Pat Martin

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see what would motivate people to put forward a bill like Bill S-14 to honour two great leaders of our country. I understand what motivated them. I understand why they are doing it, but I do not agree that it is good idea for the same reasons expressed by my colleague from Laval Centre who really begged the question, where does it end?

If we do allocate a memorial day for those two prime ministers, what prime minister would not want a day dedicated to him or her? It would open a can of worms; it would open the door to an area where we do not want to go.

I understand why Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were singled out. We should take special measures to honour and respect the enormous contributions that these two leaders have made to our country. There is an irony here as well. As we see the Liberal government honour Sir A. Macdonald for the great things that he did in cobbling together a federation, a very bold move, we see this particular Liberal government taking deliberate steps to dismantle the whole idea of a strong central government.

The very vision of Sir John A. Macdonald which we seek to recognize, the Liberals are taking active steps to dismantle, that very same strong central confederation. It is worth noting what an achievement it was to pull together a confederation and to make the conscious choice to form a federation rather than a single state.

Federations are the hardest form of government in the world to keep together. Of all the world's countries, I believe less than 20 are federations for that very reason. It is very difficult to pacify all the competing interests and the regionalism that goes together. Of those 20 federations in the world, India is the most populous. The United States is probably the most powerful and wealthiest. Even the United States only lasted 75 years before bursting into a bloody civil war.

Of those 20 federal states in the world, three in recent times have either disappeared or are at risk. I refer to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and Canada which is just hanging on by a thread. It is a very tenuous form of government. It is very difficult to keep a federation together. Sir John A. Macdonald to his credit pulled it together. It is a bit ironic to see the government, or individual members of the Liberal government, promoting a day to honour the founder of confederation when they themselves are actively taking steps to weaken the whole concept of a strong central state through the devolution of power to the provinces and a diminishing role for the federal government.

We should recognize Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Again, I do not believe in a memorial day but we should recognize the enormous contribution that he made to basic democracy. He is the man who gave us the secret ballot vote. That is significant. Something we take for granted as always being there was not always there until someone like Sir Wilfrid Laurier came along and said that in the interests of fairness, in the interests of true democracy, this is the way we are going to do things.

I refer to the public schools act. With true vision Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government decided that school should be free of charge until grade 12, and that financial status should not be a barrier because that is what people need to take part in the workforce today.

Again, it is ironic to see the government seeking to honour the founder of the public school system with a memorial day when it itself is taking active steps to preclude the participation in post-secondary education. If anything, if the government wanted to dedicate a couple of hours of debate in the House of Commons, we should be debating the concept of extending the public schools act to include the first university degree. There should be free tuition for the first university degree. That would be worthy of debate in the House instead of a token gesture to memorialize Sir Wilfrid Laurier by a memorial day.

Another of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's achievements we should make note of is immigration, building the west. The member who spoke previously mentioned Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in government from 1896 to 1911, 15 years uninterrupted.

During that period of time Manitoba grew about by 300%. In my home province of Manitoba there were waves of immigration. It took real foresight and real vision to open our borders and invite the world to come and help us build a great nation. That took real, inspired vision. I recognize that and I have a great deal of respect for it.

As I am outlining these things, more come to mind. There is another irony associated with this in that one of the greatest achievements of Sir John A. Macdonald was building the national railway. The single greatest achievement of that century, perhaps, in terms of building this nation was our national railway, the great dream. Here we have members of the Liberal government opposite proposing to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, the architect of that dream, when they themselves are again taking active steps to dismantle the national dream of a continuous rail line from east to west. For years we have been criticizing the dismantling of our rail system. For all the environmental reasons and economic reasons we should be encouraging rail transportation in this country, accentuating it and adding to it, not tearing up the tracks.

We cannot help but comment on the irony associated with that. The Liberals seek to honour the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald with a memorial day when the very things that Sir John A. Macdonald dedicated his life to building in this country they themselves are dismantling piece by piece.

I cannot support the bill. I know it is a private member's bill and so my party members will be voting their own conscience. I am not speaking for my caucus, but I myself support the remarks from the member for Laval Centre, that we do not think it is appropriate to start dedicating memorial days to the memory of prime ministers, no matter how great their contribution to building this country. I will not be supporting Bill S-14.

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, life must be so simple when one is a Liberal. It must be really convenient to be such a gifted chameleon, to flip-flop from one's position.

