General agreement that a Senate in some form is needed
By Bill Rea

The candidates in the running in Dufferin - Caledon in the Oct. 14 federal election were again contacted over the last week for their spontaneous responses to some predetermined questions.

Their replies are presented here in alphabetical order.

Does Canada need a

Senate?

New Democrat Jason Bissett said he hasn't heard that issue raised.

He added it's needed for passing bills, but agreed there should be some reform. "Just being appointed and having a job for life really isn't fair," he remarked.

"Yes," replied Liberal Rebecca Finch. "The Senate is the house of sober second thought."

She added it provides a place for legislation to be evaluated from a regional point of view, pointing out not all governments represent Canada equally. As well, she said senators are able to make decisions without having to worry about repercussions from the voters.

"Yes it does," commented Conservative incumbent David Tilson, "but it must be an elected Senate."

He agreed some legislation needs some second thought, but pointed out there have been cases in which bills have delayed in the Senate.

Tilson added the senators should be more accountable. Right now, they're appointed by the government of the day.

"That's not right," he said. "The senators should not be a friend of one particular individual."

"Yes, it does," commented Green party candidate Ard Van Leeuwen. "It's a good sounding board and it's a good counterweight to our voices in Parliament."

"Most definitely we do," declared Dean Woods of the Canadian Action Party. "The Senate oversees the Commons."

The problem, he said, is the senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. "I think all Senators should be voted in."

Does free trade benefit

Canada?

"A lot of people argue for and against it," Bissett commented. "It does help."

But Bissett was able to identify some problems, such as the fact American companies can sue the Canadian government if they believe their profit margin has been impacted.

"It's unfair trade," he added. "There's a lot of room for renegotiation there, and I believe it should be renegotiated."

"I think in some ways it does and in some ways it doesn't," Finch said, pointing out it makes it easier for companies to move to other countries where the costs are lower. She added the agreement "had a good spirit behind it."

"I believe it does," Tilson said, pointing out that despite the current problems south of the border, the United States is still the greatest economic powerhouse in the world. "To have a free trade agreement is most important."

Yes, it does," Van Leeuwen said, "but free trade should also be fair trade."

"Free trade benefits all Canadians," he added.

"Most definitely not," Woods said. "Free trade has seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs to foreign countries."

Woods also said his party is to only one that wants out of the agreement. He said a clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) says companies can sue the government if they lose profits, but there are no similar provisions to allow taxpayers to sue if they lose their jobs because of NAFTA.

Is enough being done to protect Canada's water

resources?

"I want to say no, but I'm sure we are," Bissett commented. "We do have the regulations in place, but are they being enforced?"

Finch commented Canada loses a lot of water to other countries, as sort of a commodity.

She also commented on the impact on water from the Tar Sands, with it being used to wash things, and then just put back in the lake where it came from. She said nothing is being done to regulate that.

"I think more needs to be done," Tilson said. "The Americans are having problems with water."

He added Canada has to be careful the Americans don't start diverting water to the south.

"I think we need to take a long, hard look at what we're doing around the Tar Sands," he added, stressing the need to make sure water is neither wasted or ruined.

"I don't think so," Van Leeuwen said. "Certainly not from the point of view of pollution."

He added not enough is being done to understand what it's worth as a commodity.

"I would have to say no," Woods said.

He added Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quoted last week as saying Canada's water is not up for grabs. "I really don't believe it," he said.

He also predicted the Americans' next step will be to grab water through NAFTA.

Woods was also critical of the fact Canada still puts fluoride in its water. He said it could slow brain development in children and possibly lead to brain cancer.

"It's just not healthy," he said. "It's bad for people."