36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 232
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 27, 1999
1005
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Estimates
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1015
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-514. Introduction and First Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1020
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pesticides
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing in Nunavik
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Animal Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Iraq
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1025
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1030
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Suspension of Sitting
|
1050
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting Resumed
|
1055
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 13 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 26 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 61 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 62 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 71 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 85 deferred
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 87 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 90 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 115 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 122 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 128 deferred.
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 130 deferred.
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 132 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on Motion No. 206 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 25, 30
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 31
|
1110
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 32, 33, 39, 42, 43 and 46
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 48
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 49 and 50
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 51
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 52
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 56
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 57
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 58
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 59, 60, 69, 74
|
1115
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 80
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 81, 105, 106, 107, 116, 119, 120, 121, 125,
129, 133, 146, 147, 155, 156, 159, 160
|
1120
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 161
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 167, 169, 171, 172
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 173
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 174
|
1125
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 176
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos 181, 183, 189, 195, 197, 203
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 204
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 205, 207, 208
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 209, 210
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 211
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 212, 213, 215
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 216
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 225
|
1130
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1145
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1150
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1205
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1225
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1250
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
1310
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 137
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 138
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 139
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 148
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 149
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 150
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1345
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1350
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1355
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRED SABATINE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA'S WALK OF FAME
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANUFACTURING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIOR CITIZENS' WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOMBARDIER INC.
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JULIE PAYETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTERN TASK FORCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOLDMAN ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BALL HOCKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAINTED BLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-435
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1515
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1550
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1630
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 9, 10, 16, 18
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 19, 22, 23 and 24
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 47
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1635
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1650
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1655
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1710
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1725
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1735
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1800
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1815
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1820
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 232
![](/web/20061116182700im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 27, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ESTIMATES
The Speaker: I have notice of a point of order that I
want to take before we go into Routine Proceedings. Normally I
would hear it under motions, but I will hear it as a point of
order.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleagues and I consider this
to be an important matter regarding adjudication by the Chair.
This morning's notice paper contains a notice which I gave
yesterday pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) to extend
consideration of the estimates of the Department of Human
Resources Development beyond the normal date of expiration.
Normally the Leader of the Opposition would give such a notice
and tomorrow it would be deemed adopted by the House. However,
the Leader of the Opposition has neglected his obligation to use
all means to hold the government to account by giving to all
members of the House an opportunity to pose questions of the
government with respect to billions of dollars of expenditures
for authorization.
1010
In the instance of the employment insurance program there are
significant issues which I know all members of my party, and I
suspect all members of the House, would like to be given the
opportunity to address. I know there is no direct precedence in
this matter to guide you, Mr. Speaker.
I readily acknowledge that the standing order specifically names
the Leader of the Opposition as the member who is entitled to
give this notice. However, the closest analogous situation may
be found in the the citation 924 at page 257 of Beauchesne's
sixth edition. In the case of a conflict among the opposition
leaders over the use of an allotted day the Speaker has
intervened where there is a breakdown of the informal House
leadership machinery.
I believe some analogous precedent can be drawn here. In this
instance the failure of the opposition and the Leader of the
Opposition places every member of the House at a disadvantage.
All of us on both sides of the House have operated under the
assumption that this debate of the estimates would continue, at
least for this one department, past the May 31 deadline because
of the expectation that the Leader of the Opposition would move
his motion under Standing Order 81(4).
There are urgent questions which all members want answered with
respect to the granting of supply in the Department of Human
Resources Development. I humbly submit we should not be denied
this opportunity, simply because the Leader of the Opposition has
failed in his duty to have the entire House given this
opportunity.
The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to let the House
of Commons do its work in this important area. This party is
prepared and we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that you grant this
discretion. Given the abrogation of the responsibility to the
whole House by the Leader of the Opposition, I ask that you
permit this party and myself as House leader of this party to
give this notice which would be considered under Standing Order
84(4) of the standing orders.
I submit that it is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, to
transfer that power which is normally reserved solely for the
Leader of the Opposition to another opposition party which has
gone through the normal procedures that would be followed in this
matter. We have made the effort to do that and to follow the
precedent and procedure that are set. I would ask that the Chair
to adjudicate on this matter and I thank the Chair for its
indulgence.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not really prepared for this point of order, but
in terms of the statements by the leader of the fifth party of
the House all I can say with respect to Standing Order 81(4) is
that it is in the opinion of the House leader for the
Conservative Party.
What the Speaker has heard this morning is politics and just
politics. I would caution the Speaker that what we could be
looking at is that every pet project of every opposition party in
the House could suddenly become subject to challenge under this
section.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Standing
Order 81(4)(a) says that the Leader of the Opposition may give
notice. Given that this is optional and the Leader of the
Opposition may give notice, it could also be that he may not give
notice.
One is a direct corollary of the other. This is not rocket
science. It is easy for anyone to understand that if it is
optional to do something, it is equally optional not to do the
precise thing in question, in this case giving notice to extend
the consideration of the estimates.
Perhaps it is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition that
the estimates are just fine the way they are and he
wholeheartedly supports them. We will find that out on June 9
when we get to that stage. Meanwhile it is strictly optional on
the part of the Leader of the Opposition to do whatever he or she
likes with regard to proposing or not proposing such an
extension.
He is fully within his right to do or not to do just that.
1015
By extension, it has been alleged that because the Speaker has
discretionary authority on the determination of which party will
have the use of an opposition day during the supply cycle, in the
event of a dispute that provides authority for the Speaker to
intervene in this case.
There are a number of differences. First, in the case of
supply, authority is invested with the Speaker to make the
determination. In the case of Standing Order No. 81(4)(a), there
is not the discretionary power granted to the Chair. The
standing order is quite clear. I do not believe it was ever the
intent of the standing order to make it such that the Speaker
could overrule the standing order. The speaker obviously
interprets the standing order and always does so in a very
judicious and excellent manner. However, this is a different
proposition altogether.
Members may have legitimate grievances, but there are three
supply days left in this cycle. I am sure that during those
supply days we will have the opportunity to listen to the
grievances of the people as expressed through the normal supply
cycle process.
Finally, of course, the government is accountable every day at
question period and always provides excellent answers to both the
hon. member across and all of his colleagues.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I find this to be a serious
point. With your indulgence, I would like to inform myself more.
I am aware of the standing order as pointed out by all three
parties that have intervened in this.
I just want to look a little further at the citation the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough takes from
Beauchesne's sixth edition. I am going to reserve judgment and I
will come back to the House and make a decision on this.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the annual report of the Chief of the Defence Staff for 1998-99,
entitled “Into the New Millennium”.
* * *
AUTOMOTIVE POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-514, an act to protect human health and the
environment by reducing automotive pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a bill aimed at
protecting human health and the environment by reducing
automotive pollution. This bill is governed by the precautionary
principle according to which the lack of scientific certainty
must not be used as a reason to delay appropriate measures if
there is a risk of serious or irreparable harm to human health or
the environment.
1020
[English]
The bill will prohibit the production or import for use or sale
in Canada, or offer for sale in Canada, of any gasoline that has
an oxygen content of less than 2.7% by weight or any diesel fuel
that has an oxygen content of less than 5.25% by weight, or any
gasoline that contains the additive MMT. This would take effect
on July 1, 2003.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
PESTICIDES
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by 26 citizens of my
riding which reads as follows: “We, the undersigned residents of
Canada, call upon”—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is out of order
for the hon. member to read petitions to the House. In
compliance with the rules, he may give a brief summary of the
petition. I would invite him to do that rather than read the
petition which, as he knows, is contrary to the rules.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, this petition calls
upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic
use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been
scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences
of the applications are known.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from the Inuit community of
Kangiqsualujjuaq, in Nunavik.
According to the petitioners, from 16 to 24 people live in three
bedroom housing units during the winter. The Inuit find housing
arrangements in Nunavik to be extremely disturbing. The
situation is deemed to be absolutely intolerable. It contributes
to the high incidence of tuberculosis, infectious diseases and
social problems.
The federal government must fulfil its obligations under the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement regarding housing in
Nunavik.
[English]
KOSOVO
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of my
constituents expressing concern about Canada's continued role in
the NATO bombing of Kosovo and asking the government to
reconsider its policy.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadian
citizens living in my home town of Onoway.
These petitioners pray that parliament preserve the institution
of marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada.
I agree with the petitioners.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member knows the
rules demand that he not express his support or opposition to a
petition he presents but to merely present the petition. I know
he will want to comply with the rules in that regard.
ANIMAL RIGHTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough concerned
about cruelty to animals.
The petitioners point out that there is mounting evidence of a
link between animal abuse and domestic violence and violence
against people in general, and that the Criminal Code regards
animals as property and offences against them are little more
than property offences.
The petitioners call upon parliament to work toward swift and
effective action to modernize Canada's laws dealing with crimes
against animals and that the penalties for such actions be made
strict enough to act as a deterrent against such behaviour.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough
who point out that the people of Iraq have suffered untold
hardship in the wake of the gulf war, and that far from helping
to destroy the repressive government of Saddam Hussein, these
actions, including the sanctions, have actually strengthened that
regime and destroyed any useful opposition to it.
The petitioners call upon parliament to strongly appeal to the
United Nations, the United States and Britain for a rejection of
any further military action against Iraq, and call for a serious
attempt at peace negotiations with Iraq and its neighbours. In
order to build a stable and sustainable society in Iraq, that
excluding an embargo on military materials, all other sanctions
be lifted.
The petitioners urge that Canada vastly increase its efforts to
provide food, medicine and infrastructure support in Iraq.
* * *
1025
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 159 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 159—Mrs. Michelle Dockrill:
What is the
total direct federal government funding to organizations and
projects in the Nova Scotia Regional Municipalities of Cape
Breton, the Town of Port Hawkesbury, and the counties of
Inverness, Richmond, and Victoria?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from May 12 consideration of Bill C-32, an act
respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee; and of Group No. 1.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform
the House that there have been some changes to the voting pattern
for the report stage of Bill C-32. The details concerning these
changes are available at the table.
[Translation]
I also want to point out that Motion No. 216, which was included
in Group No. 5, has been transferred to Group No. 2 for the
purpose of the debate.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the continuation of the debate today on
Bill C-32.
I want to begin by saying what it is that we are discussing here
in the House of Commons today. The background to Bill C-32, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is an act respecting
pollution and the protection of the environment and human health
in order to contribute to sustainable development. It is a
reintroduction of Bill C-74 which died with the dissolution of
parliament prior to the June 1997 federal election. It consists
of some 12 parts and 8 divisions with a total of 353 clauses that
include regulations on such things as toxic substances, exports
and imports of hazardous waste, biotechnology, ocean dumping,
vehicle emissions, fuels and fuel additives, international air
pollution, enforcement and other environmentally related matters.
It is also noteworthy to tell the House and others that Bill
C-32 underwent one of the lengthiest reviews in recent
parliamentary history setting several records. The committee,
chaired by the hon. member for Davenport, held some 59 meetings,
37 of which were on clause by clause review. More than 560
amendments were drafted for consideration, exceeding some other
bills. In terms of our particular party and the member for
Churchill River, the New Democratic Party submitted over 100
amendments at committee.
The committee determined that the health and environmental
association of the bill was too weak. It accepted the notion
that there was a pro-industry bias to require little action to
act for environmental protection. The underlying theme was a
complete devolution of the powers of the environment minister to
any other federal department or government jurisdiction.
The committee review presented an interesting dynamic. The New
Democratic Party, the Conservatives, the Bloc and several Liberal
members pursued a mandate to improve environmental protection.
The Reform support for the Liberal government agenda carried the
majority of close votes on proposed amendments.
The bill, as amended by committee and referred to the House, is
supportable. Although not perfect, there have been additions to
ensure that the precautionary principle provides the basis for
environmental protection and that the environment minister's
ability to act to protect the environment and human health is
retained. However, the NDP has very serious concerns that the
government's report stage amendments could reverse committee
improvements that strengthen Bill C-32.
I am aware that we are on Group No. 1 amendments. I will now
turn to those and quickly outline the New Democratic Party's
concerns in that area.
Group No. 1 removes the phase-out of the worst of toxic
substances. It removes the achievement of virtual elimination.
It weakens the committee effort to strengthen precautionary
principle with government efforts to return cost effective
restriction before taking protective measures.
We support Motions Nos. 26 and 83 which recognize precautionary
principle to be added for legal clarity. We moved Motion No. 61
for improved inherent toxicity interpretation which removes
restrictions to amounts or quantities.
1030
The NDP supports the principles of pollution prevention and
polluter pays. We recognize the balance between the environment
and the economy, in other words sustainable development. We
think that it can be a difficult task. We are not against
industry. We are against polluters who place our environment and
our human health at risk.
The links between chemical exposures and human health are proven
beyond a shadow of a doubt. The links between the contamination
of the environment and the damage and degradation to Canada's
biodiversity, including wildlife, are proven.
The Great Lakes, an area, Mr. Speaker, that I know you grew up
on the shores of and and so did I, became one of this planet's
infamous laboratories in this regard. We remember only too well
the near loss of eagles from damaged eggs, the near loss of the
ability to reproduce. Mothers depended on fish from these lakes
and passed the contamination on to their children and it will be
passed on to their children. It is not anyone's fault; it is the
fault of the previous unknown, the unproven.
In the far north, mothers in Canada's arctic have PCBs and a
variety of chemicals contained in their breast milk. Another
generation faces known consequences, including learning
disabilities, shortened attention spans and an increase in
behavioural problems. Again, it is not their fault. It is the
fault of industrial practices from this century carried by the
winds and waters for thousands of miles. It is the environment
that is contaminated.
Wildlife studies demonstrate these effects are passed between
generations. The adverse impacts continue throughout the next
offspring, the next and the next.
The fault lies with those polluters who allowed and continue to
allow the poisoning of our environment that supports life,
including humans as a species. The fault lies with the
manufacturers of these chemicals that poison our shared
environment. It is a disgrace that there are toxic manufacturers
that continue to make and ship those poisons to countries without
laws or protections against the criminals.
The fault also lies with legislators, those elected
representatives, politicians who could have acted and should have
acted to protect their fellow citizens, the environment, the fate
and the future of their children and tomorrow's children. The
fault lies with those parliamentarians who ignore history, ignore
the facts, ignore the science, and avoid the leadership and
vision to protect the common good and our children.
On the Group No. 1 amendments specifically, I draw attention to
a series of motions proposed therein that will continue to poison
our environment and our lives. The House Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development went through one of the
most comprehensive legislative reviews in Canada's history.
We believe that the amended legislation can protect the
environment and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who
wish to protect our environment and human health the tools to do
the job.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the
proceedings but I think we will have to suspend the sitting for a
few moments. The bells will ring to summon members back to the
Chamber.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.33 a.m.)
1050
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 10.51 a.m.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my speech
on the Group No. 1 amendments to the CEPA legislation. The New
Democratic Party supports Bill C-32 as amended by the committee.
We believe the amended legislation can protect the environment
and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who wish to
protect our environment and human health the tools to do that
job.
However, a series of motions in this group removes the phase-out
of the worst toxic substances. In the opinion of the NDP,
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 set the stage for the Reform Party and the
Liberal cabinet to appease their polluter friends and remove the
need to phase-out the most persistent and bioaccumulative
substances. We have to ask about the guiding principle.
Why do we not recognize that we must remove these toxic threats
which continue to poison Canadians and our environment? The
Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet only seem to be interested
to “virtually eliminate” these substances, but the toxics will
still be manufactured and used. They will still be emitted into
the environment. There is still the threat of a spill or an
accident and these are the most persistent and insidious
chemicals that we know of.
The industry said when we were attempting to remove lead from
gasoline that it would be a crisis. We were able to do that.
