Debates of May 7th, 2008

Doping in Sport

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of Motion No. 466, which requests the Government of Canada to engage in the international anti-doping movement and to encourage other countries to ratify the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport which was adopted on October 19, 2005.

Canada played a significant role in negotiating that convention. It was one of the main drafters of the language and the second nation to ratify the convention.

The convention promotes the prevention of and the fight against doping in sport with a view to its elimination, but most important, it puts in place a legal framework to this process that is binding and universal. It sets clear recommendations for international cooperation between nations for harmonization of anti-doping standards and best practices. It clearly lists the prohibited substances that are considered to be doping and exemptions allowable where the athlete may need those substances for personal medical reasons.

Although in 1988 the IOC had developed tools and tests to ensure that athletes did not use prohibited substances to enhance their performance, the 2004 Athens Olympics showed that a record number of athletes had defied the rules.

Doping refers to the use of substances solely to enhance athletic performance. Doping is unethical, but it is also detrimental to the health of athletes. More important, given the hero status that many athletes enjoy, it sends a wrong message to youth. That is one of the reasons we are against it as well. In fact in 2005 alone, 25% of amateur athletes used substances to boost their performance.

If we pass this motion, Parliament will have directed the Government of Canada to continue to support the international convention but more important, it will tell the Government of Canada that it must continue to support its own domestic actions toward that convention. In 2004, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of sport came together to create a national anti-doping convention here in Canada.

That policy sets out clear rules. It speaks about public education and warning citizens. It speaks about giving training, education and support to our own athletes, coaches, trainers and medical personnel. It speaks about taking responsibility to ensure proper conduct, the principle of fair play and the protection and health of those who participate in sport. It speaks about working locally, nationally and with NGOs and organizations to give them the information and tools they need to achieve the elimination of doping in sport. It speaks about promoting research in detection, prevention and understanding of the use of substances that enhance athletic performance and sharing that research internationally. It speaks about contributing financially to assist countries that are unable to afford to undertake the domestic actions and tools they need for contributing to the international convention.

While this policy is important domestically, the convention requires that Canada play a strong role against trafficking in these substances and cooperating in testing athletes.

I support the motion because it would ensure that Canada acted at home and internationally to facilitate anti-doping in sport. I find this supportable in that the motion asks the government to play an active role in implementing the elements of this action plan of the UNESCO convention and to take a leadership role in getting other governments to do so. We have seen that sometimes the Conservative government has tended to walk away from things that we had committed to internationally at the United Nations and often has decided that it would no longer continue them.

I am pleased that this motion calls on Canada once again to resume its place as an ethical international leader in setting standards and putting forward not only the principles of global cooperation, but the advocacy and financial instruments to achieve them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate. There being no further debate, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington has the right of a five minute reply.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as debate on Motion No. 466 comes to a close, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to this motion. Motion No. 466 calls on the government to continue to engage in the anti-doping movement and to encourage the ratification of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

I would like to thank all those who spoke for their strong support of this motion. It is imperative that we continue to participate in the worldwide anti-doping movement. Canada's participation in the fight against doping in sport means action both at home and abroad.

At home, it is up to Canadians to keep our sports clean. This will take involvement from governments, regulatory bodies, sports organizations, volunteers, coaches and athletes. By continuing to fight against performance enhancing drug use in sport and by partnering with our national sports organizations, we can secure a clean future for sport in this country.

I have spoken previously about one organization in my riding that is doing its part to secure a drug free future in sport. The Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum will again welcome young people this summer to its Kids on Deck summer ball camp in St. Marys, Ontario, where they will be exposed to a positive message encouraging healthy living and drug free competition. I should mention that in my hamlet of Sebringville, Ontario, the softball program has grown from 44 participants to 244 participants in just three years. I can assure this House that all the activities are drug free.

Athletes deserve a level playing surface. Canadian fans expect and deserve fair competition. Canadians should be able to have confidence in the integrity of amateur and professional sport. By continuing to engage in the anti-doping movement here in Canada, we can help Canadians look forward to a clean and fair Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver just two years from now.

Of course the anti-doping movement is an international one and Canada is committed to playing our part on the international stage. That is why we are proud to host the World Anti-Doping Agency headquarters in Montreal. Recently our government announced that Canada's commitment to hosting the World Anti-Doping Agency headquarters will be extended for another 10 years, meaning that Montreal will be its home until at least 2021.

What is more, Canada was the second member state to table its acceptance of the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport is a remarkable international consensus document. It lays out a common framework for discussions regarding the anti-doping movement. It calls on governments to involve athletes and sport organizations in the anti-doping movement. It sets out an agreed list of unacceptable performance enhancing substances.

