Debates of April 3rd, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to members debate this subject for a good part of the day. What I have heard raises a concern over the disagreement in opinion.

For some reason, if a member stands in the House to disagree with a piece of legislation, members on the other side will call the member all kinds of things. I heard the word “bigot” used today. I have heard a number of others words. It seems that this is the way the government works, that if a member is in disagreement with any piece of legislation that comes to the House the member will be labelled. It has been a tactic in Canada for far too many years.

People outside the House who have concerns about legislation are to the point where even they are afraid to stand in public to voice their concerns because they are afraid of being labelled.

I want the House to know and I want the people of Canada who are listening to this debate to know that there are members on this side of the House who will not be intimidated by that tactic. We will say what has to be said. We will say it on behalf of our constituents. No amount of name calling and no amount of labelling will stop us. They can keep on calling us what they want to call us. It will not stop us.

Let us look at Bill C-23. Sixty-eight federal statutes are to be amended. What a glorious day this is for the lawyers of the country. What a glorious day the government has provided once again for its friends in the legal community. What a glorious day of trying to interpret exactly what the bill means. It is a heyday for them.

The government is too afraid to define marriage. It is a shame. Marriage is one of the main cornerstones of society. Yet the government refuses to define it. It refuses to define conjugal. Yet it is willing to put this piece of garbage into legislation and force it upon the people of the country, to force it down their throats whether or not they like it.

Let us have a look at the history of the government with regard to some of these issues. The Liberals are the ones who stand there with their hands over their hearts and say they have consulted with the people, with the provinces, and this is what they have come up with.

I am here to say that there was no consulting. Nobody came into my constituency or any other constituency that I know of. Nobody from the government went to the provinces and talked to them about it. They just decided to do that and since they decided to do it the public has become aware.

There has been mention in the House time and time again of the concern we hear back from our constituents on this piece of legislation. Bill C-23, in the constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap, has now overtaken Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. It has overtaken child pornography in the concerns of the people of the Okanagan—Shuswap area.

There is concern out there. We are not getting hundreds of signatures or hundreds of letters. We are getting thousands of letters, faxes, e-mail, petitions and phone calls from the people who pay our wages.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain wanted to know if maybe his constituents were confused because he was being inundated with calls and letters with regard to this piece of legislation. I want to assure him that his constituents are not confused, not one bit.

Every other member in the House, even those on the other side who will vote in favour of the bill, are getting the same from their constituents. Yet they will refuse to stand on behalf of their constituents because they will have to go against their party whip. That is a shame for a country that is supposed to be called a democracy. We have not seen democracy in this country since the second world war, and that is a shame.

Let us look at the poorly written, poorly drafted piece of legislation which the minister has decided to put forward. It is the first piece of legislation, I heard today, that was brought forward by the minister since she has been here. I cannot believe it. It is something that will be fought over in courts for centuries to come if it is accepted. Members over there know quite well that this is will happen.

The bill is not even based on dependency and we are supposed to be looking at dependency. It is based on something called conjugal relationships, not whether or not the person is in need of assistance but his or her sexual habits. It does not make any sense. It makes no sense to anybody.

What about caregivers, people who give up their jobs to stay home and help their parents? They think they owe a debt to not only their parents but to society to help them through their troubled years. That is not addressed. They refuse to address it. I do not understand it. I do not know if it is something that happens when we get to the great hallowed halls of this institution.

[An hon. member]

It didn't happen to you.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No, it did not happen to me and I can tell the House why. When the government tells me how good something is, I study it and then I think maybe I should hit my head against the wall to make sure I am reading it right. If it still concerns me I go out and talk to the public about it, and nine times out of ten the public will set me straight. I am not ashamed to say that I have gone back to my constituents who have said that maybe I have been down in Ottawa a bit too long. They tell me what they want.

It is about time all members of the House start to realize that their job is to bring the concerns of their constituents to the House, not to take from the House and tell constituents what they will get, shut up and like it. It is time we all started to learn that.

