians are worse off now than they were previously. I absolutely reject that. That is absolutely stupid.

Maybe I can make clear my reference to black helicopters, which is to conspiracy theories that black helicopters are hovering around all over the place. Conspiracy theories seem to be what fuel the paranoia of that member and his fellow colleagues. There is no conspiracy.

The Government of Canada has made it crystal clear. There is no intention whatsoever to enter into bulk water exports. To go past that point and say if we did, we would end up with it being covered under NAFTA is a leap into an abyss that simply does not exist. There is no intention to enter into any kind of agreement.

As much as I have significant differences between our party, my position and the position of the Liberals, I do not believe for a split second that any national party, with the good of Canadians in mind and having the responsibility of being the government, would ever enter into an agreement like that.

They are talking about fixing something that does not exist all on a whim of this conspiracy idea, and what happens? We open up NAFTA and create all kinds of problems for over half a trillion dollars worth of trade annually. It is absolute lunacy.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, believing the conspiracy theory of the NDP is almost like believing the California Golden Seals are going to win the Stanley Cup next week.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question. The previous member from the NDP talked about job losses, water, et cetera. First, those members are really the cause of this because of what they did last time.

Given this is a provincial and federal responsibility and given the member's government has been in power for almost a year and a half and there has not been one meeting with the premiers, could he then consider passing on to the Prime Minister that at least one ministerial meeting be convened with the first ministers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada so they can discuss this issue and lay it to rest, once and for all, that there is no such conspiracy?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott:

Mr. Speaker, I will make every effort to accept the Liberal member's comments in a positive vein. The difficulty being that to gather first ministers together is not an incidental issue. We are talking about many tonnes of carbon in the air from planes that will be flying them and their advisers and I do not know how many tens of thousands of dollars to actually convene a meeting about something that is pure piffle by the NDP. I do not think the member really expects that.

However, I point out that the Prime Minister has an outstanding relationship with all the premiers of this great nation, no matter what their political stripe is. He and they recognize the importance of the fact that we as a government and they as respectively responsible for their provincial legislatures have the same responsibility to their people in their particular constituencies.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with my Conservative colleague. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois are in complete agreement on this question.

However, I would like to read my Conservative colleague a short memo. On October 7, 2005, in a debate about nationalizing water on the Télé-Québec program Il va y avoir du sport with Marie-France Bazzo, the Minister of Industry, the Conservative Minister, who was at that time the Vice President of the Montreal Economic Institute, stated that water is a commercial commodity that belongs to no one and that should be subject to the laws of the marketplace like any other product. That was the Minister of Industry who said that. And in his delirium, he went so far as to say that water was in nature and now is in a bottle, and he asked what the difference was.

When a minister of industry says things like that, there are probably grounds for concern. The government decided to have a dissenting opinion when this report was tabled. According to it, the dissent relates to “Bulk Water Removals, Water Exports and the NAFTA”, a document submitted to the committee. It simply chose to “dissent respectfully” from it. On the other hand, that report says—and that is where the member is not making the distinction—that the treaty does not apply to water in its natural state. And any lawyer or legal expert in the world could have a field day with those two words.

The United States is starting to get thirsty. When it gets really thirsty, not just for water for human use, but for water for residential development in the desert, to make huge recreational lakes, and to use for everything imaginable, I think there will truly be a danger. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We might rather say that if it is too strong, it won't break. We have to raise the stakes and exclude water.

(1230)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott:

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as the member would know, I am unfamiliar with the specific comments made by the current Minister of Industry or the context in which they were made.

I can advise him though that what I said previously still stands. We understand the difference between water and water. Water in a pipeline, or in a bulk export or in a diversion is a totally different legal issue than water in a bottle, which is transported back and forth across the border. They are completely separate. The commodity may be the same, but the form it is in makes all the difference in the world.

There is no point in repeating what I have already said. The Government of Canada has no intention of entering into any agreement. I cannot imagine that the Liberals, on their worst day, would even contemplate such a thing. This is a problem that simply does not exist.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss this question and speak in favour of this report.

We have heard a number of arguments in this House. Some reasons were good, others perhaps less so. It must be acknowledged, however, that now, in the agreement with the United States and Mexico, there is no provision for trade in water, but it is also not excluded. It does not say that if one day, whether in 10 or 20 or 50 years, we decide to permit bulk water exports, that will not become a product covered by NAFTA. I therefore consider it to be entirely reasonable for us to discuss the subject in this House.

I was surprised to hear a Bloc member—not the last member who spoke, but the member who spoke earlier—say that this is a matter under provincial jurisdiction, that we should not have this debate at the national level, and that it was a question of drinking water management.

On the contrary—I think that it is in the interests of all the provinces for these discussions to take place. Ontario may suddenly decide, in 20 or 40 or 50 years, to export water from the Great Lakes. That would have not insignificant repercussions on the St. Lawrence, and so on Quebec and the Atlantic, through the Gulf. This is a question that must be debated in Parliament and we must take it seriously.

[English]

A few years ago I was driving in the Annapolis Valley with my mother, who was not elderly but advancing a bit in age. It was a very hot day. I went into a grocery store and came out with two bottles of water for each of us.

I asked her what her grandparents and great-grandparents would have thought. They worked so hard in the Annapolis Valley to build the dykes, the sluices to take the water out of the land. I asked her what they would have said if they thought at one point we would be buying water. She said that they might understand that, because water is a necessity of life. She said that she would not want to explain to them about the aisle in the store, which was 100 feet long by 40 feet wide, and the fact that one side was for dogs and the other side was for cats.

The world changes. We could not have predicted 60 years ago that there would have been such a huge market for cat food and that we would sell bottled water in Canada. We also cannot predict what will happen in future provincial or federal governments, whether they will have the desire to export bulk water.

I think it is completely reasonable that we look at the question of the NAFTA and ask, “Should that happen?”. I agree with the member from the Conservative Party who said that nobody now in their right mind would think of that, that it would be a huge mistake.

However, should one province at one point do it for one reason or another, ship a truckload, or boatload, or a cargo load or put a pipe in to answer to an emergency situation in one community of our neighbour to the south, would we at that time be stuck with the position that because of our agreement, NAFTA, we would have to continue those exports, which we turned into a marketable commodity, a good?

I am not an expert in international trade and I do not pretend to be. The question is raised in the community and it creates apprehension. I hear of it often in my community. If we can clear that question, if we can give surety for the future, which is what the report seeks to do, then that would be a reasonable thing to do.

I have a situation now in my riding. We have Digby Neck, a very pristine area, low population, fishing communities, retirees, families who have been there for almost 400 years. It is a beautiful area of nature. Most of the people who live there choose to live there for its intrinsic value. If they wanted economic opportunities, except perhaps for the fishermen, they would be living in the city or other areas. They live there for those values.

Now we have a company that wants to export basalt rock out of that community. It wants to make a huge quarry and mine to export basalt into the U.S. Why would the Americans want to come to Nova Scotia, such a pristine coastal community, where all or most of their eastern seaboard has the exact same typography and geology? It is because they have decided, in their communities, that they would not risk those intrinsic values or diminish their quality of life. Therefore, for their aggregates for road construction, concrete and other things they are looking to Nova Scotia.

There is a huge fear because of the North American free trade agreement. If the province wants to close this first quarry or not permit its expansion and stop the exports to the United States, because of the articles of NAFTA it would be in the situation of lawsuits for economic loss for the American companies. It is a valid concern. In that case, the Liberals, when we were the previous government, struck the joint panel review process. It was the toughest level of environmental scrutiny available to Canadians.

