Stan Dromisky

[Privilege, April 24th, 1997]

Yes, I sent you a note, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, that is April 23, in this House the member for North Vancouver made a statement during question period and made reference to a householder that I had published.

First correction, it was not a householder. It was a 10 percenter. However, there is a mystery involved here. I demand that there be some attempt to solve this mystery.

There were only two places where that 10 percenters existed yesterday on the Hill. One of them was in my office and the other was in boxes in the post office on the first floor of the West Block.

It may be just a coincidence that the member for North Vancouver has an office right next door to the post office and somehow obtained a copy of that publication.

[Committees Of The House, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating to a study of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's foreign workers policy.

The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days of its presentation to the House, in accordance with Standing Order 109.

I would like to thank Santosh Sirpaul, clerk of the committee, and Margaret Young, researcher from the Library of Parliament, for their devotion to the task and the fantastic job they have done. I send my best to all the members of the committee for their devotion to the task as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of fresh water export has troubled Canadians for at least three decades. There are new dimensions in the 1990s, however, which were not part of the debate in the 1960s.

Public concern has been heightened, for example, by aboriginal resistance to export proposals threatening their traditional areas and by recent predictions that global warming could result in losses of water availability of about 20 per cent for some of the settled regions of the country.

At the same time, we should be aware that there is, as of this date, no significant export of water resources from Canada, only a little trade in beverages and some small exchanges of treated supplies between neighbouring border communities. No lakes or rivers in Canada have been diverted out of their natural courses to flow south of the border. No supertankers have departed Canadian shores under contract to deliver bulk water supplies to overseas destinations. That is the reality of our present situation.

There have been, and there will continue to be, of course, proposals for water export which range from the use of pipelines and tanker trucks to draw on groundwater reserves, to marine transport from coastal streams, to the more grandiose schemes involving large scale diversions of rivers. All of these proposals

have the potential to affect the social, environmental and economic benefits Canadians derive from their water resources.

For this reason it is of paramount importance that the issue of water export be considered in its entirety, that we do not develop solutions to one problem at a time at the expense of a more comprehensive approach to this whole issue.

Over the last 30 years, concern about exports of Canada's water resources has risen primarily as a result of proposals to divert massive amounts of water to the United States to deal with water shortages or to allow for increased agricultural, industrial and urban development in areas in the United States with limited supplies. Concern has also focused on the possibility that once these taps are turned on, it would be very difficult to turn them off.

Several of these megaprojects are worth mentioning. One of the best known is the North American water and power alliance project of the 1960s. It involved the diversion of water from Alaska, northwestern Canada and watersheds surrounding Hudson Bay and James Bay to the dry, arid areas of the western United States, the prairie provinces and northern Mexico.

Another megaproject was the grand recycling and northern development grand canal project which would have transferred James Bay into a freshwater lake by building a dike at its northern end and impounding the rivers that empty into the bay. The flows of rivers would have been reversed to deliver water to the Great Lakes and from there to other destinations in North America.

These megaprojects, while having the potential to create jobs and investment in Canada in the short term, would not benefit Canadian society in the long term.

With 9 per cent of the world's renewable fresh water resources, it is easy for us to assume that Canada has an abundance of water and can support limited export of its water resources. This perception is not well founded. The idea that if we do not use all the water, it is somehow wasted fails to recognize that there is no surplus of water in an ecosystem. All the water serves a purpose in sustaining the dynamics and functions of that ecosystem.

Thus, although Canada would seem to possess substantial water resources there are regions in Canada in which scarcities exist or will exist. These areas include the river basins of the Okanagan, Milk, South Saskatchewan and the Red-Assiniboine Rivers, as well as nearly all of the smaller river basins of southern Ontario.

Within this context it is worth considering whether we would be better served by addressing all means of water export and not limiting discussion to interbasin transfers. Bill C-232 also mentions a need for policy, research and consultations among federal, provincial and territorial governments on the subject of interbasin water transfers within Canada. It provides no guidance, however, in this area.

