Debates of April 6th, 2017

Motions in amendment

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for supporting the amendment and for her contribution here today. One thing that is clear is that we are not discussing in the amendment the way things can take place, whether it be comply or explain, or whether it is quotas, or whether it is a hybrid system. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and there is a lot of discussion about that in general and also positions that are taking place.

What is clear by the amendment and was made clear by the Conservative Party is having accountability and making sure there would be a specific measurement and finish line in regard to having companies explain under this model if their measurement system shows them to be deficient. Some companies would probably come in very well and others may not.

Comply or explain in the way the Liberals have built the bill would be such that the minister really has no powers in it. I would ask the member to comment on this. The Conservatives had an amendment similar to ours regarding three years, but five years is what was passed. At least with this amendment it sets a hard finish date for that versus that of several years or a decade from now when we do have a review process taking place, so the finish line is hard and fast and the intention is strong and astute.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for the amendment and for being willing to listen to the arguments put forward by the witnesses as to why it should be a three-year hard deadline. It gets us past an election without letting things drag out too long. If there is some problem with the implementation of this policy, then it would be better to review it now and fix it than to wait too long and let things get out of hand by saying that we cannot touch it because it will be reviewed in a couple of years anyway.

My bigger concern was when the definition of diversity was voted down by the Liberals. To many in the corporate world, diversity in hiring means the board should be made up of someone from accounting, someone from marketing, someone with legal experience, functional diversity in the corporate background as opposed to background relating to gender, ethnicity, or religion. That is where we develop different personalities, view the world with different perspectives, and we bring different solutions to any of the given problems that are being presented.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Employment; the hon. member for Edmonton West, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Public Services and Procurement.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I am pleased that you are the one in the chair right now.

I am rising today to share some of my thoughts and, of course, those of Her Majesty's official opposition on Bill C-25, An act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.

It is important to begin by saying that this bill targets some 270,000 federally incorporated companies, which are, for the most part, small and medium-sized businesses that do not sell shares and to which the changes will not apply.

It is important to remember that the amendments proposed in Bill C-25 are the result of a legislative review that was conducted by a House of Commons committee in 2010, two Parliaments ago. Consultations were then held by our government and Industry Canada in 2014.

Like the majority of my colleagues who have spoken to Bill C-25, I think it is commendable and fantastic in many ways that the current government was open enough to use old legislation from the Conservatives' 2015 budget to develop Bill C-25.

However, what my opposition colleagues and I find a little unfortunate is the lack of substance in the bill we have before us at the current stage and, in fact, the lack of substance we see all too often in the current government's bills. I would even say the lack of bills, quite simply. No more than 50 bills have been tabled by the Liberal government since October 19, 2015. The minority government of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper had tabled three times as much legislation by 2007.

Certainly, the bills lack substance. In addition, there is a lack of real change. I will come back to the bill after this aside. The Liberals campaign slogan was “real change”. We can certainly change the things we say. That is obviously what the Liberals have done. However, Canadians expect legislative change, and that is not what we are seeing currently.

The Liberal government is missing several opportunities to do a good job in the House and bring in concrete measures for Canadian society, to address problems affecting workers, seniors, the unemployed, and corporate boards. This is how I am getting back to the bill.

We are delighted that the Liberal government is using legislation that the previous Conservative government worked very hard on. However, in committee, we brought forward two main amendments that, it appears, do not suit the opposition, or rather the government. Excuse me. I misspoke. I saw the future and called the government the official opposition. That will be two and a half years from now.

During the committee stage of Bill C-25, the Conservatives proposed amendments that would have strengthened the bill. First, we proposed to define the word “diversity”, which is an integral part of the bill.

It is one of the key components of the bill since the other side of the House wants to impose diversity, which is still undefined, within various federally regulated corporate boards and institutions.

The amendment we wanted to bring forward would define the word correctly. The need for this was also raised by a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee. The official opposition critic responsible for this issue and several of my Conservative colleagues met with these witnesses.

The second amendment would require a review of the diversity policy in three years.