That also brings in the provincial criteria. When we looked at the Canadian level, we know it was purely on the scientific basis, whether it would be hazardous to fish stocks, air or water quality, or done safely within it. Although those questions has not been answered, they would be the federal concerns. Provinces can look at the questions of socio-economic factors. They can look at whether 20 or 40 jobs are worth the loss in quality of life to the remaining residents and the loss to the tourism industry.

Dr. Fournier, a noted oceanographer, is chairing that panel. We hope to see his recommendations soon. Hopefully, it will make the people happy and that the province will play its role.

Those are the difficult questions that come in under NAFTA, but here we are looking at water, which makes it even more visceral and unnerving for people, because it is a huge factor.

(1235)

We are the guardians of the greatest freshwater resources on the planet, a lot of them in pristine condition, and some of them we have damaged already. This debate is good in that it makes Canadians realize what we have.

We know that to the south of us there is a huge demand. We know that with global warming the demand within Canada is going to increase.

We know that the demands for irrigation in our prairie provinces is going to increase. Anybody who has flown over Alberta and has seen the areas that have been irrigated and the areas that have not, has seen the difference between starvation and life. The future is going to be more in that direction based on what we are hearing about global warming. It is important that we take care of our freshwater resources. It is important also that there be surety.

I would ask the member not to discount it completely based on the situation today. We have to think of how the situation could evolve in the future. This is a matter for reasoned debate. We have had very good debates in the House of Commons this year on questions of legislation brought forward by the government and some by private members dealing with apprehensions in the area of criminality. In some cases the fears were warranted and in some cases the fears were not necessarily warranted. We take action, we have debate and we have considerations. Sometimes a law passes and sometimes it is modified, but it is based on the apprehensions out there.

If we look at the question of minimum sentencing, if we look at the question of mandatory release, all the statistics show us that the crime rate is decreasing. The effect of our criminal justice system in Canada is much better per capita than that in the U.S., but there is a desire by the Conservatives to “toughen” criminality based on reducing criminality. Nothing tells us that that is true, but that perception is out there, that demand by the Canadian public that we have those discussions. We have the discussions, and that is right and correct.

Now we are looking at the question of water. I do not think we can do any less. The member was raising the question of basins, and that is correct. We have the International Joint Commission. We have had very good discussions in those areas, but as time goes by, there are areas outside of those basins that will become important also, because of the possibility of a pipeline, the possibility of trans-shipments. There are demands. People have wanted to buy some icebergs in the past, put them on ships and sell iceberg water, because there is a market value. It is among the highest quality untreated water that can be bought.

We cannot neglect these questions. We have to have a serious look at them. If we look around the world and see what water is, the proper management and the proper dialogue among neighbouring states is often the difference between war and peace, whether we can properly use the water and properly protect it.

I encourage the bottling and exporting of bottled water. We see Perrier water being sold in Canada. Why could we not be selling Montclair in the United States and other areas? I encourage that. They are value added. It creates a lot of jobs in Canada and creates water now. If we look at the average bottle of water in the grocery store, people are paying more for it than they are paying for milk or fuel. A litre of water most times costs more than a litre of gasoline.

It is a renewable resource and it should be managed that way. It should be managed properly. We should know that in the future our kids in this country will have the benefit of the resource that we have had and that we will continue to have.

That being said, I rise in support of this motion. I thank members of the committee for bringing this discussion forward to the House of Commons where it belongs, because it is a matter of national importance.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to have to take back my feeling that the Liberals would not possibly support this motion on the worst day. This must be one of their worst days. I suggested to some of my friends on the other side that when they moved from this side of the House to the other side of the House they must have had lobotomies if they are going to be supporting this motion.

I put it very directly to the member that as a former cabinet minister, surely he would be able to answer this question. If we were to propose to the United States and Mexico that we open the NAFTA this one time for this one issue, does he not realize that by asking to open the NAFTA, it would open all of the NAFTA? Does he realize that we would be putting $600 billion a year of trade between us and the United States at risk by doing so?

Surely as a former cabinet minister, I would anticipate his answer to be in the affirmative, that in fact by supporting this silly, frivolous motion and opening the NAFTA, we would be putting our trade at risk, because it would open up all parts of the NAFTA. Is that not correct?

(1245)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be false. The recommendation is quite clear. It says:

That the Standing Committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

If that statement said that at all costs reach an agreement, the member would be correct, but it says “recommend that the government quickly begin talks...to exclude water”.

The member pointed out earlier that there was an exchange of official letters by the three partners in 1993, stating that covering bulk water was not the intent of NAFTA. My feeling is that what we are looking at here is clarification for the future.

Again I point out that I am not an expert in international trade. The suggestion is out there; there is that apprehension in Canada. I am sure it is there in the other countries that should ever any trade of that nature happen, that bulk water becomes a good or a commodity and therefore is captured by NAFTA, the three partners within NAFTA have already stated that it was not the intent. In my mind, all that the recommendation does is ask the three partners to clarify that, to make sure that we have surety for the future.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the previous questioner, I do not think anything in the report suggests that we have taken leave of our senses.

I do not know what the hon. member has against “Canada's water resources must be protected”. It seems like a self-evident statement. And “NAFTA covers all goods, except those that are expressly excluded” and water is not excluded. That seems like an interesting point. “Whereas this situation puts the provincial and federal laws concerning the protection of water including the prohibition of bulk water exports at risk” seems a reasonable conclusion from the previous statement. “Whereas a simple agreement by exchange of letters” may not cover the entire situation, “the standing committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA”.

I cannot quite fathom why the committee of all three opposition parties has therefore taken leave of its senses to propose what appears to be a straightforward and clarifying recommendation. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault:

Mr. Speaker, one must put this in context. This is not a private member's bill that puts legislation forward, puts articles forward or possible legislation, this is a recommendation to the Government of Canada that it put in writing in the agreement what it already has done through an exchange of letters, to “legitimize” it, I think might be the closest word that I can come up with immediately. It has been stated that that is the desire. The desire is that water not fall under NAFTA and the exchange of letters said that.

The open-ended question remains, if there is some trading at one point or another for whatever reason, does bulk water then get captured by NAFTA under the heading of a good and it becomes a marketable and a commercial good? At that point it would be because the exchange of letters refers to water in its natural state. I believe that was an error at that time. I would not think that the Government of Canada would not have wanted to go further and make sure that it covered bulk water. All this motion is doing is inviting the Government of Canada to enter into those discussions, not to reopen NAFTA, although I would dearly love it if we did have some discussion around NAFTA.

We saw in the free trade agreement where it cost us a billion dollars to capitulate and now we see the trouble that we are having in the industry. There is a risk of being challenged again by the American side. NAFTA is not perfect. There is no reason that we should shy away from having some discussions with our partners in a trade agreement at any time.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, standing here among the supposed conspiracy theorists of this party, I look upon what the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia is talking about. He is saying that the sky is falling, that we cannot discuss anything about our trade agreement because it will throw it all open and catastrophe will strike us, that we will be slowed down in our trade deals, leaving the Canadian people homeless and hapless. That kind of rhetoric does not work in this Parliament. It does not work to call us conspiracy theorists either.

I had the opportunity to speak to an environment assessment panel on liquefied natural gas in Quebec. We raised the point about proportionality and the fact that it was not understood how this works in Canada. The chairman agreed with me. He said that we would have to make a ruling on this because it has not been done. That was the third environmental assessment on liquefied natural gas in Canada. We are taking a product into Canada and we still do not know how it affects our trade deals.

Why should we not be dealing with the issues in Canada that affect us, whether they are attached to trade deals or not?

