1993-05-28

[Stage Direction]
the members for Kamloops, Okanagan-Shuswap, and Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Our group of members recently concluded a series of public meetings on water issues throughout the interior of our province. We will be holding a meeting in Penticton shortly. There will be another opportunity for our constituents and the people of our province to come and express their views and concerns about water related issues.

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to protect Canadian interests regarding the interbasin transfer of water as exemplified by the Kemano project, the North Thompson River, and both the Columbia River Tteaty and the North American free trade agreement.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present this motion on a very important issue to the people of northern British Columbia and the entire country. It concerns what many would perhaps say is our life-blood. That is our water and in particular our rivers in northern British Columbia, in my constituency, the Nechako River, the North Thompson River and other river systems.
Before putting some comments on the record I would like to first thank my colleagues for their support in bringing this very important motion forward.
I want to comment today on the ongoing Kemano controversy in northern British Columbia. The arguments I intend to make today are of the complicity of this government in hiding information on this matter.
I want to thank my colleagues from what we call the caucus for interior British Columbia. They are members from the interior of B.C. who have concerns about issues outside the island and lower mainland of B.C. They are
There are two water diversion issues in my constituency that I would like to speak on today. One is in the western end of my riding and is known to this House as the Kemano controversy. The other is at the eastern end and is a developing project called the North Thompson diversion, which is currently being promoted by a gentleman named Mr. Clancy from the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I want to speak primarily on the concerns that I and the vast majority of my constituents and others in British Columbia have over the Kemano issue and its potential impact on the Nechako River.
I would like to give a brief history of the situation we have got into, to outline some of the concerns that people have in northern B.C. and to review what has been done to date but particularly to review what has not been done by this government.
The Kemano controversy is a megaproject in northern B.C. I will not go into all of the history on this. Much has been written and much more will be written about this particular project.
In short, a project in the late 1950s developed the community of Kitimat. The massive Nechako reservoir was created around Ootsa Lake for electrical power at Kemano which was transmitted to Kitimat for the production of aluminum. That project continued for some time as part of the arrangement that was signed between the then provincial government with the acquiescence of the then federal government.
There was always the prospect that the company would proceed with another part of its project, Kemano II. It is

May 28, 1993
Supply
that debate and the current history on that project that I would like to focus my comments on today.
It is remarkable and revealing in this issue of just how we mismanage our water resources. If there is a list of projects that we should learn from as to how not to manage our resources, the Kemano project would be one, the W.A.C. Bennett dam would be another, and there have been a host of other projects across this country. If there is any lesson that we can learn at all, that is not the way to proceed when it comes to these kinds of projects.
In the current history there was the struggle by the federal government at the time to have the right to manage the Nechako River. In fact, the government of the day won that particular fight against the Alcan company. The company wanted to reduce the flows in that river so that it would have more water in its reservoir to pipe through to its hydroelectric generating plant.
It was revealing that after the federal government won an injunction it had the right on behalf of all Canadians to manage the affairs of that river and the company, a multinational corporation, decided to challenge that injunction. That set in motion a string of events we in northern B.C. are now paying the price for.
What we have learned from the few documents that have seen the light of day on this project is that as the federal government was preparing to defend the right to control and manage that river, a backroom deal was signed. This government arranged to settle out of court and in 1987 the Nechako settlement agreement was reached. It is that settlement agreement upon which much of the debate currently revolves.
Some of the concerns that existed prior to the settlement agreement and that exist to this day about the Nechako River are summed up well by a headline in the Prince George Citizen on June 1, 1990. An article about Kemano called "Inside a megaproject" said: "You will wonder where the water went".
That is what the people of northern British Columbia will be asking. They will be asking about the flows in the Nechako River. They will be asking about its impact on
migrating salmon. They will be asking about water intakes and outlets for some of the communities along that river. They will be asking about its impact on wildlife and they will be asking about its impact on agriculture and irrigation.
In other words, there are a host of concerns on this particular river alone. The people of northern B.C. have been calling for a full public review for a chance to present their views in an official forum and to hear and see the information that both governments and in particular the proponent, the Alcan aluminium company, have on this project.
What we have learned from documents that have been released is that this Government of Canada has already said through its access to information officers that it has some 83,000 pages of information on this project. Now it says it is only prepared to release a limited number of those documents to the public so that it can see what is happening on this project.
If this project can stand on its own two feet and if this government says that everything is okay then why does it refuse to release those documents?
From the evidence that has seen the light of day so far on this project we have learned why this government refuses to release information on this project. The memos and documents that I have obtained and have released to the public indicate on the one hand that at one point there was an effort to try to develop a federal-provincial review. However for some reason this did not happen, and I suggest that reason is in the filing cabinet of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the current Minister of Forestry. The reasons for hiding this information exist in their filing cabinets.
We have gathered further information from documents released from within the department. This one in particular is dated December 11, 1987 and is by a consultant who reviewed the information on this particular project. It is directed to the deputy minister for fisheries and oceans. It says: "I am worried about these words. They create the impression that the agreement has numerous negative implications". He would like to see that corrected. It continues: "It looks like an inquiry, the exact thing that this government has refused to conduct and refuses to participate in".
May 28, 1993

People in northern B.C. have called for the federal government and the former provincial government to conduct a full review of this project. It was an issue, and I have some scars from it.
In the 1984 election, which was the election prior to the Nechako settlement agreement of 1987, the government of the day, now the Official Opposition, could have told Canadians where it stood on this issue. Where does it stand? The Conservative Party was opposed to a public review. It was opposed to releasing information. It was opposed to providing funds to chambers of commerce, community groups and environmental groups to get to the bottom of this project before it went ahead.
Who supported the Conservatives? The Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, was opposed to a full public review and opposed to the release of information. The Liberals and Conservatives worked together at those all-candidate forums to deny the people of northern B.C. an opportunity to have the truth come out about this project. They are tied together in this. The complicity of the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Social Credit government of the day has denied the people of northern B.C. an opportunity to have a full say and full information on this particular project.
It has only been through the election of a new government in British Columbia that we are finally being given an opportunity to have some say in this project. That is being done by the announcement by the premier of British Columbia and the minister of the environment, the Hon. John Cashore, of a public review under the utilities commission to look into this project and its impact on the Nechako River. If the terms of reference are refined as I hope they are we will learn its possible impact on the Fraser River as well.
Some people were disappointed that the government did not feel it was able to use its legislative power to block the project entirely. Some of my constituents wished that the government had done that. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, about the kind of corporate blackmail we are dealing with on this project. Headlines from the Alcan aluminum company at limited shareholder meetings: "Alcan threatens to sue government" "Al-
Supply
can threatens to sue if they don't get then way", a way paid for them by Socreds and Conservatives.
We now have a review. We are urging all people in northern B.C. to participate and present their views about this project. I presented my submission to the commission and outlined what I thought concerning its procedural matters and the issues it should take a look at.
I suggested full public meetings throughout northern B.C. and the communities of Bums Lake, Fraser Lake, Fort Fraser, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James, Prince George, as well as communities outside that area that are affected by this project.
I suggested that the utilities commission use its authority and its powers of subpoena if the federal government in particular was not willing voluntarily to provide all of the information on this project. The commission should use its subpoena powers and compel evidence and compel witnesses to attend those hearings.
We have only just learned from a letter dated April 30, 1993 from the Department of Justice to the utilities commission of the federal government's official view of its participation in this inquiry. It is the one that we expected, the limited release of information. This is revealing because it goes to the heart of this government's attempts to avoid dealing with the truth of this matter.
A paragraph in the letter suggests-and this is where it may all end up-that the government will not participate in even the limited release of information as a waiver by the federal government of its right to object to the authority of the commission to obtain disclosure of information or to subpoena past or present federal government employees in order to elicit information obtained by them in the course of their duties.
We know what that means. This government will use its clout to stop the ongoing attempts to get to the truth of this matter. It is all said here and as my colleague says it is a gag order. That is exactly what it is and that is what we face from this government.
We could go on for days talking about the concerns that the people of northern B.C. have about this project. We have enumerated them in election campaigns. We have enumerated them in committee meetings, in public

May 28, 1993
Supply
meetings and in this Chamber as well. Still this government refuses to listen to the people of northern B.C.
I use this platform and this opportunity to encourage my constituents, the people of British Columbia to participate in that public inquiry.
I urge Alcan to participate in the inquiry. The day the provincial government announced this review Alcan condemned it. Shame on Alcan for that. But it did leave the door open for possible participation in the future.
Alcan owes it to the people of northern British Columbia for the millions and millions of dollars it has made from the people of British Columbia so far to date and the millions and millions of dollars it might make. It owes it to the people of northern B.C. to appear before that commission and to present its side of the argument.
Shame on it for not participating to date. It has the rights and the responsibilities of any other intervener to participate in that inquiry. I ask Alcan to tell the people of northern B.C. why it refuses to participate. I ask the Government of Canada to tell the people of northern B.C. why it refuses to release information and to become a full partner in the review of this project.
The evidence continues to mount about the concerns that people have all across this country now, the concerns of the Cheslatta, the concerns of the people of Fort Fraser who I think have earned the credit of northern B.C. for the work they have done on this project, for the people in Vanderhoof who have been struggling on this issue, for the Allied Rivers Commission in Prince George, and all the people who are taking petitions around and attending public meetings.
Even in these hallowed chambers we have headlines coming in now: "Parliamentary committee reports Ke-mano decision termed illegal." I know that we will hear more about this particular matter in the weeks to come.
It is because we take our concerns about our water, and in particular our rivers, seriously whether it is a goofy proposal by somebody in Vancouver to divert the North Thompson River into Kinbasket Lake and to sell
the water to the United States, or it is a cover-up by the federal government of an issue concerning the Nechako and the Kemano controversy. It is no wonder people are concerned. Water is our life-blood and it has been mismanaged and mistreated by this government and governments preceding it. The people of British Columbia ask. What is going on?
I will leave the last words to the people of Prince George-Bulkley Valley as to how they feel about this issue. I want to quote from a letter that the president of the Allied Rivers Commission sent to two of the leadership contenders in the Conservative Party's leadership race. It concerns the news this week of the illegality of the government's position on this matter. I quote:
As members of cabinet, I hold you both accountable for
deliberately undermining the integrity of our parliamentary
democracy.
Who was in the cabinet room when they made every effort to avoid sending this project to a full environmental review? We want to know. The people of northern B.C. want to know which cabinet ministers were there who are willing to allow a river to disappear.
Let me just read a couple of comments in the short time I have left from replies to the surveys I have conducted. From Fort Fraser, B.C.: "I would like Alcan to explain to the people of this province where the 30,000 to 40,000 jobs are that they promised to create after completion of the Kemano I project. Don't sell our river. Its value is much greater than we can imagine".
This from Fort Fraser again: "Alcan failed to build the 40,000 to 50,000 job industrial complex. They are not living up to the agreement". There is a rude comment about the president of Alcan.
I have hundreds and hundreds of these kinds of comments that the people of my constituency of northern B.C. and all of British Columbia are saying about our rivers, in particular the Nechako and the North Thompson Rivers.
I implore the government to join now with the province of B.C. to conduct a full joint review of this project. Release all of the information that is available and give our rivers a chance.
May 28, 1993


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, in presenting a case that is a concern not only to his constituents but to all of British Columbia.
I would like to direct a question to my colleague. Some time back in this Chamber when I was speaking on water exports, one of the members on the government side said, as close as I can recall the phrase, that the Americans are not interested in Canadian water, there is no interest by the Americans to import Canadian waters either into California or other parts of the United States or down into Mexico. I said at the time that the member either had simply lost track 5f reality or was completely unaware of developments over the past couple of decades.
There is a proposal that is in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, that is on the books now, a serious proposal with big money backing. That is a proposal to divert a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River at Valemount, British Columbia, to tunnel right through a mountain side and actually divert that water, one-third of the flow of the North Thompson River, into a large reservoir that is part of the Columbia River system at this point and then to divert that one million acre feet a year through the Columbia system, down into the California market.
I would like to ask the member what kind of impact the diversion of one-third of the flow of the North Thompson River would have on the salmon migration, the effect upon the entire flow of the Fraser River system and the imbalance of the whole watershed in the Thompson-Fraser system, what will be the environmental impact and whether or not this proposal is truly a serious proposal because there is some question whether these kinds of proposals can fly.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. He is very correct that there is a project currently being promoted in British Columbia to divert part of the North Thompson River into what is called Kinbasket Lake just south of the community of Vale-mount. Kinbasket Lake forms the top end, the northern end of the entire Columbia River Treaty system and the impact is shared not just in my constituency but also that of our colleague, the member for Kamloops. We have
Supply
held a number of public meetings on this matter both in Valemount and recently in Kamloops.
For the seriousness of the proposal I suppose we can read some of the comments from the promoter. The promoter's name is Mr. Clancy who hails from the lower mainland of British Columbia where he has clearly obtained some funding from somebody to finance this proposal.
I will read a quote from the August 24, 1992 issue of Maclean's magazine. This kind of sums up the approach that Mr. Clancy and his company is taking. I am quoting Mr. Clancy: "If it does not happen the United States will come and take it", he said, "They've got to have water and it will be more valuable than oil".
I think that probably says it all. Mr. Clancy is currently writing construction unions across the province asking them to endorse his proposal. We thank the building trades union representative who got up at the interior MPs' meeting in Kamloops to say: "Just hold it a minute". The construction unions are not going to rush to Mr. Clancy's support in order to get the few shortterm jobs that would come from this project. We congratulate the trade union movement for their support of our cause on this matter.
The point the member is making about the cumulative effect of the impact of this project, of the Kemano controversy and its impact on the Nechako River, the cumulative effect on the Fraser River, which on the other hand we are trying to protect and bring back to good health, is a very good one.
On the one hand the federal government prides itself on its Fraser River action plan and, on the other hand, what is it doing with the Nechako and with the North Thompson? It is going to destroy the Fraser River as well.
The point was well made by a former fisheries and oceans scientist who is volunteering with the Cheslatta Indian band, saying it dramatically affected the rivers when the Alcan proposal went ahead. He talked about the cumulative effect on river systems that we might not always see. It is a project here, a project there. With the Tories it is a cover-up here and another cover-up over there. This will affect the flows in the Fraser River and it will obviously affect migrating salmon. That will happen

May 28, 1993
Supply
on the Fraser, up the North Thompson and throughout the entire watershed.


Mr. Dan Heap (IVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has given a very wide-ranging account of the damage that would be done by the Kemano project and of the unwillingness of the federal government to co-operate in the most elementary way by providing information. He has referred also to the situation of some of the bands of Canada's native people there.
I wonder if he could enlarge a little bit on what is likely to be the effect generally on the bands of native people and what has been their response in the matter.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.
A lot of information could be provided on this matter. Briefly, the people that I feel for the most, and I hope others do who have seen some of the videos and information on this, are the Cheslatta people whose graveyards were flooded and whose village was burned to the ground by Alcan and by the Department of Indian Affairs. It is a tragic black mark on the history of native people in northern B.C. They have been diligent in attempting to get the information out about this project, using every opportunity that they have.
The invention of the fax machine has been a great aid in telling the world about their concerns. The Cheslatta people have presented to the utilities commission review their interest in what that review should do. They have compiled vast amounts of information on this project, as have a number of the other bands throughout the area. The Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council was part of some of the legal action, which I did not have time to go into today in my speech, against this government in attempting to get a full environmental review.
The Carrier people and in particular the Cheslatta and the people in Stony Creek, Nautley, all throughout that area have been following this issue. It directly affects their lives. For the government of the day to not listen and to turn a blind eye to those people is reason enough to open up the books and files so we can get to the truth of this matter. This will go a long way to rectify what has turned out to be a very black day in the history of northern B.C.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, first let me express my appreciation to the Minister of State for the Environment for allowing me to speak ahead of her when it would normally be the government's prerogative to respond first. I do appreciate the courtesy, since it makes my life a little easier today.
I want to be a little less courteous to the member who has just spoken, however, and I do reserve the right to review the "blues" with respect to his comments earlier this week about the Liberal members of this Parliament, particularly in light of the specific statement of his colleague, the member for Skeena, on a matter that was not true. He said the Liberals were going to vote for NAFTA this week when he was in a position to know that was not the case.
Having had it proved to him this week I would like to have seen him pay the House the courtesy of withdrawing a wrong statement. However he has not done that.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I do not want to drag this point out but I made no such reference one way or the other about how the Liberals were voting on the North American free trade agreement.


An hon. member:: Nobody knows their position. How could you guess it?


Brian L. Gardiner: My colleagues rightfully say they do not know their position.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall we all wait for the "blues" and see what was or was not said. If something needs to be brought back to the House we will do it then. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion and to condemn this government's negligence, abuse and failure to preserve and protect our most precious resource, water.
Water is essential to life. Ninety-eight per cent of the human body is water. Without it we and every living species on earth die. Without water, crops do not grow, forests do not flourish, soils become arid, sick and useless.

May 28, 1993

Our economic as well as our physical health depend on water. Water is essential to processing goods, keeping manufacturing equipment operating and transporting the commerce of the nation, the continent and the world. However water is more than an economic good. Water is the life-blood of the planet and of all ecological systems.
An eminent scientist said:
A river is more than a stream flowing through a valley to the ocean. It is part of one integral unit which begins at the heights of the land surrounding it and often continues far out to sea. Water unifies everything in the watershed falling as rain or snow, carving the land, circulating through the soil, the vegetation and every living thing including man.
The cycle is completed by rivers of water funnelled back into the atmosphere through trees and other vegetation and by water flowing to the sea from which currents of air carry moisture back to the highlands to fall again as rain and snow. The cycle continues eternally.
As the last century of industrial misuse, abuse and waste of water begins to reveal the toll it has taken on this most precious of resources, the quest for water threatens the security of nations and the globe.
I want to refer to the words of a former minister of the environment for the province of Quebec. When briefing a group of parliamentarians, he said:
As oil, diamonds, minerals were the precious resources of this century and the last century, the precious resource of the next century will be water.
In that context I want to examine the government's stewardship of this most precious of resources. I want to start with the free trade agreement and concentrate on that and the Kemano project. I want to leave other elements of the motion to speakers who will follow me.
I want to take us all back to the summer of 1988 which was certainly in my lifetime and the lifetime of most of us in this Parliament the hottest, driest summer we had ever experienced.
The debate about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was also hot as the government tried to delay an election until it could force the deal through Parliament. Only the clear message from the Liberal majority in the Senate that it would not pass the free trade agreement without an election sent this government to the polls. It
Supply
sent back a clear message that over 50 per cent of the Canadian voters did not support its position.
Water was the key element, perhaps because of the hot dry summer. Perhaps it was the rising concern of Canadians and people around the world for the devastation we were doing to our world that made them focus on what the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement states about water, and to conclude in large numbers that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement endangered Canada's natural water systems and endangered, if it did not destroy completely, our ability to protect that which Canadians find so precious.
The diversion of water is not a simple little tinkering with a bit of the geography of the world. This country has gone further than any other country in the world in rearranging the aquatic landscape. We have more diversions than any other country in the world. We have more than the United States with its 260 million people, more than China and more than the former U.S.S.R.
It is no wonder Canadians were worried about what the free trade agreement would do to our ability to decide whether we would or would not continue to rearrange the map of the planet to suit our own needs and the economic demands of others.
The government has continued to maintain that water is not covered in the free trade agreement so I want to just put on the record a few arguments that say it is. These arguments were made about the free trade agreement in 1988 and they still hold with respect to the NAFTA in 1993.
I do not think Canadians need to be reminded of the disgraceful travesty of Parliament that has taken place this week with the ramming through of the North American free trade agreement with barely three days of debate. The government forced the opposition to defend the public interest by debating around the clock. Even then we only barely touched on the essential and crucial elements in that agreement in public debate.
I want to go straight to the NAFTA because the government was asked during the free trade agreement to try to protect our waters and it did not do that. It was

May 28, 1993
Supply
asked again when it was negotiating NAFTA to try to protect our waters and it did not do that.
I want to go to tariff heading 2201 of the NAFTA which defines water and includes natural or artificial and mineral waters and aerated waters not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavoured; in other words natural water, ice and snow.
We can go to other sections but I will quote an opinion given to Mr. Don Gamble, the former executive director of the Rawson Academy by a lawyer who had advised the federal government in the water trade debate in 1988. He stated: "In conclusion it is my opinion that any water, other than sea water, would be classifiable under tariff item 2201 regardless of the quantity of water imported and regardless of its use".
The government has consistently argued that is not the case. It has attempted to put a proviso in the legislation as it did in 1988 with the free trade agreement saying that for greater certainty nothing in this act or the agreement except article 302 of the agreement applies to water.
However, one party to an agreement cannot unilaterally decide what the terms of that agreement mean. The government knows that perfectly well and so do the United States and Mexican governments.
We can quibble about one legal interpretation of the free trade agreement and NAFTA or another. The fact is that if the government was serious about exempting water from the free trade agreement it had the opportunity when it negotiated NAFTA to have its trading partners agree to include that in the agreement. If it believes that to be the case there would have been no problem having it included in the agreement. One has to be suspicious as to why it was not done.
One has to be even more suspicious as we now renegotiate around environmental issues with the new administration in the United States. Why is our government so anxious not to have a strong agreement on the environment, given the assurances it has given Canadians and the position it has tried to defend? Why with the negotiations reopened is it not including this issue which is of such great concern to Canadians in those negotiations and insisting on it in the agreement or in a parallel agreement?
Only a specific exclusion in NAFTA can truly give Canadians the assurance that they will not be forced and coerced under other terms of the agreement to divert water outside of this country to serve continental needs.
Lest anybody question whether water in rivers and lakes can be considered a good, let me draw the attention of Parliament and Canadians to Canada's participation at the international conference on water and the environment held in 1992. The conference noted that only by accepting that water is a tradable commodity like coal, oil and timber will sensible decisions be possible.
Canada, along with 99 other countries, adopted a statement from this international conference on water and the environment that has as its basic principle that water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good. It is clearly subject to the terms and conditions of NAFTA including providing water to other countries even in times of shortage in Canada.
Our government in this case has perhaps most seriously jeopardized not only our control in this generation but the ability of future generations to determine how Canada's water will be used and whether we will continue the mass re-engineering of the continent that we have started with so many projects.
In the pitifully short debate that took place in the House this week, these issues could not be explored fully nor could they be in the couple of weeks allowed by the government for committee work. This is one of many serious issues that was irresponsibly not resolved. The government and the government alone is responsible for that.
I want to speak briefly about the Kemano project. My colleague from the NDP has spoken about the details of this project and its serious effects on aboriginal peoples, the salmon fishery, major rivers and a whole major river system. We simply cannot keep destroying ecological systems without knowing the impact on climate, soils, forests and the transmission of species that are harmful to the environment and yet this government has.
I want to briefly review a couple of points about the Kemano completion project. Plans to do the second phase of the Kemano project came forward in 1979. Alcan planned to totally and completely divert an entire
May 28, 1993

river. What was the response of the government of the day?
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in a Liberal government issued a ministerial order under the Fisheries Act requiring Alcan to increase water flows into the Nechako River to protect the fishery. Alcan refused to comply. The minister went to court and got an injunction and that injunction continued until October 1984.
In August 1984 before the 1984 general election the Liberal minister of fisheries, Romeo LeBlanc, responded to Alcan going to court against the injunction that had protected our fisheries and that river and said he would support a full public hearing into the Kemano completion project. What follows that is disgraceful.
Following the election of the Conservative government, in 1985 Alcan went to court to get rid of the injunction that the minister of fisheries had kept in place for over half a decade protecting the river.
This federal Tory government reached an agreement with Alcan to pave the way for the Kemano completion project. It was then challenged in court by environmental groups. Rather than responding to the environmental concerns by ordering an environmental assessment as it then had the authority to do, the federal government, knowing the environmental impacts of this project, specifically exempted Alcan from the Environmental Assessment Act and the requirement for a public environmental hearing.
It did more than that. It suppressed reports out of its own department. I was challenged by members on the other side when I said that in 1988 the government had suppressed information about the impacts of the free trade agreement and that it had reports from its own officials changed.
There is no doubt in this case that there are 83,000 pages of Department of Fisheries and Oceans documents relating to this project which have not been made publicly available so the public can see how this government is exercising its stewardship on behalf of our water.
I do not have a lot of time left but if we look at the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, there has been
very little process in protecting our Great Lakes which contain 20 per cent of the world's freshwater supply.
The same minister of fisheries who came to this tragic agreement with Alcan on the Kemano project is also the same later Minister of the Environment who exempted the Rafferty-Alameda Dam from the environmental assessment review process.
This government has consistently ignored decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to its environmental assessment responsibilities on the Oldman River Dam and the Rafferty-Alameda Dam. It has not yet responded to the report of its own environmental assessment review panel on the Oldman River Dam.
This country is fortunate enough to possess and control a disproportionate share of the world's geography and much of it is still in very good shape. That gives us an obligation, not only to our citizens and future generations of Canadians but to the world to protect that precious resource of which we have been given custody.
When it comes to water and the impacts of our preservation of water on all other natural systems this government has failed to do its duty. That is why we rise in support of this motion today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Madam Speaker, some of Canada's most productive citizens have emigrated from India. They occupy positions of honour and respect in Canada and many are leaders in our communities. They are doctors, scientists, merchants, stockbrokers, small business owners and university professors. They are law abiding citizens. They are home owners and taxpayers. They make a real contribution to our society.

