Dave Chatters

[National Security, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:

Something troubles me about this perimeter talk, because I believe it's a short form for something, but I don't quite know what it's short form for.

A survey shows that 81% of Canadians believe that a secure perimeter is necessary. What part of secure perimeter does this minister not understand?

[Terrorism, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government talks a great deal about providing increased security measures for our energy infrastructure. Yet it has been unable to give Canadians one example. Real leadership would provide action, not just empty rhetoric.

How can Canadians believe the government is doing anything to protect our energy infrastructure? What specific action has the government taken to protect our energy infrastructure?

[Terrorism, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is vulnerable to a terrorist strike on our energy infrastructure. The Minister of Natural Resources says that our power facilities and distribution network are secure.

In reality, Canada's energy network includes hundreds of thousands of kilometres of vulnerable natural gas and power lines in the most remote areas of the country. What has the minister done to assure Canadians our energy infrastructure is secure?

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, September 24th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join in this debate today on a subject very dear to myself and certainly to most Canadians because of recent events that have affected a great number of Canadians, that is, the matter of water and the protection of our water resources.

Certainly the bill is supportable and our party intends to support it, but it is really unfortunate that this is the best we could do. The bill comes forward to amend a law in Canada that has been on the books since 1909, I believe. It really does not address the real issues surrounding water that Canadians are so concerned about.

The bill comes forward as a result, I think, of a dismal failure on the part of the Mulroney government of some years ago to protect the sovereignty of Canadian water in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I remember that there was a lot of discussion at the time and a lot of concerns were expressed by Canadians. In fact, a part of the negotiations that was so important to Canada was the protection of water. There was a lot of rhetoric flying back and forth as to whether or not water in fact was included in the free trade agreement. It has certainly since been concluded that it is not exempted from the free trade agreement and that in fact Canada has a real problem with the protection of its sovereignty over water resources.

We all remember very clearly, during the federal election campaign of 1993, the current Prime Minister's pledge to open up the free trade agreement with the U.S. to include water in one of the articles as being exempted from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Of course that did not happen and I think most clear thinking Canadians knew it would not happen, that it was not possible to make it happen without opening up the agreement and addressing a number of issues that the U.S. government was willing to look at and wanted included. I think probably one of those issues that is very dear to Ontario and Quebec is the issue of supply managed industries that receive protection under the free trade agreement. As a result we really did not get any of the protection we were looking for.

Since 1993, of course, there has been a lot of attention paid to water and its protection, not only protection from export and interbasin transfer but certainly protection from pollution, as well as the safety of water for human consumption. More than ever Canadians and people all around the world now are beginning to recognize the value of their water resources. Water is a primary ingredient for life on this planet and while years ago we did not give a lot of thought to it in Canada because we had such an abundance of it and it was so pristine, we never gave a lot of thought to the need for protection of our water supply. The events in Walkerton that resulted in a number of people losing their lives and many more people being very ill because of a pollutant in a water supply, and then again events this last summer in North Battleford, have brought home in a real way how precious our water resources are and how we Canadians must move to protect them in any way possible.

As a youngster growing up in rural northern Alberta and northern Ontario, I found that it was not uncommon when we were camping or engaging in business in remote and wild parts of the country to simply access without any treatment whatsoever the water supply available to us for drinking, cooking and bathing. For thousands of years Canada's aboriginal people accessed the water supply in Canada on just such a basis, never giving much thought to whether that water was safe to drink or safe to cook with. That certainly is no longer the case.

It does not matter whether we are in the densely populated regions of Ontario or in the wilds of the Canadian Arctic, it can no longer be taken for granted that we can kneel down and drink the water that is before us. That water could make us sick or perhaps even kill us.

It has come to the forefront of everyone's thinking that we need to do something to protect our water. The bill, minimal as it is, certainly is at least an attempt to do something to protect at least waters under federal jurisdiction, the boundary waters over which we have shared jurisdiction with the U.S. government. It is a small step in the right direction but we need much more. We need to go much further. In essence we need to protect the sovereignty of Canada's water. I do not mean simply banning these grandiose schemes to export Canada's water to other countries or other basins.

In Canada we have a huge supply of fresh water. I believe we have something like 9% of the world supply of fresh water. We should have every right to use that water and those water resources for the benefit of Canadians. I firmly believe that those water resources will become even more valuable than the natural energy resources that Canada is currently and has for a long time been developing. This freshwater resource has the potential to be one of the most valuable resources in the world. I think we must have the right as a country to manage those resources, firstly for the benefit of Canadians. Under the free trade agreement with the United States, if we try to use those water resources for the benefit of Canadians immediately we are open to legal action for not allowing equal access to those water resources to Americans.

Because of the failure of the past two governments to address this issue, we already have hugely costly legal action filed against Canada under the free trade agreement resulting from a scheme to move glacier water from British Columbia to the United States. Those schemes will continue to come forward. The bill only addresses any such schemes that would take place within the boundary waters of shared jurisdiction, but there is a lot more water out there than those boundary waters and it does need that protection.

This summer I travelled through southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and across the northwest regions of the United States, all of which are suffering from a severe drought that has been happening in those regions over the past year or two. It becomes more and more evident how valuable that water resource is. Those parts of southern Alberta and Saskatchewan and the northwestern United States simply are turning into deserts. Very little is growing. These huge areas that once were such valuable food producing regions are severely restricted because of the lack of water to grow crops.