There are a number of other things that we have been able to do
over time that the producers of these products said would be a
catastrophe. They said that they would go out of business if we
did that. They screamed foul and they started a fear campaign.
In the case of lead they said that there would be no more cars on
the roads if we did not leave lead in gasoline and there were a
number of other hysterical concerns.
We spend 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal
cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform
Party for all things that are wrong with this country and all
things that are wrong with that party. As far as I am concerned,
they spend the other 23 hours and 15 minutes doing the business
of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this
country, and this is but one example.
1055
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The first question is on Motion No.
1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote on the motion is deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote on the motion is deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion
No. 83.
The next question is on Motion No. 61. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 62. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions
Nos. 63 and 68.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 84. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I
declare the motion defeated.
(Motion No. 84 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No.
85. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
1100
The next question is on Motion No. 87. Is it the pleasure the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The vote on the motion is deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 89. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the motion is
defeated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 89 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion defeated. The
recorded division on this motion would also apply to Motions Nos.
93, 96, 108 and 111. I therefore declare all four of those
motions defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 90. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 90 is
deferred. The division will also apply to Motions Nos. 94, 97,
109 and 112.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 101. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the motion is
defeated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 101 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 101 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 115. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 115
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 117. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 117 defeated.
(Motion No. 117 negatived)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 122. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 122
stands deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 128. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion is
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 130. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion is
deferred.
1105
The next question is on Motion No. 132. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion
No. 135.
The next question is on Motion No. 206. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
That concludes the divisions on Group No. 1. I will now propose
the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 28
to 32 on page 1.
That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 17
to 22 on page 2.
That Bill C-32, in Clause
2, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 3 and
4 on page 4.
That Bill C-32, in Clause
2, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 18
and 19 on page 11 with the following:
“6. (1) For the purpose of taking cooperative”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 1 to
4 on page 14 with the following:
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, lines 13 to 17 on page 14 with the following:
1110
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
24 on page 14.
That Bill C-32, in Clause 10, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 41 to 44 on page 14 and lines 1 to 12
on page 15 with the following:
“the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister,
may make an order declaring that the provisions of a regulation
made under the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) do not apply
in an area under the jurisdiction of the government where the
Minister and the government have entered into an agreement in
that respect.”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 12 on page 15 with
the following:
«l'accord prévu au paragraphe»
(c) by replacing, in the French version, line 25 on page 15
with the following:
«(7) Une fois l'accord conclu,»
That Bill C-32, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 26 with the following:
“44. (1) The Minister shall, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned,”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 28 with the following:
“45. The Minister of Health shall, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned,”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 40 on
page 28 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 35 on
page 30 with the following:
“47. (1) The Minister shall, with the agreement of
provincial governments, issue and apply guidelines”
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended
by adding after line 16 on page 31 the following:
“(3) At any time after the 60th day following the day on which
the Minister offers to consult in accordance with subsection (2),
the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the offer to consult
is not accepted by the government of a province or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 31 with the following:
“48. The Minister shall, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, establish a national”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 33 with the following:
“quality of the environment, the Minister shall, with the
agreement of the provincial governments concerned,”
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 54, be amended by adding after line 18
on page 34 the following:
“(3.1) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with
subsection (3), the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the
offer to consult is not accepted by the government of a province
or members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal
governments.”
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 55, be amended by replacing line 27 on
page 34 with the following:
“this Act, the Minister of Health shall, with the agreement of
the provincial governments concerned, issue”
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 1 on page 38 with the following:
«62. (1) Le ministre établit, en tenant compte notam-»
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 1 on
page 38 with the following:
“62. (1) The Minister shall, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, and with particular”
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 62, be amended by adding after line 15
on page 38 the following:
“(3) At any time after the 60th day following the day on which
the Minister offers to consult in accordance with subsection (2),
the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the offer to consult
is not accepted by the government of a province or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 38 with the following:
“63. (1) The Minister may, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, and for the purposes”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 63, be amended by replacing line 23 on
page 38 with the following:
“(2) The Minister may, with the agreement of the provincial
governments concerned, establish a program to”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 37 on
page 40 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 69, be amended by replacing line 26 on
page 42 with the following:
“the case may be, may, with the agreement of the provincial
governments concerned, issue guidelines for the”
1115
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 76, be amended by adding after line 42
on page 46 the following:
“(2.1) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with
subsection (2), the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the
offer to consult is not accepted by the government of a province
or members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal
governments.”
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing line 7 on
page 47 with the following:
“(5) The Ministers may, with the agreement of the provincial
governments concerned, amend the Priority”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 61 with the following:
“89. (1) The Governor in Council may, with the agreement of
the provincial governments concerned, on the”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 36 on
page 62 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 90, be amended by replacing line 5 on
page 63 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 65 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 93, be amended by replacing line 31 on
page 67 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 68 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 94, be amended by replacing line 27 on
page 68 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 97, be amended by replacing line 38 on
page 71 with the following:
“97. The Governor in Council may, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, make”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 100, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 74 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 102, be amended by replacing line 7 on
page 75 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 114, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 85 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing line 34
on page 86 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 118, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 88 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 119, be amended by replacing line 35
on page 88 with the following:
“may, with the agreement of the provincial governments concerned,
in writing, direct a manufacturer or”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing line 10
on page 90 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 121, be amended by replacing line 16
on page 90 with the following:
1120
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 121, be amended by adding after line
32 on page 90 the following:
“(3) At any time after the 60th day following the day on which
the Minister offers to consult in accordance with paragraph
(2)(a), the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the offer
to consult is not accepted by the government of a province or
members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal
governments.”
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing line 2 on
page 101 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 135, be amended by replacing line 32
on page 101 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 38
on page 103 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 140, be amended by replacing line 39
on page 104 with the following:
“(2) The Governor in Council may, with the agreement of the
governments of the provinces concerned, make a”
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 140, be amended by adding after line
24 on page 105 the following:
“(5) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with
subsection (4), the Minister may recommend a regulation to the
Governor in Council under subsection (1) if the offer to consult
is not accepted by the government of a province or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause
145, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 106 with the
following:
1125
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 145, be amended by adding after line
11 on page 107 the following:
“(3) At any time after the 60th day following the day on which
the Minister offers to consult in accordance with subsection (2),
the Minister may recommend a regulation to the Governor in
Council under subsection (1) if the offer to consult is not
accepted by the government of a province or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 156, be amended by replacing line 11
on page 113 with the following:
“ernor in Council may, with the agreement of the provincial
governments concerned, by order, grant an”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 160, be amended by replacing line 11
on page 117 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 173, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 126 with the following:
“173. (1) The Minister may, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, make an interim”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 177, be amended by replacing line 39
on page 128 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 183, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 133 with the following:
“183. (1) The Minister may, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, make an interim”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 191, be amended by replacing line 18
on page 137 with the following:
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 197, be amended
“(2) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with
subsection (1), the Minister may act under section 196 if the
offer to consult is not accepted by the government of a province
or members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal
governments.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 197, be amended by replacing line 20
on page 139 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 200, be amended by replacing line 22
on page 141 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 204, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 146 with the following:
“204. (1) The Minister may, with the agreement of the
provincial governments concerned, establish, in”
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 208, be amended
by replacing line 10 on page 149 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 208, be amended
by adding after line 10 on page 149 the following:
“(3) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with paragraph
(2)(a), the Minister may act under subsection (1) if the offer to
consult is not accepted by the government of a territory or
members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal
governments.”
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 209, be amended by replacing line 12
on page 149 with the following:
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 209, be amended
by replacing line 12 on page 152 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 209, be amended
by adding after line 12 on page 152 the following:
“(4) At any time after the 60th day following the day on
which the Minister offers to consult in accordance with paragraph
(3)(a), the Minister may recommend a regulation to the Governor
in Council under this section if the offer to consult is not
accepted by the government of a territory or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 218, be amended
by replacing, in the French version, lines 12 to 15 on page 161
with the following:
«d'imprimé ou toute autre forme intelligible;
c) emporter tout imprimé ou sortie de données pour examen ou
reproduction;
d) utiliser ou faire utiliser le matériel de»
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 210, be amended by replacing line 15
on page 152 with the following:
The Hon. Marcel Massé (on behalf of the Minister of the
Environment) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 323, be amended (a) by replacing
line 16 on page 209 with the following:
“323. (1) In carrying out the responsibilities”
“(2) At any time after the 60th day following the day on which
the Minister offers to consult in accordance with subsection (1),
the Minister may act under section 322 if the offer to consult is
not accepted by the government of a province or members of the
Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments.”
1130
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Group No.
2 motions before us I thought that perhaps a little description
might help those who are watching.
Most of the Group No. 2 amendments focus on federal-provincial
issues. Eleven government motions put in place a 60 day limit
for other governments to accept our offer of consultation. Over
40 Bloc Quebecois motions seek to provide a provincial veto
against any federal action. Four government motions ensure
French-English concurrence and two government motions enable
consultation with crown corporations.
With regard to the 60 day limit on the offer to consult, the
Government of Canada is committed to working co-operatively with
provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments to protect the
environment and health of Canadians.
One of the ways in which Bill C-32 will help promote
co-operation is through provisions that require an offer to
consult to other governments on proposed measures. For
legitimate reasons other governments may not always be interested
in consulting with the federal government on a proposed measure.
In these cases we do not want the requirements to offer to
consult to create unnecessary delays.
For this reason the government has introduced amendments that
would allow the Minister of the Environment to proceed with a
proposed measure if after 60 days other governments have not
taken up that offer. This does not limit the amount of time for
consultation, only the offer.
With regard to the Bloc Quebecois amendments, they would seek to
remove provisions of Bill C-32 to recognize the national
dimension of CEPA, the environmental protection act, and the
federal government's leadership role in protecting the
environment and health of all Canadians.
[Translation]
We know that political borders offer no protection against
pollution. We also know that one government acting alone cannot
meet today's environmental challenge.
[English]
In Canada, history has shown us that environmental success is
linked to co-operation among governments, whether it is tackling
acid rain or protecting the earth's ozone layer. Bill C-32
recognizes that co-operation is essential. The Bloc Quebecois
motions, however, suggest that co-operation is a one-way street.
It wants provincial governments to have a veto to prevent federal
government action to protect the environment and health of
Canadians.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois wants to strip the bill of its power to make
defence of the environment a national responsibility.
It wants to strip the bill of its power to promote federal
government commitments to provide national leadership in
environmental matters.
[English]
These Bloc Quebecois motions are out of step with the reality of
the environmental challenges that we all face. All governments
have a role to play. In its 1997 decision, the supreme court
upheld the federal government's jurisdiction to control toxic
substances in Canada.
[Translation]
Rightfully, the court pointed out that environmental protection
required the involvement of all levels of government. This is
what Canadians expect, and what they deserve.
Bill C-32 provides the federal government with new tools to
assist it in doing its part to protect the environment. This is
legislation that will benefit all Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are dealing with Group No. 2 amendments that, as the
parliamentary secretary has said, deal mainly with the delegation
of authority between provincial and federal governments.
These amendments have all been proposed by the Bloc and the
government. Reform has no amendments within this group.
However, we would also like to comment.
The Bloc amendments proposed by the member for Jonquière
basically propose to give provincial governments a veto
throughout the legislation. Reform has regularly been the first
party to defend the interests of the provinces and when we are
talking about federal interference, which these amendments would
create, we certainly cannot support them.
In environmental issues we have long called for the
rationalization of laws between the provinces and the federal
government. However, there has to be a working relationship.
The provinces should not have a veto.
1135
When the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development studied the roles of the federal and provincial
governments regarding the environment, it concluded that it did
not have sufficient information to sort out whether there was an
overlap, where there was an overlap and where the changes were
needed. In fact, the committee called for greater study on the
harmonization as it went forward.
It is interesting that this week the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development tabled a report which
included a section on federal-provincial relations. The
commissioner found that there was limited reference to
environmental protection in the objectives. There were no stated
requirements to assess the impact of agreements. Affected
industries still face regulatory inconsistencies. There was no
requirement for audit. There was no detailed accounting of
federal funds transferred and there were weak reporting
guidelines.
The commissioner also called for clear goals to protect the
environment at minimal expense to the taxpayer, mechanisms to
hold responsible parties accountable, regular reporting to
parliament, analysis of risks before entering into an agreement,
a federal back-up plan and a clear understanding of which
government is responsible for what issues.
Clearly there is room for improvement in federal-provincial
relationships and we will continue to call on the government to
ensure that environmental laws are harmonized in the best
interests of the environment as well as good government, both
provincially and federally. However, the amendments put forward
by the Bloc are not in the interests of federal-provincial
harmonization. They are clearly an attempt to undermine the
authority of Bill C-32, the act we are talking about today.
Reform supports the role of the federal government in
establishing national standards for the environment in areas of
federal jurisdiction, yet Bloc Motion No. 4 proposes to eliminate
federal commitment to continue to demonstrate national leadership
in establishing environmental standards, ecosystem objectives and
environmental quality guidelines and codes of practice. We
cannot in good faith support such an amendment.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act falls largely under
federal jurisdiction, yet it also provides for provincial
consultation and co-operation throughout the bill. However, as I
have stated before, many of the Bloc amendments attempt to remove
or weaken all references regarding the federal role in the
environment, particularly when it deals with the administration
of toxic substances.
Motion No. 43, for example, requires the agreement of the
provinces when the minister gives notice requiring information
for the purposes of conducting research, creating data
inventories, issuing guidelines or assessing or reporting on the
state of the environment. Although the co-operation of the
provinces is highly desirable, this amendment is clearly
unnecessary and is an attempt to undermine the bill. Many of the
Bloc amendments are similar in nature.
Clearly it is important that the federal government work in
co-operation with the provinces on environmental matters.
However, we do not support the federal government overriding
areas of provincial jurisdiction or making international
agreements, such as the Kyoto protocol, without the consultation
and consent of the provinces. Those are decisions that require
the consent of all the provinces before an agreement is signed,
not after.
We are all aware that the environment is a shared responsibility
and environmental issues must be dealt with in co-operation and
good faith, respecting the interests and jurisdictions of both
governments. Obviously governments must work together in the
interests of the environment. However, many of the amendments
put forward by the Bloc are not in the interests of provincial
co-operation. They are simply roadblocks to prevent the bill
from realizing its goals, which are to protect the environment.
Often Bloc amendments propose provincial consent in areas that
are clearly science based decisions. Such decisions should not
be political. For example, Motion No. 81 proposes that the
minister obtain the permission of provincial governments when
amending the priority substances list and Motion No. 107 requires
the ministers to have provincial consent when eliminating
substances from the toxic substances list. Clearly these
decisions should be science based.
Decisions to remove substances from the priority substances list
should be based on clear evidence that the listing of that
substance is no longer necessary for the health of Canadians and
our environment. Such decisions should be based on sound
environmental practices and science, not politics. Science
should be the determining factor.
1140
We cannot support many of the proposed amendments put forward by
the member for Jonquière as they would simply render the bill
unworkable and weaken it. However, we find that Bloc Motions
Nos. 160 and 205 merit support, so we will support them. These
two amendments strengthen co-operation between governments by not
just proposing that the minister offer to consult with the
provinces, but that the minister consult with concerned
provincial governments. These amendments apply to clause 197
when the minister issues guidelines respecting the prevention of,
preparedness for and response to an environmental emergency, and
for restoring any part of the environment damaged by or during an
emergency.
There are 11 reasonable government motions which we will be
supporting. These motions basically set up clear timelines for
consultation. They propose a 60 day timeline for governments to
take up federal offers of consultation. After 60 days the
minister may act in accordance with section 2 of the legislation
if the offer to consult is not accepted by any government or
committee. This amendment gives the government clear guidelines
with which to respond to the minister and allows the minister to
move forward when talks are at a bypass.
