Rick Casson

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is good rise to add some comments to the debate because water is and will be a topic of serious discussion for a long time. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

I spoke to the bill at second reading and I would like to add some comments to that, particularly with respect to the comments of the member on the government side who wanted a special committee with full committee status to look at this issue because it is so important. That is a good idea and certainly I would like to participate in such a committee.

As some other members have alluded to, the bill does not really address the entire issue of bulk water exports. All it does is deal with the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and that is between ourselves and the U.S.

My riding is unique in that the Oldman River, which flows through my riding, ends up in Hudson Bay and the Milk River ends up in the Gulf of Mexico. Talking about interbasin transfer and water that leaves our country and goes to another is pretty important to the area I live in, and has been even more so in the last couple of years because we are in a drought. We have seen very little precipitation during the spring and summer. The winter runoff coming out of the mountains is almost non-existent. If it does not snow this winter we are going to be faced with some very serious problems. Whether it is for agriculture or civic use in our communities the safety of water is of concern to Canadians. Canadians have become very concerned with what has happened in the last two years with the quality of water. This emphasizes the need to focus a discussion on water. The government should look at all aspects of it.

The act was created in 1909 so I guess it is about time it was dusted off and tuned up a little bit. It prohibits the removal of waters out of the water basin in which they are located. That stops interbasin transfer. It requires a licence from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for any activity in boundary or transboundary waters. If Canada were to do something on a river that flowed into the United States and back, it would need the blessing of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It gives sanctions for penalties.

Addressing bulk water exports in the way the government has clearly lacks in scope. The government has used a three-pronged approach, one of which is the amendment of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. The second is a proposal to develop, in co-operation with the provinces, and the hon. member for Davenport alluded to this as voluntary, a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal. The third aspect is that Canada and U.S. agree to a joint reference, the international joint commission, that would deal with the Great Lakes. That is a problem because the water in the Great Lakes is at an all-time low. It is a precious commodity to so many people in that area of Canada and the United States and it has to be handled properly.

Those are the three areas that have been put forward to address the issue of bulk water, and to me they do not. It gets back to NAFTA. The only thing that was put into NAFTA to deal with water was in 1993. Actually raw logs and unprocessed fish were exempted but water was not. All it says is that NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resource of any party to the agreement. There has been a debate since that was created whether or not that protects our water. I have a tendency to say that it does not. If we sell bulk water to each other, i.e., B.C. could sell water to Alberta or vice versa, that makes bulk water a commodity and it allows the other signatories to the free trade agreement to have access to it and we would not be able to stop that.

The whole idea of the provinces being involved is that it is a natural resource and the provinces have control over natural resources. Thus, the provincial issue has been brought into it. We feel as a party that this resource falls under provincial rights and that it is shared, but the provinces have ultimate control. It is important that this aspect was brought forward.

Canadians have brought to our attention some of the issues they are concerned with. Canada has 9% of the world's renewable water, which is a huge amount. Protecting that and keeping sovereignty over it is paramount to Canadians. We have to have absolute control over our water. We cannot even consider any marketing or selling of it until we have that control.

Challenges have already been put forward by our neighbours to the south and deals have been made with some companies. There are Internet sites advertising Canadian water for sale. This cannot be allowed to proceed until we have clarified that as a country we can control the use of water because NAFTA does not put a complete and outright ban on bulk water exports.

What brings this to a head I suppose is the fact that we need stronger legislation. We need to reaffirm the power that the provinces have over this resource. We cannot use the three-pronged approach which the federal government has put forward as the means to put the minds of Canadians at ease. This is the means to keep our bulk water exports completely under the control of Canada. It does not do that. In order for this to be done we have to study the issue.

Water safety has been a topic of debate in Canada since the Walkerton and North Battleford incidents and there have been a few others. Every community is concerned. It has to be addressed along with the issue of exports.

Right now the lack of water in many parts of Canada has had a devastating effect on our agricultural community. Thanks to the member for Selkirk--Interlake we will have an opportunity this evening to debate the effects that the drought has had on the agricultural community and the income crisis it has created.

We see what is happening in the United States right now, the predicament that it is in and the support we are offering. If this were to happen in a different way and some major water supply were to be affected, what would we be able to do?

We have to be very careful because when our neighbours run out of water, and they will, how are we as a nation going to deal with that issue? There are places in the world right now where fresh water could be shipped by tanker. Here in North America it could be shipped by pipeline. It could be done in many ways. Until we have the absolute power to control that resource, we have to proceed with utmost caution, and rightfully so. Whether we sell it or not will be the ultimate debate, but we have to get the control first. When we do that, then we can proceed with the next step.

This bill is a small step. It is not the right thing to do at the moment. It needs to be broadly expanded, but because it is a small step in the right direction we will be supporting the bill.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about a special committee being struck to study the whole issue of water. Could he tell the House what the progress is in that regard?

He mentioned that in 1988 he pleaded with then Prime Minister Mulroney for an addendum to the free trade agreement that would deal with water. In 1993 his government came to power. It added one line to the free trade agreement that caused more confusion rather than solve the problem and deal with the issue of water.

Could the hon. member comment on those two issues? What is the status of the special committee on water? When his government came to power why was the member not able to persuade it to deal with the water issue in a more complete manner?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify something he said as he was finishing. He said that the reason this chemical biological warfare issue has not been addressed in the House of Commons was that the ministers did not have any leverage to get money to help fund the research into this.