Many of these exemplary citizens have friends and relatives who are among the 200 million citizens of India's middle class and some are among India's 17 million millionaires. Not surprisingly, from time to time these friends and relatives plan visits to Canada. Since tourism is now the world's number one industry and Canada likes to get its fair share of tourism dollars it is hard to understand the consistency with which our immigration officials refuse visitors' visas to citizens from India.
It is even harder to understand why these officials will not accept a Canadian citizen's-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, the member's time has expired.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are worried about the future of medicare. They hear candidates for the Tory leadership say that the deficit must be eliminated in five years. They hear those same people talk about implementing user fees to reduce the cost of our health care system.
There is a lot of vague talk and very few specifics. Canadians have the right to know exactly where their leaders stand on the issues.
The Liberal Party stands firmly against user fees. The Tory candidates stand firmly in the fog. If user fees are ever brought back the result would be a two-tiered health care system, an advanced system for those with money and a poorer system for those with little or no money.
All Canadians deserve the very best medical treatment possible regardless of where they live or the size of their wallets.


BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, for the past week Canadian naval veterans, merchant naval veterans, and members of the Royal Canadian Air Force have been in England to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.
The success of this commemoration, and thousands of people have witnessed the various ceremonies, is tangible proof that the people of Great Britain recognize and appreciate the efforts of these veterans.
Today I rise in this House to pay tribute to those brave Canadians, many of whom rest in the deep grey and cold waters of the North Atlantic. Their sacrifice in service of their country shall never and must never be forgotten by Canadians and their government.
During the Second World War ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian merchant marine carried 180 million tons of supplies across the Atlantic. More than 3,000 Canadian sailors were lost in that effort.
We have a grave responsibility to never forget the magnificent achievement of these Canadians. We must also never forget our debt-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize but the hon. member's time has expired.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, it has now been three years since a fair election was held in Burma, which the military regime wants us to call Myanmar, and the National League for Democracy won a large majority.
One of the elected MPs, Aung San Suu Kyi, is a Nobel peace prize winner. She remains under house arrest and the military continues to rule by fear, forced labour, torture and rape.
The United Nations General Assembly and its human rights commission have repeatedly called for the regime to stop its abuses and move toward democracy.
Should thoughtful people not boycott companies such as Pepsi, Hostess and others that have operations in Burma and ties with the SLORC? Should Burma not be suspended from the UN until democracy is established?


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the government used its majority to pass the North American free trade agreement in the House of Commons. Now it is up to the people of Canada to stop NAFTA.
May 28, 1993

In the next federal election Canadians will have a choice. If they want the free trade agreement and NAFTA they can vote for the Conservatives. If they believe that the free trade agreement and NAFTA must be stopped they know that the New Democratic Party will not allow these fundamentally flawed agreements to continue. If they want confusion they can support the Liberals who will not promise to kill the free trade agreement, who will not promise to stop NAFTA if there are no changes and who, even if they achieve their five desired changes to NAFTA, would still be supporting the sell-out of Canada.
The Liberal leader wants it both ways, he wants the financial support of big business and the votes of ordinary Canadians. However he cannot have it both ways. The Liberals need to tell Canadians now that they will stop NAFTA and they will kill the free trade agreement. Nothing else will save Canada, save Canadian jobs and save Canadian communities.


CANADA FITWEEK
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, every year about 14 million Canadians of all ages from all over the country take part in Canada Fitweek, the world's biggest celebration of active living.
From May 28 to June 6, in a true spirit of partnership, federal and provincial governments, national non-profit organizations and the private sector will once again join in a concerted effort to improve the well-being and quality of life of Canadians.
That is why today, speaking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State for Youth, Fitness and Amateur Sport, and on behalf of all Fitweek organizers, I urge you to get involved in some of the 18,000 activities that will be organized in your communities as part of Canada Fitweek. In fact this year is special because it marks the beginning of the second decade of this annual celebration.
Put on your running shoes and meet the challenge, because physical activity and active living are a lifetime pursuit.


THE LATE BILLY BOURQUE
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, last Saturday people in the Northwest Territories and northern Alberta lost a well-known bush pilot in a tragic airplane accident.
Billy Bourque was 44 years old and was a very special Canadian. He was one of a handful of northern bush pilots with almost 10,000 flying hours. He deeply loved flying northerners to their trap lines and outpost camps. He made every effort to see that people in the bush were well taken care of.
Billy was also a passionate naturalist. He was an important contributor, helping to save the whooping cranes in Wood Buffalo National Park. He also worked over the years to catch poachers and fight fires.
Friends say he was the "bush pilot who was most at home making his plane dance through the trees and over the northern marshes".
Billy's sense of responsibility and contributions to the north brought him legendary fame and much respect. He will be sadly missed by all who loved, respected and knew him.


BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, this week Canadian sailors on the HMCS Nipigon joined with other allied ships in the Irish Sea off the coast of Wales to mark the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.
Today on behalf of the NDP caucus I rise to pay tribute to all those Canadians who served in that battle, and particularly to all those who lost their lives. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Canadians of the RCNVR, the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, and the Canadian merchant marine for their service in a crucial struggle and for their example of courage in the face of adversity, an example that will stir Canadian hearts for generations to come.

May 28, 1993



Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, although the first Sunday in May marked the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic I want to pay tribute today to the men and women who took part in that battle. The longest running battle of the Second World War was fought along the busy north Atlantic convoy routes between Britain and North America.
During the war Canada's 10-ship navy grew to 378 vessels to become the third largest allied naval power with more than 100,000 members by war's end, including 6,781 women who served in shore establishments in Canada and abroad as wrens.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to these men and women, one that I find I can never express strongly enough. Their dedication, courage and love of country will always be an example of selfless sacrifice.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, this government's policies are killing Canada's middle class, the motor of the Canadian economy.
In the past two years 406,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Each and every day for the last two years 450 people have been laid off. Total construction jobs were reduced by 117,000. Forestry workers' numbers were cut 6,000. There are now 24,000 fewer workers in the energy sector. Even the total number of service sector jobs went down by 357,000.
The government has cut unemployment insurance. It has raised taxes almost 40 times. It has tried to redefine poverty.

Where are the jobs they promised? Where is the common sense that was supposed to prevail? Where is the hope Canadians are seeking? There is none, Madam Speaker.


OSHAWA AIRPORT
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, there was very welcome news for the entire Oshawa and
Durham region area last week when the federal and provincial governments announced $6 million in improvements to the municipal airport in Oshawa.
This includes extensions to runways as well as construction of a new terminal. The city of Oshawa and Durham region are also participating financially to extend and upgrade services for the airport.
An important factor in this decision was that while Oshawa is home to the second largest General Motors facility in North America it is the only GM centre without access to a full service airport.
That deficiency is now being corrected and all people in Durham region will benefit. The improved airport will secure existing jobs in the area and help attract future development.
On their behalf I want to thank the government, and particularly the Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport, for its positive response to our request.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, producers and rural residents of western Canada are still waiting for an announcement on whether barley will be removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
We were told last fall that the government would study the issue and move quickly to make an announcement. The agriculture minister said that he would give an answer before seeding. Seeding is just about finished and so far there has not been a peep from the Minister of Agriculture.
The delay is due in no small part to the efforts of a number of farm organizations: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta wheat pools, the National Farmers' Union, Unifarm, Keystone Agricultural Producers and the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board.
May 28, 1993

These groups demonstrated the weakness of the government's position by showing, first, that most producers do not want a change, at least not without a vote, and, second, that the Carter report on which the government so heavily relied has some fundamental flaws.
The minister owes it to producers in western Canada to come out of hiding and give them an answer. My advice to the minister is to show some courage, stand up in the House and admit that he made a mistake.


FITWEEK
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, Canada's Fitweek, which was launched by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport on Wednesday, officially begins today with Sneaker Day.
From May 28 to June 6 in communities across Canada a record number of people are expected to take part in a variety of physical activities that will take place in community centres, schools, the work place, parks, pools and even shopping malls.
With thousands of people participating in some 18,000 events last year Fitweek remains the world's largest celebration of active living.
The theme of the Fitweek '93 campaign is celebrating and building active living partnerships. Certainly, much of Fitweek's success is the result of the partnership among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, national organizations, corporate sponsors, volunteers and individual communities.
I invite each of you here today and all other Canadians to get involved in some of the great activities occurring in your neighbourhood, either doing your favourite physical activity or trying a new one.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I learned with great satisfaction of the Quebec government's establishment of a million dollar economic development fund for Montreal's English speaking black community.
Congratulations to the various community organizations that proved the case for this special support measure which will enable this community to undertake vital business pursuits with the support of an advisory board for constructive mentoring.
However the fund is about much more than a simple business pursuit. It demonstrates the Quebec government's renewed interest and will to help integrate the various ethnic communities. A million dollars sends a strong message that the provincial government is willing to implement effective policies to help our black business people prosper, thrive and grow.
The black community has been a vibrant part of Quebec society. In fact the fund is named after Matthew Da Costa, a black man who accompanied Samuel de Champlain on his trip to New France. It is time we recognized the contributions that communities such as this black community have made to our multicultural society.
A sure way of demonstrating our solidarity and respect for a member group of our population is through real commitment-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired. The hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize the act of partnership last week by the Minister for Multiculturalism and Citizenship with St. Thomas University in Fredericton to establish a chair of studies in Canadian citizenship and human rights.
This chair, which is the 27th to be endowed and supported by Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, is also the first to be dedicated to the study, teaching and research of human rights and citizenship.
The importance of the relationship between human rights and the responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic country such as our own is being increasingly

May 28, 1993
Oral Questions
acknowledged both academically and scientifically. Respect for the basic human rights of all human beings is a fundamental principle of citizenship.
By working with St. Thomas University to establish and endow this chair, the government continues to promote these two ideals, human rights and citizenship, so critical to the future of our society and to the world.


PEACEKEEPERS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to share with the House a positive aspect of our peacekeepers. This comes from a constituent of mine, a soldier. He and his colleagues are presently serving in Cyprus where we have been involved for close to three decades.
It is a story about a school that was closed in the area where those Canadian soldiers are serving. This school has been closed for over 20 years. Through the efforts of this soldier and his colleagues, this school has reopened. It has been provided with supplies such as papers and pencils, things we take for granted in Canada. Approximately 25 young people are being served by that reopened school.
That indeed is a good news story about our peacekeepers throughout the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Competition Tribunal and the National Transportation Agency have now completed their work with respect to the proposed Canadian Airlines transaction.
The government knows that further delays in this matter will not benefit anybody. Will the government commit to a prompt review of the NTA decision to determine whether the transaction serves the public interests of Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows there is a process in place and that process is being followed. I think the hon. member would be the first one to condemn the government if there seemed to be any interference.
There is a provision that time is allocated for the opportunity to appeal and that process will be honoured. I think the hon. member would want to support that.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, continued uncertainty in the airline industry really serves nobody well. The government has been hiding for many months behind administrative tribunals and courts while Air Canada continues to bleed losses, Canadian Airlines is bleeding losses and the Gemini reservation system is bleeding losses because of the uncertainty. Good jobs are being lost. Employees continue to despair, wondering what is going to happen to their jobs.
Is the government now, at last, prepared to state a policy for the airline industry? Will it use its position to try to break the gridlock that has been binding this industry, causing a loss of profits and a loss of jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there is a clearly defined policy in place. There is a process in place to ensure that that policy is carried out. Certain business and legal issues have to be dealt with. Surely the hon. member would want that process to be completed.
Surely the hon. member does not want the Government of Canada interfering with decisions that are rendered and dealt with by a quasi-judicial body which is charged with the responsibility of implementing the policies as outlined in the National Transportation Act. In addition to that, certain business and legal issues have to be resolved and there is a process for that as well.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, the minister knows veiy well that the next stage of the NTA process is a review on public policy grounds by cabinet. It is a political decision. The government has to decide what its airline policy is and it has to move to implement it.
Months ago the Minister of Transport, wherever he is today, had the idea of saying that the regulatory framework was going to be recalibrated. We have had enough of that kind of mumbo-jumbo.

Is the minister prepared to state what the government policy is? Is he prepared to move forward with a process to manage the competition in this industry so that we can sustain the jobs that are so important to so many Canadians?


David Kilgour: Let them both bleed to death.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madame Speaker, The recently converted member of Parliament for Edmonton Southeast knows very well that there is a clearly defined transportation policy.
I quote section 3: "It is hereby declared that a safe, economic, efficient and adequate network of transportation service is essential to serve the transportation needs of shippers and travellers". Subsection (b) goes on to say: "Competition and market forces are, wherever possible, the prime agents in providing viable and effective transportation services".
Now the hon. member wants a form of managed competition. I would be very interested to see how he describes that.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Transport is maintaining his hands-off policy, now that the National Transportation Agency has authorized American Airlines to acquire an interest in Canadian Airlines.
What does the government intend to do, now that the president of Air Canada is threatening to close maintenance centres in Montreal and Winnipeg, which will put another 2,000 employees out of work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there is a process that can be followed. Any decision that is rendered by the National Transportation Agency has a time period wherein submissions can be made to the cabinet for review. Anyone who disagrees with the decision has that right, and that is what I said earlier.
Oral Questions
There is a policy in place, there is a law in place and there is a process in place. I think hon. members would want that to be followed.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, because of inaction by the government and the Minister of Transport, Montreal and Winnipeg stand to lose 2,000 jobs.
When will the Minister of Transport do his job and tell Canadians what the government is going to do to save the Canadian airline industry and save the jobs of all the people working in that industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any difference in terms of the policy position of the government and at least the official critic of the Liberal Party which suggests that we should have and maintain a competitive airline industry.
That is the policy of the government. That is what we hope we will be able to continue to achieve, recognizing that there is a certain amount of restructuring that has to take place. We must also recognize that because of the global downturn in the economy some very difficult and tough decisions had to be made in terms of rationalizing the airline industry, not only domestically but also globally. The hon. member cannot avoid that reality.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is entirely appropriate that he should be responding today on transportation matters because it is legislation proposed by him in the first place that is coming home to roost today, both with the Air Canada privatization and the National Transportation Act.
Some time ago the Government of Canada in order to protect 1,100 jobs in Hibernia decided to invest $340 million to buy 12.5 per cent of that project.
Would the Minister of Finance be prepared to redirect the revenue obtained from the airline industry in Canada into an equity position in Canadian Airlines worth $246 million with the proviso that they buy those shares back but do so in order to keep Canadian Airlines owned, operated and controlled by Canadians and we keep the jobs here in Canada? Will he do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there is a private sector proposal which is currently the subject of evaluation by the National Transportation Agency and on which a decision has been rendered. Why would the Government of Canada want to invest in this particular transac-

May 28, 1993
Oral Questions
tion when a private sector operator is prepared to ically say no to any appeal. I hope he is not trying to do invest-	that.


Mr. Brewin:: Because it is American owned of course.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which is consistent with the policies of Canada and consistent with the policies and the principles of the National Transportation Act.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, the question is one of political will and whether this government is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a Canadian-owned company remains that way. It is the government's responsibility.
The minister should know that in section 258 of the National Transportation Act, cabinet does not have to wait for an appeal of the NTA's decision. It has the power in its own right to consider the matter of the NTA decision on American Airlines and Canadian right now.
Will the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, accept its legal responsibility, be seized of the matter and make the political decision as to whether or not this transaction should be allowed to proceed? That is one of the very important questions this government has to respond to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, one of the
important issues that we have to recognize is the fact that we do have a national transportation policy that is in effect under the auspices of the National Transportation Act. The National Transportation Agency adjudicates issues that come into dispute.
To quote from the decision that was rendered yesterday, the five-member panel unanimously concluded that the proposed acquisition of a 25 per cent voting equity interest and a 33.3 per cent economic interest in Canadian Airlines International Canada by Aurora Investments is not against the public interest.
The panel also concluded that the proposed internal corporate reorganization of Canadian is not against the public interest and thus in effect the proposed acquisitions are allowed. That is pretty clear.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I hope that by quoting the decision the Minister of Finance is not signalling that the cabinet will automat-
There are a number of conditions under the Air Canada Act, the act which privatized that corporation. One is that no one can own more than 10 per cent of Air Canada. The other is that Air Canada must maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga and that the head office must be in the Montreal urban community.
Air Canada has already signalled in a broad way that it is going to seek changes to the Air Canada Act so that it can be as competitive as Canadian if this deal is allowed to go through.
The question I want to put to the Minister of Finance is will he retain these provisions in the Air Canada Act so that jobs in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg are protected?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is posing a hypothetical question.
He is suggesting what if Air Canada does this. We have not seen Air Canada doing such a thing. The law stands as it is. Until there is any suggestion that changes should be made, one can only speculate. I am not accustomed to answering hypothetical questions. The law currently stands in the National Transportation Act, and the policy clearly stands. The hon. member knows very well that to provide a hypothetical situation and ask someone to comment on it is-


Iain Francis Angus: It is called leadership, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not leadership; it is speculation. I do not answer questions on speculation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is familiar with the transportation sector, since he was at the root of the fiasco that has now overtaken the Canadian airline industry.
It is unfortunate that although he was asked eight very specific questions in this House, in each case the minister refused to respond and explain his government's position. The three questions put by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan were particularly relevant and I might have asked them myself. I will not repeat
May 28, 1993

them, but I can see the minister has completely abdicated his responsibility in this area.
How can he let an American company gradually take over a major Canadian company? Or is this just the beginning? Is this government going to let Canadian companies that have been successful in the past be controlled by American companies in the near future?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I repeat once again, there is a policy in place. There is a process in place. There is the opportunity for cabinet to review the decision. There is an opportunity for other interested parties to review the decision and take whatever action they deem appropriate.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the policy initiated by the minister was freedom to move. We now know that it is freedom to bankruptcy for the airline companies.
Clearly what we are witnessing is the Americanization of the airline industry in Canada. This is totally unacceptable. I hope the minister will have the courage to take steps to protect the Canadian industry and protect Canadian jobs. What will he do in the near future to make sure that Air Canada will not also be substantially taken over by an American airline company?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, again, there is a policy in place that provides those kinds of parameters.


Sheila Finestone: Aren't you tired of saying such silly nonsense?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Pardon me?


Sheila Finestone: You heard me.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I did not hear what the hon. member sitting in the back row said.
There is a policy in place that provides the parameters under which there can be foreign investment. The Air
Oral Questions
Canada Act restricts outside investment in that particular airline.
There have been difficulties in the airline sector, not only in Canada, but throughout the world. The hon. member recognizes that there is to some extent overcapacity within the system. To the extent that can be worked through, the government will do whatever it can.
We want to see a strong and competitive airline industry but we recognize that in the course of the globalization and restructuring that is taking place internationally, we have to be very cognizant and observant of that fact.
It will be in that connection that the Government of Canada will provide the necessary leadership assistance with the policies which are in place.


IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAM
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The minister will know that yesterday the Manitoba government withdrew from the federal government's Immigrant Investor Program, charging specifically that the federal government's mismanagement has lead to flagrant abuse, charges of fraud and a lack of major economic benefits to the province, a condition that applies not just to Manitoba but across the country.
In light of this major condemnation by the Government of Manitoba and in light of the fact that ministers had information about these abuses for over a year, why did the minister refuse the request of a court appointed representative to undertake a full inquiry into this fraud and mismanagement? Who is he protecting?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, regarding the Immigrant Investor Program, the hon. member may want to indict it in front of all Canadians, but the fact remains that the Immigrant Investor Program has brought $2 billion of investment to Canada since 1986 and has created jobs for Canadians.

May 28, 1993
Oral Questions
In a perfect world, I suppose that would be no problem. We are aware that there were requirements for better enforcement, more control, better guidelines for the program and that is exactly what the government has done.
Bill C-86 amended the Immigration Act, which by the way this member and his party opposed, provided a legislative basis to have a much better regulatory framework for the investor program. Just Tbesday of last week we pre-published regulations that should come into effect in July in order to have a much better program.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am not personally indicting the program. The Government of Manitoba, a Conservative government, has indicted the program and has withdrawn from it because of the major charges of fraud associated with it.
I quote a Manitoba official who said: "Despite the revisions of the federal minister, the temptation to circumvent the spirit and intent of the program still exists. The requirement to provide audited financial statements does not ensure compliance".
I ask the minister again, knowing full well that this program is hurting Canada's reputation abroad and has led to major fraud within this country, when will he set up a proper review and inquiry right across Canada into the Immigrant Investor Program?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, in order for this program to properly and better serve Canadians, I have appointed a task force to examine ways to improve the program.
The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration also studied the program and made recommendations. Administratively I have recently created a business immigration branch in the department in order to improve the management of the investor program.
Amendments to Bill C-86 have further strengthened the monitoring and compliance aspects of the program. Finally, this week, the federal government introduced regulatory changes that will enhance and improve the program.
I am not saying the program is perfect. We are trying to improve it. I would remind the hon. member that this is a jointly administered program and no offering can go on the market without the province first approving it.


GUATEMALA
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, with extraordinary courage the people of Guatemala are opposing President Serrano's self coup in which he arrested key democratically elected officials, shut down democratic institutions and denied human rights, including freedom of the press.
The Canadian government's far-sighted policy of giving aid only to non-governmental organizations has clearly helped to strengthen the ability of the people of Guatemala to mount this defence of their own democracy.
Will Canada be able to find a way to continue channelling aid to non-government organizations of Guatemala without having to pass it through the Serrano government, with which it has the bilateral agreement?
Further, will Canada seek sanctions against Guatemala at the OAS meeting next week and will it ask the International Monetary Fund to freeze loans?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in what is truly a deplorable situation in Guatemala and one in which we have expressed our condemnation in a number of ways.
We cannot and will not condone the kinds of actions that President Serrano has taken. We fully subscribe to the special resolution that was passed in the OAS which calls for the Guatemalan authorities to reinstate democratic institutions and full respect for human rights.
As the hon. member has indicated, there will be a special meeting of foreign ministers-I believe next Thursday although the date has not yet been confirmed-in which we will continue to recommend the strongest possible action.
I think sanctions are something that are certainly in keeping with our views on this and it is something I am quite prepared to explore. I will take the recommenda-
May 28, 1993

tion to speak with the IMF as a representation. I will have to look at the implications of that.
Obviously we believe that our aid is going to the right agencies and that it is achieving the kinds of objectives that the hon. member was kind enough to mention. We have concerns about our ability to continue delivering aid directly to those organizations. As long as we can, we will continue to do so.
What I can assure the hon. member is that we will not in any way put those people in jeopardy because of our aid nor will we deliver it in any way through the government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer.
I would ask further, making reference to the United Nations, that since President Serrano has invited the international community, especially the UN, to monitor what is happening now in Guatemala, will the minister seize this opportunity by calling for the establishment of a United Nations human rights observer mission inside Guatemala to begin now and to continue as long as necessary?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, yes, I agree that it would be useful to have some international missions there.
The hon. member has asked for a UN mission. I would be just as happy if the OAS sent one. It has a very particular interest in the region and also has its own standards with regard to the development of democracy and human rights in this hemisphere. That is certainly something we will be looking at in the context of the OAS meeting.
Let me say this while I am on my feet. I want to reassure Canadians that our embassy has been in touch with every Canadian NGO group in Guatemala. All of them are all right, at least for the moment. The embassy has assisted those who want to leave to do so. Two left this morning. Some will be leaving this weekend. Others have expressed a preference to stay. The human rights conference participants have left or are leaving today.
Oral Questions
It is very important that we reassure Canadians that we do take action when we know that Canadians are at risk under this kind of political circumstance.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns again the appointment of Mr. Ami Thomsteinson.
The province of Manitoba won a $6 million judgment against this person on April 17,1993 and the taxpayers of Canada are responsible for up to that amount through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The government chose to appoint him to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada 16 days after the judgment was rendered.
Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not know of this and why did he and his government appoint this person anyway? Why did they do it?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at page 19932 of Hansard the Minister of Public Works, who is not in the House, undertook to investigate this matter and get back to members.
He thanked the hon. member for bringing it to our attention yesterday. The Minister of Public Works will be back in the House next week to respond to his question.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, is the minister telling us that he only found out about this yesterday when a court judgment was rendered on April 27? If that is the case, is that not the worst admission of incompetence that we have ever heard on the part of this government?

