Bonnie Brown

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On the votes that have just been taken, I believe the whip asked that on Government Business No. 13, Bill C-27 and Bill C-30 the vote from the supply motion apply. I did not understand that but I was present and wanted to vote with the government on all three items.

I stood to vote on Government Business No. 13, but the next two votes were applied from the supply motion from which I had abstained.

Could I have my vote count on Bill C-27 and Bill C-30 with the government.

[Canadian Red Cross, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, March is Red Cross month. For over 100 years the Canadian Red Cross has served our country with dedication and selflessness. Examples include work during the recent ice storm, the Red River and Saguenay floods and indeed probably every natural disaster that Canadians have endured.

Every day Red Cross volunteers and staff are in Canadian homes caring for the elderly and infirm. Last year they trained one million Canadians in water safety and 200,000 in first aid and CPR.

Annually Red Cross staff and the 130,000 volunteers touch the lives of two million Canadians, giving more than eight million hours of service.

During March let us extend our thanks to the Canadian Red Cross for its past and present service. The future of Canada is a future of continued partnership with the Canadian Red Cross.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I find this post-budget debate rather amusing.

We find that the party of the right, the Reform Party, is emphasizing the reduction of debt and lower taxes, which one expects. We find the party of the left, the NDP, wants us to spend more on programs. That is understandable also. But at least these two parties are clear where they stand.

We find the leader of the PC party still on the horns of the same dilemma he faced in the election campaign, finding most of his support in the maritimes, which usually want more spending, and yet still trying to pretend to be a party of fiscal responsibility. He suggested that the minister should have a red face. It is my contention that the Tory leader should have a red face for even pretending to comment on this budget after the mess the last PC government left this country in.

He suggested that we embrace the policies of the PC government. While it is true that the PC government articulated some of the policies which we have embraced and we have implemented, the problem for it was that it did not have the courage to implement any of those policies. That is why we were left 10 years later with a Canada pension plan that had not been revised. We are the party that had the courage to set the fiscal house in order.

The Liberals, they say, abandoned the policy of projecting UI figures. Of course we abandoned the policy of long term projections because Canadians had totally lost faith in long term projections after years of the Tories missing every projection they ever made. Our two year rolling targets are far more realistic because we have hit our targets and indeed have exceeded our targets.

He comments on the cost of Pearson airport. The Canadian people are happy to have Pearson airport now in the hands of a non-profit local airport authority where the profits are poured back into the public facility as opposed to lining the pockets of friends of the former government.

He suggested certain provincial finance ministers are condemning the budget. But we expect that because provincial finance ministers always want more money and more power. What we have to point out to the Canadian people is this. Yes, we did reduce the transfers to the provincial governments but by a percentage that was less than what we cut our own program spending by.

If the people, for example, in the province of Ontario are noticing a difference in health and education programming they might look to their own premier who cut that spending by five times the amount that we cut our transfers by. So they will be smart enough to lay the blame where it belongs, at the desk of the provincial premier.

However, my question for the leader of the Progressive Conservatives is this. When are we and his supporters, who are few but there in the west of Canada, in Ontario, indeed in my riding, going to find out whether he really stands for keeping the fiscal house in order and cutting spending or whether he stands for all the money to reducing the debt, or whether he stands for, as the people in Nova Scotia want, lots and lots of spending?

When is he going to be clear and honest with the Canadian people as to where his party sits on the political spectrum so that they can decide whether they support him?

[Computers For Schools, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

The computers for schools program is supposed to prepare Canadian students for success in the knowledge based economy. I want to know when this program will benefit the students in my riding and those right across the country.

[Rights Of Children, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the social problem of child labour challenges people of conscience around the world. A solution is not simple because in some countries the child worker's income is vital to the family's survival.

Canada's strategy focuses on children's rights, the right to health and the right to education. Our CIDA funding targets primary schooling and child care and seeks to strengthen the position of women in society.

Today in Oslo at the International Organization of Labour Conference, Canada joins 39 other countries in drafting an agenda for action by the international community in order to protect children from harmful and exploitative forms of child labour.

Let us all hope that Canada can build another consensus as positive for children as the one we are now forging on land mines.

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this second opportunity to talk about the multilateral agreement on investment.

Any international agreement on investment, once achieved, will take us another step further down the road toward globalization of all economic activity. Some people view this as a positive step but I do not perceive either a broad knowledge of this agreement or a broad consensus on its value.