I remember the Liberals in the late 1980s and early 1990s arguing and opposing free trade vehemently and vigorously. They had passionate debates saying that free trade would bring us down and that Brian Mulroney was evil for trying to foist free trade upon us. Today they have conveniently flip-flopped and are now the champions, the vanguards of the free trade movement. It must be really easy to be a Liberal. I guess that is why there are so many Liberals, it is so bloody easy.

When labour issues are raised within free trade agreements, the side agreements are so hopelessly feckless, absolutely useless, that no workers ever get any satisfaction from them. That is why we are saying they should be within the actual document, not in some parallel side accord. Those side accords have never given satisfaction to the grieving parties.

If they set up an institution that is completely feckless, they are dooming it to failure, and it is a deliberate thing. There was a conscious choice to not put those terms and conditions within the contract and to put them on a side deal because they would brush those issues off to the side so nothing would interfere or interrupt with the free movement of goods and services of capital, not even the legitimate grievances of working people who are being affected in a negative way by these issues.

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is probably the longest question in the history of the House of Commons. The member did come to the point so I suppose he deserves a response.

It is our position that the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement is more notable for its omissions than what is in it. When we talk about core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues it is not just the NDP talking. We are not the enemy here. We are not the only voice in the wilderness calling for these things. It is the ILO, the United Nations, and international NGOs from around the world that are calling for a more progressive attitude toward our trade policies.

I know the hon. member has a thing about the NDP. He wants to place us as the enemy or the lone voice on this issue. In actual fact the rest of the world agrees with us. Most of the developed nations are questioning their role and trade as an aspect of their overall policy.

I will use the European Union as an example. If free trade agreements were comparable to the economic harmonization within the European Union, we would not have any objections and I would not be standing here complaining. However in that case one is dealing with countries that are a lot more similar in size and shape. There is not the incredible imbalance in the power structure between the two signatories.

I have used the example of when the lion lays down with the lamb, the lamb does not get much sleep. That has never been truer than in a situation like this one. It is an overwhelming imbalance in the power relationship between the two signatories to this agreement.

That is not true in the European Union. It is finding consensus and agreement that took 20 years to negotiate. The agreements at the European Union were not written on the back of a napkin.

The deal we have here was signed at the Quebec summit. While we were protesting outside the fence the deal was being signed inside the fence. It was a hasty and flawed job because it failed to address the real issues that most people care about. These are issues that would affect the quality of life of the people in those countries.

What else matters? If profit is the only motive then we have a satisfactory document. However it falls short if it was intended to elevate the human condition by using trade agreements. There is nothing radical about an observation like that. It is an objective opinion that we could do better.

It is a missed opportunity any time we enter into one of these trade deals that does not use every tool in our toolbox to try to elevate the human condition. What else is it all about and why else are we here?

I resent the tone and the content of the hon. member's intervention because it fails to appreciate the legitimate concerns I am trying to raise. I speak for a significant percentage of the population when I do that.

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to enter the debate on Bill C-32 regarding the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement. I think it is quite well known that the NDP party has great reservations about liberalized trade agreements, about the way Canada enters into these agreements and about the terms and conditions that are either within or fail to be within the agreements.

Our position is quite clear. We do not think Canada should enter into any free trade agreements or liberalized trade agreements that do not enshrine basic labour rights, environmental standards or human rights. We believe there is a role within trade agreements to deal with those social issues. We reject the argument that there is no other place for those other issues within trade deals of that nature.

I point out the irony that we should even debate or consider this bill in the legislature or in parliament. These free trade agreements are specifically designed to bypass freely elected legislatures and parliaments around the world. It is part of their job to provide a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations that bypass freely elected governments. Some of our ability to control our destiny within this country is taken away by these free trade agreements.

It may sound like a strong statement, but Ruggiero, the former head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods and services and capital. That is why we need free trade agreements to bypass this tedious democratic process that we spend our lives representing.

That in a nutshell sums up what the NDP's concern is about free trade agreements. There are people who actually believe that there is a surplus of democracy in the world which is interfering with the free movement of capital and investment. It is a frightening thought.

The Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement resembles in many ways NAFTA, the FTAA, the GATS agreements and other free trade agreements. There are many similar features in it. There are no noticeable improvements. In other words, all the things we pointed out as flaws or omissions in those other agreements are not dealt with in this new Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement.