We have here a very partisan figure being appointed to a board that is vital to our country, the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada. Why will the minister or the Deputy Prime Minister not rise in the House today to explain once and for all why this person was appointed despite a judgment by the courts in Manitoba, a judgment that was made at the request of the provincial Conservative government?

Oral Questions


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I do not spend my life looking around inside the courts and the judgments to find out what is going on and what he can muck-rake. I did not know of anything of that nature.
Yesterday my hon. friend, the minister, said that he would look into all aspects and report back to the House. He will do that. I spoke to him earlier today and he said he unfortunately would not be here but he will be reporting back to the House.
We have undertaken to do that. We have no problem in following that procedure.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, we can only come to the conclusion that they are obviously hoping their Tory friend from western Canada will do for the Bank of Canada what he has done for his own company, and that is rather frightening.
I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Three days ago in the House questions were raised regarding the decision by the Minister of the Environment to provide up to $200,000 in untendered contracts to an individual who subsequently became the campaign manager of the Minister of the Environment in his leadership quest, to provide media advice to the minister and image help for the minister.
Since it has been three days, what steps are being taken by the Government of Canada to recover these 200,000 taxpayer dollars improperly used to subsidize the leadership campaign of the Minister of the Environment?


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I must say that the hon. member's allegations are incorrect and I think present quite an unfair aspiration on the work of Mr. David Small.
As I indicated in the House earlier this week, Mr. Small was selected by the Department of the Environment to provide very critical communications advice and planning for the UNCED conference held in Rio one year ago.
I would think my hon. colleagues would recall the excellent communications capabilities provided from that conference and how Canada stood in the forefront around the world. Much of that is indeed to the credit of the work undertaken by Mr. Small.
I think his work is excellent. He is no longer with the department, but we are fully confident that he has performed his requirements very skilfully.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would like to know which facts I have wrong.
There is no denying that Mr. Small is now the campaign manager of the Minister of the Environment. There is no denying that the guidelines require all contracts over $50,000 to be publicly tendered. These were not. The contract was broken into chunks of less than $50,000. There is no denying that Mr. Small was giving image and communications advice and helping to promote the image of the Minister of the Environment who is now a candidate for the leadership of his party.
How am I wrong in suggesting that the taxpayers have been bilked of $200,000 in a Tory leadership race?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I would like to say the hon. member is wrong by all accounts.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mary Collins: He is. Mr. Small is not the campaign manager for my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What is he?


Mary Collins: Mr. Small is no longer employed or on a contract with the Department of the Environment. He resigned in fact on March 17.
Let me just provide some facts, some truth for the minister.


Some hon. members:: Please do.


Mary Collins: Mr. Small's contract was originally negotiated with the department and the department chose him because of his background and of his skills. I can
May 28, 1993

assure the member the contract was indeed for less than $50,000.
Mr. Small undertook excellent work. I think it was only logical, having started on the planning, that we wanted to continue with the implementation and indeed a second contract was provided. Again that is in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he get his facts right. Also I would think he would want to offer his compliments for the excellent work both Mr. Small and the Minister of the Environment have done on the UNCED Rio conference.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Western Diversification Fund.
This week David Hogben of The Vancouver Sun published a report that the minister has agreed to give an interest-free loan of $611,000 of Canadian taxpayers' money to a company called Shotco Ammunition Corporation.
When the minister approved this use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars was she aware that Shotco was 30 per cent owned by a company known as Cavim, a company wholly owned by the Venezuelan defence ministry, a company described as the Venezuela military owned monopoly arms procurer and producer?
Why did the minister agree to give this interest-free loan to the Venezuelan military to build an ammunitions plant in a Conservative held constituency of British Columbia?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, again my hon. colleague has quite a mixture of facts.
First, this project was approved two and a half years ago on the basis that it would be a new industry, a revitalized industry for the manufacturing of shotgun shells for the sports industry, something that was being
Oral Questions
done in the United States. It would require import replacement.
I understand that since the time of the original approval for a project that was to be done in Kimberley, British Columbia-I do not know if that is held by a Conservative member-there have been some changes.
I have asked for a full review of this project because I have some concerns about it. If indeed there have been substantial changes to the project or the ownership which were not fully disclosed obviously appropriate action will be taken.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I just want to confirm the minister is undertaking that she will cancel this interest-free loan and use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars if it is determined that the company is owned, partially at least, by the Venezuela military. Is that what the minister is saying to the House?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I have asked for a full review in terms of just what the obligations are under the approvals that have been given, but I have some concerns.
I would also like to assure my colleague that no money has been spent on this project at all. In fact the project has not even started. As soon as I have the full facts before me we will take whatever action is appropriate.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of the Environment, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Throughout the debate on the NAFTA that was rammed through last night the government insisted there was no credible evidence that NAFTA as drafted undermined Canada's position at the GATT.
How could the government say that when two months ago it received an opinion in writing from the chairman of the board of the Canadian Council for International Business and the Business Industry Advisory Committee

May 28, 1993
Oral Questions
to the OECD that: "NAFTA enables the U.S. to deny Canada access to established GATT trade agreement rights".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, just in a general way, the North American free trade agreement or any other bilateral agreement that is undertaken has to be consistent with the rules of the GATT.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, on March 19 the government received in writing an opinion that Canadian resource based industries including steel and metal, minerals, energy and forestry were put at risk as a specific result of the NAFTA that was passed last night.
How could the Deputy Prime Minister and his government proceed with a badly drafted agreement when advisers to the OECD have let them know that the agreement as drafted is putting at risk Canadian jobs in minerals, steel, energy and forestry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am not going to comment on the specific opinion the hon. member has referred to.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is not an opinion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Obviously there are many opinions with respect to the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement. I suspect there are many positive and many negatives ones.
I repeat, the provisions of the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, were undertaken with the objective of being fully consistent with the GATT.


SENIORS
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In her speech in Toronto yesterday the Minister of National Defence stated that she wanted to "target social programs". The minister specifically wants to target Canada's elderly by deindexing pensions. As the minister will recall, in 1985 the Prime Minister was told it would be goodbye, Charlie Brown for a similar approach.
Why is the cabinet now targeting senior citizens? Will the minister stand in his place today to repudiate this new policy initiative?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Madam Speaker, I would like to quote the Minister of National Defence. She actually said in Toronto: "We need comprehensive income security reform to make our social programs more effective in helping Canadians to become self-sufficient and to ensure the elderly and the disabled enjoy a decent standard of living as the population ages".
I repeatedly said in the House and outside the House that I believe Canada will soon have to re-examine all its social policies and to adapt them to the realities of 1993. It does not mean that we will necessarily change the policy for older citizens. The minister of defence did not say that she would change them. She said that we would reconsider a range of policies including this one. It is quite possible we will keep them exactly the same.
However, as a government responsible for social policies we believe deeply-and I do as well-that it is time for Canadians to re-examine what it means to change and to re-examine policies. The minister of defence is a responsible person when she says such a thing.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that no group of Canadians has given as much to this country as senior citizens. No group in this society has worked longer and harder.
I admire the minister for the tough stand he took with regard to the comments made by the Minister of National Defence concerning user fees. I want the minister to stand in his place to repudiate this new policy initiative of the Minister of National Defence which is to target senior citizens as if they were enemies of Canada.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I understand my friend finds it very useful to say that I was answering for the minister of defence on my position on health. It would be fairer to say that I also answer for the minister of health for the province of Quebec who today said that I am wrong to say we should keep universality of the health care system.
May 28, 1993

The minister of defence did not and does not attack anybody.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is a lot more diplomatic than your answer last week.


David Charles Dingwall: You are practising your diplomacy.


Benoît Bouchard: She just said as a responsible person, having in mind the leadership of this country, that we should. The senior citizens themselves agree with that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ambassador Bouchard.


Benoît Bouchard: It does not please the former Prime Minister of Canada who I understand is not a poor person. At the same time we understand that as a responsible government we have to do that.
I admire the minister of defence for having the courage to say that she wants to re-examine the policy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Most Canadians are aware this minister has been following with great concern and sensitivity the circumstances of David Spencer from New Brunswick and Christine Lamont from British Columbia who are currently serving very long prison terms in Brazil.
In a published letter to Mr. Spencer's father on April 14, 1992 the minister alluded to a pending completion of a treaty with Brazil for the transfer of offenders. It would permit Mr. Spencer and Ms. Lamont to be returned to Canada in custody to complete their sentences.
Many citizens would appreciate a current summary of the status of that case. Is the proposed treaty nearing completion? What are the prospects for Spencer and Lamont being returned to Canada in the foreseeable future?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the treaty the hon. member is referring to concerning the exchange of offenders has passed the justice committee in the Brazilian parliament. It is now moving to a plenary of the lower house. We are given to understand that it will be dealt
Oral Questions
with reasonably expeditiously there. It will then move on to the Brazilian Senate and we look forward to early ratification of that treaty.
We are also engaged in assisting with the process regarding the appeal. There are two appeals. One is a constitutional appeal as to the locus of the original trial. However the more important one has to do with the length of the sentences. That too is under active consideration by the judge who has this responsibility. We look forward to further news on that front too.
I want to assure hon. members concerning the state of Ms. Lamont's health because there was something alluded to in the other place yesterday about it. We regard this as a private matter and do not comment on it publicly, except I want to assure the hon. member and others we take cognizance of any potential problems that might arise. There have been none.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Madam Speaker, Marc-Yvan Cote, the Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services, says that people who say we must not tamper with the principle of universality and free social and health care programs or propose certain control measures are acting irresponsibly. In this morning's Journal de Montreal, Mr. Cote said, and I quote: "Chretien is lying to people about free health care." He also referred to the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister tell us whether he is also lying to the people of Quebec?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's comments contain any useful information for Canadians. However the media and Quebecers know that two weeks ago I discussed this matter with the Quebec Minister of Health. I expressed my complete disagreement with his position. I said, and that is still my position, that we supported universality and that user fees would not help us raise more money since Canadians would merely be discouraged from using health care services. I therefore maintain what I said.

May 28, 1993
Routine Proceedings
That my Quebec counterpart, for whom I have the utmost respect, does not agree with me on this issue is certainly not a problem for me. It is all part of the democratic very sound democratic system we have in this country.


LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A year ago a delegation of New Democrat MPs went to Washington, D.C. to express our concerns to U.S. authorities about the softwood lumber tariff dispute.
Our findings then were that the real drive by the U.S. authorities in this case was to get access to Canadian and in particular B.C. raw logs. These findings have been confirmed by a recent visit to Washington, D.C. by B.C. Minister of Forests, the hon. Dan Miller. Yesterday the premier of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the recent trade ruling and the rulings and desires of the U.S. authorities for our raw logs.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister undertake on behalf of the Prime Minister to agree to arrange a meeting with the premier of British Columbia and his forest minister to discuss this very important issue, the U.S. drive to get access to all our raw logs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question under representation.


WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Western Economic Diversification.
Early in May the minister and the deputy premier of Alberta announced the results of a review which identified areas of overlap and duplication between the Governments of Canada and Alberta. This was welcome news to Albertans.
Now that the areas of overlap have been identified what actions are being taken? How soon will Alberta benefit from more efficient government?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report on what I think is a very creative and innovative approach to federal-provincial co-operation, reducing costs of government and reducing overlap.
There are a number of specific initiatives, for example bringing together a single agency for meat inspection and looking at the rationalization of the two geological surveys, one in Alberta and one in Canada. We now have a process moving through to August to develop the actual implementation plans for a lot of these proposals.
In the meantime we are going to look at a number of other areas. We only had a 45-day time frame to do the first review. I think we will identify quite a few more. We have specifically identified $15 million worth of savings as a result of the first review and those $15 million are concrete. I expect we are going to find a lot more, reduce overlap and duplication and improve service to Albertans.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Cadieux:: Madam Speaker, I would like to formally designate Monday, May 31 as the eighth allotted day for the supply period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 28, 1993


[Stage Direction]
99TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 99th report of the Standing Committee on House Management concerning votable items in Private Members' Business. Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in relation to Bill C-62, an act respecting telecommunications.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I know it is Fitweek but the minister who designated Monday as the eighth allotted day, I believe it is the seventh allotted day. I am wondering if perhaps he could check with the Table. It may be that I am incorrect and the minister is correct. If it does have to be changed I am sure the minister would want to do that.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I will definitely look into it, Madam Speaker. If it is the seventh day we will certainly acknowledge that.
I want to thank my hon. colleague for underlining the fact that it is Fitweek but not only that, it is Sneaker Day also.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may make a comment here. Today's Projected Order of Business does say that today is the seventh of nine allotted days.
Routine Proceedings POINT OF ORDER



COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, having just received some information I want to advise the House that I may have been incorrect in one of my answers today during Question Period.
I am advised that in fact Mr. Small is a campaign manager. I have not followed the positions of that particular campaign closely. I do apologize if I was incorrect in my assumptions.



BILL C-89 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

David Kilgour: It is not
often that it is done from this side of the floor, Madam Speaker, but at the request of the committee chairman I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-89, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NUNAVUT ACT


Pierre H. Cadieux: for leave to introduce Bill C-132, an act to establish a territory to be known as Nunavut and provide for its government and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Cadieux (for Mr. Siddon) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

Routine Proceedings



NUNAVUT LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT ACT


Pierre H. Cadieux: for leave to introduce Bill C-133, an act respecting an agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Cadieux (for Mr. Siddon) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



MAIN ESTIMATES


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the following motion standing in the name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is deemed adopted:
That pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), consideration of
environment votes 1,5,10,15, 20, 25 and 30 of the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994 by the Standing
Committee on Environment be extended beyond May 31, 1993.


PETITIONS
Edna Anderson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a number of petitions from my constituents who call upon the government to tighten the Young Offenders Act even more, especially as it applies to violent crimes.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Blackstock, Ontario requesting that Parliament reaffirm its commitment toward
seeking the elimination of poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, at the request of 36 constituents in Rideau County, I wish to table a petition asking the government to hold a referendum on official languages.
Although I do not share the views expressed in this petition, I am glad to do my duty as a member in a democratic country and represent my constituents, although they do not share my views on respecting the language of our two founding peoples and on Canadian unity.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I have three different sets of petitions I would like to present.
The first petition concerns the serial killer board game. The petitioners ask Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, the second petition again comes from numerous members of my constituency. It concerns the question of redress to the Ukrainian Canadians.
The petitioners note that the Prime Minister in October 1992 stated that it was the intention of the government to settle the claim to the mutual satisfaction of the government and the Ukrainian Canadian community.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons act on this to settle and acknowledge the redress issue to the satisfaction of the Ukrainian Canadians in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, the third petition concerns the ongoing tragedy in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to put pressure on the United Nations to take more concrete action to stop the genocide and
May 28, 1993

particularly the rape camps and other human rights violations in Bosnia-Hercegovina.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty on behalf of a number of people mostly from Saskatoon to present a petition. It calls on the government to take action relative to the unanimous motion of the House of Commons on September 27, 1991 and settle the acknowledgement and redress issues to the mutual satisfaction of the Ukrainian community and the government.
This issue was raised in a speech by the Prime Minister in October 1992 where he expressed the intention of the government to do this. The petitioners ask the government to proceed in that area.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I would like to present some petitions from residents throughout the Okanagan-Shuswap area who are particularly concerned about the possibility of the exploitation of Canadian water resources under both the FTA and the proposed NAFTA.
They are urging the Government of Canada to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the issue through the execution of a separate and binding joint diplomatic agreement ratified by both Canada and the United States stating that nothing in either the Canada-U.S. agreement or the North American trade agreement applies to Canada's water resources in other than bottled form.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from constituents of the Okanagan-Shuswap, the Enderby area and the north Shuswap from Sorrento and Blind Bay who are particularly concerned about the number of violent incidents that occur on television on a daily basis.
These petitioners ask the government to resolve the issue of violence on television by encouraging communication between the public and the industry, in particular with respect to holding public hearings with recommendations for limitations on the amount of exposure to violent television viewing.
Routine Proceedings SERIAL KILLER BOARD GAME


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning the serial killer board game.
Today I am tabling 13,669 signatures asking the Government of Canada to ban the importation into Canada of the serial killer board game.
The House will know that I have tabled 31,477 signatures on previous occasions. With today's tabling the new total is 45,146.
I thank all Canadians who have helped me in this exercise and I continue to solicit signatures of Canadians willing to support the ban of this product.
I repeat my request to the government to move immediately to ban the importation of the serial killer board game.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker I have two petitions from a number of residents of British Columbia which calls for changes in Canada's criminal justice system.
The first petition calls for changes in order to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure the conviction of offenders in the cases of sexual assault.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, the second petition calls for changes in the bail regulations so that a person who is on appeal bail from a serious sentence such as manslaughter or murder and who commits other crimes while he is out on bail such as impaired driving or attempting to cross the U.S. border and is caught, should not be permitted to remain on bail if he has committed those crimes and should be returned to jail immediately.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table a number of petitions on four different subjects.
The first petition has almost 2,000 signatures from Victoria and the Victoria area calling on the government to cancel the purchase of the EH-101 helicopters in favour of cheaper multi-purpose helicopters.

May 28, 1993
Routine Proceedings CRIMINAL CODE


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I have petitions from all across Canada calling on Parliament to amend or remove from the Criminal Code section 462(2) so there is freedom for Canadians to discuss and consider the possible beneficial uses of hemp or other substances. This is in no way inhibited or prevented by the provisions of the code.
I am sure the hon. member for Skeena will be particularly interested in this petition.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, my third petition is signed by a number of residents of the Victoria area calling on the government and the Parliament of Canada to amend the Income Ihx Act to allow Canadians to deduct from their personal taxable incomes all moneys paid in interest to any loan whether they be student education loans, personal, chattel or mortgage loans annually until the economy improves and, as stated in the petition: "We have eliminated the extreme class distinctions of poverty and wealth that is forever on the increase in this country today".


John F. Brewin: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a fourth petition in which your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to proclaim Parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table in the House a petition very relevant to the debate we are having today over the water issues and the controversial Kemano project.
This is a petition signed by residents of the interior of British Columbia expressing their concern about Multinational Resources, a company that has plans to divert part of the North Thompson River into Kinbasket Lake reservoir and to eventually pipe that water to California for sale.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first one, as other members have presented, is a petition regarding the serial killer board game. They too point out the fact that the object of the game is to murder as many defenceless children and adults as possible. They say that the laws of Canada do not deal with material portraying torture, rape and murder as fun, including the serial killer board game.
The petitioners call upon this government to amend the Criminal Code so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I have a second petition, Madam Speaker, from a number of constituents in my riding who point to the fact that on November 24, 1989 the House of Commons passed a unanimous motion seeking to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
The petitioners point out that Canadian children yield ever increasing cost to the administration of health care, justice and social welfare. They state that poverty among children inhibits learning in preparation for employment constituting a cost to future national productivity. They also point out that Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and has a moral obligation to seek the elimination of child poverty in Canada.
There are other matters they point out and the petitioners conclude by saying that they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to see the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Finally, Madam Speaker, I have a petition with respect to generic drugs.
Some 300 petitioners in my riding are concerned that the government has passed legislation that inhibits generic drugs from entering the market for up to 20 years. They state that the price of both new and existing
May 28, 1993

drugs has already increased substantially to individuals and provincial and private drug plans since 1987 when Bill C-22 at that time allowed drug companies a 10-year monopoly on drugs. Now of course it is 20 years.
The petitioners call upon this government to repeal that legislation and to bring in legislation that will allow for generic drugs and a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with drug care in this country.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I also have two petitions to present.
The first one is still timely we believe. It calls upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommends to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. These people from Sault Ste. Marie join the millions of Canadians in encouraging the government to do just that. We suggest that the fight is not over.


Steve Butland: I am particularly pleased to present this second petition, Madam Speaker, especially since we are close to the second anniversary of Croatian independence. Hundreds of my constituents, mainly in the Croatian community but many others as well, ask the Canadian government to extend full diplomatic relations to Croatia.
At long last the government has responded to this petition and others I am sure, and the governments of Croatia and Canada exchanged the appropriate diplomatic papers in mid-April.
I am pleased to say that there will be an additional Canadian presence in Zagreb momentarily and I trust the same will be true in Ottawa very soon.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Routine Proceedings
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, question No. 481 will be answered today.


Mr. Samson: With respect to the unemployment insurance program, for the past five years, (a) how many cases of fraud were reported each year (b) how many convictions for fraud were secured each year (c) how many frauds were there as a total of over-all claims?


Bernard Valcourt: The answer is as follows:
(a)	Number of cases of fraud
			Results	
Year	Total Investigations Completed	No. Penalties	No. Court Fines	Total1988	996,178	150,916	N/A	150,9161989	1,004,492	159,713	3,766	163,4791990	919,631	141,349	2,035	143,3841991	885,510	125,435	1,254	126,6891992	1,086,127	153,376	640	154,016Total	4,891,938	730,789	7,695	738,484(b)	Number of convictions for fraud	Year	Fines on Claimants	Fines on Employers	Total Fines1988	Not Available	Not Available	Not Available1989	3,638	128	3,7661990	1,931	104	2,0351991	1,192	62	1,2541992	616	24	640Total	7,377	318	7,695(c)	Number of cases of fraud on which a penalty or fine was imposed compared to total UI claims allowed	Year	No. of cases with fines or penalties	No. UI Claims Allowed	Cases with fines or penalties1988	150,916	2,886,151	5.2 per cent1989	163,479	2,859,034	5,7 per cent1990	143,384	3,356,270	4.3 per cent1991	126,689	3,626,854	3.5 per cent1992	154,016	3,558,058	4.3 per centTotal	738,484	16,286,367	4.5 per cent
May 28, 1993
Supply


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner (p. 19967).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed with the period of questions or comments following the intervention by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on the motion today and her support for this particular motion.
I would like to ask her a question. It relates to the proceedings leading up to the 1987 Nechako settlement agreement which was an out of court agreement signed behind closed doors after a number of days of negotiations. The result was the governing document that many people are concerned about regarding the very controversial Kemano project and the Nechako River.
These secret meetings were chaired by the president of the University of British Columbia, Mr. David Strangway. I made a submission to the B.C. utilities commission hearing on its procedural matters suggesting that, given Mr. Strangway's participation in these secret meetings and the knowledge he obviously would have about this particular project and what was going on behind closed doors, he might be a particularly valuable witness to appear before the commission.
I would like to ask the member if she would support the call to have Mr. Strangway appear before that commission? If he chooses not to voluntarily appear, would she support the call by many residents of northern B.C. that he be subpoenaed and compelled to appear and give evidence?


