Bob Mills

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as well as turf wars, we have to get rid of the paranoia that is involved. We have to start talking about what is good for Canadians. What is good for Canadians is that water needs to be pure. We have lots of heavy duty restrictions in Alberta on water quality. I believe we have one of the best in water quality, but I would hope that any Albertan politician would be prepared to sit down with members from every other province and try to improve the whole situation.

Why duplicate bureaucracy province by province by province? Why duplicate research or duplicate development of technology? Why would we do that? We are one country. We should be working together to fix the problem, and that is dirty water.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, there is something really wrong with that approach. Impose or force are the words being used. I am talking about words like co-operate, understand and work with. That is how we do it. We need a new approach to federalism to make it work, not the forced, clamped down and tie the provinces up. That is what we have had for so long.

Let us face it, it is not very sexy to say that we will build a new sewage treatment plant, or that we will change our landfill site or whatever. However I believe more than anything, if we sit down with the provinces they will do what is right. What is right is to protect the health of Canadians. That is what they want us to do.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. It is fitting that we talk about this important subject today. We should have been talking about it a great many years ago.

Canada is looked upon internationally as a pristine, pure, clean place. However Canada is sliding and has been sliding for a considerable time in terms of infrastructure. This is true of more than just water, but water is what we are talking about today.

We have general regulations but do not enforce them. Canada has no standard for water safety. Nor do we understand whose responsibility it is. As a result we saw the Walkerton incident, the North Battleford incident, and I am sure we will see a great many others.

Canada is sliding into third world status when it comes to water. It is safer to drink bottled water than tap water in Canada. Both sides of the country are dumping raw sewage into the ocean. That is not a G-8 phenomenon; it is a third world phenomenon. We put our garbage into landfills where they seep into our water table. It is a time bomb waiting to explode. It will cost us a fortune in the future to take care of those garbage dumps.

Canada has thousands of toxic waste sites. Our roads and bridges are decaying. Our health care system is rated 23rd out of 29 by the OECD. Our dollar is now worth 60 plus cents. We are suffering from a brain drain. These are symptoms of what is happening to our country, a country of which we are proud and for which we came to Ottawa to fight.

This is the tip of the iceberg. It is the canary in the coal mine in terms of our infrastructure problems. We need a vision and an action plan. We need a government that is not afraid to show leadership.

What has the government done? It likes to stay in the centre and appear shocked that we have a water problem. It likes to pass the buck and blame someone else. When I questioned the government about the 5 and 6 year old girls who were forced to visit their sex offender father in prison, the justice minister told me to go to the province because it was its fault. The province told me to go to the feds because it was a federal prison.

That is called passing the buck, and Canadians are sick and tired of it. They do not care whether an issue is federal, provincial or municipal. They want it fixed. Ultimately the government throws money at the problem. It throws money at infrastructure. What do we get for that money? We get golf courses, statues, canoe museums, ski hills and fountains in the middle of rivers. We need our sewage, water and garbage problems taken care of. That is not what we are getting.

The government has put aside $4 billion for water between now and the year 2005. Little or none of the money has gone to communities. Most of it seems lost in the bureaucracy. Municipalities say they need $16.5 billion to address the water problem.

What are the responses? Everyone cares about health. When we talk about water, air or garbage we are talking about people's health. If there is one thing people care about more than anything it is health. It does not matter how many material things one has. Without health one has nothing.

What do we need to do? First, we need to co-operate with the provinces and territories. The people do not care who deals with the problem. They just want us to deal with it. The federal government's job is to show leadership. Let us get rid of the turf warfare that seems to plague the whole issue and most other issues in government. Let us show leadership. Let us show that we care about the issues that affect Canadians.

Second, let us do a complete water inventory. Let us look at our aquifers, find out what we have and make a map of them. Let us see if we are in a positive or negative position in the recharge of those aquifers. Let us evaluate the water sources in the country. Let us look at the contamination levels of our water tables. That is where we get into landfills and that sort of thing. Let us look at watershed management. Let us work with the provinces. This is not a turf war between provinces. It is about fixing a very important resource, our water.

As the hon. member mentioned, we will need to talk about the whole issue of water export. The south west U.S. needs a lot of water. In Libya, Mr. Khadafi has built a $32 billion pipeline that is 1,900 kilometres long and 5 metres in diameter. He is using it to pump water out of the Sahara Desert. If they can pump water out of the Sahara Desert we had better believe that someone in the south west U.S. will say why not pump it out of Canada.

Let us at least know what our resource is. Let us talk to Canadians and ask them what they think about the issue. Let us not put our heads in the sand and be afraid to deal with difficult issues such as water. That is exactly what we seem to be doing and that is why Canadians are so frustrated.

Third, let us set standards. Let us work with the provinces and territories to set standards. Let us set the bar high. We are a G-8 country. We are a highly industrialized country. If we cannot set the bar high what country can?

We talk about water technology. We are selling water treatment technology to Beijing that we have not even used in Canada. We have 12 to 15 companies selling technology around the world for sewage and water treatment but we do not use it in Canada because we cannot afford it or are not committed to water quality.