There is a reason why the Liberal government did not accept this amendment, which would define the word “diversity”. One of the things this government most often does is present sweeping concepts that they do not want to define. In this case, it is diversity. In another case, it is the 1%. For the next two and a half years I will repeat that the 1% does not exist. We are one of the world’s fairest societies, one of the societies where wealth redistribution is unparalleled in the history of mankind. I really find it incredible. I had the chance to go to university and I can say that any professor or academic would tell you that there is no such thing as the 1%.

I would like to give a parallel example that will explain why imposing diversity could have consequences that are not necessarily what the government intends. I will go out on a limb: I assume that by diversity, they mean cultural minorities of all kinds. Today it is rather fashionable to identify all kinds of minorities, when what really counts is protecting the political minority, first and foremost. I will give an example of some of the consequences that sometimes result from a desire found only in rhetoric. When the Liberals talk about a gender-balanced cabinet, I see rather significant consequences. It is not in law, thank God, but if by misfortune the next government decides to continue with that, this would then become a convention. We would have a sort of parliamentary convention to have a gender-balanced cabinet.

According to the Liberals, having a convention saying that cabinet must be gender balanced means that women will forever hold half the power in the cabinet that forms the government. From another perspective, this also means that from now on, women will never be the majority in cabinet. Is that not a bit ironic to think that for centuries, cabinet was composed mostly of men, and now, with this convention we end up never seeing a cabinet composed mostly of women?

I believe this is a first consequence of this rather dangerous convention, based on misconceptions, dangerous social interpretations, and political capital, which, furthermore, in a way endangers—to put it bluntly—the possibility of having the best cabinet possible. I am sure that my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, across the way, would make a wonderful minister. I was with him on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He is incredible, clever and has an outstanding mind. However, because of gender parity, he will probably never be as close to me on the seating plan as he could be. We will never get the best by relying on sweeping misconceptions.

Creating such misconceptions of social reality that can be interpreted differently can have consequences. We therefore need to define the word “diversity” to ensure that this bill will not have negative consequences on corporate administration.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, who also serves on the government operations committee, suggested that inequality and the 1% represent a false concept, but I am sure he is aware of the fact that the top 100 CEOs, on average, make 193 times as much as the average Canadian employee.

I wonder he would justify this. Does he believe that these CEOs are 193 times more productive than the average worker? Maybe they are somewhat more productive, but are they 193 times more productive? I am just wondering what the explanation is, if it is not an example of unfairness and justified inequality.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, liberalism and the capitalist system result in these kinds of problems. A good government must always ensure that wealth is redistributed in the best interests of all Canadians.

That said, if I were told that 30% of Canadians were a lot richer than others, I would say we are starting to have a problem. However, the concept of the 1% leads to dangerous political battles, since it makes Canadians cynical.

Canadians live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, one of the only countries where anyone, even the poorest of the poor, can do their best and succeed, since there is the Crown government. Canada presents all sorts of opportunities. We need to stop talking to Canadians as though they were pathetic children. Quite the contrary, we need to show them that this great country is there for them and for their future. We especially have to stop coming up with sweeping concepts that create cynicism day after day in society.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's party has been raising some very important questions in question period related to the Bombardier sale and CEO compensation from the public. It was important in this legislation that “say on pay” was not allowed. Say on pay provides democracy from the shareholders, who help to determine corporate salaries and compensation.

I would like to hear from my colleague how, for example, the government's position on Bombardier right now allows for that, and in fact encourages Bombardier to take actions that could eliminate workers while receiving a lot of different subsidies, one from Quebec and a second one from the federal government, when we know their CEOs are actually receiving compensation for this.

I find that a paradox for his own party, which is criticizing the CEOs from Bombardier for getting rich off the loans and the grants from taxpayers.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I profoundly believe that the bonuses that were automatically given to the CEOs were outrageous. Twenty-four hours before people in Quebec and most political figures started to be outraged, I had already put on Twitter that it was dishonourable, dishonourable, and dishonourable.