Canada as a nation is dealing with challenges under the current free trade agreements under which we are living, NAFTA challenges, et cetera. I point out some cases where we are vulnerable to these challenges, one of which is dealing with the bulk sale of water. We just heard eloquent and passionate debates about Canada not getting into exporting bulk water, or the bulk sale of interbasin transfer of water.

The Americans, through the free trade agreement, are challenging Canada now. Sun Belt California is a company that is challenging Canada, saying that we have denied them economic opportunity by refusing to commodify our water resources. This is the kind of thing to which we are vulnerable.

Another issue is our postal service. We have chosen to have a federally owned postal service to deliver our mail. However, American companies such as UPS, have challenged that. They have said that this is a service they wish to provide and that they have a right to offer free competition in that arena. Because they want to provide the delivery of mail service, they have said that Canada cannot give Canada Post a monopoly on its courier service.

This is an example of where we are losing our ability to control our own destiny and shape the kind of country as we want it because of the free trade agreements we have entered into at times.

At the onset of my speech I mentioned that we are critical of any liberalized trade agreement that fails to recognize core labour, environmental standards and basic human rights issues. When we raise that, we are often told that by trading with less developed nations, those standards will be elevated by some kind of osmosis and that they will naturally come up to our level.

In other words, we will not go to the lowest common denominator, they will come up to ours. There is no empirical evidence anywhere in the world where that has been the case. In fact, the opposite has been true. The harmonization has been a downward trend, except in places where it is specifically contemplated and dealt with, such as the European Union.

The EU was a free trade agreement that the NDP could probably have endorsed. Over 20 years they carefully set out the terms and conditions that would not harmonize to the lowest common denominator. In fact, the less developed countries were brought up to a mean average at least.

We look at examples like the APEC meetings in Vancouver that resulted in riots and the pepper spray incident, et cetera. We objected to inviting somebody like Suharto to our country. We considered him an international criminal, a butcher. Yet we hosted him in our country. When we raised that as an objection the government said that by dealing with people like that and trading with them, we would pull them into the democratic world and would elevate their standards of labour conditions.

When we ended up pepper spraying our own citizens for having the temerity for a peaceful protest, it looked like we went down to his level. That kind of harmonization to the higher common denominator does not seem to happen. We are very critical of it.

There are specifics in the bill that I should deal with. First, the preamble of this hefty piece of legislation is written in such flowery language. It is almost poetic. It is almost beautiful to read the principles being espoused in that preamble. Unfortunately those same principles do not find any room within the actual text of the document.

It says that the Government of Canada and the government of Costa Rica have entered into this agreement to strengthen the special bonds of friendship among their peoples and to contribute to the harmonious development and provide a catalyst for broader international co-operation. They are all very lofty goals and wonderful principles that anybody would be happy to be associated with, until we see what it really translates into.

If our interest is really to elevate the standards of living conditions for people around the world and if it is true that the globalization of capital is supposed to bring with it the globalization of the rule of law, the globalization of human rights, the globalization of foreign labour standards, then where is it in this document? Where is it in the empirical evidence around the world where these trade agreements exist? It does not exist. It is a fraud. We are being sold a bill of goods here that do not translate into elevating anybody's standards. In fact, it has had a reverse effect. It has had a negative effect on wages and working conditions. It serves only one interest and that is the interest of global capital.

The NDP is concerned. I should make it clear there is nothing anti-free trade about the NDP or our party's policy. We are very much for free trade. Other speakers mentioned that we are more interested in fair trade. The world should develop and evolve, toward a fair, rules based trading mechanism, not a free hand in the market shall prevail and good luck.

Labour standards are of particular concern to me as a former trade unionist and labour leader. We have watched Costa Rica for many years. Frankly, Costa Rica has a terrible reputation for labour standards.

One of our criticisms about this trade agreement is the same as with NAFTA. It relegates labour issues to a side agreement. They are not found within the actual text of the document. All those annoying labour issues will be dealt with by a separate tribunal, which is slow, tedious, cumbersome, bureaucratic and has not given any satisfaction to the working people who object or have a legitimate grievance.

Costa Rica is notorious for its persistent denial of basic labour rights, especially the rights of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to withhold services.

