Rick Casson

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Yes, $20 billion. I apologize. I see the dollar figure on the debt stays exactly the same for the next three years; not one dollar less than it is this year.

How can he say there are $20 billion less of debt and in his own books it is the same for the next three years? That is funny arithmetic.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister questioned everybody's arithmetic in the House today except his own. He mentioned that the debt was going down, that they had been paid it down by $20 million.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing from the government side about how wonderful this budget was. The fact is many people in this country, after having a day to digest what they have heard, have come up with some different ideas. One is KPMG.

Trying to get through the smoke and mirrors is a problem with this. Some of the issues that were promised last year have been repromised. Some of the things the government is taking credit for now will not happen until next year. Some of the things the government is saying will create a savings of $300 or $400 will actually create a savings of $57. The fact is Canadians are paying more and getting less. We will keep saying that until they get the idea.

The member keeps saying how well his area has done. His area happens to be in Ontario. The other area in Canada that is doing well is Alberta. Most of the jobs created in this country have been in Ontario and Alberta.

If we count in the fact that the Canadian pension plan is going up and EI premiums are going up, which the government forgets to mention, I wonder if the member would like to tell us how much Canadians are saving after those two factors are figured in.

[George Brown, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in honouring broadcasting legend George Brown.

On Saturday night friends of radio in southern Alberta lost a true pioneer. George began his distinguished radio career in Lethbridge in 1939. During World War II he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals where he helped the allied forces intercept enemy communications. After the war George returned to southern Alberta where he embarked on a long and illustrious career on the airwaves.

A dedicated community member, he served on many voluntary boards and societies sharing his talents. George was a distinguished performer himself performing in choral groups across southern Alberta. A member of the Broadcasting Hall of Fame, George reminded us of an era when radio was our window to the world. George used his love and knowledge of music, particularly his love for big band music, to create a bond with the listeners of his unique Sunday morning radio program.

Our prayers and condolences go out to his family. Thank you George, thanks for the musical memories.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, certainly discussions should take place at a very high level, the highest level possible because of the importance of the issue.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my home province of Alberta recently passed a water act to control water and to deal with the issues we have come up with. When it comes down to it, the fact that parliamentary secretary has said it is a federal issue, it is not. The provinces have to be involved from the start to put the policy together.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Churchill River for his question. We spend a lot of time together on the environment committee and I appreciate his concern and his background in environmental issues and certainly in aboriginal issues and how they pertain to the environment. Some of the member's revelations have been very revealing to us in how our native people look at the environment and how it interacts with their lives. Certainly the member's comments are what we are here for today.

We have a resource that is important; it means life to everything. Without properly managing this resource many scenarios and different laws come into effect. Some people think that after building a dam, the lake behind that dam is a container. Once that is done, is that water in a container? Is it then treated differently? Aquifers are treated differently.

Certainly we have to take the time and the government has to take the time to sit down with the provinces and work this issue out. We have called for it. It has not been done. The fact that it has not been done has added to the confusion, has added to the concern of Canadians. Canadians want control over their water. Plain and simple. Overwhelmingly. Very few issues can stir up emotions as discussions of water can.

Over the 20 years of my involvement with municipal politics, clean water and a source of water to feed the citizens of our communities has been on the top of the list for every municipality in this country. To ensure that we have the sovereignty over that, we have to get this government on the road to developing that policy.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the issue of control over our water.

I come from an area that was initially explored by Palliser, who went back to the old country and said “It is uninhabitable. People cannot live there”. However, we do live here and we have turned it into a garden of Eden where we grow specialty crops.

We have created cities, towns and villages in the area. We have a strong diverse agricultural base and it is all because of water irrigation.

My constituency is also unique because the Oldman River flows through the city of Lethbridge and eventually flows through Medicine Hat goes east and north and ends up in Hudson Bay. The Milk River in the south end of my constituency flows south and eventually flows into the Gulf of Mexico.

Water is a diverse, strange and important part of our lives. Actually water is the backbone of our life. It is our most important natural resource. It is not a resource like any other; it is unique because without it, we cannot live. We could learn to live without coal. We could learn to live without wood and we could probably learn to live without precious metals. Technology today has enabled us to become less dependent on raw natural resources but it has not enabled us to live without water.

Although every Canadian household pays for water every month on their utility bill, it is impossible to put a price on the value of freshwater to people, plants, animals and ecosystems.

In Canada especially, water has a certain mystique. It has the power to evoke strong emotions in the hearts and minds of Canadians. It is no wonder then that when it is threatened, it provokes powerful emotions. Today we are here to discuss the root cause of these strong emotions. We are here to discuss the future of our most precious resource, a resource that is being threatened.

My NDP colleagues have introduced a motion that would immediately act to protect Canada's control over its water. The motion with the amendment reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers and should not be a party to any international agreement that would compel us to export water against our will, in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

Although I am glad that we are finally being given the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House, I am sorry it has taken so long. The Liberal government has promised time and time again that it would introduce legislation that would protect our water. Still there is nothing.

In 1993 the present Prime Minister promised that he would obtain a special exemption for water under NAFTA. Exemptions were already obtained by Canada's negotiators for raw logs, cultural industries and some fish products.