To answer the hon. member's question more specifically, I would say that is one of the reasons I support the member for Beauce for the leadership. He just basically stands against any subsidies. He specifically said in his platform that he would strike subsidies against companies. However, I often say to my friend the member for Beauce that we still have to be cognizant of the fact that some regions in Canada need subsidies—for example, the Atlantic provinces—to make sure that we increase and support economic development there. Sometimes we have to be straight with our ideas, but we must always acknowledge the needs and the realities of the different regions.

The bonuses for the CEO are outrageous, and we should all hopefully be against that.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.

Bill C-25 aims to make changes to the corporate governance regime for reporting issuers incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The CBCA is the incorporating statute for nearly 270,000 corporations. Although most of these are small or medium-sized and privately held, Canada's largest reporting issuers are also governed by the CBCA. Professionals are able to incorporate, and in my previous life as a chiropractor, this option was available to me.

With that said, and in light of how the government conducts discussion and debates, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #251

Canada Business Corporations Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Ottawa River Watershed

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many Algonquins will see this motion, rightly, as interference in a delicate negotiation process. The negotiations in the aboriginal community have not been harmonious. The aboriginal community is divided by more than the Ottawa River. While the Algonquin community can be found throughout the Ottawa River watershed on both sides of the river, Algonquins who live in Quebec are not included.

The Province of Quebec has refused to participate in the negotiation process. This motion reads, as seen through the eyes of an Algonquin, that the federal government will not honour what has been negotiated in good faith. In fact, Motion No. 104 was made worse by an amendment that shifted blame from a standing committee to the federal government. It now reads that the federal government will redraft the terms of the Algonquin agreement in principle.

The Algonquins ask why they should relinquish management of the Ottawa River watershed beyond what has been currently negotiated. They assert that land is traditional Algonquin territory. They see the management council that is proposed in the motion as just another layer of bureaucracy that is preventing them from controlling their own destiny. To an average band member, the motion reads that the Algonquins are incapable of preserving the economic, cultural, heritage, and natural values within the Ottawa River watershed, so they need a council of outsiders to control their lives. Aboriginals already feel there is too much government interference in their lives.

Only time prevents me from describing how aboriginals feel about that type of white-man colonialist mentality implied by this proposed management council implicit in the motion. I caution members of Parliament to reflect on the harm Motion No. 104 would do to our relations with first nations people in the Ottawa Valley and how the motion would affect the land negotiation process, should it be accepted.

Constituents in my riding share many of the concerns of the Quebec residents, as well as the Algonquins who live on the Ottawa River watershed. They fear a study will be used as an excuse to impose new rules, regulations, and laws that would take away property ownership and economic rights, including the right to make a living.

This brings me to my final observation regarding the introduction of the motion at this time.

Ottawa Valley residents in my riding were assured that the designation of the Ottawa River as a Canadian heritage river would bring no new regulations or laws that would infringe on the use and enjoyment of their private property. My constituents do not believe in coincidences. The speed with which this motion appeared after the river designation is a cause for concern. It may be a simple exercise of follow the dollar.

It is well known that the Prime Minister's chief adviser and principal secretary, Gerald Butts, used to head the charity World Wildlife Fund Canada. It has been documented that the Ontario Power Authority, a body dominated by Liberal Party appointees, implemented a twisted conservation incentive program that provided an option for participants to pledge Air Miles reward miles to WWF Canada. At the time, Butts was at the WWF. The OPA is the body that takes its direction from the Liberal cabinet for electricity price increases in Ontario. We now see the WWF is involved in a watershed campaign that includes the Ottawa River watershed. Is that just a coincidence, or another fundraiser, like the Air Miles scheme, only this time looking for direct handouts from the federal government?

I leave it to others watching this debate to draw their own conclusions, considering Mr. Butts' jaded past with the Toronto Liberal Party and the rise of energy poverty in Ontario.

For the reasons outlined above, Motion No. 104 should be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in support of Motion No. 104, sponsored by my colleague from Ottawa South. We have sat together in the House since our election, which was held the same year.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my colleague, a great environmentalist and environmental lawyer who helped me a lot in my own journey on the issue of freshwater in Canada. He has often shared his knowledge with me.

