Mark Warawa

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today to Motion No.161 introduced by the hon. member for Simcoe North. I want to thank him for his work on this important issue on the future of the Trent-Severn Waterway.

The waterway has a special meaning for all Canadians. Its full title is the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site of Canada, and its designation as a national historic site bespeaks the fact that the waterway has genuine national historic significance and helped to shape the history of our country.

The waterway is a place of great natural beauty as well. The splendour and variety of its scenery is one of the waterway's greatest assets. For example, a boater travelling northward from the Bay of Quinte through the Trent River Valley will pass through lush farmlands, marshes rich with wildlife, and waterfalls and rocky gorges.

Rice Lake, with the distinctive teardrop-shaped drumlins that form its islands, marks the start of the Kawartha Lakes region. Shorelines blaze with colour in the fall, and so it goes with scenery and features of equal quality for nearly 400 kilometres, all the way to Georgian Bay.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is a rich tapestry woven with many of the stories of Canada that define us as a nation. It is a story of transportation. Native people have travelled the waterway lakes for thousands of years and archeological sites found through the area point to the importance of this transportation and migration route.

Samuel de Champlain travelled these waters, as did voyageurs. The waterway has seen the transport of great rafts of timber cut by loggers who were hurling down the pine and the romance of steam-powered excursion boats.

It is a story of sustenance, of courage and endurance, and of the evolution of Canada's economy, from ancient aboriginal fish weirs to early agricultural and lumbering economies, to the dams and the mills that were built to power industry, and that morphed into power generation and the birth of the industrial economy. The Mnjikaning fish weirs are a fascinating example of the ingenious technologies for survival developed by native people a millennia ago, and are a national historic site in their own right.

It is story of the engineering creativity and adaptation that were part and parcel of Canada's development, of canal locks that are almost a century and a half old, two ingenious and breathtaking lift locks, one of the world's earliest concrete arch bridges, and more. The Peterborough lift lock alone is a sight to behold. It is an engineering marvel, an elevator for boats that lifts and lowers watercraft a spectacular 19.8 metres and is yet another national historic site.

The concrete arch bridge near Bolsover is one of the earliest examples of this type of structure. It is a story of our political evolution with chapters that speak to the Family Compact, Upper Canada, Macdonald and Laurier.

The waterway's four national historic sites offer unprecedented opportunities to tell these stories to Canadians and to guests from around the world. Some 8 million to 10 million people live within a two to three hour drive of the waterway and there are some 50 million people only a day's drive away. New Canadians, particularly from the greater Toronto area, make up a significant segment of the waterway's visitation. What a wonderful opportunity the waterway presents to help them get acquainted with their new country.

In the same vein, hundreds of thousands of school children live along the waterway. Given Park Canada's mandate for education, the waterway has exciting potential to make Canada's history come alive and become real for these children. Parks Canada has an opportunity to tell the waterway stories and to engage Canadians in their history.

Moreover, this government wants to foster a culture of heritage appreciation in Canada. To do this, we need to ensure that our history is protected and preserved, and this means that from a practical point of view, we need to reflect on which governance and operational models will permit Parks Canada to focus its mandate and expertise on the Trent-Severn Waterway, so that its marvellous tales of Canada can be told to present and future generations.

It is important to begin by understanding what makes a historic site a national historic site and what Parks Canada's mandate is for overseeing our nationwide system of national historical sites.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has been at work since 1919. It is made up of respected historians and specialists from every province and territory of Canada, and it works closely with Parks Canada to promote and protect Canada's heritage.

One of the board's most important responsibilities is to make recommendations to the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the board and for the Parks Canada Agency, regarding the commemoration of people, places and events of national historical significance. Since the establishment in 1919, the board has designated more than 1,800 people, places and events as being worthy of commemoration. The total includes a country wide family of 155 national historic sites administered by Parks Canada, which stretches from sea to sea to sea.

Let us consider for a moment the challenges facing the Trent-Severn Waterway. The essential infrastructure of the waterway has been deteriorating and in places is badly in need of repair and rebuilding. That includes bridges, canal locks and dams. Some of these generate hydroelectricity and some are for water and flood control purposes.

Some have asked, is it not the responsibility of Parks Canada to fix the waterway? That is a good question. The Trent-Severn Waterway was built over several phases of early construction in 1833 and opened to navigation in 1920. Parks Canada assumed control of the waterway only in 1972. This included all responsibilities for water management and shoreline development.