When it comes to water, Canadians want answers about how these trade deals affect our water supply and the future of our lakes and rivers. Let us get on with it.

Does my hon. colleague agree that this is what the recommendation is about and it is not about causing a catastrophe in the Canadian trade system?

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Robert Thibault:

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that this is a question of clarity. It is a question of clarifying what has been the stated intention.

Looking at the oil and gas industry, we have the Sable oil and gas field off Nova Scotia. We developed it fully knowing that the bulk of the exports would go to the U.S.

We are on the North American energy grid. What happens in energy in one country has an impact on the other country, similar pricing, similar distribution and those problems. We did it with open eyes. We knew it was within NAFTA. Whether the decision was right or wrong, that is the decision that was made. We want to be 100% sure that we do not do the same thing with water.

If at some point there is a shortage of natural gas and there is a little bit left on Sable Island, we will get the same proportion we are getting now of what is being exported, and the rest we will have to share with the Americans or our partners within NAFTA.

I would never like to see that situation happen with water, because water is a mainstay necessity of life. We are the guardians of the largest freshwater resource in the world. It is important for this planet that we manage that resource properly and that we do not get it caught up unintentionally in some international trade deal.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the motion by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I wish to thank the member for Sherbrooke and congratulate him for having proposed this motion to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I can tell you in plain words that he did not have it easy, because the Conservative members on the committee played the strategy game in order to delay the adoption of the motion.

This brings back some strange, though not so distant, memories: I found myself in the same situation in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, when the Conservatives joined forces with the chair to delay the adoption of the report following up on the Alberta tar sands study. We can see that these techniques are still going on, and are spreading, in order to avoid debates in the House.

Do you want to tell me what advantages it gives the Conservatives to avoid debates in the House of Commons on subjects as important as the tar sands, and today the export of water? They have to tell me what is in it for them to avoid debates on this question?

Since this morning, I have listened to all the speeches by members of all the parties. Each time I am surprised by the arrogance and contempt of certain Conservative members, who practically call their colleagues “paranoid”—that is a loose translation.

When I learned on April 27 that lobbyists, business people, intellectuals from Mexico, Canada and the United States were holding a sixth meeting to discuss the continental nature of natural resources, it was quite natural for citizens of Quebec and Canada to become suddenly concerned and to alert their MPs. Indeed our role as members is to inform and report on the questions and concerns of our citizens in the House of Commons.

Earlier I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage trivialize the April 27 meeting. This meeting was held behind closed doors, secretly, away from the general public and the media, so that the public could not take part in this important debate. He trivialized this meeting, and I think it was a mistake to do so. All meetings by major lobby groups on topics as important and crucial as this one for our society must be brought to light. I was disturbed by the oil company lobby, when we did the tar sands study. I saw how much power they have to influence the government and Canada’s various elected representatives. I cannot help but see similarities, and I understand people’s concern.

This is not only of concern to parliamentarians. I have received letters from people from my riding and the ridings of many members from the Bloc Québécois. The Canadian Council, the S.O.S. Water Coalition and one of the most important central labour body in Quebec have also expressed concern. Speaking of the Canadian Council, this is not a bunch of volunteers who do not know what they are talking about. We are talking about a political economist from the University of Alberta, who is also the director of the Parkland Institute. We are talking about Steven Shrybman, who is practising international commercial law in Ottawa, and Ms. Louise Vandelac, a renowned researcher in Quebec. We are talking about people, scientists, researchers and citizens who are concerned because NAFTA does not currently exclude the possibility of water ever becoming an exportable, marketable commodity.

Where there is doubt, it is only natural to want to dissipate it. All that is asked of the government is that it open negotiations to exclude water from NAFTA. Of course, we have heard about the agreements entered into by Mexico, Canada and the United States in 1993, which have enshrined the principle that water ought not be exported in bulk.

(1255)

However, 1993 was 14 years ago and, at that time, we did not know as much about climate change as we do today. We can expect—it has actually been documented—water shortages, particularly in the United States, to hit hard in coming years.

We, the public and the various organizations advocating on this issue, fear that the shortage of water they might experience could drive our neighbours to the South to challenge the agreements which currently protect against bulk water export. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to prevent a potential challenge on this issue in the future and it is also our duty to protect our resource.

Frankly, I cannot understand why the Conservative government stubbornly refuses to listen to different points of view. It is so closed-minded and standing so firm, while many scientific witnesses now have doubts.

I should point out that NAFTA is a free trade agreement which includes all goods and services without specifically excluding water. Article 309 of NAFTA reads, and I quote:

—no Party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another Party or on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of another Party—

Clearly, Quebec and provincial legislation, which currently prohibits the export of water in bulk, constitutes a prohibition or restriction on the export or sale for export, prohibited by NAFTA.

As long as water is not excluded from NAFTA, our legislation prohibiting the export of water could be challenged or even quashed. Thus, some risk and doubt remains. We believe that, above all, it must not be underestimated. We must therefore assume our responsibilities and begin talks with Mexico and the United States to have it excluded.

In the debates here in the House, we hear some dubious statements. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us earlier that reopening NAFTA would be the worst thing in the world. It is not a question of entering into negotiations to open NAFTA and renegotiating the entire agreement from beginning to end, but rather, of allowing for the addition or even a clarification on the matter before us here today, namely, excluding water.

If everyone finds this so obvious, why are we hesitating to remove it? In response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I would like to inform him that, on March 24, 2006, the Government of Canada found a way to amend NAFTA through a simple exchange of letters, to clarify the definition of certain products covered by the agreement.

How is it possible that we can clarify a definition in NAFTA with a simple letter, but that we cannot clarify this issue and exclude water from the agreement?

I strongly urge the Conservative members to reconsider their position and, as called for by Quebeckers and Canadians, quickly begin talks with our Mexican and American counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech and for having addressed the important reasons our colleague from Sherbrooke put forward this motion.

Could my colleague tell me, if the current government is against clarifying this in NAFTA, is it because it has perhaps already concluded agreements, particularly trade agreements, with the Americans? I would like to hear more about trade, because it seems as though they have now decided to purchase all the oil produced by the oil sands, while Canadians get theirs elsewhere.

Could my colleague tell me whether there could very well be informal agreements for them to purchase our oil in exchange for our water?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brome—Missisquoi for his question.

We spent three months taking a very careful look at the oil sands and what we saw leaves us to conclude that it is entirely possible that there are informal negotiations going on.

We often hear about the water shortage in the United States. But it is not about providing Americans with drinking water. The Americans have a growing need for water for industrial and agricultural production. Domestic consumption is barely 8%. We think that the Americans will need water to be able to meet the requirements of their industrial, energy and agricultural sectors. That is a problem.

If we do not exclude water from NAFTA, will we let the Americans challenge NAFTA and come take our water, so that they will able to further their economic development and provide water to their industries and agricultural businesses?

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for participating in this very important debate.

I would like to ask her a question in light of the comments made a little earlier by the Conservative member. Terence Corcoran of the National Post enthusiastically predicted that in 10 years we will have a cartel based on the OPEC model and that Canada will export considerable amounts of water to the United States.

What does she think of the Conservatives' statements that the problem does not exist and that we will not be exporting our water? They are turning a blind eye to the U.S. desire to one day draw from our reserves. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, for his question.