I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Pontiac, who is seated behind me and knew me before he was elected. As an environmental lawyer, he also offered me good advice. I contacted him before he was elected to seek his advice and to benefit from his knowledge on water and the environment.

I would like to speak a little bit about my riding because its geographical location is relevant to the debate on this motion. It is one of the reasons I am rising this evening to support the motion.

My riding could be called urban. It is a Montreal suburb covering the far west end of the Island of Montreal. What may be surprising is that it is almost 75% surrounded by water. There are few urban ridings in a similar situation. To the south of the riding is the St. Lawrence River, or more accurately Lake Saint-Louis, which is part of the St. Lawrence River, and to the north is the Rivière des Prairies. To the west of the riding is the Lake of Two Mountains, and those somewhat familiar with the local geography will know that this is where the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers meet.

The Ottawa River is a tributary of the St. Lawrence River, and its waters empty into Lake Saint-Louis. Boaters know that you can see both water flows—the one that is a bit cloudy comes from the Ottawa River, and the clearer other is the flow of the St. Lawrence coming from Ontario.

In short, what happens in the Ottawa River and the Ottawa River watershed has a direct impact on the environment surrounding my riding.

What I just finished saying in French is that what happens in the Ottawa River directly impacts my community because it is located where the Ottawa River and the St. Lawrence River meet. Also, as I was saying before, boaters tell me they can actually see where the Ottawa River enters Lake Saint-Louis as it is water of a different colour.

The Ottawa River is a majestic river in its own right. I will describe some of its characteristics. It is 1,270 kilometres in length. Its watershed covers 140,000 square kilometres. It has 17 tributaries. It includes 200 municipalities, including the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. It provides drinking water for over one million people. It has 50 dams and hydroelectric generating stations. It includes 300 smaller impoundments or reservoirs and water control structures. It includes over 30 beaches. Therefore, water quality is obviously very important to the people in the watershed who wish to use these beaches for recreation and to cool off in our very humid, hot summers in eastern Canada.

The watershed includes 85 species of fish and 300 species of birds. I am told its flow is greater than the flow of all tributaries in western Europe, which is pretty remarkable. This is not a small stream or a small river. It is a major river, and its watershed is therefore a major watershed in Canada.

So far, unfortunately, there is only one coordinating body that oversees some aspects of the river's management, and of course I am speaking of the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, which apparently was instituted in 1983. It involves co-operation between the Ontario and Quebec governments principally for the integrated management of dams and reservoirs in the river for flood prevention and hydroelectric production. The whole point of the motion that has been brought forward is that, despite this long-standing co-operative body, the Ottawa River watershed deserves greater and broader attention.

There has been a step in the right direction. The Ontario and Quebec governments have created a joint committee on water management to protect their shared water resources. Our provinces are very much linked by shared waterways. Motion No. 104 really is the logical extension, one could say, of this earlier initiative to create this Ontario-Quebec joint committee on water management. In fact, Motion No. 104 would give body to this initial joint management structure.

My riding is on the St. Lawrence River, and the St. Lawrence River fortunately has been the object of some fairly long-standing governmental attention in the last 25 years, and I am speaking of course of the St. Lawrence action plan. The St. Lawrence action plan could serve in some way as a model for the kind of co-operative council that the hon. member for Ottawa South is working to create.

The St. Lawrence action plan has created a highly integrated vertical and horizontal management structure for essentially monitoring the St. Lawrence River and the banks along the St. Lawrence River and essentially being a framework for action both locally and at higher levels of government, action to preserve the St. Lawrence River.

One of the most interesting aspects of the St. Lawrence action plan is the comités ZIP. ZIP means zones d'intervention prioritaire, and there are 13 along the St. Lawrence River. Essentially, these ZIPs divide the St. Lawrence into ecological and urban zones. I suppose we could compare them to areas of concern, which we have in the Great Lakes and so on, but these ZIPs go a little beyond simply focusing on problematic areas of the St. Lawrence. Their main objective is to involve citizen and stakeholder participation. In other words, they act to encourage communities to take ownership in protecting their stretch of the St. Lawrence River. As a group, these 13 ZIPs are managed or coordinated by an organization called Stratégies Saint-Laurent, which is a collection of Quebec environmental groups headed by the Union québécoise pour la conservation de la nature. The UQCN plays a big role in coordinating these groups' activities.