All this agreement requires the parties to do is enforce their existing labour legislation. There is nothing in here about enhancing current labour legislation to bring it up to the highest common denominator. It just says that there is a requirement to enforce whatever labour legislation they have.

Costa Rica's labour legislation is woefully behind western standards or standards within the free world. It is another one of those countries, through no fault of its own but through its desire to bring economic development to its country, that has bought into this idea of free trade zones or economic trade zones. They are called export processing zones, or EPZs, in Costa Rica. These are areas that are excused from the pathetic legislation that exists in that country. These particular zones, these fenced compounds, do not have to live up to those regulations. It is a cowboy attitude toward labour standards.

We have watched Costa Rica develop over recent years. Whether it is Central America, South America and Costa Rica, there is no exception, they have what we call anti-worker Solidarista movements or phony union movements. They are unions of convenience, much like CLAC, the Christian labour alliance, in Canada. By voluntarily signing a contract with CLAC, real unions are prohibited from organizing in a particular workplace. These dummy unions have been organized nationally and are put place to try to keep bona fide unions from organizing. This was a conspiracy to deny people basic union rights and freedoms.

If we were sincere about elevating the standards of wages and working conditions of people in developing nations and using trade agreements to help do that as an instrument, then we would require our trading partners to adhere to the same standards of freedom and rights to association for collective bargaining that we give our workers. The agreement is completely and deliberately silent on that. We object to that. If nothing else it is a missed opportunity for those of us who do genuinely care about international development and moving society forward in a global way.

This is not the instrument to do that. Once again, this is an instrument of exploitation. If we do not say it here, there is certainly no opportunity for the working people of Costa Rica to object. This is happening above and beyond any input from them.

I stand in solidarity with my fellow working people in Costa Rica to object to this agreement and to any so-called free trade agreement that does not recognize core labour standards, the right to free collective bargaining and the basic principles that we take for granted in this country.

People say that trade unionists object to free trade agreements for selfish reasons because they are worried that their standard of living will be dragged down. Frankly, if labour and commodities are cheaper in one of our trading partner's country, there is nothing to stop Canadian or American companies gravitating to that country for manufacturing purposes.

I resent that and object to that position. I also resent the argument that we are worried about losing our good paying manufacturing jobs. We are worried. We would be crazy if we were not. The only sensible thing Ross Perot ever said in the election in the states was with regard to the great flushing sound of Canadian and American jobs racing to Mexico with the first free trade agreement. We noticed that and have not fully recovered from all the promises that those blue collar jobs would be replaced with better paying jobs. That has not happened among the neighbours that I know.

We are watching Canada negotiate badly on our behalf. Every time it enters into a trade agreement we are dumbfounded. What kind of negotiators are these people who negotiate on our behalf, go into these closed door meetings and sign deals like this?

When I was in Quebec City, I was outside the fence protesting while the negotiators were inside the fence signing yet another free trade agreement. There is kind of a cruel irony there as well.

This bill falls short of any of the lofty goals and principles that are talked about in the preamble of the bill. If the government were serious about doing something to move the global community forward in terms of bringing less developed nations up to our standard of living, I could endorse it.

The NDP caucus would happily buy into any kind of agreement that would move society forward in that way. Bill C-32 and bills like it keep people back. It does nothing to elevate the human condition on the planet.

I put it to the House that the Canada-Cost Rica a free trade agreement is less about eliminating trades and tariffs and more about institutionalizing a freedom that global capital enjoys today. It enshrines it in such a way that even freely elected democratic institutions like parliament cannot touch.

Members are made irrelevant by agreements like this one. Renato Ruggier, head of the WTO, said that there was a surplus of democracy in the world that was getting in the way of the free movement of goods, services and capital, and that therefore we needed free trade agreements to bypass annoying nuisances such as legislatures, parliaments, et cetera.

The best example is Ethyl Corporation. I am sure hon. members heard this case cited before in the House of Commons. We as a nation decided that it was bad to have MMT in our atmosphere and environment. MMT is poison as a gasoline additive; it kills people and causes cancer. We decided to ban and outlaw it.

However Ethyl Corporation which produces MMT said that we could not do that. It said that we were interfering with its right to capitalize on selling MMT. In other words there was a lost opportunity. It sued the Government of Canada because it had nation state status under the free trade agreements.