While among the business elite it is politically correct to see free trade of any kind as a good thing, some Canadians remain unconvinced. For example, those who lost their good manufacturing jobs south of the border feel bruised by the free trade agreement of 1989 and the NAFTA of 1994. Naturally they are worried about further steps toward globalization.

Beyond that group there is a larger group of Canadians. This group feels that all the repercussions of NAFTA have not yet been felt and that the collection and analysis of data on its effects have not been presented to them. They remember what was promised if they took the leap of faith and went for free trade on this continent. They were promised free access to the large market to the south. That access and the resulting increase in business was supposed to give us economies of scale, improve our productivity and thereby make us more competitive in the new global economy.

Leaders in the steel industry tell me that the promised access on a level playing field to U.S. markets is still blocked by irritants based on American law. So certainly in one of our primary industries the current agreement with the U.S. and Mexico did not deliver the promised access.

We all agree that the key to competitiveness and success in the global marketplace is productivity. Has Canadian productivity increased as a result of NAFTA? Two respected columnists in two different newspapers have said no. Before free trade, Canadian productivity was under 10% less than American productivity, but today Canadian productivity is 20% less than American productivity. I am aware that exports and investment are both up but most economists agree that it is due to our low Canadian dollar and our low interest rates, not free trade.

The MAI is supposed to bring in one set of rules to replace the multitude of agreements in place today. As a medium sized economy, a rules based system should work to Canada's advantage. But that is only true if the rules represent our values, our mixed economy and our business culture, not the cutthroat values of the unregulated marketplace held up by some as the best environment for business.

I believe Canadians are worried about the impact of the further globalization represented by the MAI. Canadians agreed to the free trade agreement as a leap of faith. They agreed to NAFTA accompanied by definitions of subsidy and dumping, definitions that have not yet been agreed upon. I do not believe Canadians are willing to buy another deal arranged behind closed doors, then delivered as an unamendable package to be fast tracked through Parliament.

How is the minister going to ensure that all interested Canadians are made aware of the controversial aspects of MAI and have an opportunity to express their opinions before the MAI package emerges from the negotiations now under way in Europe?

[Hockey, October 22nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, questions about Canadian identity and unity have been debated for decades, but such debates have little relevance to the daily lives of Canadians.

One reality in our lives is that at this time of year our children are heading back to ice rinks to play a game ingrained in our identity. It is fall and therefore it must be the start of hockey season. Clearly hockey is Canada's great unifying force. We have all just been reminded of the enormous pride we felt at Team Canada's great victory in 1972.

In backyard rinks and community arenas, people are lacing up their skates to take part in a Canadian tradition. Therefore it is appropriate to thank the dedicated families and volunteers who facilitate Canada's game, for they are the torch bearers of an integral part of Canadian identity, unity, heritage and pride: the game of hockey.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member for Madawaska—Restigouche to the debate.

I feel that having been here in the previous Parliament I should clarify some of the misconceptions which he expressed in his speech.

He mentioned that there were no consultations on the CPP changes. That is simply not true. Members will know that the CPP is a joint program of the federal and provincial governments and the law requires that both agree. Last spring a member of the government led consultations in every major city across the country. Not only was he present but other members from the government side were present and their counterparts of the provincial governments came to hear the witnesses with them. Those witnesses included representatives of most seniors groups, and even some young people came to make their views known. Consultations were held.

I am glad that the member agrees that there is a need for reform. I feel that it is too bad that other members of his party when they had the chance to bring these reforms about 10 years ago did not see the light as he has. He complains that we only brought forward the reforms in 1997 when they were due in 1996. There was an opportunity in 1986 to begin these changes which would have meant less dramatic changes had it been done then.

I wonder if the member agrees that perhaps his party when it was in power should have moved then in order to lessen the burden today.

[International Trade, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

In my constituency of Oakville I am receiving letters of concern about our negotiations toward a multilateral agreement on investment.

Is the minister prepared to ensure that there will be public consultations on the MAI and, if so, what mechanisms is he planning to use?

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the private member's bill put forward by the member for Kamloops. It seems appropriate that a bill to oppose water export has been introduced in the House by the member from British Columbia. No other province has figured as prominently over the past three decades in proposals to export fresh water from this country. He is justifiably concerned about this state of affairs, which I would like to review briefly.