An hon. member on the other side mentioned the Speech from the Throne. We can go through any Speech from the Throne and discard it in the wastebasket like we have done for years. What is said at that moment means absolutely nothing. It is all for show. We all know it and the people of Canada know it. It has never been anything more than that to the government. Its object is to jam its agenda down our throats whether or not we like it. Those who do not like it will be branded, labelled and shut up one way or another until they are too afraid to stand up and disagree. That is the agenda of the government.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to to debate government Bill C-23. For the benefit of those who are watching the debate and for the benefit of the Liberals, in this bill the government is giving out marriage-like benefits while failing to effectively define marriage. A vast majority of Canadians are opposed to it.

The official opposition is the only party in the House opposed to the bill and we have the support of the public right across this great nation. The constituents of Surrey Central are calling me every day opposing the bill. I have not received more calls, letters or e-mail messages than I have received on this particular important issue. My constituents are urging the Canadian Alliance to remain firm as a pro-family party. They are characterizing the Liberals as an anti-family party.

What is it that my constituents are opposing? The vast majority supports families. We support marriage as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other relationships. I will talk about the definition of marriage for a moment. The Liberals say they have included the definition of marriage in the justice minister's so-called marriage amendment. However that amendment is not included in the 68 federal statutes affected by the bill. If this definition of marriage is good enough to put in the preamble of Bill C-23, why is it not good enough for all the statutes it changes?

[An hon. member]

Because they do not really believe in it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Exactly. The Minister of Justice contradicts statements by other cabinet ministers. One example was the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and responsible for the Status of Women when speaking about who qualifies for benefits under Bill C-23.

Let me talk for a moment about the definition of conjugal relationships. Cabinet ministers appearing as witnesses before the committee that just finished with the bill disagreed on the definition of conjugal relationships. That definition is key to the operation of the bill. One minister says that sexual activity is involved in a conjugal relationship. Another minister says no, it has nothing to do with sex. It shows that this weak, arrogant Liberal government does not know what it is doing.

There are other problems. The justice department's testimony before the committee talked about the ineffectiveness of the justice minister's marriage amendment to the bill. Independent legal opinion confirms the ineffectiveness of the justice minister's marriage amendment. The same opinion supports the very substantive approach of the official opposition.

Finally there is the poor legislative approach inherent in Bill C-23. The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies. How do people know if they qualify? Will the government appoint sex inspectors in everyone's homes?

The Liberals are driving people into court to determine if they qualify for benefits. Many people will be launching lawsuits as soon as the legislation is passed. This weak, arrogant Liberal government which lacks vision is continually forcing important decisions to be made by our courts. The elected representatives of the people should be making those decisions, and not the judiciary.

There are two other problems. Another aspect of the bill the Liberals would like us to ignore is that there is no requirement for information sharing between departments. People could claim a conjugal relationship exists in order to qualify for benefits but claim to be just roommates when it comes to paying obligations. What are the ramifications of the bill as it applies to ongoing obligations after one moves from one relationship to a new relationship with a new partner? The bill says nothing about that.

Let us talk about cost for a moment. Canadians have no information about how much it will cost taxpayers. The Liberals will tell us “Don't worry, be happy. It won't cost much”. Who believes them? They said that they would get rid of the GST. They also said that our military cannot have Cadillac helicopters because they cost too much, and now it has no helicopters.

What about the experts who say that as soon as the legislation is passed every person who lives with another person, regardless of the true relationship, will be applying for benefits? What about the flood of benefits taxpayers will have to pay for if the floodgates are opened? The pundits are correct when they say that it will cost millions and even billions of taxpayer dollars because the bill is so weak, vague and undefined.

This weak Liberal government has no vision, not even a blurred vision. Its lack of vision actually makes its policies anti-family There is nothing that the weak and ineffective Liberal backbenchers, who are mostly from Ontario, can do about it.

Let us look at the anti-family policies of the government. Let us talk about taxes and families. The current taxation system supported and maintained by the Liberals discriminates against families with a stay at home parent. Those families pay 100% more taxes than families where both parents work.

The government has been saying since 1993 in its red book, which has proven to be a red light for meeting its promises, that it would provide a day care program. The Canadian Alliance proposes a 17% tax that would apply to all families equally. We have a pro-family policy.

Let us talk about child pornography. The B.C. court and courts in other provinces if I am correct have struck down our laws against child pornography. The Liberals have done nothing about this except to leave the matter to the courts to deal with. A year and a half has gone by and we have not seen a single bit of improvement or any initiative from the government.