A company can sue a country because we allocated a nation state status to a corporate entity and it won. We had to back off. We had to pay it damages for lost opportunity because we as a nation decided that for our children's benefit we would ban a toxic chemical as a gasoline additive.

It was ruled that we could not do that any more. Somebody traded our right away. Some bright eyed negotiator on behalf of the Canadian government signed away our ability to protect our own environment in a free trade agreement.

It is not being alarmist to raise these issues. These are legitimate concerns and I am horrified by that. What did these people agree to? It is like sending Jack to the market with a cow and he comes back with three beans. There is no guarantee that any of those beans will even sprout. It is a serious concern and a legitimate issue.

Our NDP caucus, along with a significant number of Canadians who are concerned about the globalization of capital and the free for all interest in the free trade agreements, is disappointed. Speaking on their behalf, we are very concerned that we have failed to represent the real issues at hand.

If it is our goal, duty and obligation as elected members of parliament to elevate the human condition and to move society forward, how can we knowingly sign on to something like this which has the reverse effect? It broadens the gap between rich and poor by enshrining bad behaviour. It institutionalizes irresponsible corporate behaviour and locks people in developing nations into that situation and holds them back.

There is a missed opportunity here. This free trade agreement should specify that if a country wants to trade with Canada its standards of labour conditions have to be elevated in harmony to those of Canada. Otherwise Canada would not trade with it. If it wants to do business with Canada it must do something about the abominable, wretched labour conditions in its country.

We would then be using our position of privilege as a nation to help raise standards in that country. However there is no mention of that here. When we raise it we are told that it is a deal between economies, not countries, and that it is not our job to deal with social issues.

We are told that we cannot do anything about child labour, but if those children were burning bootleg CDs the economic community would intervene in a minute. It would be down there in a second to protect its intellectual property. In some cases it acts very quickly. In other cases it says child labour is not its issue. We should wait until child labour is bootlegging CDs to see how quickly it acts.

Bill C-32 does not deserve our support. It does not achieve what it should achieve as a free trade agreement. If the government were serious about free and fair trade this would be a far different bill.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a number of times during his speech how it is quite likely we will see 100 or 125 new nuclear reactors in the immediate future to meet the increasing demand for electricity.

One thing I noticed was that the hon. member did not dwell on or mention some interesting news out of the United States. The Bonneville power authority, which I believe is the largest power authority anywhere in North America, covers a lot of the western seaboard, California and the coast. It has actually precluded the need for eight nuclear power plants through a comprehensive demand side management program. In other words, by reducing the amount of electricity that it uses, it precluded the need for eight nuclear power plants in that geographic region alone.

The Tennessee Valley hydro authority, which covers a lot of the eastern-southern states, has also had similar effects with an aggressive demand side conservation program.

Rather than take a fait accompli attitude that we will have these nuclear power plants and therefore we better find a way to deal with the waste, would the hon. member care to dwell on perhaps a more positive approach? The fact is that as citizens of the planet we can find a way to produce the energy we need or to deal with our precious energy resources in a lot more responsible way.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor--St. Clair for a very interesting speech on a very serious and important subject. I noticed that early on in his remarks he mentioned something about how we as users of energy must start to think about the whole cost of energy sources, which means it is not only the cost of generating a unit of energy but also the costs associated with cleaning up the impact of that energy production.

As an example, we are all used to paying an extra $5 when we buy a tire for our cars. The $5 is built into the price knowing full well that when we are finished using that tire we will have to find a place to dispose of it.

Could the member expand on this new world view that we have to take about energy to deal with the whole cost of energy use.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, September 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation, I too will try to be brief.

The NDP caucus understands that Bill C-33 is omnibus legislation regarding the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal and that these organizations are necessary under the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The implementation of Bill C-33 is the fulfillment of the obligation to complete those requirements.

I agree with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when he said that the bill was an important step forward as we continued to meet our obligations to build capacity in the new territory of Nunavut. It is our hope that these institutions will guarantee that residents of Nunavut will have more say in decisions about the use of water resources, the deposition of wastes and access to lands throughout their territory.

We believe the roles of the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal should have the effect between balancing the interests of the many stakeholders, while ensuring protection of the fragile Arctic environment.

I think I speak for all members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when I say I look forward to the further input from northerners in this legislation process as the bill goes ahead to the standing committee and ultimately through the various stages of the House of Commons and the Senate.