The federal government's jurisdiction for the waterway rests primarily in the historic canal regulations, as mandated under the Department of Transport Act. To put it simply, the federal government owns the waterbed of the navigable waters and that is it. The present management structures for the waterway and its associated governance date back to the turn of the century and they emphasize navigation.

The legislative and regulatory framework, under which Parks Canada holds its present responsibilities, never envisaged the present conditions of exploiting growth and use of the waterway. Nor was it designed to cope with them. Moreover, let us take a brief look at Parks Canada's mandate for national historic sites. Its primary mandate under the Parks Canada Agency Act is:

To foster knowledge and appreciation of Canada's past through a national program of historical commemoration.

Parks Canada has a very specific mandate to protect culturally significant resources, ensure public education and understanding and to provide for first class visitor experiences.

The waterway is not a national park, so Parks Canada does not have the authority to treat it as a national park with regard to safeguarding environmental quality. Parks Canada has a mandate to foster heritage appreciation across Canada and to ensure that visitors to our national historic sites have a high quality experience.

Asking the agency on its own to maintain and restore one of Canada's major and most complex waterways over which many jurisdictions have powers, is asking too much. The challenges facing the waterway simply cannot be addressed by one jurisdiction. We would be limiting ourselves only to the tools within Parks Canada's toolbox for maintaining national historic sites.

The way forward, with regard to the Trent-Severn Waterway, is clear. Its problems must be clearly defined and then addressed through a collaborative effort of all stakeholders.

I am very optimistic about the future of the Trent-Severn Waterway National Historic Site of Canada. Many people and non-governmental organizations are hard at work already doing their part with great community spirit to preserve the waterway and its heritage for the benefit and enjoyment for future generations.

One organization, in particular, I want to acknowledge and thank is the Friends of the Trent-Severn Waterway, who deeply care about the waterway's future. If all the partners and stakeholders come together and embrace their responsibilities, the waterway will remain a living, vital resource that includes individual property owners, the business community, hydro operators, municipalities, the province and the federal government.

By supporting the motion, we can support and start to focus high level and strategic attention this issue in a way that develops ownership by key interests in the future of the waterway. I encourage all members to support the motion.

[The Environment, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and, as we have said many times in the House, we are developing a plan that is going to be effective and realistic.

I do not expect any support on plan building with the Liberals. For 13 years, they did absolutely nothing. However, we ask everyone else in the House to help us develop a plan that will be effective.

[The Environment, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The Liberals did absolutely nothing for the last 13 years. On Wednesday, the environment minister announced the plan to prevent the release of 10 tonnes of mercury over the next 10 years.

Both Environmental Defence Canada and the Clean Air Foundation praised this announcement. Environmental Defence called it good news for the health of Canadians. Dr. Rick Smith said, “This is great news for the health of Canadians, particularly young children...”. The Clean Air Foundation said, “The proposal is a good first step toward protecting Canadians”.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the environment minister have made it very clear that this is a made in Canada plan that affects all provinces, all territories and the international partnership. We will have a made in Canada plan that is effective in all provinces.

[The Environment, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We know the Liberal plan did not work so why would that member be supporting a Liberal plan that does not work?

We are committed to effective plans that work.

[May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member remains confused and still supports a Liberal plan that did not work, as we are 35% over the Kyoto target.

We are developing a made in Canada plan that will ensure real reductions in greenhouse gases. Our plan will provide opportunities to build a competitive and sustainable Canadian economy. It will provide energy efficiency. It will allow for the development and use of new Canadian technologies. It will provide greater accountability for Canadians. It will allow for greater regional development. It will provide improved public transit.

Our made in Canada approach will be effective and realistic.

[May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about his confusion. I hope my presentation this evening will clarify things for him.

Our government is committed to a made in Canada plan that will see real reductions in greenhouse gases. This government will use a principled approach to develop and advance our made in Canada solution to address climate change. We will do this by taking action first here at home by investing in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. Our plan will put Canadians first.

Our Prime Minister has shown the courage and leadership to address this pressing issue with a strong commitment to a made in Canada plan to clean up our environment. We will continue to work with industry, our colleagues in the House, the provinces and all Canadians in the development of our plan to ensure that we can show real results.

This government has already taken action through a significant funding commitment to public transit infrastructure, in the order of $1.3 billion. We have also introduced a tax credit for monthly and annual transit pass holders to encourage Canadians to use public transit, which is a more effective and less polluting alternative. These are all good ideas.