In our view Group No. 2 would be weakened by many of the Bloc
amendments which we will not be supporting. However, we will be
supporting some of the government amendments that are timely. As
there is such a grab bag we will take a piecemeal approach at the
time of voting.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this morning to address the motions in Group
No. 2. As hon. members can see, I have introduced 49 amendments
in Group No. 2, for which I apologize.
This is a very important group. The government has much to say
about co-operation with the provinces. It says all manner of
things in various forums. It needs to do something to prove
that there is some connection between its words and reality.
I and the members of the Bloc Quebecois feel that the words of
this government have not rung true right from the start.
As the member for Jonquière, as I said when I first spoke on
Bill C-32, I wish to indicate how disappointed I was when we
analyzed this bill in committee. That disappointment carries
over to third reading.
In my opinion, this government is living in a bubble. This
government is in a bubble that protects it from reality. What
the parliamentary secretary has just said on behalf of her
government is not accurate. She said that Canadians expect this
government to play the lead role where the environment is
concerned. That is not what we are hearing.
What we are hearing is that there need to be agreements between
this government and the provincial governments in order to
administer this act as well as possible.
Where I come from, if something happens to the environment, it
is the province that must act. In fact, the first level of
government required to act is the municipality.
I do not understand why we have to have national standards. What
does it mean to have national standards? It means having a
global vision of an entity. It does not mean having the truth,
it means working in co-operation with other levels of government
in order to make enlightened decisions. It is not, as the
parliamentary secretary said, a veto for the provinces. It is
the opposite.
It is a right to partnership between the federal government and
the provinces.
1145
I have heard all sorts of things since my arrival here nearly
two years ago. The government claims to be in partnership with
this or that. I have never seen the government try to operate
this way.
We have just had a flagrant example with Bill C-78, which the
government has just passed. Bill C-78 and the one before us today
amount to the same time. This bill will enable the government to
say to people “We are the big boss”. Where I come from, the big
boss is the public, because we work co-operatively.
I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that the Reform
Party wants the federal government to run everything.
I would like to quote something the environment commissioner
said in the report he tabled this month. He noted that
federal-provincial agreements on the environment were not perfect
and needed to be improved, but they were an improvement over
unilateral action by Ottawa in this area, given the benefits of
eliminating overlap and the establishment of a single window.
This is the fact of the matter. This is why the Bloc wanted to
have its amendments passed and put it into effect. I note that
this government has plugged its ears well and that it wants
nothing to do with the other levels of government.
I am very disappointed with the government's position, and this
is why the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Discussions have taken place with representatives of all parties
and in order to facilitate debate on report stage of Bill C-32, I
believe you would find consent for the following order. I move:
That during the report stage debate on Bill C-32, all report
stage motions be deemed read by the Chair and duly moved and
seconded.
And that all motions be deemed put to the House, a recorded
division be deemed requested and deferred to the end of the said
debate.
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive
Conservative Party will concur with the whip of the government on
that point as long as all the Progressive Conservative amendments
are voted on at the same time.
The Deputy Speaker: For clarification, is the hon. member
for Fundy—Royal asking that the amendments that were defeated
this morning be treated as not having been defeated and be placed
on the list? Could he clarify that point for the House?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the
point.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the motions that
were defeated earlier this day when the questions were put to the
House, be deemed to have been put in such a way that a division
was required and the division was deferred until the conclusion
of the report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the proposal of
the chief government whip. Is the proposal also agreed to?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: On behalf of all Chair occupants, I
want to thank the members of the House for their co-operation in
this regard.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution
prevention and the protection of the environment and good human
health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
1150
I would like to speak on the issue of children's health and the
impact of pesticides and pollution on the lives of our children.
I was interested in the eco-summit which was held here two weeks
ago. It was a very interesting, worthwhile and provocative event
that was put on at the House of Commons to draw attention to
environmental issues.
Entertainer Raffi opened the summit and I think everyone was
expecting him to break into a song like Baby Beluga.
However, he was there for a much more serious reason. He was
there to talk about a child centred world and the importance of
the starting place for absolutely any of our decisions being new
life and the children who we have and are guarding for the
future.
He talked about the radical idea of making each and every one of
our decisions from the perspective of the child and the health
and well-being of the child. He felt that all of our actions,
legislations, laws and all the creativity that we have should be
focused on children and geared toward children. As we all know,
we have much to answer to our children.
I am sure all of us have had our children asking why the water
is so dirty, why all the fish are dying, why there are no more
rain forests, why half of their classmates have breathing
problems and why some of them have asthma. They have all of
these whys about the environment. They also want to know why we,
the adults who are supposedly the guardians of this globe, are
not protecting the environment.
Native people speak about the idea of making decisions for seven
generations. Nothing should be put out there that has not been
thought through for at least seven generations. I love the idea
of using all of our collective wisdom to make decisions which
will not bring shame, disgust or recriminations from our
children, our children's children or our great-grandchildren's
children, or even worse, that will not bring illness or death.
What a concept that we could be making decisions in the House,
which is exactly where it all starts, that could bring illness to
our own children and the children of our children. I do not
think there is anything that quite gets me more in the gut and in
the heart than contemplating that thought.
All of these questions bring about enormous shame and sorrow but
they must obviously go much further than that. They cannot just
stop with a sense of shame, sorrow and powerlessness. We cannot
just turn off the radio at night when we hear David Suzuki
speaking eloquently and with enormous detailed research about the
fact that we are at the eleventh hour with the globe in terms of
the health of our environment. We cannot just close that out.
We have to listen to the people who are doing the work on the
environment and we have to listen to the danger signs.
At the eco-summit Raffi talked about the fact that there is no
baby born now on the globe who is free of the impact of toxic
chemicals which just float around in our water, our food and our
air. Pollution does not discriminate. It begins to work on tiny
lungs as soon as they take their first breath. We know it even
works on them while they are still in the mother's womb.
Wealth, power and influence in gated communities do not protect
people against a polluted environment. We cannot protect
ourselves in any way from this issue other than by doing
something about it.
At this point I would like to look at some startling statistics
which came out last week. They concern the impact of pesticide
residues on Canadian produce, on the apples our children eat at
the day cares and on all the food we are eating.
Children have a much smaller system and they are more vulnerable
in terms of the buildup of pesticides. The amount of pesticides
left on fresh fruit and vegetables has grown in Canada. According
to unpublished government statistics obtained through the Access
to Information Act, pesticides have more than doubled since 1994.
1155
Studies indicate that produce grown commercially in Canada now
have pesticide residues at nearly the same rate as imported
produce. If we have grown them ourselves or have purchased them
at the local store we take some comfort in thinking that if we
wash them everything will be all right. For some reason we are
trying to deny the fact that we are not personally ingesting
enormous amounts of pesticides. We seem to be able to let this
problem build in our lives without addressing it head on.
The report by Eli Neidert and Glenn Havelock of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency dated November 6, 1998 states:
The evidence clearly indicates that both the contamination rates
and violation rates for domestic and imported produce are moving
closer together.
Studies show that nearly a quarter of Canadian produce randomly
tested bears traces of pesticides, even after inedible skins are
peeled off. Although the report states that just 1.2% of
domestic produce showed residues at illegal levels, the violation
rate is triple what it was at the beginning of the decade.
Kathryn Boothby, communications manager of the Pesticide
Producers and Marketers' Crop Protection Institute of Canada,
cautioned against becoming needlessly alarmed about pesticides,
saying that consumers should take into account the
well-documented health benefits of eating fresh fruits and
vegetables.
After having read that, I had to ask myself what the
spokesperson was saying. The good news is that an apple a day
keeps the doctors away but the bad news is that pesticides will
almost surely kill us at some point if we live long enough. I
could not believe that she actually said that. If I would have
had a phone nearby I would have called her for a reality check on
what she was saying about the food we eat.
Julia Langer speaks well on that issue. She is a pesticide
expert at the World Wildlife Fund Canada and a member of the
federal government's Pest Management Advisory Council. She said
that the trend toward the widespread findings are extremely
disturbing. She also said that it should be a wake-up call to
change pest management practices so we can move the trend in the
opposite direction.
The chemical present in fresh Canadian and foreign grown produce
includes carcinogens, suspected neurotoxins and compounds known
to cross the placental barrier and affect growing fetuses. These
also include long banned chemicals such as breakdown components
of DDT and several others so dangerous that they merit a place on
the international dirty dozen list. Although they are not
registered for use in Canada, they are nevertheless legal in the
food Canadians eat, as long as they are not present in quantities
above 0.1 parts per million.
In closing, I will simply make an enormous plea for us to stop
everything and try to get back to the basics. As Raffi said at
the eco-summit the other night, let us think about our children.
Let us think about the poisons going into our environment. Let
us talk about a decent environment bill that is going to start
reversing the pollution and the devastation that we have wrought
on our globe. I will push for that at every turn in terms of the
amendments that the New Democratic Party are putting forward to
the CEPA bill.
1200
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
motions in this group, particularly those proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, would weaken national leadership, they would weaken
national concerns and they would prevent national regulations
from applying in Quebec. These motions would mean a step backward
and ought to be defeated.
There are other amendments which represent a step backward
because they will have a negative impact on public health. Take
for instance inherent toxicity, about which we spent a lot of
time in committee. Here the public health is threatened because
the proposed amendment takes from the minister a needed measure
to accelerate the process of preventing pollution or eliminating
a substance from entering the environment. True, there is
pollution prevention planning in the legislation but it is very
weak. Actually it has virtually no teeth because the pollution
prevention plans are not enforceable.
We are therefore very concerned about what is being proposed. In
the words of someone who has worked as a consultant and as an
environmental lawyer as well on this very legislation “This
proposed amendment is very significant and would gut the bill of
the significant direction taken in this clause toward inherent
toxicity”. This is a very bad move in terms of protecting
public health.
There is the issue of virtual elimination on which we also
worked very hard in committee. The government came forward with
an amendment which we were glad to work on but now at report
stage we see that changes are being proposed. There is a shift
in focus from achieving near zero pollution to a process which is
unclear and vague, a process which gives no clear mandate to
reach zero pollution. I am sad to say that the long term is
being sacrificed in favour of the short term.
Then there is the issue of the precautionary principle. One of
the many problems that the committee dealt with was the absence
of a strong administrative duty on the part of the government to
apply this principle. The precautionary approach means that we
should not wait for damage to the environment or human health to
occur before acting.
There are many definitions of the precautionary approach. The
version chosen to appear in the preamble was unfortunately one of
the weakest ones available because it would place a straitjacket
by imposing cost effective considerations. We worked very hard
in improving that.
The proposed version now of the precautionary principle is not
the only one available. Canada and other nations have signed on
to many other versions in environmental agreements involving
fishery, biodiversity and ocean dumping. In fact the London
Dumping Convention of 1972 as renewed in 1996 including Canada
has a much stronger version without mentioning cost
effectiveness. Therefore the idea of the pollution prevention and
of the precautionary principle should not be distorted and
burdened by the obstacles posed by cost effectiveness.
Another amendment that is in the category of undesirables is the
one that came forward in relation to nutrients. This amendment
comes like a bolt from the blue so to speak. It is brand new. It
was not mentioned or proposed in committee. It was not proposed
by any witness before the committee. It is hard to see why it
has appeared at the eleventh hour of the debate on this bill.
The effect of the amendment if passed would be that the Minister
of the Environment could no longer prevent pollution in water by
certain nutrients. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
instead could say “I have the power to prevent pollution by
nutrients in water”. Cabinet would then decide if the power of
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would be sufficient and
the Minister of the Environment, who has a strong mandate to
protect the environment, would no longer have a role to play.
This motion as well weakens the bill.
I have just elaborated on a few rather important amendments
which if they were passed would transform this bill, I must say
and with regret, from a weak law into a paper tiger.
The net effect of these changes as they are being proposed in
some of these groups particularly by the government will make
Bill C-32 an exercise in distorted phrases. Perhaps they are
skilfully crafted sentences made for the purpose of convincing
the public in an almost Orwellian fashion in an attempt to create
an impression of strength when in reality the emperor has no
clothes.
1205
If certain amendments of the kind I have touched upon are passed
into law, a few lobbyists will prove to have been more powerful
than the permanent members of the standing committee. I am
referring to those who toiled on the subject of toxic substances
for over five years.
If certain amendments of the kind I have described this morning
are passed, the public and its health will be poorly protected
from toxic substances. The meaning of pollution prevention will
be seriously discredited. Unfortunately, I must also add that a
key electoral promise will not have been kept.
Those of us who feel very strongly about this bill,
are standing for a very simple and
straightforward principle: that Canadians can have health
protection at the same time as sound investments. There is no
conflict between making into reality the fact that we can have at
the same time a healthy economy and a healthy environment.
With that thought in mind, I will let the House know
that when it comes to the vote on certain motions, it is my
intention to vote with regret against my government. I think the
motivation is very clear. It is one that puts the public health
ahead of investments. It is one that motivates for the reduction
of health costs in the long term.
It is one that is also attempting to bring closer the
commitments we made to the Canadian public in two electoral
campaigns, namely that we would not just deal with the releases
into the environment of toxic substances; we went much further in
our commitment and said that we would deal with the gradual
elimination of the use of toxic substances. In that respect, this
bill is a far cry from what we promised in the 1993 campaign. I
am referring to page 66 of the red book where it is very clearly
explained and set out.
I think what unites us in this room today is a
different interpretation of what it means to fight for the public
interest. I imagine that all my colleagues will agree with me
that this is what is motivating us. The approach I am developing
may be one with a particular emphasis on the long term, with a
particular emphasis on giving precedence to the public health
with the strong belief that Canadians can all have in this very
fortunate country health protection and sound investments without
having to sacrifice one for the other.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-32 and this group of
amendments following the comments by the member for Davenport.
He indicated how unhappy he is with the bill and that he will
even be voting against his own government.
1210
The process we have gone through to date has been a very lengthy
one. Many members have commented on that. This group of
amendments has almost 70 amendments with 16 of the amendments
coming from the government. We have had 59 meetings on this bill.
The bill was at committee for a year. A total of 560 amendments
have come forward on this bill. Even at report stage when it
comes back to the House the government is still making
amendments. It makes us wonder how much effort went into the
original drafting of the bill if at this point in the process we
are still dealing with government amendments and members of the
government are still unhappy with it.
There are two main issues being dealt with in these amendments.
Most of the amendments were brought forward by the member for
Jonquière who spoke previously and deal with provincial
sovereignty. It is not surprising since she is a member of a
separatist party.
The other issue is the environment minister is dealing with the
time period during which the minister offers to consult with
affected stakeholders. This was something we dealt with at
committee to some degree, to put some time limitations on some of
the decisions so that the actions can move forward in a
reasonable manner, and that people involved have a chance to be
consulted and work together.
The issue of provincial sovereignty is of course a dear one to
Reformers and to our party. In many ways the Reform Party can
find its roots in this issue. The party began in the late 1980s
born out of frustration with Ottawa. Canadians frustrated with
being ignored by the federal government decided that the time was
right to start a party that was dedicated to the equality of all
provinces, a party that would favour no province over the other.
One of the founding principles of the party affirmed Reform's
commitment to Canada as one nation indivisible, and to our vision
of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and
citizens. The balance we speak of even at that level we have to
extend to environmental issues because it is a very precise
balance that needs to be created between government regulation,
industry and Canadians. If we go too hard one way or the other,
that balance is disrupted and it will harm the environment. It is
key that we continue to seek the balance we need to create a
better environment for all of us.
