Bev Desjarlais

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living in squalid conditions. Last evening CTV reported on just how bad things are in Pine Lake and Red Lake, Ontario. Surely the government was shamed by the conditions these people are forced to live in. It is the same in Moose Lake, South Indian Lake and throughout Canada.

Homelessness and poverty are a prescription for poor health. It is a prescription for death. Why is this government turning a blind eye to the poor and the homeless?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

This is heritage week. Canada Post, CMHC and Heritage Canada pay tribute to Canada as home in a series of stamps. Native housing is depicted by longhouses 24 metres by 8 metres that held three to five families. That was native housing in the past. Today we have three to five families living in homes half that size. Indian affairs has for years built houses at barely acceptable standards, houses that could not withstand everyday living. Conditions are so bad that the United Nations has criticized Canada's treatment of aboriginals.

When is this government going to realize Canada is not home sweet home to all Canadians?

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to amend Bill C-247. I feel that this change will clarify the intent of the bill and represents an improvement over the original wording.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I also support Bill C-247 itself, although with some regret. I have no hesitation in supporting the intent and content of the member's bill. My regret stems from the fact that we are here today dealing with a private member's bill instead of comprehensive government legislation. I also regret that we are only addressing one lone aspect of the many critical issues developing around reproductive technology.

It was 10 years ago that new reproductive technology was critical enough for the government of the day to appoint a royal commission to investigate. The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies spent four years gathering information and formulating 293 resolutions. Among these was a recommendation to prohibit seven specific activities under the Criminal Code. Cloning was one.

By the time it issued its report in November 1993, the royal commission had travelled to 17 centres across the country. Two thousand Canadians participated in these hearings. Six thousand more phoned in their views on toll free lines that had been set up and 15,000 more responded to commission surveys. The commission spent $28.3 million during this massive consultation. What do we have to show for all this?

When the commission's report was released, the New Democratic Party called on the government for quick action to implement its recommendations. We challenged this government to convene a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial health ministers to establish a common framework for moving forward but that came to naught.

Instead in 1995 this government asked researchers and health practitioners to observe a voluntary moratorium on cloning and a number of other practices. Needless to say this misguided substitute for comprehensive legislation went nowhere. Only in 1996 did the Liberal government finally introduce legislation, Bill C-47, that would have among other things banned human cloning. Bill C-47 died on the Order Paper the next year and was never reintroduced.

The Liberal government has been silent on cloning and indeed all reproductive technology ever since. To let these issues that impact so seriously on the lives of Canadians, especially women, go this long without action is intolerable. There were problems with Bill C-47, there is no doubt about it. But that does not mean the minister just withdraws in fear never to be heard of again.

How can the government say one day that cloning and 12 other practices are so serious they should be criminalized and the next day through its inaction say it is not important any more. It is important. It is important to many Canadians. The response to the royal commission showed that.

Not only do Canadians want action, they want the government to stop dithering around and act now. They realize that it is going to be a lot more difficult to regulate reproductive technologies after the fact.

Cloning is no longer just science fiction. Everyone remembers Dolly the cloned sheep. Rats, cows, monkeys have all recently joined that circus. Now others, both professionals and amateurs, have declared that they are working on human cloning.

American Dr. Richard Seed, who has attracted a great deal of media attention with his cloning enthusiasm has announced he will open a clinic in Japan specifically for the purpose of human cloning. He has $15 million in backing.

Last fall a group of Korean scientists proudly announced that they had successfully taken human cloning one generation of cells closer to reality.

There is a claim by a Massachusetts laboratory that a nucleus from a human cell was inserted into a cow's egg which then progressed to the 32 cell stage before it was destroyed.

These are just the experiments that have been publicized.

Organizations have sprung up, like Clonaid, with money and hundreds of volunteer couples who, for a variety of reasons, are more than willing to risk experimentation.

What is this government waiting for?

The health minister has a wealth of information to draw upon from the royal commission and the debate around Bill C-247. There is nothing standing in his way. He could quite quickly consolidate his position on reproductive technology, consult stakeholders, including women's organizations, about his proposals and bring in new legislation.