Let us change that. It is negligent that we did not set and enforce standards long ago. It is government negligence. Who cares whether the federal, provincial or municipal governments are at fault? It is negligence on the part of governments not to have done something.

Fourth, we need money for infrastructure. That is always a tough one. We need to train people and acquire technology. Where do we get the money? I have been here long enough to think I could find it within the budget of planet Ottawa. So much waste goes on here in terms of unnecessary programs that do not help people that we could list page after page of it. There is money for important issues like health, water, sewage and garbage. The federal government should show leadership in working on the problem.

Lastly, we need leadership. Canadians are looking for environmental leadership. Environmental issues are not unique to one province or region; they are a universal Canadian problem. Who better to take leadership on such an important issue than the federal government? I urge the government to take leadership on alternate energy, water, sewage, garbage and clean air. I have been working on the Fraser Valley situation at Sumas and the power project. I am shocked how little concern the federal government has about air problems that are potentially going to hurt that area.

With respect to the Sydney tar ponds, Elizabeth May is sitting out there on a hunger strike. We have all kinds of these toxic sites.

We need to develop in this place a vision and a co-operative approach for Canada. Let us fix this environmental concern: today water; tomorrow all these other issues.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he does not think the issue of drinking water is serious enough to warrant an all party committee to examine it. This would include not just drinking water but all aspects of water, everything about it. Is it not time we put the interests of Canadians ahead of party interests?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, does the right hon. member not think that the water problems we are having are just the tip of the iceberg, an iceberg that probably started surfacing about 50 years ago when it came to the decline in Canada's infrastructure?

Truckers are telling us about bridges that were built in 1955 which they are afraid to drive over. We have sewage treatment plants that are archaic. We have water treatment plants that no one seems to know whether or not they work.

Does he not think that this is just the tip of the iceberg, one that should have been addressed probably 30 years ago and now we are just starting to see the repercussions from this?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, first, we should be co-operating with the provincial governments in all cases because it is a common problem.

This will be gas fired generation. Initially, they were going to use diesel fuel and gas, and at one point they were going to use coal. There is one plant being proposed as coal but the other eleven, as I understand it, will now be totally gas.

The problem is the location and the prevailing winds. One of those plants, the Sumas 2, which is the closest to being approved by the government, will put out 3,000 tonnes of pollutants. I could give a breakdown of the chemicals involved, but the point is that air is already polluted from Vancouver. Because of where those plants will be located, the pollutants will blow directly into the Fraser Valley which is backed up by mountains and so it will capture that air.

An air analysis was done. Medically, Health Canada says that 150 deaths per year right now can be directly attributed to the air in that area. That is with what they have now. If we magnify that by what is being proposed, it becomes even more dramatic.

We need to work with the province and the federal government needs to provide the leadership to help the province and the cities, urban and rural. The farmers have been told by Agriculture Canada that their production could go down as much as 30% because of the pollution that is coming in there. It has big implications.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, it is certainly an opportunity to speak at a take note debate. This is the largest audience that I have ever seen at this type of a debate. I recall my first take note debate when we were talking on Bosnia. It was probably the second week I was here. There were two members in the House for that debate. This is a huge turnout. Obviously this method is working better.

I have a lot of industry and natural resources in my constituency. A $7 billion expansion was just completed to our petrochemical industry. We have a pork plant capable of processing something like 20,000 hogs per day, most of it shipped to Japan.

About 70% of my constituency is urban high tech. The future of our community is very dependent on industry and on natural resources. There are 11 quarter sections of land under housing development. There is massive growth and we can just barely keep up. There is zero unemployment. This is a good news story from our area. We of course have the Alberta advantage with low taxes and that which goes with that.

I want to put a little emphasis tonight on an issue that I am most concerned with and that is the environmental implications of so much that we do, whether we talk about urban or rural development or whether we talk about industry and natural resources.

A speaker a long time ago talked about Syncrude. I worked on the Syncrude project before there was a Syncrude and was part of an environmental study which was done when it was just a pristine environment. One of the earlier speakers implied that there was no environmental concern, but I for one know because I worked there for about three years doing an environmental impact. It was done and that was a long time ago.

I want to talk about three things. I would like to talk about Kyoto, air and air pollution and water. Those are three resources that we should be particularly concerned about and that we should have a lot to say about.

I will speak briefly on Kyoto because it is a huge issue and obviously we would need a number of nights to really get into the Kyoto deal. I think it was doomed from the beginning. I do not think anybody really disagrees that climate change is occurring. The impact that humans are having on that is scientifically debatable. That again is another issue.

The process was doomed because of lack of consultation and a lack of planning. The government did not do its job properly. I am talking about this government and a number of others. Kyoto one was doomed from the beginning. It could not possibly work.

All of us should learn a lesson when we talk about natural resource development or concerns about consultation and communication with the people, industry and the provinces. That is what we have to do but I feel we have not done that.