This balanced federation would take away the arsenal of
centralizing powers that lie in the hands of the cabinet and
redistribute legislative authority to the level of government
that is able to govern most effectively in each area. We feel the
federal government has become too intrusive in provincial
affairs. The long arm of the federal government stretches across
the country and leaves no citizen untouched.
Federal transfer cuts to health and education programs
drastically affect Canadians all across the country. Outrageous
tax rates discriminate against single income families and they
chase away our best and brightest graduates and drive down our
productivity. If that is not enough, projects like the millennium
scholarship fund even further antagonize the provinces. It is
things like this that have earned Ottawa the enmity of the
provinces.
The Bloc is a fruit of that situation. That political party
from Quebec has made it known that it favours the outright
decentralization of nearly every federal responsibility. The Bloc
opposes any kind of federal government intervention in the
provinces. Having said that, we support decentralizing
government as well but we believe that the amendments presented
here today go too far.
We recognize that in a country as vast and diverse as Canada
there is a need for the federal government to establish and
maintain national standards in areas of clear federal
jurisdiction. Our blue book says that the Reform Party supports
a rationalization of federal and provincial environmental laws
and the development of regional and national environmental
standards where appropriate.
We believe that the federal government has a role to play in
these issues. Because the Constitution does not explicitly
assign environmental jurisdiction to either federal or provincial
governments, this has been a source of friction in the past.
However recent developments have gone a long way in clarifying
this constitutional vagueness.
In the 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v Hydro Quebec,
the court ruled unanimously that the protection of the
environment was a constitutionally valid criminal law objective
which is a clear jurisdiction of the federal government. However,
because environmental issues transcend boundaries, the federal
government must not use this decision as a carte blanche to ride
roughshod over the provinces.
1215
Federal-provincial co-operation such as the kind proposed under
the 1998 harmonization accord is essential to ensure that the
health and well-being of Canadians come first. Again it comes
down to balance, balancing the harmonization accord. In order
for it to work there has to be proper balance between the federal
and provincial governments.
The Reform Party is an enthusiastic supporter of provincial
consultation, but the amendments put forward by the Bloc go
beyond what is reasonable. The Bloc no doubt believes that the
federal government is overstepping its jurisdictional boundaries
in the administration and application of the bill. Requiring the
minister to obtain the consent of the provinces at every turn
will render the bill unworkable. We feel it has gone too far and
we need to get back to a point where consultation with the
provinces is meaningful and there will be some clear results.
It is clear that the provinces must be involved in the process
as Environment Canada simply does not have the capability to take
full responsibility for the implementation of the act. This is
something that came forward during the debate. Environment
Canada has fallen down substantially and has not directed the
proper resources to enforcement. This is something that needs to
be addressed and put back into its priorities. That has been the
situation this week in the cause for environmental protection.
Some members on the other side are always eagerly ready to
accuse me and my colleagues within the Reform Party of having no
regard for the well-being of the environment. This is simply not
true.
These are the same members who supported the cutbacks in the
past few budgets presented by the finance minister. These
members have supported the budgets in which these cutbacks were
implemented.
Are they not supporting the government that was condemned by the
environment commissioner just this week for putting the health of
Canadians at risk by not properly managing toxic substances? Are
they not supporting the government that has refused to introduce
endangered species legislation?
I could continue, but suffice to say it is not the Reform Party
these members should be concerned about but the Liberal Party.
As was expressed previously by another member, their problem lies
within their own party.
I assure the House that Reform has a very clear position on the
enforcement of environmental protection. Our blue book policy
clearly supports the principle that the polluter should pay for
its pollution controls, that this be stringently enforced in an
unbiased manner, and that the penalties be severe enough so
polluters will not consider them a licence to pollute. We also
support fines and jail sentences for officers and executives of
companies that violate environmental laws.
However it is always better to use the carrot over the stick.
Although the law must have the capacity to enforce its
regulations, it will be more effective if it can deter
individuals from breaking the law in the first place.
Co-operation will always accomplish more than confrontation.
I will briefly discuss the Group No. 2 amendments brought
forward by the minister. In the preamble to Bill C-32 the
government recognizes the importance of working together with the
provinces, territories and aboriginal groups to achieve the
highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians and
ultimately to contribute to sustainable development.
Throughout the bill the federal government shows its respect for
the provinces, territories and aboriginal groups by making offers
to consult. The bill creates advisory committees made up of
representatives from these affected groups.
We as a party put forward one amendment. The representatives of
the provinces instead of being picked by the minister should be
appointed by the provinces. We feel that would give a balance to
the process and bring in some more expertise to handle the issue.
Public consultation is critical to the legitimacy of the bill.
Our party is founded on the principle of grassroots
participation. Ensuring the grassroots have an opportunity to
influence public policy is very important. For too long
grassroots have been trampled as one government after another
ignored their concerns. The bill hinges on the proper balance.
1220
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 2
amendments to Bill C-32. My comments will not be all that long.
I want to talk about the concept that predominates a number of
the amendments which have been put forward primarily by the Bloc
and by the government.
This section captures the Bloc position that the ministers must
get provincial approval before making any regulations or issuing
any guidelines throughout the act. The government also has a few
amendments in this section but they deal predominately with the
offer to consult being open to the provinces for 60 days before
the government must act, which would bring closure to the offer.
We do not always get agreement with the provinces to act so the
federal government must retain the powers to act in order to
ensure that human health and the environment are protected.
Essentially that is the origin of it.
I understand where my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is
actually coming from. It is that the federal government fails to
recognize on a routine basis that in order to get anything
implemented within this great country ultimately we need the
provinces on side. At the end of the day they are usually the
governing body which has to implement a number of the decisions
that take place with respect to the federal government.
The concern the Bloc has put forward is indeed justified. I
would like to cite two examples of the origin of this concern. We
all remember the draconian cuts to the Canada health and social
transfer that took place by the federal government to pay for
health care, education and social assistance.
These unprecedented cuts to our priority programs were done
without any consultation, without any input from the provinces.
The provinces did not have the opportunity to say that they would
pay a very severe price and, more important, that the citizens
who live in the provinces would pay a very severe price if these
actions were taken. The provinces did not have any input into
the actions of the federal government.
I trust the House remembers the debate which led up to the Kyoto
protocol in December 1997. In that situation all 10 provinces
met essentially for the first time to coalesce and build a
position with respect to what target and timelines they should
establish and agree to at the Kyoto protocol.
The provinces stepped forward and gave a unified position on
November 12, 1997. The following morning we read in the Globe
and Mail that what was agreed to the previous night was not
necessarily the position the federal government when it goes to
Kyoto. This slapped the provinces square in the face. Then when
the government went to Kyoto the final position it adopted was
drastically different from what it had agreed to on November 12
in Regina, Saskatchewan.
If Bloc Quebecois members are concerned that the federal
government will not consult their provincial partners in making
these decisions, if they are paranoid that the federal government
will take unilateral positions in this regard, I think that
paranoia is justified.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that although the
responsibility for the environment is that of federal and
provincial jurisdictions, we must make no mistake about it. The
federal government needs to take the leadership role in that
regard.
The intent in terms of what the Bloc has proposed, and I think
the government has come to a reasonable compromise on this point
as well, is that the government must offer to consult. It must
seek input for the provinces to advise the government in terms of
what direction it may want to take in an environmental
intervention.
There was a lot of discussion on the part of the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis. I think it is a very prudent situation. The
offer to consult was left open for 60 days. The door is wide
open for 60 days. Once talks begin that would naturally be
continued.
If the provinces do not take the federal government up on the
offer over a two month period on a major environmental
intervention, the federal government has the responsibility to
show leadership.
1225
We will not support the Bloc's amendments in that regard only
because we think the government has a better direction. The Bloc
tabled these amendments and we are discussing them in the House.
Whether it is environmental issues or the Canada health and
social transfer, the government fails to realize that our country
is a partnership, a confederation of all provinces. The
provinces have a valuable role in implementing our laws. They
deserve to have their rightful place at the table and to give
input.
The spirit of the Bloc's amendments are dead-on and justified.
However, the government in this circumstance has ensured that it
must offer to consult with its provincial partners and keep it
open for a period of 60 days. If the provinces do not engage in
it ultimately the federal government will have to take the
leadership role it rightfully must have.
We will be participating further in the debate as we deal with
the other amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will vote against the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois,
because it seems to me there is already an equivalency clause in
the bill that allows every province to show that its legislation
is equivalent to that of the federal government, in which case
the federal act does not apply. To go further than that would
only water down the legislation more than it already is, and
heaven knows it is already rather weak.
I want to quickly go over the issues relating to this
legislation. This act is being targeted, on the one hand, by
people who want to water it down even more for the benefit of
the provinces and, on the other hand, by groups representing the
industry.
The other day, I mentioned about 12 of these groups. The major
industry associations in Canada wrote long letters to the
Canadian government. They said, among other things, that if this
bill is passed as it stood after being reviewed by the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development:
[English]
We would have to shut down wood burning stoves and municipal
incinerators in Newfoundland fishing villages.
[Translation]
The president of Alcan, Mr. Bougie, wrote a letter to the Prime
Minister saying that should the bill be passed as it stood after
being reviewed by the committee, it could force the closure of
all aluminum smelters in Canada.
[English]
The fearmongering has been intense. I will quote from an
article in the National Post of a few days ago by Mrs.
Justyna Laurie-Lean, vice-president of the Mining Association of
Canada. She says that the bill, as it is now, still leaves a lot
of concerns.
[Translation]
And this in spite of the amendments that were passed, that were
proposed and that benefit the industry.
[English]
And that is with a bill we were never particularly enthusiastic
about. We don't see this as having won. We see this as having
lost a lot of ground and regained an inch.
[Translation]
There is an article in the newspaper, not by Mrs. Lean, which
says:
[English]
Industry's biggest complaint centres on language within the
proposed legislation that sets out an explicit government
obligation to protect the environment and human health. Earlier
versions of the bill called on the government to endeavour to
protect the environment.
[Translation]
In fact, this was one of the amendments that we proposed in
committee. It said that, instead of merely endeavouring to
protect the environment and human health, the government should
have an obligation to protect the environment and human health.
Industry is not pleased with this. It is still not satisfied
after all the amendments that were proposed for its benefit and
that reflect what it asked for, in spite of the act.
1230
[English]
There is no conflict, as some of my colleagues have said,
between the environment and business, the environment and the
economy. Quite a few years ago, in 1975, the firm 3M started a
process which they called “3P: pollution prevention pays”.
They can show over the years that they reduced pollution from
their plants by 771 tonnes of effluents, that they saved money
and in fact added to their profit line by over $800 million U.S.
The same is true of Volvo. The same is true of Anheuser-Busch.
The same is true of United Technologies and of several firms
across the globe. The same is true of the Baum industrial
association in Germany. The same is true of The Natural Step in
Sweden. The same is true of many big corporations in Canada and
I agree that many of them, Noranda, Dow and others, have made
great steps forward.
We do not take any quarrel with industry. It is very much to
the contrary. At the same time, what we say is that this bill is
essential for the protection of the environment and human health.
I will quote from a document which gives statistics on the
Environmental Protection Agency of the United States and its
record regarding toxics and toxic waste:
In March '99, the EPA released a series of reports on its
successes in the fiscal year 1998. Enforcement is at near record
highs: 226 new criminal cases and 411 civil cases were launched
in 1998. $92.8 million U.S. in criminal fines and $91.8 million
in civil penalties were assessed, plus $230 million in Superfund
settlements. In addition, EPA reports that its enforcement
actions have led to substantial pollution reductions.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to cite them.
Compare this to what is happening with our devolution. The
federal government devolves to the provinces, which in turn
devolve to industrial associations and others. When we cut back
our budgets on environmental protection, the provinces cut back
even more substantially their budgets.
In the report of the commissioner that my colleague from
Jonquière cited, it is worth noting that in Quebec, which has 40%
of all pulp and paper mills in Canada, totalling 61 mills, there
were 12 mills deficient in 1995, 13 mills in 1996 and 20 mills in
1997. There was one prosecution. Corrective action was supposed
to have been taken, yet Environment Canada was unable to provide
us with any corrective plans.
The commissioner says that Environment Canada should exercise
its enforcement authority where appropriate. He cites further
that in regard to devolution to Saskatchewan and Alberta under
the fisheries act, which is administered by the Department of the
Environment, parliament has no information on the results
achieved by the Saskatchewan and Alberta fisheries act
administrative agreement. He further says that the CEPA annual
reports required by this legislation, which we are talking about
today, have not been deposited for two years.
What we need to do is beef up our legislation, not weaken it.
What we need to do is beef up our regulations, not weaken them.
I think this bill, with the amendments that have been presented,
weaken an already weak bill. To we who believe very strongly in
environmental protection, we felt that Bill C-32, when it reached
the committee, was a compromise in itself. Now it has been
further compromised and further diluted. The Bloc and others
want to dilute it further.
I suggest that we need to reverse all of these amendments that
will weaken the provisions of key elements of the law, such as
inherent toxicity, the precautionary principle, virtual
elimination and others that my colleagues have referred to.
We need to strengthen the pollution prevention plan. We need to
make the bill stronger, not weaker. If any country needs good
environmental protection at this time, it is Canada. The EPA in
the United States goes much further than Canada in the
enforcement and regulation of toxics and toxic waste.
1235
Canada devolves to industry and listens every time there is a
threat of closure. We shake in our boots and we weaken our laws.
We dilute it further when we pass it on to the provinces, which
in turn pass it on to somebody else. The fox is in charge of the
chicken coop.
I suggest to this House that we should defeat all of the
amendments which will weaken the key provisions of this bill,
especially those relating to inherent toxicity, virtual
elimination, the precautionary principle and the dilution of the
powers of both the ministers of the environment and health, as
well as the federal government. I would be happy to support the
bill if this situation was rectified, but, if not, I have very
strong reservations.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-32.
First of all, this tactic by the Liberal government looks to me
like another move towards excessive centralization. The
Liberals' approach is to do what they said they would in the
September 1997 throne speech. They are relentlessly interfering
in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, they are
revealing their incompetence when it comes to the national
environment.
Let us take a brief look at the history of this bill, which
started out as Bill C-77, died on the Order Paper during the
Liberals' first term of office, and returned in 1998 as Bill
C-32.
This is a bill that was not too bad originally but that turned
into a disaster went it was referred to the Standing Committee
on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The bill was
studied over the course of 60 sittings, a precedent in the
history of parliament. During the clause by clause study, 580
amendments were introduced.
The committee passed 160 of them. Had it passed constructive
amendments, those consistent with the Canadian Constitution,
Canada's Constitution, their efforts could have been called
productive. But all these amendments and efforts produced was a
completely unrealistic bill full of holes.
I have no idea where the Liberals get their concept of
environment. Is it a virtual environment? One thing is sure,
and that is that it is difficult to enforce it in real life in
Quebec and in Canada.
The government wants harmonization with the provinces. Under
the initial version of Bill C-32, the government was going to
act. The word act implies action and taking decisions. When we
got to committee, the Liberals said they were unable to act, but
would make an effort to do so.
I am extremely worried when I see this government wanting to
make an effort to do something to harmonize with the provinces.
I have a very vivid recollection of the sad business of the
social union. The Canadian government made an effort to reach
agreement with the ten provinces.
1240
We know what happened: the coalition fell apart, only Quebec
stood its ground. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-32.
The government found another way of delaying things in that it
now wants to create an advisory committee. Again I have to
express my concern in that regard. If we look at this
government's way of consulting, I sometimes wonder if it even
takes the time to read the briefing notes. We only have to look
at what happened with regard to agriculture.
From September to December, all the interested parties were
heard in preparation for the upcoming WTO negotiations.
I do not know if there is a communication problem between the
Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade,
but the whole process was started again from scratch. They have
trouble reading and understanding.