We must send a clear message to the scientific community that its efforts on human cloning are not welcome in Canada. Canadians have unequivocally told the government that human cloning is not acceptable. They have also, in good faith, come out to hearings, filled out questionnaires and written letters indicating their views on other reproductive technology issues. The government has once again shown an appalling lack of leadership.

In an effort to fill that leadership void I am here today in support of private member's Bill C-247. With the passage of this bill one of the many reproductive technology issues will have been dealt with in parliament. We can only hope that the government will then finally see fit to do the responsible thing and introduce comprehensive legislation to address the rest.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The Manitoba Dene have hunted caribou north of the 60th parallel for over 2,000 years. They have at least 25 burial sites north of 60.

Is it the Liberal government's position that the Manitoba Dene have treaty and aboriginal rights north of the 60th parallel, rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, yes or no?

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the NAFTA situation, I do not think we are absolutely comfortable that NAFTA would protect the water. There is no question that the government caved in on MMT. We did not wait for an absolute ruling to take place. It settled ahead of time. It has left Canadians feeling vulnerable to what could happen with water.

I do not want to wait until they say sorry, NAFTA does not protect your water. Why not put something in place to ensure that the water is protected? They have a lot more faith in that agreement with NAFTA than I have.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I do not think there is any question that the reasonableness of what happens with water in general is of concern here. We do not want to see the bulk export of water and large quantities of waters going outside their normal area. No one has ever argued that the sale of water in bottles should not take place.

What is really coming into question is the export of water to the point that we need something in place where we are not going to have a pipeline that brings water out of Canada to somewhere else. I was in Arizona during the break for a very short period of time and saw thousands of Canadians down enjoying the weather and also listened to those thousands of Canadians saying they are getting back up to Canada after because they know it will get too hot down there. They also commented on the way the water is being used there and how dried up the water is by the time it hits the Mexican border. If we take the approach that it is okay to send the water down to one area and use it all up, there will not be enough for everybody.

There is reasonableness out there. No one is saying that if people are dying of thirst somewhere that Canada is not going to help them out. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about using water as a money making, money grabbing way. We are talking about the owner of an area selling his water where he can make the most money, and for what. For someone to have an extra swimming pool. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about having water available for things that are not the necessities of life and they want the export of Canadian water to do so.

That Canadians would not be understanding if countries or people were in need of water would not happen. Canada is not that kind of country. We are saying that we need to protect the resources we have.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vancouver East.

I am pleased to speak today on the motion by the New Democratic Party to ban the bulk export of our water. This issue is very important to me and to my constituents in the riding of Churchill and indeed to all Canadians.

One of Churchill's most important natural resources is its fresh water. My riding is known for its clear blue lakes and rivers. They are one of our best tourist attractions. Every year they draw thousands of campers, cottagers, hunters and fishers. The waters are also the lifeline of our commercial fishing industry.

The health of our lakes and rivers is the backbone of that important industry. Lakes and rivers are also extremely important to the way of life of my aboriginal constituents. They too understand the environmental damage that would result from the bulk export of our water.

I am very disappointed in the lack of action from the Liberal government to protect our freshwater up to this time. Its lack of action is what has prompted the New Democratic Party to bring forth this motion before the House.

It is not as though the Liberal government did not know this issue was coming. Last May the Minister for International Trade said: “Today's water is tomorrow's oil”. We all know we can live without oil but we cannot live without water, and it is the telling tale of this government when it considers water as a commodity like oil rather than the vital element it is.

For years the government has been assuring Canadians that the North American Free Trade Agreement would not affect water. Now we see that these assurances are not holding true. An American company is suing through NAFTA because of a B.C. law that bans the bulk export of water. At least B.C. has a law to strike down. The Liberal government has done nothing at the federal level to protect our water. It has left B.C.'s New Democratic Party government to fight alone to protect Canada's freshwater.

The heart of this issue is whether we are to treat water as a market commodity. Some free market theologians argue that everything should be a commodity. We in the New Democratic Party have nothing against free markets. However, we believe there are things that belong outside the free market. There are things that society should make a conscious decision to deal with differently and not leave to the whims of the market.

