House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was companies.

Topics

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I reject the premise that Canadian corporations are more vulnerable because of this decision. In fact, I would suggest, and I think the record would bear me out, that there are far more examples of Canadians taking over foreign investments, or in other words, taking over foreign companies, than the reverse.

To perhaps set the record straight as well, I think the member referred to some member from Edmonton—Strathcona. If she was referring to me, I note that I am from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I know the member would not purposely misrepresent my home riding, and I know she was confused.

Quite simply, I reject the premise of the question from the hon. member for Halifax, who is suggesting that in some way tax policies by this government make Canadian corporations more vulnerable to foreign takeovers. I absolutely reject that premise and I think the record will show that I am on pretty solid ground.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, my speech follows up on the excellent speech by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, but I do want to respond to something. I was challenged earlier by the member for Scarborough Centre to come up with where specifically in the red book it said that the GST would be scrapped. He will be happy to hear that on page 22 of the red book of 1993, the quote that the Liberals will scrap, kill and abolish the GST is:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal cooperation and harmonization.

It is on the record. The member for Scarborough Centre challenged me. I think I am up to the challenge, so we will see if the member for Scarborough Centre is prepared, based on the fact that it is in the red book, to step down from his seat and run again like he said he would. I am looking forward to it.

I would like also to focus my remarks on the portion of today's motion dealing with the deeply flawed Liberal alternative to the government's tax fairness plan, an alternative aptly described by Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute as politically funky stew, and elaborate on the extensive tax relief our government has provided to Canadians.

The chief deficiency with the Liberals' alternative plan is that it completely fails to level the playing field between income trusts and corporations. The Liberals would completely ignore the tax revenue losses experienced by the federal and provincial governments, nor would they remove the tax incentive for business and investors to choose the income trust structure over corporate structure.

On October 31, 2006 Canada's new government announced its tax fairness plan. Unlike this motion, it will restore balance and fairness to the federal tax system by creating a level playing field between income trusts and corporations and also deliver over $1 billion of new tax relief annually for Canadians, especially our seniors.

Included in the measures in the tax fairness plan is a distribution tax on distributions from publicly traded income trusts and limited partnerships. Distributions of existing income trusts will not be affected, I repeat, not be affected, by this tax for four years. Also included is a reduction of one-half percentage point in the general corporate income tax rate as of January 2011. At that point in time, the federal general corporate income tax rate will be 18.5%, which makes us the third lowest in the G-7. There is an increase in the age credit amount by $1,000, from $4,066 to $5,066, effective January 1, 2006. The $1,000 increase in the age credit amount will provide tax relief to low and middle income seniors.

For many, pension splitting beginning in 2007 is also in the plan. The pension income splitting measures will allow residents who receive income that qualifies for the pension income tax credit to allocate up to one-half of that income to their spouse or common law partner, thereby significantly reducing the tax on that income. The pension income splitting measure is a move that will directly benefit many of the 20,000 seniors in my riding of St. Catharines, and will benefit thousands more across the country.

The government is committed to tax fairness in this country. It is only right that businesses and individuals in Canada each pay their fair share of tax.

Had the government not acted on the income trust issue, the tax burden would have been unfairly shifted on to the backs of hard-working individuals and families in our country. Our government could not stand by and watch this happen. Ordinary taxpayers needed to be protected. That is why we acted.

Informed opinion from coast to coast has been overwhelmingly in our favour. The federal Daily Gleaner said, “It was the decision we think that will benefit Canadians in the long run”. The Montreal Gazette called it sound public policy, noting that unlike the former Liberal government, we had the discipline to avoid public dithering. The Toronto Star said that the finance minister deserves much credit for doing the right thing by plugging a tax avoidance loophole that he rightly described as a very bad thing for Canada. The Winnipeg Sun said that the Conservative government acted in the best interest of the economy going forward.

Even the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, said at the time that it was absolutely the right thing to do, to ensure tax fairness and to work for Canada's productivity.

Unlike the Liberal leader, most Canadians clearly get it. In order for Canada to compete and be a leader in the 21st century, we must have a fair and neutral tax system in which all individuals and businesses pay their fair share.

Canada's new government demonstrated its commitment to tax fairness in this country in its most recent budget. The 2007 budget invests in things that make Canada great and reflect the values and beliefs that define us as a nation.

The government is taking important steps to clean up our environment, invest in Canadians, improve our health care system and celebrate our culture.

