Catherine Bell

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly ask a question of my hon. colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan who does tremendous work on the aboriginal committee of the House. She talked about the living conditions of first nations and how there is no new funding to address these terrible conditions. I have seen that firsthand in my community of Vancouver Island North. Many reserves are in those conditions.

I met with the chiefs in my riding to talk about the budget because I wanted to know what they thought about it. They were so frustrated and angry at the lack of any significant funding. No new funding for them means cuts to programs that are already in place.

They also told me that there was no money in the budget for treaty settlements. That is something that they have been working long and hard for. There is no incentive by the government to settle treaties.

What impacts does my hon. colleague see that this will have on first nations who are living in crisis today?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member's comments on his idyllic lifestyle of the past, he talks about something that my generation has not experienced in a large way, and that is the one wage-earner family. For my children and the next generation, we have and will have more and more highly educated young people who, when they get married and start a family, will both need work to make ends meet.

The hon. member's point of view is a thing of the past. The Cleavers are now a rerun. The parents in a two wage-earner family are working sometimes more than one part time job to make ends meet, working more and earning less, with all the expenses they have, the higher housing costs and those kinds of things. The government's budget is based on spend first and then get a rebate but these families cannot afford to do that so they are left out. They find themselves having to scramble to make ends meet.

I am just wondering why this budget did not include a national child care program that was affordable and that would be accessible to families, instead of this $100 a month that gets cut off when a child turns six; a national housing program that would help make housing more affordable for ordinary Canadians; and free prescription drugs for ordinary families.

In their election campaign the Conservatives talked about having a catastrophic drug plan and about home care for our seniors who would rather be in their own houses living in dignity, and yet we have seen nothing. I am wondering why the budget did not include those kinds of supports.

[Human Resources and Skills Development, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, why did the minister not take into consideration the backlog when he made his signing authority changes? This is becoming just like the summer jobs program debacle and the passport fiasco, and there is more.

Now the minister has instituted a five day waiting period from the time he approves job funding to when the project gets notified. Why? So he can put forward a press release.

Why is the minister more interested in media creation than job creation? Why does he make us wait?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government created a backlog when it changed the levels at which Human Resources and Skills Development Canada contracts for job creation programs need to be signed by the minister.

Projects that have a short turnaround for approval, such as the completion of the North Coast Trail in my riding, have been waiting for weeks instead of days. This project should be up and running now.

When will the minister clean up his desk and sign a JCP so we can complete the North Coast Trail?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member wants to stop human trafficking. That is very honourable and something which we would all like to see in the world.

I sat in on the status of women standing committee one time when someone talked about the film, The Natashas, and spoke about the trafficking of women. Women were coming from Romania and they had no idea that they were coming to be sex trade workers, exotic dancers or other things. They thought they were coming to be nannies and child care workers. We know this goes on in the world and it is something that needs to be stopped. I commend her on this bill.

The status of women committee made a full report in February. It had many recommendations in it. I would like to ask the hon. member if her party will be following up on the recommendations, recommendations such as giving border guards adequate training so that they can ask the right questions and recognize women who are being taken across the border, possibly against their will, into professions in which they do not want to work. Will the government be implementing those recommendations?

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do sit on the natural resources committee and her work on environmental issues has been very good and we do share a lot in common on those issues.

However, the one thing that we do not share in common with the Bloc is on the issue of national policy versus provincial policy. The Bloc sees many issues as provincial jurisdiction, whereas we see them as national jurisdiction. Child care is one of them, water is another and environmental regulations, in some respects, is another.

When her party looks at forest policy as being provincial, I must ask my colleague why, in the face of the softwood lumber deal, her party supported that deal when mills are now closing and jobs are disappearing, not only in Quebec but across the country. Now the Bloc needs to go to the U.S. to change its forest policy. On so many levels, we would be better off with national policies as opposed to provincial policies.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the parliamentary committee was told by the government's own people that once the export of bulk water starts, foreign investors can sue the Government of Canada if they are denied access to bulk water exports.