I am sure most Canadians would agree with this. One good example of something that most Canadians think should not be on the free market commodity is drugs. To steal a line from film maker Michael Moore, if absolutely everything was a free market commodity, General Motors would sell crack. This seems like a funny and strange thing to say, but it shows that some things do not belong on the free market. Society has decided that drugs should not be available on the free market and government has made the laws to make that happen.

Another thing that Canadians do not want to see treated like a commodity is health care. All we have to do is look south of the border to see what a disaster it would be if we treated health care like something to be bought and sold. Millions of Americans do not have the security of health insurance. The American health care system also blows away the argument that the free market is always more efficient than a public system. Americans spend more per capita than Canadians on health care. Yet Canadians have universal coverage. Our public system of health care costs us less and covers the entire population. So much for the myth that free market is automatically more efficient.

Canadians rightly believe that health care is a right. It should be available to everyone, not only to those who can afford to pay for it on the free market. This is the principle that drove New Democrat Party founder Tommy Douglas when, as premier of Saskatchewan, he introduced public health care to Canada.

We in the New Democratic Party believe that freshwater, like health care, should not be treated like a commodity. Like health care, water is a necessity of life. We all need it to survive. We use it to water our crops and raise the animals we eat. Comments like the trade minister's comparison of water to oil show that the government does not see it that way. The trade minister apparently thinks water is a commodity.

Removing large amounts of water from our ecosystem would be a disaster. It would damage our forests and our fish habitats. These habitats are vital to our tourism and our commercial fishing industries. On top of all that, we cannot predict how exporting large amounts of water from our ecosystem will affect our rain and weather patterns. If I were a farmer on the prairies I would be very concerned about this.

Our ecosystem cannot afford to lose those large amounts of water. If the government is sincere about wanting to protect our water and our environment, it will support our motion and it will move with great speed to initiate the required legislation. Canadians are tired of the government telling them our hands are tied by trade deals. We have seen a pattern of cave-ins from the government. It caved in on protecting Canadian magazines. It caved in on MMT.

Each time it points to the trade deals and says “it is not our fault, we have to obey our treaties. It is the government's fault. If our trade deals are to prevent the government from doing what is right for Canadians, then we should not be signing those deals. I am all in favour of trade deals but we should use some common sense and not sign deals that strip away power from our democratically elected governments. If this government will not stand up for Canada's sovereignty, it should move aside and let someone else.

Whenever I hear the Liberal government say we have to honour our trade deals, I cannot help but think about our treaties with the first nations, treaties that are as legitimate as the trade deals with other countries like the United States. I cannot help but notice the double standard. The Liberal government treats its treaties with foreign countries like they are carved in stone but feels free to ignore aboriginal treaties whenever it wants. It is interesting to note that our treaties with the first nations include rights and title to water resources, but it does not just apply on reserves and it applies to all traditional land use.

This motion is a chance for the government to do the right thing. It is a chance for it to stand up for the environment, a chance for it to say that water is the lifeblood of our environment and not a commodity to be sold. I urge my colleagues from all parties to support this motion which is so important for the future of Canada.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the neglect of first nations is an ongoing black mark against the Liberal government. It should be ashamed of the way it ignores the huge problems facing these people. The government claims to be concerned about the problems but it does little about them.

First nations in my riding live in third world poverty. Unemployment is over 70% and over 90% in some areas. There is homelessness and a lack of clean drinking water. Preventable diseases like TB are prevalent. When I go to these communities I can hardly believe what I am seeing. The human tragedy of these conditions is heart breaking.

Last November I questioned the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about conditions at the Shamattawa first nation. Shamattawa is a sad example of all of these problems. Four out of five children in this community have been or are addicted to solvents. Since 1992 there have been over 100 suicide attempts in this community of under 900 people.

Last week I got a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying that Shamattawa is a high priority community. If it is such a high priority, why has the government ignored its appeals for a healing centre to treat addicts within the community? Why did the government promise to pay for a recreation centre and only commit 16% of the needed funding? If this is what the Liberal government calls a high priority community, I would hate to see the low priority community.