Canada's new government came into power believing strongly that Canadians pay too much tax. That is why in budget 2007 our government took steps to reduce the tax burden on Canadians and provide over $7 billion in tax relief over the next two fiscal years.

The tax relief provided in budget 2007 builds on the already significant tax relief that the government provided in budget 2006 in which 29 tax reductions amounting to almost $20 billion over two years were made. Budget 2006 provided more tax relief than four previous federal budgets combined.

Canada's new government has also introduced advantage Canada. A key element of the plan is to provide a tax back guarantee to Canadians by dedicating all interest savings from reducing the federal debt to personal income tax reductions. It means that every dollar saved from lower interest payments will be returned to Canadians through personal income tax reductions.

Over the next two fiscal years this will mean $2.4 billion in tax relief. It is made possible by lowering our national mortgage by over $22 billion since being elected, debt reduction that works out to more than $700 per Canadian. After all, why should Canadians not benefit directly from living in the only G-7 nation with a balanced budget?

Here are a few examples of how the government is acting to help hard-working Canadians and businesses:

We are introducing a $2,000 per child tax credit that will help families get ahead. For a typical family with two children, it will mean up to $620 in tax savings. This tax credit will help alleviate some of the necessary expenses incurred by Canadian families in raising children.

We are increasing the spousal and other amounts to provide up to $209 of tax relief for a spouse or a single taxpayer supporting a dependent child or relative. We are giving all families the opportunity to enjoy the dignity that comes with having a job and the pride of independence through the working income tax benefit. It will reward and strengthen incentives to work for more than 1.2 million low income Canadians. The maximum benefit is $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families.

We are reducing the federal paper burden for business by 20% by November 2008, by reducing the number of annual tax filings and remittances by over 350,000 small businesses. We are recognizing that businesses need modern technology to be more efficient and buildings that allow them to grow. That is why we proposed changes to the capital cost allowance system that will shorten the writeoff period for computers and non-residential buildings.

Budget 2007 also contains a detailed plan creating a Canadian advantage in global capital markets that will create a stronger and more efficient capital market in our country. The plan will give enterprises of all sizes better access to capital at more competitive costs, provide investors with increased investment choices and create more highly skilled, well paying jobs.

Canada certainly recognizes that attracting investment is as basic to building a strong economy as reducing government debt, lowering taxes and maintaining low, stable and predictable inflation.

Make no mistake that the decision that was taken on October 31 is all about fairness. It is about fairness to Canadian taxpayers and their families who would have been asked to pay more and more. It is about fairness within the corporate sector by removing the tax distortion in favour of income trusts relative to corporations. It is about fairness for all Canadian governments, federal and provincial, by preventing a significant loss of tax revenue.

In summary, it was clear that income trusts had special tax advantages that regular business corporations did not. Although the decision to act on this income trust issue was not an easy one, it was absolutely necessary for the country and for the future generations of Canadians, our children and our grandchildren.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, like a large-mouthed bass, the member took my bait, because what the member for St. Catharines said when asking me a question before was half of the sentence. It is in the record where he said that the Liberals promised in the red book to scrap the GST, period.

I want to thank him because it is the first time since the 1993 election that a member from that party finally completed the sentence as it is on record, in the newspapers, in the media and in the red book. He clearly stated that the Liberals would replace the GST with an equally revenue generating tax.

I want to ask the member for St. Catharines, without revenue, how would the Liberals have eliminated the deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives? How would the Liberals have lowered the debt? How would the Liberals have had money to invest in infrastructure, in health, in post-secondary education?

The large-mouthed bass took the bait and he finally clarified what we committed to in the red book of 1993, to replace the GST with an equally revenue generating tax, and not mislead Canadians by saying replace and scrap the GST, period.

I am glad he took the challenge, and I will take him on any time.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I am not sure I heard a question in there, but the hon. member for St. Catharines has the floor.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, if I had the opportunity I would stay here the rest of the week and over the weekend to debate with the member for Scarborough Centre about his broken promise, his party's broken promise. He admitted it right here in the House. He said, “We didn't keep it. We didn't do it. We didn't get it done”.

