Francis Scarpaleggia

[Petitions, June 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition whereby the signatories ask that the federal government not close down or otherwise transfer the Experimental Lakes Area program outside of government, that it remain within the purview of the federal government.

[Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have one quick question. I am not a lawyer, but there was a point the member raised that raises some questions with me.

He mentioned that this bill may in some ways be superfluous, since age is already taken into account when crimes are committed against elderly Canadians. Maybe I misunderstood. I would appreciate it if the member could clarify that for me.

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to salute Shawn Murphy, the former member of Parliament for Charlottetown who retired just before the last election. I should add that the current representative for that riding is an excellent member who has obviously taken much inspiration from Mr. Murphy in terms of the sincerity of his efforts and the intensity of his work ethic.

Shawn Murphy tabled bills and motions several times in this House calling on the federal government to create a national autism strategy. The bill we are debating today, courtesy of Senator Munson, is calling on the government to officially enact in Canada April 2 as world autism awareness day. It is but one item in a suite of federal actions needed to address the growing and still poorly understood autism spectrum disorder, which affects a growing number of children and their families every year in this country.

In turn, we can only have a concerted national action on autism if first we create a critical level of awareness among the general Canadian population. This awareness will lead to overwhelming public consensus on the need for such action, followed logically by political pressure at the grassroots that, at the end of the day, should produce concrete government measures on autism.

To many of us, autism appears to have come out of nowhere. Personally, I do not recall talk of autism when I was growing up. I do not know if this is because autism had not been properly diagnosed or whether it is because new factors are at work that have increased the incidence of autism.

As we know, approximately 1 in 110 Canadian children are diagnosed with autism. The number of new cases is increasing by 10% to 17% per year. Another fact of which I was not aware is that boys are four times as susceptible as girls to be diagnosed with autism. Just this past Sunday, I spent the afternoon with a friend whose son is autistic. Today I meet numerous parents and families who are nurturing an autistic child with extraordinary love, dedication, intelligence, creativity and patience. What all these parents have in common is a fierce and indefatigable determination to create a powerful community of interest around those directly or indirectly affected by autism and to push for a proper public policy response to autism at the local, provincial and national levels. I will take this opportunity to salute these parents.

One of the reasons I have chosen to speak today in the debate on the bill is that the region I represent on the island of Montreal, what is commonly referred to as the West Island, is home to a higher percentage of people with intellectual disabilities and autism than any other region in Quebec. If this is so, it is testimony to the extraordinary civic-mindedness and volunteer spirit of my community, I can proudly say. This spirit has been the historic hallmark of the West Island and lives on today, perhaps on an even wider scale as primary and secondary schools, for example, make community service part of their curriculum.

One of the most eloquent examples of how citizens of the West Island coalesce to meet social and health needs is through the West Island Association for the Intellectually Handicapped, which operates under the vision and energetic leadership of Natalie Chapman. WIAIH, which in 2008 celebrated its 50th anniversary as a community organization, provides support to people with intellectual disabilities or autism. Its mission is to maintain and develop innovative services and to sensitize the community to available services and the need for greater government support for people impacted by intellectual disabilities and autism.

If the West Island of Montreal includes such a large number of families with children with intellectual disabilities or autism, it is because of the scope and quality of WIAIH services. In other words, families move to the West Island expressly to access those services. As a side benefit, our community attracts extraordinary citizens to live and work in the community and surrounding region. These are dynamic people who help us grow in so many different ways.

Incidentally, WIAIH has served as an incubator for the development of other local organizations in the same sector, namely, West Island Citizen Advocacy, Placement Potentiel, AVATIL, the West Montreal Readaptation Centre, the West Island Residences for the Intellectually Handicapped and the John F. Kennedy School.

While we are fortunate in the West Island to house a critical mass of organizations like WIAIH, our success in constructing an enviable social and health infrastructure underscores the fact that other regions lack a comparable level of support. In other words, while WIAIH is a beacon of hope and assistance for those suffering from autism and their families, at the same time the organization's success illuminates the fact that in other regions a greater level of need persists and goes unmet.

One should not, for a moment, think that WIAIH has all the resources it needs at its disposal. Whenever I have the opportunity to meet and speak with Natalie Chapman, she reminds me of the overwhelming pressure on our community. She reminds me of the weight under which families are labouring and how diagnosis is not being conducted early enough in those crucial years for children with autism. She reminds me that post-diagnosis intervention still does not occur early enough, and that families desperately need respite.