It is important to realize that there have already been attempts by different businesses to export and market water. In each case it was not a profitable operation. Water is the future and is Quebec's and Canada's blue gold. When the shortage eventually makes itself felt, when we really need water, when our neighbours to the south also really need it, will it not be too late to protect ourselves and to stop it from being taken away? The deepest pockets will prevail. If the Americans want our water, they will find a way—as they did with softwood lumber—to challenge the agreements of Quebec and the other provinces and to obtain bulk water to export for their use.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This report, tabled by my colleague the member for Sherbrooke, a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, recommends that the federal government:

quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

The reason the Bloc Québécois has proposed this motion is that we are determined to ensure that Quebec’s fresh water reserves and those of Canada never become the subject of bargaining and will not be sold to the United States, where the need for water is becoming more and more urgent. We are under pressure now from some American states that want water.

Before explaining our motion in more detail, I want to emphasize that in committee the Bloc Québécois received the support of the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least, we hope it is still there. However, we did not receive the support of the Conservative Party, which used all kinds of manoeuvres to try to sidetrack or derail the debate. The Conservatives even tried to delay adoption of the motion by all sorts of procedural strategies that bring shame on democracy. They have done the same with other motions in many other committees, as my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out, including the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I must confess that it is rather disturbing to see the Conservatives using these partisan procedures with respect to a subject as important as water management. The reason we have proposed this motion is that we want to ensure that this vital natural resource is protected. For a number of years, more and more serious thinkers and economic decision makers from Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico have been meeting to discuss water exports. This is known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which is made up of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Other countries are beginning to covet our water. Several bulk water export projects have been developed in recent years, and other projects are now on the drawing board. All of these projects have been abandoned or will not be realized because they simply are not profitable. It is easy to believe today that the value of water will increase considerably when shortages become more serious and the pressure increases. The companies that are interested in exporting water will come forward with proposals for new projects. Economic issues will not even be a concern at that point.

The Conservatives say there is no question of exporting water. However, water scarcities among our neighbours to the south are appearing now as an increasingly important subject of negotiations. The importance of this motion becomes fully apparent in connection with NAFTA. We should remember that NAFTA is a free trade agreement applying to all goods and services unless they are explicitly excluded. For example, NAFTA does not apply to hydroelectricity generation or to products subject to supply management. They are explicitly excluded from the agreement. However, nothing in writing states that water is excluded. This means, therefore, that it is included under NAFTA. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included.

It is important to know that this situation, which falls under federal responsibility, poses a danger to the provincial legislation currently prohibiting the exportation of water. Quebec prohibits exports of this kind. Water is under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and eight other provinces have legislation prohibiting the exportation of bulk water. We want to preserve this valuable natural resource.

(1310)

If water becomes a key issue in the United States and they are prepared to make a national security issue of it, it is easy to imagine the laws of Quebec and the provinces being challenged under NAFTA.

The Americans are going to want to bargain over water, and in return, they will lean on another free trade or export issue. They will bring pressure to bear on our economy and companies. We saw what happened in the softwood lumber issue. When the Americans put on the pressure to get something, they often get what they want.

Section 309 of the agreement states:

No Party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another Party—

The laws of Quebec and the provinces protecting water and preventing bulk water exports would apparently constitute a prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale for export, as prohibited by NAFTA.

So long as water is not excluded from NAFTA, our legislation forbidding water exports can be challenged and possibly struck down.

Even though water is within Quebec's jurisdiction, international trade is always under federal jurisdiction. Free trade agreements are currently under federal jurisdiction.

We want the government to assume its responsibilities and immediately launch discussions with its NAFTA partners aimed at specifying in an accord that water is not included in NAFTA. This accord could take the form of a simple understanding—an exchange of letters among the three governments—stating that water is not included in NAFTA. This understanding would have to be viewed by international courts as an integral part of NAFTA.

The Conservative Party even tried to sabotage the work of the committee and prevent a witness from sharing his views on this issue. I suppose the Conservative chair of the committee did a good job of reading his manual on how to sow chaos and avoid dealing with subjects that do not suit the government. That is what he did to our committee when we introduced this motion on water.

It was in 1999 that the Bloc Québécois first asked the federal government to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. The response from the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has always been the same: it is pointless to exclude water from NAFTA because water, in its natural state, is not governed by NAFTA. Of course water in its natural state is not governed by NAFTA. In fact, no product in its natural state is governed by NAFTA or any other trade agreement. Since the Liberals already used this ridiculous argument, the Conservatives should have at least found another kind of sophistry to explain their opposition.

The Conservatives clearly do not have enough imagination to hide their inconsistency. Many seem to have grasped the fact that the Americans are not interested in water in its natural state. What they want is to take it south of the border. That water would no longer be in its natural state and would therefore be subject to NAFTA, as a commodity. That is precisely our fear.

To use the government's own examples, who would dare say that lumber, iron or fish are excluded from the scope of trade agreements? That is precisely what the government is saying with its ridiculous argument.

Water is a natural resource that must be closely and carefully protected. That cannot be negotiable.

We are calling on the Conservative government to stop repeating its arguments intended to mislead Canadians and take action to reach an agreement that clearly excludes water from NAFTA.

(1315)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Zed:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among some members and parties with respect to Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail free of postage to members of the Canadian Forces), which was introduced in the House of Commons on May 8.

I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-440 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry, there is no unanimous consent.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my hon. colleague for his very clear presentation. We can see that he is really on top of the matter.

The current government seems to be lacking wisdom. Should the government ever give in on that, it would not make it through NAFTA.

How could it be that nationalizing water would become a government's only recourse? Also, could anyone imagine a Conservative government nationalizing water? I would very much like my hon. colleague to enlighten us about this issue.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André:

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Natural resource protection issues and environmental issues are not the forte of the ruling Conservative Party. If we look at the whole issue of oil sands development, we can see that, for this kind of right wing government, economic considerations take precedence over any social or environmental ones.

The concern Quebeckers have right now, a concern shared by my hon. colleague, which prompted him to put this motion forward, is that, in a context of trade relations between Canada and the United States under NAFTA, economic considerations take precedence over protecting our water resource and, more basically, ensuring our own survival. Water is essential to human survival and should under no consideration be treated as a commodity. That is what prompted this motion.

(1320)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important motion by the Bloc Québécois, because it seems to me that the Conservatives are completely devoid of vision at present. People are always saying that the Americans will need water and will take ours, as if they were sure we will still have as much water as we do today.

With climate change, there is no doubt that we are going to have our own water problems. How can we not protect what water we are going to have in a generation or two? Climate change is expected to produce colder winters, which means that more snow will fall at the two poles. Since the air will be more humid, this snow will not help fill the water basins on the continent because, in any event, they will be at the centre of the poles and the icebergs will melt into the sea. Consequently, more snow at the poles will not mean more fresh water, unless we go out and get it in boats. Maybe we could let the Americans do that.

I would like to read a few short passages in English about how climate change affects water.

[English]

“Global warming increases the chances for extreme weather events”.

[Translation]

We all agree with that.

[English]

It goes on to state: “Here is how. As it gets hotter, summer heat waves become longer, hotter and more widespread. Dry areas tend to dry out faster and to stay that way for longer periods. The extra heat puts more water in the atmosphere”.

[Translation]

This is the most important point. With hotter weather, the air will be more humid than it is now. That will cause high winds.

[English]

The author states:

--that causes wet areas to become wetter and annual rainfall to become more intense, which, coupled with earlier snowmelt, leads to more flooding.

[Translation]

The operative word here is “flooding”. You are well aware that when there are high winds during very hot weather, when the air is humid, that there is a high risk of violent thunderstorms and even hurricanes.

There will be downpours and the water will not be soaked up. Instead, it will quickly flow toward the sea and carry soil and so forth with it.

Accordingly, the following phenomenon will occur: our lakes will not have enough water. Furthermore, in northern Quebec, for the past decade or so, there has been less water in these big areas because rainfall has become increasingly isolated. This phenomenon is not unique to Quebec; it is happening in Europe, where water reservoirs are emptying out because water keeps falling on the same area.