This is my favourite day in the House since I have been here. He called me a large-mouthed bass and I took the bait. Sir, through you, Mr. Speaker, this was fishing at its best. Those who host fishing shows on TSN would be proud to watch what the member for Scarborough Centre did today when he admitted to Canadians and the House of Commons that the Liberals did not do what they said they were going to do with the GST. I am proud the member finally had the nerve, on behalf of his party, to stand and say it.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we could spend a moment or two on this issue.That was 14 or 15 years ago. I am very pleased that the red book phrases have been read into the record because they often get forgotten. At the time members will recall there was a desperate attempt to do what we could to get rid of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative GST which had been imposed on Canadians. The Conservatives now seem to be trying to avoid that whole issue.

I recall cobbling together a political platform which had in it this commitment to replace the GST with a tax that would be revenue neutral and would accommodate the two other objectives.

In the end, it is a fact that the Liberal government did not succeed in putting in place right across the country what became known as the harmonized sales tax. We were able to implement it in only the maritime provinces. That was the end of our ability because of lack of cooperation with the provinces to develop that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

There is a minute left for the hon. member for St. Catharines.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member and I serve on the justice committee together. I have to say I respect the work that he does there. He is hard working. He knows his place. He knows what he needs to do there. He deals with the facts on a reasonable basis. Let me compliment him on that.

The fact is we are not talking about justice here. We are talking about finance and we are talking about commitment. The plain fact of the matter is: square box, put it in, and what came out was a broken promise. There is nothing more that can be said about it. They cannot correct the record. All they can do is say that yes, they broke their promise. That is all they can do.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, if things get really desperate, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brant.

These are issues of huge importance that we are dealing with today. Sometimes in the cut and thrust of debate and repartee, I am sure Canadians wonder just what the point is that we are trying to make. I want to try to make a balanced commentary on what has been proposed.

Every Conservative member who spoke has emphasized how important it is to get the capital regime in place that fits right within the global economy. That is based on the ever-pressing assumption that within the global economy the movement of capital is absolutely fundamental to the health and welfare of a modern global economy, of which Canada, Europe, Japan and China are a part. In a competitive world, all those that we are in competition with to add value to our economy need to get the capital regime in place that will add value to our economies.

The proof of that is that every member has addressed part of that regime. One cannot talk about the accelerated capital tax write-off for capital equipment without relating that to what value it adds in a competitive regime. It would add nothing if every country with a modern economy did exactly that, so it needs to be more.

In global capital markets, it is important that we have a free trade approach to the investment through securities. The government has indicated that it is moving in that direction. If every modern economy did that, that alone would not give Canada the competitive edge.

We can talk about a global commercial strategy with respect to breaking down cross-border tariffs and so on. Again, that alone would not give Canada the competitive edge.

The bottom line is that what will give Canada the competitive edge is to have something more that makes Canadian investments both in Canada and abroad more attractive in a competitive global world. That, in turn, will add jobs, which means that we can reinvest in our health care system and produce a civil society that has a quality of life that we want for all Canadians.

I do not want Canadians who are still watching, if, indeed, they ever were watching this particular cut and thrust of debate, although I am sure many are, to conclude that it is an either/or, that they must take the Conservative government position or the Liberal position, because the nature of the motion is to ask for sober second thought. Given the commentary with respect to interest deductibility, for example, and the implications that are being drawn, is it time to take a step back and re-evaluate that particular policy?

When the C.D. Howe Institute comes forward and says that the proposed changes in the Canadian tax system could place Canadian companies at a significant disadvantage both abroad and even in Canada in competing with its foreign counterparts, one cannot just slough it off as being irrelevant. When KPMG comes forward and says that more foreign takeovers of Canadian companies stifle Canadian investment in global markets and an exodus of head offices and a weaker Canadian economy overall will occur, we cannot say that is a one-sided commentary or a partisan shot at the government.

We could also quote from KPMG on interest deductibility. It states:

This is just disastrous and disables all businesses who wish to expand in a foreign jurisdiction, because they cannot borrow money outside and deduct interest on that money. It means everyone must rearrange their affairs and set up a U.S. subsidiary, which costs more money.

We cannot take that commentary and just say that it is totally irrelevant to this debate.

The nature of the global economy is one of an integrated economy. We used to have a subsidiary economy based on U.S. and multinationals. Now investment is going every way. We just had an example of that on the financial page of today's Globe and Mail where it was being cited that Magna was looking for a Russian investor.

When we talk about integrated investment, if we have a company that is active in China, that company in turn invests through Canadian capital in operations in Canada and employs people. It is a check and balance on foreign exploitation.

We cannot just simply take a partisan perspective on this and say that the government is all wrong and the opposition is all right. What we can say is that given what we understand of the movement of capital and the fact of where barriers are placed in stopping capital from moving in a liquid fashion, there is no question that Canadian companies and Canadian society will suffer.