I think the member is wrong on many levels in his comments. The NDP does understand what happens with the export of bulk water. Canadians across the country are demanding that the federal government withdraw any talks of bulk water exports from any international trade discussions. They know full well, as does the member, that if we go down this slippery slope and export our bulk water that we will lose control of it. We will lose our sovereignty over bulk water.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me today and for his work on the international trade committee. We have heard his passion and dedication. His work on this file is where this motion comes from. It is a result of the direct work that the NDP did at this committee. I know the hon. member works long and hard there.

I want to talk about water policy and water in general. Water is vital to people's health and livelihoods. In Canada we do not have a national water policy. We do not have a strategy to address urgent water issues. We have heard that there is no federal leadership to conserve and protect our water.

Our federal water policy is over 20 years old and is badly outdated. There is a growing list of the crisis facing our freshwater, including contamination, shortages, and pressures to export to the United States and Mexico through pipelines and diversions.

The government needs to implement a comprehensive national water policy. What should that policy include? For starters, it should include a ban on the bulk export of water. Water is a finite resource and Canada has about 20% of the world's freshwater supply but only 7% of the world's renewable freshwater. The rest of the water is trapped in ice, snow and glaciers. Unfortunately, we are losing that part of our trapped water supply.

Canada and the United States share interconnected water systems. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 45 million people. The Great Lakes charter annex agreement was signed back in December 2005 by Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states. This will allow diversions through permissive exceptions, but it does not guarantee a strong role for the Government of Canada to preserve and protect our water supply.

North Dakota is just one state that is facing water shortages. It is looking north for a new supply through diversions and inter-basin transfers.

Bulk water exports and diversions would leave Canada's water vulnerable to environmental depletion and to international trade challenges that could permanently open the floodgates to the parched U.S. states.

A new national water policy must ban the export of water, implement strict restrictions on diversions, and affirm the role of the federal government in international water issues. Once water is a commodity, there will be no chance to turn off the tap.

In April of this year, as my colleague mentioned, we learned about a document produced by a Washington think tank revealing that business and government leaders in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are actively discussing bulk water exports. They met in Calgary on April 27 of this year to discuss the issue in a closed door meeting as part of a larger discussion on North American integration. This is something that thousands and thousands of Canadians are totally opposed to.

These meetings have many Canadians concerned about the government's direction with regard to the protection of this precious resource. I support the recommendations that the government quickly begins talks with their American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

Our thirsty neighbours to the south do not lack sufficient water resources. What they have is unsustainable urban sprawl and mismanagement of their resources. It is important to exclude water from NAFTA because NAFTA is designed to protect trade above all else. Water could be traded and exported even if it had a negative impact on Canada. We see that with our oil exports. We export 60% of our oil to the U.S. Even if Canada had a shortage, we would still have to do that.

There are many reasons why Canada needs a national water policy. In the year 2000 seven people died in the community of Walkerton, Ontario, when their drinking water was contaminated with the E. coli virus.

In 2001 more than 7,000 people were made sick during a three month period by parasite infected water in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.

In 2005 the people of Kashechewan, a Cree community in Ontario, were forced to evacuate their homes because of water contamination, and there are still problems in Kashechewan today, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has so passionately pointed out on many occasions in the House.

According to the Government of Canada, municipalities issue hundreds of boil water advisories a year, most as a result of water contamination.

Since December 16, 2006, hundreds of boil water advisories have been issued for first nations communities in Canada. This is an alarming trend. We see ourselves as a very clean, safe country, yet issue hundreds of boil water advisories. A new national water policy must create national clean drinking water standards, something that we do not have.

Communities across this country are in desperate need of money to pay for water pipes and filtration systems, which are now the responsibility of municipal governments. These governments are looking to private investors to rebuild infrastructure through public private partnerships.

Water is a public health and safety concern and is best managed, regulated and financed by public systems that are accountable to their communities. If we lose that accountability, we lose control of our water.

When for profit interests control drinking water, the quality decreases and costs increase, and there are many examples of municipalities which have gone down the P3 road far enough to learn that it is a bad deal for their communities.

The federal government has tied infrastructure money in its 2007 budget to public private partnerships. It is forcing municipalities down a very slippery slope to privatization and the loss of control of municipal water supply and management. A new national water policy must commit to the federal government investment plan for municipalities.