There is also stakeholder coordination at higher levels. There is what I would call a council of the St. Lawrence. It is not formally called that, but it involves many federal departments and many Quebec provincial government departments and other stakeholders, first nations, who get together to oversee the management from higher levels of the St. Lawrence.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to Motion No. 104, brought to this House by the member for Ottawa South. As a former chair of the environment committee, and having lived in a primarily rural area of Ontario all my life, this topic is of special interest to me. It is critically important that we do all we can to protect our water, our land, and our air.

While today we are discussing an amendment made to this draft motion, an amendment that was made by the Liberals themselves, I will first read the original motion. Motion No. 104 reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be instructed to undertake a detailed study with regard to the creation of an Ottawa River Watershed Council, which would bring a comprehensive, inclusive, co-management approach to the Ottawa River Watershed, in order to foster ecological integrity, sustainable economic opportunities, and quality of life; in its study, the Committee shall examine (i) the council membership, which would include, but would not be limited to, federal, provincial, regional, and municipal governments, First Nations, industry groups, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions, (ii) important indicators such as water quality, biodiversity, and shoreline integrity, in order to assist with the creation of a co-management plan and conservation strategy, (iii) the economic, cultural, heritage, and natural values within the Ottawa River Watershed; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than December 2017.

The amendments that have been made to the motion are:

(a) replacing the words “the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be instructed to” with the word “, in the opinion of the House, the government should”; (b) replacing the words “the Committee shall” with the words “the government should”; [and] (c) deleting all the words after the words “within the Ottawa River Watershed;”.

It is clear that the Liberals tabled this amendment to the motion because they did not support their member for Ottawa South in his original motion, as it was simply pandering to local stakeholders who are seeking an audience on a federal committee. Therefore, the purpose of this motion is now redundant and is a simple exercise to make sure that the member does not lose face within his own party; hence, the referral to the government for examination. This matter no longer requires valuable parliamentary time, as the member could simply have asked the responsible minister to evaluate whether her officials believe it would be worth establishing an Ottawa River watershed council similar to the Fraser Basin Council the member used as an example in his speech.

The Ottawa River received heritage status on July 15, 2016. This was granted by the environment minister, the member for Ottawa Centre. The Ottawa River, from Lake Timiskaming to East Hawkesbury, which is about 590 kilometres in length, now joins the Rideau Canal as Ottawa's second river to be classified under Canada's national river conservation program.

It is important to note that the Quebec side of the river is not subject to the heritage classification, as the Quebec government has repeatedly refused handing over control of this waterway to the federal government. In fact, the Quebec provincial government of the day, represented by the then provincial minister of the environment, the current federal member of Parliament for Outremont, took the position that the provincial government was not interested in participating in the designation process, as this could result in relinquishing provincial jurisdiction to the federal government.

The current Motion No. 104 is asking to set up a management plan for the Ottawa River watershed, with no authority to act in fully two-thirds of the Ottawa River watershed. The Province of Quebec has no interest in inviting the federal government to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction.

On December 2, 2016, the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre tabled the motion we are debating today, calling for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development “to undertake a...study with regard to the creation of an Ottawa River Watershed Council, which would bring a...co-management approach to the Ottawa River Watershed”. None of Canada's other 41 designated heritage rivers has been studied by a standing committee and tasked to determine members of a council.

As I stated earlier, I was chair of the environment committee, and as chair, I was proud to hear from Mr. Joe Farwell, the chief administrative officer of the Grand River Conservation Authority, in my riding. The Grand River, which runs through my riding, became the first river in a working landscape to be designated a Canadian heritage river, in 1994. There was no parliamentary committee created to appoint members to the conservation authority. I am proud of the work the Grand River Conservation Authority has done and continues to do today.