This means that when climate change increases the average temperature by two or three degrees Celsius, there will be more water in the air and that water will fall on the same area, meaning there will be less water on the land in general.

(1325)

[English]

The author states that four factors that can affect the intensity of hurricanes and large storms, including “atmospheric humidity” and “wind shear”.

[Translation]

The term wind shear refers to high winds that cause the humidity in the air to suddenly precipitate in the form of a downpour. We will no longer have the same pattern we have now: we are going to end up with great quantities of water in some places and completely empty lakes in other places.

We are developing forms of energy that will require more water. More specifically, we are currently in the process of developing biofuels that should be called “agro-fuels” because they have nothing to do with life. The prefix “bio” means “life”. Agro-fuels will require a phenomenal amount of water in the fields for cultivation. This water will also evaporate into the atmosphere. The more we cultivate the land, the more humidity there will be in the air.

We are also talking about hydrogen, which the Americans are leaning toward. This piques the interest of our Conservative friends because the Americans are taking interest in it. The production of hydrogen requires a tremendous amount of water. If we turn towards these sources of energy, we too will run out of water. In such a context, how could we imagine exporting our water to another country, namely the United States?

In fact, considering the length of the border between Canada and the United States, if we export water, this would occur across the country and we would therefore quickly run out of water, especially since there will be less of it.

Within the next few years, when the Americans decide to draw more water, whether it is for industrial or other systems, they will go and get that water in the Great Lakes, from their side of the border. We are not talking about exporting: the Americans will simply take the water from the Great Lakes and empty them in the process. Within a few years, the Great Lakes will be empty. Can we imagine the St. Lawrence River here without water in it? This means the water will come from the Outaouais region. Thank goodness Ottawa will be there to provide a bit of water to Montreal. This will be the only source of water. We will already be experiencing a water shortage. How can we possibly believe that we can sell it to another country? That is unthinkable.

Instead, we should consider that climate change is the most important factor to take into account in order to conserve our water, and we should immediately do something about it, while also protecting the water that we have by excluding it from NAFTA agreements. These facts are indisputable. Climate change is occurring right now and it will have a direct impact on our own volume of water. Our beautiful lakes in northern Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces will not remain intact. Believe me, things will change. Some areas will have so much water that the excess volume will end up in the ocean, while lakes in other places will be almost empty, if not totally empty. That is confirmed by some studies.

[English]

The author states:

Global warming also increases the incidence of such heatwaves and makes them more intense and long-lasting. And it puts into the atmosphere more warm, moist air....

[Translation]

That is exactly what is going to happen. Indeed, the more there is—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I am sorry, but it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1330)

[English]

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: There has been a request that the vote be deferred until the end of orders of the day on June 4. The request is in order. The vote is so deferred.

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canada Elections Act

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the chamber today to speak in favour of Bill C-55 on enhanced voting opportunities. I am hopeful that all of my colleagues in this place will also vote in favour of the bill when it finally comes before the members.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that during the last couple of federal campaigns I have had opportunities to speak many times before young people, whether it be in primary schools, high schools or universities. One of the things I always say to these young people is that I sincerely hope, no matter for whom they choose to vote, that they at least exercise their franchise and use the ability and the privilege given to them to actually cast their ballots in a federal election.

One of the most disturbing trends that I have seen over the course of the last 10 to 20 years is the decrease in voter turnout, especially among young people, particularly in the 18 to 25 demographic. What I say to these young people and what I will say to the members of this place is that why this is so disturbing is that eventually those young people will be determining the fate of their governments. I would hate to think that if these trends continue we would see a time when a federal election was held with a less than 50% voter turnout, or in other words, when less than 50% of the eligible voters of this country actually would elect a government.

Regardless of which government it is and regardless of which party or political stripe is represented, it is a very disturbing trend to think that young people in particular, but all voters regardless of age, are exercising their franchise less and less. That says perhaps many things about the inherent problems that we have within our political parties, our political system or our electoral system, but nonetheless, it is incumbent upon all of us to do what we can to try to increase voter turnout.

Regardless of the government that is elected at the end of the day, I would feel more comfortable, and I think most Canadians would feel more comfortable, if 80% or 90% of all eligible voters cast their ballots. Then one actually could say that the vast majority of Canadians expressed their opinion, cast their ballots and elected a government in which the majority of Canadians had a say.

I am disturbed when I think that roughly 60% of Canadians, and only 60%, end up electing governments. Whether they be minority or whether they be majority, if only 60% of Canadians feel it is worthwhile to go out on voting day to cast their ballots, it says there is something wrong.

I am not here to speak to all of the ills that currently may be within our electoral system or our political parties, but I am here today to speak to Bill C-55, which is an attempt to increase the voter turnout at future federal elections. While I will be the first to admit that the bill is certainly not intended to be the panacea for all the ills, I think it is a step in the right direction.

Should the bill be passed into law, I believe that it will have a positive impact on increasing the level of voter turnout that we have seen. It may not dramatically increase the level of voter turnout, but I think there will be an increase. Even if we increase the number of voters casting ballots by a few percentage points, the bill will have had a positive effect. That is why I will very gladly and wholeheartedly vote in favour of the bill.

What does the bill say exactly? What does it do? It does not do much outside of the fact that it gives two additional days for voters to cast ballots in advance polls.

Currently, as I am sure most members understand, the situation is that on day ten, nine and seven, in other words the tenth day, the ninth day and the seventh day prior to election day, advance polls are currently in operation, where voters who may not be in town or who may not wish to vote during election day can, during prescribed hours, go to prescribed voting locations, advance poll locations, and cast their ballots. Over time that has proven to be a very valuable tool in assisting all Canadians in their ability to cast a vote.

(1335)

We all know that come election day certain factors occur which prevent some Canadians from going to the polls. It might be work related functions, the voters may be out of the country on vacation, they may just happen to come down with a bad cold, or some other circumstance might prevent them from actually casting a ballot on E day, election day. Being given the opportunity to cast an advance ballot would ensure that those votes are counted. This bill would increase the number of opportunities that voters would have to actually cast a ballot should they choose do so other than on election day.

This bill specifically deals with voting on the two Sundays immediately prior to election day. There is one slight variance in that in as much as on the eighth day prior to E day, the Sunday which would be the eighth day prior to E day, the polling location for this advance poll would be the standard advance poll location.

As most Canadians understand, advance polls are traditionally always located in different areas than the general polling location in individual ridings. My particular riding of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, which is consistent with the geographic area of most rural ridings, is a very large riding. The advance polls for the rural areas in my riding are all held in a community called Lumsden. Lumsden is fairly central, but it is a fair hike for one coming down from Nokomis or Davidson. People sometimes have to travel over an hour, sometimes an hour and a half, to get to the polling station to cast an advance ballot. That in itself poses some difficulties for individuals who may be somewhat restricted in mode of transportation, whether or not they can drive a car, or whether they have access to a ride to get to the polling stations. Even though they have an opportunity to cast a ballot, it is somewhat restrictive in as much as some people have to travel up to an hour and a half or longer.

Bill C-55 proposes that in addition to allowing advance polls to be open the eighth day prior to E day in the traditional advance polling location, advance polls would be set up the Sunday immediately prior to the general election, which traditionally has been on a Monday. That advance poll, which would be open from 12 noon to 8 p.m. local time, would be located in the general polling location.

Let me explain exactly what that means. On election day, there are many polling locations throughout each member's riding. Perhaps in some riding there might be as many as 30, 40 or 50 actual polling locations located in schools, gymnasiums and churches. This bill proposes that the advance poll for that Sunday, that one day only, one day prior to an election, would be located in the same polling locations as would be held the following day.

