Rick Laliberte

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has indicated that we must address the precarious issue of nuclear fuel waste. We understand that the desire of the minister is to allow industry to manage the control of nuclear fuel waste in this country. The Seaborn panel clearly stated that a waste management organization at arm's length from industry is required. Will the minister assure Canadians that the panel report will not be ignored and that an independent waste management organization will be his government's priority?

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the multimillion dollar Seaborn panel on nuclear fuel waste recommends that a management agency be established that is at arm's length from industry. However, this Liberal government ignored the panel and set up a fast track process, including an industry-based waste management organization. This is completely contrary to the panel's recommendation.

When will the government commit to establishing an independent waste management body that protects our public and environmental safety?

[Genetically Altered Foods, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of the consumer's right to know. This forms a basic right in any democracy. We have a right to decide and to make a choice.

In the recent budget the Liberal government claims that Canada is a leader in biotechnology, but it is also a leader in removing the right to know.

Genetically altered foods are not being labelled in this country and any promotion for the liability of mistakes made in terms of genetically altered foods and products in the world is not ensured.

In Cartagena, Colombia, the Liberal government scuttled the United Nations biosafety protocol. The government refused to address the international concerns on biotechnology liability.

When will this government legislate genetically altered food labelling? It is a leader in financing these foods and products. It also has an equal moral responsibility to all consumers.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the level of incomes. I believe my riding has one of the lowest levels of average income at $31,000. I have an interest in a statement the hon. member made in terms of 136% more being paid on an income salary of $45,000.

Could the member give us the real numbers of what the comparisons were between single and double income figures? One hundred and thirty-six per cent more would mean quite a bit more. I was trying to understand what the actual numbers were in comparison.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly creating a challenge of the jurisdiction of water and for the federal government to act.

I wanted to highlight for the record and for the knowledge of the hon. member that the legal status of Canadian water law seems to encompass riparian rights under common law that there is no right to ownership of water found in its natural state. The underlying policy to this rule is that the public at large has a right to reasonable use of water, in such cases as fishing and navigation.

It is only when water is contained or controlled by someone that the characterization of personal property can apply. Examples would be swimming pools and bottled water and that personal property can now be sold. In its natural state under our law, nothing is said on the ownership of water.

We can look at surface water and surface bodies. We know that rivers flow and lake bodies hold the water that flows into them. But the underwater, the aquifers, is a situation where owners of land not adjacent to water have no common right to the water. But when groundwater is governed by the rule of capture, an owner of land can take as much subterranean water as he can capture. That is a question of our law.

When we use the legal term capture, does that mean it is contained or controlled? That is a major concern of the privatization and potential purchase of our water resources, either they are subterranean, underground, or surface. That is the uneasy journey we are taking as Canadians here.

Unless the federal government acts and clarifies these jurisdictions, responsibilities and rights, we are going into the millennium with uncharted water so to speak, because we are not protecting it for future generations of Canadians.

I think the challenge is to deal with that now.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, another situation concerning jurisdiction is the issue of Canadian sovereign rights over the freshwater resources of this country.

What is the member's view on the privatization of some of the water sources in this country, either drawn from wells or aquifers, at municipal sites? I know that everybody has assumed that municipal and local governments have jurisdiction over and manage water, but there have been recent developments in some provinces which have privatized water and sanitary services.

What is his view toward this evolution of privatizing those sources of water, which inevitably might be a concern for freshwater as well?

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the jurisdiction of water was a major aspect of the hon. member's debate. I had raised in a previous speech jurisdiction over aboriginal rights to water. Maybe he would like to share his views on that.

The motion states “the government should, in co-operation with the provinces”, but there seems to be unfinished business with the treaty obligations that were made during the acquisition of this country and the rights to resources.

Water is a major concern, along with a lot of the aboriginal rights that have been discussed recently.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

The Winnipegization of North America. I challenge the House to clearly define the jurisdiction of water in the country. When the country was negotiated under treaty with the aboriginal peoples the term and rights to water were not defined. Referring to the oral history of treaty negotiations, I will read a passage from a report called “Aski Puko” which means the land alone in which Daniel MacKenzie asked:

When the land was sold what exactly was sold? When the treaty obligations were made, was that just dry land or did that include the lakes and rivers of this country?

