Bill Gilmour

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the issue of inventory is clearly under provincial domain. The provinces own and regulate the water and it is for them to decide what they have and what they will do with it.

The member said he pleaded with former Prime Minister Mulroney to get water out of NAFTA. Has the member made the same plea to the current Prime Minister as he is now on the government side to make that happen? The issue we are debating today is to get control over our water. I would hope the member would approach his government to fix the problem. The member has identified the problem. Now it is up to the government to fix it.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to address this motion.

The motion has been amended. The original motion reads, in part:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and inter-basin transfers—

The amendment reads:

—and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will—

The original motion then continues:

—in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

Clearly our water is of critical priority to all of us. It directly affects Canada's agricultural sector, regional economic development, rural infrastructure, sustainable development, our environment and potentially our economy.

Reform agrees with the basic principle of this motion. The issue here is sovereignty and we agree that this House needs to take action to protect and control our water. I believe that all sides of this House would not have any problem with that comment. However, how we deal with the problem I believe is the question of this debate.

This motion is only a temporary solution. It will not fix the problem that Canada is now faced with as a result of this Prime Minister's actions. A temporary moratorium on bulk water exports will buy this government some time to negotiate a solution, a permanent solution. That solution is an amendment to the NAFTA which explicitly excludes water from the NAFTA.

It is interesting to note that before the Liberals came to power, when the Mulroney government was negotiating the NAFTA, the Liberals opposed the NAFTA deal and voiced their concerns about protecting our water.

During the 1993 election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would renegotiate the NAFTA to exclude bulk water from the deal.

On November 19 the Prime Minister insisted “Water and the North America Free Trade Agreement do not mix. Water remains under the control of the Canadian government. I can guarantee that”.

Here are more quotes from our present Prime Minister: “I will make sure it is like that. It is one of the elements I intend to discuss with President Clinton. I want Canada to maintain control over our own water. It is not for sale and if we want to sell, we will decide”.

Clearly the Liberals are leaving the door open for water to be sold.

The Prime Minister said he had a message for President Bill Clinton, which was “I don't even dream that the NAFTA gives the United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not mix”.

Those are nice quotes, but they simply do not reflect reality. The reason we are debating this motion today is because Canada does not have control over its water. That is a clear fact.

The Mulroney government insisted that the NAFTA applies only to exports of water in containers and not to large scale transfers or diversions which the government maintained was never even discussed during the NAFTA negotiations.

Clearly there has been a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding over this issue. Since the government came to power it has denied the fact that when the Prime Minister signed the NAFTA without renegotiating to specifically exempt water Canada lost its control.

The Conservatives failed in 1988 and the Liberals failed in 1993 to protect our water.

When I raised this issue in the House during the last parliament in my motion calling on this government to take steps to protect Canada's sovereignty over water, the government denied that our sovereignty had been compromised.

Here are some of the facts. My colleague, our international trade critic, will be speaking later to clarify some of the issues regarding the NAFTA and the free trade agreement.

The NAFTA implementation act states that nothing applies to water, except bottled water, and water is not excluded from the free trade agreement itself.

Article 309 of the NAFTA prohibits controls by Canada covering the sale or export of any goods destined for either the United States or Mexico.

The only specific permission that the NAFTA gives for export controls is for Canadian logs and unprocessed fish. This, in my mind, is the answer. Right now Canadian logs and unprocessed fish are not in the NAFTA. They are exempt. If we add water to that list, that gives us the control that we are looking for. That is the solution.

It is also likely that if the government were to propose legislation to ban the export of bulk water, as proposed in the NDP motion, we could be challenged under the NAFTA. Our legislation could be shot down by a trade dispute panel as unacceptable interference in the free market.

This is a dicey point and it is the difficulty I have with the NDP motion. The motion proposes that by banning the export of bulk water the problem will be solved. That is not the problem. The problem is the sovereignty, ownership and control of our water, which the Liberals have failed to fix. If we fix that we do not need to worry about the rest. Provincial control of the resource will then handle the next issue.

In passing any law banning water exports Canada would define water as a commodity and it would trigger the national treatment provisions of the NAFTA. Trade experts say that Canada could face a challenge under international trade rules if we explicitly define water as a good by passing legislation banning its export.