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, it is an interesting question but I do not think I am in a position to reply because I am not aware of the situation. I am not aware of Mr. Strangway or the role he played in these discussions.
However the Liberal Party firmly supports all information being made available that is available, much of which has been suppressed by the government even within its own department. Beyond that I really cannot comment.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would explain how the Kemano II project was initiated in the first place and under what water licence it was initiated. Which government issued that water licence in the first place? The public has a right to know how the licence for the Kemano II project developed.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I am beginning to wonder if the member thinks I am the Library of Parliament with a computer hidden under my desk. The permit that allowed both the first and second phases of the dam project to go ahead was first issued in 1950.
I have not the faintest idea, I was not even in high school at the time, what particular government or minister might have been responsible for that permit. However I am sure somehow that the member is going to tell me.
There are a number of issues. The Columbia River Treaty is one that is included in the motion today. I know one of my colleagues will be speaking to it later. Clearly at that time there was not the same concern about the environment. In fact the implications of many of our decisions with respect to the environment were not as well known as they are now.
On the presumption that the member is going to advise me that some long ago Liberal politician was responsible for this, otherwise I can see no reason why he would have raised the issue, I might ask him an anticipatory question as well. Why has the NDP government in Ontario in 1993 failed to proclaim any regulations with respect to the control of water under a bill proclaimed and passed by a previous Liberal government?
I might ask as well for comments, particularly from the B.C. members, as to why the federal NDP has not stated its position on the preservation of Clayoquot Sound. The member will know that the B.C. NDP government has come under strong pressure for the preservation of one of the oldest unlogged old growth forests in Canada and in the world.
May 28, 1993

Supply


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on the opposition day motion.
I am sure it would come as no surprise to my colleagues that I do not agree with the motion. I will have the opportunity to say why. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to protect
Canadian interests regarding the interbasin transfer of water-
It then proceeds to give a number of examples. I will not be able to respond to all the examples. Other speakers this afternoon will carry on with illustrations of how the government has played a very strong role in protecting our water resources.
I would like to talk about the broader issue of what the government's role has been with respect to water issues in Canada.
I believe that the foundation of the government's success, and not its failure as this motion would allege, is in the way that this government has developed, enunciated and implemented a federal water policy within the framework of the Canada Water Act.
Water, both fresh and ocean, is really the foundation of this country's identity, our historical development, our unity and our economic prosperity. It remains so as we move more strongly into an era where environmental sustainability is recognized as a primary force in the formulation of government policies and programs.
Canada possesses approximately 9 per cent of the world's fresh renewable water supply. It flows continuously through some of the world's most significant water basins and through the Great Lakes. Our rivers flow north, east, west and south. We share our rivers and our lakes with our neighbours to the south. For a significant part of our international boundary rivers or lakes are that boundary. Our provinces share our rivers as they often have their head-waters in one province and their estuaries, whether in the ocean or in lakes, in another.
Our rivers and lakes were important transportation corridors for our aboriginal people when they came to this continent many thousands of years ago, as they were for the European settlers who came in the 1500s and the 1600s. We have all read about and seen television
depictions of the voyageurs using these water routes as the mechanism by which they first developed Canada.
Our rivers and our lakes are also recognized as important food sources by all these people. Today we recognize our waters as being more than just transportation corridors and sources of food. We recognize them as being essential ecosystems the health and sustainability of which are essential both to our short-term and long-term futures.
Madam Speaker, you may think I digress by setting this historical context but I think it is apparent from the wording of the motion that it is necessary that the importance of these historical relations be enunciated.
Water management and water policies have been essential in this country from times predating nationhood. Water management and water policies have been of considerable concern to the Parliament of Canada and the Governments of Canada since Confederation.
The role of the federal government is not exclusive in this area of government responsibility. Water as a natural resource is constitutionally the property and prime responsibility of provincial governments to manage and protect.
Nevertheless there are certain heads of constitutional authority on which the federal government can and does exercise powers. For example, we do so under the Navigable Waters Protection Act to ensure that navigable waters, whether rivers or lakes, are protected and preserved for the inherent purposes of water-borne transportation.
We do so under the Fisheries Act to ensure that the fisheries are protected and preserved from over-use, contamination, the construction of dams, dikes, diversions or other structures that might inhibit the migration of fish during the very short course of their lives in some instances.
We also do so under the Canada Water Act, which sets out the basis for federal co-operation with the provinces in all aspects of water management.
We do so under the International River Improvements Act, which is used to ensure that modification to rivers that are international in nature and subject to engineering activities intended to improve and manage their flows are appropriate to the sound principles of water management and environmental sustainability.

May 28, 1993
Supply
Legislation alone is insufficient to ensure good and sound water management policies. Well-considered and developed policies that have the support and approval of the greater proportion of our population and of all levels of government are the key that must guide our governments in the development of operational programs and activities that are intended to ensure the optimal use of our waters within the framework of a sustainable environment.
In 1984 the federal government instituted a major review of its freshwater policy. The Canada Water Act, which has been in place since 1970, like any other enabling legislation requires policies and programs to achieve our federal and national goals. This act, which can still be considered an appropriate legislative basis for action, requires up to date, effective and realistic policies. The review, entitled "An Inquiry on Federal Water Policy", was led by Professor Peter Pearse, an economist at the University of British Columbia who is experienced in renewable resources, has been involved in many inquiries, and is a well-renowned British Columbian.
He held 18 months of hearings, research and consultations with all levels of government in water uses across the country. The inquiry submitted its final report in September 1985. Of the 55 recommendations made by inquiry members, ranging over issues as diverse as northern data networks, organizational change, and project evaluation criteria, I wish to draw the attention of colleagues to two recommendations which relate directly to the hon. member's motion. One concerns interbasin transfers of water within Canada and the other concerns the water export issue.
The inquiry noted that Canada already diverts more water by volume across drainage basin divides than any other country in the world, indeed more than does the United States and the former U.S.S.R. combined.
Such projects are increasingly criticized, despite impressive outputs of electricity, irrigated crops and municipal water supply, because of disruptions to northern, and especially native, communities and to the ecosystems that are their resource base.
The inquiry therefore recommended that interbasin transfers be considered in future only with great caution and only when alternative means of serving their purposes were not feasible.
On the water export issue, the inquiry made two major contributions to the government's further deliberations. The first was to distinguish between small scale exports, such as containerized drinking supplies, and large scale interbasin river diversions, like the North Thompson proposal, with obviously much more serious economic, social and environmental implications.
In forming its response during the following months the government accepted this distinction rather than try to provide one sweeping policy for all situations because they are really quite different in terms of substance and impact.
Second, the inquiry recognized the importance of creating a system for regulating water exports. After two decades in which former governments simply denied interest in water export and hoped that the problem would go away, this government has begun to explore the legislative possibilities along the lines recommended by the inquiry. After extensive review of all of the inquiry's recommendations by provincial governments, public interest groups and individuals the Government of Canada announced a new federal water policy in 1987. This policy statement is both comprehensive in its philosophy and specific in its approach to various water-related issues.
The federal water policy of 1987 represents the first official statement by a federal government in this country to elaborate its approach to water management in general and its policy on water diversion and export in particular. This policy has been welcomed with very few reservations right across Canada.
Let me summarize the government's policy on water transfers within this country and on export to beyond our borders and explain what we are doing to implement this policy.
Hon. members should appreciate that the pace of construction of interbasin water diversions has fallen off dramatically in Canada in the last few years. Our policy advocates caution in projecting the need for major transfers and endorses less disruptive alternatives such as conservation and demand management.
Provincial hydro corporations are benefiting from the economies of this kind of reorientation already, as are the social structure and the ecosystem integrity of many of the northern communities that are protected now
May 28, 1993

from flooding, mercury contamination and biotic change while governments assess the risks of further project construction.
At present the federal government is proceeding to draft guidelines and criteria for assessing interbasin transfer proposals and will review those in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments in the near future.
The federal policy on water export from Canada is direct and explicit. In keeping with the strength of public feeling on this issue, the government will take all possible measures within the limits of its constitutional authority to prohibit the large scale export of Canadian water, as by interbasin diversion, and strengthen federal legislation to the extent necessary to fully implement this policy.
For small scale exports of water, we will work with provincial governments to develop a licensing system which takes into account our respective jurisdictional interests.
Hon. members will recall that the government moved quickly on its commitments related to water exports. In 1988 the Minister of the Environment tabled Bill C-156 to be known as the Canada water preservation act to reassure Canadians that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will not threaten in any way Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.
Although an election call cut short immediate consideration of this bill, the crisis of public confidence passed and the current environment minister has continued to consult with his provincial colleagues on the possible reintroduction of this or a similar bill which would prohibit large scale and regulate smaller exports of water from Canada.
I wanted to mention one specific aspect of the motion before us because it refers to the North Thompson River-I know an issue of concern to colleagues throughout British Columbia-from which an export of one million acre feet of water to the United States has been proposed by Multinational Water and Power Incorporated.
I can assure my colleague that such an export would clearly be a large scale export and as such is not acceptable to this government. Much of our existing legislation which I mentioned earlier, the Fisheries Act,
Supply
the International River Improvements Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act can all be employed if necessary to block this project if we do not have the Canada water preservation act enacted and in place in time to do so.
We believe we have the mechanisms by which we could take action if in fact this project should proceed. I am really not aware at this time that it will because obviously people should be aware that it is not acceptable.
I think it would be appropriate to remind the hon. member who has in his motion despaired of protecting Canadian water resources from manipulation across drainage divides and political boundaries that the situation is far from desperate. The era of megadams and diversions is drawing to a close on both sides of the 49th parallel.
Times are changing. Three months ago the U.S. Geological Survey reported that total withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in that country has continued a slight decline which began in the mid-1980s. In the dry west, California officials are now projecting no problems in balancing water supplies and demands to the year 2020.
I know that Canadians fear that somehow the United States is going to run out of water and inevitably it will lead to pressure on Canada to share its wealth. I can assure the House the government does not subscribe to the inevitability nor the irresistibility of such pressure. The overwhelming majority of Canadians we know formally oppose it. I think the United States has discovered that it is altogether cheaper in both economic and environmental terms to conserve locally available water supplies and to reallocate them among users by voluntary market transactions. In fact the largest consumptive user in the United States, irrigation, is clearly in decline with conversion of agricultural water rights to urban uses. Recycling has also reduced industrial water demand substantially as well.
We cannot discount the likelihood of major changes in the long term. One of the issues that we are certainly very concerned about in the environment portfolio is climate change, technology or economic development which also might lead to a reconsideration of water demands across this continent. I think it would be

Supply
foolhardy for anyone to predict at this time how either Canada or the United States would choose to respond to such possibilities.
An example is perhaps if temperatures do increase because of the effect of greenhouse gases, and of course we are taking all measures possible to reduce those gases, should Canada divert its northern rivers southward in order to counter higher evaporation rates or should we avoid doing so for fear of increasing the melting rate of the Arctic ice? We simply do not understand those natural processes well enough yet, let alone our capacity to affect or adjust to them to make realistic long-term decisions now.
What government should be doing however is maintaining a watching brief on these events and trends which could affect federal-provincial bilateral relations on the waters that we hold in common. This government maintains a strong focus on major interjurisdictional rivers through joint boards with our provinces and our territories on the Mackenzie, the Yukon, the Saskatche-wan-Nelson, Lake of the Woods, the Ottawa basins. We have joint boards with provincial governments and U.S. representation on our international boundary water basins.
In the next few years for example we will be giving priority to protecting our national interest as we approach the termination of the first hydroelectric power sale under the Columbia River Treaty in 1998. The renegotiation of the Niagara River Diversion Treaty in the year 2000 will also have to be addressed, as will the need to revisit targets for land and water use regulations around the Great Lakes to reduce pollution levels and limit damages from water level fluctuations.
In other words, the long-standing but still evolving relationship between our two countries in dealing with the waters that we hold in common, along and across our boundaries, will continue to have more significance than any prospect for the foreseeable future of exporting Canadian waters to the U.S. markets.
If we continue to exercise our responsibilities to manage water systems in co-operation with other governments, provincial and of course the U.S., water management and policy nevertheless must change with the times. The federal water policy has initiated a
transition period in which we can go beyond reacting to problems and begin anticipating means of avoiding or minimizing them. That is the policy, the basis of the green plan, which builds upon the federal water policy and sets it within a broader, long-term framework of the economy and the environment.
In this perspective, it is important to recognize that the issues are not as simple or as one-dimensional as capturing more water supply for our growing economy. The narrowness of that perspective is what got us into so much trouble over the years. The newer management framework recognizes the tremendous value of our water resources both for our economy and our environment and the urgency of learning to live within the limits of each in the long run and that obviously is what needs to be mutually reinforcing.
I was going to share with colleagues some of the highlights from the green plan which touch upon water and show some of the veiy specific actions, whether it is with the Fraser River basin in my own home province or in Alberta the northern river study. I visited with them recently to see the excellent work that people are doing at the grassroots level and are involved to help protect and preserve some of our most important river basins throughout this country. I applaud so many people who have been involved, not just government people, but local people involved in these various management committees. I think that is what is so important.
I know my time is up, but just let me conclude by saying that there are many aspects of water management and of water policies and programs that the hon. member may have overlooked in presenting his motion. I can assure him that this government has recognized the importance of sound water management, of having clear policies in place, of protecting our legislative basis of action, and of building partnerships with other levels of government and with other stakeholders, some of whom have specific or shared jurisdiction for water management.
The result of all this is a comprehensive and effective approach to water management, an evolving one which takes into consideration broader economic and environmental changes for the purposes of ensuring a healthy
May 28, 1993

and sustainable water resource and aquatic ecosystem throughout this vast and rich land.
I appreciate this opportunity of talking about some of these issues. We do not often get the opportunity in this House. I hope my comments may have helped my colleagues understand the breadth and the depth of our policies with respect to water management.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for the minister. I appreciate her participation in the debate today, but with the greatest of respect, she should get a new speech writer.
I have two questions. The minister mentioned in her comments that the government was currently-and I made notes-assessing proposals for interbasin water transfers, but she did not say where. I wonder if she might provide this House with a list of those proposals that she says the government is currently reviewing.
My second question relates to part of the motion which I did not hear her mention, and I may have missed part of it, but I did not hear the minister comment on the controversial Kemano project in northern B.C. Given the 20-minute speech on a motion that mentions Kemano I thought we would have a greater attempt at a defence of this government's position on this issue.
In 1987 this government called upon the services of the current president of the University of British Columbia, Mr. David Strangway, to chair in secret meetings the deal that basically sold out the Nechako River, the deal that was signed by the Conservatives, Socreds and Alcan.
Given Mr. Strangway's participation in these secret meetings and obviously the valuable evidence he might provide, would the minister support Mr. Strangway being invited to give evidence to the utilities commission hearing into this project? If he refuses to, is it the minister's view that the utilities commission should compel Mr. Strangway to appear by way of a subpoena?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, as we look at the future and the question of interbasin diversions, I mentioned specifically that we are going to have to be coming forward with a review with respect to the Columbia River Treaty and the Niagara River diversion. Those are two specific ones that
Supply
obviously are going to require a lot of attention over the coming years as they come to their conclusion.
Let me just make a couple of comments. With respect to my hon. colleague, as he relates the events in 1987, although I was not involved in this portfolio, I do recall that there were quite extensive public consultations undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with the public in that area before entering into the settlement agreement.
As my colleague will recall, it was Dr. David Strangway, the president of the University of B.C., who had in fact been involved in a wide range of studies on the environmental effects of the project. At the scientific inquiry there were 10 experts involved and Dr. Strangway was the chair. They looked at all the different components of the protection of sockeye and Chinook stocks and how this could be done.
As I recall, and having been in British Columbia during those days, there had been a lot of activity during that time.
When my colleague talks about secret meetings I think that really is unfair. Any time you sit down to negotiate an agreement you obviously have the parties to that agreement sit down and discuss these things.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Back room deal.


Mary Collins: No, that is an unfair aspersion. I am sure my hon. colleagues in their caucus or when they sit down with other people have meetings in which to negotiate arrangements.
I think that is quite unfair.


Brian L. Gardiner: Should Dr. Strangway be compelled to appear at the review?


Mary Collins: As my hon. colleague knows the provincial government has established a provincial review under the utilities commission. I think it would be quite inappropriate as a federal minister to tell members of a provincial commission how they should conduct their review.
I am sure if they think there is information they would like to have that would be helpful to them and they ask Dr. Strangway for it he would provide it.
As we have indicated, if there is technical information that could be of help to them we are certainly prepared to provide that as well.
May 28, 1993

Supply


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the minister has spoon-fed us this Pablum about the government's long-standing commitment to ban the diversion of major water flows throughout Canada.
The minister has very conveniently neglected the fact that it has proceeded with a major water diversion scheme in northern British Columbia, the Alcan-Kema-no project. The second phase of that project will see the diversion of the remaining flow of the Nechako River reduced to some 12 per cent of the original flow of that river.
The environmental consequence of that is the flow at Hell's Gate in the Fraser River is estimated to drop up to a metre as a result of the removal of those flows from the Nechako. That can have major environmental consequences with respect to the salmon runs up the Fraser, the Nechako and into Chilako Lake.
The minister has said that this government is committed to its policy of not allowing major water diversions. Yet this same government without any environmental review and against the wishes and the express concern of its scientists in the water resources directorate has proceeded with the back door agreement for the diversion of the Nechako River without any environmental review. This completely violates the spirit of its own federal water policy.
I want to ask the minister how she can justify a complete reversal in the government's position regarding the federal water policy and proceed with this.
Secondly I want to ask the minister if she recognizes that the federal water policy which was drafted in 1987 and is not a bad policy at all is nothing more than a philosophical document. There are absolutely no legislative teeth to back that policy up.
Prior to the 1988 election the government had an act on the Order Paper that would have banned major diversions and the export of water. That bill died on the Order Paper.
The government has not seen fit to resurrect that piece of legislation which would have given us at least some legislative teeth in protecting the diversion and possibly the export of Canada's waters.
Would the minister address those two concerns?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues there.
When we talk about the Kemano completion project we have to look at it in the historical perspective. It was a project that' was approved by the British Columbia government, as already mentioned, in 1950, long before any of us were involved in these kinds of issues. It provided certain conditions and enabled certain kinds of water storage and diversion.
There was a great deal of work done through the ensuing years and in the early 1980s in the development of the completion of that project. Work was done by experts to determine water flows, the impact on fish and all of that.
There were public discussions on that. I can recall that when I lived in British Columbia during those years they led to a three-party agreement with the provincial and federal governments and the company. Appropriate mitigative measures were required to ensure that the company certainly did meet those requirements. As you know there have been court cases on this issue and the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that we were within our jurisdictional rights. The Supreme Court did not agree to hear anything further on that.
The provincial government has established through the utilities commission a review of the terms and conditions and we have indicated that we are prepared to co-operate by providing technical advice on it. That is basically an update of where we are with the Kemano project.
In terms of new legislation, I think I indicated in my remarks that the minister has continued his consultations with provincial governments and others interested in this issue and it is the intention to bring forward legislation. Whether it can be done in this session I do not know but we are working toward the goal provided for in the water policy.
I appreciate the hon. member's comments in support of that water policy. It was the first time a Government of Canada had provided that kind of framework. It has enabled us to move forward in dealing with a number of different important areas to ensure the proper management and preservation of our water resources in this country.
May 28, 1993


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue and I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, for raising this very important issue. It is important not only to the people of British Columbia but to people throughout Canada.
I am holding a glass of water in my hand. Water as an issue is becoming extremely important, particularly for the residents in my constituency in the Okanagan-Shuswap. The Okanagan-Shuswap is probably one of the only areas in Canada that is semi-arid and people understand the need for fresh water supplies. They understand the concern about the possibility of exploiting Canada's water resources. When they hear that through both the free trade agreement and the NAFTA the government has left itself vulnerable to the exploitation of water through possible export agreements, people justifiably get very concerned.
I have been speaking on this issue for quite some time.
I think that many times in this House I have demonstrated that because of the government's failure to provide specific exclusions for the bulk export of water in the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, it has opened the spill gates to the possibility of major diversions. These may include tanker transport of water off the coast of British Columbia or water diversion schemes as proposed with the diversion of the North Thompson by multinational water resources.
I have been making so much noise on this that the Minister of the Environment, who is currently running for the leadership of this country, was in my riding the other day calling me a liar. I was shocked. I was very concerned about comments. I do not quite know what he has been smoking but I think it has altered his sense of reality.
There was an interesting editorial as a result of the Minister of the Environment's comments that was reported in both the Vernon Daily News and The Morning Star. This editorial opinion states:"It may make for interesting politics but there was not much in the way of substance to environment minister Jean Charest's comments on the water export issue. Charest says that MacWilliam is misleading the public".
Supply
It was not quite that way. In the original commentary in both papers he was quoted as saying I was lying about the issue. It states here:"Charest says MacWilliam is misleading the public and that NAFTA only applies to bottled water. This is interesting. What is disturbing about the debate is the government's offhanded manner of dealing with these concerns. If the intent was to exclude bulk water exports from free trade, the government should not be afraid to state that clearly and without reservation. Instead, all we get are vague statements that do nothing to indicate the government's position on this issue".
I found that editorial opinion to be quite refreshing to say the least. I think we have been able to document, and I will do so here again today, the fact that water is included as a commodity of trade in the free trade agreement and also in the North American free trade agreement.
Because water is included as a commodity of trade, the provisions of both those agreements will take precedence over federal water policy or any federal domestic legislation pertaining to water exports.
The government's federal water policy remains nothing but a philosophical document. It has built its defence around this and the fact that the implementing legislation which was just passed yesterday in the House of Commons says that nothing in the North American free trade agreement pertains to bulk water exports.
It is interesting to note that international legal experts have said that it does not matter what our federal water policy says or what our domestic implementing legislation may say. Unless there are specific exclusions for certain items as commodities of trade in this agreement, the conditions or provisions of the NAFTA take primacy over any domestic provincial or federal legislation, policy or otherwise.
It says it does not matter diddly squat what our federal laws or policies say. Unless there is specific exclusion in this agreement then this agreement can override those provisions. That is pretty worrisome and particularly worrisome when one of the senior policy advisors to the government in the area of water management admitted publicly at a recent conference in Vancouver that:

May 28, 1993
Supply
There is every indication from comments made that this government is moving toward an export policy for water.
That was said by Dr. Frank Quinn and I think he knows what is going on inside the bureaucracy of this administration.
I want to quote another document which has just recently been published. This is a document called NAFTA and Water Exports by the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science. It is dated April 19, 1993.
There is something in here that provides for even greater worry with respect to the possibility of water exports. It quotes the the Centre for International Environment Law based in Washington, D.C. and the quote reads:
Despite the controversy that arose over the free trade agreement, Canadian negotiators did not seek a specific exemption in the North American free trade agreement for water. As a result, the actual text of the NAFTA agreement supports the claim that large-scale water transfers of Canadian waters to the United States and Mexico cannot be prevented on either the national or the local level.
Those are worrisome words indeed. This government has been an unmitigated disaster and an unmitigated failure in terms of providing the protection we need for the possible export of Canadian waters.
I want to read another part of the article. It goes on to state:
The combination of an international trend toward the treatment of water as a commodity and the establishment of a continental market through the North American trade agreement leads inexorably toward the international trading of water.
This is the conclusion of Mexican resource economist, Roberto Salinas Leon, who spoke at a conference on water exports in Vancouver last year. He says:
NAFTA increases the probability of contemplating a continental model of water tradings to ameliorate Mexico's water problems and eventually strengthen its hydrological potential.
I can go on and on quoting international experts in resource management and international experts in legal affairs who conclude that because this government failed to negotiate specific exclusions for the bulk export and transfer of water in the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, water as a commodity of trade identified in both these agreements
and also under the GATT becomes a legitimate commodity in terms of the export of that commodity out of Canada into both the United States and Mexico.
The government has argued, and I agree, that there is nothing in this agreement which compels us-I emphasize compels-to sell our water. Technically that is correct. I have no disagreement with that. The problem is that there is nothing in the agreement which expressly prohibits the export of water and that is needed.
I will demonstrate why it is needed. After listening to the rationale of my argument one will only conclude that water is indeed included as a commodity of trade.
Canada's chief trade negotiator, Gordon Ritchie, has been at this game for some 30 years. He was not on the trade panel because he opposed both the free trade agreement and NAFTA. He opposed them, and he said it on CBC. He said that nothing in the free trade agreement or the North American trade agreement would prevent governments or individual entrepreneurs from redirecting water south of the border. Whoever listens to the CBC commentary will hear Mr. Ritchie saying that.