That is unfortunate because Canadians have a great deal of experience with interbasin transfer projects. In fact, the volume of water transferred across drainage basin boundaries in Canada is several times greater than in any other country in the world. Virtually all of the larger existing interbasin diversion projects support hydroelectric power generation with smaller volumes used for irrigation, municipal supply and flood control.

Members of the House will be interested to know that the largest of these projects was constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then construction and expansion of such megaprojects have been shelved in all regions of the country: the Kemano Alcan project in British Columbia; the Nelson River program in Manitoba, expansion of the James Bay hydro project in Quebec.

Energy demands have fallen and it is less costly to promote efficiencies on the part of the users of energy and water, rather than to continue to develop the new supplies.

The federal water policy addresses Canada's experience with interbasin transfer projects, but advocating caution in considering their needs, and by endorsing other less destructive alternatives such as demand management and water conservation.

There are no plans under consideration to proceed with any further interbasin transfers at this time anywhere in this country. That tells us two things of importance.

First, not only do Canadians oppose the large scale diversion of our lakes and rivers across the international boundary, they have learned from experience that interbasin diversions carry a high price for their own regional economies and environments.

Second, it would be shortsighted to pursue this issue in isolation of the larger context which considers changing public values, competing in complementary water use relationships and governmental priorities.

Federal programs and legislation related to the sustainability of Canada's water resources are currently being reviewed and the issues of export and interbasin transfers should be addressed in that larger context.

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I also have a very significant petition signed by 8,600 citizens from Thunder Bay, Terrace Bay, Kakabeka Falls, Ignace, Dryden, Winnipeg, Dyment, Red Rock, Sundridge, Dorion, Kenora, Pearl, Nolalu, Marathon, Manitouwadge, Azilda, Heron Bay, Kaministiquia, South Gillies, Garson, Sioux Lookout, Geraldton, Atikokan and Pass Lake.

This is the first batch of many individuals who are acknowledging the fact that there is no CPR passenger service between the cities of Sudbury and Winnipeg.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that the federal government, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and VIA Rail Canada Inc. co-operatively conduct a study to determine the feasibility of reintroducing VIA passenger service from Sudbury to Winnipeg and that VIA passenger service be revived on the CPR line from Sudbury to Winnipeg as soon as possible.

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and honour of presenting two petitions.

In light of the fact that 38 per cent of the national highway system is substandard, a group of citizens in Thunder Bay-Atikokan have signed a petition asking that the federal government join with provincial governments to upgrade the national highway system.

[Immigration, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister today tabled a 1996 annual report to Parliament on ministerial permits. Could the minister inform the House on how these numbers compare to those of previous years? What assurance could the minister give Canadians that these permits are being used responsibly?

[Immigration Act, April 8th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Immigration Act (reimbursement).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Immigration Act regarding reimbursement.

The bill provides that a person is entitled to reimbursement of the right of landing fee if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is satisfied that the person resided elsewhere in Canada than in a specified census metropolitan area between the day the person was granted landing and the day the person received a certificate of citizenship.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Recognizing Members, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of Canadians who do not know the name of the member of Parliament who is speaking from in Chamber at this very moment.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, you address members according to ridings. My name and riding are printed for a few seconds in small letters at the bottom of the TV screen.

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind and severely visually impaired Canadians have indicated that this practice is unfair, given that blind persons cannot read members' names and province of origin as printed on the screen.

I recommend that it would be more appropriate to have members addressed by their name, riding and province. This would only pertain to the manner in which the Speaker addresses members and not to the manner in which members address each other in the House.

In the name of fairness I pray that this recommendation be given serious consideration.

[Immigration, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. border is one of the longest and friendliest borders in the world. Every year there are over 90 million border crossings at over 500 ports of entry such as border crossings, airports and harbours.

Given this, it is remarkable that so few criminals gain access to our country. This is not by chance, but it is the result of a very effective co-operative effort between Canadian and American law and border officials.

Every year countless lawbreakers are apprehended at ports of entry. Moreover, through efforts such as the joint immigration-RCMP task force initiative and Bill C-44 the government has done much to rid Canada of such undesirables. In 1995-96 over 1,600 criminals were removed from Canada.

The government's enforcement policies and the unique co-operative efforts that exist between Canadian and American law and border officials will continue to protect Canadians.