In other words, rather than just having one or two advance poll locations, which would require some individuals to drive an hour or more, they would have the convenience of going to a polling station the Sunday prior to the general election and located relatively near their residence. The intent is to give as much flexibility as possible in order to give individuals an opportunity to cast a ballot.

There have been some questions. Why Sunday? Is Sunday not supposed to be a day of rest? Would that not interfere with the practices of some to attend the church of their choice? There may be some validity to that argument, however, I would suggest that since we are recommending that the time of the advance polling would be from 12 noon to 8 p.m. of that day, then that would probably give sufficient time to those who wish to worship at the location of their choice. They would have time to go to church and after that go to the polling location.

I would also suggest that this is not something radical. It is certainly not something new. Other jurisdictions have been providing polling opportunities on a Sunday.

(1340)

I know my colleagues in the Bloc have long argued that Sunday voting was something that was accepted widely and broadly in Quebec. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, have had opportunities on Sundays to cast ballots.

I think that we would find that generally speaking, this has been a practice that has been accepted in other parts of Canada by other Canadians. I would suggest to members of the House that the practice on a widespread basis through all of the ridings would also come under much acceptance.

What does it mean that we have an eight hour window on the Sunday prior? Some would argue that is just merely another extension of voting day, and while I can understand why some individuals would say it is actually adding an extra day, so there would now be two days of voting, it is not quite true.

Number one, the polling hours are different. As I mentioned earlier, the polling is going to be from 12 noon until 8 p.m., whereas on the Monday, the day of a general election, polling stations open on a staggered basis, usually from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., sometimes 9 p.m., but the times are staggered across Canada to take into account the various time zones. That is the first difference.

The second difference of course is that these are advance polls only. Ballots would not be counted that day. The ballots would be sealed and contained in the advance poll ballot box, referred to the returning officer at the general polling station the following day, and ballots would be counted at that time.

I should also point out that should the eventuality ever occur that the Monday is not election day, it would still be a Sunday prior to the general election day that this special advance poll would be in operation. There are some distinct differences between the two.

However once again, the general intent of this bill is to try to increase the ability of voters to cast ballots during a general election. I would like to think that all parliamentarians, regardless of political affiliation, would agree with me that that is a good thing. I have yet to hear an argument from any member in this place that suggests lower voter turnouts are better for democracy. It is an absurd argument and I think everyone would agree with that. Everything that we can possibly do to increase voter turnout is something we should welcome.

I have heard today that there have been some minor disagreements with this proposed legislation. Some members have argued that it needs improvement.

Perhaps, but on a general basis, on balance, this bill is an improvement to the current voting system that we experience today because it gives additional opportunities to all Canadians to express their opinions and exercise their franchise. It gives them the opportunity in a way that is intended to drive up the number of people who vote.

Can we do other things? Absolutely, and I have long argued that what we need to do, and perhaps this is a function of the Chief Electoral Office of this land, is have a far more aggressive and pervasive educational program to encourage all Canadians, particularly young people, vote.

This is without question, in my view, the most important privilege that every Canadian has, the right to exercise their franchise and to elect members of Parliament, and on a provincial basis, to elect provincial governments.

There is no fundamental democracy or democratic premise or tenet more important, in my view, than the right to vote. Canadians, and in fact citizens worldwide, have long fought, sometimes literally fought, for the right to vote. We still see now in some jurisdictions across the globe a discrimination against some people having the ability to vote.

In this country, of course, not that many years ago there were restrictions placed upon who could vote. We have come a long way in the last century, and that is a good thing, but we still need to do more. Through methods of education and awareness, whether it be in the schoolroom, whether it be through the Chief Electoral Office, or whether it just be us as parliamentarians advocating and encouraging Canadians in our ridings to get out and vote, regardless of who they vote for, it is something we should all take very seriously.

(1345)

Again, let me say that while I do not think that this is the total answer, a complete panacea to the problems of low voter turnout, I think it will go in an incremental way toward increasing the level of voter turnout.

I would like nothing more than to be able to come back to this House, some day in the future after this bill has been implemented, and point to the fact that the percentage of voters who attended the Sunday polling stations on day eight and day one prior to election day was significant and the overall voter turnout across this country was significant. We would be able to turn to this bill that we passed, and I hope it will pass unanimously, quite frankly, and say that we had a part to play in allowing more Canadians to vote, in fact in encouraging more Canadians to vote.

If we do that I think all of us can go back to our ridings and say, “I earned my dollar today. I earned my salary”. It may be a small blip on the political landscape that people look back after years and say, “That was an obvious thing to do”. I think these are the type of initiatives as parliamentarians we need to engage in on a more frequent basis.

I certainly encourage every member of this House, when Bill C-55 come before them for third and final reading, and I am sure it will in due course, to vote in favour of the bill.

Once the bill gets to committee, and I am quite confident that it will, should the procedure and House affairs committee dealing with this bill feel or deem that there are any necessary amendments to be made, I have no problems and no qualms with amendments to this bill should they be in the spirit in which the bill was introduced and that is to genuinely put procedures in place that will increase the level of voter turnout.

There may be some amendments that I have not considered and perhaps there may be some amendments offered that this bill has not contemplated. Regardless of that, I think the spirit of this bill is one which all parliamentarians can agree upon.

We need more people in this country to vote. I will give a quick example. In my riding in 2004 just over 63% of eligible voters cast a ballot. When we have 37% of the people not voting, that concerns me, particularly since I will be representing them, regardless of whether they cast a ballot or not.

I would love to say that 100% of the people in my riding voted. Therefore, I would be absolutely convinced, whoever the successful candidate was, that this was really the person who my constituents wanted to see in Parliament representing them.

Right now there certainly can be an argument to be made that I did not receive 50% of the vote and only 63% of the people participated in the vote. One could certainly argue that the majority of people, perhaps even the vast majority in my own riding, did not want me as their member of Parliament but they got me. I would like to think that is not true. I mean that is an argument that could be made and with some legitimacy.

If we can do anything in our power to increase the number of people casting their votes, it will be a good day for democracy.

I go back to 2006. I was hoping that the level of voter turnout would actually increase from the previous election due to the fact that we had many issues that were coming forward during the election campaign. Generally speaking it has always been a historical fact that when there is a change in government, traditionally voter turnout goes up because people want a change. Therefore, they will take the time to go to the polls and vote for a new government.

Quite frankly, that did not occur in the 2006 election. I know that the voter turnout percentages vary from riding to riding, but as a general rule of thumb the voting turnout in 2006 remained fairly static to what it was in 2004, around the low 60% mark.

If we can say that at best we remained the same, that we have not continued to decrease, I do not think that is good enough.

In summary, this bill is a very simple bill. It merely purports to try and do one thing, to allow more people to cast their ballots and to encourage more people to cast their ballots. If we are successful in that initiative by the passage of this bill, it has been a good day for democracy.

(1350)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague’s speech with interest and I will say immediately that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill at second reading, even if we do not think that it will increase voter turnout. It will give people more days to vote, and this is acceptable and desirable. We ourselves would have preferred to see measures that would increase the number of advance polling stations in each riding in order to increase accessibility to these stations. We would also have preferred to see money spent on facilitating voter registration and correcting errors in the register of electors. The real problem is the drop in turnout.

Adding two advance voting days may help some people who could not do so before to get out and vote, but I do not think that it will have much effect. We should give much more thought to particular clienteles such as young people and native people, who have very low turnout, and what we could do to increase their turnout. A much broader discussion is required.