Let me share some facts about the Grand River watershed. It is made up of four other rivers that feed into the Grand: the Conestogo, the Nith, the Speed, and Eramosa. The combined length of all of the rivers and streams is about 11,000 kilometres. The watershed crosses four climate zones, Dundalk Upland, Huron Slopes, South Slopes, and Lake Erie counties, and crosses two forest zones, the Alleghanian and Carolinian.

The GRCA manages floods and keeps the rivers flowing in dry weather with a network of seven reservoirs. Eighty species at risk are found in the watershed. More than 90 species of fish are found in the river system, about half of all species in Canada. Close to 250 species of birds have been reported at Luther Marsh Wildlife Management Area. Forest cover in the watershed was as low as 5% in the early 1900s, but today forests cover about 19% of the land.

River flows, reservoir levels, weather, and water quality are all tracked in real time by a large network of gauges that feed their data to the GRCA website around the clock. Municipal water systems draw their water from wells and the river system in contrast to most major Ontario communities, which depend on the Great Lakes.

I have had the privilege to visit a number of the streams and tributaries that feed into the Grand River and to see the great work that the GRCA has done in protecting our waterways, by creating buffer zones so cattle and other wildlife cannot enter into the streams, to allow grass and trees to grow, and cooling the water so fish which were not able to survive in the hot water are now able to come upstream, surviving in much cooler water. I have seen the good work it does in wetland restoration, working in partnership with Ducks Unlimited and other partners.

Motion No. 104 asks for yet another study to join the multitude of studies that have already been done on the Ottawa River and its watershed. The motion then asks for a study to justify the expenditure of more taxpayer dollars to create a new layer of bureaucracy to interfere with the lives of people who call the Ottawa River watershed home.

It is also important to inform the House that the detailed study that this motion calls for has already recently been completed. A detailed study of the Ottawa River watershed was done in preparation for the designation of the Ottawa River as a Canadian heritage river, and that was not done in the distant past. Less than one year ago, on July 15, 2016, this river was designated. I would encourage all members interested in this motion to look at that report.

This is not the first case in the House where we have seen the Liberals make environmental decisions based on politics instead of on the environment. One of the first actions of the government was to allow the dumping of eight billion litres of raw sewage from Montreal into the St. Lawrence River. It is certainly not a good environmental decision.

As much as possible, it is ideal that while we recognize the right of the federal government to impose certain things like this, we always try to take advantage of existing mechanisms like an organization that is already in place and pass the authority and control over, as much as possible, to more local entities that can be more directly accountable and responsive. Again, the Grand River Conservation Authority comes to mind as a gold standard in this regard.

When we have motions like Motion No. 104, we are asking the House of Commons as a whole to pronounce on something that has a particular impact on a particular region. Giving authority to those closest to that region creates maximum responsiveness to the needs of that community and it also creates far better accountability.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has done a phenomenal job in standing up for her constituents who stand to be greatly affected by what seems to be needless political decisions. The hon. member has stood up for those residents, specifically those in the rural parts of her riding, who will be asked to pay for this new level of bureaucracy being proposed in this motion. It will be those who live on the land who will be required to pay. She also did a great job of addressing the point of the negative aspects that the motion would create as it related to our relationship with the first nations people.

In light of all these items, I will not be supporting the motion. I encourage all my colleagues in this place not to support it either.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak in favour of Motion No. 104 brought forward by my friend and colleague, the member for Ottawa South. The management and protection of the Ottawa River is a key priority for all Canadians, especially those of us who are proud to call the Ottawa River watershed home.

My riding of Ottawa West—Nepean borders the Ottawa River and I know many of my constituents are concerned about its protection. The Ottawa River is central to the life of our community. The bike paths and parks, like Andrew Haydon Park and Britannia Park, are focal points for social gatherings and recreation. So many of our best memories are of summer days along the river.

It is a constant source of pride and inspiration that has had a major impact on the city of Ottawa and its history. I am sure that I am not the only member of the House who hopes to go kayaking on the river this summer.