An hon. member:: That is not true.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I am sorry. Mr. Ritchie was involved with the trade panel. It was Mel Clark who was not involved. I retract my statement. It was Mel Clark who was not involved because he did not support it. Mel Clark was a former senior trade negotiator for some 30 years with Canada and he was a strong opponent. I will correct myself concerning Mr. Ritchie. Mel Clark was a strong opponent of these agreements. He has argued emphatically that both the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement endanger Canada's control of water resources.
I have mentioned Frank Quinn, our senior federal policy adviser in the Inland Waters Directorate. He has publicly stated: "Under the free trade agreement and the proposed NAFTA, market forces will inevitably result in the diversion of Canadian waters. Sooner or later Uncle Sam will force us to open the tap". Those are not my words. Those are the words of Dr. Frank Quinn.
May 28, 1993

It is only this government that has continued to mislead Canadians with its line that water is not included in either the FTA or the NAFTA. It is only this government that refuses to see how its failure to negotiate specific exclusions to water exports in either the FTA or NAFTA has endangered Canada's water resources and has severely compromised our sovereignty on these kinds of resource issues.
I would like to turn to the specific provisions in NAFTA that pertain to water. Under the architecture of both the free trade agreement and the NAFTA-they are very similar-we see that water is included as a commodity of trade. It is specifically mentioned under the tariff schedule as "water including natural or artificial waters and aerated waters-ice and snow".
It is not surprising that this same definition for water shows up in the North American trade agreement. Specifically article 102 of that agreement sets forth the objectives of the agreement to eliminating barriers to trade and facilitating the cross-border movement of goods and services between parties or countries.
Further on, goods of a party-because that is what we are dealing with, trading goods-are identified in article 201 of the North American trade agreement as "products as these are understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades".
Lo and behold, looking at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and that long list of tariff items, we find article 2201 listing water as "ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water".
The only conclusion one can make from that is that water is included as a commodity of trade or as a trade good under both the free trade agreement and the North American trade agreement.
Turning to article 103, which is very similar to article 104 in the FTA, we find that it establishes primacy of the NAFTA over all other agreements or domestic legislation. This is the problem. Without a specific exclusion for water in the agreement and with in fact the express inclusion of water as a commodity of trade and the fact that this agreement takes primacy over our federal water policy, then we have a problem.
Article 301 of the NAFTA says that it requires each party to "accord national treatment to the goods of another party". In other words, the interests of one
Supply
country must be treated equally to the interests of another with respect to the goods of trade. Equivalent access must be given to those goods and be accorded to all parties.
Let us look at a specific annex of the North American trade agreement, annex 301.3. The government was not entirely asleep at the switch. At least it had the presence of mind to exclude the export of raw logs. At least it had the presence of mind to exclude the export of unprocessed fish from Quebec and the maritimes. It forgot about the fact that we have a British Columbia fishing industry out on the west coast, but it at least managed to exclude the export of unprocessed fish from central and eastern Canada.
Raw logs and unprocessed fish are excluded. Well, what about the exclusion of bulk water exports? The agreement remains absolutely silent on this. If the government was truly committed to excluding the possibility of future bulk exports of water whether by tanker, pipeline or interbasin transfer, it could have simply slipped in a clause in this section specifically excluding bulk water exports. That would have done the trick. But the government refused to do so in the initial negotiations and it has refused to listen to our requests to do so in the process of possibly amending this particular agreement. Therefore this is where we could have unequivocally excluded bulk water transfers from the North American trade agreement.
Why did the government not do it? One of the senior trade negotiators who was responsible for this section of the agreement said that they did not think it was needed. Well, the international legal experts disagree with that.
It gets worse. Under this agreement there is no prohibition or restriction on the quantity of exports. For example, articles 309 and 314 of the agreement deal with export and import restrictions, which is very similar to article 408 in the FTA. Under the provisions of these articles it states that no party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the export of any good except for agricultural goods under article XI of the GATT.
Article 314 gets even more specific by maintaining that no party-read that as country or individual entrepreneur-can impose a duty, a tax or other charge-an environmental surcharge for example-on the export of

May 28, 1993
Supply
any good unless that charge was also imposed upon the good-that in fact there are specific exemptions from the domestic market.	restrictions.
The conclusion: Water is not only included in this agreement, there can be no prohibition or restrictions placed on the export of water nor can we apply any special duties or surcharges such as an environmental surcharge were we to enter into an agreement.
Let us go on. Article 315 of the North American trade agreement deals with quantitative restrictions and that is similar to article 409 in the FTA. This particular article requires that any restriction in exports as a result of domestic shortages in one country will not be allowed unless domestic consumption is reduced by an equivalent percentage.
What am I saying? Once a contract to export water or any other commodity, a resource commodity for example, has been established, the exporting country-it might be a federal or provincial government for that matter-supplying that commodity, the water, through water diversion, tanker export or pipeline export, cannot reduce the volume of those exports unless domestic consumption is reduced by an equivalent amount even during a domestic crisis.
I submit that Canada's failure to negotiate these specific exclusions for water export has opened the spill gates to the export of Canadian water and could well lock us into contractual obligations which may go very contrary to future environmental and economic interests.
That is not the end of the story however. It even gets worse. There are specific exemptions for environmental controls. Water exports for agricultural purposes under the provisions of this agreement will be excluded from environmental controls. What we have to do to realize that is turn back to the free trade agreement. [DOT]
I see my time is up. I wanted to go through a number of other articles pertaining to this to give the specific evidence that water is included. However, I will just summarize by saying that this debate will continue to rage because the evidence is overwhelming that water is included in both the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement as a commodity of trade.
Without specific exclusions for the bulk export of that commodity of trade, Canada's water resources will be vulnerable under both the FTA and the NAFTA.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for laying out a very clear account of how the North American free trade agreement does in fact include water because water is a good. Therefore, we would not be able to prohibit or restrict the export of that good nor limit the price or even set a surcharge on it even in time of great shortage in Canada.
As to the question of whether this would ever arise, I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on what one hears about California. I read that 80 per cent of California's agribusiness depends on irrigation.
When we were visiting our son and his wife in San Francisco recently we happened one Sunday morning to hear an excellent program from the CBC. It seems that the Americans do like some of our CBC programs and they contract to have them there. It was an excellent program on water. I discussed it afterward with our son and his wife.
They tell me that in San Francisco there is really no serious attempt to limit or conserve water. It is piped in. A contract was established near the beginning of the century with some other municipality that had a lake and water is piped in from a long way off. I understand Los Angeles is even worse. There is absolutely no attempt to restrict or conserve the water.
Turning back to the FTA we find that articles 603 and There is a great deal of waste in the agricultural use of 609 of that agreement are the only sections that cite it. Old-fashioned and inefficient methods are used. In environmental concerns as a justification for trade re- the desert areas in California and the nearby states strictions. However at the very heading of that chapter, piped-in water is now used to create whole oases for golf article 601, it shows that when we deal with an agricul- course resorts that will absolutely depend on water from tural good-and water is identified as an agricultural somewhere else.
May 28, 1993

Does the hon. member have a comment on the question of whether we can fairly refuse water to those people who have moved to California and have established businesses that depend on piped-in water and will keep on demanding more and more water?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very pertinent question.
As I said before I fully concede there is nothing in either of these agreements which compels Canada to sell a resource it does not want to sell, but there is nothing in these agreements that expressly prohibits it. Therefore if this government were to have a change of mind tomorrow or the next day and decided that it wanted to change its export policy or its policy on water diversions, it could do so.
Political or economic pressure can be applied from other sources that unless Canada releases a little bit of water there will be a trade war on softwood or a trade war in some other commodity.
Many pressures can be applied economically to try to convince the government to reconsider, which it is already doing, its export policy on water. That is the fear that unless it is specifically prohibited within the agreement itself, the spill gates are open.
We know that California is running desperately short of water, the Colorado River has dried up to a trickle, the aquifers are being pumped down and their water is short. There are many subdivisions in California that have been stopped cold. They cannot proceed with them any further because they cannot get the water provisions to build those subdivisions.
We know the population of southern California is already larger than Canada's and is literally exploding. They are looking for water and they are looking north. All you have to do is read the Equinox article last month on Canada's water supplies.
There are many proposals already on the books. The proposal by Multinational to divert a major portion of the flow of the North Thompson at Valemount, British Columbia, as well as a very serious proposal that is backed by some very serious money and fairly powerful political people in the United States that is looking at
Supply
what is known as the NAWAPA plan which is the North American Water and Power Alliance.
It sounds almost ludicrous but it is not all that far-fetched and engineering-wise it can easily be done. The plan is to block off the south end of the Rocky Mountain trench and flood it to provide an 800 kilometre long reservoir.
The people in Prince George may be the beneficiaries with beach front property but an 800 kilometre long reservoir, diverting the flow of the Peace River, the Yukon River, the Mackenzie River, the Kootenay River and some of the other major rivers in British Columbia all go to feed this great reservoir which could then be funnelled off to feed the parched southern and western United States all the way down into Mexico.
These plans are so grandiose they seem preposterous, but economics has never dictated in the past whether water diversion proposals would proceed. It is politics that has dictated those decisions and politics is I am afraid one of the mechanisms which the United States government will use to convince this government that it has to proceed with water diversion.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, a short comment because I did not want anybody who would be reading the debate at a later time or in fact even watching right now to misunderstand what is going on here.
We have a simple fallacious argument that has been going on for a long time with regard to water. I wanted to congratulate the last NDP speaker who did admit frankly to the House, and I appreciate his truthfulness, that there is nothing in the free trade agreement that would force Canada to part with any water we do not care to part with.
This being the foundation for the very debate his colleague has raised, I think it pretty much bursts the balloon and the fallacy of the argument that the socialists voiced on and on against the free trade agreement stating that our water is at jeopardy.
I appreciate the honesty of the NDP member in fact admitting that there is nothing in the free trade agreement nor in the NAFTA that forces Canada to sell our water to the United States. The only reference is to bottled water, the kind of bottled water that entrepre-

May 28, 1993
Supply
neurs in Canada are selling by the way as clearly Canadian bottled water.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward. I want to remind anybody watching while the debate continues that we have one anti-American socialist asking the other anti-American socialist a question and it kind of bounces back and forth. This does not reflect the feeling of the House. People should be clear as they watch the debate.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute a few comments to the debate on the motion presented today by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley in which he expressed his so-called fears that the Government of Canada was about to sell substantial quantities of water, I suppose we could say in bulk, to the Americans.
In the course of this debate I heard several speeches in this House by members of the New Democratic Party. These members live in another world, another era. They live in an environment that is not ours. They seem to be living in a kind of bubble, completely cut off from the real world and completely oblivious to the changes that are taking place. That must be why they want Canada to be isolated and unable to trade with other countries such as our neighbours to the south.
Yesterday they were against the North American free trade agreement to the very end. They take the position that Canada should not trade with other countries, should not export its products to other countries and should not buy products from other countries. That is the NDP position.
Today's debate is an excuse to say that our drinking water reserves are at risk and that we are about to deplete our natural reservoirs by sending the water they contain to the United States.
I have a simple question for my NDP friends. If at some time in the future, the United States needed a natural water supply to ensure the survival of their people, to give their children the drinking water they need and Canada still had tremendous supplies of water, would we be able to face the international community and deny our neighbours to the south access to our water resources? Would we be able to justify before the highest courts in the world the fact that we refuse to export
water to the United States to help them maintain public health and sanitation and help them continue to provide people in countries to the south with the drinking water supplies they need? Could we defend such a position? That is what members of the New Democratic Party are saying in this House. That is their position. I find that hard to understand. That is why I maintain that our socialist friends opposite are living in a bubble, completely cut off from the real world.
Any substantial interbasin transfers of water for export purposes would clearly contravene the federal government's 1987 water policy. The hon. member suggests that the agreement signed by our government would allow exports of vast quantities of water. That is just not the case.
In its natural state, water is no more marketable than trees in the forest or oil or natural gas in the subsoil. Only when water is collected by taking it out of its natural state and bringing it on the market, for instance by bottling it or shipping it in tanks, does it become a product covered by rules set forth in trade agreements. I think that is perfectly clear.
Interbasin transfers of water are entirely different, because they do not involve the sale of water as a product but the diversion of water in its natural state. Water in its natural state is not covered by international trade agreements, and that includes NAFTA.
The government understands the concerns of Canadians. I noticed that British Columbia, the hon. member's own province, imposed a moratorium on water exports, thus reflecting federal polity. The government's position on water exports is clearly defined in the federal water policy and in the implementation legislation for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
I repeat, nothing in these agreements gives the United States or Mexico access to our water, which means that Canadian governments are, and will continue to be, free to regulate management of our water resources. Tb me that is clear.
The Columbia River and its tributaries are trans border waterways that naturally cross the border between the United States and Canada. Our two countries have for many years shared water and water resources, as officially recognized in the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 at the beginning of this century. In 1909 Canada and
May 28, 1993

the United States also signed a treaty regulating use of the waters of the Columbia River.
Waters flowing to the United States from the Canadian section of the Columbia River are regulated nor affected by the free trade agreement and will not be affected by the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The dams on the Columbia River are managed in accordance with the provisions of the Columbia River Treaty by B.C. Hydro, the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We have an agreement that regulates the use of the Columbia River water. The Columbia River Treaty manages a joint resource so as to maximize flood prevention and power production. It does not mention water exports.
As far as water exports are concerned, Canada's position is clearly defined in the federal water policy adopted in 1987. This policy prohibits large-scale exports of water from Canada through the diversion of water from lakes and rivers. So that is clear.
Furthermore, section 7 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act clearly provides that nothing in the agreement applies to water, except water packaged as a beverage or in tanks. This legislation has been in effect since January 1, 1989. Similarly, the North American free trade agreement does not include large scale water exports. The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act will include a special clause confirming Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.
Considering recent comments in this House and petitions tabled by members of the New Democratic Party, Canadians may wonder whether, under the North American free trade agreement, Canada will be forced to export water through interbasin transfers.
The answer is: absolutely not. Water transfers on a large scale were not part of NAFTA negotiations. The question was never raised at any level during the negotiations. The Government of Canada-and I said this earlier-has a firm policy on interbasin water transfers and water diversion. The Canadian federal water policy, as I said before, was adopted in 1987 and specifi-
Supply
cally prohibits such projects, whether we are talking about interbasin transfers or water diversion.
Why do they keep raising these fears? Why do they keep claiming that the Government of Canada is about to sign or negotiate agreements that will allow large-scale transfers of water to our neighbours to the south? This is absolutely not the case. As I said earlier, the government reserves the right to discuss the possibility or to make arrangements, perhaps on humanitarian grounds, for the transfer of water to our neighbours to the south.
Trade rules only apply to primary resources in their marketable form. For Canada, these rules apply only to water commercially available in bottles, I repeat, or in tanks. NAFTA rules do not apply to our rivers, lakes or other bodies of water.
For how long and how many times will we have to repeat that the statements made in this House by members of the New Democratic Party are unfounded. We must stop frightening Canadians. We must look at things as they are. We must analyse in detail the terms of the free trade agreements with the United States, the terms of the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico and realize that water transfers and bulk exports of water are not part of them. The agreements do not allow such transfers. Should the need ever arise separate agreements would have to be negotiated. Separate accords would have to be prepared and the terms negotiated so as to continue to ensure that our water reserves are protected and that we always preserve the integrity of our water resources in rivers or lakes for Canadians.
I do not want to take any more of the House's time. I think what I have said is very clear. On our side of the House in any case, we think it is clear because we have read the free trade agreement. We understand the free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico and it is very clear that water is not covered by them, except for bottled water, in the same way that we in Canada can go to a shopping centre or food store and buy water that was bottled in the United States. It is exactly the same thing. The free trade agreements allow transfers or sales of bottled water or water in containers because it has

May 28, 1993
Supply
been processed. The quantities are limited and it is part of trade.
I shall conclude by assuring Canadians today in this debate that the free trade agreement with the United States and the free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico are not intended for massive exports of water or interbasin transfers. These agreements simply allow us to protect the integrity of our water reserves.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's interest and his participation in the debate today.
I am pleased that we have managed to precipitate some interest in the debate on water issues. I appreciate that the member did not have time in his limited time to address all the issues in today's motion. That is why I would like to give him a chance to make a comment on another part of the motion to which he did not refer.
There seems to be collective amnesia on the part of the government members with regard to the whole question of the Kemano controversy. We have had two government members up so far and interestingly enough they avoided the controversial water diversion issue in northern B.C.
The reason it is avoiding that is the duplicitous nature of this government in how it conducted itself in the whole period leading up to the Nechako settlement agreement and the whole range of debate on the controversy about this project that is occurring now.
I appreciate that his opinion is different than ours on the North American free trade agreement as it relates to water. I am interested in knowing what his views are on the government's approach to the Kemano controversy.
Does he feel that the refusal of the government to release all information on this project is a wise move? Does he also feel that the federal government's refusal to join with the province and conduct a full joint review of the Kemano project is a wise move?
I conclude by inviting the member to northern B.C. to experience it and talk to the people who live on the Nechako River. Then he can find out the impact of this
project on this river and what this government is doing to the people of northern B.C.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Kemano project has been much discussed recently and has been the subject of discussions and arrangements between the province of New Brunswick and the private company involved in this project.
In due course the Minister of the Environment will provide the appropriate information on the involvement of the federal government and the Department of the Environment in the Kemano II project.
When the information is available and everything is known I am sure that the people of that region in British Columbia will understand the full impact of Kemano and be able to assess the pros and cons and form an enlightened opinion on the implications of the project and the role which the federal government can play and intends to play within its jurisdiction, while respecting provincial jurisdiction as well as the interests of private enterprise and the jobs it generates in that part of British Columbia.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member and I noticed that he jeopardized his credibility with certain statements that he began with before he dealt with water.
He said yesterday that the NDP is opposed to all trade. Perhaps he was not here yesterday to hear the Leader of the NDP explain explicitly that we reject this North American free trade agreement because it is not a free trade agreement. It is a protectionist agreement by which North America will exclude other continents at will. It is not free trade, it is a protectionist agreement. That is the reason the NDP opposes it, as well as the fact that it goes far beyond trade to take control of Canada's investment industry and our energy industries for the purposes of one country, the United States.
Given that unfortunate beginning to his speech, I question his assurance that his government would never allow Canada to be trapped into an irrevocable commitment of Canadian water to the United States. In fact, the
May 28, 1993

government has never gone so far as to express its policy in legislation. It drafted some legislation but then it did not proceed with it. It has never explained why, if the matter is so clear in the government's mind, it did not proceed to legislation and did not make it an explicit condition of the North American free trade agreement.
For example, when non-energy pipelines were permitted in NAFTA they did not explain what the non-energy matter that would be put into the pipelines was. Will it be wine? Will it be sewage or water? A non-energy pipeline with water could very easily cross any border or most basin boundaries into the United States. Why is the government afraid to put an explicit prohibition on the use of non-energy pipelines for water?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my colleague says I listened to part of his leader's speech yesterday in the House and part of it while watching and listening to it on TV in the lobby.
I have a clear understanding of his leader's position and his party's position. As early as last Thursday morning in a TV program with his House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops stated very clearly that the NDP was against the whole North American free trade agreement as it was against the free trade agreement that was debated during the electoral campaign of fall 1988 and when this issue was debated in this House in fall 1988.
If the NDP is against free trade agreements, if it is against trade agreements, how can it be in favour of trading with other nations?
To me it is quite relevant. If one is in favour of trading with one's neighbours one enters into agreements. One enters into agreements that will be favourable to the country, that will be favourable to jobs, that will offer opportunities for our industries to compete with our neighbour's industries and reach the market our neighbours offer. That is the whole issue of trading.
When my friend pretends that the North American free trade agreement excludes other countries I cannot understand that. It is an agreement that was reached, made and sealed between three countries but that agreement does not prevent Canada from entering into trading agreements with our neighbours on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. That agreement does not
Supply
prevent the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations with countries from Latin America and South America to conclude trade agreements. If we can bring our immediate neighbours to the south, the United States and Mexico, into those agreements so much so good because it is a fact of life now.
We have been a country that has been exporting and living on its natural resources. We have been a great exporter of iron ore. We have been a great exporter of timber and lumber products. Now we have to manufacture if we want to keep on growing, if we want to keep on creating jobs. It is by those agreements that we can do it.
It is quite a natural thing to reach agreements with our neighbour and then look further down the line to conclude other agreements with other countries with which we want to do some trading.