The Minister of the Environment stated that she wants to ban water export through legislation. However the minister has publicly stated that the government does not know how it will do this, simply because by putting water in legislation it will become a commodity.

We often hear about the trilateral statement made by the Prime Minister, President Bush and the Mexicans that we have a side deal which protects our water. We do not. All that side deal says is that if we do not export bulk water, then it could be okay. However, as soon as we export it we cannot turn the tap off. That is all that side agreement was about. It had nothing to do with fixing the problem.

The only way for Canadians to regain control of their water is for the federal government to negotiate a side agreement to the NAFTA that specifically excludes bulk water from the agreement.

The situation is getting urgent. The U.S. is facing water shortages. There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale diversions of water from the Great Lakes to the U.S. Clearly the situation is quite volatile because we have read in the papers that companies such a Sun Belt of California, the Nova Group of Ontario and the McCurdy Group of Newfoundland are pushing to get permits. It is the job of this government to fix the problem, and the problem is getting control over our water.

As well, there are jurisdictional issues affected by this motion. The management and protection of water as a natural resource is constitutionally provincial. It is a provincial responsibility. The only time the federal government gets into it is if it concerns trade. Any legislation that the House is prepared to bring in clearly has to have the agreement of all the provinces. My understanding is that that agreement would not be forthcoming at the moment.

I call on the Liberal government to take concrete steps to protect sovereignty over our water. I call on the Prime Minister to negotiate a side deal that specifically exempts water from the NAFTA, as he promised in the 1993 election, as he has promised all along and as he has failed to do up to this point in time.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Alberni it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49.

My riding is on central Vancouver Island and has a number of native bands scattered throughout the whole riding. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which is in Alberni, is basically the overseer of 14 bands that go from Bamfield into around Gold River, including the Opitsat, the Ahousat, the Dididat, the Theshat and other bands, including those on other areas on the east coast of Vancouver Island than Nanoose.

I point that out simply to say there are many issues, many different bands in B.C. I was quite surprised to hear the government, particularly when it came to talking about the Nisga'a treaty, saying that we did not understand the issue, that we did not understand what was going on.

I was in the Alberni valley two weeks ago at a town hall. I was very pleased that the native leaders were there to discuss that Nisga'a treaty. It was actually an excellent forum because they were there to debate their point regarding what they felt the Nisga'a treaty was. I was there to debate what I got from the different points of view.

There were many people in the audience who were most interested. The Nisga'a treaty I suggest took up probably 40% of that town hall meeting in the questions and answers. It is not an insignificant issue in B.C. It is before the provincial legislature at the moment and has great concern up and down the coast of British Columbia. People realize this is the first of perhaps 45 or 50 different settlements. If this one is not accurate and correct, then the ones subsequent and down the line also will have the same flaws.

Bill C-49 has some of those flaws. The issues are similar. Bill C-49 lacks accountability or clarification on what accountability means. Who is to be accountable? How are the band councils going to be elected? How are the band councils going to represent the individual people within their constituency?

Like many of my colleagues I have had representation from different native bands, in particular women. They feel frustrated because they do not feel represented. They cannot go to the band. They feel the band does not represent them. They come in frustration in many cases to their member of parliament because that is the only vehicle they feel they can speak freely with that will not be used against them in another forum.

In Bill C-49 one of the issues that has come forward is leases. I was most surprised to hear one of the members opposite say who is going to take their house away? It is all fearmongering on this side of the House. If he had been in B.C. over the last six weeks he would have seen the newspaper reports on the Musqueam Band because that is the issue on the leases being taken away.

That is one of the key issues in this bill that needs to be brought forward to this House and sorted out. Clearly it is a huge issue in B.C. with the Musqueam, the Nisga'a. The issues are very much in the forefront in British Columbia at the moment.

There are other areas in this bill, as my colleagues have mentioned, such as consultation with adjacent municipalities. I have been on the school board. Many members have been aldermen or mayors dealing in municipal areas.

Where do the bands report to? Are they answerable to the municipal act, for example, in B.C.? Are they answerable to the department of Indian affairs? What is the hammer? Where is the next level people can go to? That is not explained in the bill.

I touched on expropriation. In the town halls I heard from many people within the Nisga'a area. The concern was non-natives. They have no recourse. If we are in a municipal arena, and I have been there where I have had land expropriated, there is a vehicle to have that done fairly. If it is not seen to be fair it would go to the next level. That is not covered in this legislation.