The international convention is a strong document and it is no surprise that it was unanimously adopted by member states. There is more work to do, as the next step is to have member states ratify this document. Already 79 states have done so. The motion we have before us today calls on Canada to encourage the remaining states that are a party to UNESCO to take this next step and ratify the International Convention against Doping in Sport.

I thank once again the members who have participated in this debate. I encourage all members to support this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I hear no dissent on the matter. I declare the motion carried unanimously.

(Motion agreed to)

It being 6:25 p.m., I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6:30 p.m., so that we could proceed to the adjournment debate. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow up on a question I asked the finance minister in relation to the auto industry and the budget in particular.

The budget, supported by the Liberals, that the Conservatives brought in has a detrimental effect on the auto industry. In fact, it is actually a cut to the auto industry.

The Minister of Finance seems to not even understand his own document. What is happening is that he is actually taking money out of automotive funding right now. Fact number one is that the ecoAuto rebate program that the Conservatives put in place is, ironically, a program that we have been fighting to get out of the budget. I am glad it is out of the budget but we wanted the money from that program reinvested in a good auto strategy.

The ecoAuto project, which was developed by the government and supported by the Liberals, had Canadian money going to Japan and Korea for foreign vehicles that were being made outside this country. They were dancing on the shop floors of Tokyo city when they heard this announcement because it meant jobs for their citizens, not jobs for Canadians. This $116 million boondoggle that was put in place did not have any correlation to reducing or putting vehicle purchase to the objectives of the program. It was an utter failure. The industry condemned it and the auto workers condemned it. We are glad it is gone.

However, why the Minister of Finance would not take that $116 million and reinvest it into auto right now, as we have gone from fourth in the world in assembly and manufacturing to tenth, is beyond me. It is very frustrating to see this opportunity of a real auto strategy lost.

What the Conservatives did lay out in the budget, which is all smoke and mirrors, is a $250 million program for automotive development. However, that is over five years so it is $50 million. What they have done is actually taken more money out of a program and lessened that amount for this new program allocation. What is really important is that they kept a new tax on automotive companies in Canada in place that will cost an estimated $50 million a year.

The Conservatives will keep a tax on automotive companies right now that will bring in the revenue which, later on, they will need to disburse through a program. What we have is a net loss of $116 million that the government should have given back to workers.

It is not just in ridings like mine in Windsor West. It also is in Oshawa, Oakville and a number of different manufacturing communities around this country, and all the services that we actually get as spinoffs and all the other Canadian aggregate that is necessary from steel, and a whole source of other industries that produce automotive.

Automotive investment right now is going through almost a revolution. We are seeing the industry, not sunsetting but changing. There are less jobs in it but, at the same time, it is higher tech and it is actually producing greener, cleaner vehicles. That is why it is important for us right now to have a clear automotive strategy.

We in Windsor have been pushing for the federal government to support a Ford plant so a new Ford engine can be produced in Windsor, Ontario, which is important because those jobs are desperately needed.

I have talked to Canadian citizens in my riding and other parts of this country who have gone to school, got the proper education and did everything necessary but because the government has refused to put in an auto policy similar to its Liberal cousins, we have witnessed the demise of the industry in many respects, and that is not acceptable. Canadians have done their part.

In my constituency, for example, we have a tool and die and mould making industry that is the best in the world but we are losing jobs because the government has not put in the policies. I call on the government to do so.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned when Canadians lose their jobs. This is never an easy situation for both workers and their families. That is why we are supporting workers and communities through our $1 billion community development trust, helping build a better future through job training to create opportunities for workers, economic development to create new jobs and infrastructure development to stimulate economic diversification.

More than $357 million of this funding will flow directly to Ontario, where the government has outlined how it will use its funding in its provincial budget.

However, we must keep in mind the global economy is slowing, driven in large part by a slowdown in the U.S. The majority of the vehicles produced in Ontario are exported to the U.S., and clearly American consumers are not buying vehicles at the same rate as they once were.

While the Canadian auto sector remains strong and it continues to attract new investments, North American auto manufacturers are all experiencing market adjustments and continue to face global competitive pressures.

That is why we are ensuring the manufacturing sector, especially the automotive industry, has the tools to become more efficient and more innovative, which is vital for their long term economic success. That is why we have reduced taxes significantly on the sector, providing a major economic stimulus. Indeed, our tax relief will result in over $1 billion in benefits for the automotive sector over this and the next five years.

We have also provided $250 million for the automotive innovation fund to support strategic, large scale research and development projects by automotive and parts manufacturers in developing greener, more fuel efficient vehicles.