Ms.   Ethel@: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak on the motion of the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, which reads:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to protect Canadian interests regarding the interbasin transfer of water as exemplified by the Kemano project, the North Thompson River, and both the Columbia River Treaty and the North American free trade agreement.
The events which led to the development and construction of the Kemano project in British Columbia in 1950 are painful memories for the people of the Cheslat-ta Indian band. This shameful period in the history of Canada and British Columbia has not been forgotten. Today the frightening prospect exists whereby history may repeat itself through the prospects of Kemano II and the opportunities which may lay ahead under NAFTA.
In speaking on the issue of interbasin transfers of water and the opportunities for such projects in the future in NAFTA it would be morally and environmentally irresponsible to overlook the overwhelming damage caused by the first Kemano project.
Most important, the project required the removal of the Cheslatta people and the uprooting of fully developed, tightly knit and self-sufficient communities. These people were literally forced off their land with virtually no compensation nor assistance with their relocation or re-establishment.	[DOT]

Supply
Their traps, cabins, campsites, trails, trading routes and burial grounds were flooded to make way for the new Nechako reservoir. A whole people, their highly organized culture and traditions which took centuries to evolve were virtually destroyed and lost forever in the flooded waters. That was a very expensive price to pay for the growth of big business and the wealth of a select few.
The social and environmental impacts cannot be overstated. A people and a way of life were destroyed in the process. What else can be said?
The very fact of the matter is that negotiations were undertaken without the consultation and participation of aboriginal peoples. They were forced to deal with the effects of Kemano I after the fact.
It has been alleged that no one ever told the Cheslatta people they had a right to refuse the surrender of their traditional lands. They did not receive third party advice or the opportunity to seek third party advice.
It is difficult to comprehend the licence given to Alcan for this project. British Columbia granted an exclusive water licence to store and direct water flows in the Nechako and Ninika Rivers for the purpose of developing a hydroelectric facility. The licence allowed Alcan to fully divert the Nechako River without the requirement to maintain sufficient water flows to protect fish populations.
Thirty-five per cent of the Nechako River was diverted. The fact that the general public and aboriginal people were not made part of this monumental environmental decision-making process is a travesty.
In 1980 the minister of fisheries at the time, Romeo LeBlanc, issued a minister's order under the Fisheries Act requiring Alcan to increase water flows from Kemano I in order to protect the fishery.
In 1984 fisheries minister Pierre De Bane announced that there would be a full public inquiry into the Kemano II project. However, following the election win of the Conservative government in 1984 the Kemano II project was withdrawn and all plans for a public review were shelved.
Environmental and aboriginal groups were caught completely off guard when in September 1987 the Kemano settlement agreement suddenly endorsed plans for Kemano II. This agreement was negotiated by the then fisheries minister who is now Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This agreement was mysteriously reached without the involvement of aboriginal communities or public interest groups.
To date Alcan has already invested over $600 million in the development of Kemano II. While it has suspended all work on the project pending the outcome of the B.C. judicial inquiry set to begin this fall, Alcan has stated that should its agreements with the federal government be overruled or affected it will take court action to retrieve full compensation for its investment.
Everyone has mentioned it but it bears repeating. Kemano II is a $1 billion project that when completed will provide a second tunnel between the Nechako reservoir and Kemano. Kemano II will also include a new powerhouse, a new transmission line and a multiport water release mechanism at Kenney dam which will regulate water for migrating sockeye. Water flows to the Nechako will drop sharply. Kemano II reduces the Nechako River to a shadow of its former self.
In a report prepared by David Suzuki for a television special aired in April it was reported that 80 per cent of the Nechako water flow would be diverted, leaving only 14 per cent of the water. Mr. Suzuki also confirmed that this would destroy the salmon run.
Kemano II threatens the freshwater fisheries of the Upper Nechako and four salmon runs directly: the wild Nadina, the Nautley and the Stuart sockeye runs, and the wild, Upper Nechako Chinook.
The reduced flows of Kemano II could lead to a number of Fraser River runs also being hit very hard in years to come. This is according to the department of fisheries Kemano task force and the former international Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Most important, Kemano II threatens the food and commercial fishery of dozens of Indian nations.
Interior natives will be forced to travel extended distances to find reasonable salmon stocks. All native people who rely on Fraser and Skeena river watersheds for fishing, hunting, trapping and transportation will be severely impacted from Prince George to Vancouver.
May 28, 1993

The project also threatens the future of the B.C. sport and commercial fishermen. This issue has in fact created a rare situation whereby the B.C. commercial fishing groups stand united with the aboriginal fishing groups. The Cheslatta Band has received concern over the completion of Kemano II from the B.C. Northern Trailers Association and the Lower Fraser Fishing Authority. I believe the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition has come on side to express its concerns about the completion of the project as well.
The list of social, environmental and economic impacts this project will have on an estimated 134 bands, an estimated 35,130 people, is overwhelming. These figures only refer to those affected in Canada.
A very credible report by the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science has indicated that the concern over the prospect of the consideration of water as an economic good within the context of NAFTA is very real. The Rawson Academy report stated:
Without an exclusion, water is certainly part of the agreement. Any good or service covered by a tariff heading annexed to the NAFTA is subject to the rights and obligations set out in the Agreement itself. The large scale movement of water was neither raised nor negotiated during the NAFTA negotiations.
Furthermore, Rawson states that the social and economic costs of large scale water transfer would be extremely high. The costs of compensating people for loss of property and relocation of communities displaced by flooding have been given scant consideration. The burden of these costs would largely fall on Canada's native people who inhabit many of the regions that would be affected by the damming and diversion of northern rivers for water export.
We already have examples of this. A book entitled The Dispossessed by Geoffrey York cited tragic experiences whereby Manitoba Hydro flooded the communities of Chemawawin and Moose Lake. In citing information from Mr. York's book, thousands of hectares of wilderness including about two-thirds of the land on the reserve were submerged in water by the construction of the Grand Rapids hydro dam. The tragedy of Moose Lake is that this was once a thriving prosperous community. A host of serious health and social problems has taken hold of this displaced community due to the loss of its traditional native economy through the flooding.
Supply
It was the same tragic scenario for the Cheslatta people. The community of the South Indian Lake, also in Manitoba, is another example of hydro development failing to have aboriginal people participate. In their situation the food waters brought mercury from the soil into the lake and fish, posing a long-term threat to the health of the Indians. We have all heard about the effects of Minamata disease from mercury poisoning.
The problem with the completion of Kemano II is there is a very strong and likely possibility that Alcan would like to divert the Nechako River and create more power which it would sell to B.C. Hydro that in turn might decide to export the power to the United States, specifically California.
We must not think for a moment that the only demand for water would come from our American neighbours. Mexico is also experiencing a shortage of clean inexpensive sources of water. With over half of Mexico's available supply of fresh water already being consumed by agricultural, industrial and urban activities, it may be safe to say that Mexico will be a net importer of water in the near future.
There has been an increasing pressure in Canada to divert our northern water systems. Examples of the process of diverting our northern rivers to the southern portion of Canada exist: Rafferty-Alameda in Saskatchewan, the Oldman River dam in Alberta and the proposed Assiniboine diversion project in Manitoba.
Another example is the idea of constructing the Grand Canal originally proposed in 1964. It is still considered a good business opportunity by some today. The project would involve the construction of a dam across the mouth of James Bay, converting the bay into a fresh water reservoir and channelling the water via a series of lifts and canals to the Great Lakes and beyond.
All these diversion schemes are highly adaptable to transferring large quantities of water across to the U.S. This trade deal could not only influence the use of our water but our forests as well.
Free trade may allow for the concentration of processing by megamills which would have no real interest in forest ecosystems. Industrialization of the forest will result in the development of fast growing, genetically homogenized, smaller trees cropped in fast rotation replacing our diverse forests with their potential for diverse economics. Therefore any industrial depletion of

May 28, 1993
Supply
our forests are guaranteed to affect the local and continental water regime.
I believe the government has gone out of its way to accommodate Alcan's developments to date beginning with the negotiation of the settlement agreement by Mr. Siddon and Mr. Charest who is a prime ministerial candidate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope the hon. member would not refer to the ministers by their names but by their cabinet positions. This is what has to be done. It is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of the Environment.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing that to my attention.
At the time Environment Canada defended its previous decision before the Federal Court of Canada which exempted Kemano from undergoing an environmental review process. The integrity behind the government's action with respect to Kemano I and Kemano II is very questionable. The Kemano settlement agreement went against all the advice given by the department of fisheries scientists.
Eighty-three thousand pages of internal DFO documents which relate to this project have been locked in a special safe and an access to information request has quoted a sum of $30,000 for their release. These documents should be publicly disclosed. The federal government should clearly take an open and co-operative role with full participation in the upcoming B.C. justice inquiry.
In conclusion, in the future resource negotiations and matters which pertain to the environment can no longer be made solely between big business and government, provincial or federal. All Canadians have a right in the process. Decisions of this magnitude cannot be made behind closed doors any longer.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I thank the hon member for Western Arctic for her comments on this motion.
She touched on the important aspects of the whole debate surrounding the controversial Kemano project: the impact on the Cheslatta people of the original project and the ongoing impact on the Cheslatta people
during the whole course of the operation of the reservoir and the spillway as they operate now under the settlement agreement. The Cheslatta people under the utilities commission review are being asked to give an account of the history of their relationship with the department of Indian affairs at the time, with B.C. Hydro, with Alcan and with others. As I said in my opening remarks, it is a particularly tragic part of the history of the entire project.
I appreciate the member's comments in the House. I know my constituents will as well. More important, the Cheslatta people will appreciate her comments. We thank her for her support and encourage her to continue to support this cause and to use her influence with her colleagues in this particular issue.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the motion of my colleague in the New Democratic Party. Indeed it sets forth the concerns about the North American free trade agreement. He specifically mentions Kemano, the North Thompson River and the Columbia River treaty in dealing with water. One of his major concerns which I recognize is the interbasin transfer of water. I think he has explained very clearly today that water is a very precious commodity. I certainly accept that premise.
I want to say a few words with regard to trade. Canada is probably one of the most trade dependent nations in the western industrialized world; in fact next only to Germany. It was West Germany but now Germany is one country.
One of every four jobs in Canada depends upon trade and our exports to other countries. Thirty per cent of all revenues the country receives are trade driven. It is very important the country not only trade but that we have secure access to our major trading partners and that we trade under fair, acceptable rules. The rules should be agreed upon by both sides or under the NAFTA threeway country split. There should be a mechanism recognized by all parties with regard to settling disputes.
First we set down the rules and the rules are agreed upon by the three countries. Second there is the dispute mechanism agreed upon. Of course the main theme of the whole agreement is to reduce trade barriers and tariffs and to do away with anti-dumping, countervailing
May 28, 1993

charges. These matters take time. Obviously it takes a few years to work through trade agreements.
The FTA with the United States came into being January 1, 1989. It will take 10 full years to implement it, working slowly over the area of reducing tariffs between the two countries.
If NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement which includes Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, is ratified by the other two countries, it would be implemented January 1, 1994. There will be steps in it that we all agree to on how to alleviate the tariffs and the concerns among our countries.
Let us look at trade. Between Canada and the United States probably $250 billion to $260 billion of trade gets done each year. If we include Mexico and we are dealing with the three countries, we are talking $500 billion of trade per year. That is trade both ways, times three countries, per year, which represents a lot of exports and imports. It represents a lot of jobs in all three countries. It also represents a lot of productivity and a lot of money. It is in the interests of all three countries to maximize and get the very best out of any trade agreement.
One thing we have heard, maybe not so much today but I still want to lay the groundwork regarding this motion, was that NAFTA was rammed through the House using closure and this was unfair. It is our responsibility, at least on this side of the House, to explain to the citizens of Canada that this has not been rammed down anybody's throat.
In fact, in June 1990 it was the President of the United States and the President of Mexico who undertook a trade agreement between their two countries. Canada realized that eventually there would be a North American-in fact, probably a western hemisphere-trade agreement and that if we wanted to be a part of it we should sit at the table. Canada exercised its position regarding this in the fall of 1990.
In June 1991, that is two years ago less a week, discussions started to take place concerning how to outline and complete a North American free trade agreement. The discussions were very open and they were done three specific ways. It was discussed with the
Supply
private sector, where we had members of the private sector involved with labour, involved with all the people, and we had senior ministers within the federal government who met with specific groups called SAGITk. They are sectoral advisory groups that advised the government on specific areas. There were 15 specific groups.
There were some 20 to 27 meetings held formally with the officials within the departments of government consisting of environmental groups, labour groups and business groups, all available for those specific meetings. We also had govemment-to-govemment meetings with provincial governments. All the provinces have a minister who is responsible either for trade or economic development. The ministers provided a committee for the particular province-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion before the House concerns the situation of interbasin transfers of water. I have listened very carefully to the member, and my apologies to her for interrupting her dissertation, but I do assert that she is diverting but unfortunately it is not diverting in terms of Canada's water. I would ask that the member speak to the motion at hand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That was not a point of order. The hon. member still has about 15 or 18 minutes and should be able to get to the topic of debate.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I do not mind the point of order because if I said once I probably said three times that I am laying some groundwork, because I have heard so many times in the House, not only today but over the past number of months, that there was not enough negotiation and that the agreement was rammed through. It was not.
The motion mentions the North American free trade agreement and that is exactly to what I am directing my remarks.
We had provincial consultations and the province of British Columbia was there. These three specific areas contained within the NAFTA that my colleague has mentioned in his motion come under the province of British Columbia and lies within their jurisdiction.

May 28, 1993
Supply
The member is quite right, let us get relevant and I will, but I want him to realize that we have accomplished considerable negotiations through the private sector, the labour sector and the provincial groups. The Minister for International Trade has met over 21 times specifically with the provincial groups.
Water is the main topic of the member's motion. I would have to say that water is not covered because it does not have to be unless it is in the particular form of a product and that is drinking water, bottled water or water in a container. Water in its natural state is not covered by NAFTA nor is it covered under the FTA nor is it covered under GATT or any other agreement that we have. Lakes, rivers and aquifers are simply not goods, they are not products and they are not under the agreements because we are only dealing in goods, products and services.
The agreements only cover water as a good, that is, only when water has entered into a commerce as a product. Canada's exports of water shall benefit under this. There is absolutely nothing in NAFTA, in the FTA nor is there anything in any trade agreement that forces this country to export water for commercial use or for any use. That is why I have a great deal of difficulty with the motion that is before us.
One project mentioned is the Kemano project. The Kemano project is not a water export issue. In fact the project originated I believe in the early 1950s between the province of B.C. and Alcan.
Hon. members have mentioned some very interesting things. While some of them may be true, I have to say that this does not have to be considered under the free trade agreement. This is an issue that is within the province of British Columbia. It has nothing to do with the export of water.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: I did not say it did.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Well he mentioned it and its relationship to the North American agreement. Sorry, you are not right there. In fact what the government did-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Two separate issues. You were not listening.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: In 1987 this government intervened through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a settlement was reached with Alcan that has been very beneficial for Canada but more particularly for the province of B.C. where the member is from.
One thing I heard the member mention today in one
of his interventions was that the water levels will rise. It is going to conserve and it is going to protect the salmon resources in the river.
This government intervened with Alcan and won an agreement that has two major benefits. The first one is that we raised the level of the water. The second is that we protect and we conserve the salmon in the river. I am not asking the member to thank us, I am just asking him to acknowledge what happened. They are great benefits to this country.
Now we are getting to serious allegations, allegations that have been made in the House today and were made during the 1988 federal election. In December 1988 when we discussed the free trade agreement some of the allegations were: Canadians were going to lose all their medicare or health care benefits; Canadians were going to lose their pensions; Canadians were going to have all their water taken out from under them; and Canadians may lose the air. None of these things have happened and indeed they cannot. All the agreements in the FTA and in the NAFTA are all consistent with GATT and national programs remain.
Medicare is a national Canadian program and it will not be affected by the FTA nor will it be affected by the NAFTA.
Our pensions, whether dealing with CPP, UI or any of the social programs that are national programs within our country are under our jurisdiction. We are a sovereign nation and no one can make us change from outside our boundaries.
We are a sovereign nation and we can act within a democratic society and I agree to that, but no one from the United States, Mexico, western Europe, eastern Europe or Japan can make us change any of our national programs.
Another issue raised was that we were going to lose our water because it was not specifically written down in the FTA. Now he is saying the same thing about the NAFTA. It does not need to be there. They cannot steal our water.
May 28, 1993


An hon. member:: You are not listening. I did not say that.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I am listening. The member is talking about the Kemano, the North Thompson and the Columbia River Treaty. I told him what we did on the Kemano. Thank us for it. We raised the level of the water and we are protecting the fish, and rightly so I agree with him there.
Let us talk about the other issues. We have cleared up that health care cannot be changed by outside countries. We have cleared up that water cannot be exported. We have cleared up that whether it is pensions or air they are all our Canadian programs.
Let me tell members another thing. The FTA was going to steal hundreds of thousands of jobs from Canadians. I am not going to say that we did not lose some jobs. That would be dishonest. We did lose some jobs but we have made up some.
Let us talk about high unemployment. We do have high unemployment but every time opposition members talk about the number of jobs we have lost they forget to tell people that under the free trade agreement the cultural industry was exempted, the auto industry was exempted, the transportation industry was exempted and the beer industry was exempted.
They forget to tell them that on many of our mining commodities there are no tariffs at all and we have lost jobs in the mining sector. We have lost jobs in the beer sector. We have lost jobs in the transportation sector. I am not proud of those but for heaven's sake do not blame it on the FTA when they were exempted. Tell the people the truth.
Yes, we are going through a recession. Yes, we are changing our whole methodology of trade and we are going into this global arena so we can become more productive and we can protect the social programs that we have by raising the income through trade. It is very important that we support the social nets that Canadians have developed over decades and decades.
We have a vision of where we want this country to go. We want this country to be productive, we want to trade smarter, we want to become more efficient, we want people to have a better education, we want jobs, we want
Supply
training and retraining and that is exactly the route we are going.
We have to take people into the 21st century and that is what the FTA does and the NAFTA does. They are major trade agreements that probably will expand to central and South America.
We did not do this to the exclusion of other countries around the world. Canada is a great trader with Japan. It is our second biggest trading partner. We are a great trader with western Europe. It is our third biggest trading partner and is very important to us. But we have to secure major trading partners. We have to have rules that work.
Yes, we have difficulties with the GATT. My goodness we are going into our sixth or seventh year of trying to resolve the Uruguay round. If we did not have the FTA I do not know where we would be. Thank God for our exports to the U.S. They certainly have saved us through this recession which has hurt industry by industry. We have learned that we have to trade smarter, we have to trade better and we have to meet our competition head on. Through this free trade agreement and through our policies with regard to training, including the GST, Canada has become far more competitive. We now have our wages down on an equal par. They used to be about 40 per cent higher than the U.S. Given the 10-year period, 1979 to 1989, you cannot compete when your wages do this; you cannot compete when your inflation does this; you cannot compete when your interest rates do this. We all have to work on a similar playing field.
We have the lowest inflation we have had in 30 years, lower than the U.S. We have the lowest interest rates we have had in almost 30 years and prime rate went below U.S. yesterday. I do not hear:"That is good". I am just waiting for you to acknowledge that some of the hard, tough medicine that we have all had to undertake over the last few years to get us in a competitive position, you do not acknowledge. But when interest rates to this, when unemployment does this-


An hon. member:: What about your current account deficit?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Our current account. Let us talk about trade. We have been in a deficit position with the United States for years and years. Our exports to the United

May 28, 1993
Supply
States have gone up over 15 per cent year in and year out since the FTA was implemented. We have a trade surplus with the U.S., probably the first time since 1985.
Let me conclude with regard to your motion, sir, my colleague from central B.C. and I-


An hon. member:: Read the motion.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I will talk about Kemano. First it is not an export of water through to the U.S. With regard to interbasin export of waters, my colleague, the minister responsible-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Hon. members will have a chance to ask a question or make a comment. The hon. member's time has expired.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member has waxed eloquent about Alcan Kemano. She seems to think that we on this side of the House have been criticizing it for being a water export project related to NAFTA. We have not said anything of the sort. If she read the opposition motion she would see that they are exclusive items but all part of the same motion. However, let me deal with that.
The member has talked about the great impact that the Alcan Kemano diversion project has had. I wonder if the member would care to comment on the fact that it has now been decided by a joint committee of this House and the other House that this government has proceeded illegally, against the law, with its decision to allow the go-ahead for part two of that Alcan Kemano project, against the wise advice of fishery scientists and against the advice of its senior policy advisers. It has gone ahead illegally without any environmental review to allow phase two of the Alcan Kemano project to proceed.
The result of that project will be the diversion of the remaining flow of the Nechako River to some 12 per cent of its original flows. The effect that that may have on flow rates in the main channel of the Fraser River at Hell's Gate is the possibility of reducing that water volume by up to a metre. The impact that will have on the salmon runs has been described by Dr. David Suzuki as being a potential environmental catastrophe. I would like the member to comment on that.
With respect to my previous comments that the member had misconstrued with regard to water as a commodity of trade, I simply refer her to the very specific provisions and clauses in the agreement. Water as a commodity of trade is identified in both the free
trade agreement and the NAFTA in the tariff schedules. Both those schedules identify water as a commodity of trade and also relate that to the original GATT schedule which is entitled "The Harmonized Commodity Description Coding System".
In article 2201, for the member's information, it reads: "Waters, including natural and artificial mineral waters, aerated waters, ice and snow". That also includes and the section describes it as: "This heading covers ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water". That is in the original tariff schedule of GATT. It is in the harmonized tariff schedule of the FTA and it is in the harmonized tariff schedule of the NAFTA. It is there right in front of the hon. member's face. I do not know why the member cannot see that water as a commodity of trade is in fact included in these provisions.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, first of all I welcome the questions from my colleague from Shuswap. I must say that the interior of B.C. is indeed beautiful country. When I get a few minutes off I have a cabin off of Shuswap I go to, so when he goes politically calling for the federal election next fall, he must be sure to knock on my door and we can talk about the water movement of the Shuswap down the Thompson.
What I want to say with regard to what the hon. member is after about water in the NAFTA and in the FTA, there is no exemption for water in NAFTA because it is not necessary to insert an exemption for an obligation that does not exist. To do so would really throw into doubt-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I listened to you. Now you can listen to me.
To do so would throw into doubt whether obligations exist for other natural resources in their natural state such as trees-and the hon. member has lots of trees out in his neck of the woods-in the ground where clearly there are no obligations. There is no obligation there. We do not have to exempt ourselves from an obligation that does not exist.
We were back to the Kemano project. I have to say once again that I have read the motion of the hon. member's colleague very clearly and it does seem to tie together the three projects along with regard to the NAFTA. What the hon. member is getting at either
May 28, 1993

directly or indirectly is that we are selling out water to some other country and we are not.
Our 1987 federal water policy states that large scale exports of water by interbasin transfer or diversion are not allowed.
What was done and agreed upon in the 1950s with the first Kemano agreement, Alcan, of course is hindsight. We would all love to have 20-20 vision because we sure could correct a lot of things in many parts of the country and indeed the world.
With regard to the second part as the hon. member referred to in his question or comment, I have to say that the courts have ruled. We will go according to the court rulings. I will conclude by saying that I think with our 1987 intervention through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans we indeed did step in to see that the salmon in the river were preserved and forced Alcan to make sure that the level of water in the river system did rise.
While I appreciate the hon. member's concerns, he should not get his three water projects messed up with export and water in NAFTA. It will not sell. He is trying fearmongering with the public. We are not going to
export large quantities of water.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the only thing that is messed up in this House is this government's policies when it comes to water management.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Brian L. Gardiner: A quick question for the member is this. She praised the work of the group that came up with the 1987 settlement agreement on Kemano. I ask the member then in praising the work whether the person who chaired those secret meetings should voluntarily appear before the B.C. Utilities Commission and provide information to that commission on what went on behind those closed doors when dealing with the Kemano project.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am with the hon. member on the Kemano project which most of his comments and concerns deal with. When two or more parties negotiate-it could be three or four-a project, a development, a proposal, or indeed a final agreement
Supply
rarely do you see these companies, groups, governments, or anyone negotiating in public.
I know that is difficult for the NDP to do because under its theory it is going to nationalize everything so do not worry. It will all be negotiated here on the floor. I will deal with it out in public but negotiations are a two-way deal. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you recognize this because you come from the free enterprising province of Alberta that has won under FTA. Our exports to the U.S. have gone up 48 per cent. You know that and I know that but what I must say is that negotiations that are done between major countries, companies, small companies or different levels of government are not done in the open.
If indeed the provincial government of British Columbia in looking into the Kemano project calls upon the federal government or the environment minister or the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we would be very glad to provide whatever information we can.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather charming afternoon in its own way. The subject has been water but there has been no little amount of heat generated in the process. If anybody who comes from the home of the Columbia River Treaty is concerned there is always a certain amount of energy generation that seems to follow water flows and this debate has been no exception.
First of all I would like to read into the record the exact wording because there appears to have been some misunderstanding of the opposition motion put forward today by my colleague, the member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to protect Canadian interests regarding the interbasin transfer of water as exemplified by the Kemano project, the North Thompson River, and both the Columbia River Treaty and the North American free trade agreement.
After having done that and thinking back to the comments of my colleague across the way, the member for Calgary Southwest, it struck me that the argument she presented was so narrow it was like a river running on its edge. Not her motivation, we know that is very broad, but the argument itself narrowed in on just one subject at a time within it and seemed to fail to recognize that all of these are grouped together not under the