Known to the Algonquin as the Kitchissippi, the Ottawa River has been an engine of economic growth, once allowing for the success of the lumberyards and sawmills that became a powerful industry in our city. When those same lumberyards were set ablaze in 1900 and large swathes of the city were set alight, the Ottawa River was a natural deterrent and helped protect the national capital region from total disaster.

Before that, it was an important path for the coureurs de bois and fuelled the Canadian fur trade. With the construction of the Rideau Canal, it once played a role in our national defence. Now it is a source of pride as a UNESCO world heritage site. Its unique and storied role in our nation's history was acknowledged when our government designated it a Canadian heritage river.

The Ottawa River watershed is 146,300 square kilometres and stretches from Shining Tree in the west to St. Jerome in the east, from Westport in the south to Launay in the north, and from Témiscaming to Tremblay. It is larger than Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and larger than many countries, such as England or Greece.

It is not only the Ottawa River that is contemplated in this motion. In Ontario, the Ottawa River watershed includes some important heritage and ecological sites, such as Algonquin Park, Bon Echo Provincial Park, and Murphy's Point, to name a few.

In Quebec, the watershed includes Gatineau Park, Mont-Tremblant Park, the Papineau-Labelle Wildlife Reserve and several others. All these parks give Canadians, myself included, the opportunity to go camping, canoeing, kayaking, and swimming.

The Ottawa River also has huge ecological significance to both provinces and to Canada. According to Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ottawa Riverkeeper, it is home to at least 24 provincially or nationally imperilled species, including the least bittern, the spotted turtle, and American ginseng. Its microclimate and sand and limestone substrate sustain rich wetland and forest habitats that support a diversity of fauna and flora. Our region hosts one of the most biologically diverse ecosystems in Canada.

The Ottawa River is also home to a unique and diverse fauna of freshwater mussels. According to the Canadian Museum of Nature, this unique freshwater mussel fauna includes a minimum of 14 different species, each one linked to specific fish hosts, which ensures the upstream and downstream dispersal of the mussels' specialized glochidia larvae. In many areas of the Ottawa River, the density of freshwater mussels on the bottom commonly exceeds 100 individuals per square metre.

Currently the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board is the only governance body for the Ottawa River that includes both federal and provincial representatives, including Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-Québec. The primary goal of the board is to provide protection against flooding along the Ottawa River and its tributaries, as well as to maintain the interests of various users, particularly those involved in hydroelectric energy production. However, its mandate is not either to protect the environment or to bring together all levels of government and stakeholders on both sides of the river.

The motion we are discussing today proposes a study about the creation of an Ottawa River watershed council that would have a much broader mandate than the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board and would involve a more diverse array of stakeholders. The amended motion calls on the government to “undertake a detailed study with regard to the creation of an Ottawa River Watershed council, which would bring a comprehensive, inclusive, co-management approach to the Ottawa River Watershed, in order to foster ecological integrity, sustainable economic opportunities, and quality of life....”

The Ottawa River watershed council would be a venue that would bring together different levels of government—federal, provincial, municipal, and indigenous. It would also provide a forum for citizens, civic activists, and important stakeholders to have their voices counted in the protection of the Ottawa River and take on an ownership role in its management.

This approach is consistent with our government's current watershed activities, led by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and our water-related priorities. The implementation of this proposed study would help to demonstrate our commitment to treat Canada's fresh water as a precious resource that deserves protection and careful stewardship.

I would encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this motion.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the environment because the issue is extremely important to me.

I have already mentioned several times that I got into politics to protect the environment and to take concrete actions to improve the quality of our planet, our water and our land. I am not doing it just for myself, but mainly for my children.

I will speak to Motion No. 104 by my Liberal colleague from Ottawa South, which is on the Ottawa River watershed. The NDP has long worked on a number of fronts to promote the sustainable development of our communities. The quality of our waterways and the protection of our biodiversity are at the heart of our commitment.

I will read an excerpt of the motion so that we understand the context of our work. The motion asks:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development be instructed to undertake a detailed study with regard to the creation of an Ottawa River Watershed Council, which would bring a comprehensive, inclusive, co-management approach to the Ottawa River Watershed…

The intention behind this motion is timely and laudable. No one can disagree with the desire to protect the Ottawa River watershed. However, there are a few little things that I will be talking about that explain why we question this motion.

