Debates of Nov. 16th, 1998

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote yes on this motion.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay on this motion.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this evening vote no on this motion.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members present vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 262

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

First Nations Land Management Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the vote now before the House.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 15 I asked the Minister of the Environment whether she plans to introduce legislation this fall to ban water exports.

Water is our most important natural resource. A price cannot be put on the value of fresh water to people, plants, animals and ecosystems.

Some people say we have a limitless supply of water but the fact is there is a limit to how much we can use and abuse. Once we contaminate the quality of water, as we have done in the Niagara River, the cost of replacement is high. It can come at the expense of another watershed. We have learned that water is a resource which must be treated carefully.

In 1983 the Liberal government commissioned a federal inquiry on water policy. Two years later inquiry chair Peter Pearse and his fellow commissioners recommended a full range of water related policy initiatives including drinking water, safety, research programs, intergovernmental arrangements and water export.

The central message of the inquiry's report, in the words of Peter Pearse, was:

We must protect water as a key to a healthy environment, and manage what we use efficiently as an economic resource.

On the issue of water exports the Pearse report recommended the federal government adopt legislation setting out clear criteria for approving or rejecting water export proposals to ensure that Canadian economic, political and environmental interests would be protected. According to Peter Pearse:

Since the late 1980s, the federal government's handling of this issue has been unhelpful. Although it declared its intention to adopt our proposal for legislation to enable it to regulate exports, it did not do so. Instead, it assigned the question to the interdepartmental legislative review group in 1989, which never reported.

It has been 14 years since the Pearse report. We are still waiting for a water export policy and for a comprehensive water policy.

In the vacuum created by the absence of a comprehensive policy and in the absence of a federal law banning the export of water came the application last spring by the Nova Group in northern Ontario for a permit to take water.

In March the Government of Ontario, in one of its frequent moments of galloping madness, granted the permit to take up to 10 million litres per day. At the time the government said it had no choice but to issue the permit, saying “you can get a permit to draw water in Ontario as long as it doesn't cause any significant environmental damage”.

Then the Ontario government a little later came to its senses and decided to cancel the permit. Consequently the Nova Group appealed the decision to the Ontario Environmental Assessment and Appeal Board. While a number of public interest groups from the U.S. and Canada will be represented, it is sad to note that the federal government is not represented at the hearings.

Going back to July it is important to note that at the panel convened in Toronto by the ministers of the environment and foreign affairs, panellists from all sectors of society agreed that interbasin diversions, domestic or transboundary, should not be undertaken because of the serious environmental consequences.

We are now at the end of 1998. We still face a legislative gap crying out to be filled. We know there is broad support for the gap to be filled. We know we can expect proposals in future for water exports. Therefore I am again asking the minister when legislation will be introduced banning water exports.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that the federal government is opposed to bulk water exports.

There are no bulk exports taking place at the present time. The company to which my hon. colleague referred has had its permit revoked. The decision has been appealed to the Ontario environmental appeal board and the hearings are set for early in December.

The cumulative effects of tanker shipments by river or lake diversions are unknown and might be very serious. There might be effects on levels and flows of lakes and rivers. We want to take a cautious approach.

I point out to my hon. friend that this year particularly in parts of Canada one in 40-year droughts are taking place. Ontario is one of those that is suffering greatly at the present time. The levels of the Great Lakes are down, even to the risk of transportation on the seaway.

Considerable progress has been made regarding consultation with provinces on options to deal with this matter. Both federal and provincial governments have a role to play in deciding the outcome. The government will lay out its strategy for a comprehensive approach to water exports later this year. I can assure my hon. friend we will proceed with the utmost caution.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the government House leader relating to the Minister of Health and Bill S-13, a bill that obviously originated in the Senate. We often call it Senator Kenny's bill.

It is an anti-smoking bill that would place a 50 cent levy on every carton of cigarettes. In a sense it appears as though the government will attempt to derail that bill. In other words, the government does not want that bill to come to the House of Commons.

I take exception to this because today in the House we were debating Bill C-42, amendments to the Tobacco Act. We were saying the bill does not have enough teeth in it. It does nothing. At the end of the day we will still have 40,000-plus Canadians dying each year from smoking. The point we are attempting to make is that Bill S-13 addresses some of the very problems we know exist with regard to the acceptance of smoking.

Bill S-13 does something about this. It would levy 50 cents per carton of cigarettes at the manufacturing level. The money would go into a foundation to educate Canadians, particularly young Canadians, on the dangers of smoking.

I mentioned that 40,000 Canadians die every year. Senator Kenny and many members on both sides of the House agree that it is a big problem, particular with our youth.

I have a very simple comparison but very graphic. If 100 people a day in Canada died as a result of an airplane crash, we would have slightly fewer than 40,000 Canadians dying a year. To be exact, 36,500 people. That would be absolutely unacceptable if the government did nothing about it but instead sat back and let it happen.

If a recurring problem such as an airliner going down every day in Canada killing 100 people occurred, the transport minister would have to resign within days. At the end of 365 days, there are 40,000 Canadians dying because of smoking. The government sits back and simply lets the tobacco giants control the agenda.

We want to see something done. We are saying that Bill C-13 would do something about that. Senator Kenny's bill does something about it. We are asking the government to give this bill some consideration, at least get this bill on the floor of the House of Commons so that it can be debated on its merits.

I am hoping the government will be receptive to this bill, consider it and debate it openly and honestly in the House of Commons where all members can express their points of view.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the member regarding smoking. On November 3 he asked whether the government would provide time for consideration of Bill S-13.

The leader of the government in the House replied that the appropriate forum for discussion of the future business of the House is the weekly meeting of all party House leaders. That answer stands.

The hon. member may, if he desires, ask his own House leader to raise the matter in the appropriate place. As the hon. member knows, the House has been developing in recent years increasingly effective procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business and, if otherwise found in order, Bill S-13 would already benefit from certain advantages that our rules provide for private members' public bills emanating from the Senate.

As the hon. member also knows, however, there are certain fundamental procedural and constitutional considerations surrounding Bill S-13 that must be ruled on by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is the only person authorized in our parliamentary system to rule on matters relating to the constitutional monopoly of the House of Commons to initiate fiscal legislation, and it is only fitting that we should await such a ruling to be made at an appropriate time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:41 p.m.)