What is needed today at the federal level, and urgently so, is best captured by the Autism Society of Canada. It says, “We need increased funding for provinces and territories to provide critical no-cost treatment, education, professional training and required supports for Canadians with autism. What is also needed is a mandate for the Public Health Agency of Canada to make autism a national priority by initiating surveillance and reporting, and setting national standards for treatment and service delivery. Also needed is an allocation of significant funds targeted for autism research to Canadian funding organizations, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Finally, we need improved financial and other supports to individuals with intellectual disabilities and autism, and their families, through the federal tax and labour systems.”

In conclusion, issues of common concern to Canadians from coast to coast to coast need to be addressed through national coordination and with standards of service delivery that are consistent for all citizens, wherever they may live in this great country.

Autism is such a matter of common interest and national priority. Declaring April 2 of each year world autism awareness day would be a small but meaningful step in the direction of eventually, hopefully, creating an effective national approach to learning all we can about autism and providing the services children with autism and their families need, and this as early as possible.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I was in my community. I was speaking with a Ph.D. in a science area. I will not be too specific because I do not want to compromise this individual.

He is a researcher. He is scandalized by the changes the government has made through this budget to the funding of science in Canada. Essentially what he told me was that the government has changed its approach from one of funding research that would develop and choose its own winners and losers to a situation of the government now choosing its pet projects. That seems to me to contradict the whole philosophy and ideology of the party opposite, which is to let the free market flourish and let winners and losers emerge by themselves.

I would like the member's comments on that.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

A Trojan elephant.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is a scientific issue. A lot of people think that environmental activism is all about public relations stunts and so forth and that it is a kind of soft area. However, it is not. It is one of the most scientifically involved areas of public policy.

There are some very good minds on the finance committee who know a lot about the financial ecosystems and the economic ecosystems, but I do not know if the finance committee has the expertise needed to explore the complexities of aquatic ecosystems.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that the government is being surreptitious on this. It is using an omnibus bill to essentially undermine environmental regulations in the country. Any change to the Fisheries Act should be studied in-depth by the fisheries committee and calling on expert witnesses to speak to that.

I do believe that the budget is being used to undermine water policy in the country, not only by amending the Fisheries Act but by casting aside the world renowned Experimental Lakes Area program.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comments and his expertise. I know he has much expertise in the area of biology and, therefore, his comments carry a lot of weight. However, the Fisheries Act is meant to protect fish and fish habitat but the reality is that the fish are the canary in the coal mine. If the fish are not healthy and the fish habitat is damaged, it is a sign that all is not well in the ecosystem in the watershed and, ultimately, the watershed benefits human life. Therefore, it is a very important lever in terms of protecting our water.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will take us from the United Nations and old age security to the environment.

Allow me to delve into Canadian history and go back to the dawn of the great nation of Canada, to 1867, the year of Confederation. At that time, the Fathers of Confederation decided on the division of powers and the jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments.

At the time, there were two major industries in Canada: fur trading and fishing. The fishery was of vital importance and played a predominant role in the Canadian economy. Of course, it is still a very important industry, especially in the maritime provinces and on the west coast. However, it has a lesser role in the Canadian economy than it did back then.

At that time, it was decided, with respect to the division of power, that the fishery would be a federal jurisdiction.

Today, this power is very important when it comes to environmental protection because it gives the federal government a large say not only with respect to the health of fish stocks and the fishery, but also the quality and quantity of freshwater in Canada.

It is true that water is a natural resource and therefore a provincial jurisdiction. However, in some places it falls under joint jurisdiction, especially in the Great Lakes and the boundary waters that are subject to an international treaty. The federal government has a say in how those waters are managed. Apart from that, in Canada, water is a natural resource that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, under the Fisheries Act, the federal government has a say in order to protect the quality and quantity of freshwater in this country.

In 1868, one year after Confederation, the government passed the Fisheries Act. In 1977, more than 100 years later, in light of the data we had gathered since Confederation and advances in science, we came to understand the importance of fish habitat to the health of the fish, but also as a sign of water quality. Damaged habitat has an impact on the health of the fish—the fish might be deformed, for example—but it is also a sign that the quality of the water leaves something to be desired.

It is not just pollution that can harm or damage fish habitat. Lower water flow can damage or destroy fish habitat. With the changing climate, we see that the flow of some of our country's great rivers is decreasing. I am thinking about the Athabasca River in particular. That is a threat to fish habitat. The flow of the Athabasca River is decreasing because of climate change, but also because of water removal by the agricultural sector and the oil sands industry.

If we want to protect fish habitat, perhaps we need to establish a critical flow threshold for the river below which water removal must be stopped temporarily.