The bill before us is not negative—the parliamentary secretary said as much—but I think that much deeper thought and other ways of doing things are required. Money needs to be invested. The costs incurred by the addition of these two voting days will not increase the number of advance polling stations in a rural riding like mine, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. This is a riding with lots of municipalities in it. Offering people more places to vote in advance would have an effect on turnout. When people have to travel many kilometres to get to an advance polling station, they may decide not to go and not be available the actual day of the vote. Then we do not get the desired results.

I would like to know whether the people who work on elections were consulted, in either a partisan or non-partisan way. For example in my riding my riding president, Daniel Blanchet, is very familiar with election organization. In this regard, we could go much further in the present circumstances. Does the parliamentary secretary think, as I do, that a much broader offensive should be launched so as to increase the choice?

During the last election in France, voter turnout reached 85%. There is no reason why here, with the issues we know about, we should not reach that level, except that with the Canadian federal system it is not easy to make the connection between the federal or provincial elected representative and the voter’s choice. Perhaps in this regard the Canadian federal system has a democratic deficit, which will be hard to fix as things stand.

(1355)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what my hon. colleague said.

As I mentioned during my address, the bill is not intended to be the panacea for all the ills in the electoral system or democratic system. What it is trying to do, in some small way perhaps, is increase ever so incrementally the level of voter turnout.

Are there more things that could be done? Absolutely, I am sure there could be.

My hon. colleague asked what we could do to increase the level of turnout for voters within aboriginal and first nations communities. I mentioned the fact that the demographic of the 18 to 25-year-olds is at about 25% level when it comes to voter turnout.

Are there things we can do more? Absolutely, whether it be through education or perhaps other procedural items, but those things will have to be done in time. All I am suggesting is that this is a good first step.

Empirical evidence has suggested that the more opportunities and the more advance polls that are presented will in fact increase the voter level turnout, and that is all this bill does. Let us start getting it up there and if there are more things we can do, either at committee or legislatively, let us do that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I do not agree with him that the government is doing everything it can to increase voter turnout in Canada. The photo ID bill that was passed earlier this year will hinder voter turnout. For the sake of a few fraud cases that we have had in the last four elections, we are making a tremendous restriction on people's ability to go into the voting booth and cast their vote on election day.

The second thing I point out to the member is this. We do not have to be naive enough to think that if we have an eight hour voting period on the day before voting day, this will not turn into a two day voting exercise. When we do that, we will have a situation where we are able to advertise and promote candidates on the day when a large number of people cast their ballots. Therefore, we will have interference in the democratic system if we do not change the regulations surrounding the ability to advertise on that Sunday prior to the vote.

That is one of the problems. The other problem is we are extending this voting period over two days, we are extending it into a day of rest, we are extending it to a point where difficulties will occur with people in terms of their ability to respond.

The bill has many flaws in it which need to be approached very carefully. Many people have experience in election campaigns. We understand the nature of the election day machine. When we extend it over two days, how will that impact on parties and resources—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I am sorry but I need to proceed to another item at this point.

Royal Assent

[Royal Assent]

* * *

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 31, 2007

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 31st day of May, 2007, at 9:05 a.m.

Sheila-Marie Cook

The Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)—Chapter 12, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption—Chapter 13 and Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (access for spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition)—Chapter 14.

Statements by Members

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Greenbelt Award

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on May 22, the Hon. William Grenville Davis, Premier of Ontario from 1971 to 1985, received the Greenbelt Award, in recognition of his environmental vision in protecting the Niagara Escarpment.

The Niagara Escarpment is a unique 725 kilometre land form stretching from Niagara Falls to the Bruce Peninsula. Its wilderness and agricultural areas host a myriad of species, some endangered or rare. In recognition of its ecological significance, it was named a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations in 1990.

In 1973 Premier Davis and his Conservative government took the remarkable step of protecting the Niagara Escarpment from urban sprawl and from development. It was Canada's first environmental land use document designed to protect natural heritage features and prime agricultural land.

Urban sprawl is a serious environmental challenge and it was Premier Davis's first bold move to protect the escarpment that allowed the Oak Ridges Moraine to be designated in 1996 and the Greenbelt to be created in 2005. This truly is a legacy for future generations.

* * *

ALS Awareness Month

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge June as ALS Awareness Month in Canada.

The ALS Society of Canada, founded in 1977, is the only national voluntary health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The ALS Society is a leading not for profit health organization working nationwide to fund ALS research.

I would like to recognize a constituent of mine, Benjamin Lindberg, who passed away on April 29 of this year. He was diagnosed with ALS in 1991, and courageously battled the disease for more than 15 years. Our hearts go out to his family and friends. Imagine not being able to walk, write, smile, talk and sometimes breathe on one's own, yet the mind usually remains intact and senses are unaffected. This is what it is like for the 3,000 Canadians who have ALS.

According to the World Health Organization, neurodegenerative diseases are predicted to surpass cancer as the second leading cause of death in Canada by 2040. I hope a cure will become a reality soon.

* * *

[Translation]

Quebec Collective Kitchens Association

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Collective Kitchens Association is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its foundation. These kitchens pool together time, money and skills to prepare healthy, inexpensive and appetizing meals that are served to school age children among others.

Since 1995, the number of collective kitchen groups has gone from 500 to over 1,400, a 280% increase. Last year, these groups fed approximately 37,000 people. In Quebec, close to 7,000 participants get together to cook healthy meals. This means that, every month, thousands of people eat some 850,000 healthy, balanced and inexpensive meals.

The Bloc Québécois and myself congratulate the Quebec Collective Kitchens Association, and we urge it to continue its work in the community.

* * *

[English]

Mackenzie Valley Gas Project

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chief executive officer, said in Dallas that unless there were significant royalty and tax breaks, they were going to shelve the Mackenzie Valley gas project.

Instead of handing out corporate welfare to a company that just posted its largest profit ever this year, I have a suggestion for the minister. Government should become a partner in the project as it is a partner in the Norman Wells oil field. Every year the Norman Wells oil field has returned very significant revenues to Canadians. This is the type of government involvement we need in the oil industry. We do not need more giveaways.

With the federal government as a partner, average Canadians can actually see a return on their investment rather than the loss they would see by handing over more tax and royalty breaks to an industry that already gets over a billion dollars in concessions.

Properly developed, the Mackenzie project could be in the national interest, but Canada cannot allow itself to be bullied into giving more corporate handouts. Rather, if Exxon wants taxpayer money, we should see a return on the investment.

* * *

(1405)

Arts and Culture

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday I had the privilege of representing the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the opening night of the Stratford Festival.

On this season's playbill, plays like King Lear, Oklahoma and To Kill a Mockingbird will not disappoint.

Our thanks go out to Richard Monette who will retire this year after 14 successful seasons as artistic director.

Theatre audiences will also love the Drayton Festival Theatre which offers a playbill including Cash on Delivery, Funny Money and The Buddy Holly Story.

The Drayton Festival, under the artistic direction of Alex Mustakas, has theatres across southwestern Ontario, in Drayton, St. Jacobs, Grand Bend and Penetanguishene.

I encourage all members to visit my riding of Perth—Wellington this summer or any other theatre across our great country for culture that is second to none.

* * *

Foreign Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today I add my voice to the chorus of people demanding justice for Munir Said Thalib.

Munir was Indonesia's most prominent human rights defender and an especially vocal critic of the human rights abuses committed by that country's military. In 2004, on a flight from Jakarta to Amsterdam, Munir was poisoned. The president of Indonesia commissioned a fact finding report, but refused to release the results of that investigation.