The general bottom line of those experts is what this side has said to the government, through this motion, that we should have another look at what we are doing with respect to interest deductibility.

I will not make comments on income trusts but there are similar comments that can be made in terms of process. I am focusing more on interest deductibility because there is a huge body of opinion that is saying to the government that this is a time to take a step back.

I think the Minister of Finance himself is coming to the conclusion that once we can get past the issues related to double-dipping and using straw horse investment facades behind which corporate tax returns can be fudged, we should put in a regime that will protect Canadians against that kind of exploitation.

However, once we have done that then we need to get to the essential issue of what this is doing as a mechanism that undermines investment and high value added activity that will benefit Canadians. That is the message that the opposition is trying to give the government.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 15 at 5:30 p.m.

The hon. member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek it, you would have absolutely no objection to seeing the clock as 5:30 p.m. so we can proceed to private members' business.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is that agreed?

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion--FinanceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, Aboriginal groups, municipalities, local community organizations, and others, an integrated water resources management strategy to measure, monitor, protect, and enhance Canada's freshwater resources through scientific research by governments, universities, and private research networks, and through legal and regulatory instruments.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this motion on one of the most important environmental issues of our time.

Before I begin addressing the motion, I would like to propose a friendly amendment to add at the very end, “and should appoint the Minister of State for Water under the authority of the Minister of the Environment to oversee and administer the water resources management strategy”.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member should know that when he moves an amendment that ends his presentation.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

As a courtesy, we will get the unanimous consent of the House so that he can turn back the clock.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I will withdraw the motion for the time being, with the unanimous consent of my colleagues.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification. The member has unanimous consent and he may continue for his 15 minutes.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is there unanimous consent?

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the chief government whip as well.

On November 16, 2006, I tabled the motion we are debating today, calling for a national water strategy. A little after that time, a couple of other similar motions appeared on the order paper by two other colleagues, the member for Parkdale—High Park and the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Their motions will be up for debate at a later date, and I very much hope to participate in those debates.

On March 19, the government appeared to react to the pressure by parliamentarians, and perhaps by the growing awareness among the Canadian public, of water as a vital resource by including a quick reference in its second budget to its intention to undertake certain expenditures in the area of water management. Let us hope the government's new-found interest in water is more real and convincing than its confused, halting and highly criticized, both inside and outside Canada, approach to climate change, an issue, incidentally, that has a profound impact on water quality and quantity.

I have my doubts, though, because the current federal cabinet includes three former ministers from the former Harris government in Ontario, a government well known for having been in charge in Ontario at the time of the Walkerton water tragedy. It was a government that made serious cuts to the environment ministry in that province, cuts that contributed, according to the report of the O'Connor inquiry, to the tragedy itself.

Water is an essential resource. It is so vital to our human existence that it is impossible to claim that a country has a real and effective environmental policy if it is not properly and comprehensively addressing the issue of water. So vital is water to human existence that it is not possible to say that a nation is committed to the values of equity and equality if it is not properly and comprehensively addressing the issue of water. Water is ubiquitous. It is everywhere and its management falls under many jurisdictions.

It is an issue that has multiple sub-issues in multiple jurisdictions. Water has many aspects. As I said, it is consumed as a good and it is also essential to economic prosperity. It is visible in lakes and streams, but also invisible in aquifers and underground streams and rivers. It can inspire science and scientific research, but it can also provoke conflict. Water, therefore, is complex and far-reaching and requires a broad and comprehensive approach.

Because it is such an important issue, because it is so complex, a national water strategy must rest on the democratic principle of consultation, which is why in the body of my motion I mentioned that any future water strategy should be developed in consultation with different levels of government, with local citizens groups and so on.

I can obviously not address the entire breadth of this issue in 15 minutes. I will only really be dealing with the tip of the iceberg of this complex, detailed and multi-faceted issue.

The first thing I will address is the myth about water in Canada. This myth is that Canada is to water what Kuwait is to oil. In other words, we have such a huge overabundance of water that perhaps we do not need to take the issue that seriously. However, if we are to have an effective policy, we cannot rest that policy on misconceptions and false assumptions. Therefore, I will set the record straight on the overabundance of water.

First, on the demand side, Canadians per capita are among the highest consumers of water in the world. There are great demand pressures on our water resources.