I would note, first of all, that the Ottawa River is also called Kitchissippi or great river by the Algonquin. It is very important, and we must not forget that the first nations should be part of every discussion held within all our consultation processes and environmental assessments. On that point, I would like to note that the Canada Water Act does not say anything about an obligation to consult the first nations. That might be a first point to improve.

Second, it must be noted that the Ottawa River has been designated as a Canadian heritage river. That is a good thing, because during their reign, the Conservatives eliminated protection for almost 90% of the rivers that were previously protected. Unfortunately, that has had many negative consequences. Fortunately, the Ottawa River has stayed protected, thanks to the fact that it was designated as a Canadian heritage river.

On that point, the NDP was at the forefront of the fight to protect watercourses. In fact, when the Conservatives included that bill in their mammoth bill in 2012-13, when they removed practically every watercourse that enjoyed protection under the Navigable Waters Protection Act from the list, we introduced dozens of bills, for example in 2013, to have 27 rivers across Canada protected under the Canadian heritage river designation.

In fact, I introduced a bill myself to have important rivers designated as heritage rivers. Unfortunately, that has still not been done. That would be a concrete action the Liberal government could take to restore protection to a number of important watercourses in Canada. They could designate them as Canadian heritage rivers. That would protect them under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I am going to talk about something else that is very important and that I am very proud of. I was there when the former member for Halifax, Megan Leslie, who did a very good job and worked very hard on environmental issues, introduced a motion to ban microbeads from our products and from our environment. Fortunately, all representatives in the House of Commons voted in favour of that motion.

A process is currently in place to gradually ban all microbeads from our environment. Once again, I would like to congratulate Megan Leslie and commend the NDP for its work on this file, which enabled us to undertake the gradual and ongoing process of getting rid of microbeads that cause so much harm everywhere, including in the Ottawa River watershed, which is suffering as a result. Thanks to the NDP's work, we have been making progress, and we will be able to improve water quality in this watershed and others. This is extremely important. In my riding, the RCM of Drummond supports calls to ban plastic microbeads from our environment.

Paul Dewar is another NDP colleague who worked very hard to protect the Ottawa River watershed. He was inspired by citizen groups such as Ottawa Riverkeeper and Waterlution, another group that is very involved in the watershed file. Mr. Dewar repeatedly called for federal government measures to protect the Ottawa River. He lobbied for an action plan and a motion to adopt rules to protect and preserve the river's integrity.

Here are some examples of concrete action that the NDP has taken in recent years to improve the situation.

I spoke about the Drummond RCM, which recently did an excellent job protecting watersheds. Very recently, the City of Drummondville, together with partners, created a 2017-21 action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River and its watershed. I would like to acknowledge the regional work done in the greater Drummond area to implement this action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River. It is very important for our region.

The Conseil de gouvernance de l’eau des bassins versants de la rivière Saint-François, commonly known as COGESAF, is at the forefront of this initiative, which led to the development of the Saint-Germain River watershed charter, the first within the Saint-François River watershed. It is an extremely important initiative that needs to be recognized.

In the face of climate change, here are the objectives to be achieved through this initiative: monitoring water quality, protecting shorelines, conserving fish habitat, and improving communication with local stakeholders.

I want to thank all the local stakeholders in the greater Drummond area who helped develop the 2017-21 action plan to protect the Saint-Germain River watershed and who will help implement it in the years to come. It is extremely important.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, our party's environment critic, gave a speech on this subject as part of our study of Motion No. 104. She brought forward an amendment in order to move this important motion forward. Unfortunately, her amendment was not adopted. The amendment called for the Mackenzie River Basin and the North Saskatchewan River to also be included in the study, instead of focusing only on the Ottawa River watershed. It was a matter of expanding the scope of the study being done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It is an independent committee and it should have a better overall idea of all the major steps the federal government can take, not only to improve water quality, but also to achieve other things like banning microbeads.