In November 1993 our Prime Minister assured Canadians that our water was not for sale. He said “Water is not in NAFTA. Water remains under the control of the Canadian government. I want Canada to maintain control over our own water. It is not for sale. And if we want to sell it, we will decide”.

Of course, we know all to well that NAFTA was signed into effect without exempting water. The problem was that water was never discussed in the appropriate fashion. It was never given the weight of importance it needed to have in those discussions, the importance that it has to Canadians.

In March 1996 the member for Kamloops introduced a bill that would prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers. It was during debate on that bill that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation assured the House that the Liberal government was consulting Canadians, that his government was currently conducting a review of its programs and legislation relating to sustaining Canada's water resources. He promised that through this review a comprehensive approach to water could be developed, including legislative measures to address water export. This debate ended several years ago, and we have not seen a single line of legislation that would protect Canada's sovereignty over its water.

On May 15, 1998 the member for Davenport asked the Minister of the Environment if she had plans to introduce legislation to ban the export of bulk freshwater. The member was assured that he had nothing to worry about because the introduction of legislation respecting our water was a priority for her government.

Again in October when the government was asked about a national water policy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs assured the House that water was of prime importance to the country and that his government would be laying out a comprehensive strategy on the issue in the fall. I have not seen any comprehensive strategies laid out by this government since the fall, let alone one on the protection of our most valuable resource, freshwater.

As time goes on, the issue of freshwater and its control becomes more and more important. We have seen in recent times some actions by foreign countries in regard to our water.

Time and again this Liberal government has failed to protect the interests of Canadians. I am concerned about the future of our freshwater resources. We all know that Canada has the world's largest reserves of freshwater, possessing 25% of the world's supply and 9% of the world's renewable freshwater. I would like to give some scenarios and examples of what has happened in the world and some of the things that have been proposed for our water.

In the last century many of the wars fought across the world were fought over oil. Oil was always considered our most precious resource. It was worth more than its weight in gold. During the 1970s oil crisis our economies were almost shut down because they were denied access to cheap oil.

We have here a resource far more valuable than oil. We have a freshwater resource. It is estimated that the world's consumption of freshwater is doubling every 20 years. By 2025 almost two-thirds of the world's population will be facing restricted water supplies.

The U.S. is the world's largest per capita user of water. Much of the pressure to export our water has come from the Americans. Because of this, some scenarios have taken place in the past. One scenario which has been looked at is the North American water and power agreement, an agreement that would divert the headwaters of the Yukon, Skeena, Peace, Columbia and Fraser rivers for storage in a huge Rocky Mountain trench before it would be diverted to the thirsty American south. The Grand Canal was another massive engineering project that would divert Canadian rivers to feed American industry. I might also add that a member of the Liberal government has recently called for studies to re-examine the feasibility of some of these plans.

As populations shift and move and as droughts intensify, more and more water becomes the topic of discussion. The point I want to make with these examples is that it is more critical now than ever before in Canada's history to protect the power to manage our freshwater resources in the best interests of Canadians. We need a comprehensive water policy, one that has been negotiated with the provinces to ensure the control over our water stays in the hands of Canada and the Canadian people.

The provinces were given control over their natural resources under our Constitution. The federal government is responsible for international trade. It is crucial therefore that this government move immediately to enter into discussions with the provinces to establish a clear and comprehensive policy.

The Reform Party supports the protection of Canada's sovereignty over its water and waterways. It recognizes Canada's unique position as a steward of freshwater resources and the need to protect the quality of our water as an inherent part of our national heritage to maintain biodiversity, to protect health and safety, to support the quality of life for Canadians and to facilitate responsible economic development. It is unfortunate that this government does not share those views.

It is true that water is not specifically mentioned in NAFTA. We allow the export of bottled water. However it is still recognized through a side agreement that water in its natural state in the lakes and rivers of our country is not considered a good. There is concern among trade experts that this side agreement does not go far enough. My colleague from Peace River mentioned earlier that we must open NAFTA through a trilateral discussion and demand that water be given an exemption similar to the exemption that is given to some other natural resources.

The government, in fact the Prime Minister promised to all Canadians that he would protect Canada's water. He guaranteed that water would remain under the control of the Canadian government to be managed in the best interests of Canadians. He has not done that. He has not reopened NAFTA and he has not obtained an exemption for freshwater. In short, he has not adequately protected Canada's freshwater resources. This failure to enact legislation has led to chaos and confusion, and as we have seen, some challenges to our sovereignty not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.

It is time for this government to act immediately to protect Canada's freshwater resources. The time for talking has passed.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I think the issue we are faced with is whether the law is in effect or not. The appeal process has been started. The appeal process could go on for who knows how long.

The result of that appeal process we do not know because we do not know if the rest of the judges will support what Canadians want.

The issue is that parliamentarians should act now and invoke this notwithstanding clause to protect our kids.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Earlier today we pursued the Prime Minister on the question of whether he would allow his members to have free votes.

We have in our hands a petition signed by 70-plus members of the party who suggest that they do exactly the right thing. It is a letter to the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister was asked if he would allow his members to have a free vote, he stood and said “This is not about free votes. This is about process”.

I suggest that it is not about either. This is about our children being attacked by perverts. If members opposite do not have the guts to stand and protect our children, then they should not stand at all.