If fish habitat in the Athabasca River is not protected by the Fisheries Act, it will not be illegal to remove too much water, and the water level will drop and fish habitat will be damaged. The government is removing fish habitat protection, which opens the door to all kinds of water removal.

For instance, let us suppose that, in the summertime, a municipality experiences a water shortage but, for political reasons, decides not to prohibit people from watering their lawns in the middle of the afternoon, which is what many municipalities usually do in the summer. Suddenly the water level in the watershed in which the municipality is located drops, and this damages fish habitat.

Fish habitat is very important, because many fish that travel from one end of a river to another rest and feed there. Damaging fish habitat is harmful to fish and to the river, and can even harm the ocean.

If this habitat is not protected by the Fisheries Act, this opens the door to all kinds of potential abuses of our freshwater resource.

This bill means major changes that will affect the future of our freshwater resource and the health of our environment and our aquatic ecosystems. This poses a real problem.

I would also point out that the government is using a false argument to justify its changes to the Fisheries Act to weaken fish habitat protections.

It is like with the gun control bill. The government likes to invoke farmers and hunters to make everyone feel that its objectives are noble. It is doing the same thing in trying to justify its weakening of the Fisheries Act with regard to habitat protection. It invokes farmers. The government says that it needs to do this to make life easier and to protect farmers and farming. The government knows that is a powerful argument.

I will read an article that appeared in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on June 8, by a farmer, Mr. Jan Slomp, who owns a 65-cow dairy farm. It reads:

[The] Agriculture Minister...and [the] Fisheries Minister...seem to be using farmers as bait to get the public to swallow the changes to the Fisheries Act included in Bill C-38, the omnibus Budget Implementation Act.

By suggesting that the government is abandoning protection of fish habitat so that farmers don't have to deal with red tape when they maintain their irrigation ditches, the ministers have stretched credibility to the breaking point. Like me, many farmers resent the implication that we aren't interested in being good stewards of the water, which is essential for healthy livestock and wholesome crops, on the land we manage.

Here we have a farmer who is calling into question the government's public relations strategy of invoking farmers to justify changing the Fisheries Act and weaken protections for Canada's environment, water and aquatic ecosystems in particular.

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for this legislative initiative intended to better protect Canada's fresh water. The member dares tread where his government has refused to go, namely, toward protecting Canada's fresh water from the future threat of export in bulk.

Bill C-383 highlights the government's continued and stubborn inaction on this vital national issue. However, the fact remains that Bill C-383 is a timid response to four years of Liberal pressure on the Conservative government to show robust federal leadership on pre-empting bulk water exports. In the end, I believe Bill C-383 is intended as face-saving legislation meant to inoculate the government against charges it is not protecting Canada's fresh water.

Liberals nonetheless support sending the bill to committee to examine its shortcomings, of which there are at least five.

First, the bill is incomplete. It fails to cover the vast majority of Canada's fresh water. It leaves out of its scope more than 90% of Canada's water resources.

In retrospect, the government should not have combined with the Bloc Québécois to defeat Liberal Bill C-267, which was comprehensive and watertight legislation covering all water basins in Canada. For the record, two courageous Conservative MPs broke ranks and voted for the Liberal bill.

Bill C-267 was developed by Canada's foremost water policy experts and would have protected Canada's water from export in the event a province decided to lift its own internal prohibition on selling water in bulk outside its borders. At the moment, any province could lift its prohibition against bulk water exports at any time in future in response to economic or political pressures. Unlike Bill C-267, Bill C-383 does not provide a backstop against such an eventuality.

Bill C-383 fails to create an over-arching national prohibition against moving water from anywhere in Canada to the United States or elsewhere that would fill the void should a province lift its ban on water exports. Bill C-267's prohibition on taking water out of its home basin anywhere in Canada so as to protect aquatic ecosystems was such over-arching legislation.

Second, Bill C-383 may be dangerously counterproductive. It may unwittingly leave Canada open to a trade challenge under NAFTA should a province together with, say, an American entrepreneur decide at some point in future to challenge the bill's putative prohibition on water exports by pipeline. In other words, rather than resolving the current uncertainty surrounding the status of fresh water under NAFTA, Bill C-383 may amplify this uncertainty. I will explain in a moment.

In the meantime, I should mention that Bill C-267 avoided the possibility of a NAFTA challenge because it was primarily environmental legislation, not an attempt to create a trade barrier.

Third, Bill C-383's prohibition on moving water to the U.S. through transboundary rivers does not break new ground in protecting Canada's water security and sovereignty. It merely formalizes the core principle in the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty which stipulates that neither country shall do anything to affect water levels on the other side of the border.

