Nelson Riis

[The Economy, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in advance of the budget, various trial balloons advocating selective tax cuts and grants were floated. It sounds suspiciously like the old return to the trickle down economic school of thinking.

I want to tell the Minister of Finance that Canadians are sick and tired of being trickled on. I want to ask him a serious question. Will there be enough in the budget to give hope to hardworking Canadians who have recently lost their jobs, lost their businesses, lost their farms, lost their livelihoods, or will they have to wait for the trickle down to occur before anything in terms of hope returns?

[The Budget, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, anybody that has been listening to the comments of the Minister of Finance lately to see the trail of balloons he has been floating will be of the mind that the old trickle down economics is returning, where the pump is primed in terms of selected tax cuts and some special grants with the benefits trickling down.

Canadians are fed up with being trickled on. They want this to stop. They will be watching carefully tomorrow when the Minister of Finance stands in his place. They do not want any more trickling on Canadians. They want some real action for those in need.

[Business Of The House, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have a question for the government House leader. The government has indicated an interest now in announcing a moratorium on bulk water exports. I wonder if he could tell us what day next week that will take place?

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the context in which today's motion takes place, and I agree that it is a much larger context than simply the focus of the motion. She referred on a number of occasions to the co-operation required between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments.

Could she comment as to whether she sees any role at all for aboriginal people in this co-operation and consultation process? Would she agree that, in spite of what some have referred to as a renewable resource, water is not necessarily a renewable resource? If we upset the ecosystem or the drainage basin or whatever, we may find ourselves in a situation where it is no longer a renewable resource. I think of the Aral Sea situation.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We acknowledge that today there are a number of agreements sharing water between Canada and the United States on the small scale. I am thinking Coutts, Alberta and Sweet Grass, Montana and others across the country.

However, let us also acknowledge that the country that wastes more water than any other is the United States. Crops are being grown in parts where they should never be grown. Swimming pools are filled with water from one end of Los Angeles to the other. Green lawns are all over southern California. There is a car wash every third block.

The day is not far off before the United States runs out of water because it abuses it so much. It pollutes and misuses its water resources. We want to send a clear signal that we are not going to be an easy source of bailing it out.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that many in the legal field have argued that under agreements like the FTA and the North American Free Trade Agreement certain commodities were clearly excluded. Beer, logs and culture were named as exclusions and therefore, by implication, presumably everything else is left in. Bottled water was also mentioned.

It is clear that once water enters a container for sale it becomes a good, a commodity or a product. Whether that container is a vessel, a canal, a pipeline or whatever, the concern Canadians have is that we are not protected by the present wording of international agreements like NAFTA. I agree with my hon. friend that if the will is there by all countries then we should.

Let us face it, the northern part of Mexico, particularly in the Maquiladora zone where the big industrial belt is now developing as a result of NAFTA, and in the American southwest which is referred to as the sun belt where the large industries and populations are developing in the agricultural sectors, they are running out of water. It is clear that they are running out of freshwater. The wells and rivers are drying up and every conceivable ounce of that surface water is either being used or is locked up in legal agreements.

As those populations increase they are looking north to Canada as their obvious source to bail them out when the time comes, no pun intended. The issue of having as many cards in our hands as we can when the dealing begins is absolutely crucial.

While people will argue that we can pass legislation here banning exports and pass legislation in the provincial legislations of the country or wherever else, that trade agreement between three sovereign nations takes priority over national, state, provincial or local jurisdictions.

We have to do whatever we can to ensure that freshwater is in adequate supply for future generations of Canadians and that is why this motion is before the House of Commons today.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona for introducing this motion today.

Perhaps by the end of the day we will look back at this being an historic occasion, when the Parliament of Canada for the first time in history says it considers water as unlike any other natural resource in Canada and wants to give it a special priority that it has not given other natural resources.

It is fair to say that one of the major issues of conflict in the early part of the 21st century will be access to freshwater. We understand that Canada has a relatively unique role in this regard in that we are the world's largest reservoir of freshwater with 9% of the globe's volume. If we look at the almost 200 countries identified in the world today, only 3 have an adequate supply into the future of fresh potable water. Canada is one of those.