What is the good news about Kyoto? The good news is that at least now we are aware that there is a problem. Canada now has the opportunity to show some leadership to the world to move on and involve China, India and Brazil, those industrialized countries that were not part of Kyoto one. Let us let them leapfrog in terms of technology. Let us sell them technology that would not allow them to have air pollution if they went through all the steps we did.

There is a lot we can do and encourage. We can encourage alternate energy. We can do all those things. We must make decisions about tradeoffs that we will have to make. The worst way to handle this would be for a government on high to come down with a carbon tax or with some kind of oppressive decision against energy in order to try and force conservation on people. People will buy into it. People will co-operate. The people of Calgary are buying into wind energy. It costs more but they are buying it and are proud of it. There is any number of new office towers in Calgary, most of them are heated with solar energy. They have solar collectors on the roof. That is the kind of thing government can encourage by tax breaks, by research and development. There is so much we can do, so let us not lament about Kyoto.

I really believe the Canadian government is doing a reasonable job of saying that we have to have sinks and that we have to have all of these or we cannot agree. When I was with the minister at the G-8 environment minister's conference it was obvious to me that the government understood the next step that we had to take. Now we need to communicate that to the people and to the people in the House, and we need to discuss it openly. Maybe we need to have another take note debate on Kyoto and what we do about that.

Second, all Canadians are concerned about air quality. The people of southern Ontario and of the Fraser Valley are concerned. Let me tell the House something that is happening with resource development and it is that we should think about because it has happened in Ontario and now it is happening in B.C.

There is a power shortage in California but California does not want to have energy plants there because they pollute. God knows, it has to protect the air in California because there are problems. It now has legislation because it had referenda which said it had to take care of its air.

Washington state wants to get the profit by selling energy to California but it does not allow high tension power lines over places where people live.

What is the good idea? It is to build Sumas 2, 3, 4 and 5 or actually 12 power plants within 500 yards of the British Columbia-Washington border. Why is that such a good idea? They would take Alberta gas. They would have wind blows north. They could run the power lines down the centre of Abbotsford and the high tension power lines could be taken out to the coast and run down to California. It would be the perfect situation. California would get the energy without having to have the power plants. Washington would get the profit without having to have the pollution. Of course we would get the high tension power lines, the pollution and we would make the Fraser Valley the number one most polluted place in Canada instead of southern Ontario. Southern Ontario would become second and Fraser Valley would become number one.

Those are the kinds of things that we cannot let happen. We cannot let energy development go that way. I phoned our consul in Seattle, a former Liberal member from Newfoundland who is a good friend and a good guy. He said that they could not interfere with what foreign governments did. However, we can damn right interfere with what foreign governments do if it is going to blow that air into our area.

We need to work together. If we are talking global energy, then let us talk global energy. I say the government is not standing up for those people in the Fraser Valley. I am really concerned about that, so are the people of Abbotsford and the people of that area. The people of Ontario should be concerned as well because the same thing could happen there. We could literally put power plants right along the whole border as long as the winds were blowing the right way. Let us be concerned about that. Let us talk about that. No matter what we are doing, whether it is agriculture, energy or natural resources, we have to think about the environment.

I started out as an environmentalist. I trained as a biologist and now I am back full circle talking about the environment again. We need to talk about the environment in this place.

Third, water will be our most important nature resource of the future and again the government needs to take leadership. What do we need to do? We need to know what we have as a resource. We have never mapped our aquifers. We do not know how much water we really have. We do not know if we are on a positive or negative input for that water. We do not know whether we are draining our aquifers, whether they are being replaced or whether they are positive or negative. That is easy. The science is there. We know how to do that. Many parts of the world have done that.

We need to do an inventory of our lakes and streams. We need to consider the ecological impacts when we change or divert water from one place to another. We need to talk about that openly. The government needs to communicate that openly. Then we need to make decisions. That is how we handle water. I encourage the government to consider that and to communicate that to people as an important resource.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, my comments are along the same point. Calgary residents are getting their electricity from wind energy if they so choose. I have been studying what Germany has been doing and it has a lot of windmills. I have seen some of them firsthand.

The member also mentioned Russian gas. We must also remember that 70% of Germany's energy comes from nuclear power. Green Germany run by a green government is using nuclear energy for 70% of its energy needs. We should not believe the myth about Europe being a wonderful example to follow because it is just not there.

[Justice, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of passing the buck that we hear. He is in a federal prison. He was put there by a federal justice. It is a federal matter.

At the Bowden institution on Sunday, John Schneeberger's former wife, against her deepest feeling as a mother, must bring her young daughters to see this sex offender father, in a prison filled with pedophiles.

I asked the minister by letter. I called her office and I have not received any response. If the minister has any compassion, I ask her on behalf of these two little girls to stop this from happening on Sunday.

[Justice, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I came to this place to try to make it better for my children and my grandchildren.

It breaks my heart to think of two little girls, five and six years old, in my constituency who are being forced to see their father this Sunday in Bowden prison. This convicted sex offender raped their 15 year old stepsister, who was just one of his victims.

Does the Minister of Justice support these children being forced by the justice system to see this man?