May 28, 1993
Supply
subject of trade but under the subject of water diversions and transfers of water from one basin to another. That is what all these various subject areas have in common.
I would like specifically to relate to the question of trade. Before I get into any details I want to recogniize the contributions that a number of my colleagues have made in this debate, not only in this House today but across the country in the last number of months and in some cases the last number of years.
Particularly on the Kemano and the Nechako River and the issues relating to that basin, the member for Skeena, who is not with us at the moment, and the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley have been dealing extensively with this.
One of my colleagues, the member for Kootenay East, is not here today. I know that he would want to be. The reason he is not present and able to participate is that he is en route to Eureka, Montana to participate in a multinational meeting that has regard to some of the very issues of diversion, water conservation and general environmental preservation that are some of the spinoffs of the kind of water diversions that we have had already and that we are afraid of meeting in the future.
I also want to specifically mention my colleague, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, who has contributed already to this particular debate. Along with his colleague for Kamloops he has been engaged to a very great degree in the debate over the proposed diversion of the North Thompson River.
To this point in the debate there have been numerous diversions and picky arguments about the fallaciousness or otherwise, of various statements about the exact words on page x of the free trade agreement, page y of the North American free trade agreement or page z of GATT-I made sure I got the Canadian pronunciation- as to whether water is specified or is not specified and in what way.
I would like to try to avoid some of those picky arguments, as important as some of them are. The government says it is very proud that it has declared a policy. I am glad it has and I congratulate the government for it. It is saying it has no intention as a matter of
policy of approving the large scale export of Canadian water. Fine.
One would have to be pretty dumb not to realize, if one had ever travelled to the American southwest or ever tasted fresh water from the Pacific northwest of Canada, that sooner or later in the not too distant future there are going to be pressures brought to play that are going to make any announced policy of a government appear as nothing more than a puff in the wind no matter what government is elected.
Quite frankly I do not care, coming from the West Kootenays, whether it is a Tory government, a Liberal government federally or provincially, a Socred government, an NDP government, a Reform government or whatever. The fact is that the tremendous resources of water we have available, especially in the southeast corner of British Columbia, comprise almost 2 per cent of the world's supply of fresh water.
If one goes to the American southwest, no matter what hotel one walks into, the sign in any bathroom say "shut the tap off, our water is in danger". Any highway, any little rural road one walks down the signs read: "preserve our water, there is a shortage". They are almost in a state of panic. Anybody who thinks an announced government policy, regardless of the stripe of that government, is going to protect this resource in the face of that kind of pressure is smoking the kind of stuff that a couple of our leadership candidates have made famous recently, not to mention one of my colleagues in the far comer of my own caucus.
They are just floating on cloud nine. Southern California has a population bigger than Canada's. Compare that to British Columbia and particularly southeast British Columbia. My own riding has the smallest population of any electoral district in the province of B.C.
In the last redistribution we only saved that riding and the riding of Kootenay East because both Mr. Brisco, my predecessor from the Conservative Party, and I jointly fought against the redistribution report. More than anything else, we were afraid that if the original report had been adopted we would have had only one member speaking for all the water in the whole southeastern comer of the province.
We needed as many allies as we could get. We successfully fought that redistribution so we could maximize the number of representatives we would have who
May 28, 1993

could protect that resource which we knew would be under attack.
There is a tremendous lack of water in the U.S. southwest. The signs are everywhere in hotel rooms and on the roads.
In that comer of British Columbia we have the biggest storehouse of fresh water in the world with the smallest population. It is simply a matter of leverage. Whether the pressure comes 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or 50 years down the road, the biggest market for Canada is the United States.
The Prime Minister and the minister of trade are very fond of saying we are a trading nation and they are right. Thirty per cent of our economy is based on trade as opposed to maybe 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the United States. Regardless of the agreements we are subject to trade pressure from our American neighbours who are usually our good American neighbours, but they have needs to fulfil also.
We are subject to their needs on a wide variety of fronts. Some day they will be desperate and they are getting close to being desperate in the American southwest. The target may be steel, lumber or electric power generation. Regardless of what price they will pay, where it is going to go or what the commodity is the threat will be that we give them what they need, for a price, or they will cut us off.
In the face of the kind of pressures we are going to get over the next 15, 50 or 75 years, no announced government policy is going to matter a damn. That is why it is such a waste of time to hear the kind of defence that we have a policy.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Even if it were a written policy it would not matter very much. Whether or not we are going to export and have large scale diversions of water it will not really matter if it is in or out of an international agreement or not. Even if we wrote it into our Constitution, sooner or later a diversion will happen. The pressures will be so great that no government of whatever stripe will be able to resist them.
We must take whatever steps are humanly possible now to exclude it from the North American free trade agreement. Even though we have passed it through the
Supply
House of Commons we are not necessarily finished with it yet. To exclude it as a good to be considered, we will need all the leverage we can get to demand as high a price as possible.
People will say, and I say rhetorically, there is no price big enough. When we get the kind of pressures that we know we are going to be faced with, because of that expanding U.S. population and our relatively small population, we had better make sure it is going to be virtually impossible for them to do. The federal government, the provincial governments and perhaps other international partners must have the required agreements if we are going to exact the maximum possible price.
The only kind of price that should be considered is probably major geographical concessions in return for that water. Otherwise we are not going to have a country left. Later on we would have to get part of the property, whether it is in the state of Washington or the state of Oregon, in exchange for that kind of water to make sure we are still in a position to benefit from the water we have.
That is how serious it is going to be down the road. It is the kind of issue that nations go to war over. If you want to talk to people who feel it is that kind of issue, come out to the west where we have had to face problems even from something as relatively innocuous as the Columbia River Treaty. It was supposed to have all kinds of safeguards in it and supposedly was limited to simply storage for the purpose of the generation of electric power.
We know what the stakes are and anybody who travels in the American southwest knows what the stakes are. I really do not have much patience with the kind of picky little defences I hear; that it is a government policy or it is not in clause x of this or clause y of that or somewhere else.
As I said, these are the kinds of issues that nations live, die and go to war for. The United States can bring pressures upon Canada, even being the best of friends, if we do not yield for a price somewhere down the road.
I find it patently ridiculous to have anybody on that side lecture us about being realistic in the face of what any school kid ought to know if he or she can count. That is what I meant about the hon. member's argument being

May 28, 1993
Supply
so narrow it was like a river running on its edge. That puts it exactly into perspective.
In the moments available to me I would like to comment on some of the issues raised by my good colleague, the member for Kootenay East or what used to be Kootenay East-Revelstoke prior to the last redistribution.
Last year and again this year in Kootenay East an issue arose that revealed exactly how Canada loses some of its sovereignty when it sells control of its fresh water resources to the U.S. or any foreign nation for that matter.
The Koocanusa reservoir was created when the Libby dam in Montana was built to harness the flow of the south flowing Kootenay River, a branch of the Columbia River in southeastern B.C., as part of the massive Columbia River treaty system.
I am quite familiar with that waterway. It runs right by my home. Until recently the reservoir has been managed relatively well ensuring power benefits and a solid fish and tourism base on both sides of the border.
Last year however the U.S. took water from the reservoir earlier than normal. The B.C. government had to scramble within the narrow range of the treaty to adjust other reservoirs in order to protect the Koocanusa for the . crucial summer season.
Some of those other reservoirs that were partially sacrificed were within my own constituency. We are already facing pressures on those reservoirs again this year even though the shortage on a short-term basis is not quite as drastic in the U.S. southwest as it was last year.
This year water levels are even lower and the Americans are determined to take what is theirs legally not just for power and flood control but also for fish and environmental enhancement. The B.C. government remains restricted under the treaty and the result is that the Koocanusa reservoir is now a dust bowl. The local tourism based economy will be destroyed this summer.
This is a serious issue and shows on a very micro scale the tremendous damage that can result if we allow any large scale diversions of water whether they are supposedly for electrical generation or whatever purpose.
Certainly it was meant for fresh water consumption in the American southwest.
My colleague, the member for Kootenay East, is en route right now to Eureka, Montana to participate in a number of these meetings that have been set up in part to widen the scope of the purposes of that treaty. What is happening?
Water diversion may have originally been for electrical generation but it is now for much more and understandably so. It is legitimately so from the point of view of our American neighbours across the way who are concerned about their quality of life and that of their children in the future.
We are not their enemies. We have to live together. Sooner or later we are going to have to make accommodations for humanitarian purposes and because the negotiating pressures will be so great. We will have to find a price and conditions acceptable to both our good neighbour and Canada, living just a few miles apart.
I appeal to the government once more. Regardless of its exact, fine, narrow range arguments about whether something is in this treaty, this clause or not, realize that Canada is here we hope for a long time. Canadians are here we hope for a long time.
We need every bit of ironclad protection as is humanly possible to ensure that whatever government, Liberal, Tory, NDP or Reform 50 years down the road will be forced to get virtually unanimous agreement in order to exact the highest possible price and the strongest possible conditions on the future exports that we know will happen whether we think it is a good idea or not.
That is a reality and I ask the government to face up to it. It has tried to face up to some others but this is perhaps the biggest reality and the toughest crunch that Canadians are ever going to have to face. We need all the weapons we can get. I appeal to them to look ahead and begin now to address those needs.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and in particular the comments he made about the Columbia River Treaty.
My interest in this particular issue comes from the eastern end of my constituency which just approaches
May 28, 1993

the border of Alberta where Kinbasket Lake, known to many perhaps as the Mica dam reservoir, is the top end of the Columbia River system.
Recently on part of the tour of the interior of British Columbia conducted by members of the interior caucus of New Democrat MPs, we visited the Revelstoke dam which is an important dam in the entire system. B.C. Hydro officials suggested to us that it was one of the most efficient dams in their entire system.
As well there are the U.S. authorities drawing down a great deal of water south of the border, as they are entitled to do under the Columbia River Treaty, creating the problems identified by my colleague and the need of B.C. Hydro to maintain a high level of water behind the Revelstoke dam. These spell great concern for Kinbasket Lake.
On a visit to the lake just a week or two ago, we had to drive some 30 kilometres down a dry lake bed before coming to the point where there was water. The reservoir is just rising now. Hydro officials have advised us that if we do not have a heavy rainfall this fall and a heavy snow pack Kinbasket Lake is going to probably be even lower next summer. We could have some very severe problems because of that.
The hon. member has already mentioned how our other colleague from the Kootenays is travelling to have some consultations with the U.S. legislators and others. As it relates to the Columbia River Treaty, I ask if there is more that can be done in terms of advising and informing the public of this?
The regional district in my area is hosting a public meeting in Valemount. I understand there are some meetings to be planned in the Kootenays. Obviously the public has to be involved. What more can we do to ensure that the public has the full range of information needed on this most important issue?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley for the question. Indeed there are a number of meetings, seminars and conferences being planned throughout West Kootenay and East Kootenay in the coming weeks and months. I am also glad to hear that there are meetings going on in his area.
These meetings are being set up not only on the volition of a number of New Democrats who have been concerned politically for some time, but also by the provincial power agencies and others concerned with the
Supply
administration of the treaty. This is being done to ensure that whatever decisions we do make and whatever lobbies we do mount are done with the greatest amount of knowledge as to exactly what those agreements are and exactly what limitations we are forced to work within.
I would like to pay tribute to some of my predecessors of two parties in my own area, particularly the squire of the Kootenays, Mr. Bert Herridge, who was the member from 1945 to 1968. During the negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty Mr. Herridge did so much to fight what he thought were the bad provisions of that treaty and on balance the treaty as a whole.
Another tribute goes to a predecessor from 1968 to 1974, the member for Kootenay West, Mr. Randolph Harding, who was also a provincial member. I think he destroyed three or four of his own cars travelling around to the communities that were to be flooded. He added his voice to this and did so much, together with a later member, Mr. Brisco, my alter ego with whom I bounced ideas back and forth on numerous occasions.
All of us, in our own time and in our own way, have done what we could to keep our people informed and to try to get the reality as opposed to the myth of the agreement established in people's minds so that we are bargaining with facts and not simply with emotions. It has probably been deduced not just from my tone but from that of my colleagues and some members on the other side that the emotions run as deep and as strong as do the waters and the generating capacity of the area from which I come.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments leading into a question.
Canada has about 25 per cent of the supply of the world's fresh water but what people do not understand is that most of that is locked up in the form of glaciers in the polar ice cap. We really have only about 9 per cent for a 7 per cent land mass, so we have about our fair share.
The problem is that the majority of that water, about two-thirds of it, flows north. When the United States looks at Canada as this great resource basket for fresh water supplies it is really quite misleading. There is no such thing. Any ecologist will say that there is no such thing as surplus water.

Supply
Any water moving through an ecosystem, a river, is really a living thing. Any water moving through an ecosystem is providing a specific purpose. Once a significant quantity of that water is removed from the ecosystem, irreparable changes to the ecosystem are initiated, many of them very deleterious. That is what really concerns us.
For my colleague from Kootenay West and our other members of the interior team, throughout the interior section of British Columbia, from the northern and central interior through the southern interior into the Kootenays, water is a major issue of concern to our constituents. They understand water issues. They have seen the effect of the Columbia River Treaty. They have seen the effect of the Nechako diversion projects. All of us understand the importance of water as a resource and the vulnerability of this precious resource under the provisions of both the FTA and NAFTA.
This brings me to a short quote and then my question. I received a report, "NAFTA and Water Exports" from the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Sciences. It quotes the Centre for International Environmental Law in Washington, D.C. It states: "Despite the controversy that arose over the FTA, Canadian negotiators did not seek a specific exemption in NAFTA for water and as a result the actual text of NAFTA supports the claim that large scale transfers of Canadian water to the United States and Mexico cannot be prevented".
I would like to get the member's views on that particular quote.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any great surprise to you or to members on the other side that I agree with the warning my colleague has just described.
Many people in the Kootenays have been engaged in this discussion and debate and numerous readings of both the text or partial text of the North American free trade agreement and prior to that, the long debate on the free trade agreement. The issue that concerned those people and me the most was whether or not our waters would be protected, how well and for how long.
I would agree that the problem is not that the agreement states that we will export water or that it is
going to be a commodity for the purposes of trade, but that the government for whatever reason has failed to give our waters the same degree of protection as has been given to raw logs, as important as the issue of raw logs exports is. It has failed to accord the same protection as it has done to processed fish, as important as the fishing industry is.
Even though we do not sell water on a large scale now, it is an important commercial commodity as well as being much more than a commercial commodity.
We would appeal once more that when the time comes for an early renegotiation of the terms of NAFTA, because we suspect that is what we are going to see as a result of what happens in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere, that we insert that protection. That would give future governments as much bargaining leverage and power as they can get to exact the highest possible price and the strongest possible conditions when we are faced with an offer we simply cannot refuse.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to participate in this debate. As many of the speakers have already pointed out, water is one of those resources which acts as a lifeline or the life-blood for this nation as well as many other nations.
It probably strikes very much into the core and psyche of this country because so much of our industry, so much of our livelihood and so much of our well-being has been drawn from our very rich and abundant raw resources. It is something that Canadians believe is part of their heritage and part of their culture. It is part of the specific distinctiveness we share in this part of the continent.
I hope that the mover of the resolution does not mind if I extend the debate beyond the concern that he expressed about transfers of water within the British Columbia region, because the same problem is evidenced right across Canada.
In my own part of the country, the prairies, we also have the Assiniboine diversion, the Garrison diversion, the Rafferty-Alameda dam situation and the Oldman dam, all of which are irrigation projects linked up to water basins shared in the United States.
May 28, 1993

The same thing applied in the Great Lakes of Canada. There have been numerous disputes and concerns raised over the years about the sharing of water. As we know, there already are diversion projects such as Lake Michigan into the Chicago system which we have not been able to exercise control over.
This is a national issue. It is one that certainly enough evidence has been put forward in the House to demonstrate that there is legitimate concern about the future pressure we will face because of the increasing demand and shortage of water in the United States.
Because of the trade agreement signed, there is a very large question mark, a very serious doubt as to whether Canada would be in a position to protect and decide for itself on the use of its water without being required to live up to legal obligations under the trade agreements. I would like to just reiterate why this is a concern and not something that is being provoked because of fearmong-ering, as the member from Calgary said, but because of the actual wording of the agreements.
It begins in the free trade agreement and is repeated in the North American free trade agreement. The national treatment clause means that each party shall, to the extent provided in the agreement, accord national treatment with respect to trades in goods and services. It is very clear. We have to treat goods and services trade in the United States exactly as our own. We cannot provide discriminatory pricing, discriminatory quotas or discriminatory quantitative agreements.
Article 409 defines what is a good. It states that article 409 applies to exports of goods. The goods of a party means domestic products as these are understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Article 2201 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade includes all natural water, even water as ice and snow, regardless of how it is packaged to transport it.
To follow the logic through, we must afford national treatment to all goods and services. Goods are defined as having the definition given under the GATT. Article 2201 of the GATT defines natural water, including ice and snow, as a good.
Furthermore, in article 408 of the free trade agreement, again repeated in the NAFTA agreement, we have specifically given away the right of Canada to use an export tax which would be the last line of defence.
Supply
We have taken away perhaps one of the most significant trade tools of any country which is to say that before any good is exported to another country we have the right to impose a tax which could be prohibitive to the point where the export would not take place.
We gave up that right with trade with the United States. We retained it for all other countries, but in section 408 we surrendered the right to impose an export tax. As we saw a few years ago with the issue on the west coast salmon because of the surrender of that export tax we could not protect the processing of our own natural resource in our own country.
I went through that legal dissertation for one important reason. The government could clarify the matter instantaneously. All it would have to do is have included in the agreement the exclusion of water, as it did with logs and fish.
It seems to me that after having gone, through the debate in 1988 on the free trade agreement when it came time to negotiate the North American free trade agreement it would have been the most natural thing for a Canadian government that is clearly interested in protecting water resources in Canada to put that on the table with the Americans and Mexicans. It should have said that we have a serious question mark in our country and a lot of very respected analysts and commentators have raised questions about it so let us include water as an exclusionary item.
It did not do it. It did not include it, even though it had a second chance. This is one of the reasons that, as we heard our own leader say in the House a day or so ago, we need a renegotiation to ensure that we do not eliminate these kinds of important items.
If I can add a further concern to the matter. A Winnipeg lawyer and environmentalist by the name of Brian Pannell serves on one of the advisoiy committees to the Minister for International Trade. He is not somebody who is a way-out opponent of the government. He has been a member of the advisory committee of the minister of trade. Just recently, a short month ago, he raised serious questions in a letter to the minister and to the chief negotiator for NAFTA, John Weekes, about the problem of water.

May 28, 1993
Supply
He points out that Canada can restrict water exports only to the extent that it restricts its own domestic use. Under these agreements Canada is bound to the proportional sharing of water. That means that even in times of scarcity Canada must continue to provide the same amount of water in total as its average exports over the previous 36 months.
A member of the trade minister's own advisory committee has raised this concern. It is a legitimate concern because, as the members from British Columbia have pointed out, we now see the problem in the Columbia River flow as the United States is increasing its own use of that water contrary to the spirit of the Columbia River agreement.
Now it will become locked into law as a requirement even in the kind of drought British Columbia experienced last year, in which its own municipalities had to go on short, restricted supply. That is a condition that could happen again, who knows. The environmental experts are talking about environmental warming and all the rest of it. Who knows what the climate will bring.
If we reach a stage in British Columbia, the prairie basin and other areas where we want to use more of our own water for the purposes of our own citizens we would be prevented from making that decision because of these agreements.
That is not something that has been concocted or fantasized. That is in the legal wording of the agreements.
A member of the minister's own advisory committee is raising the same concern and saying: "Please do the right thing and renegotiate the agreement to exclude that issue, get it off the table so that it will not be a concern and it will not be an area of conflict or disturbance between ourselves and the United States".
It is legitimate for us to ask members of the government why they did not do it. The minister of trade participated in the debates in 1988. He knew what the concerns were. He was part of that whole negotiation. Yet when the time came for him to exercise his responsibility in the renegotiation to NAFTA it was not part of the Canadian agenda.
Now the United States is raising serious questions about side agreements on the environment. The President of the United States says: "I want to see what we can do to ensure better protection of our environmental standards". What a proper opportunity for Canada to put the water issue back on the table in the renegotiation of the side agreements.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Will they do it? That is the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the question because as I listened to the debate over the last week, in report stage and in third reading, there was no mention whatsoever by the minister of trade that he had any intention of including an exclusion of water as part of discussions with the United States on these so-called side agreements.
The door is still open. It is still there. There is an opportunity. I do not understand for the life of me when a government is in such a precarious position, at the end of its mandate and subject to a lot of criticism about its handling of the NAFTA dispute because of the way it pushed it through Parliament, that it would not do the right thing.
I do not understand why the government does not do it, when it knows that it is a reasonably easy, proper, and good thing to do. Unless there is another agenda. Unless there is something it is not prepared to say. The defence I heard from the member from Calgary and others in this debate is that Canada established a water policy in 1987. We had a debate in the House then. What the hon. member did not mention to members of this House and to Canadians is that the trade agreements supersede that policy.
If the United States sometime in the future, next year or the year after, decides it wants to exercise its legal right as contained in the agreements to require Canada to export up to the proportion then it would supersede any policy that is now on the books.
I am going to make the case this afternoon in the time remaining to me that we try to come to an agreement on this. I do not think that it has to be a bare knuckle, hard ball conflict with the United States. We have used the International Joint Commission for decades now to resolve our problems. We have some good architecture between ourselves and the United States to resolve border problems.
May 28, 1993

There is an area in which the whole discussion of water could receive a full hearing. It could be subject to public discussion and public examination. It could bring the United States and Canadians together. We could work out a proper sharing of our border problems. By the way, the problems are not just one way. The dumping of sewage into the Juan de Fuca Strait is a problem the Americans face. As good neighbours we should also be prepared to put that on the table and negotiate that with them.
It is fair that we have quid quo pro and good bargaining arrangements. The Americans have some legitimate disputes about the way we have handled our problems in the Great Lakes. I do not think we have been that good in dealing with the zebra mussel problems. Another funny little fish is running around that is now chewing up game fish. We have not been doing our part of the bargain.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The pollution of the Columbia River.


Lloyd Axworthy: The pollution of the Columbia River, absolutely. There are mutual interests in coming to a serious discussion, and I would suggest through the International Joint Commission.
In my area we share the Red River basin with the midwestern states. I have suggested for two years that we bring the provinces, the municipalities, the federal government and the United States government together to work out a proper use of that water basin. We all share it and we all need it, yet it is highly polluted by both sides of the border and by two or three provinces and municipalities in those provinces. We are ruining one of the very exquisite resources of the prairies simply by neglect and negligence.
There is room. I think the mover of the resolution would agree that this could be a subject of serious discussion, particularly when there is a new administration in the United States with a vice-president who has written one of the classic books on the environment. It understands this joint concern. We are not dealing with the kind of mentality we saw in the previous administration in which environment was a dirty word.
President Reagan said that the whole problem of trees is that they put CO2 in the air. The level of understanding about the environment has increased substantially
Supply
since that statement was made. There is now an environmentally conscious U.S. administration.
It is one that I thought took a very courageous stand a month or so ago when the new secretary of the interior attempted to impose some serious conservation requirements on federal water uses in the western states. He has been beaten back in the Senate but nevertheless it is making that case. It demonstrates to us that there is room for a serious, open and honest exchange between ourselves and the United States about this very rare continental water resource.
It can only happen and should only happen when Canada is prepared to recover its proper legal rights to protect its water resources. That is a precondition for any serious negotiation. Right now we would be in the classic position of going to a bargaining table with no chips to bring to it because we have allowed them to be bargained away.
I think the debate this afternoon is a very important one if for no other reason than that there is still time for this House to go on record. I fully endorse the proposals dealing with the North Thompson River, the Columbia River and the other water basins in British Columbia because they are feeling the problem most acutely, but it is a problem shared by other parts and regions of Canada. Therefore this House could go on record as suggesting to the government that while the Americans are still open for negotiation on the environmental accords let us get down to Washington as quickly as possible and put it on the table.
It is not a matter of partisan differences among ourselves, the Conservatives and whoever. This is a matter that I think all Canadians can agree to. It is something from which there is no political gain one way or the other. It is just good common sense.
I would think the Canadian people would like to see this Parliament express itself with good common sense, especially on an issue as vital to our livelihood and our future as the protection of our water.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and learned, as is usual from my colleague from Winnipeg, about the extensive damage that could be done to the water system

Supply
and the ecosystems of Canada. I had also listened to my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.
My hon. colleague is a very good organizer and planner and has demonstrated his capacity to lead as a minister in past governments. I would like to ask him: If he were the minister what activities would he undertake or would he see that the cabinet undertook to ensure the protection of our water resource, which is a precious resource and is not an unending renewable resource? What would he recommend as the first steps to be undertaken?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the very first item would be that the federal government could make it very explicit that the present moratorium on water exports that the British Columbia government has introduced is the policy of Canada. The federal government should very clearly take an immediate position on that question.
There are a number of quite mischievous proposals in front of it. I have in my hand one from Multinational Water and Power Inc. of Vancouver, B.C., which has a number of plans for the diversion of run-off waters from British Columbia to the west coast of the United States.
I think the federal government should make its position very clear. British Columbia's officials are not sure what the federal position is. The Minister of the Environment, if he is available and interested considering his other preoccupations, should do something about this right away. This could be done tomorrow. It would end the uncertainty if it put these kinds of proposals, such as the the Grand Canal and the Multinational Water project, to rest by saying: Sorry, that is not in the cards.
Second, as I said in my address, and I think this could happen without any hesitation, we should be making a direct proposal to the United States administration that in looking at the new environmental accords as part of NAFTA that we include the exclusion of water as part of that accord. Make that very explicit and very clear. That should be on the table right now. That is not taking into account my other reservations about NAFTA. I am talking about this government here right now. The member asked me if we were there if that is what we would do.
Third, I would think that it would be very important that we engage the Americans in a broad-based discussion of our water resources continental in using the
International Joint Commission. Give it that responsibility to open up a broad-based examination of the water resources.
Fourth-and the list does not get too long-I would sit down with the province of British Columbia in particular and work out a proper negotiating strategy dealing with the Columbia Water Route Royal Treaty, which is coming up for renegotiation in three or four years.