Certainly in my mind the government should be aware that these dangers do exist in the world. As the government, and as part of the security and well-being of Canadians, whether or not it is a hotly debated topic on the floor of the House of Commons, it is still a realistic concern and a problem in the world, surely it should be addressing that and putting some resources into it.

Perhaps the member could clarify this. In his mind, is it not the duty of the government to protect Canadians regardless of whether it is a hot topic at the moment?

[National Security, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following the hideous events that have taken place in the United States, our closest friend and ally has had to tighten its borders to protect itself from further attacks. With 50 known terrorist cells active in Canada, Americans are protecting themselves from us.

Trade with the United States is vital to our country. Without it our economy would atrophy and our standard of living would plummet. Our trucking industry is deeply concerned. Just in time deliveries are being missed and the overall movement of goods has slowed. Why? It is because Canada is a security risk to its largest trading partner.

Two weeks after the attack we are still waiting for a concrete plan to secure our country. The government must table a strong piece of anti-terrorism legislation. It must restore funding and resources to government agencies that ensure the safety and security of our citizens. It must re-examine and toughen our standards for customs, immigration and transport to ensure that our borders are secure and that we can travel safely and trade freely.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a couple of aspects of the bill but one aspect that is of particular interest to me is the portion dealing with the ability of the courts to take away the equipment used in the production and distribution of child pornography upon conviction. That was part of a private member's bill that I introduced in the House. In working with the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister at the time, we were able to convince the government that it was an important aspect of the criminal code that was missing and needed to be amended. I appreciate the government putting it in this bill.

However, instead of having a bill to deal with the whole issue of child pornography and the availability of the awful material on the Internet, even though it is an important enough issue to stand on its own, the government has included it in an omnibus bill with issues such as disarming a police officer and cruelty to animals. I believe this is wrong.

We should be able to debate this particular issue of child pornography on its own. It is important enough that we should do that. We have repeatedly asked the House leader to separate the bill so we can deal with the separate areas but that has failed to happen. I may be in the very uncomfortable position, when this bill does come to the House, of having to vote against it, even though the part that I lobbied for and promoted is in the bill, because of the way it is structured. We still maintain that the government should split the bill apart.

Could my colleague give us his comments on why the government is unable to split the bill, which deals with such a wide array of justice issues, so that each individual issue can be dealt with separately?

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I want him to lend us his knowledge of this issue along with his knowledge of the finances of this country.

This summer I had the opportunity to go on a resupply mission with CANFORCE 85 and 86 air commander Rick Harper on a C-135 Hercules. That airplane was 35 years old, with 40,000 hours on it. It was twice past its life expectancy. That mission on a weekly basis is vital to keeping the people at Alert Bay and our troops in Thule supplied.

To me it seems bizarre that we would do something like that. I could not get over how tremendously skilled the people were and how faithful they were to their purpose.

I would just like to ask my colleague a question. When he talks about priorities, where in this budget of Canada's would he find the money to replace this C-135 Hercules with a C-17 that would take care of that job and give these people equipment they can work with and feel proud to operate?

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people say they will remember where they were on September 11, 2001, but I think what we will remember most is the way we lived our lives before September 11 and how we lived afterward. The dramatic change that will take place is why I believe Canadians are turning to us as leaders, as parliamentarians, as their elected officials, for guidance and for some kind of signal that we are taking this matter seriously and that we want to make change in this country to make their lives safer. The motion that my party put forward today would do that.

The member opposite has just said that we must lead, that we must respond, that citizens are turning to us for advice. I would like to ask the member what is wrong with sending the message in this resolution that we have on the floor today. What is wrong with sending that message to Canadian citizens that the government and the leaders of the country are doing something to make their everyday lives safer? Why will she not support what we have put forward today?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say it is a pleasure, but it is not a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to be involved in the debate and to pose a question to the member for Mississauga West.

Before I do that, I would like to add to others the condolences and prayers of the citizens of Lethbridge in southern Alberta for the victims of this horrific crime, for their families and friends around the world as well as here in Canada, and to offer their support to the rescue workers who are working so hard to find survivors in that awful mess that once was New York. I was a volunteer firefighter for many years. I have seen some horrific things but I cannot imagine what these people are facing as they go through this disaster.

At the memorial service in Lethbridge on Friday, held in conjunction with the one in Ottawa, during the ceremony the firefighters present were called away to answer a call. I know from experience that when that call comes how focused firefighters become on the task at hand when the call comes in and how they will not stray from getting to where they are needed.

The member gave us a lot of scenarios about the world and how we need to get to the root cause of terrorism. My question for the member is about what he is telling his constituents that he and his government will do to put at ease the minds of children and families in this country. That threat exists. We can go after the root cause and we can try to change culture and society, but in the interim what is he prepared to ask his government to do to make everyone in the country feel safer?

[Lumber Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade held stakeholder meetings this week with the Canadian forest sector. Regional interests were given an opportunity to present their views on the current softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.

Would the minister assure us that his position in favour of free trade in lumber remains the government position?

[Grants And Loans, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, $1.5 billion is a lot of money. Would it not be better for the government and the aerospace industry in Canada to level the sanctions in the four cases we have won against Brazil, instead of guaranteeing loans?

The Prime Minister told us he would fight fire with fire when dealing with unfair trade situations with Brazil. Will he make the right decision when dealing with hard working taxpayer money?