All of us recognize if the highest need for an area is a highway to go through one's land, that may be the best way to go but there has to be compensation. That is not spelled out in this legislation.

There have to be checks and balances. This legislation does not have them. We need to know how the power is to be used. Again, that is not spelled out.

The Reform Party has supported native legislation in this House on many occasions. We will support and have shown that we will support good legislation. However, this is not good legislation. We cannot and will not support bad legislation. We will not and cannot support Bill C-49 in its present form.

[Forestry, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we need action overseas on this issue.

Greenpeace is stepping up its misinformation campaign against forestry jobs with slick and misleading ads in U.S., Japan and Europe. Yet the Liberals are doing nothing to counter this campaign. They are simply hoping that it will go away.

Instead of spending millions on warm and fuzzy Liberal ads within Canada, when will we see hard hitting government ads in foreign newspapers countering Greenpeace's anti-forestry jobs campaign?

[The Kyoto Protocol, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the one year anniversary of the signing of the Kyoto protocol regarding Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 25% by the year 2010.

This is one of the most important economic issues facing Canada, yet the government still has no economic analysis of what that reduction will mean to Canadians. Independent studies show that the cost will be staggering and that Canada will be more adversely affected than almost any other developed country.

Last month negotiations in Buenos Aires failed to resolve critical issues such as mechanism for the implementation or signing on of developed countries.

The reality is we signed on to a bad deal for Canada. The environment minister agreed to reductions without knowing what they meant in economic terms and there is little hope that the reductions agreed to will be met.

Once again the government has given Canada a black eye on the international stage.

[Petitions, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiations until a full public debate on the proposed treaty takes place across the country.

[Petitions, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following two petitions which come from my riding of Nanaimo—Alberni.

The petitioners request that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, November 27th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-458, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school).

Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act to impose minimum prison sentences of one year for a first offence and two years for a further offence in cases where a person is convicted of trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or a narcotic within 500 metres of an elementary school or a high school.

Drug abuse is destructive to our youth and to society, and drug related crimes have been estimated as the source of 85% of all criminal activity in Canada.

My bill is in the interest of all Canadians and our youth in particular. It is my hope that this House will support it.

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

[Standing Committee On The Environment And Sustainable Development, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week the government showed enormous contempt for the Canadian taxpayer.

It has been the tradition in the House that the minister be called before the appropriate committee to be questioned on the money allocated for the respective departments.

In the fall ministers appear to answer questions on the supplementary estimates, which are additions to their budgets late in the fiscal year.

In the case of the Ministry of the Environment this additional expenditure amounts to $46 million. When opposition members called for the environment minister to appear before the environment committee, the government used its majority to vote down this motion.

What happened to accountability? What happened to tradition in the House? By refusing to allow the minister to appear the government showed not only contempt for the Canadian taxpayer and for the principles of an open, responsible democracy, it renounced one of the traditions of the House.

It raises a question. What is the government trying to hide in this $46 million expenditure?

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the Liberals missed much of the point of my bill. They were talking about a triple E Senate. I was talking about one of the Es of a triple E Senate, the elected part. That is the part that can be done today without any constitutional change.

I was amazed at the Conservative member who said that it cannot be done without a constitutional change. It has been done. It was done with Stan Waters. It is doable. But for the Liberals, basically, it is all or nothing. We have seen the nothing part. We have seen the nothing part for basically 100 years from consecutive governments on that side of the House.

My bill addresses only the elected part. It means that senators would be elected and accountable to the people who sent them there, instead of the political party that sent them there.

It does not fix all of the problems. As the member from the NDP said, most Canadians would rather get a stick in the eye than have constitutional change. I understand that. Canadians are not ready for constitutional change. I agree with that. But this part, the elected part, could be done today.

Let us fix it in short bursts, rather than wait to do it all at once. We have seen that it was not done by the accord, and it will not be done by this government. Let us do it in bits and pieces and fix it, so we are crawling before we move. Fix it bit by bit, but at least we should have some political will in this House to attempt to fix it, rather than the rhetoric that we have been hearing from members across the floor. The bottom line is, they do nothing.

I believe my bill is doable. It has been proven to be doable by elections already held in Alberta. I would suggest that we move forward.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent that my bill be deemed votable.