We asked the government to use the constitution's notwithstanding clause to protect our children and allow the anti-pornography laws to remain operable until our elected officials in the House could change the old laws. We have a pro-family policy but the anti-family Liberals will not do that.

The people of Surrey Central are proud to have me co-sponsor and support 19 of the many amendments the official opposition has submitted on the bill. We have offered the government many opportunities to do the right thing. All of my amendments use the same words and state very clearly: “Spouse means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage”. That is the exact text of all 19 of my amendments. My colleagues and I are trying to amend all 68 statutes to strengthen the definition of marriage.

In the time I have remaining I will continue to read excerpts from e-mails and letters that I have received from my constituents. As I said before, I have received a number of letters and e-mails. This one is another letter of support for family values. She says, “My husband and I are completely in agreement with your view that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family and the basis of our nation. I hope you continue to use your influence to encourage MPs from the other parties to help vote down this bill”. I received many, many more letters.

In conclusion, all these quotes urge the government to adopt our amendments. Remember that strong families make strong communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been paying attention to today's debate. Obviously emotions have been high when it comes to this issue and the way people see marriage and families and the future of those definitions. There is obviously much to be said about it.

It also saddens me a bit to speak to this bill. I have seen it is a constant trend with the government that it does not seem to produce bills that actually bring consensus, that bring people together or try to find solutions to hard problems. Instead it introduces bills and types of legislation that pull the country apart at different levels as we can imagine.

I find it very saddening being a young person in the House who looks to legislation that hopefully will try to bring people together and find consensus. Unfortunately, the government does not really believe in that. It only believes in trying to promote its own agenda, its own political groups and the power surrounding that. That gives me a little bit of sadness in talking about this bill.

I expressed those sentiments because I saw how passionately some of my colleagues spoke about the definition of marriage and how that should be upheld in the law. When I reflect on the type of letters I have received in my constituency office and my Ottawa office, there has definitely been overwhelming support on strengthening the definition of marriage and keeping it between a man and a woman.

There are some people who feel, especially when we look at this bill which is called the modernization of benefits and obligations act, that the government has not approached the idea of modernizing benefits in an inclusive way. Again it has done it in a way that keeps it strictly based on conjugal relationships. If the government were serious about modernizing its benefits act, maybe it would have looked at some other options of trying to deal with other relationships that are based on dependency rather than strictly on sex. A few people have talked about this.

I am not afraid to say that I have friends in different communities, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or same sex relationships. There is even no agreement in those communities. I think about the same sex friends who are in same sex relationships. Many of them do not want to change the definition of marriage. They believe it is an institution that has been created in history and is something that needs to be continued as being a relationship between a man and a woman. They want to try to strengthen that. There are people in the community who feel that way. Obviously there are others who do not agree with that. But many of my friends have told me that.

What they would like to see and what they were hoping to see in the leadership from the government was that if it were serious about modernizing benefits then maybe it would move away from the requirement of conjugal relationships. I will give an example.

Since this bill has come into play, my grandfather of all people, who follows politics quite closely and more so since I was elected, gave me a call. He said that he would like to know a bit more about the bill, especially because of the relationship between he and his daughter. She has been taking care of him over the past number of years since my grandmother passed away. He was enquiring about benefits in that relationship. He has been paying in for years and years and he wanted to know whether he could transfer those benefits to his daughter when he passed away. Unfortunately, given the way the benefits are outlined in current legislation, those types of sharing and dependent relationships are not allowed to look at that option.

When we look at this bill as modernizing benefits and obligations, how has the government attempted to be more inclusive of different relationships, if that is what it is trying to do? Or if it really cares, how has it tried to be more inclusive in bringing people together rather than causing this rift and pulling people apart as we see in this debate?

It upsets me to some extent to see how the government has refused to look at any other options on that level. I think that the concern for many of our colleagues, which has been explained during the course of this debate, is how caring is the government.

As was mentioned by a few of our colleagues, the concern with this bill which is an omnibus bill, is what effects changing the definition of marriage will have on a number of other statutes. My colleague who spoke prior to me and many of my other colleagues have said that they would like to see the same definition of marriage in the bill put at the end of the bill as well to make sure that the definition does not compromise or negatively affect that definition of marriage. The government has said that it is committed to that but we have not seen any real effort to give those people who are committed to that definition the sense of comfort that it will be committed to that through the whole process.