This piece of legislation has been conveniently divided into two parts for us. We understand that part 1 of the enactment would implement provisions to the agreement related to the management of waters, a very timely and talkable theme and a necessary issue as we recognize the right to self-determination of the people of Nunavut.

We also recognize the right for them to control the use of their waters and the many all-encompassing issues that fall under that category, be it development issues, water use for domestic purposes, the deposition of waste and sewage treatment and, as was raised by previous speakers, the well-being of the marine passageways in the event of an oil spill or damage to marine life.

We further note that the new board would have the authority and the power to not only give permits and licences, but also to regulate and to impose fines, if there was a violation, and to order compensation, if compensation becomes necessary due to the misuse of water rights that may have an impact on those downstream.

I am very sensitive to this issue partly because I spent much of my formative years north of 60 working in Yukon. I can say from experience that the history of water use and land management in our north has been abominable. It has been lacking in many important ways. This is all the more reason why the people of Nunavut, in the rightly negotiating process that led up to the creation of the new territory, asked for, deserved and were adamant that they be in control of the water management and the land surface, land use management in their area.

I have seen firsthand some of the cavalier and irresponsible attitudes toward water use in the Yukon Territory. I will give a couple of examples of mistakes that we do not want to see repeated; a legacy of abuse.

My home near Dawson City was built up the Dempster Highway on the road to Inuvik in the heart of the Klondike goldfields. There is a lot of history about the Klondike. A lot of people had a romantic idea about the taking gold from the Klondike, but what they did was dredge the entire area. They were huge dredges as big as this Chamber. They worked their way down the creek beds, the Klondike and all the historic creeks like Bonanza Creek and Hunker Creek, chewing up the riverbeds. They absolutely gobbled it up at one end, processed it in a huge floating dredge and spit it out the back end.

These dredges worked their way up and down the waterways of Yukon relentlessly for 30 to 50 years. Salmon streams were chewed up in the pursuit of gold by those who did not have a vested interest. They are now long gone but the damage remains.

I will give an example from my home province of Manitoba. When it became necessary to divert the Churchill and the Nelson rivers into one massive river system for hydroelectric dam purposes they flooded South Indian Lake in a very cavalier way. There was not a great deal of thought that went into the fact that it was an existing functioning town with a fish marketing co-op.

People had their livelihoods there. They simply backfilled the whole valley and flooded out the town of South Indian Lake. They flooded the tree line 40 feet deep without recognition that when land like that is flooded arsenic, mercury and other toxic material leech from the soil as natural products that exist there.

It was another example of water rights and water management practices under our current system that were negligent and abusive.

Another example comes to mind. I had a job in Yukon going around the Richardson Mountains, the Ogilvie Range and the Tombstone Range picking up fuel depots the American military had left behind. It used to cache aviation gas in huge deposits all over the north. Forty years later many of the barrels had rusted through and all the aviation gas was flowing into the delicate tundra ecosphere.

It was an incredibly negligent and cavalier attitude toward water quality in the north. Due to the fact that the area is so massive it seemed that nothing we could do would ever damage it. Now we know different.

The last example deals with hydroelectric power. We have examples like Notigi diversion, Kettle Rapids dam, Jenpeg dam, Long Spruce, Waskahigan, Limestone, Conawapa, the James Bay Grande Baleine project and Site C at Fort St. John. All these hydroelectric projects were done with very little environmental impact studies and very little recognition of what occurs downstream.

I do not blame the people of Nunavut for being adamant that they wish to have more input into water rights and water use. That is more than we saw in Yukon when water rights were under federal jurisdiction. The Yukon territory did not have jurisdiction of its own water rights because it was operated from Ottawa, to no one's interest.

We are comfortable that Bill C-33 would do as it is intended, that is to finish the job of the creation of the territory of Nunavut along with the transfer of jurisdictions that goes along with it and the ultimate goal of bringing greater benefits to all communities in the north.

The NDP caucus recognizes that the south has benefited greatly from the resources harvested in the north. We welcome any opportunity to recognize that the northern communities and people who live there deserve the right to share in the great wealth and prosperity of the nation largely drawn from the resources in the north.

We will be recommending an amendment dealing with the water board's ability to grant licences for water use. The board would be able to renew or cancel licences as well as assign penalties in the case of abuse of water rights.

