Bruce Stanton

[Canadian Forces, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, commemorating the men and women who are serving, being injured and dying for their country and their mission in Afghanistan is an unceasing reminder of the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Canadian Forces and their families at home.

The mother of one injured soldier from my riding inscribed in her letter to me, “Do not let our members of Parliament forget what these soldiers have died for and have been injured for....There is still much work to do over there”.

On Wednesday I learned that another of my constituents, Private Mike McTeague, was seriously injured in Monday's suicide bomber attack. Mike's father, Sean, has joined him at the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. Mike's brother will join him there in the days ahead.

I invite all members to join with me in expressing our best wishes for Private McTeague's full recovery and our thanks to his family, including the family of the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, for their unyielding courage and support.

[Points of Order, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of suggestions made during the debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 161, I consulted the Ethics Commissioner to ascertain whether or not my private interests and the motion placed me in a potential conflict of interest.

The House should know that the response from the Ethics Commissioner indicates that there is no conflict, but because the motion is still before the House for further consideration, I believe it is important for the House to have a copy of the Ethics Commissioner's opinion. Because I am the only person who can make this public, I request unanimous consent to table the opinion.

[Tourism Week, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week was Tourism Week in Canada. It is one week of the year that brings together many of the 180,000 businesses and organizations, large and small, to celebrate their success and remind us all of the tremendous contribution this industry makes to our nation.

Spending by business and leisure travellers in Canada amounted to $57.5 billion in 2004. It accounted for 615,000 direct jobs and brought in $8.6 billion in federal tax revenue. C'est très important.

Between now and 2015, the tourism industry worldwide is expected to grow an average of 4.6% per year. That represents a tremendous opportunity for our country.

I know the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and its provincial and territorial partners will continue to advance the cause of tourism. I commend them for helping to make Canada the world-class destination we know it to be.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment's draft screening assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonate, known as PFOS, concluded in October 2004 that PFOS is a persistent bioaccumulative and inherently toxic substance in the environment. It meets the definition in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, in that it is entering into the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have a harmful effect on the environment. The initial conclusions have not changed and it is expected that a final assessment will be published shortly.

The Department of the Environment is proposing that priority be given to the development of actions to protect the health of Canadians and their environment. Under the existing legislative and regulatory framework, the Department of the Environment will propose and develop actions for PFOS with the participation of stakeholders, including the public, industry, non-governmental organizations, and provincial and territorial governments.

To support the development of these actions, the Department of the Environment will investigate the various instruments and tools available to control PFOS in Canada. The Department of the Environment will analyze the costs and benefits of the proposed actions to ensure the most appropriate approach that results in a net benefit for Canadians is chosen.

It would be premature to add PFOS to the virtual elimination list and develop release limit regulations as proposed by Bill C-298 before the Department of the Environment can fully consult or perform the necessary supporting analysis. The Department of the Environment is expecting to propose a strategy very shortly in consultation with stakeholders.

This strategy will outline proposed actions to control PFOS in a way that releases to the Canadian environment would ultimately be eliminated to ensure the protection of the health of Canadians and their environment. The development of the strategy and the implementation of actions will be carried out independently of any decision on the virtual elimination list or regulations prescribing release concentration limits. Today's reality is that PFOS is not manufactured in or exported from Canada, nor is it used or imported into Canada in significant quantities.

In 2000 the major global manufacturer of PFOS announced a voluntary phase-out of production of this substance by 2002. Prior to 2002 the primary uses of PFOS in Canada were for applications involving water, oil, soil and grease repellents for fabric, leather, packaging, rugs and carpets, as well as additives in firefighting foams, aviation hydraulic fluids, photographic photofinishing, paints and coatings.

Since 2002 the majority of PFOS imports and uses in Canada have ceased. In comparison to early PFOS import and use data whereby seven industrial sectors were involved, a survey of Canadian industry confirms that after the phase-out for the 2004 calendar year, PFOS is imported and used by only a single industrial sector.

With the exception of the existing stockpile of PFOS based firefighting foam that is used to extinguish fuel fires, all other stockpiles of PFOS in Canada have now been exhausted. It is estimated that this reduction in use in Canada since 2002 has resulted in a significant decrease in releases to the environment. Also, PFOS products and formulations are largely unavailable to the average Canadian consumer.

The Department of the Environment plans to pursue actions that will ensure PFOS does not re-enter the Canadian marketplace and address the remaining exposure sources. Stakeholders will be given a formal opportunity to participate in consultations shortly following the distribution of the proposed PFOS risk management strategy. The ultimate objective of this strategy will be a total phase-out of PFOS in Canada.

