Tony Martin

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member who just spoke as well as his participation in this very important debate about public policy. This ultimately could affect all of us in a very negative way if we do not do the right thing.

I am wondering how the Bloc finds it possible to support a bill that takes us further down the road to the privatization of the ability of government to monitor, inspect and participate actively in guaranteeing the safety of our transportation systems and, in this instance, the airline industry in particular.

I find this passing strange as well. We have a government that is over the top in concern about safety, particularly in our airlines with some of the moves that it is making now, such as the no-fly list, which I oppose, as it is arbitrary and has no appeal process attached to it.

We have seen a trend, first from the Liberals, who introduced the bill originally, and now we see it from the Conservatives as they push this forward more and more toward pulling government out of the responsibility that it traditionally and historically has had in this country and turning it over to the private sector. When we turn these responsibilities over to the private sector, our experience has been that the private sector begins to impose its priorities, which are more about the bottom line, cutting corners and being more cost effective and so on, and I believe that is a risk for the safety of the public and the common good.

I would ask the member to explain a bit further for me this morning why it is that the Bloc members will support the bill. They are not supporting the amendment that has been put forward today, but why is it that the Bloc will support this bill when in fact, as we see it, it is taking us down a road that really will be hard to travel back up again once we have gone in that direction?

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member's caucus will not be voting in support of this bill. Does he not agree with us that from its very inception, which was brought in by the Liberals, this has been part of a trend to turn absolutely everything over in government to the private sector because it is felt that it can do things more efficiently and cost effectively without any real consideration to the public good, the public safety or the protection of citizens?

This is more about saving money, pulling government out of areas that require further expenditure and more effort by government to protect its citizens. If this is not another step down that road, but a very alarming step because there is nothing, in my view and experience, more fragile than an airplane full of people crossing the country at a great height and if something should go wrong, there is absolutely no turning back, no way to deal with it without the possibility of great tragedy. I am wondering if that is part of the reason that the member's caucus will be voting against this bill.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member probably knows more about this than I do since he sat on the committee and was actually in the government that initially introduced the bill, but is this not the thin edge of the wedge in terms of a move to actually privatize the oversight of safety in the air industry in a way that we have seen in other jurisdictions, such as rail where now we see derailments day after day across the country putting lives at stake and actually whole communities at risk as those railways go through the towns?

There is nothing more at risk and fragile than an airplane in the air and particularly one that is not safe. It surprises me. I see the government on one front, and particularly where air is concerned, going over the top with now a no-fly list and the rigour that is exercised when we go through security to get on a plane, the backups and the lineups that we all experience. I have no difficulty with those things because I think we do need to ensure that when we fly, and thousands of people fly every day, we feel confident and we feel safe.

However, to turn the oversight of the safety of airplanes to the companies themselves that actually run them, given the very competitive nature of that industry now, it does not seem to me to be very much in the public interest. I would like the member to respond to that.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we could have gone on for the next 12 minutes with that useless banter back and forth about whether we should speak further here tonight, but I prefer to return to the substantial issue that is on the table.

I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for working so hard to bring this issue forward so we could debate it and have this resolution that we have all supported. I thank her for the work she has done in getting us to a point where all of us could agree to a resolution that we will, through the government, put to our U.S. neighbours, and thereby we perhaps will have some constructive and positive resolution to this very difficult and worrisome challenge. It is being faced now and will continue to be faced by the member in her riding and by others who have spoken here tonight if we just continue on the path we are on.

It is also interesting that we who have brought the motion forward had only one speaker tonight on this matter, so I think it appropriate that we have a second shot at putting some matters on the record about this important issue.

In the time I have, I want to make a few brief comments on three areas that this subject allows us some opportunity to speak about. One is the ongoing problematic issue, I believe, and certainly as New Democrats we find this in terms of U.S.-Canadian agreements that we enter into on all kinds of subjects. At the end of the day, we end up in situations such as the one we have here tonight. We work at it, we think we have agreements, we get close to something that would be satisfactory, and then the U.S. decides unilaterally that in its own interest it is going to do something that is going to affect very negatively the interests of Canada and Canadian jurisdictions, both in the short term and in the long term.

Over and over again we have seen that problem and we see it again here tonight. I think the government needs to address that when it goes with this resolution in hand to speak to the government of North Dakota and to our U.S. counterparts in Washington about this particular issue. It is a trend that we have to nip in the bud. We have to stand up and be counted. We have to fight on behalf of Canadian interests to make sure that our sovereignty is protected, our land is protected, and our ecosystem and our resources are protected.