When the government talks about establishing a national advisory
committee, it scares me. Let us take a closer look at what this
committee will do. It will advise the two federal ministers on
regulations to be made, on the management of toxic substances
and on other matters of mutual interest.
The provinces will advise the federal minister—listen
carefully—through the national advisory committee. A tradition
exists, but, once again, it has been broken by this government.
As we saw in the case of the millennium scholarship fund, the
government wants to designate public servants or someone from the
private sector to negotiate with elected representatives.
Usually in politics, regardless of the level, negotiations take
place among elected officials. They speak to each other. But
this government has a way of setting up new levels. It has a
hard time understanding. Its operations are so complex and
complicated we can understand that it is establishing another
committee.
With this committee, then, this government will have another
tool with which to totally ignore Quebec and provincial
responsibility for the environment.
Pollution prevention becomes a national objective. The new
legislation also creates a national centre. The farther we go in
Bill C-32 the more we see the word national, and the more we see
provincial responsibilities shrink.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-32 and asks the
government if it really wants a partnership.
The representatives of this government have a hard time
consulting, listening and negotiating. They do not know the
meaning of partnership. They know it will only be pseudo
partnership. But the truth is this is a centralizing government,
that ceaselessly meddles in provincial jurisdictions, whether it
be the environment, education or health. Since this government's
return to office, that is since the 1997 election, all its
actions have focused on centralizing, have served to trample on
the provinces.
This is an arrogant government. It ignores the reality.
It has difficulty reading and understanding the Canadian
Constitution. I am at times tempted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to
give the Liberals a copy of the Canadian Constitution so they
may truly see which areas are under provincial jurisdiction and
which are under federal.
I want to make it clear that my colleagues and I will hound this
government so that it understands Bill C-32 is unacceptable and
constitutes another intrusion into areas of provincial
jurisdiction. We will do everything to defend this jurisdiction,
Quebec and the environment.
1245
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on May 12 I rose in the House to address the first group of
amendments at report stage of Bill C-32. At that time I said
that not only were we dealing with a set of amendments but we
were dealing with a fundamental decision on the direction which
we as parliamentarians will take the country with regard to
environmental health and protection.
As parliamentarians we are entrusted to make decisions that
affect the health and well-being of Canadians. We as
parliamentarians must protect the health and well-being of
Canadians.
I emphasize to the House that Bill C-32 is an act respecting
pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and
human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
The primary function of the bill is to use pollution prevention
measures to protect the environment and human health. This is
seen as a way of contributing to sustainable development and
should not be confused as a sustainable development bill.
Pollution prevention is a stated policy of the government. There
were a few small changes made in committee to encourage the
practice of pollution prevention approaches. However, certain
amendments before the House would result in shifting the bill
away from a pollution prevention approach, for example the
amendments that would add cost effective to the definition of
precautionary principle.
The bill currently reads in the administrative duties section
that the Government of Canada shall exercise its powers in a
manner that protects the environment and human health and shall
apply the precautionary principle that in threats of serious or
irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation and promote and reinforce enforceable
pollution prevention approaches.
The new amendment would change this section to include cost
effective measures to prevent pollution. This weakens the bill
in encouraging effective pollution prevention. It provides more
hurdles to be overcome in order to move on measures to protect
the environment and human health, and it is redundant.
The federal regulatory process management standards compliance
guidelines clearly demand that regulatory protection occurs at
low cost to both the private sector and the government. The
regulatory development process each department undergoes must
include a cost benefit analysis to demonstrate that regulatory
benefits are greater than their cost.
A business impact test or equivalent analysis must be undertaken
to assess the effect of the regulatory proposal on Canadian
business. This amendment is redundant and it is unnecessary for
cost effective to be inserted into the definition of the
precautionary principle.
Even though business and industry have the assurance of a cost
benefit analysis and the business impact test through the
regulatory process guidelines of treasury board, certain
individual lobbyists have mounted an unprecedented assault
against the bill. As my hon. colleague has already mentioned, a
number of very worthy and innovative companies in Canada and
across the globe are doing very well with progressive
environmental management systems.
One of the most important arguments industrial lobbyists seem to
be putting forward is that this is an internationally accepted
version of the precautionary principle and that it should include
cost effectiveness. This is not true. There is no right or
wrong definition of the precautionary principle. In fact there
is no definition at all. Instead there are many articulations of
the principle. Because it is an evolving concept it is an
approach and therefore not static or rigid.
It should also be said that sovereign governments should be free
to articulate the precautionary principle as strongly as they
like. The precautionary principle emerged in Germany and was
translated as a precaution or foresight principle. It was
enunciated as early as 1976 by the federal Government of Germany.
Environmental policy is not fully accomplished by warding off
imminent hazards and the elimination of the damage that has
occurred. Precautionary environmental policy requires that
natural resources are protected and that demands on them are made
with care.
1250
In 1991 the parties to the London dumping convention, and Canada
was one of them, produced a resolution entitled “The Application
of a Precautionary Approach”. Environmental protection was
within the framework of the London dumping convention. It read
that the London dumping convention shall:
There are many examples that the federal government has
undertaken that act in a precautionary way which does not have to
include cost effectiveness. I inform the House that the Nova
Scotia environment act is the first statute in Canada to
expressly adopt the precautionary principle. Section 2(b)(ii)
states:
The precautionary principle will be used in decision making so
that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
the lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation.
I note that Nova Scotia does not include cost effective in its
definition.
Most appalling was that I was told by a group of industrial
lobbyists that given the amount of change made in committee the
focus of the bill had become unacceptable to them because the
bill called upon the government to protect the environment and
human health.
I thought my ears had betrayed me, but, as my hon. and
distinguished colleague just pointed out, the National Post
ran an article in which it said that industry's biggest complaint
centred on language within the proposed legislation that set out
an explicit government obligation to protect the environment and
human health. Earlier versions of the bill called on the
government to endeavour to protect the environment.
These people do not speak for business in Canada. They speak
for a small minority of Canadians. They certainly do not speak
for the public interest. We are not dealing with merely a set of
amendments before the House but rather a fundamental direction of
how we will manage environmental toxins and how we will protect
the health of Canadians.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will expand on what my hon. colleague said earlier about
children's health and how crucial it is for us to take the
responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure the environment
and our health are the highest priorities.
We cannot sleep at night and wake up in the morning without
giving thanks to what was given to us, the gifts of the Creator
such as our children and grandchildren. For us to hold the title
of noble ancestors we need generations that will follow us. If we
make mistakes now and do not clean up our act we will not be
noble ancestors. We will be like dinosaurs.
Future generations might try to find some fossil fuel in our
humble organisms some ions into the future. In the meantime our
job is to take care of our future, our children and our health.
I must highlight the comments of hon. members in the Bloc who
put a spotlight on jurisdictional issues in the environment.
They were quick to look at the rights of the provincial
jurisdictions and to have first right opportunities, but we have
to take responsibility for the entire nation of Canada. We
cannot do it in a balkanized situation or look at it
individually.
1255
We have many good examples coming from the province of Quebec
and from other provinces, but equally there are bad examples
coming from certain provinces. I would highlight the province of
Ontario, in which the national capital is located. The present
provincial government has been a guiding light in proving what
can go wrong with provincial responsibilities on environment.
The issue of environmental jurisdictions has not been clarified
under the Constitution. The constitutional responsibilities of
environment are assumed under peace, order and good government,
under the concept of governing the country. Under the good
government concept environment is a responsibility, but the
provinces are quick to jump. The resource transfer act has also
devolved environmental responsibility with the resources of the
country.
The issue of the environment in the Constitution requires
evolution. We will have to address it at some point in time. We
need a strong national position on the protection of the
environment. This is where CEPA plays a major role. We need
federal and national measures. We need standards and enforcement
measures which protect the future of the country and future
generations.
As part of the ongoing saga of the Liberal cabinet and its
leaders and its ministers, one of the guiding lights has been the
harmonization in making agreements with the provinces to deal
with environmental issues. However industry and business
representatives wanted one-stop shopping. They wanted to go to
Walmart to purchase all their pharmaceuticals, dry goods, a
McDonald's burger, food, shoes and a new jacket under one roof.
Unfortunately that is not the way federalism has worked in the
history of the country. We respect federal and provincial
jurisdictions and give duly required applications, assessments
and reviews under certain jurisdictions.
The industry wants one-stop shopping and to accommodate this the
CCME, of which the environment minister is the lead minister,
created the harmonization accord to look at overlaps which deal
with environmental regulations.
Just this past week Mr. Emmett, Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development, stated that the harmonization
initiatives were well intended but were not working. Nobody is
implementing these issues. Nobody is looking at what overlaps
need to be addressed.
The witnesses the committee heard from indicated that there were
major gaps among municipal, provincial and federal governments
with regard to environmental responsibilities. One example to
get the harmonization accord going was to get federal-provincial
committees in place to design management agreements. They were
never established. The actions suggested by the finance minister
and the Prime Minister in press releases were all well and good
but were nothing but intentions.
The program review by the Liberal government and the finance
minister gutted environmental departments. Provincial
governments have been affected by transfer payment cuts by the
federal government, which resulted in further cuts affecting
environmental departments at the provincial level. The federal
cuts and provincial cuts are diminishing the environmental
protection of the country as a whole. This has to be addressed
immediately.
The commissioner confirmed our committee findings last year that
the harmonization accord must not go forward without additional
resources and a clear goal. It cannot be done for fiscal
responsibilities.
Part of the fiscal measures have come about under CEPA. The
government and the minister proposed in the draft of the
precautionary principle that cost effective measures would play a
major role. When looking at the protection of our environment we
have to be cost conscious.
1300
This issue was deleted by committee process, that under the
precautionary principle if there is a lack of scientific
evidence, that measures will be taken to protect our environment
and our health. I guess under industry's lobby and highlighting
the Reform Party as well, the Liberal cabinet has condoned
amendments to bring back cost effective when taking measures to
protect our environment and our health. That is totally contrary
to the essence of the title of the bill. It is totally contrary
to what Canadians expect as the government's responsibility. This
is the time for us to prevent pollution, not to control and
manage pollution. This is the time to prevent pollution.
The lack of enforcement is the other issue. This will come into
play in future budgets. I want all Canadians to realize that
there is an existing CEPA. There is a Canadian Environmental
Protection Act in place and in effect as we speak.
Bill C-32 is the new bill. Under this new bill there are
additional responsibilities for enforcement officers. There are
additional responsibilities for enforcement. There are
additional responsibilities in tracking and listing the toxic
substances of this country. All these additional
responsibilities are added to the environment minister's
department but there are no new resources given for enforcement.
Well and fine, the government says it has $40 million to review
the assessment of 23,000 toxic substances under the lists, but
that is just doing the homework. That is just filling in the
lists and putting them in filing cabinets in the right place
where they should be. To enforce this on industries, on
communities and make sure that the polluters are abiding by these
laws there are no new additional resources.
There are new responsibilities but no resources. The whole
guiding light of the minister has been on finances. In saying
program review, it should have been financial review. Programs
should have a special review in terms of what the ability, the
service and the intention of each department is. Inevitably it
has been a financial review to find out in which departments the
government can make cutbacks to come out of the deficit and go
toward a surplus situation.
I want to highlight as well that provincial responsibilities
have not been followed through especially in Ontario. The Harris
provincial government has proven that under its own program
review. It has made cutbacks in its inspections and in its
environmental assessments.
At one time we said that the industrial revolution really
capitalized under the United States and Canada was a pristine,
clean and environmentally conscious country. Now we hear that
Ontario is running first, second and third, running for first
place as the highest polluter in North America. That is a sad
situation.
We must look in our own backyard. We cannot take our
hinterland, our wilderness, our wildlife, our ecosystem, our
biodiversity and our children's health for granted. We must work
at what we do today. We must clean up our house, throw away our
garbage, respect the food we eat, the water we drink and respect
all the good things that are given to us. If we have disrespect,
that disrespect will come around and it is what we will end up
with. It may not affect us because our life cycle is a lot
shorter, but the children to come have a future to look forward
to and that is our responsibility.
In some provinces the financial responsibilities have certainly
been backfilled in terms of housing and environmental
responsibilities and highway repairs. In these responsibilities
there has been an effort in some provinces and territories but
there are bad apples to be taken care of.
It is a federal responsibility to ensure that all Canadians are
protected under CEPA.
1305
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill under consitderation today is part of a continuum.
Tirelessly, unrelentingly, this government pursues the same two
objectives with each bill it introduces: first of all, nibbling
away at the constitutional powers of the provinces, and second,
making money.
Bill C-32 is a wonderful illustration and demonstration, as if
one were needed, of this dual obsessive propensity of the
Liberals to make political hay by centralizing within their
hands as much power and money as possible, with an absolute
disdain for the interests of the people.
I will start by speaking of the intrusion into the
constitutional powers of the provinces.
Everyone knows that the environment is a shared federal and
provincial jurisdiction. Starting right with the preamble to
the bill, the division of powers relating to the environment is
as follows: Ottawa has the power to decide, the provinces the
power to implement. Am I exaggerating? Let the hon. members
listen to the following. This is taken from the preamble:
Whereas the Government of Canada will continue to demonstrate
national leadership in establishing environmental standards—
Here we go again with the same old Trojan Horse of national
standards.
Members are still not convinced? Let us continue, with clause
2, which reads “the federal government must endeavour”—I repeat,
endeavour—“to act in cooperation with governments to protect the
environment”. Endeavour, not act, just try to act.
We can trust the government not to go out of its way to
endeavour to co-operate with the provinces. We want to get rid of
this too convenient term, endeavour.
These two examples illustrate the federal government's firm
resolve to confine the provinces to the humble role of carrying
out its orders.
My second point is that the bill will be used to increase
government revenues, at the expense of the public interest.
To illustrate my point, I will now read clause 185:
(1) No person shall import, export or convey in transit a hazardous
waste or hazardous recyclable material, or prescribed
non-hazardous waste for final disposal, except
Who will pay the prescribed fee? The Canadian company that
imports the waste to process it.
Do not tell us that it is appropriate, for reasons of safety, to
raise barriers against the transborder movement of hazardous
waste in Canada, and that it is the reason for this provision.
The industry that processes the waste is an important factor. It
plays a critical role in the protection of the environment.
Obviously, the survival of the industry depends on the volume of
waste it processes. The efficiency and performance of the Sablex
plant, in Blainville, not to mention the attention it pays to
safety, are recognized worldwide by those concerned. This
company processes and must process waste from the United States
to ensure its profitability.
Its profitability will be jeopardized if it must add fees paid
at the border to its other charges.
Increasing the financial burden borne by the hazardous waste
industry will obviously lead to an increase in the rates the
industry charges its customers. Higher rates mean a higher risk
certain unscrupulous businesses that generate this kind of waste
will avoid having them processed by dumping them God knows
where.
Therefore fees on waste imported for processing is working
against the environment. It is unconscionable and makes no sense
to find such a provision in a bill on, precisely, environmental
protection.
One could understand that fees be levied on waste bound, let us
say, for a province where the movement of these substances is
not governed by legislation—I do not even know if such a province
exists—which would make it desirable to curtail their
importation. But this is certainly not the case in Quebec where
we have such legislation.
1310
Our amendment to clause 185 therefore does not seek to eliminate
these fees, but to exempt from them these substances bound for a
province where such legislation exists. The amendment reads as
follows:
(1.1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, exempt from the
application of subsection (1)—
That is exempt from the fees.
I have no doubt my colleagues from every party recognize the
advisability of the amendment introduced by my colleague for
Jonquière, our party's environment critic.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we
are speaking about Bill C-32, which deals with protection of the
environment.
