Greg Rickford

[Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins, June 2nd, 2010]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to ensure the long-term ecological and economic vitality of the Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basin, the governments of Canada and the United States should continue to foster trans-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration on science and management activities to enhance and restore water quality in the Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basin, by referring the matter of Lake of the Woods water quality to the International Joint Commission for examination, reporting, and recommendations regarding the binational management of the international waters of the Lake of the Woods and Rainy River system and the International Joint Commission's potential role in this watershed, in line with the International Watersheds Initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and introduce my first piece of private member's business, Motion No. 519. As the member of Parliament for the great Kenora riding, I am privileged to represent a region of this country that is renowned for its rugged beauty, the Canadian Shield landscape, thousands of pristine lakes, and frankly, a pulchritude second to none in Canada.

As a result, it should be no surprise that water is of paramount importance for our communities, our livelihoods, and our lifestyle. While many of our lakes remain pristine, others have become polluted with far-reaching consequences. It is imperative that we protect the health of our watersheds and this is why I am introducing this motion in the House this evening.

My motion aims to protect and sustain the vitality of Lake of the Woods and the surrounding region by calling for a joint reference to the International Joint Commission on the issue of water quality governance.

For anyone who has visited Lake of the Woods, they will say it is one of North America's natural wonders. I live on Lake of the Woods and I have the distinct privilege of waking up every morning to its beauty.

With over 14,000 islands, 105,000 kilometres of expansive shoreline, its deep clear water and rugged shield landscape at the north end, surrounded by then shallow waters and sandy bottoms to the south, Lake of the Woods represents what most Canadians and in fact what people from around the world think about when they think about Canada and its natural diversity. Lake of the Woods and its tributaries are used as a source of drinking water, electricity, recreation, agriculture and fisheries in Ontario, Manitoba and Minnesota.

Like a number of lakes and rivers across the country, Lake of the Woods is enjoyed by the Canadians that live on its shores and those who come from far and wide to swim in its waters, explore its islands by boat, fish and enjoy the region's natural beauty.

Lake of the Woods is a major tourist destination as well. It is in keeping with other major destinations such as Mont Tremblant, the Muskoka region, Banff and Whistler. It is home to many cottage owners who vacation on the lake in the spring and summer from all over North America, in fact the world.

Recent data reports that tourism in the Lake of the Woods region contributed nearly $92 million in gross domestic product to the province of Ontario, $63 million, or 68%, of which was retained in the local area. Tourism supports roughly $37 million in total taxes distributed to federal, provincial and municipal governments. Lake of the Woods supports over 2,900 equivalent year-round jobs to the region's economy.

As the walleye capital of the world, Lake of the Woods is host to a multitude of fish species on the lake, including muskie, walleye, bass, lake trout, northern pike and crappie. Indeed, Kenora's most prominent ornament is Husky the Muskie, which symbolizes our economic, recreational and traditional ties to fishing and time well spent on Lake of the Woods.

The lake is also a source of drinking water for three-quarters of a million people who live in communities on or near the lake and as far away as the city of Winnipeg. In more recent years, there have been concerns about the water quality of Lake of the Woods. The presence of blue-green algae has many people concerned about the quality of the water in the lake and its sustainability, as well as its effects on the health of humans and the ecosystem at large.

High phosphorus levels are one of the key agents causing extensive growth of blue-green algae blooms, which can be toxic. Wide swaths of algae impair water quality, recreational use, drinking water and fish habitat. High phosphorus levels are predominantly caused by fertilizers, and other sources of phosphorus include household dishwashing and laundry detergents, and other cleaning products.

The good news is that local citizen groups and organizations in and around the Lake of the Woods are taking action. Longbow Lake Residents Association, Lake of the Woods District Property Owners Association and Lake of the Woods Water Sustainability Foundation have been important partners in an effort to improve the sustainability of the lake and a shining example of how Canadians can make differences in their communities. They also demonstrate the importance of building partnerships between governments and local communities, so that we can work together to solve problems that are of concern to us all.

I would now like to take some time to talk about one group in particular, the Lake of the Woods Water Sustainability Foundation, who have shown instrumental leadership moving the issue of Lake of the Woods water quality forward in a meaningful way. It has driven or participated in important research, meetings and forums to successfully bring its concerns to the attention of elected representatives, both in Canada and the United States. It has been advocating for a reference to the International Joint Commission about water quality in Lake of the Woods for more than five years.

I have had numerous meetings with Todd Sellers and his extraordinary team, and I am compelled to play a part in a role in advancing the issue of the lake's sustainability, and in fact that is what led me to move this motion today.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Lake of the Woods Water Sustainability Foundation for its hard work, dedication and commitment.