The strategy will propose an action plan to address the environmental risks associated with PFOS in Canada and outline a proposed approach on the virtual elimination list. Stakeholders, including the public, industry, non-governmental organizations and provincial and territorial governments will have an opportunity to comment on this strategy through various forums. Further consultations with stakeholders will be held as the Department of the Environment proceeds with the implementation of the strategy and develops appropriate preventive and control instruments.

The Department of the Environment's ability to fully consult with stakeholders on the strategy, the approach to virtual elimination and any proposed preventive and control instruments that may follow would be limited under the timeline specified in proposed Bill C-298.

Bill C-298 is proposing to develop regulations prescribing release concentration limits of PFOS within nine months of specifying its levels of quantification. Given that most industrial and commercial uses of PFOS have already ceased in Canada, the key remaining source of exposure is through municipal landfills and waste water treatment plants.

Potential releases of PFOS from those sources are expected from the disposal and use of consumer articles which were treated with PFOS as a repellant prior to 2002. These consumer articles include rugs and carpets, furniture, fabrics, leather articles, packaging and photographic material. A proposal to regulate the concentration of PFOS released from municipal landfills and waste water treatment facilities would require careful analysis to identify the availability of technology to capture or reduce PFOS from those sources and to determine if release concentration regulation is the most practical and cost-effective means of protecting the environment.

The Department of the Environment is continuing to work with the international community on PFOS. The approaches taken in other jurisdictions will be considered during the development and implementation of proposed actions in Canada.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established three significant new use rules, SNURs, in 2002, 2003 and 2006 to control PFOS and its precursors and other perfluorinated compounds. The United Kingdom has proposed restrictions on the supply and use of PFOS. Sweden has filed a proposal for a national ban on PFOS with the European Commission. The European Union has proposed market instruments and use restrictions for PFOS in 2006.

PFOS is under consideration for addition to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe convention on long range transboundary air pollution and the protocol to the Stockholm convention which addresses persistent organic pollutants. PFOS continues to pass review steps for inclusion in the protocol and convention.

Canada will continue to engage our international partners in global action to eliminate the remaining uses and production of PFOS around the world and to complement our domestic actions. Supporting these efforts is critical to addressing the long range transport of PFOS into the Canadian environment and the ultimate global phase-out of these substances.

The Department of the Environment is committed to pollution prevention and the control of toxic substances. The necessary steps will be taken to continue the protection of the Canadian environment, especially in our Arctic ecosystems and to further minimize impacts on a global scale.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the member for Simcoe—Grey who happens to share a part of Simcoe county with my particular riding. I know she is fully aware of the kinds of issues that are impacting seniors in our part of Ontario.

I wonder if she might share with the House some of the initiatives that have come to the forefront in her part of the world with respect to seniors' issues, especially as it relates to how seniors can work to protect their precious incomes that have been under so much pressure in recent years.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my NDP colleague's intervention on this interesting motion in support of Canadian seniors.

When the member spoke about some of the measures that were introduced in budget 2006, I thought of some of the initiatives that the government did bring forward with respect to doubling the pension income credit, an initiative that affects some 2.7 million pensioners and in fact will give them some additional bottom line. That is not to mention the reduction in the GST, which is going to get savings into the hands of the 30% or so of Canadians who do not even pay any income tax. Those savings, in addition to the transit pass measures, which I think will put another $220 million in additional dollars in the pockets of Canadians by the 2007 year-end, are all positive measures.

Notwithstanding the fact that the member's party did not support the budget, I wonder if the member would talk about how these measures in fact are tremendous benefits relative to what we have seen from past Liberal governments.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right and I welcome his support for the motion.

As has been demonstrated by a strategic look at how historic canals have contributed to the local economy, this has been in done in New York and in Scotland where the revitalization of these canals over a long, methodical and thoughtful approach has contributed substantively to the local economy. It has created the impetus for renewal in the very small communities that dot the waterways along the shoreline.

We would need to look at this in a very cautious way. I think this is a very long term process. The evidence exists to suggest that this would be the kind of investment that would clearly benefit Canadians in the long term.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of a family business, a heritage that I have and have had for five generations. I mentioned that our family settled in this area and was one of the first settlers to operate one of the steamboats on this system way back in about 1874.

I have spoken in terms of the potential of this system. I would say to the hon. member that this is an area of Ontario that represents almost a million people who are affected by a 386 kilometre long waterway.