Additionally, we have made a $400 million investment for an access road to the new Windsor-Detroit border crossing, an investment that will directly benefit the constituents of the member opposite.

We have also enhanced the export development Canada's export guarantee program to increase the guaranteed coverage from 75% to 90%. This specifically benefits businesses in the automotive sector.

We have allocated $34 million per year for new research through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, targeted to the needs of key industries such as the auto sector.

In addition, to improve access to E85 fuels, we are giving $3 million to support E85 fuelling infrastructure and promote the commercialization of E85 fuels.

We have also cut the GST from 7% to 5% and this has lowered the costs of all new cars.

Many, including noted auto analyst Dennis DesRosiers, have been highly supportive of our approach, noting recently:

—together with previous budgets reveals the [federal government] is actually dedicating a significant amount of resources and political capital to the automotive sector and that, for the most part, this Government is taking a pro-active and positive approach to helping this industry.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members from Ontario should be ashamed of themselves. They know the Premier of Ontario has ruled out the community development fund to be eligible for automotive, and they are doing nothing about that situation.

This political battle between the finance minister and the province, which goes back 10 years in political history, is nonsense and is costing Canadians jobs. Workers do not care. They want projects that are supported, which actually lead to jobs and ensure the jobs stay here.

Let us be clear, the $250 million fund is from a tax on the industry. The Conservatives have put a special tax on the industry, and that is what is generating the funds for the $250 million.

The $400 million with regard to the access way in Windsor and Essex counties is from the previous budget. We recently had an announcement in Windsor, where the Conservatives worked with the provincial Liberals, and it will create a problem with the access road, which will create further delays.

Let us have a full, developed strategy, one that looks at trade conditions, that stops free trade agreements and that has conditions for the investments and jobs related to those conditions specifically. That is what needs to be done to put Canadians to work.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that certain sectors of the economy have been particularly hard hit by global economic volatility. We have also heard clearly that some communities and workers are facing hardship and are in need of help in a timely manner.

As I mentioned previously, we have taken significant action to bolster our economy in these uncertain times and to further strengthen the foundation for Canada's future prosperity. This includes action to support Canadian businesses, workers, skills development, research and innovation and infrastructure.

While the NDP has called for direct government subsidies to certain businesses and sectors of the economy, I draw the attention of the NDP member opposite to the words today of the NDP leader in Ontario, Howard Hampton, “simply to write a cheque...is really irresponsible”.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question on February 11 about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

We know that this story is extremely troubling. While he was still a member of Parliament, and a few months after his mandate as prime minister ended, this Conservative prime minister accepted large sums of money, namely three times $100,000 in $1,000 bills given to him in a hotel. He did not deposit this money into a bank, but into a safe. He did not provide a receipt for this money, nor did he report it. What is more, no one on earth could describe his mandate. No one knows why he received this money and why Karlheinz Schreiber gave it to him.

This prime minister received three times $100,000 from Karlheinz Schreiber, a very powerful lobbyist at the time, who himself had received more than $2 billion worth of contracts from Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, which earned him hundreds of millions of dollars in commissions. The public, everyone, could think that in those circumstances it was money that was perhaps given to the former prime minister as a thank-you for those contracts.

When we asked the government for a public inquiry, Stephen Harper himself told us—as it says on his site—that he would appoint a commissioner once the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had completed its hearings. The committee wrapped up its hearings at the end of February. The Conservatives then said that they would do it once the committee had finished its work and submitted its report. The committee submitted its report on April 2. The Prime Minister then sought further advice from his special adviser, David Johnston, who submitted his report on April 5.

He received the reports from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and from his special adviser, David Johnston, over a month ago. What has he done since? Absolutely nothing. He has not done a thing. He has neither set up a commission nor appointed a commissioner. He did nothing when the ethics committee recommended that an in-depth and completely public inquiry be initiated as quickly as possible. The Prime Minister himself promised that the commission would begin its work once the ethics committee completed its hearings. He then delayed it until the committee completed its work. Our work and our hearings were done over a month ago, and we have not heard anything from the government since.

This government has been dealing with its share of embarrassing situations lately. They have been at the centre of scandal after scandal, and I do not even want to talk about the lead news story earlier today on CBC's French television network about the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I will ask my question one more time in the hope of getting a satisfactory response. When will the Prime Minister launch a public inquiry? When will he appoint a commissioner to conduct that public inquiry?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Just before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, it appeared to me that the hon. member mentioned the Prime Minister by name in her remarks and I would certainly caution her against doing that in the future.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, the Prime Minister had asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry once the work of the committee was completed.