When I speak of the environment, I always think of the
aboriginal saying that we do not inherit the planet from our
parents, but rather we borrow it from our children. Any
discussion of the environment and its protection is an attempt
to create links with others, not just today but in the future as
well. The harm we do to the planet now will have repercussions
during our children's lives. I think it is always important to
keep this in mind.
Governments can come up with as many
wonderful bills as they want to protect it, but they must always
start with individual citizens.
There must be good public awareness and education regarding
protection of the environment.
There are very specific examples in my riding, including the
zone known as ZIP. Many people from the community and from
various sectors have joined forces to clean up a tiny river.
This is just one example, but it gives me great hope to know
that, although this river was polluted in the past, I may one
day be able to swim in it, thanks to the efforts of these
individuals. Five years ago, this would have been completely
unthinkable, and today I can look forward to this area in my
riding being cleaned up.
I have begun on a very positive and enthusiastic note, but there
is a long way to go.
When I look at everything going on in the world today with
regard to the environment, I think our planet is sick and we
must continue to work hard to set environmental rules that will
help us protect the environment.
We hear more and more about the globalization of economies, a
subject I am very interested in. Businesses and large
corporations that have to decide in which country they will
locate are often attracted by tax benefits. However, we have to
look at the environmental benefits that some countries might
offer large corporations. For short term gains and for job
creation, some governments in the world could be tempted to
relax their environmental regulations, and if there is one area
where globalization already exists, it is certainly the
environment.
The members who spoke this morning are all well intentioned and
they probably agree with what I just said about protecting the
environment. The reason I am speaking to Bill C-32 today is to
discuss the approach we will use to protect the environment.
I was a little bit surprised today to hear members, even on the
government side, express concern about this bill not being tough
enough. I find it interesting. As I said earlier, it is always a
challenge, with regard to the environment, to reconcile economic
interests with environmental interests, in other words, to try
to have a long term vision.
I will now try to summarize Bill C-32. With this bill, pollution
prevention will become a national objective.
This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It
contains provisions to implement pollution prevention, new
procedures for the investigation and assessment of substances
and new requirements with respect to substances that the
Department of the Environment and the Department of Health have
determined to be toxic.
1315
The list of these substances is very extensive. The bill
provides new powers for investigators and new mechanisms to deal
with offences. It also specifies criteria for courts to consider
for sentencing.
In addition, like the provinces and territories, aboriginal
governments are provided the right of representation on the
national advisory committee. And therein lies the problem.
Environment is said to be a federal-provincial matter. We are
used to rise in this House to decry the behaviour of the current
federal government, which wants to keep all the powers for
itself and leave the provinces only with a advisory role.
To want to protect human health, to want to protect the
environment is quite worthy. But today, I am opposed to the way
the government wants to proceed. And this is why the Bloc
Quebecois had to put some amendments forward.
Earlier, I gave very concrete examples of what some of my
constituents did to set up community projects in order to
protect the environment. Environmental protection starts at the
grassroots level to hopefully reach the highest levels of
government.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, believe that the governments closest
to the people are in the best position to make environmental
regulations that meet the needs of the citizens. I think this is
true. The closer one
is to the people, the better one can meet their needs. This only
makes sense.
I regret that, in this bill, the government is ignoring the
provinces, as in many other pieces of legislation.
Once again, there is the temptation to centralize power in this
country. Then they wonder why political parties or individuals
in Quebec, or even elsewhere in Canada, are anxious for
independence. These are challenges here to which we must
respond.
The Bloc Quebecois amendments introduced by my hon. colleague
for Jonquière, whose riding next to mine, propose deletion of
the part of the preamble which sets out national environmental
standards and national codes of practice relating to ecosystems
and environmental quality. Since the environment is not a
solely federal jurisdiction, this is unacceptable to us.
We also wish to delete the references in the preamble to the
presence of toxic substances, which is treated as a matter of
national interest.
Once again, the federal government is looking for an excuse to
meddle in the environment from coast to coast.
We are therefore calling upon the government to amend the
preamble so that Quebec may speak for itself internationally
when its interests are at stake. This amendment fits in with
Quebec's determination to speak for itself internationally when
its interests are at stake, particularly in the areas of
culture, education, health and the environment.
Among the amendments proposed for paragraph 2(1)(d), we wish to
delete the words endeavour to in reference to the federal
government's acting in co-operation with the provinces. This
strikes me as a strange agreement, when the federal is described
as having to endeavour to do something. This is a somewhat
relative term. I believe everyone has his own definition of how
much effort this entails.
Having regularly witnessed the federal government's behaviour,
I wonder how much effort this government will put into
endeavouring to co-operate with the provinces. Will mere
consultations be considered an appropriate effort? I doubt it.
We are asking the government to delete the provision in clause
2(1)(g) on the establishment of nationally consistent standards
of environmental quality, because such standards adversely
affect our specificity.
In the case of clause 2(1)(l), we are proposing that the term
endeavour be deleted, again to make sure the federal government
will act in the spirit of the intergovernmental agreements
reached with the provinces regarding the environment.
1320
This amendment would not leave any possibility for this
government to shirk its responsibility.
I could go on and on, but I think and hope that all the members
of this House share the same goal, which is to set adequate
rules to protect the environment.
The Bloc Quebecois' opposition today, expressed through
constructive additions and amendments, is simply about how the
environmental reality will be dealt with through consultations
and committees, in which the provinces, which are closer to the
public, will have their say, being fully aware of what is really
going on.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the
report stage debate on Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, 1999.
This bill is a clear example of this federal government's
contempt for the Canadian federal system. If we look at the
respective responsibilities set out in the Constitution with
regard to environmental matters, the federal government has
chosen to ignore provincial responsibilities and, ironically
enough, it is Quebec sovereignists who are forced to take a stand
and defend the Constitution.
It is important to make things clear. With regard to the
environment, people's first reaction is to say that
environmental measures are necessary to protect the quality of
our environment.
However, it is also our responsibility to make sure that this is
done by the right level of government.
In a model that respected Canadian federalism, the federal
government would have fulfilled part of its responsibilities in
co-operation with the provinces. It would have developed a
consensus with them so that any federal legislation to be
adopted in this area would be in line with the provinces'
actions. It would have allowed any province that wanted to
assume full responsibility to do so. And if other provinces
wanted to delegate this responsibility to the federal
government, they could have done so as well. But this is not
what is happening.
The federal government has decided to interfere in an area where
Quebec has already assumed some responsibility. This will create
duplication again.
What Quebecers dislike the most is that both governments are
operating in the same field. This has major economic
repercussions.
In the pulp and paper industry, for example, or in any
industrial sector, just imagine what it will be like for
businesses to submit two reports in order to comply with federal
and provincial legislation. This involves additional costs.
There is even an adverse effect that environmental groups have
not perhaps thought of. Businesses will develop an aversion to
all environmental protection measures, not necessarily because
they are bad measures individually, but because their businesses
will have been hampered by the presence of both levels of
government in the same sectors.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois has moved a series of amendments
today. The member for Jonquière is consistent with what Quebec
has defended for many years in order to ensure respect for its
jurisdiction, but also in order to ensure that the economic
stakeholders can operate in the context of the maximum
productivity and effectiveness consistent with adequate
environmental regulations.
The federal government has upset the apple cart by deciding to
charge right in without considering the effects on the economy
as a whole.
It is handling the reduction of greenhouse gases the same way.
Regulations already exist. We will find ourselves in a maze of
contradicting regulations.
Five or ten years from now, we may find ourselves in the same
situation we were in recently, short of our international
commitments because, instead of doing something about those
aspects of environmental policy that are indeed its business,
the federal government preferred to meddle in other
jurisdictions.
1325
Report stage gives the government a fine opportunity to accept
the Bloc's amendments and to act not as a unitary, centralizing
state but as a real federal state respecting the jurisdictions
of all partners. It could then take into account what already
exists at the provincial level and ensure that there is no
duplication.
Environmental groups feel that, when promoting a clean
environment and trying to bring industries to accept reasonable
standards, there has to be a consensus within the community. But
if there is one consensus, it is that too much government is not
a good thing.
In any area, one level of government is enough, if we want to
have a good relationship and partnership with companies. Two
levels of government need not be involved in the protection of
the environment, especially if this means that regulations would
be developed behind closed doors and that businesses would have
to make representations at both levels to ensure that the
decisions made are appropriate.
Some argued, for example, that there would be a double safety
net, but in the final analysis, this could be dangerous. Would
it not be simpler to clearly define who should do what? Then we
could hold the responsible level of government accountable for
the results it has achieved instead of having the two levels of
government accusing each other of adversely affecting results by
their respective actions or by imposing an inefficient system.
The aim of the amendments we introduced is to have this
legislation conform to the Canadian federal system and respect
the responsibilities of the provinces. Thus, having assumed a
certain leadership, provinces which have regulations will be
able to continue to implement them, improve them, make them
comprehensive and thus avoid what has happened in the other
sectors, namely the useless overlap of federal and provincial
governments.
It is rather surprising that, after all these years of criticism
of overlap, we discover that in many sectors, the federal
government is once again firing up its steamroller to make
Canada a single model, despite the many failures it has met in
the past.
Let us look at fish management policies for a moment.
It was under federal government jurisdiction, but through
standard application, through the—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think the member has a prop. This is contrary to the standing
orders of the House of Commons. He has something under his
papers.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I saw nothing, except the hon.
member's notes. If he has a prop, I am sure he will not show it.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, it is my day planner.
We are here to deal with the Environmental Protection Act
because the federal government decided to intervene in a sector
that is not under its jurisdiction, to increase overlap.
I was using fisheries as an example, a sector where the federal
government had intervened with catastrophic results. Today, we
no longer know what fish stocks there are. This has certainly
caused a disruption in major fishing communities in Canada.
There are lessons to be drawn from an example such as this one
and from many others so the federal government will pay
attention to our amendments and agree to incorporate them in the
bill to make it more acceptable and in keeping with the Canadian
Constitution.
1330
I find it quite unbelievable that we have to defend this point
of view. The federal government is acting precisely as if there
were only one jurisdiction in Canada, a central, single
government, as if it could decide for all of the provincial
governments. They would be seen as mere administrations and not
entities responsible to those who elected them. This is how
things would be done throughout the country.
We have to keep reminding the government that it does not have
full responsibility in each and every area of jurisdiction.
They should be humble enough to accept this and to agree to
redevelop a consensus model with the provinces, even though it
could take a little more time to build something solid. At some
point, we need to get interesting results at the international
level.
Let me conclude by saying that, if the federal government wants
to show that it fully respects everyone's areas of jurisdiction,
first, it should accept our amendments. Second, it should invite
provincial premiers to take part in international environmental
summits to present the results they have so far, instead of
maintaining that, as the only government, it has complete and
full responsibility in this matter, which is not true. The
government is violating the very constitution it claims to
protect.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure and great concern that I stand today to speak to a very
important bill, Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention
and the protection of the environment and human health in order
to contribute to sustainable development.
I am very much aware of environmental issues, having been the
Bloc Quebecois' environment critic from 1995 to 1997. I am
therefore very much interested in environmental issues debated
in the House.
All the more so that in the last Parliament and especially in
1995, I had the opportunity to participate, as a member of the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development,
in the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, also
called CEPA.
After hearing the witnesses who came before the committee, I and
other members were appalled by the seriousness of issues raised
by witnesses and by the urgent need to develop realistic and
viable solutions to fix the CEPA.
The problems in the act are of several types. One has only to
think of the double safety net, duplication of responsibilities
with provinces and the constant tendency of this government to
centralize all powers and deal with provinces as second class
entities.
Thus it is for those reasons, among others, that the Bloc
Quebecois felt compelled to table a dissenting opinion in the
report entitled It's About Our Health: Pollution Prevention.
As the old saying goes, it's six of one and half a dozen of the
other. It is as though we are still in 1995 debating Bill C-74
that died on the order paper during the last Parliament. What a
glaring example of the do-nothing attitude of this federal
government. It is appalling.
Let us look more closely at Bill C-32 and we will see why it is
so inappropriate and centralizing. You can count on me to
demonstrate it.
What it is important to know about this bill is that it replaces
the Environmental Protection Act. With Bill C-32 preventing
pollution becomes a national objective, as if the provinces and
Quebec were incapable of protecting their environment.
When I think of the Kyoto treaty, there is room for doubt about
the federal government's policies and great national intentions.
We shall get back to that a bit later.
The main objective of Bill C-32 is to replace the
federal-provincial CEPA committee with a new national advisory
committee. This will advise the federal government on drawing
up regulations, managing toxic substances, and other issues of
mutual interest.
Second, Bill C-32 puts in place a framework of action which
assigns the ability to require planning of pollution prevention
in connection with the substances declared toxic according to
CEPA.
1335
Thus pollution prevention also becomes a national objective, as
does the creation of a national pollution prevention information
clearing-house.
As well, where biotechnology is concerned, the bill establishes
a federal safety net, as well as the authority to implement
regulations aimed at the safe use of biotechnology.
As for protection of our water, the bill is aimed at protecting
the marine environment from pollution sources on land or in the
atmosphere. Bill C-32 will beef up the authority of CEPA
concerning the regulation of fuels and fuel additives.
The bill will give the government the authority to establish
national fuels marks. To protect the atmosphere, Bill C-32
provides for the establishment of national marks for emissions
meeting the standards. It contains provisions to limit emissions
from motor vehicles in general, including pleasure craft,
construction equipment, farm machinery, snow blowers and lawn
mowers. Also, the bill gives the federal government more control
over the transborder movement of hazardous and non-hazardous
waste, including household garbage.
As my second last point, I will say that aboriginal peoples are
represented on a national advisory committee, as the provinces
and the territories. They will have the same rights and
responsibilities as provincial and territorial governments.
Finally, there will be a greater input from and greater
protection of members of the public acting as whistleblowers
regarding violations of the CEPA.
The Liberals have often used the environment as the perfect
example of progressive, open and decentralized federalism. If I
may, I will quote the Prime Minister of Canada, from the
February 27, 1996 throne speech:
The federal government will propose to the provinces a much
strengthened process to work in partnership, focussing on such
priorities as...environmental management—
The bill talks about a national committee, national goals, a
national centre, a federal net, and so on and so forth. What
became of the provinces in this bill?
Let us be clear: Although in theory Bill C-32 recognizes that
responsibility for the environment is shared between the federal
government and the provinces, in practice it delegates no powers
to them, including Quebec, and this runs counter to real
environmental harmonization between the various levels of
government. Bill C-32 aims at strengthening the federal
government's preponderance in the field of environmental
protection.
Therefore, it is easy to understand why the Quebec minister of
the environment has always refused to sign the January 29, 1998
environmental harmonization agreement of the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment.
The purpose of that agreement was to improve the protection of
the environment in the context of sustainable development, while
respecting the jurisdictions of each government.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between
the federal and provincial governments when it would serve to
eliminate administrative and legislative overlap and duplication
between two levels of government.
Considering the contents of the environmental harmonization
agreement and of Bill C-32, it is crystal clear that the federal
government does not want to acknowledge its own constitution,
which states that the environment is an exclusive or primary
jurisdiction of the provinces.
How can this government claim to be in a better position than
the provinces to protect the environment of Quebecers? Let us
see what the federal government has done to our environment
following the Kyoto agreement. Let us also look at what Quebec
has done to eliminate greenhouse gases, by comparison to the
federal government.
At the Rio summit in 1992, 154 countries, including Canada,
signed the UN framework agreement on climatic change, thereby
undertaking to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990
levels by the year 2000. Seen at the time as a leader and
champion in eliminating greenhouse gases, Canada has now lost
all credibility.
1340
Even Canada's environment ambassador, John Fraser, quite rightly
had very harsh words for this government and its greenhouse gas
policies; he accused it of lacking conviction and leadership.
This is a disaster.