As we approach the next round of the debate and as we approached the bill going to committee, especially with the type of evidence the official opposition has raised in the debate concerning the effects of the various legal opinions particularly on marriage and even benefits, hopefully the government will approach the debate, as I have identified, in a more inclusive rather than a restrictive manner strictly based on conjugal relationships. Many of our members would like to see how the government will deal with that issue and if the government is just providing lip service or if in fact it does care about Canadians.

For people who pay into a system of benefits, those benefits should be available to them when they are ready to claim them or passed on to the right people. Concerning the view of equality, as the official opposition we constantly do talk about the idea of equality of all Canadians, all citizens and all provinces. It is something we fundamentally believe to our core. Unfortunately, even though the government claims to believe in those things, in the end we do not see that extended to many other levels especially, as I have mentioned a little today, to the idea of dependent relationships.

A number of colleagues have been trying to advance the debate to see whether there is any angle that can be pursued with this bill to make us somewhat unified as we approach the modernization of benefits. I do not know whether we will see the government take part in that part of the debate fairly.

Some of my colleagues spoke about how it should be cherished and how we should as a group of members of parliament, continue to support the family as much as we can. We should continue to make policies in this place that support families and Canadians and which strengthen them. That is really the way a country can remain strong. My colleague before me mentioned that.

The official opposition has put forward a number of solutions which we hoped the government would consider in its decision making and obviously it has not. They are ideas like a fairer tax system not only for all Canadians but for families and the idea of looking at ways to deal with justice issues so that we can make families more protected and stronger. It seems to me the government refuses to look at these sorts of options especially when it comes to tax fairness for families. When we look at the issue of modernizing benefits, the government is very narrow in its focus and does not really look at ways to help Canadians on a broad based level. That is very disheartening for this side of the House.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the bill at this stage.

In the debate of these amendments we have heard that perhaps the government members and other members in the House who support the bill may be supporting a bill that does not get quite sophisticated enough with the issues that are driving the legislation. We have heard that perhaps the title, modernization of benefits, should drive the entire legislation and should allow us by reason only of the title itself to begin reviewing all elements of the social safety net, the means by which the Government of Canada with the support of taxpayers provides a social safety net infrastructure for all Canadians.

I for one reject that suggestion. I certainly do not blame members in opposition for constructively criticizing the legislation before the House, but the bill was not intended to be a review of a reconfiguration or a reworking of the entire federal social safety net. It was not intended to do that.

The bill was intended to redress a number of items in a lot of government legislation. These areas are certainly referred to in the amendments and in the bill.

I want to confirm for the record and for my constituents, if anyone thought the bill attempted to redefine marriage, that it certainly does not. It was never intended to. In case anybody thought the bill might in some way do something or fail to do something that impacted on the definition of marriage in Canada, an amendment at committee inserted into the preamble of the bill, right up front for everybody to see, an explicit reconfirmation of the definition of marriage in Canada.

I suppose one might have tackled this point another way. One might have reopened every federal statute referred to in this omnibus bill and inserted a definition. In the view of a number of members that was not necessary because the definition of marriage in Canadian law is already very clear.

Originally it was articulated by the courts in Canada some 125 years ago. A definition that has been around and clearly stated for 125 years could not possibly be unclear to anyone. Along with a resolution adopted by the House approximately a year ago, the definition is very clear.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

You did not appeal the Rosenberg decision.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dewdney—Alouette obviously wants to speak to the bill. I hope the Chair will recognize him in due course. Now he is going to check with his friends.

In any event, the bill purports to be more precise and use more modern language when dealing with the issue of benefits accorded under various pieces of federal legislation. It also deals with the concept of mutual obligation. In reorganizing, rewording and reconfiguring some of these definitions, as much as it deals with benefits the bill also deals with obligations whether they are mutual or whether they are from the citizen and taxpayer to the government. Therefore as long as couples, whether heterosexual or not, fall within the definition of what the statutes hold out as a common law couple, will come forward in dealings with the federal government as couples. That entails obligations as well as benefits.

Someone said that a computer calculated run through of the costs and benefits of the legislation indicated that there was a slight edge in favour of revenues to the government. It surprised me, but if a computer calculates there are slightly more revenues than costs involved, so be it. I am not sure that was the intention but I am sure the finance minister, by the same token, will not be too unhappy about it.