In November 2007 Mr. Schreiber filed an affidavit in court that included a series of new allegations. In light of these claims, the Prime Minister took the first in a series of steps to get to the bottom of this matter once and for all. The Prime Minister appointed an independent adviser to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the former prime minister.

The mandate assigned to the independent adviser included four areas: first, to conduct a review of the allegations concerning financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the right hon. Brian Mulroney; second, to make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a full and public inquiry into these allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination; third, to determine whether any prima facie evidence existed to suggest that criminal acts have taken place; and finally, to indicate whether any additional course of action was appropriate.

To fulfill this mandate, the Prime Minister appointed Professor David Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo. Mr. Johnston has impeccable credentials and is widely admired for his considerable legal experience and expertise. An eminent lawyer with a distinguished academic career, Professor Johnston has also served as dean of the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario and is principal and vice-chancellor of McGill University.

In honour of the commitment made to the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry, the independent adviser released a report in January of this year. The Prime Minister accepted the independent adviser's report and immediately announced that a public inquiry would be convened once the ethics committee had concluded its work.

I am convinced that only by following this approach can the complete and truthful story of this affair be written. To date the media has reported many allegations. The standing committee has heard many contradictory statements. The principals have filed suits and countersuits against one another. Despite this activity, however, the truth is yet to emerge. We must not let this confusion erode the public's faith in Canada's democracy.

As much as all Canadians, including those on both sides of this House, including the hon. member, are eager to know the truth, we must all be patient. I trust that the independent adviser has provided sound guidance and wise advice regarding the mandate of the public inquiry into the matter.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be patient, but my patience is wearing thin. Canadians and Quebeckers have been patiently waiting for over a month for a commissioner to be appointed to hold this public inquiry.

The Conservative Prime Minister of this government made that promise himself on January 11. He promised a public inquiry would be held once the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had completed its hearings. Those hearings are over, our work is finished, our report was tabled in this House on April 2, and the Prime Minister still has not made any announcements. We have not heard so much as a whisper, nor the words “Mulroney” or “Schreiber” escape the lips of the Prime Minister. We have not heard the words “public” or “inquiry”. I know there are other fish to fry. He is implicated in all sorts of scandals, but the fact remains that this needs to be taken care of. He needs to put this to rest and keep his promises.

More and more we are seeing that this government does not keep its promises. When will this commissioner be appointed?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, the commitment made by the Prime Minister was to launch a public inquiry. The independent adviser released a report to this effect in January of this year. The Prime Minister has accepted the independent adviser's report and further, immediately announced that a public inquiry would be convened.

I know the hon. member is anxious. We are all anxious, but the fact of the matter is that these things will happen in due course. We know and we trust that the independent adviser has provided sound guidance and advice to us all regarding the mandate of a public inquiry into this matter.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked a question of the Conservative government during the daily question period about the ongoing vulnerability of Canada's fresh water to the threat of bulk export, principally to the United States.

I know that is an issue that is of concern to you, Mr. Speaker. You even had a private member's bill, I believe, on the subject at one point.

In his answer, the Minister of International Trade persisted with the government's efforts to mislead Canadians on the issue, in my opinion. He has since been joined by the environment minister in asserting that there are ironclad protections against the possibility of Canadian bulk water exports.

Both ministers are failing to acknowledge the real issues that underlie Canada's freshwater security and the uncertainty that continues to surround our ability to ban trade in this vital resource.

While the threat of bulk water shipments to the United States is not imminent, it will surely grow with time. The possibility of water exports beyond trade in bottled water could arise more quickly than we think, especially if we consider that other environmental issues have surfaced suddenly to catch governments off guard. I am thinking of course of the current global food crisis.

The government's efforts to downplay the uncertainty that continues to swirl around Canada's power to prevent future water exports will not be judged kindly by historians. What is more, both the present Conservative government and the Mulroney government before it have turned a blind eye to threats to Canada's freshwater sovereignty. The government is misleading Canadians on three counts.

First, the government contends that just saying no to bulk water exports makes the threat go away. It is as though the government believes that cabinet ministers' bold words alone will de facto permanently close the door to such exports, that somehow repeated statements in the press by the ministers of trade and environment that Canada's water is not for sale amount to a long term legal protection of this resource, and that somehow the government is the first one to tackle the matter square on, to get the job done as it likes to say.