Let us look at the supply side. The volume of water sitting in lakes in Canada is at least 20% of the volume of freshwater in the world. That sounds very impressive. It makes it sound as though we have a huge abundance of water. However, we need to clarify our terminology.

The first thing we need to do is to distinguish between what might be called water capital and water interest, to use a financial or accounting analogy. This distinction is vital to our understanding of the degree to which our actions as consumers, as businesses and as policy-makers may be depleting our water resources beyond recovery.

For example, the water sitting in our lakes might be considered our stock of water, our water capital. In other words, it can only be used once. Once that water is used, it is depleted and it can never be recovered. The rivers and streams that run into and out of our lakes, including the Great Lakes, are like our water interest or dividends. These rivers and streams and their flow represent net additions to the water supply. They represent the renewable portion of the water supply.

It is the volume of the water dividends, the volume of the flow that matters, since this is the portion that can be used on an ongoing basis without depleting the resource base or the capital stock of water. The volume of the flow is what is known as the renewable water supply. It is interesting to note in this regard that the total volume of water in all the freshwater lakes of the world is only equal to about two year's worth of the runoff of the world's rivers. That helps to make the stark contrast between water capital and water interest.

The two countries with the largest renewable water supplies, and one of them is not Canada as is commonly assumed, are Brazil with 12.4% of the world's renewable water supply and Russia with 10%. Below that Canada is in a virtual four-way tie with Indonesia, the U.S. and China. In fact, Canada has only about 7% of the global renewable water supply. Interestingly enough, much of that supply does not flow to populated areas. It flows north of the population centres in southern Canada.

This is a vital issue and we have not as a federal government and as a nation as a whole been addressing it properly. If we look at a recent report on water management by the Senate standing committee on energy, environment and natural resources, the committee described the state of water management at the federal level in Canada as shocking and unacceptable.

I have heard other statistics, such as Canada is 26th out of 28 countries in the developed world in terms of managing our water resources. That includes our drinking water resources.

As the motion essentially alludes to, I believe governments should respect their constitutional jurisdictions. This does not mean the federal government must be a bystander or a passive observer. It does not mean the federal government must step back or wilt in some way. The federal government has a role to play in water management in Canada. It has a right to be involved, even though water is a natural resource and provinces have jurisdiction over their natural resources.

There are some areas where the federal government has a direct and a constitutional responsibility and authority. For example, the federal government has jurisdiction over international treaties and interprovincial issues. It has jurisdiction over navigable waters and fisheries, water on airplanes and water on aboriginal reserves. In a more indirect way it has jurisdiction, upheld by the Supreme Court, of toxic substances which leach into our water supply. There are many hooks on which a national water strategy could rest.

I will turn now to drinking water. To give the House a sense of the situation with respect to drinking water in Canada, Canada is one of the most developed countries in the world and we still have problems with drinking water.

New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, particularly rural Quebec, continue to lag behind in maintaining even the minimum federal guidelines for water quality. Many small communities continue to this day to have to boil their water for everyday use. Families in every region of the country are boiling their water daily because they cannot get clean drinking water into their homes.

In British Columbia the Sierra Legal Defence Fund issued a report entitled “WATERED DOWN”, concerning 28 waterborne disease outbreaks in 2003. It estimated that at any given moment as much as 10% of B.C.'s water systems should be under a boil water advisory.

In 2002 Manitoba passed a drinking water act. Since then, it has discovered in Winnipeg that concentrations of disinfectant byproducts considered carcinogenic could be located in the Winnipeg drinking water.

In Portage la Prairie lead concentrates exceeded Canada's guidelines.

Let us talk a bit about the federal role in terms of drinking water before I wrap up.

There are drinking water guidelines in Canada and they were created through a joint federal-provincial-territorial committee on drinking water. In 2005 Canada's Commissioner on the Environment and Sustainable Development, who audited the process the federal government uses to develop these guidelines, found a significant backlog of about 10 years in updating them, despite Health Canada's recommendation that they should take no more than two or three years to develop or review. The commissioner found that many known contaminants were not even listed in the guidelines because of the time lag in updating them.

There is a problem here and it is very important that the federal government show some leadership in terms of marshalling the energies of all the stakeholders in this issue.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate the motion. I hope to continue to delve into the issue in greater detail in the second hour of debate.

Water Resources ManagementPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the idea of water. In my view, it is a major issue for us just as much as the air in some cases.

Has the member had any thoughts about the idea of flood plain mapping and how that would fit into water quality?