The amendments we are debating in the House are intended to address the last vestiges of the word illegitimate. As my colleagues know, that word has been around in common law for a century, two centuries or more. I have not read every statute referred to in the legislation, but I am advised that this amending bill will remove from federal legislation every reference to the word illegitimate as it pertains to the status of a child.

I am confident that all Canadians will accept that as an appropriate minor technical semantic but an amendment that looks at the status of children. No child ever had any control over where he or she came from. They simply end up in the world as one of us.

There are other elements in the bill which were not ever intended to be a substantial or radical reworking of our federal social safety net but rather an attempt to deal with charter issues that have been raised recently and going back a number of years. These charter issues have to do with how we describe ourselves, what a common law couple will be and what a common law union will be.

The number of relationships falling under that rubric has grown in modern society. It may well continue to grow. This is something over which we in the House do not have much control. People are going to get together as couples and in partnerships domestically and outside formal marriage. That is simply a reality that exists in Canadian society. We have to take account of it. At least it is to the benefit of children who find themselves happily with two good parents. We do not need to be specific about the gender. Two good parents are better than one. Then we will want to do that for children.

I will close by indicating my support for the bill. I have every intention of voting on the report stage amendments as they are put to the House.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate today. There are a couple of points I want to focus on. The government has made an attempt to define marriage by bringing forward an amendment. The jury is still out. Obviously there is some question as to whether in fact it will do the job. I do not want to focus on that. A number of my colleagues have already talked about that part of the discussion.

However another whole area has been left out of the debate which I find quite frustrating. I spoke to it originally, the last time we debated Bill C-23. I believe the bill has been put together quite hastily. Other very good options have been brought forward that could have dealt with this point. One of my colleagues brought forward another solution which he calls the registered domestic partnership. I think that is something on which we should be focusing. It is a lost opportunity.

I am frustrated the government has refused to deal with that. When Bill C-23 was first debated there was no doubt in my mind that the government brought it together very quickly. It was very frustrated with what was going on with the billion dollar boondoggle. It wanted a diversion in the House. It has not worked. The public still is very frustrated with the accountability and the way the government spends money. The end result is that we now have a very poorly drafted bill which is not well thought out. It did not look at all the options presented by my colleague and others.

Because it was done so hastily and so quickly it will be left to interpretation. All kinds of court cases will result. It has to go through that process and at the end of the day it will cost taxpayers a lot of money that is not necessary. That is my frustration with the bill.

Why should dependency be based on a conjugal relationship? What exactly is a conjugal relationship? If we look at the true definition of the word, which has been pointed out by my colleagues, it is based on a sexual relationship. Is that how we should be putting legislation through in the House? Should it be based on a sexual relationship before one can receive benefits?

What I find frustrating is how the House operates. A member from an opposition party, the member for Edmonton Southwest, put forward some very good solutions. He even offered them to the government to use as its own solutions but they were ignored. That is one of the frustrating aspects for me.

He basically wanted to remove the sexuality from it. Benefits should not be based on sexuality. In any type of a relationship there are other solutions available but the government has specifically chosen to ignore that. I think that was the way to go. If there are two people in a caring relationship, why should they be excluded because they are not in a sexual or conjugal relationship?

The government has missed an opportunity. It has come back with an amendment I think because of public pressure. We in this party led the charge on this by forcing the debate on the definition of marriage in a supply day motion in June of last year. To their credit, many government members voted in favour of that, which I believe was the right thing to do. However, when the government first brought Bill C-23 down it did not include that in the bill.

Now there is some discussion again as a result of pure public pressure. My office has received all kinds of correspondence and calls on this. The government hastily made an amendment to the bill. I applaud the government for at least acknowledging the public pressure on this and including the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. However, it was done so hastily that one wonders whether the government has changed anything and whether it will actually have an impact on all the legislation that it needs to. I do not think that question has been decisively answered. I think that still needs to be done.

The government put this together at the last minute. It even put together a last minute amendment which we are not sure will do the job that is necessary. I personally was pleased to see the amendment come forward but I do not know if it will do the job.

The most frustrating part is that the government refused to look at a perfectly good solution by the member for Edmonton Southwest. He has been trying to put his registered domestic partnership theory forward for two years now, which I think would have been the best solution for everyone and something that all members of the House could have supported. It would have addressed the decisions by our higher courts that some of our laws had to be dealt with.