Fourth, while Bill C-383 has intuitive appeal because one can visualize rivers flowing into the U.S. acting as conduits for water exports, the fact is that most water export projects will likely involve tanker trucks, tanker ships, water bags, or pipelines.

The grandiose water diversion schemes where northward flowing Canadian rivers are reversed and diverted south to the U.S. appear to be a dream from the past. For example, the GRAND Canal project developed in the 1950s by Newfoundland engineer Tom Kierans is perhaps the most well-known and iconic of these unrealistic water export schemes. It envisioned among other things using transboundary rivers to channel water normally flowing northward toward Hudson Bay southward to the U.S. Not only does Bill C-383 merely consolidate prohibitions on water diversions implied in the boundary waters treaty of 1909, its approach appears to be outdated.

Finally, it bears mentioning that Bill C-383 does not prohibit water exports by tanker truck, tanker ship, or water bags from non-boundary waters, or even possibly by pipeline. For example, Bill C-383 would not have stopped Sun Belt Water's attempt in the 1990s to export water from B.C. coastal streams to Goleta, California in the absence of the fortunate provincial action that followed to block the company's efforts. Nor would it prevent the export of water from Newfoundland's Gisborne Lake should the current provincial prohibition on bulk water exports in that province ever be lifted.

Some would argue that exporting the water from coastal streams carries no negative consequences because such water is lost to the ocean anyway. Coastal streams do support sensitive coastal ecosystems, including spawning grounds.

As Ph.D. student and water expert Janine MacLeod has said, “The outflow of fresh water into the oceans at deltas and estuaries is not 'wasted'”.

With respect to pipelines, which are perhaps a viable means of someday exporting water to the U.S., Bill C-383's attempt to block water exports by such means could prove problematic. It is difficult to fathom that a Canadian law eliminating the possibility of building a pipeline from, say, a Canadian inland body of water into the U.S. would not be viewed by a NAFTA tribunal as a barrier to trade. It is one thing, as the bill does, to ban the construction of a pipeline into a transboundary river that would change the river's water levels in violation of the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, but it is quite another to, as the bill also claims to do, legislate a ban on building a pipeline to carry water for export across the Canada-U.S. border and pretend that such a conduit, at the point where it crosses the border, becomes de facto a transboundary river—in other words, like water flowing in its natural state—and hence falling outside of NAFTA's provisions against erecting barriers to trade, according to some experts.

While some would argue that water in a pipeline is not a product in the strict sense, it is not really water in its natural state either. It is water that definitely has been captured. In conjunction with the fact that in the U.S. water in its natural state is viewed legally as a good because it is used to produce goods, it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a NAFTA tribunal would rule that water crossing the border in a pipeline should be seen as having entered commerce and that any attempt to prohibit such commerce constitutes an illegal barrier to trade under the agreement.

We have had mixed signals from Conservatives on the issue of bulk water exports for years. The current Conservative government, as well as previous incarnations of the governing party, have a history of sending contradictory signals with respect to their interest in and desire to prohibit bulk water exports, beginning with the Mulroney government through to the Canadian Alliance to the current government. Let me explain.

In order to allay fears that free trade with the U.S. would result in Canada eventually having to export its water south of the border, the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-156, which would have banned large-scale water exports. The bill died when Parliament was dissolved for the 1988 free trade election and it was not revived after Mr. Mulroney was returned to power in that election. No wonder there are those who believe the bill was merely a symbolic gesture meant to blunt opposition to the impending Canada-U.S. free trade agreement from those who feared a sellout of Canada's water resources if the agreement came to pass.

Later, in opposition, the Canadian Alliance admitted that NAFTA leaves Canada vulnerable to market-driven bulk water exports. Speaking in the House of Commons at the time, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs thus advocated for reopening NAFTA to insert a specific exemption for water, similar to that which the agreement granted to Canada's cultural industries.

More recently, in its 2008 Speech from the Throne, responding to the earlier introduction of Liberal private member's Bill C-535, a predecessor to Bill C-267, the Conservative government promised to introduce legislation to ban bulk water exports by prohibiting interbasin transfers of water within Canada. This commitment reversed the government's position to that point that federal action on the issue of bulk water exports was unnecessary because of existing provincial prohibitions. However, the government never followed through on its commitment, reversing itself yet again, arguing as recently as this past fall that federal legislation to ban bulk water exports remains unnecessary.

In conclusion, Bill C-383 is a very modest step in the right direction by a member who has obviously grown weary of his government's procrastination on an issue of prime national importance involving our most vital natural resource. The bill appears to have serious shortcomings, including the fact that it could even weaken Canada's ability to control its water future.

We look forward to exploring these possible shortcomings in committee.