Many small communities from Georgian Bay to Northumberland county have a stake in the future of the system. It reaches far beyond what I or my family might have done in terms of our own business on Sparrow Lake.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. While there has been a decline in the number of lockages on the system, as I referenced in my remarks, the number of boats on the system has increased over the last decade or more from about 40,000 to 60,000. What we are seeing is a decline in the degree to which boaters on the system become transient.

Boating recreation is very much one component of the system. As we look ahead to what the system might be, the key issue is how to accommodate the Trent-Severn to become a broader base of recreational benefit for Canadians but at the same time doing that in an environmentally sustainable way.

[Trent-Severn Waterway, June 12th, 2006]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of evaluating the future of the historic Trent-Severn Waterway, one of Parks Canada’s National Historic Sites, and its potential to become: (a) a premier recreational asset; (b) a world-class destination for recreational boaters; (c) a greater source of clean, renewable electrical power; (d) a facilitator of economic opportunity and renewal in the communities along its 386 km length; and (e) a model of environmental sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex for seconding this motion.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to outline my reasons for sponsoring Motion No. 161, a motion that, if adopted, would ask the government and specifically the Minister of the Environment to consider evaluating the future of a unique and historic asset, the Trent-Severn Waterway, a national historic site that belongs to the people of Canada and is managed for them by their federal government.

The need for this evaluation is compelling, but before I speak about that need, I first would like to provide some perspective and history.

The Trent-Severn system is a 386 kilometre long inland waterway, running from the Bay of Quinte on Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay on Lake Huron. It connects many communities of 1,000 people or more and includes the major centres of Peterborough, Orillia, Kawartha Lakes and Quinte West, as well as Barrie and other large communities on Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay.

For navigation and recreational boating, it operates 44 locks, one marine railway and 39 swing bridges. The system includes 160 dams and control structures that manage the water levels for flood control and navigation on lakes and rivers that drain approximately 18,600 square kilometres of central Ontario's cottage country region, across four counties and three single-tier cities, an area that is home to more than a million Canadians.

The system has no fewer than 18 hydroelectric generating facilities, with a capacity to contribute an average of 100 megawatts of clean, renewable power each and every day. To put that in perspective, it would be the equivalent of a 300 turbine wind farm or about 20% of one of the four big units at the coal-fired Lambton Generating Station.

As a historic canal, the Trent-Severn makes an important ecological contribution through the protection of wetlands, the attention to water quality and the preservation of habitats for many aquatic species and many species at risk.

The Trent-Severn protects important elements of our history and culture, including first nations cultural sites dating from 6,000 years ago and the historic features and remnants of 19th century settlement in this part of Ontario.

The Trent-Severn makes a valuable contribution to the economy, attracting thousands of recreational boaters and millions of visitors each year to its lock stations, campgrounds and public sites. In fact, for every person who visits the system by boat, there are five who are land-based visitors.

The Trent-Severn recorded approximately 150,000 lockages last year, down from its peak of 250,000 in 1990. Up to 1,000 community businesses thrive on serving the residents and visitors to the lakes and rivers of the Trent-Severn. Indeed, many of the communities exist because of the very recreational and retirement lifestyles associated with these shoreline communities. Services to the recreational boating public and other visitors include many rural-based small businesses, from fuel, storage and repairs to food service, outfitters, attractions and retail outlets.

The Trent-Severn offers the landscapes, rivers and lakes of central eastern Ontario, which stretch from the granite outcroppings and windswept pines of the Canadian Shield and Georgian Bay to the rolling hills and drumlins of Northumberland County. These beautiful natural features have made these lake areas popular for cottages and camps since the late 19th century, with many being converted into year-round homes for increasing numbers of Canadians.

The vision of an inland navigable waterway linking Lake Ontario with Georgian Bay was first inspired by early 19th century settlers who worked to establish the first wooden lock in the heart of the Kawartha Lakes, at Bobcaygeon, in 1833. They did this to access lumber markets to the south. It would take another 87 years to complete the waterway.

Construction on the system was sporadic in the early years until the re-elected government of Sir John A. Macdonald got behind the construction of a system in a more robust way between 1883 and 1887. Construction continued annually, except during World War I, until the system was fully connected for navigation across 386 kilometres by 1920.

During the late 1800s, the golden age of steamboats and resorts made the lakes of the Trent-Severn Waterway a hub of tourism in the province. All visitors arrived by train to destinations like Lakefield, Lindsay and Severn Bridge.

Since 1920 the system has served primarily as a destination for recreational boating, but due to its series of dams, locks and bridges, it remains today an essential infrastructure for roads and railways, water level management, flood prevention, and shoreline and aquatic habitat protection.