In the treaty there is no mention of water being transferred, negotiated or sold. The people mostly make their living from the water and also from the land. However in the treaty there is no mention of water.

The water was assumed as the lifeblood for all nations and all people. Ownership of water was assumed. It was assumed that everybody had access to it. When we discuss interbasin transfers, bulk export, the whole concept of the ecosystem and the impact, obligations under the treaty are in breach.

Let us look at our opportunities under sustainable development. Our challenge is to look after our environment and social and economic needs in an even manner. Water will play a major role in our future.

If we start transferring water to deserted areas such as the desertification of the southwest, climate disruptions are forecast by science. We have seen evidence of that. If we transfer water prematurely it may not address the needs of urban and growing populations to the south or the urban populations of countries that need our exports.

We have to look at how we can sustain our lives in this country. As more people move to Canada and find a home here they must have a place in which to live. We cannot recklessly abandon our water resources.

China will be the first country in the world to literally restructure its economy to respond to its water scarcity. Countries are making such changes. We see examples of cities collapsing in some countries because water is no longer usable. We also have a UN commission on sustainable development that found water usage growing at twice the rate of the population increase.

If we have an abundance of water in Canada we may be abusing the gift of water as we have it now. Jurisdiction is of vital importance. There are communities in northern Canada, most of which are aboriginal communities, that do not have running water or sewage treatment plants because the economic and commercial interests of those regions cannot afford it.

We have an opportunity to create clean, fresh water in the country. In terms of federal jurisdiction there was a major change in the early 1990s when Environment Canada started cutting budgets to deal with the science and research of water. We must revisit our federal obligations to the rightful use of fresh water, to our jurisdiction over water in dealing with our provincial, federal and aboriginal obligations. The Manitoba Natural Resources Transfer Act indicated in 1930 that traditional lands and waters for social and economic benefits must be considered.

All this debate about water is by no means complete today. It is an opportunity for us to review the federal jurisdiction over water and to put a moratorium on the export and interbasin transfer of water.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to have an opportunity to speak on a very crucial issue, the debate on water.

The motion before us challenges the federal government to consider that the export of bulk freshwater could be a major detriment to this country's ecosystem and that the federal government act on this.

We have also seen a diminishing responsibility by the federal government by its transferring of responsibilities to the provinces. Water is fundamentally different from any other natural resource on earth. Without water life would cease to exist.

When we look at countries that are asking for our freshwater resource we must ask ourselves whether the unnatural transfer of water is enough to sustain everybody on the planet. Interbasin transfers would require water to be moved over tracts of land that historically may not have been bodies of water. We know that when hydro development floods areas the mercury contamination of that body of water is of vital concern. Environmental, ecosystem and human health concerns must be a large part of the debate.

When we look at Canada's freshwater on any geographical map or when we fly in small airplanes in northern Canada, we view Canada as an indefinite supply of freshwater. I believe hon. members would see through that mirage because that is all it is. The gift of water that has been given to us is very limited. We have to treasure it for our use and under the principles of sustainable development extend it for future generations. We must do this in a collective manner.

The motion also deals with Canada's sovereign right to water. Before any trade agreements are even considered or implicated in the issue of water our in house issue of sovereign right to jurisdiction over water must be addressed.

As I have had a wake-up call, I must remind the Chair that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

I will give a lesson to the secretary of state by referring to Winnipeg. Winnipeg is a Cree term, Winnipek. It means dirty water. If we deem the sources of our water to be unclean, just imagine what we have done to the country and its sources of water with the impact of the industrial revolution on the continent.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, when we are dealing with a national resource, such as water, which we deem to be of vital importance, our legal statutes and our legal history of common law have dealt with riparian rights but that does not deal with water rights. Riparian is more about the shore bed and property adjacent to water, but with respect to the actual body of water and the rights to that water, there is no legal history in this country.