By the year 2000, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will have
increased by 13%. How are we to explain this, when the federal
Liberal government made a commitment in Rio to stabilize its
emissions during this decade and then progressively reduce them?
Let us talk about this reduction: 3% up until 2010. That is
how concerned this government is about the environment. Not.
It is therefore obvious that the federal government wants to use
Bill C-32 to substantially increase its environmental powers
when, under the Constitution, environment is a jurisdiction that
is shared by various levels of government.
Through its paternalistic and centralizing attitude, this
government is trying to relegate the provinces to a back seat.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice but to
vote against the bill.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this
day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put,
and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 3.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the motions in Group
No. 3 are deemed to have been moved and seconded. This group
contains Motions Nos. 6, 7, 137 to 139, and 148 to 150.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I need some clarification. Are we not voting on the motions in
Group No. 2 at this time?
The Deputy Speaker: No. Because of the order adopted earlier
today, it has been decided that all motions are deemed to have
been moved, and that a recorded division is deemed to have been
demanded and deferred.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
45 to 48 on page 2 and lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the
following:
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines
46 to 48 on page 2 and line 1 on page 3 with the following:
“trol and management of the risk of any adverse effects of the
use and release of toxic substances, pollutants and wastes, and
the virtual elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic
substances;
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need to protect
the environment, including its biological diversity, and human
health, by ensuring the safe and effective use of
biotechnology;”
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended
“(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section,
the Governor in Council is responsible for”
(b) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 79 with the following:
“(a) if the Governor in Council determines that the”
(c) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:
“made under that Act, the Governor in Council”
(d) by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 79 with the following:
“(b) if the Governor in Council determines that the”
(e) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page
79 with the following:
“ule 4, the Governor in council may by order delete”
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended
by replacing lines 40 to 45 on page 78 and lines 1 to 21 on page
79 with the following:
“(7) For the purposes of the administration of this section,
the Governor in Council has the exclusive responsibility for
determining whether or not the requirements referred to in
paragraph (6)(a) are met by or under an Act of Parliament
referred to in that paragraph, or regulations made under that
Act, and
(a) if the Governor in Council determines that the requirements
referred to in paragraph (6)(a) are met by or under an Act of
Parliament referred to in that paragraph, or regulations made
under that Act, the Governor in Council may by order add to
Schedule 4 the name of that Act or those regulations, as the case
may be, and the fact that an Act or regulations are listed in
Schedule 4 is conclusive proof that the requirements referred to
in paragraph (6)(a) are met; and
(b) if the Governor in Council determines that the requirements
referred to in paragraph (6)(a) are no longer met by or under an
Act of Parliament, or regulations, listed in Schedule 4, the
Governor in Council may by order delete from Schedule 4 the name
of that Act or those regulations, as the case may be."
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 106, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 41 to 45 on page 78 and lines 1 to 4 on
page 79 with the following:
“this section, the Ministers and the minister responsible for
the other Act referred to in paragraph (6)(a) are responsible
for determining whether or not the requirements referred to in
that paragraph are met by that other Act or regulations made
under that Act, and (a) if the Ministers and that other
minister determine that the”
(b) by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 79 with the following:
“made under that Act, the Ministers and that other minister”
(c) by replacing, in the English version, lines 13 and 14 on page
79 with the following:
“(b) if the Ministers and that other minister determine that
the”
(d) by replacing, in the English version, lines 18 and 19 on page
79 with the following:
“ule 4, the Ministers and that other minister may by order
delete”
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended
by replacing lines 6 to 17 on page 87 with the following:
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6
to 17 on page 87 with the following:
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 115, be amended by replacing lines 6
and 7 on page 87 with the following:
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Group
No. 3 amendments deal primarily with biotechnology. As a result
of the amendments that were made by the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development during the clause by
clause process, the preamble now references products of
biotechnology.
For greater clarity, government Motion No. 7 retains this
reference but places it in a separate statement within the
preamble. This provision recognizes the need to protect the
environment by providing for the safe and effective use of
products of biotechnology.
A couple of other motions focus on avoiding duplication when it
comes to biotechnology. Assessment and control of products of
biotechnology fall under several laws, including CEPA, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Bill C-32 includes provisions to ensure that actions taken under
other laws are not duplicated by CEPA. It operates on the
principle that other laws must provide sufficient protection for
the environment and human health. Government motions to amend
the biotechnology part of Bill C-32 are consistent with this
approach of using CEPA to ensure the protection of the
environment and human health.
With regard to the opposition motions, let me say that all
ministers in the government have responsibility for the
environment. A key point, however, is that CEPA sets the
standard for biotechnology. Other acts must assess for toxicity
to determine if new products of biotechnology have the potential
to harm the environment or human health. Several pieces of
federal legislation govern products of biotechnology and
expertise is shared across several departments. As such, it only
makes sense to put decision making related to the use of CEPA in
the hands of the governor in council.
1345
Ironically, PC motions in this area seek to adopt a decision
making model that was deleted by the standing committee because
of the concern that it might create unnecessary delays or prevent
action. I urge all members of the House to support the motions
in Group No. 3 that are government motions and to vote against
the PC motions that will come before us sometime next week.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
proposed amendment to the preamble is also of some importance. It
ought to be elaborated on in a more balanced way because the
insertion of the word risk in the preamble certainly raises some
important and difficult questions.
This is an amendment that was not discussed in committee. It is
a very recent initiative. It did not receive the full discussion
that an amendment of this importance ought to receive considering
that whatever is included in the preamble provides guidance for
those who will interpret the legislation no matter what the name
of the legislation may be.
There are some who say that the insertion of the word risk would
strengthen this clause of the preamble because it would call for
action where there are potential adverse effects or risks and not
just actual adverse effects. That may well be so, but there is
also another interpretation which should encourage us to be
cautious before supporting this kind of amendment.
It is quite possible because of the element of surprise attached
to this motion that it was proposed by industry without a proper
discussion in committee, as I said. It is quite possible that by
including the word risk in the preamble the government would not
be able to act quickly to eliminate harmful substances. It is
therefore an initiative that is part of a broader offensive so to
speak, by lobbyists that represent a specific sector but who do
not take into account the main thrust and purpose of this bill
which is to prevent pollution and to protect human health.
Risk assessment is part of the government policy. It is
elaborated on in the toxic substances management policy. In that
policy, risk assessment is dealt with in a quite satisfactory
manner. It is a policy that the government adopted in 1995. I
am afraid that by inserting this terminology in the preamble the
effectiveness of the toxic substances management policy would be
superseded or weakened by this initiative.
As has probably been understood by the thrust of this debate, we
want to strengthen and enhance pollution prevention.
We want to use this piece of legislation as the only strong piece
of legislation that actually protects human health from toxic
substances. There is none other available in the arsenal of
legislation the federal government has passed on behalf of
Canadians.
1350
It is a motion that somehow puts aside the long deliberations
and discussions that took place in committee as was mentioned
earlier by an hon. member. It is rather disturbing considering
that this bill was in committee for such a long time that an
amendment is put forward here that was not the subject of
deliberations in committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will share the sense of dismay and
disappointment at this kind of procedure. After all we have a
well organized system under the roof of this parliament. We send
bills to committee for deliberation, examination, study and
possible improvements. That is what we did.
As parliamentarians from all parties, we do not look favourably
to those initiatives whereby an amendment is proposed out of the
blue so to speak, which may have some serious implications. Also
the jury is not in yet because this bill is not yet in place.
This in a way bypasses the system. It is a practice that ought to
be discouraged, Mr. Speaker, and it is my duty to bring it to
your attention.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to this group of amendments. I hope I can hold the
bill; it is not a prop, I just want to use it to highlight the
clause on which I want to focus.
In Bill C-32 the preamble states the whole spirit and intent of
the bill. When we deal with the Group No. 3 amendments that have
come forward, I would like to highlight that with Motions Nos. 6
and 7 there is a kind of tag team between the Reform Party and
the Liberal cabinet on behalf of the minister. They have brought
forward two amendments that are quite detrimental to the
protection of our environment and our health in the future.
The motion deals with a preamble that states in part:
Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats
to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control
and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of
toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other
wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and
bioaccumulative toxic substances;
Reform is releasing and completely taking away the whole aspect
of virtual elimination of these toxic substances and highlighting
the topic of control and management of pollution.
I would like to inform the House of another preamble. These go
hand in hand. Obviously the minister and the Reform members who
brought these motions forward together have had some guidance
from somebody. In a previous motion, the government acknowledges
the need to phase out the generation and use of the most
persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances and the need to
control and manage pollutants and waste that were released in the
environment.
What I am saying is that this bill and the government should be
phasing out pollutants that are toxic and harmful to our health
and our environment. We have to phase these out. I beg that
members of all parties would listen to this. We need to take
pollution out of our environment, not to control and manage it.
1355
The two motions brought forward by the Reform and the minister
are that we continue to control and manage pollution. Let us
stop doing that. Let us look at phasing out the pollution,
getting the poison out of our air, land and water and making a
safe environment for the future.
This group of amendments is not a surprise. Through the
committee process we tackled hard and strong to strengthen Bill
C-32. These two amendments focus on the preamble. I highlight
that for all members in the House and for Canadians listening to
make sure that everyone is aware that these amendments could be a
detriment to the existing structure of the CEPA.
The other issue that comes into play in this grouping is
biodiversity and the whole issue of biotechnology. The products
of biotechnology are highlighted in this group of amendments. The
amendments ask that the exclusive responsibility of biotechnology
and the products of biotechnology in the country be given to the
governor in council. This removes the responsibilities that the
Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have in terms of duties and
roles under the act and gives them to the governor in council.
Biotechnology was highlighted in today's media on the issue of
cloning. Recently we have seen the evidence of cloning and
genetic engineering. We now find that the cloned sheep Dolly has
genes and cells that are a detriment and have been deteriorating
right from when she was first cloned. Future generations of hers
will not exist after the sixth generation. There is scientific
evidence that her cells will diminish to the point that she will
not be able to reproduce.
That is the essence of the human health and environmental
concerns. Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating my time is up so
I will continue my speech later.
The Speaker: Yes, my colleague, it seems like an
appropriate time. You still have five minutes and you will have
the floor when we return to debate. Now we will proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FRED SABATINE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Cambridge's only known surviving first world war veteran, Mr.
Fred Sabatine, will be celebrating his 100th birthday on May 28.
Mr. Sabatine enlisted at the age of 15 and served with the 43rd
Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in France and
Belgium. He fought at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, regarded by many
historians as a defining event in the making of our nation, and
went on to earn the British War and Victory medals.
Mr. Sabatine experienced all the horrors and hardships
associated with the Great War, including direct exposure to
mustard gas which damaged his lungs. The sacrifices made for
Canada's freedom by Mr. Sabatine's generation are beyond
description.
I am honoured and privileged to express my deepest thanks on
behalf of all Canadians to Mr. Sabatine and wish him a happy
birthday. God bless you, Fred.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has raised taxes 60 times and has increased revenues
by $40 billion yet at the same time it has cut millions from the
RCMP budget.
Now there are only five vessels patrolling the entire coast of
B.C. Patrol vessels in my riding are only operating every second
week.
In Port Alberni two RCMP officers are leaving the detachment and
will not be replaced. Special projects have been terminated. The
three man drug squad has been put into general policing.
Last year all overtime was suspended. A drug squad that was
working on a big case put in so much overtime that they had to
shut them down for over four months because they could not pay
the overtime.
Informants are being paid with cigarettes and IOUs. Now the
sources have dried up because there is simply no more money.
1400
Clearly it is time for the government to make the RCMP a
priority and restore RCMP funding.
* * *
[Translation]
GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in his latest work, Passage obligé: Passeport pour l'ère
nouvelle, Charles Sirois writes the following about a minimum
guaranteed income.
“What if the social safety net were replaced by a protective
net, one that were not intended for a specific category of
citizens but for everyone without distinction? This protection
would take the form of a guaranteed minimum income.
Every person aged 18 and over, rich or poor, male or female,
young or old, would receive on an annual basis a sum of money
corresponding to the strict minimum necessary for food and
housing.
The collective wealth to which all workers and all consumers
contribute, and which the government keeps in its coffers, would
no longer be used to assist certain classes of citizens.
Couples would share in this guaranteed minimum income, as would
students over the age of 18, and seniors as well.”
This is the true formula for abolishing poverty in Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANADA'S WALK OF FAME
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to join all Canadians in congratulating the newest
inductees to Canada's Walk of Fame, whose stars will be unveiled
today during a special ceremony in Toronto. Each one of these
celebrated Canadians has made a significant national and
international contribution in entertainment, culture and sport.
Canada's Walk of Fame is a recognition not of a single
achievement, but of an entire body of work. These stars
represent many of the facets of our cultural life: the evolution
of cinema from the silent films of Mary Pickford to the
futuristic images created by our David Cronenberg; music ranging
from the 1960s protest anthems of Buffy Sainte-Marie to the rock
anthems of Rush. They remind us of the thrill of seeing Rocket
Richard flash across the ice, or of experiencing Céline Dion in
concert. From the intimate family moments we have shared
watching Wayne and Shuster and “our pet” Juliette to the
enjoyment of the film characters created by Hume Cronyn and Lou
Jacobi, each star is a shining example of the talent and
creativity of our great country.
Four more stars will be awarded this year by public nomination.
I encourage all Canadians to participate in selecting the most
famous Canadians who have inspired them through telling our
stories, sharing our hopes and adding sparkle to our lives.
* * *
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate this year's recipients of the Grimsby
and District Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year awards.
Reverend Jim Dowden has been involved in a wide variety of
volunteer tasks and is perhaps best known through his recent work
with Grimsby's hospital action committee where Jim's vision and
endurance were well illustrated.
Jim's ability to enrich the fabric of the community no matter
what he does sets a high standard for community service. His
leadership combines vision and compassion and he is a most
deserving recipient of the Citizen of the Year award.
Michelle Alfieri has been named the junior citizen of the year
for her contribution to a variety of worthwhile causes, including
the Canadian Cancer Society and the West Lincoln Memorial
Hospital. Michelle has juggled her volunteer work with an active
sports schedule and a part time job. All this while maintaining
a grade point average of 90%. She has received early acceptance
from McMaster University where she plans to study biochemical
engineering and medicine.
My best wishes to the recipients.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, right now in southwestern Manitoba farmers are
experiencing the devastating flood runoff from torrential rains
at the worst possible time.
Already faced with low commodity prices and an unworkable
federal aid program, they are seeing their seeding plans
deteriorate as more than two million acres are in danger of not
being planted. That could put the survival of many farms in
serious jeopardy.
Last week I toured some of the affected areas and I was
astounded at the seriousness of the situation. Estimates are
that 3,000 farmers are affected. In fact, nine municipalities
have been declared disaster areas.
If exceptionally warm, dry weather does not occur in the next
couple of weeks, the government had better be prepared to step in
and help these farmers through this crisis, which threatens to be
as devastating as the Red River flood.
* * *
MANUFACTURING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
just a few hours ago an important announcement was made in my
riding of Whitby—Ajax.
The announcement details an innovative training centre and a
number of facility upgrades that are designed to help ease the
critical shortage of highly skilled information technology and
technical workers in Canada. To put this announcement into
context, it has been estimated that the shortage of IT workers in
Canada is between 15,000 and 30,000.
The facility announced this morning will be known as the
Manufacturing and Information Technology Centre and it will be
located at Durham College.
1405
It is also highly noteworthy that Durham College will carry out
this project with significant intellectual and equipment
contributions from Bell Canada, General Motors, IBM and Nortel
Networks.
Durham region is a major player on the manufacturing scene in
Canada and around the world. This area also has the second
fastest growing population in Canada and the second highest per
capita income of the 20 census metropolitan areas in the country.