Water is essential for all life, but it is a finite resource. Even in Canada, a water rich nation as I said earlier, one-quarter of Canadian municipalities have faced shortages and currently one-third rely on groundwater, a resource on which we have dangerously little data to provide for daily needs.

Water shortages in the prairies cost $5 billion in economic damage in 2001. We should think what $5 billion could buy in infrastructure for some of these communities which are sorely lacking.

At the same time, Canadians waste a tremendous amount of water every day. A new national water policy must implement a comprehensive conservation strategy and invest in water resource research and monitoring. Simple things such as turning off the tap while we brush our teeth can save an entire swimming pool of water per person per year. It is as simple as that. However, people need information to go on.

The North American Free Trade Agreement defines water as a service and an investment, leaving Canadian water vulnerable to thirsty foreign investors. Once Canada allows water to be withdrawn and transported to other countries for large scale industrial purposes, foreign investors must be given the same national treatment as Canadian companies. A new national water policy must also ensure that water does not become a tradable commodity in current and future trade deals.

Canada should also oppose the privatization of water as it allows for some of the worst human rights violations. We saw this in Ecuador, where the water supply became so expensive after being privatized that ordinary people could not afford it. Only the wealthy had access to water. This caused a revolt in the community when ordinary families had no other alternative but to demand access to their water. Recognizing the right to water would allow international law to address issues of unequal distribution, and safe water for drinking and sanitation in other countries.

Canadians are concerned about the lack of the current position on bulk water exports. The Conservative Party did nothing in the election to address growing concerns about the stability and quality of Canada's water supply.

Canadians know that the free market does not guarantee access to water, that bulk water exports could open the floodgates to trade challenges, that Canada's water supply is limited, that public water is safer, cleaner and more affordable, and that water is essential for people and nature.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam for her concerns. I know that every member who lives on any salmon bearing river on the coast of British Columbia has to be concerned about the details of this act and what has been happening in the fishery for a number of years. We have seen a marked decline in our salmon stocks and other populations of fish. It is a sad indictment of what has been happening.

As others have said, it is a loss of our culture. Salmon has been the culture of my riding for many thousands of years, especially for first nations. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also mentioned the oolichan trail, the grease trail. We have what is known as the grease trail in my riding, which runs from one side of the island to the other. It was used for many generations by first nations to transport the grease back and forth from their communities. They would catch the oolichan on one side and bring the grease over to the other.

They still make grease out of salmon and other fish that are quite oily. Their way of life is disappearing, sadly, and they are feeling that loss. They have spoken to me many times about the loss of one more piece of their culture if we lose any more of our salmon.

A number of months ago I wrote a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and talked about the volunteer organizations in my riding and how they are the very backbone of habitat protection and management. The minister recognized this and said yes, we need to support these people, but unfortunately, as I said in my remarks, they are not being supported. The DFO has made many promises to them and has not followed through. Whether it is a lack of resources, funding or commitment--

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for his lengthy questions, I am not surprised to hear that he does not agree with me as I of course am opposing something that his government has put forward.

I do not think I need to explain a Supreme Court ruling to the member. I think he can read it for himself and see how definitive it is.

With regard to consultation, as I said earlier in my remarks, and as I have heard from other members in this House and from the member who asked the question, the government had consultations for six or seven years. I am not sure how many years it was, but it is interesting how no one knew that it was going on in those six or seven years. It behooves me to think about all these organizations, the fisheries groups, the environmental organizations, the sport fishers, the lodge owners and the commercial fishermen, and how they did not know about these consultations and were never consulted even if the consultations were going on for so long. Perhaps the member could provide us with a list of those he consulted with so we can see that.

As for the fisheries being a right or a privilege, I want to read something for members. It says:

The new Act considers fishing a “privilege” to be bestowed by the Minister rather than a right. It gives the Minister and his bureaucrats power and authority never contemplated by the current Fisheries Act. It unnecessarily strengthens the hand of the Minister and his bureaucrats and weakens that of fishermen who depend on the resource for their livelihood. It would extinguish the public right to fish which has existed in British constitutional law for over 800 years. It will be a sad day for fishermen if this Act ever receives royal assent.

That was said by the member for Delta—Richmond East, so obviously the member not only disagrees with me but with his colleague from Delta--Richmond East.