This is one piece that I think needs to be put on the table here tonight as we discuss this issue. It is indeed important. It will become more important as we try to protect this scarce resource we have that is so valuable and so important: our water and our water systems. We must not allow anything in the interests of protecting one or the other jurisdiction to affect this natural resource, which in fact is at risk as we speak here tonight.

The second issue that I think is important for us to reflect on is the issue of invasive species and what this diversion of water from Devils Lake into the Red River system and into Lake Winnipeg now presents to us as Canadians. We have seen it over and over again as we have not paid attention, as we have turned our backs, and as we might have thought that someone else was paying attention.

We have had invasive species come into our country. Not only have they have affected us in the short term, but they are doing so now as we move forward into the long term and as we try to protect the integrity of our natural resources against species that do not belong here in the first place. They are species that cause us all kinds of concern and will attack our ecosystem in a way that could destroy it altogether if we do not stand up and do something, particularly immediately and initially when we identify that we have a problem coming at us.

In this instance, we have done that. We can take proactive and pre-emptive action here. Together, the U.S. government, the North Dakota government, the Manitoba government and the Canadian government could put in place some vehicles that could help us with this.

We have seen it in my own jurisdiction in the Great Lakes and Lake Superior, which are so important to my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie and indeed northern Ontario. We have seen the bringing in of the zebra mussel, which is now causing us such concern and doing such damage. It is costing us literally millions of dollars to try to correct this problem as we go forward.

We did not do anything about the sea lamprey, which has become a huge problem and a huge challenge for us. Every year literally thousands and millions of dollars are being spent to treat the St. Mary's River in Sault Ste. Marie, not to get rid of sea lamprey, which we should be doing, but to simply control the growth of sea lamprey. Sea lamprey attack the fish that are so important to that ecosystem and to the livelihood of many of our constituents, friends and neighbours up there, not to speak of the livelihood of our first nations.

It is important that tonight we address the issue of invasive species and that we have a chance in this instance to take pre-emptive action to stop this problem before it actually gets out of control.

The third issue, and perhaps the most important issue in this whole question, is how we deal with our water. This is a strange situation in some ways.

Last night in Sault Ste. Marie, I hosted a public forum with scientists and engineers from the International Joint Commission. A number of organizations in my area hosted this. These organizations are concerned about the Lake Superior and Lake Huron watershed and the fact that our water is going down.

The water in Lake Superior has gone down by two feet in the last six to nine months. The people who live along that lake are seeing it and they are concerned. They want to know why this is happening. They want to know if there is anything we can do about it. They want to know if together the Canadian and U.S. government can actually determine and detect what is going on so that we can protect our water resource, which is in fact a glacial deposit, Once it is lost, it will not come back again.

Our water is a natural resource that as a nation we have not come to fully appreciate. We have not come to appreciate how valuable our water really is now and how valuable it will be in the future. I am speaking of clean water, water we can drink, water that will sustain life in all of its forms. That is what we are talking about in Manitoba with respect to the Red River Basin and Lake Winnipeg. We are talking about protecting the integrity of that water source so that it will continue to be a source of life for our livelihoods, our fish, our animals, our trees and the communities along that watershed.

It seems to me that if we were being cooperative, if we were honouring and acting in good faith with respect to some of the agreements that we have made with each other, and if those agreements were working properly, we could find a way to protect this valuable resource in a better way than what we see happening in the North Dakota Devils Lake and Red River situation we are talking about here tonight.

Over the years, through the oversight of the International Joint Commission, we have worked quite cooperatively in looking at the different ways in which we can ensure that the levels of our Great Lakes, and particularly for me the upper Great Lakes, are kept at a healthy balance as we deal with the weather, climate change and all of the other things that affect the amount of water we have and where that water goes.

The work of the IJC, the International Joint Commission, has been quite effective up to now. A $17 million study by the IJC is about to start and will take probably about five years. Every 10 years the commission takes a look at water quantity in the Great Lakes and how it is managed.

Last night's event in Sault Ste. Marie was an initial attempt to get some public input. It was a chance for the people who are very concerned about the levels of the water in Lake Superior and Lake Huron to speak to these scientists and engineers about what they are seeing every day as they look at the lake that we who live in the area have stewardship over. It was also a chance for the engineers and the scientists themselves to present to my constituents and the others who were there, including some Americans, some of what they see as the important factors in terms of water in and water out.

They presented a very compelling argument that what is happening in the Great Lakes is an effect of climate change. For the last 10 years we have had above normal temperatures and below normal water levels, so we have a problem.