The Trent-Severn has been managed and regulated under the Parks Canada Agency Act since 1970. The historic canals regulations of the Department of Transport Act provide the regulatory framework for the management of the system in accordance with the historic canals policy of the government.

Currently the Trent-Severn's operating costs are about $9.5 million per year. It collects revenues of close to $4 million annually, leaving a net cost to the government of about $5.5 million per year, but these costs do not include capital repairs and replacement costs, which have varied from $2 million to $5 million per year over the last decade.

This gives us some idea of the size, scope and the complexity of the Trent-Severn Waterway. As we might conclude, the waterway reaches well beyond what one would typically think of as a historic site. It is much more than a historic archive and, as I will explain in a few minutes, I believe it has the potential to make a far greater contribution for the investment that Canadians make toward it each and every year.

Why should the government be undertaking an evaluation or review at this time? First, the Trent-Severn, as I mentioned, is the steward of important shoreline and aquatic habitat across 4,500 kilometres of shoreline. This is an area of the country that is now facing enormous pressure for shoreline development. The original designers of the system could not have imagined the waterway supporting this kind of growth and activity, and the waterway is a prime source of drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people who live or cottage along its shores.

Second, the smaller rural communities along the system's path are experiencing shrinkage in economic opportunity as their primary job base in tourism, manufacturing and other commercial enterprises adjusts to the realities of consolidation and economic realignment.

The recreational boating industry, which accounts for about $11.5 billion in GDP annually and 84,000 jobs nationally, is growing, yet lockages on the Trent-Severn have declined by almost 70% since its peak in 1990. For many of the communities along the waterway, this represents a missed opportunity.

Third, the waterway has the potential to produce up to 50% more hydroelectric power. That is a clean, renewable source of electricity with no environmental degradation. I do not need to remind hon. members just how important this consideration is, especially with the government's commitment to enable a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

Finally, the Trent-Severn has the ability to provide a unique destination for outdoor recreation and the exploration of our history and culture for the growing urban populations that live within one to two hours' drive from its many sites. The waterways and rural roadways that lead to these sites offer a great outlet for healthy water and land based activities such canoeing, kayaking, hiking and cycling.

Canada is not alone with its large and historic canal system. Other jurisdictions like New York state and Scotland have revitalized their historic canals to provide, in addition to their historic, navigational and recreational value, a tremendous impetus for economic renewal in the communities along those canals.

As an example, the New York state canal system offers a glimpse of what the future of the Trent-Severn could be. New York state undertook to revitalize its canal in 1996. Since then it has invested in the upgrading, infrastructure and marketing. It has developed a water and land based trail and an environmental greenway for residents and has established new rules for land use and development along the shorelines. Those investments came only after a very thorough examination of the New York canal system with a view to its full potential.

The New York canal revitalization program has been underway for over 10 years but it has been so successful that this year the canal has completely waived the user fees for recreational boats on the system. The canal has become, in a sense, an economic generator of its own making while staying true to its mandate of historical preservation, environmental protection and enhancement.

I am not suggesting that we replicate what Scotland or New York has done. I cite these as examples of how the Trent-Severn Waterway, a government asset worth an estimated $1.7 billion, could become a net contributor for Canadians, both environmentally and economically. We need to examine that potential first before any conclusions are drawn, before any speculation occurs and, most important, before any new public expenditure is considered.

I would not want to speculate on how the government might guide such an evaluation in the future but I do believe that a process could be initiated to collect relevant data, consult with stakeholders and engage the province of Ontario and local governments for their participation and interest.

In conclusion, an evaluation would help the government to consider the future of the system and its potential to contribute to the health and well-being of Canadian citizens through recreation, to the appreciation of our history and early settlement, to clean renewable energy, to the economy and job creation, and to the protection of sensitive environmental features.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is a complex and multi-faceted resource, a jewel in the crown of the federal government, and it could be an even greater asset to Canada and to Canadians when we address the question of its long term sustainability. Canadians expect their government to manage these treasures in the public interest, and this waterway, with its 19th century design and control systems, begs a closer examination and, in keeping with its potential, I believe a renewed mandate.

The waterway has existed and served citizens and visitors well for over 150 years. There is no doubt that the process to consider what lies ahead for the Trent-Severn will not be easy. It will take time and it will take foresight. Implementing any plan for the waterway will take even greater amounts of determination and patience. These are the kind of qualities and ingenuity that the original designers and builders of the waterway had many decades ago. We would do well by their example.

I encourage all hon. members to support the motion and I look forward to their questions and comments.