Dealing with the sustainability of the Lake of the Woods water quality involves working with different levels of government, including first nations, municipal, provincial, federal and state governments. I am pleased to report that quite recently, our friends and my legislative colleagues in Minnesota have taken similar action with a motion to refer the issue to the International Joint Commission for examination and report.

The Government of Ontario has also been proactive on this matter, commissioning studies, convening a variety of stakeholders and co-organizing the Lake of the Woods water quality forum. All of these efforts deserve our thanks and recognition.

The motion we are discussing today calls for the Government of Canada, along with the United States, to refer the question of governance of water quality on Lake of the Woods to the IJC for consideration and recommendations.

I have no doubt that when this issue is referred to the commission, it will make concrete recommendations to the governments, as it has for so many other issues throughout its long history.

In fact, the Government of Canada has already discussed this important referral with the United States.

I would like to take a few moments to explain the work of the International Joint Commission and its role in this matter, since it may be a body that many Canadians are unaware of. Because water does not respect international boundaries, the United States is an important partner in protecting our transboundary water resources. Our long history of co-operation on water resources dates back to the Boundary Waters Treaty, which was signed over 100 years ago.

The Boundary Waters Treaty also led to the creation of the International Joint Commission, a key partner in managing transboundary waters shared by the United States and Canada.

The IJC has balanced binational representation and was created to deal with situations such as that of Lake of the Woods.

The IJC already coordinates other boundary waters, such as Baie Missisquoi in Lake Champlain, which is shared by Quebec and Vermont.

The IJC has a long history in our region of the country, including a 1912 reference for water levels and a 1959 reference to study water pollution in Lake of the Woods and Rainy River. This led to the establishment of the International Rainy River Water Pollution Board in 1966, which is responsible for supervising pollution in the Rainy River basin and making necessary recommendations.

One of the possible recommendations that could arise from an IJC examination of the current Lake of the Woods situation could be that the Rainy River board be extended to include Lake of the Woods. This is what the Rainy River Water Pollution Board itself has recommended, since Rainy River provides over 70% of the inflow into Lake of the Woods and about 55% of the phosphorous loads.

I am confident in the ability of the IJC to coordinate monitoring, research and recommendations across multiple jurisdictions of Lake of the Woods. I am not alone in that confidence.

There is strong local support for an IJC reference for Lake of the Woods, with resolutions passed and sent to federal, provincial and state legislatures by the city of Kenora, the municipality of Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls, the North Western Ontario Tourism Association, the Lake of the Woods District Property Owners Association and Rainy River First Nations, and in the United States by Buffalo Point First Nation, Koochiching County, Lake of the Woods County, Roseau County and the Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation Board.

Before I conclude my speech, I would like to touch on the federal government's commitment to water issues.

Water quality is a problem that affects lakes and rivers across the country, and it is particularly important because approximately 7% of the world's fresh water is in Canada.

The Government of Canada is taking its responsibility as guardian of this precious resource seriously and is working with the provinces, territories and communities in order to ensure that it is properly maintained.

The question is, what steps has our government already taken?

First, the Government of Canada introduced our action plan for clean water in 2008. Under the action plan, Environment Canada has committed $96 million to clean up Lake Simcoe, the Great Lakes and the Lake Winnipeg basin.

The Lake Winnipeg basin initiative provides $18 million over five years to clean up the lake and surrounding watersheds, in partnership with provincial actions. Lake of the Woods is included in this initiative. In fact, $135,000 has been allocated for the development of a preliminary total phosphorous budget and water quality modeling for Lake of the Woods.

Similar to what is needed in Lake of the Woods, the goal of the Lake Winnipeg basin initiative is to reduce blue-green algae blooms, ensure fewer beach closings, keep in place a sustainable fishery, provide a clean lake for recreation and restore ecological integrity to the lake. The initiative aims to achieve these goals through science-based research and monitoring, watershed governance and a stewardship fund. This initiative will provide an innovative new model for integrated basin-wide watershed management.

Second, through Canada's economic action plan, we have also invested in water and wastewater infrastructure, with $3.25 billion dedicated to construction updates and renovations.

Third, we are also committed to protecting Canadians and their environment from chemical products with the chemicals management plan.

This $300 million plan is making Canada a world leader in assessing and regulating chemicals that are used in thousands of industrial and consumer products. Improved regulation of chemicals will contribute to improve water quality.

Fourth, new federal legislation will significantly reduce phosphorous entering our precious lakes and rivers. As of July 1, we are banning the use of phosphorous in household dishwashing detergents, laundry detergents and other cleaning products.