I had the honour of speaking with Munir's widow, who with dignity and courage described her quest to hear the truth about her husband's murder. I stand with her and groups like Rights and Democracy, Amnesty International, KAIROS and Human Rights Watch, among others, in calling for the government of Indonesia to put justice and human rights above politics and to release the report. I also call on the Government of Canada to pressure the government of Indonesia to do the right thing.

* * *

Organ Donation

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned of a young girl in my riding named Mackenzie Walchuck, who was diagnosed with a life-threatening liver disease at the age of three. Mackenzie is now 11 and the disease has progressed to the point that her liver can no longer function.

She is the youngest person in Canada in need of a liver and she needs it now, but Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates among industrialized countries. This is something we need to change.

On behalf of Mackenzie and the thousands of other Canadians waiting for new organs, I have a simple request. I ask people to sign their organ donor cards and consider becoming a living donor. Certain types of organs, including kidneys and liver, like Mackenzie needs, can be given safely by living donors. At the cost of a minor inconvenience, we could all save a life.

Health Canada and provincial ministries of health can provide more information for people who want to help. All we need to do is act.

* * *

[Translation]

Shawn McCaughey

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Captain Shawn McCaughey, a 31-year-old resident of Candiac in Montérégie, who lost his life when his plane crashed while the Snowbirds were training for a show in Montana.

Captain McCaughey learned to fly when he was studying physical geography at Concordia University in Montreal, and his dream was to one day fly a CF-18 fighter.

I have expressed my sincere sympathies and the condolences of the Bloc Québécois to his parents, Mr. McCaughey and Ms. Veilleux, who live in my riding, Brossard—La Prairie, and to his fiancée, Claudia Gaudreault, of Chicoutimi.

* * *

[English]

SEVEC

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about SEVEC, the Society for Educational Visits and Exchanges in Canada, an organization that has been bringing together young Canadians from different parts of the country for over 70 years.

SEVEC's youth exchanges provide practical experience for students between the ages of 12 to 17 to learn about their second language, experience a different culture and volunteer in two communities in Canada.

I am very proud that one of the largest SEVEC exchange groups is from my riding. As I speak, Hillcrest public school students in Owen Sound are hosting an exchange group from Quebec. Also, it was my pleasure today to meet SEVEC participants from across the country who are on the Hill to talk to MPs about their experiences.

Many students from my riding and certainly from across the country have benefited from this great program. They are the future leaders of this country. I am very proud that this government strongly supports a great program.

* * *

Election in Prince Edward Island

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to outline breaches of protocol by the federal Conservative government in its attempt to influence the P.E.I. election. Canadians know how the Conservative government tried to influence the Quebec election through the budget, but the Prime Minister took a different tack to influence voters in P.E.I.

Jason Lee, the Prime Minister's senior appointee for P.E.I., who operates the ACOA minister's regional office, ran as a Conservative candidate, stating on his website, “Lee currently works as a senior aide” to the minister. There are questions about if or when he took a leave of absence without pay.

Further, the Conservative premier's campaign director was appointed to the ACOA advisory board and continued to actively campaign in violation of public service guidelines. Worse, ACOA's computers were used to bolster the Binns blog campaign.

It is time the Prime Minister stopped using federal resources for partisan purposes.

* * *

(1410)

[Translation]

Criminal Code

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy about the passage at third reading of Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, which provides for tougher mandatory sentences for persons convicted of serious offences involving firearms.

But the Liberals should be ashamed. They state publicly that they want to fight crime, yet they consistently refused to vote for Bill C-10. Why do the Liberals not want to protect victims of crime?

As for the Bloc, they voted against Bill C-10. The Bloc claims to be defending the interests of Quebec, but it is neglecting to protect the rights of victims of crime in Quebec. Whose interests is the Bloc really protecting? Clearly, the Bloc and the Liberal Party prefer to protect the criminals rather than the victims.

We are taking real steps to make our streets and communities safer.

* * *

[English]

Seniors

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Penny Priddy (Surrey North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I often share stories in this House about people who live in my riding. Today I would like to recognize the 17,000 seniors who call Surrey North home.

I was pleased to meet many of my neighbours at a public forum I sponsored last week to help seniors protect themselves from fraud. Not surprisingly, our discussion turned to other issues facing seniors today, such as how there are many elderly people who cannot afford the rising costs of prescription drugs, how it is getting harder to find quality home support in Surrey, and how the responsibility of looking after spouses is difficult without help.

Seniors in Surrey tell me that they are behind the NDP's plan to ensure dignity and security for Canadians as we grow older. They support the seniors charter our party has passed in the House of Commons. They are grateful that we are trying to guarantee retirement security and protect pensions, the only party to do so.

They want the government to act on the NDP's call for free drug and dental coverage for seniors. It is the least we can do for the people who helped build our country.

* * *

Seniors

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Raymond Chan (Richmond, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, by 2021 senior citizens will constitute 18% of Canada's population. The Conservative government has failed them.

Seniors in my community say that the Conservatives have failed to deliver on their promise to guarantee shorter medical wait times and have failed to deliver the needed resources to deal with our health care problems.

Seniors in my community say that the Conservatives have failed to address the need for affordable housing. We must work with the provinces to provide funding for affordable housing.

Seniors in my community say that the Conservatives have failed them by breaking the income trust promise, costing them their savings and costing Canadians over $25 billion in investments. We must cut the income trust tax from 31.5% to 10% and refund Canadians their money.

When will the Conservative government stop misleading the public and failing our seniors?

* * *

[Translation]

Education for All

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec is now holding its general meeting in Gatineau and its president Réjean Parent gave me 425 letters addressed to the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages asking Canada to continue its efforts to achieve the objectives of the education for all program.

At the UNESCO World Education Forum held in Dakar in 2000, Canada made a commitment to meet basic education needs by 2015. Throughout the world, 781 million adults are illiterate and 80 million children do not attend school. The signatory countries, including Canada, have a lot of work to do to meet their objectives.

The Bloc Québécois and I add our voices to the CSQ to urge the government to allocate 0.7% of gross national income to development aid, as it promised.

* * *

(1415)

Sacha Bond

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues and the Canadian public about the sad situation Sacha Bond, a Canadian citizen, is in.

At 22, he is serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida prison. He is not a hardened criminal. At the time his crime was committed, he was 20 and visiting Florida. Sacha Bond was ill at the time: he has bipolar disorder, a serious mental illness.

Sacha Bond requires special medical care, and I do not believe he is receiving it in the Florida prison. This care is available in the Canadian prison system, in particular at the Archambault Institution.

I have appealed to the compassion and understanding of the Minister of Public Safety to allow Sacha Bond to serve his sentence in Canada, but to no avail. Sacha bond requires special care to be able to continue to live a healthy life and to eventually reintegrate into society, without posing a threat.

Let us support the transfer request of young Canadian Sacha Bond.

* * *

[English]

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservative government is getting the job done for our farmers.

The first piece of legislation we passed into law in 2006 was about improvements to cash advance payments now available to producers. These changes allowed the spring credit advance and the fall advance payments to be merged into a single program.

Our government's improvements include: increasing the limit on cash advances from $250,000 to $400,000; doubling the interest-free amount from $50,000 to $100,000; expanding the coverage to include livestock and an additional variety of crops; and extending from 12 to 18 months the time producers have to repay their cash advance, that is, from April to September of the following year.

Farmers apply for a cash advance through producer organizations. Repayments of cash advances are guaranteed. Where I come from, it really helps farmers when money can be borrowed at lower interest rates and cash can be advanced on the anticipated value of farm production. This is another positive step for agriculture.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Minister of National Defence

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!