We have also agreed with the provinces and territories to move forward with the implementation of a 5% average renewable fuel content for gasoline and diesel by 2010 that will advance the agricultural economies, as well as bring cleaner fuel supplies to the market.

This government will take additional measures to begin to address the years of poor oversight on the environmental front. A made in Canada approach will see real progress in cleaning up our environment and in reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. We will do this in an open and transparent manner by setting realistic and achievable goals, not confusing goals.

We are also assessing existing programs to see if they fit with our goal of providing clean air and clean energy for Canadians. They have to be effective. Our approach will establish effective measures to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by including the right signals to assist industry in using innovative measures to reduce emissions. Our approach will include appropriate policies, strategies and measures to build up our capacity to adapt to the changing climate.

We will be working with the provinces and territories, with industry and with other Canadians. We will be looking at engaging communities and individual Canadians to reduce not only greenhouse gases but also other air pollutants.

We have also been clear that Canada will use its leadership position as the president of the international United Nations climate change process for 2006 to work with other countries to help advance a more effective, long term approach that will see real reduction in greenhouse gases globally.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are several federal initiatives that support remediation and redevelopment of urban brownfield sites.

For example, there are the green municipal funds provided by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Brantford is a member of FCM. The FCM provides loans to municipalities for remediation of brownfield sites and is currently funding a number of projects. The FCM has just recently issued another call for proposals to municipalities throughout Canada.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is supporting redevelopment of brownfield sites through its residential mortgage insurance program.

The federal government is putting its own house in order with regard to contaminated sites and brownfield sites.

We enthusiastically support others doing the same.

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government has clearly stated its commitment to clean up federal contaminated sites and to encourage the private sector to clean up brownfield sites.

This government's approach to contaminated sites and brownfields is founded on the polluter pays principle. The federal government is applying this principle to itself through a $3.5 billion program to address federal contaminated sites. There is action under way on hundreds of contaminated sites on federal lands across Canada.

This government will hold federal departments and agencies to their responsibility to protect the environment by identifying, assessing and cleaning up contaminated sites that represent a risk to the environment or to human health.

The federal contaminated sites program also encourages departments to take action on federal brownfield sites. There are opportunities for the federal government to make better use of its urban contaminated properties by cleaning them up so they can better be used and developed.

Federal brownfield sites that meet the risk criteria of the federal program will be treated as a priority for action. The federal government also recognizes the benefits to the Canadian environment and the economy for cleaning up and redeveloping non-federal brownfield sites.

Perhaps we should be clear on what we mean by brownfield sites. Brownfields are abandoned, vacant or underutilized commercial or industrial properties where past actions have resulted in contamination and where there is an active potential for redevelopment for productive uses.

Returning underutilized urban contaminated sites to economically productive uses has the potential to generate significant public benefits. Economic benefits include both the economic impact of remediation and redevelopment and the longer term benefits of the increased economic activity associated with the end land use.

By returning urban lands to active use, infrastructure expansion costs to communities can be avoided. Quality of life in the community will be improved when redevelopment contributes to revitalization of the urban core. The greatest environmental benefit of brownfield redevelopment results from intensified use of the urban core, such that the increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions associated with urban sprawl are avoided. These benefits are increased if the redevelopment incorporates environmentally sustainable features such that the environmental footprint of buildings and operations on the land is reduced.

Sustainable community design incorporates appropriate community and site planning, along with sustainable building and infrastructure design and materials. Energy efficient design, storm water management and water reuse systems as key elements of new developments on brownfield sites will make a positive contribution to community environments.

The redevelopment of brownfields has the potential to provide many community benefits, including an increased supply of affordable housing, improved health and safety of residents, increased economic activity, heritage preservation, and increased tax revenues for all levels of government.

The economic benefits of brownfield remediation and redevelopment include: transformation of a liability into an asset; reduced risk of effects on the environment and human health; creation of employment opportunities, both during the redevelopment process and in the long term; use of existing urban infrastructure such as roads, sewers and utilities, thereby reducing the need for new infrastructure; and the opportunity to utilize well-located properties in a developed area.

[The Environment, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is: Why did that party keep from the Canadian public what was happening on the Kyoto targets? It knew for the last five years that those targets were not achievable and that it was 35% above those targets. Why did that party keep that from the Canadian public?