Fifth, we have tabled a new legislation, Bill C-26, to expand the prohibition against bulk water exports from boundary waters, which are already protected, to transboundary waters.

Clearly the government has taken many impressive steps and this motion is another important step.

Motion No. 519 provides a role for legislators on both sides of the border, and particularly in the House, to ensure the long-term sustainability of Lake of the Woods and the watersheds that it affects and by which it is affected.

Once again, I thank those individuals and organizations that have been instrumental in informing and supporting this motion. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and their respective departments for paying careful attention to the complexities of this issue and for supporting the important work we are doing here.

It is always a great opportunity to speak on behalf of the great Kenora riding and especially our special lake, Lake of the Woods.

[Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government House leader raised serious concerns about a lack of fairness and due process during committee proceedings.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has a choice to make. Will he preside over a fair and impartial process that respects procedural fairness and the rules of evidence, or will he play politics and run a kangaroo court?

On Sunday we were shocked to see the committee chair talking on TV about potential rulings he had yet to make. An impartial judge would be embarrassed by such conduct.

Yesterday, the news media were informed that subpoenas had been issued before the subpoenas had even been served. No court of law would issue subpoenas by press release and no judge would place media relations ahead of procedural fairness.

Clearly, this committee chair is more interested in playing politics than in fair play. He should not be surprised then that his actions receive the respect they deserve.

[Volunteerism, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of an extraordinary constituent. Betty Thompson recently won a Partners in Excellence Award for her volunteer efforts at the Dryden Regional Health Centre.

This award recognizes individuals who are committed to the hospital's values and perform outstanding actions that enhance the patients' experience. Betty started volunteering in 2004. She first spent four hours a week as a front desk greeter and happily took on increasing responsibilities to the point that she now contributes more than 60 hours per month.

Last year Betty completed the Ontario superhost certification by participating in a workshop that aims to build the skills and techniques needed to achieve service excellence.

Volunteers make the difference for many organizations. I know patients appreciate her commitment and dedication.

According to her nominator, Betty treats everyone with a smile, a helpful hand and an extra special touch. Betty is yet another constituent who puts the great in the great Kenora riding.

[Committees of the House, May 25th, 2010]

More good news, Mr. Speaker. Today the government reaffirmed our commitment to ministerial accountability. Just because a committee can call on staff to appear before committee does not mean they ought to.

In the Canadian political system virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the minister and Parliament holds him or her personally responsible for it.

A strong system where ministers are accountable and answerable to Parliament for the actions of their officials and department, including their own political staff, helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent and the public trust is not abused.

However, today, and for the second time, the opposition dismissed a minister from committee without allowing him to fully take part in the meeting. What does this prove? It proves the opposition is playing games and those members are prepared to politicize anything they think will score points, even abusing their privileges by calling ministerial staff in front of committees. The opposition is not interested in accountability or the truth. It is just interested in opportunistic grandstanding.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the important balance we are trying to strike here. The government acknowledges that there are broader issues. We have heard from members on both sides of the House that this is an ongoing discussion that needs to take place. However, there is a pressing and substantial deadline that we need to deal with, not just with respect to the court's decision but also with respect to the benefactors of this ruling.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the importance of moving forward with Bill C-3 as a first step and at the same time an exploratory process put in place to deal with these broader issues.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will not refer to the 2009 economic action plan, as usual.

I appreciate the member's participation in the debate. I point out the origins of today's discussion and debate. It centres around a decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision therein compelled Parliament to respond to a very specific set of circumstances, which gave rise to discrimination.

There is no dispute that there continues to be groups who want to debate and discuss this issue. Our responsibility, as a government, is to address what the court laid out in its decision, and Bill C-3 does that. The exploratory process will further engage the stakeholders in an effort to understand what solutions can be brought forward in the future.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the exercise we went through at committee and the process before this issue was discussed and debated at committee and now in this House, dealt with a myriad of issues that we needed to understand better as a Parliament. In particular, we heard from stakeholders that, in moving forward, once this Parliament had dealt with the specific concerns that the court raised in its ruling, which Bill C-3 would achieve, it sounds like we may not have heard the same things but what I heard from a number of stakeholders, including first nations leadership, was that there was a need for some kind of reconciliation around a couple of key issues, namely status, membership and citizenship.

That is why we will be going through an exploratory process moving forward in an effort to get to the bottom of a number of other issues and concerns as a result of any changes that are being proposed in this bill.

[Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, May 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, the gender equity and Indian registration act and I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting it.

As we debate amendments to this bill today, we must remember that Bill C-3 is time-sensitive. This bill is a prompt and direct response to the ruling of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in McIvor v. Canada.