This is what is interesting. We have a problem of lack of water where we are, but parts of the United States are in drought. Parts of the United Statest have a shortage of water and, looking forward, some areas of the United States do not know where they are going to get water once they use up all the glacial runoff from the mountains--

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank and congratulate the member for Winnipeg North for all of the work she has done in getting this issue to this place and on the table tonight so that we might discuss it.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member who just spoke. He spoke about setting precedents and in our relationship with the U.S. it seems there are already precedents set. We have seen it particularly in northern Ontario. It seems to be always when it concerns our natural resources as in the softwood lumber agreement that was signed by the government which is continuing to come back to affect us in a negative way.

In this instance, agreements have been attempted to be worked out. Discussions have happened, but ultimately the U.S. decides that in its best interests it is going to act and affect negatively Canadian jurisdiction.

I am wondering if maybe we are not already too far down that road and given that we are, is there anything the member would suggest we could do, other than simply saying “no” and getting into that kind of debate with the U.S? We seem to always lose with the previous Liberal government and now with the present Conservative government. Are there any other things that we could be doing?

I suggested earlier that we might look at talking to the Americans about maybe using this water in other areas of their country where they are experiencing great shortages and drought, to move it and be creative in how they move it. I am told they are going to spend a lot of money, for example, in the Arizona area, taking the salt out of seawater. In order to get freshwater into that area, they are using up tonnes of water flowing from the icecaps in the Rockies to feed other areas of the U.S. Here is water that they have too much of and we do not want because it is causing us problems. Is there not some way that we could talk to them and convince them to use this water differently?

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the same question I asked her colleague a few minutes ago. What has been done or has anything been done, any study or work entered into and particularly led by the two senior federal levels of government, to redistribute this water in a different way to parts of the U.S. that are obviously experiencing great drought at the moment?

I was at a meeting last night in Sault Ste. Marie. There is a concern that the levels of the Great Lakes have dropped significantly in the last few years and we have an drought in that area. For the last 10 years we have had above normal temperatures and below normal levels of water in that area. We are afraid that some of our water will be taken and diverted into areas, particularly in the U.S., where they are experiencing a need for more water.

Has anything been done or any effort made to look at the potential to take the water now collecting in the area of Devils Lake and distribute it in some way to other parts of the U.S. and put to better use than simply backing it up into Manitoba and making worse an already difficult situation there? I hear there are floods every year in the Red River valley.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening tonight to the description of this challenge that is in front of us. I have been hearing about waters that over the last few years have grown and have actually overcome whole neighbourhoods and communities.

I was at a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie last night where we were talking about water in the Great Lakes and how it has dropped by about two feet in the last six to nine months. Where is that water going? That was the big question.

One theory is that it is being diverted to some areas of the United States where there is great drought at the moment. There are huge tracts of the U.S. in desperate need of water. As a matter of fact, those people are taking water from the melting glaciers of the Rockies and running it into parts of the U.S. so they can continue to grow crops, et cetera.

I do not know the history of this, but given that need for more water at a time when this area seems to have more water than it can handle, is there no way to divert the water in another direction? The Americans are trying to put it back into an area where we do not need more water. I believe the Red River floods every year so there is a lot of water there.

Is there no way to divert the water in another direction? We have heard about bulk water exports from the Great Lakes, but everybody is opposed to that because we do not want to lose that water. We certainly do not want give any kind of licence to that kind of thing, but has any thought been given or has any effort been made to look at the possibility of somehow taking this water and getting it to those parts of the U.S., in the same country, where they are in desperate need of water and where there is great drought?

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member if this issue, in essence, is not about, in a very meaningful way, invasive species and different organisms coming into the water systems, particularly the Canadian water system, that over the long haul will destroy all kinds of other organisms and change the balance of the ecosystem in a way that we will need to deal with for years and years. If we do something now that may cost us some money in terms of investment, it may save us in the long haul literally millions and millions.

I look at the Great Lakes in my own area where, for example, sea lamprey was introduced a few years ago. Nobody seemed to pay much attention when it came in but now, in my own area, we spend literally millions of dollars every year simply trying to control those creatures, never mind get rid of them.

I would like the hon. member to comment, if she could, on the kinds of critters she anticipates might come into the Canadian waterway system through this new diversion that may happen if the government does not do something about it.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that my colleague from British Columbia spoke to that particular area. In my area of the province of Ontario, we have a challenge where our economy is concerned, where travel is concerned, for all kinds of things. Rail would make a huge difference and yet what we have is so limited.

We have a short line between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst that is owned by CN, that has had its schedule reduced this summer. There are tourist operators up and down that line. There are cottagers and communities that are served by that service. They are really upset.

There is no passenger service at all for a 300 kilometre stretch between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, and yet hundreds of people every year, seniors in particular, and we have a high population of seniors in Sault Ste. Marie, travel from my community to Sudbury for health care services.

I am wondering if there is anything in this bill that would give my constituents any satisfaction that this bill will be in any way helpful.