It was frustrating to see the government hastily throw together a bill for what I saw as political reasons. It wanted to get something on the order paper. It needed to introduce this bill because it was getting hammered on the billion dollar boondoggle.

We are left with a bill which, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, will probably end up in numerous court cases and go through the whole legal process all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course that takes years and years to happen and will cost millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. That should not have to be done just because we have refused to take the time to do it properly in the House and have refused to accept suggestions from members of all parties in this debate.

Should the government be able to decide in five minutes that it has a solution and then bring in a bill and that it is? We can debate for eons in here, we can go on for months and months but it falls upon deaf ears. The government does not accept changes.

Yes, the government did bring in an amendment on the definition of marriage but it was purely due to public pressure. I know pressure was out there because the phones in my office have been and still are ringing off the hook.

I am not convinced that Bill C-23 is what we want. I wish the the government would have followed the advice of the member for Edmonton Southwest, who I think has put forward a very sensible alternative to this bill.

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

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in February 1999 the government announced a three point strategy to protect Canadian water basins. The three components of the strategy are: first, amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act; second, a Canada-wide voluntary accord negotiated with the provinces to prohibit the bulk removal of water from all Canadian water basins; and third, a joint Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint Commission.

The first component, the amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, were introduced on November 22, 1999. Some concerns have been expressed, including mine, about this legislation.

As to the second component, the International Joint Commission issued its report on March 22 on the protection of the waters of the Great Lakes. The commission said that in order to protect the Great Lakes' ecosystem, Canada and the U.S. should erect such high barriers to bulk water exports that they would practically constitute a ban. The commission also said that trade law obligations do not prevent Canada and the U.S. from taking measures to protect our water resources.

On March 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment what progress he had made on the second component of the strategy, namely, the Canada-wide voluntary accord with the provinces. Today I would like to speak about the urgency of enacting a federal ban on water exports.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment attempted to reach agreement in November on the accord for the prohibition of bulk water removal from drainage basins. Nine ministers endorsed the accord, but four jurisdictions have reserved their position pending further consideration.

The provinces have been very critical of the federal government's approach, saying that the federal ban on water exports is necessary.

British Columbia's minister of the environment wrote, and I quote:

Without strong federal legislation, I fear—and fully expect—that provinces will be faced with ever-increasing pressure from corporate interests who want water treated solely as a commodity.

The International Joint Commission does concede in its report that if one company were allowed to export water, others would have to be given that right.

I should add that those corporate interests have come close three times already to making bulk water exports a reality. When Sun Belt Water Inc. applied for a permit to export water from British Columbia, when the McCurdy group tried to export water from Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland, and when the Nova Group obtained a permit from Ontario to siphon water from Lake Superior and ship it by tanker to Asia, public outcry led to provincial refusal to grant such permits. As a result, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have passed legislation to ban bulk water exports.

Now the federal government plans to make reliance on provincial goodwill as a formal policy through a voluntary accord. It is time the federal government acts where it has jurisdiction because in light of our international trade agreements a patchwork of provincial initiatives is inadequate. What we need now is a watertight federal ban on water exports.

Once the federal government is in a leadership position, then it can sit down to negotiate an accord with the provinces. This is urgently needed because of increasing corporate interest in our water resources, and also because in The Hague, Holland, on World Water Day, delegates from 118 countries acknowledged, in a declaration on water security, the severity of the water crisis.

In light of this development, tonight I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, will the federal government take leadership, ban water exports and then actively seek agreement with the four provinces which are still holding out?

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, water is not only a necessity of life, it is essential in many ways to the quality of our lives.

Canadians are deeply concerned about the long term security and quality of our freshwater. One issue that has recently captured the attention of Canadians is the prospect of bulk water removals and export from Canadian watersheds.

The federal government responded to these concerns in February 1999 with a three part strategy to prohibit bulk water removal from major watersheds. The strategy recognizes that the most effective and certain way to protect Canada's waters is to take an environmental approach. Our goal is to shut off the tap at the source, not at the border.

I will take a moment to report on the progress which has been made by all governments and the International Joint Commission in advancing this strategy.