Shamattawa is not the only community that this Liberal government has abandoned. In my short time today I cannot possibly list them all but I will mention a few.

One that I definitely want to mention is Garden Hill. This community of about 2,700 people was shaken by a terrible tragedy last month. An infant choke to death because no nurse at the local nursing station was able to respond to the call in enough time. The station is supposed to have eight nurses but only had three at the time.

The lack of health care professionals does not only affect first nations. Thompson has a severe shortage of doctors. These days someone who wants a simple physical has to book months in advance. Doctors are leaving and nurses are being laid off because of government cuts. These cuts are affecting all northern communities, first nations and non first nations alike.

That is why the New Democratic Party is calling on this government to reinvest at least $2.5 billion into health this year. Anything less will not be enough to patch up the holes we are seeing in our health services.

Earlier I mentioned the poverty and poor housing on first nations. I want to point out the link between this and the health problems we are seeing.

Take the God's Lake first nation. This small community of 1,200 accounts for 10% of all the cases of TB in Manitoba. That is a shocking number but not surprising when only about 10% of the homes on the reserve have basic sewer services. If the government would do something about these kinds of problems, it would save millions in health care costs.

The Liberal government must do more to address the conditions on first nations. These conditions would not be tolerated in Toronto or Shawinigan. It is a double standard to ignore the first nations. The Liberal government always points to the “Gathering Strength” initiative and the aboriginal healing fund as if they are going to solve everything. They do not even come close to what is needed.

We need a real investment in first nations housing, health care and economic development. Token gestures and empty words are not enough.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's neglect of aboriginal people is an outrage. Communities in my riding and across the country live in third world poverty. There are no jobs. They are not able to buy healthy food for their families. They have poor housing and overcrowded conditions. Some do not even have clean drinking water.

In the Shamattawa First Nation, four out of five young people are addicted to solvents. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sent me a letter saying that Shamattawa is a high priority community. The chief and the council have been asking the government for a healing centre for addicts in the community.

All they have received from the Liberal government is token gestures like a few thousand dollars for a rec centre. If this is the Liberal government's idea of a high priority community, I would hate to see the low priority community.

The Liberal government always points to the gathering strength program and the aboriginal healing fund like they will solve everything. But I am hearing from my constituents about healing fund applications being denied.

The Liberal government's programs for aboriginal people are a sham. They do not go nearly far enough. It is time for the government—

[Transit Passes, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, what I am going to mention will reinforce much of what we have heard this morning.

It is quite apparent there is widespread support for the motion of my hon. colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, and rightfully so.

It has been a pleasure to hear those comments. I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that by encouraging people to use the public transit system we are going to benefit the environment and the health of many Canadians. There is no question that that feeling is out there.

It is a bit disconcerting that the only real argument against this is that we are not going to bring in enough revenue dollars. I find it hard to comprehend one against the other. Those are the types of issues that should not be an if/or. We know what the effects will be and we should respond to that.

It would be nice to see government departments working together for the overall benefit of Canadians. There is no question that there would be health savings. If anybody could come up with an argument that there would not be savings I would like to hear it. We have information to indicate that there could be savings of between $320 million and $427 million in health care costs in Ontario alone. If that is not reason enough to encourage people to stay on the public transit system, or to get on to it, I do not know what is.

Environmental benefits, especially in the area of greenhouse gas emissions, are further reason to give full support to this motion. It is an opportunity once and for all for this government to take a holistic approach to improving the environment, society and health. It is an opportunity for a government that has shown no vision of looking beyond and seeing all the benefits of a motion such as this. I thank my hon. colleague for presenting the motion.

I will take a moment to comment on the impression that was given by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party. He said that he was surprised to see New Democrats suggesting a tax break and he thinks it would be great if we did this. I want to emphasize that New Democrats have always believed in investing in Canada and in Canadians. That has been the way since the beginning of the party. That is what we will continue to do. That is what we are doing with this motion.