The issue is crucial for us. As my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona indicated, it is absolutely mandatory that we have a thoughtful and strategic water policy in place as soon as possible. Today we call on the Parliament of Canada to send a very clear message to those who would like to export bulk water from Canada into other jurisdictions as a business commodity. We are calling for an immediate moratorium on bulk water exports and we are asking for immediate legislation to protect Canada's water and to exert our sovereignty over this critical resource for the future.

We know to what extent nations will go to secure access to oil. We have seen wars over this issue in a variety of areas. Let us face it, water is a whole lot more valuable than oil even today where we take it in a rather cavalier way. Today a litre of water costs more than a litre of oil. Still we waste this resource more than any other country with one exception, the United States. It wastes more water than we do but we are second.

Some ask with all this water, why not sell it? We have sold every other resource. Foreign interests have access to every natural resource in Canada except one. As my friend indicated, why not make a stand as a country and say “This is it. We consider water to be unlike oil, coal, codfish, timber or wheat. This is a resource of life itself”. We can go without eating for seven or eight weeks but we cannot go without drinking water for more than a handful of days. It is life itself. Today we have to say clearly that Canada has no excess water to export. There is no such thing as surplus water in an ecosystem. The life along a river's course and watershed is the product of both the high flows and the low flows. If you alter them you change the river.

Diverting water from a salmon river will mean traditional spawning grounds along the river bank will not flood. Taking water from the mouth of a river will deprive the estuary, one of the most productive biological areas on earth, of vital nutrients. Clearly water is not a resource like all others and requires special protection and special strategy in terms of how we are to use it in the future.

My friend has indicated there are many concerns. Being a country that holds 9% of the world's freshwater, it is crucial that we have a water policy in place as soon as possible.

I cannot imagine a single thoughtful person in this country saying that we should not do this and that we should not do it as quickly as we can.

Let us not loose sight of the fact that today could be the beginning of a movement down this crucial pathway to developing a strategic water strategy for our country into the 21st century. Passing a motion in the House does not necessarily accomplish that. The will has to be there as well. In 1989 the House unanimously passed a motion to eradicate child poverty by 2000. Unfortunately things have become a lot worse since then. We have a long way to go before we meet that goal.

Again, it is fair to say that we want to advance this cause. We want to ensure that water in our country is preserved for the use of future generations. Let us face it, if an American community becomes dependent on Canadian water we can imagine the reaction if in some future point we decide to cut it off. We can replace wood with products from another country or with some other building material. But we cannot replace anything with water. Water is a strategic resource. It is a crucial life giving resource.

When it comes to dealing with water Canada's reputation is anything but sterling. We have more water diversion projects than any other country on earth. We have 600 dams and 60 large diversion projects that transfer water between basins. Most of them are part of large hydroelectric projects. We have shown ourselves more willing to alter the life of rivers and lakes for commercial purposes. No other nation even comes close to us in that respect. As my friend from Winnipeg—Transcona indicated, when it comes to dealing, preserving and conserving freshwater in our country our track record is anything but sterling. Perhaps today is the beginning of a new era and a new trend to preserving and conserving Canada's water for the future.

In light of the fact that a number of people have referred to many of the international agreements we have signed, it is difficult to pass legislation that would protect Canadians, protect the Canadian environment, protect water resources and protect the health of Canadians. I refer back to the MMT issue of not long ago where in spite of the efforts of the elected representatives to preserve and save the health of Canadians by passing legislation banning MMT, the government backed off because of the pressure it felt was coming from the United States as a result of agreements that we had made.

I would like to propose an amendment to today's supply day motion:

Between the words “transfers” and “in”, insert, “and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will”.

[Petitions, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present petitions from citizens throughout British Columbia who are calling upon the government to take action on the issue of providing sovereignty over Canada's water. They ask for a ban on bulk water exports to the United States.

This brings to 29,215 the number of residents of the Kamloops area who have signed this or similar petitions.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask a question of my friend, the parliamentary secretary. The government had promised to introduce legislation this year to protect Canada's water. That was actually last year and it is a new year now. Could he bring us any kind of update?

[Petitions, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents from the constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

The petitioners are deeply troubled about what they perceive to be the government's intention not to proceed with legislation to protect the fresh water of Canada. They want to see a moratorium and the introduction of legislation and they keep hearing promises and promises.

They are asking parliament to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a moratorium is called and that appropriate legislation to protect water for future generations of Canadians is introduced as soon as possible.