Last November the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled Bill C-15, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit bulk water removals from boundary waters, principally the Great Lakes. This is a key federal contribution to the protection of Canada's waters under the Canada-wide accord.

A second element of the strategy was a giant Canada-U.S. study by the IJC to examine water use in the Great Lakes basin. On March 15 the IJC presented its final report to the Canadian and U.S. governments on the protection of the waters of the Great Lakes.

The report is consistent and reinforces the federal strategy to prohibit bulk water removals, including recognition of the environmental basis for action, the need for intergovernmental co-operation in protecting waters, and the trade consistency of the federal approach.

The IJC concluded that international trade law does not prevent Canada and the U.S. from taking measures to protect their water resources and preserve the integrity of the Great Lakes basin.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about disturbing reports coming out of Newfoundland from DFO scientists about crab stocks, how according to scientific reports from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the crab stocks appear to be on the low end. They appear to be declining in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the reason I asked the question. That is a very disturbing report to hear from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because of the similar reports we heard in the eighties and early nineties on cod stocks.

It was the responsibility of prior Conservative governments and it is the responsibility of the current Liberal governments to manage and to preserve the fish and the fish habitat.

Unfortunately the record has been quite shameful over the years. The five species of west coast salmon are in trouble. Atlantic salmon on the east coast are in trouble. Cod stocks on the east coast are in trouble. It was very disturbing to hear about the shellfish, from which we could gather great revenues if harvested properly and sustainably, which could provide economic opportunities for people in the outports.

My colleague from Labrador is a very good friend of mine and I am sure he is also very concerned about the depleting fish stocks.

We have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the west coast who generally shows great concern toward the fisheries. He has stood in the House time and again and said that the precautionary principle would be the guiding principle of all decisions made by fisheries and oceans.

I could not help but notice the other day when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a 10,000 tonne quota cut on the cod in 3Ps. That was just announced the other day. The reason for that follows very disturbing reports that the cod in that area are not coming back.

Premier Tobin of Newfoundland, who is a former minister of fisheries and oceans, even stated that in Newfoundland and Labrador they are catching the crab far too rapidly.

When I posed a question to the minister about what would be done to preserve the precious, fragile crab stocks off Newfoundland, he said that prior to the Liberals forming the government in 1993 fisheries brought in $243 million to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now it is $543 million.

Liberal times are good times. That was exactly his answer. He did not answer the question as to what the government would do to preserve the fish stocks.

My question is: Will the Canadian taxpayer be paying for the hangover from the Liberal good-time party if crab stocks decrease?

I do not have the scientific expertise to say that they are decreasing, but DFO scientists, who have been ignored repeatedly over the years, have the expertise. One of the classic examples of DFO officials being ignored was when Dr. Hutchings and Dr. Myers wrote a scathing report on how the DFO treats its own scientists. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows about that report. These very prominent scientists and fish biologists left the DFO in disgust because their recommendations and their scientific advice was ignored repeatedly by the fisheries ministers. We had dangerously low levels of cod and salmon on both coasts.

The fear which all of us have in the House and everywhere across the country will be that Canadian people will not accept the TAGS-3 program. They will not accept the ability—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the recent assessment of Newfoundland snow crab concluded that the stock has declined. Research surveys indicate that the biomass of commercial size crab declined by 45% from the fall of 1998 to the fall of 1999, and that the biomass of smaller crab, which will enter the fishery in 2000, also declined.

We are taking these warning signs very seriously. We should not try to draw simple parallels between the collapse of the cod stocks and the current situation with crab. The biology of crab and the nature of the fishery are very different from those of cod and other fin fish. For example, the crab fishery targets only larger males, using traps designed to allow smaller males and all females to escape. All stocks are inherently variable, with shellfish stocks generally displaying greater variability.

Snow crab resources go through natural periods of abundance and decline. Crab stocks were at record high levels through the 1990s, and the department has given warnings on many occasions that decline should be expected when environmental conditions change.

In all of our public consultations, particularly at the snow crab management seminar held in Newfoundland in 1999, we have advised the industry that the high level of abundance seen in recent years would not be sustained due to the natural fluctuation of the stock.

Conservation of the snow crab resource is the priority. The management of this fishery in 2000 will take full account of the current status of the resource to ensure that conservation is not jeopardized.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is 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 6.43 p.m.)