As all members are well aware, last year the Court of Appeal of British Columbia ruled that the two paragraphs in section 6 of the Indian Act discriminate between men and women with respect to registration as an Indian and therefore violate the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Without legislation to address the court's ruling, section 6 of the Indian Act would become invalid, meaning that any and all new registrations would be put on hold for the duration of the invalidity. This legislative gap would affect eligible residents of British Columbia and those affiliated with British Columbia first nations. To be clear, in British Columbia over the last few years there have been between 2,500 and 3,000 newly registered people per year. Clearly, the situation is not acceptable.

According to the court's ruling, Parliament was given 12 months to provide a legislative response. The court subsequently granted an extension until July 5. The time to act is now. If we fail to meet this deadline, a key section of the Indian Act, the one that spells out the rules related to entitlement to registration, also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia. As I have stated, this legislative gap could have serious consequences.

The legislation now before us proposes to avert these consequences by amending certain registration provisions of the Indian Act. What would it do? Bill C-3 would eliminate a cause of gender discrimination in the Indian Act by removing the language the court ruled unconstitutional. In doing so, we take another important step in support of justice and equality.

I believe that every member of this House stands opposed to discrimination based on gender. Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to achieving gender equality. The debate is about the ongoing effort to eliminate gender discrimination while respecting the responsibility placed on us as parliamentarians to provide a timely and appropriate response to the ruling by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

As a modern and enlightened nation, Canada champions justice and equality for all. Canadians recognize that discrimination weakens the fabric of society and that it erodes the public's faith in the justice system. That is why I am pleased to support this legislation to address the gender discrimination in the Indian Act that was identified in the court's decision.

Members of this House have demonstrated by way of example time and time again their willingness to address issues related to individual rights. In 2008, for example, Parliament supported the repeal of section 67 of the Canada Human Rights Act. Section 67 shielded decisions or actions taken in accordance with the Indian Act from human rights complaints. To rectify this situation, members of this House supported legislation to repeal section 67. This is an important and relevant example for the purposes of this debate.

Bill C-3 has much in common with the legislation that repealed section 67. Both strive to protect individual rights and promote equality.

The truth is that addressing issues such as gender discrimination in certain registration provisions in the Indian Act would have a positive impact on Canada as a whole, as did the repealing of section 67.

Bill C-3 is a progressive, responsive and measured response to the court's decision. It is rooted in the principle that all citizens should be equal before the law. What is more important, or as important, Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the ruling by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. It proposes to eliminate a cause of unjust discrimination and ensure that Canada's legal system evolves alongside the needs of first nations peoples.

For too long, first nations people have struggled to participate fully in the prosperity of this nation due to a series of obstacles. With the removal of these obstacles, first nations peoples would have greater opportunities to contribute socially, economically and culturally to this country and to their communities in their respective regions. Parliament, of course, plays a key role in this process.

Putting an end to discrimination against first nations women is advantageous for all communities and that is why I am urging all members of this House to join me in supporting Bill C-3 and the amendments before us today.

[Diabetes, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise in the House today to celebrate the remarkable achievement of an impressive young lady who really does put the “great” in the great Kenora riding.

I met Sarah Macdonald last year at the Kenora home show where she was busy fundraising on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Walk to a Cure.

Sarah has type 1 diabetes and must use her insulin pump every day. In a letter to me, she said, “it's hard to imagine my life without diabetes, but it would be so awesome not to worry about any long-term complications like kidney failure, blindness, heart attack and stroke”.

That is why Sarah walks for the research foundation, and she has raised over $30,000 in the past five years with Team Sarah Macdonald. Because of her long history of participation, many of the organizers know Sarah by name and will shout out, “Hey, there's Sarah from Kenora”.

Today I encourage Canadians and all members of the House to be inspired by the tremendous dedication of Sarah from Kenora.

[Firearms Registry, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Nipissing—Timiskaming has a big decision to make when it comes to the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. He was once clear with his constituents when he called the long gun registry “disgusting”. At the second reading vote on Bill C-391, he declared, “I decided quite a while ago that I was going to support this bill”. Now he is being forced by the Liberal leader to vote for the long gun registry.

The member for Nipissing—Timiskaming says that he wants more changes to his own party's position. He has only two choices: he can vote to keep the long gun registry or he can do the right thing and scrap it. It is that simple.

The North Bay Nugget said in an editorial last week that “huge numbers of folk regard the registry as a multi-million dollar boondoggle”.

The member for Nipissing—Timiskaming should do the right thing and actually listen to his constituents and vote to scrap the Liberal long gun registry.