In the 1960s the most publicized of all the mega schemes to redistribute continental water resources was the North American Water and Power Alliance, sometimes called NAWAPA, designed by the Ralph Parsons engineering firm of Los Angeles. It was premised on the capture of headwaters of the Yukon, Skeena, Peace, Columbia and Fraser Rivers and their storage in the huge Rocky Mountain trench of British Columbia before diversion elsewhere.

Geologists questioned the capacity of the trench to bear the weight of such a massive reservoir without increasing earthquake and slide hazards. In a mountainous province where habitable lowland is at a premium, planners were reluctant to take the risks that such a mega scheme implied. Agricultural acreage, wildlife habitat and communities as large as Prince George could be flooded out. West-east rail and road links between B.C. and the rest of Canada could be disrupted by this creation of such a huge reservoir. At the time, British Columbians were already experiencing enough valley floods in projects serving the Columbia River treaty and Peace River power projects and so the NAWAPA scheme was rejected.

In the mid-1980s, however, the provincial government in Victoria decided to entertain another form of fresh water export, inviting applications for marine transport from streams in its coastal region. When drought struck, American southwest communities like Santa Barbara looked north for supplemental supplies and B.C. entrepreneurs were quick to respond with supertanker proposals. Just as the first contract was about to be signed 1991, however, the province was forced by public controversy to declare a moratorium on this development. Problems included aboriginal land claims and a proliferation of applications by various proponents to draw fresh water from the same source region. As well there were concerns about navigation hazards and fisheries protection. This moratorium was replaced in 1995 by provincial legislation banning bulk water export of any kind.

This 1995 legislation effectively scuttled another interbasin transfer scheme. Multinational Water and Power Incorporated planned to divert 1 million acre-feet of flow from the North Thompson River to the Columbia River where it would flow across the international boundary and then be sent by pipeline to the Shasta reservoir in California. This was the proposal which motivated the hon. member for Kamloops to rally his constituency and neighbouring communities in opposition and to table well over 100,000 signatures in this House toward that end. Had the proposal not fallen flat among British Columbians, it might well have had a difficult time anyway passing existing federal hurdles, namely the approvals required under the International River Improvements Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act.

Meanwhile smaller exports of water have proceeded in several forms. Treated water from greater Vancouver regional district pipelines serves the community of Point Roberts in Washington. Ground water supplies in the northern Okanagan Valley are trucked in bulk to bottling plants south of the border. And of course bottled water is exported. These represent negligible volumes at present compared with available resources.

There is no conflict between the B.C. legislation and the federal water policy which was tabled in this House in 1987. The policy opposes large scale water export, as by diversion of lakes or rivers, but allows for consideration of small scale exports under provincial licensing, providing that federal interests such as navigation, fisheries, aboriginal rights and external trade and treaties are taken into account.

The Government of Canada therefore supports B.C.'s decision to prohibit the large scale or bulk export of fresh water from the provinces. The province's legislative initiative will encourage a growing water bottling industry and at the same time protect its salmon fishery and other public values.

As the hon. member for Kamloops suggested, the last chapter of the water export story has not been written. Further proposals will appear in response to international crisis or opportunities. If British Columbia has passed legislation specifically to address the water export issue to its own satisfaction, the federal government and other provinces have not taken the same path.

The issue and its many dimensions continue to evolve. It is more than likely that the British Columbia approach, which simply prohibits bulk water export, will not be the solution chosen by all other jurisdictions in Canada. Newfoundland, for example, has decided to take advantage of the latitude allowed by the federal water policy to explore small scale trade opportunities from supertanker exports.

Ontario realizes that protection of its Great Lakes advantages depends less on unilateral declarations against exports than on forming a common bond with neighbouring state governments in this international drainage system.

It is clear that the hon. member's bill is too narrow to resolve the longstanding water export issue. It addresses one prominent threat to Canada's water heritage, proposals for the diversion of lakes and rivers to flow to the United States. But it ignores other means by which water can be exported and it does not offer a framework of national applicability suitable for adoption by the Government of Canada.

I suggest that it is not necessary to rush Bill C-232 into law in order to save Canada's water resources from being lost to foreign markets. There is enough time for the federal government to consult with provinces and public interests about a more comprehensive approach that would apply across the country, one which is sensitive to the various water resources of our various provinces

and territories and one which will sustain Canada's regional and national advantages over the long term.