It is important to bear in mind that the statements that the government is making are really intended for public consumption in Canada. What the government should do is make bold statements to the American government. I understand that might upset some diplomats at the Canadian embassy in Washington, but even former Conservative premier Peter Lougheed of Alberta has said quite categorically that we should be making strong statements to the Americans themselves. As a matter of fact, at a speech to the Calgary branch of the Canadian Club in 2005, the former premier said:

We should not export our fresh water--we need it and we should conserve it. And we should communicate to the United States very quickly how firm we are about it.

What is interesting is that even if we communicate our opposition to bulk water exports to the United States government, and assuming the United States government accepts this position on Canada's part, this would really be of little consequence because the threat to our water does not come the government of the United States per se. It comes from private interests that would seek to use provisions of NAFTA, especially chapter 11, to secure the right to our water. That is where the danger really comes from.

I think it is really misleading of the government to suggest this, and here is where the government is misleading Canadians a second time. It is implying that there is tough federal blanket legislation across Canada that prevents bulk water exports and that there are serious offences to anyone who would contravene that law when this is not the case. There is federal legislation, but--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of protecting Canada's fresh water from bulk export. I would like to clarify briefly some of the legal protections in place and I reject the member's assertion that this government and the Minister of International Trade have misled the House.

Amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act came into force in 2002. They prohibit the bulk removal of boundary water from Canadian basins for any reason, including for the purpose of export. Limited exceptions, consistent with the main purpose of the safeguard, are provided for in the regulations.

This protection is the result of advice sought by the governments of Canada and the United States from the International Joint Commission. The IJC is the binational organization created by the Boundary Waters Treaty to help prevent and resolve disputes regarding waters we share with the U.S. In fact, the IJC reviewed the amendments and commended the Government of Canada for the added protection.

The idea of establishing an export ban has been repeatedly raised as an alternative for protecting Canada's water. However, the prohibition on bulk removals presently in place is a better approach. It is more environmentally sound and consistent with international trade obligations.

The prohibition protects water in its natural state, in its basin, before the issue of its export arises. Thus, water is regulated in its natural state rather than as a commercial good or a saleable commodity.

International trade obligations do not apply to measures that regulate water in its natural state. This approach is supported by a 1993 joint statement by Canada, Mexico and the United States confirming that: NAFTA creates no rights to the water resources of any party; and unless water has entered into commerce and become a good or commodity, it is not subject to the terms of any trade agreement, including NAFTA.

These views were subsequently reaffirmed in 1999 by the U.S. government in its submission filed with the IJC. In it, the deputy U.S. trade representative pointed to the body of international law which makes clear that water resource management rights belong to the country or countries where the watercourse flows. This is precisely what we are doing. We are managing our water to ensure sustainability for future generations.

Canadian provinces have also implemented protections for waters in their jurisdiction. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the federal government ought to, in essence, federalize provincial waters. The Canadian Constitution is very clear on the matter of natural resources, whose ownership largely resides with the provinces. Both federal and provincial governments, acting within their jurisdictions, have established an array of freshwater protections.

In conclusion, governments at all levels in Canada have a role to play in protecting our water. We will remain very steadfast in protecting this unique and vital resource.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. The member has left so many doors open to make counter-arguments.

First, he must understand that the NAFTA side agreement was a valiant attempt to overcome a glaring weakness in the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The weakness in the agreement was that the exemption for water that had been put in initial drafts of it was later removed by the Mulroney government.

In fact, it was done by the Prime Minister's Office at the time, no doubt, without the knowledge of the international trade minister, who is now a senator. She was asked at a press scrum whether Canada's water was protected. She said, “Of course, we have an exemption in the agreement”, and then was told it was no longer there. There is something going on beneath the surface, if everyone will excuse the pun.

Second, the United States does not think much of these agreements, quite frankly. The U.S. State Department considers such side agreements non-binding and merely “gentlemen's agreements”.

And third, we do not even know if it is signed. We have never seen a signed copy of this so-called exemption, which is nothing more than a press release. In fact, my office contacted the government at one point to try to get a copy and was told it was not possible to do so.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary, would he give me a guarantee today that he will produce a photocopy or some sort of facsimile of the signed side agreement?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he said he did not understand which way to go on this issue. I can repeat what I said, so he understands what has been publicly stated by all three governments. It has been stated that it is environmentally sound and consistent that we protect water in its natural state: in its basin. Thus, water is regulated in its natural state rather than as a commercial good or a saleable commodity. That is what we are doing.

In 1993, a joint statement was issued by Canada, Mexico and the United States confirming that: NAFTA creates no rights to the water resources of any party; and unless water has entered into commerce and become a good or commodity, it is not subject to the terms of any trade agreement, including NAFTA. How much clearer can I be in saying that water is protected in this country in what we believe is the right way: in the basin?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

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 6:53 p.m.)