An hon. member:: That is just downstream.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is downstream but nevertheless I think it is very important that we have an understanding as to what the Canadian position should be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. There are questions and comments and I think the hon. member has a question or a comment.


Lloyd Axworthy: The final thing is that I think it is important domestically for us to have a serious water policy, perhaps region by region, where we ask in British Columbia, the prairies, the Great Lakes region and Quebec and then the Atlantic region, is the federal government going to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities to start dealing with the question of our water quality and treatment and distribution so that we can have a clear combined co-operative approach for the improvement of our water quality right across this country.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I think the comments he made are quite appropriate. They reflect the very concerns that we in the interior team in British Columbia have been speaking on for some time now. I think he has in fact legitimized our concern in terms of both opposition parties recognizing that water is very much part and parcel of both the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. Specifically included is article 2201 in both agreements. Second, because the government has failed to provide a specific exclusion for large scale water exports in either of these agreements, we have left ourselves completely vulnerable with the future possibility of large scale water exports taking place.
The member has made a very legitimate point. This entire debate could be ceased immediately if the government would simply put its money where its mouth is and using the opportunity supplied by President Clinton in
May 28, 1993

the United States in parallel agreements on the environment, this unique opportunity to strike a parallel agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico that Canadian water resources and Canadian large scale water exports will be specifically exempted from this agreement. It can use this opportunity and do that. The argument will be ended. I think our concerns would be very well met.
However, it does not answer the concern in the original FTA. In order to address that concern the government would have to go back and sign an international memorandum of understanding between Canada and the U.S., again seeking a specific exclusion for water exports under this agreement.
If those two conditions could be met, gosh, we would sit down and shut up.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response, and this is a small debating point, it may be that as I read the NAFTA agreement it incorporates the FTA, and therefore I think it may in fact have a very major conditioning factor on the application of sections 408 and 409.1 would hope it would. That is one for legal experts to deal with.
I hope government members are listening carefully to what the member is saying. This could be a very important initiative of all parties in the House to do something that is important to all Canadians, and not treat it as something that is an across the floor, swords drawn kind of combat, but something that will put at ease the real questions and disputes, end the uncertainty and substantially improve upon the present trade agreement to show that it really means something.
I think that there is an opportunity in the waning hours of this government to really show some leadership, something that we would support.


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate.
I want to take a minute or two to reflect on some of the thoughts that the previous speaker just gave. He suggested that if we were exporting water that we would have to continue to share that water with the United States. At the present time we are diverting no water for export. There is no reason to suggest that we will ever have to or ever be forced to.
Supply
Canadians have no obligation to feed the hungry of the world unless they want to. We choose to do so through normal commercial sales and through some of our foreign aid assistance. However we have no hard obligation to do that.
There are thirsty people in the world today who are short of water for whatever reason. At the present time and certainly not in the foreseeable future we will not choose to export water in any major diversion way. We have no obligation to do so.
If some future government long after all of us here today have left these Chambers choose to make those changes there is nothing we can do to stop them. If we put it into the form of legislation they can change the legislation in a matter of days or weeks. If it is put into a trade agreement and at some future date the United States or Mexico needs that, it can be changed very quickly if the Canadian government of that day and the American or Mexican government of that day want to change it.
The arguments that have gone on here, while they may make good politics and might sound like common sense today, certainly can be changed very quickly by future politicians or policy makers. Quite frankly, since there is no water being traded, all the discussion that we just heard about NAFTA, FTA and GATT simply does not apply to today's situation.
The previous speaker mentioned the problems associated with the Columbia River. He dragged those problems into the sharing of water as it might occur under wording of the free trade agreement. There again it simply does not apply. The Columbia River is a shared basin between Canada and the United States. The Columbia River Treaty does not affect the amount of water that flows into that basin. Whatever is there flows through it.
That brings me to the topic that I wanted to cover today. That is the issue of the Columbia River Treaty which is mentioned in the motion as exemplifying the failure of the Government of Canada to protect Canadian interests regarding interbasin transfers of water.
I will address the issue directly in my comments. However, in doing so I will provide a brief description of the purpose and jurisdiction of the treaty to prevent any misunderstanding of it. Members will clearly see that the benefits under the Columbia River Treaty do not include

May 28, 1993
Supply
interbasin transfers of water. I repeat, do not include interbasin transfers of water.
The Columbia River Treaty benefits are based on the use of water in the existing river system for water flowing downstream as it always has. The U.S. gets no more water or no less water than it would have without the treaty except for the fact that dams constructed under the treaty keep the water in Canada longer than would otherwise be the case and make it available for recreational purposes.
The Columbia River is the fourth largest river in North America in terms of length and quantity of flow. The flow can be extremely variable with summer flows exceeding winter flows by up to 99 times. The large flow and variability of the flow provide unique opportunity to build storage reservoirs to even out the flow to provide flood control and produce electricity.
The Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between Canada and the United States that provides for the development of the Columbia River basin for flood control and power generation. It provides for the co-operative management of the river system to maximize the benefits shared by both Canada and the United States. These benefits are in excess of those that either country could achieve through any sort of unilateral development.
In this case the background is both interesting and pertinent to the motion. I will briefly explain the Columbia River basin and the treaty itself.
The Columbia River basin covers an area of 259,000 square miles. Fifteen per cent of the basin is located in southeastern British Columbia. The remaining 85 per cent extends into the northwestern United States and covers western Montana, most of Idaho, Washington, Oregon and small areas of Wyoming, Utah and Nevada. The basin includes the municipalities of Trail, Kimberley, Cranbrook in British Columbia, as well as Portland, Oregon and Spokane, Washington and Boise in Idaho.
From its source in the Columbia Lake, 80 miles north of the U.S. border, the river flows northwest to a point about 225 miles from the border then almost due south past Revelstoke and Trail into the United States. Then it
flows first south through Washington and then west to the Pacific Ocean at Astoria, Oregon.
Of its total fall in elevation of 2,650 feet from the Columbia Lake to the sea, 1,360 feet occur it Canada and 1,290 in the United States. This combination of head, or drop in elevation, and the large flow make the Columbia River one of the greatest rivers for hydroelectric power in North America. These flows however are highly variable with 75 per cent of the average flow occurring in the summer months of May through August.
Another major river in the basin is the second largest tributary of the Columbia and that is the Kootenay River. The Kootenay flows south from the Alberta-Brit-ish Columbia border, past the head of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, British Columbia where the Kootenay is approximately one mile from the Columbia River and at roughly the same elevation. It then flows into Montana and Idaho, northward again through British Columbia to Kootenay Lake from which it then drains into the Columbia River. Three-quarters of the drainage area of the Kootenay and two-thirds of its 464-mile length are in British Columbia.
Two other American rivers drain into the Columbia. The average annual flow of the Columbia River at its mouth is 180 million acre feet or about 270,000 cubic feet per second. Approximately 35 per cent of the flow emanates from the Kootenay River and the Canadian portion of the Columbia River. The remaining 65 per cent comes from the American portion of the river basin.
The Columbia River Treaty was originally signed in 1961 but was not ratified until 1964. Under the treaty Canada agreed to construct three storage dams on the Columbia River; to operate the treaty storages so as to maximize flood control and power benefits realized downstream at U.S. hydroelectric plants; and to allow flooding along 42 miles of the Kootenay River for the reservoir required for the Libby dam which the United States planned to build in Montana.
At that time Canada received $64.4 million for 60 years of flood control benefits and one-half of the additional power generated in the United States from the operation of the treaty dams in Canada for a period of at least 60 years.
May 28, 1993

In 1963 the Governments of Canada and British Columbia signed an agreement that gave British Columbia responsibility for building and operating the Canadian treaty dams in return for flood control payments and permanent rights to Canada's share of the power benefits.
Operating entities have been designated by each government to administer the day to day operation of the treaty dams. B.C. Hydro is the Canadian operating entity.
In 1964 British Columbia sold the first 30 years of power benefits to a group of U.S. utilities for $254.4 million U.S. The payments received as a result of this treaty were significant sums in the mid-1960s.
Canada's share of the power benefits, initially sold to the United States, are to be returned to Canada starting in 1998. The 30-year sales agreement expires in phases over a five-year period beginning March 31, 1998 because the power benefits began to accrue to Canada as the treaty dams were completed in 1968, 1969 and 1973. Therefore the first block of treaty benefits will return to British Columbia beginning April 1, 1998 and continue for 30 years.
The principles for calculating the benefits are set out in the treaty documents and British Columbia will ensure that it receives full power benefits to which Canada is entitled.
The operation of the treaty is overseen by a permanent engineering board. This joint Canada-U.S. board reports annually to the Canadian and U.S. governments. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tables the report in the House of Commons.
The climate of the Columbia River basin ranges from moist, mild maritime conditions near the mouth of the river to near desert climate in some of the inland valleys. The Cascade Mountain range separates the coast from the interior of the basin and has a strong influence on the climate in both areas.
There are two important run-off patterns in the basin, the snow melt run-off in the interior east of the Cascade Mountain range and the rainfall run-off of the coastal drainage west of the Cascades. In both areas most of the precipitation occurs during the winter months.
Supply
East of the Cascades most of the precipitation falls as snow in the mountains. Snow accumulates and water is held in natural storage until temperatures rise causing spring run-offs. Spring flows begin to rise in mid-April, reaching a peak flow during May or early June.
Fluctuations in stream flow are caused by the variations in sunlight and air temperature. Occasionally rainfall adds to the run-off. Rain and snow melt over the low lying portions of the basin in the winter can raise stream flows and cause flooding along the lower Columbia and in some of the tributaries.
Originally the two dominant functions of the reservoir system in the Columbia River basin were power generation and flood control. Others added in recent years include the need to maintain high flows in certain periods to aid the downstream migration of juvenile salmon and steelhead and the need to maintain lake levels for resident fish and summer recreation.
The demand for water from the reservoirs for power generation occurs throughout the year. It reaches a peak in the winter when homes and businesses need heating. Demand in the summer is the lowest. Thus from the standpoint of power generation the objective of a reservoir operation is to store the snow melt run-off in the spring and early summer for release from storage in fall and winter when stream flows are lower and demand is higher.
The major migration of salmon and steelhead, both upstream and downstream, occurs during the spring and summer. To improve juvenile fish survival, changes have been made in the operation of the operation of the run-off river projects and at upstream storage reservoirs. All major dams and reservoirs in the Columbia River system are operated in co-ordination with one another to maximize the benefits provided by storage reservoirs.
The Pacific northwest has two principal flood seasons. November through March is the rain produced flood period. These floods occur most frequently on streams west of the Cascade Mountains. May through July is snow melt period, east of the Cascades. Snow melt floods dominate the run-off pattern in the Columbia basin. The most serious snow melt develops when extended periods of warmer weather combine with a

May 28, 1993
Private Members' Business
large accumulation of winter snow. Some of the worst floods result when heavy rains fall during heavy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has not really expired, but in accordance with the Standing Orders, it being 3.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, May 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I call it four o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, May 4 consideration of the motion of Mr. Benjamin (p. 18921), and the amendment of Mr. Angus (p. 18926).
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment moved by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan. I am very happy he moved the amendment so that I could speak again, also because I goofed in composing my motion when I forgot a crucial item, except that we were all under deadlines to file our motions.
After 25 years I will begin by saying that this may well be the last time in 25 years I have to speak in this Chamber and I do not know whether to die laughing or crying, but I will get into that a little later.
First, I want to talk about something dear to my heart and to many other members of the House from all sides. I want to talk about what has happened to our rail passenger system and service over the last number of years.
This country was world famous, recognized all over the world for the kind of transcontinental passenger train service that we had on both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. It has been marred by the fact that a private rail corporation and a public rail corporation decided they could not make any or enough money out of rail passengers so they chose to get out of the business and to hell with the country.
The government of that day was saddled with establishing VIA Rail. Thank goodness it did. The trouble is, VIA has been treated as an orphan by both a Liberal government and then a Conservative government ever since. It is still making do, surprisingly well, with equipment that is 30, 40 and 50 years of age. If I may put it in the vernacular of those who were on the railway in my days on the railway, it is a hell of a way to run a railway.
May 28, 1993

In retrospect it might have been better if the government of the day had decided to get out completely instead of doing it with these half-hearted measures. Imagine a modern railway in this century and the next operating on equipment 40 and 50 years of age. VIA has had to spend tens of millions of dollars refurbishing these old cars. It was finally allowed to buy some new locomotives. The old ones were at the point where they could not have pulled a push car.
Air Canada was the successor to CPR as an instrument of unifying this country and tying it together geographically. It did several things. First, it was privatized. The people of Canada put up all the money. CPR refused to come into the formation of Trans-Canada Airlines in 1935 and 1936. CPR said no. C.D. Howe, bless his dear departed soul, said: "To hell with you, we will start one up without you". We started up a national airline, Trans-Canada, CN and the government. The taxpayers put up the money. The taxpayers have been trying to get their money back ever since in terms of service on a true national Canadian airline.
The same thing applies to the rail system. The taxpayers of Canada paid for CPR, lock, stock and barrel from 1885 on. We gave them 25 million acres of land and it made a bundle out of that. It still owns property in downtown areas of every city in Canada and it has been, is now and will in the future make a bundle from the land the people of Canada gave it in return for building a railroad. That 25 million acres also included the mineral rights. Those mineral rights did not amount to much in the Atlantic provinces on the land given to CPR. It was a different story out west. CP has been making money in the four western provinces ever since then. It has been making a bundle. What did CP do? It proceeded to get out of the business. CPR signed a contract in 1885 that forever and a day, as the native people would say, as long as water runs down hill and grass grows green, it would run a railroad, freight and passenger service.
The dictates of the marketplace, the free enterprise system, globalization and all this nonsense has meant that in business terms CP had no other choice but to go back on the deal, double-cross and betray us and we end up with VIA Rail. VIA Rail is still operating with no
Private Members' Business
legislative mandate. It has operated on a $1 item in the estimates since the day it started-a $1 item.
We have been pleading as has VIA Rail. I met with President Ron Wallace a few weeks ago. The first requirement he has to have to succeed as a rail passenger corporation is a legislated mandate that outlines its responsibilities: what it can and cannot do. They still do not have legislation that sets up a national rail passenger corporation. That is ridiculous.
I hope the House will agree at the end of this hour or when no further speakers rise when I shall ask for unanimous consent, to forgo the third hour of my motion, have the vote after the second hour and have it deferred until next Monday.
Sir, if I may have your indulgence to say it, this could be the last time I speak in this place. I hope I have a chance to get on next week, but in case I do not may I bid a fond farewell to you, Sir, and to my colleagues. If I have never done anything else in my life, this is the best and the most I have ever been able to do.
I thank the people who sent me here seven times. It might have been because they decided it was the best way to get me out of town and keep me off welfare. In any event, whatever their reasons I am most grateful for the support I have received from those beautiful people in Regina and Regina Lake Centre.
I am also most grateful for what I have received from my colleagues in this Chamber. I would not say support. I would say patience, understanding or even sympathy. I have served under M. J. Coldwell, T. C. Douglas, David Lewis, Ed Broadbent and now Audrey McLaughlin. I thank all the colleagues I have had in the NDP, especially my colleagues in today's caucus, for their patience in putting up with me. I have been somewhat obstreperous sometimes in caucus and I plan on doing it once more, next Wednesday, as a way for them to delight in kicking me the hell out of there.
I also want to thank the Chair. Lucien Lamoureux, Jim Jerome, John Fraser, your colleagues, Sir, and you personally who is another member of the class of '68. By the way I am going to do my damdest to get to your 25th anniversary party in Edmonton next June 5 or June 6,1 forget which. You deserve it. You have been a good friend and colleague and a good Assistant Deputy

May 28, 1993
Private Members' Business
Speaker, as have your two colleagues in the chair and all who served in that capacity and put up with all of us over all these years under great trials and tribulations. If it were not for the Chair, this place would be one God-awful mess. In fact we would probably defy the old rule. There is a reason the two sides are this far apart; it has to be more than two sword lengths. It goes back to the days of Cromwell in Great Britain. The House of Commons wisely decided that the two sides of the Chamber should be more than two sword lengths apart.
I am thinking about writing a book.


An hon. member:: Don't do it, Les. Don't do it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am going to try to get all your names in it so you will buy a copy. I am working on it. I have already written the title. That is the easy part. I want to call it "Rolling in the Grassroots". If it had not been for the people at home and the rank and file members of my party I would never have been here or anywhere else.
Believe it or not I even want to pay tribute to my favourite enemy, the CPR. They will have a heart attack when they hear this, if they do. My grandfather, my father and I worked for the CPR. There are relatively the same feelings in western Canada about the CPR.
There is the story of a farmer. The CPR killed his prize bull he had bought at the Regina Winter Fair. He had nothing but grief all the years he farmed and homesteaded out there. He would ship a can of cream and it would come back sour on its return. There would be no cheque. He would ship a crate of eggs and they would come back mostly broken on their return. It was nothing but a running battle with the CPR. A locomotive started a fire and his crop was burned. He got used to things like that. He went through all those years with the CPR.
Then one day a terrible storm hit. It rained. It flooded. The Lord sent everything down from the heavens that could be sent down. There were tornadoes and a mild earthquake. Everything occurred on this little farm in Saskatchewan. There were grasshoppers, here was hail and lightning, the whole thing, everything the Lord could send.
This farmer was enraged. He went outdoors, leaned back, stared to the heavens, held up his fists and said: "Lord, God damn the CPR". Sir, I hope you will pardon my language but I had to tell that prairie CPR story.
I appreciate, Sir, you allowing me to abuse my time allotment by more than a couple of minutes. I am grateful for that. I will get you a good line in my book if and when it ever gets printed so that you will buy extra copies.
I thank my colleagues for a wonderful time even when I was mad at them in spades. I am going to recall all the battles we have been in.
I will close by saying that in 25 years in this place I have never said it personally and I have never taken it personally. That must always be the underlying principle of every member who sits in this place. We can fight and argue about anything and everything, but it is never meant or said personally. It is never taken that way. In that way this Parliament will grow as will this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am inspired to respond to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden, based on his last comment when he said that sometimes in this House he would get mad at you.
During the couple of years when I was Minister of Transport there was a period where I could expect when coming to the House of Commons I would have the hon. member mad at me. He will recall with fondness, as I recall with some regret, a bill called changing the Crow rate or the Western Grain Transportation Authority, where we spent about nine months together in this House day after day going after amendment after amendment. There was no more tenacious and knowledgeable critic of western rail transportation than the hon. member.
While he is in a confessional mood of his views of the House, I will also make a small confession. As much as the role one has to play in a ministerial post provides some disdain of opposition critics, I listened very carefully to the hon. member because I knew that when he was talking he knew what he was talking about.
I simply want to say that over the years he has demonstrated an incredible commitment to the basic principle of Canadian transportation as being the lifeblood of this country. I do not think in my 14 years or 15 years in the House, that anybody in this Chamber has
May 28, 1993

ever understood quite as well as the hon. member has, just how vital it is to maintain in this unique piece of geography of ours, that goes east and west not north and south we hope, the sense that you need good rail transportation, good air transportation and good people transportation.
It is no accident he comes from that part of the country, in the centre of the central plains where transportation is its life-blood, that he was able to bring to members of this House and to all Canadians, a very profound and important understanding of just how critical a part of public policy it was that we maintain a system of effective transportation that would move our grain, our potash, and our minerals and our people.
It is probably symbolic that in his last resolution in this House, as he says, that he comes back in some ways to-I do not know if it is his first love, because I am sure there are a few he has not told us about-one of his great loves and that is the system of VIA Rail and the need to maintain in this country a system of moving people in the regions. Especially in western Canada, we know how vital it is that we have a way of moving people from the towns and the communities by rail for those who cannot afford aeroplanes or those who find the great distances hard to accommodate. It is a resolution that I hope this House will pay some real attention to, not just because it is the hon. member, but because it simply makes a very effective presentation.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, that we have always respected the knowledge and commitment of the hon. member from Regina. I can say in a very personal way, having dealt with him in hand to hand combat across this House in the very vital period, that he really was one of the great builders of the transportation systems in this country. On behalf of our caucus, I certainly wish him well and good health.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. You will find there is unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the debate this afternoon, in recognition of the member's outstanding service to this House, the question will be deemed to have been put on the amendment and on the main motion. A vote will be
Private Members' Business
deemed to have been demanded and the division deferred on the amendment and then on the main motion to Monday at she o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I think it is fitting for the member from Regina that we are here debating, be it so briefly, and to vote on Monday on, a motion that I think would be dear to his heart in terms of a legislative mandate for VIA Rail, a motion that I know this side of the House supports. The Official Opposition I am sure does.
We hope we can have the support of the government on this particular matter. I think it is fitting to tell the member, most importantly, that we will be there on Monday to vote for his motion.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, certainly on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Transport and the government side, I am pleased, in respect to the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden who has served his constituents well, to agree and give unanimous consent to the motion put by the member for Kingston and the Islands, including, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, bidding the hon. member a fond farewell.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join with the words of congratulations to the member from Regina. He goes back a long way in my history and my family's history. My father served in the House with him for 17 years. He outlasted my father and many others. He is a very close friend of one of my close friends, Terry Greer. They spent many evil hours together I am told. Again, Terry ended up with a couple of heart attacks and gave up some of the substances that led to that. I do not think that Les has needed to do that to survive as long as he had with his incredible contribution to this House.

May 28, 1993
Private Members' Business
I think it should also be noted that in this his last parliamentary act I am sure he will manage to squeeze a few more farewells out over the next couple of weeks, but this, his last parliamentary act, is part of the cause for which he has fought for so long, the issue of passenger rail transportation in Canada. He speaks for the grassroots, particularly of Saskatchewan, and has done so not only as a member of this House but as a faithful servant of his party for so many years.
We are very, very proud of him. We on this side of the House and I am sure all members will miss him very, very much. We wish him well in the many years ahead. Thanks, Les.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I would like to add my own comments. My colleague from Esquimalt has mentioned this, but I cannot help but think that he and his family still come from the city that we used to disparagingly call Toronto before he made his move to the west coast.
As a long-time resident of British Columbia and someone who has known our colleague from Regina some years, before he was a member of this place, I would like to add my own particular congratulations, especially as Revelstoke one of the main communities along the CP Rail line in the Rocky Mountains, owes him a great debt of gratitude for his fight to help to keep passenger service alive in that area.
Our colleague from Regina is one who is loved by all of us in this party and is held in great esteem by people across the country from all parties. I just wanted to add my own and my community's great respect and thanks to him for the many battles that he has put up on our behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order after I pay a little tribute and before I put the question.
I would like to say, on behalf of every member in the Chamber, how much the hon. member has been loved in the years. I know that he is from the class of 1968 and we have had to put up with him for 25 years and we are going to be paying tribute to him again on the 21st. I guess that is the closest date that we could get to the 25th.
I would also at this time not only like to say how much we appreciate you, but how much Connie had to put up with you. I think that is very important because a wife who looks after a person like you deserves many, many tributes. I, too, would like to say how much we are going to miss you. I know that you will be up in one gallery or the other criticizing everything that goes on down here in future years.
I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order, if it is going to be short.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, sir. If you believe that you will believe anything.
On my point of order, Sir, I have two complaints, or one comment and one complaint.
First, if I had known you were going to say all these nice things I would have quit sooner. Second, would somebody get up and say something in favour of or against my motion? That would be nice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to the agreement made this day, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), a recorded division is deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, May 31 on the amendment and also on the main motion.
It being 4.16 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 31, 1993