The maximum fine, as contemplated in Bill C-33, is $100,000. Given the ongoing mining boom in the Northwest Territories and in parts of Nunavut and the types of user group that might be affected by it, we find $100,000 to be a paltry amount of money. It is really pin money to a large mining interest that might be in the north. We know what a mining operation can do to the water quality in whatever area it is in.

There used to be a myth that we could do anything to a river as long as it ran for three kilometres and after three kilometres it would run clear again. We now know that was an absolute misconception, a myth that was created by the user groups that were polluting the rivers. It is just not true. We think that the $100,000 fine is paltry when it comes to any kind of a penalty. Even if it is coupled with the full compensation of those who may be affected downstream, or hunters or fishermen who may lose their livelihood as a result of the irresponsible action, we still think the $100,000 penalty is paltry.

There are a couple of other things we wish were in Bill C-33. We are going to be seeking to include them at committee stage, but I will register them here.

The one thing that comes to mind is that this bill, even though it transfers the rights to make these decisions to the newly founded territory of Nunavut, it does not specifically make any reference to the bulk sale of water. Given that this has become such a timely subject, and that by the minister's own admission the original bill that was introduced has been amended over 100 times to make it more timely and to plug little loopholes, we wish that the bill specifically barred whoever is in charge of water in Nunavut from the bulk sale of water because it contradicts what we in the House of Commons have already decided is in the best interests of Canada.

We also wish it were more specific on an issue that will become topical very soon, that is, the ownership of the icebergs which are created by the breaking up of the polar ice cap. I am not talking about the bulk sale of water, but this is something we need to contemplate soon. Are we going to allow foraging or salvaging rights like we do in our shipping lanes within the 200 kilometres Canadian limit? Will we allow people to come into our waters to harvest and salvage floating bulk water? These things need to be contemplated any time we talk about the bulk sale or the management of our precious freshwater resources.

To keep the speech brief, I will simply say that the NDP looks forward to Bill C-33 going to committee. We plan on being active participants at that stage. We look forward to further input from people who actually live in the north and the people of Nunavut. We wish them well as they take this next step toward true independence and charting their own destiny.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for a very interesting speech. There is no question in my mind that I concur that these matters should be dealt with in the House of Commons. We should be given the opportunity to have our say and to vote on many aspects of the incidents stemming from the tragedy on September 11.

I would like the hon. member to expand on something he mentioned, which is the impact this catastrophic event has had on jobs. I speak of workers in the airline industry, the aerospace industry and even beyond those industries and into the hospitality industry as well as taxi drivers. The taxi driver who brought me here from the airport told me that he had three fares that day from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. when I was picked up. These people do not have anything to fall back on in terms of EI or many of the other benefits that other workers might have if they found themselves temporarily unemployed.

Would the hon. member agree that one of the things we in the House should be contemplating is an emergency measures package for workers impacted by this catastrophic event with special emphasis on those workers who do not have access to EI? Would he see fit to temporarily amend the EI Act and use some of the overwhelming surplus in the EI fund to offset the impact that this catastrophic event is having on workers such as taxi drivers and part time employees in the hospitality industry?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, another matter comes to mind. The hon. member may have noticed in the National Post of yesterday, I believe, an article about the U.S. seeking common immigration rules.

It states that the U.S. ambassador to Canada yesterday sketched out the Bush administration's vision of a North American security perimeter that would go beyond the use of technology to speed up border crossings and go into the delicate substance of national refugee and immigration policies. In other words, as I mentioned in my speech, the U.S. ambassador is promoting the harmonization of immigration and refugee policies as a subject to sharing the new technological advances to speed up the transfer of goods and services across the border.

What is the position of the PC/DR coalition on the integration and harmonization of immigration and refugee policies as an aspect of improving the border crossings?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened to most of the hon. member's speech, although I was out of the room for part of it, but I did not hear him answer the question that was raised by the Alliance member in the form of a motion about putting Bill S-23 away for the time being to deal with the larger issue of the international tragedy that happened at the World Trade Center.

Is it the position of the PC/DR coalition that it would like to see Bill S-23 go ahead but with the changes that he spoke about? Or is he in favour of our position and, I believe, the position of the motion, that Bill S-23 should not be considered at this time, at least until such time as the World Trade Center tragedy has been dealt with and the other issues of national security are dealt with?