Certainly if one travels through those areas that have access to irrigation supplies and can actually put water on the land the difference is absolutely amazing. It is like an oasis in the middle of the desert. Those areas are producing huge crops with great economic benefits for the regions and the people involved.

I suspect this will continue to be the case or will even get worse, to the point where the United States will look northward with an eye to accessing our freshwater supplies to help produce the food the people of their country need. Before that happens I believe that we as a country and a government have a responsibility to be prepared and have in place regulations and laws that will in fact allow Canadians, first and foremost, to benefit from those water resources. Only afterward, if we as a country so decide, should we benefit from the wealth that we might obtain by sharing that resource with areas that need it to produce food.

That may not happen in my lifetime or for a long time, but at some point, if water continues to become scarcer in northern California and throughout the northwest and midwest U.S., it is inevitable that people will realize the potential to be gained from the use of our water resources, huge amounts of which flow every year into the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, Hudson's Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. At some point, I believe, we will look at what benefit could be gained from the development of that flow of water and from directing that water resource to areas of the world that desperately need fresh water to feed their populations. Again, I certainly think we have to be prepared to do that.

Unfortunately, as I said, the bill amends a treaty signed between Canada and the United States back in 1909 and is simply a feeble attempt to address the concerns of Canadians about water and the NAFTA agreement and how it affects us. As long as we in Canada can prevent water from being traded, either interprovincially or internationally, then the concern over how it is treated under NAFTA is not an issue. However, the minute we allow water to become a commodity it becomes part of the NAFTA agreement and we then have no right under that agreement to restrict the use or the development of that water to Canadians only. We will have to open it up, certainly to the U.S. as well, but the provisions in the bill for licensing and the penalties that would be imposed for breaches of this particular law should be adequate and should do the job.

I have been in the House for some nine years now. Again, like almost every bill that has come through the House, the bill vests more authority in the governor in council, the Prime Minister and his cabinet to govern and to change laws through regulation rather than bring the issues back to the House to let Canada's parliament debate them and vote on the amendments. That is the wrong way to go. I believe that for the sake of spreading knowledge and gaining the support of Canadians these issues should be dealt with by parliament. That is what our job is and that is what we should be doing.

I am disappointed this is the best the government could do to address the concerns of Canadians about our water supply. It should have been done a long time ago. The government should be pressing much harder through the international trade minister, the foreign affairs minister and the natural resources minister to address issues not addressed in the bill such as water other than boundary water. However we in the Canadian Alliance will support the bill when it comes time for the vote. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-6, an Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.

[Points Of Order, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thought some information out of the auditor general's report for October 2000 might be helpful to you in making your decision on this. I would like to quote a couple of sections that are relevant to what the member for St. Albert was objecting to from section 17, page 19.

Section 17.63 states:

Downsview Park was capitalized by $2.9 million of surplus funds generated by property management activities at Downsview Park base up to 31 March 1999. Leasing revenues for the next four years are expected to exceed $20 million.

Section 17.64 states:

Half the land (300 acres) will be used for commercial or residential development. The other 300 acres will be developed as a park. Downsview Park expects that commercial and residential development will generate more than $145 million over the next 15 years for developing and operating the park.

It is pretty clear from the report that the government is in the business of land development. I suggest that is not a role the government should have. This is clearly outside the authority of government and it is not acting in the best interests as it should be.

[Agriculture, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta provincial government has offered $73 million in emergency drought relief to the province's livestock and honey producers. The PFRA, supposedly existing to help farmers with water supply, ran out of money four days after the renewal of this year's budget.

Again, what will the government do to help farmers with this crisis of drought conditions?

[Agriculture, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government has officially declared the province a drought disaster area. Almost 90% of the provincial agricultural area does not have enough soil moisture for annual cropping this year.

In my riding conditions are reminiscent of the dust bowl of the 1930s with precipitation at 20% of the last 50 year average. Farmers are crippled by this drought and it could get worse. Forage crops in many areas have already been lost and forest fire conditions have been extreme in northern central Alberta for some weeks.

What is the government prepared to do to help farmers deal with these extreme drought conditions?

[Taxation, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the government did not have to consult with the provinces before it raised gas taxes, so as the senior level of government why will it not show some leadership, cut gas taxes and provide relief to Canadian motorists?

[Taxation, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last year in Canada gasoline averaged 41 cents a litre before tax. At the same time in the U.S. the average price of a litre of gasoline was 47 cents before tax. Yet after taxes a Canadian litre costs 71.2 cents whereas an American litre would cost 62 cents, a difference of 9 cents a litre because of the different tax rates.

The current energy crisis is an American crisis, but Canadian consumers are paying more than U.S. consumers for gas. Given that Canadians are now paying all time record prices for gasoline, when will the government provide tax relief for gasoline prices?

[Census Day, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, have you mailed in your census form yet? I certainly hope so, because today is Census Day and according to the government everyone should be mailing in their forms today.

The problem as I see it is that there are large numbers of people who are very uncomfortable with the current census form and some of the questions that are asked.

I find it difficult to explain to my constituents why the government needs to know the answers to questions such as what religion they practise. It seems to me that we split church and state quite a few years ago. Other questions that have raised eyebrows include who pays the rent, how many bedrooms are in a person's home and are any repairs needed.

The government insists that our census information is absolutely private and will not be accessed by anyone other than census officials, except maybe for HRDC officials who in the past used census information to put together a list on every Canadian in the country.

By all means, Canadians should mail in their census. They just should not be too surprised if the tax collector happens to know whether a husband and wife sleep in the same bed.