The importance of MITC for Canada as well as my—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIOR CITIZENS' WEEK
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the occasion of Senior Citizens' Week I wish to pay tribute
during this International Year of Older Persons to all those
seniors who are so generously involved in our society.
An excellent example of their social involvement is the recent
statement by FADOQ, the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, in
favour of the legalization of marijuana for health and medical
purposes. This support was evidence of their open-mindedness and
compassion.
I will take advantage of this opportunity to draw attention to
the fourth global conference on ageing, to be held in Montreal
from September 5 to 9. Organized by the International
Federation on Ageing, this conference will bring together more
than 2,000 seniors, caregivers, decision-makers and associations
serving or representing older adults.
The themes addressed at the conference will, without a doubt,
cast new light on the day to day lives of older persons.
* * *
BOMBARDIER INC.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, good
economic news at the start of the week as we learned that
Bombardier will provide, at a cost of $655 million Canadian, 192
commuter trains to the Metropolitan Transportation
Authorities—Long Island Rail Road, which wants to replace its
rolling stock.
In addition, the contract obtained by this Canadian company is
worth celebrating. It includes options for the production of 800
additional cars to meet the needs of two rail transportation
agencies of the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities, the
Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad.
If all the options are exercised, the contract will be worth a
total of $2.7 billion.
Here is an example of the Quebec economic model. A business from
home showing leadership on the international market, just—
The Speaker: The member for Surrey North.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
just seven hours from now Canada's first national anti-drug rally
will take place in Abbotsford, British Columbia. I wish I could
be there but Bill C-79 on victims' rights requires my attention
here tomorrow.
The rally will focus national attention on the need for federal,
provincial and municipal governments support for health care for
those addicted to drugs, for more commitment to drug education
and for a real national drug strategy that works on the street.
The question is why in 1999 do we need to be taking this action?
Where has the government been over the last six years? What will
it take to get this Liberal government to care more about drug
addicts than their patronage friends?
With the help of former Canadian heavyweight champion George
Chuvalo, we will begin to answer the question: “Drugs, are we
ready to fight?” Tonight in Abbotsford thousands of people will
be ready to say yes.
* * *
[Translation]
JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a Quebec woman
has spectacularly realized a life dream.
Julie Payette, one of our own, took off on time, at 6 hours 49
minutes and 42 seconds, in the space shuttle on an important
scientific mission. We were thrilled to watch her this morning
readying for such an outstanding trip. We watched the successful
take off with bated breath.
It took courage, skill and patience for Julie to be where she is
today. We will follow her moment by moment throughout this trip,
of such importance to her, of course, and Canada and Quebec.
Julie has already conveyed to young Canadians her perseverance
and tenacity in achieving an objective of a lifetime.
Today, a new star appeared in the firmament. Well done, Julie.
* * *
[English]
EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just blocks
from here, cuts to special education funding have driven mothers
to the desperate act of offering to sell their kidneys to stop a
$20 million cut to their kids' education. Even the family of an
American diplomat in Ottawa has warned colleagues away from our
capital because of these special education cuts.
The social union agreement is supposed to allow for national
standards. Cases like this show that the agreement is nothing
more than empty words for these mothers and for other vulnerable
Canadians.
The time has come for action. The government says nice things
about children with special needs but does nothing.
Persons with disabilities are guaranteed equality of citizenship
under the charter of rights and freedoms. Why is it that the
government always waits for desperate acts or court challenges
before providing services that all Canadians are entitled to?
1410
Parents should not have to offer their kidneys to force federal
and provincial governments to act.
* * *
[Translation]
ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like many
Quebecers, it was with much pride and emotion that I watched the
Discovery head skyward with Quebec's first female astronaut,
Julie Payette, on board.
Space has fed the imaginations of many adolescents. Like many
others, I dreamed of seeing a launch.
By taking her place on board Discovery today, the astronaut from
Quebec is not just realizing her dream, but is ensuring that her
name will go down in history.
Over the next ten days, Julie will help to assemble the
international space station. This morning, I relived the strong
emotions of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam.
* * *
[English]
WESTERN TASK FORCE
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take strong exception to the
ridiculous remarks directed to me yesterday in the House by a
member of the Reform Party. The member criticized myself and the
Prime Minister's western task force that visited British Columbia
and referred to me as a task force yesman.
During the task force's tour of B.C., we received almost 100
presentations from a wide variety of community groups and
organizations. If listening to the concerns of these groups is
being a yesman then I plead guilty.
Instead of criticizing my efforts, the members of the Reform
Party should spend more time in their ridings so I do not get so
many calls from different mayors and council members from their
ridings to say yes again so I can help them again.
* * *
GOLDMAN ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to acknowledge the
significant achievement of an extraordinary Newfoundlander. Mr.
Bernard Martin is a fourth generation fisherman whose determined
efforts in marine conservation have been rewarded with
distinguished international recognition.
Mr. Martin was recently presented with the prestigious Goldman
Environmental Prize at a ceremony in San Francisco. The
international award was designed to recognize grassroots heroes
in environmental conservation. It was awarded to only six
recipients worldwide and Bernard Martin was the winner for North
America. A resident of the fishing community of Petty Harbour,
he is the first Newfoundlander ever to receive this great honour.
On behalf of Mr. Martin's family and friends, we congratulate
him on his award. I know that Bernard, in his quiet, confident
and committed manner is probably somewhat embarrassed by all this
attention. On behalf of all members I want to tell him that
Canada is proud of his accomplishments. He has every right to be
proud of his commitment, his contribution and his well-deserved
recognition.
* * *
CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that May is Cystic Fibrosis
Month.
Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting the respiratory
and digestive systems. The most devastating damage takes place
in the lungs. Everyone with cystic fibrosis dies of lung
disease. There is no known cure. Approximately one in every
twenty-five hundred children born in Canada have this deadly
disease.
Since 1960, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, a national
voluntary health organization, has worked to improve the lives of
Canadians who are affected by this fatal disorder.
Please join me in congratulating the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation in extending best wishes for a successful Cystic
Fibrosis Month.
* * *
BALL HOCKEY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
night saw a ball hockey rematch between the parliamentary press
gallery giants of journalism and the proud Reform cross-checkers.
Having soundly defeated the yellow journalists in our previous
encounter, a confident Reform squad stepped onto the playing
surface with nothing short of a second media defeat carved into
the blades of our sticks.
Alas, it was not to be. The members of the fourth estate
displayed creativity, teamwork and balance, traits not normally
associated with their trade, as they defeated the Reform warriors
to set up a third and deciding rubber match.
So the stage now has been set for a showdown game to decide who
will be the true parliamentary champions of Canada's favourite
pastime. This display of Canadian culture will not require any
grants, subsidies or protectionist polices from the heritage
minister. It just requires a flat playing service, lots of guts,
sticks and plenty of balls. The Reformers are ready. We just
hope the giants of journalism will answer the call.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Slobodan Milosevic was indicted today for war crimes. There is
no doubt that his program of ethnic cleansing warrants legal
punishment from the international community. However, the timing
of this indictment raises serious concerns about the impact this
will have on the peace process.
I would like to ask somebody in the government if they are
concerned that this move will drive Milosevic even farther from
the bargaining table.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government welcomes the decision of the
international tribunal to bring an indictment against Mr.
Milosevic. We have long believed there is substantial evidence
that would justify such an indictment.
At the same time we certainly want to find a diplomatic solution
through the United Nations. These discussions continue. We are
talking with the Russians. We are talking with the President of
Finland.
To have a UN resolution does not depend on the assent of Mr.
Milosevic. Certainly we are continuing to follow a track which
will hopefully end with a diplomatic solution.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact Russia has been very hesitant to side with NATO in this
whole conflict, but it has played a key role in trying to bring a
negotiated end to this crisis.
The timing of the indictment has not only annoyed the Russians.
It has also made it very difficult for them to negotiate and help
broker peace. Potentially hundreds of thousands of lives hang in
the balance here.
Is the government not concerned that the timing of the
particular indictment may make things worse rather than better?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as far as I am aware, the tribunal is at arm's length
from governments. It was the decision of the tribunal as to when
and how to bring this indictment.
At the same time the Yugoslav government, which is more than Mr.
Milosevic, knows the five conditions of the NATO countries.
Certainly the opportunity is there and continues for the Yugoslav
government to accept the conditions, which would mean a halt to
the bombing and the setting up of circumstances, hopefully under
the auspices of the United Nations, to help the Kosovars get back
to their homes.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the NATO campaign is at a critical juncture right now. We know
that the U.S. and Britain are talking about a ground war. The
Russians are very concerned about the continued use of air
strikes.
Now Milosevic has been indicted for war crimes. We believe that
he should be charged but we are concerned about the timing.
Saving the peace process is paramount in this whole exercise.
I ask the defence minister how he will negotiate with an
indicted war criminal to make this situation better.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, any discussions will take place with the Yugoslav
government as a whole.
The Reform Party cannot have it both ways. In the same breath
the spokeswoman for the Reform Party says she supports the
indictment and at the same time she seems to say she does not
want the indictment. Let her make up her mind as to where she
and her party stand on this matter.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister knows that it is an issue of timing.
As we speak tensions are also increasing in another part of the
world between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. There are
reports that after a day of military clashes along the border
Pakistan has shot down an Indian air force jet.
Has the government called for an emergency session of the
security council to address this growing crisis?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are reviewing the situation. We will have more to
say about it very shortly.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is not a very reassuring reaction from the government. We
all know that the sanctions imposed by the government have
damaged our influence in the region. Nevertheless these two
countries remain Commonwealth partners and deserve our best
diplomatic efforts.
Unfortunately once again the government is choosing to be
reactive instead of proactive in this area. It comes after the
U.S. has had many high level meetings. Even China has been in
the negotiations. Yet Canada has been silent for the past year
in an area in which it should have been very active.
What further actions is the government planning to take to bring
these two sides together? Do we have any influence left in these
Commonwealth countries?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not true at all that we have not
done anything.
I just returned from a trip to south Asia with his colleague. I
raised all these issues with both the Government of India and the
Government of Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir.
1420
We asked them to tone down the tension in the region. We hope
both countries will find a political solution to the problem in
Kashmir. We told them that a military solution is not an answer
for a peaceful solution.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now
that the dust is settling on the agreement signed with the
United States concerning Bill C-55, we realize that the
government dropped the cultural exemption negotiated by the
previous government under the free trade agreement.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the Liberal
government's contribution to free trade will have been to weaken
the position of Canada, Quebec and all countries who are arguing
for cultural exemption in the context of international trade?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
agreement announced yesterday protects the culture of all
Canadians.
I wonder why the leader of the Bloc Quebecois does not have
words of praise for this great victory for the Canadian
government and all Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let
the Deputy Prime Minister talk of a great victory. The fact
is—and the government can play the ostrich all it wants—this is an
important breach with respect to the cultural exemption.
In fact, an adviser to President Clinton said that there was
nothing about culture in the agreement. It concerns trade and
nothing else.
Is the government aware that it has just reduced culture to the
same level as other commodities, thus dropping the cultural
exemption?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously we do not see culture as just another commodity to be
traded.
We have a special position, which was recognized for the first
time by the U.S. government. It is important for Canada and for
all other countries in the world.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
may be proud of this agreement with the United States about
American magazines, but the fact is that it puts magazines on
the same footing as any other commercial good, as an adviser to
President Clinton rightly pointed out.
By caving in before having exhausted all possible recourses,
what signal did Canada send to the United States, just before
the next round of WTO negotiations?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the ruling made
by the World Trade Organization, the Americans had unrestricted
access to the Canadian advertising market. Under this agreement,
that access is now limited to 18%.
The Americans have recognized for the first time that if they
want to exceed that percentage, publishers will have to offer a
primarily Canadian content. This is a significant change on the
part of our friends south of the border.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
federal government not realize that, from now on, the Americans
will use the precedent set in the publishing industry to open
the whole cultural sector to free trade?
Is the government not worried about that, and does it not
realize that it opened the door to this?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we opened a door, it
has to do with the fact that the Americans are now recognizing
for the first time the legitimacy of demanding a mostly Canadian
content, something they had refused to recognize until now.
In that sense, the agreement reached between our two countries
is a victory for us, because we convinced the Americans to
recognize the legitimacy of Canadian content in our cultural
industries.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Twice in the last few minutes we have heard the phrase majority
Canadian content. Yet we also read that American negotiators are
talking about substantial Canadian content.
Which is the case? Is it majority Canadian content, the
Canadian version, or is it substantial Canadian content, the
American version? If it is not the American version, would he
please rise and tell the Americans, through this place, that is
not the case?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
disagreement. It is majority Canadian content as was explained
yesterday in the draft regulations, which will flow from the
legislation, that were made public with the announcement of the
agreement.
I refer the hon. member to the draft regulations that were
published wherein it is explicitly said that the net benefit will
include, inter alia, undertakings by foreign investors that
result in a majority of original editorial content for the
Canadian market in each issue of each periodical title.
1425
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this is something that should be made clearer to the
Americans than it obviously has been already.
I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday
the Prime Minister said that this was the first time that
Americans had recognized our right to protect our culture. Is it
not also the case, or at least has the Prime Minister not claimed
in the past when he signed NAFTA and the WTO that Canadians had a
right to protect their own culture?
The Americans presumably recognized this in the NAFTA and the
WTO, so why is the Prime Minister making this specious claim that
there is something new about this, or was it not the case that
cultural protection—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is clear that the World Trade Organization
ruling did not uphold the Canadian position. If it had been left
to stand by itself there could have been no protection for
Canadian content and Canadian culture at all.
By having this agreement we have a real victory. We are
protecting Canadian culture. We are protecting Canadian content,
which would not have been the case if the WTO ruling had stood by
itself. We have also strengthened whatever there was in the
NAFTA agreement as well. This is a victory for Canada and
Canadians. This is a victory for Canadian culture.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on February 9
I specifically asked both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and
the Minister for International Trade whether Bill C-55 was an
ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible
U.S. challenge at the WTO and NAFTA. Based on their assurances
we agreed to support this piece of legislation.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain why she would
succumb to U.S. threats when she knows Canada could defend itself
against U.S. retaliation?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did not succumb to
U.S. threats. What we have said all along is that we were open
to proposals from our neighbours to the south if our interests
coincided.
Indeed we have had any number of meetings to that effect. The
last time we met we agreed to some terms which will protect our
magazine industry, ensure its future. At the same time we got
our neighbours to the south to agree for the first time to the
importance of a majority Canadian content. That is what we have
obtained.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
the House the Minister of Finance said that there was funding
available in the budget to help the Canadian magazine industry.
Could the minister tell us where this money is coming from? Was
it already earmarked for that purpose because the government knew
well in advance that it would cave in to U.S. demands? Was this
whole piece of legislation simply a bargaining tool?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member would know if he were to talk to
anyone who does responsible budgeting, which he may not, in fact
any government would make provisions for this kind of matter.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I expect
the TD Bank will be off the finance minister's Christmas card
list. Of course it probably already was after that little rival
comment.
TD is now saying that real personal disposable incomes are 26%
below the United States right now, 5% lower than they were a
decade ago.
Will the minister admit that after six years in power it is
pretty clear that his policies have failed Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite the opposite as anyone who has read the TD
study would demonstrate.
The fact is that from 1990 to 1992 this country went through one
of the deepest recessions we have ever seen, much deeper than the
United States. In 1993 when we took office with a deficit
rising, interest rates rising, unemployment rising, it is very
clear that Canada suffered from severe trauma.
What has in fact happened since we have taken office is that
those numbers have turned for the better. Our unemployment is
down. Our interest rates are down. Our economic growth is up.
The situation has turned around and most economists would
recognize that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just two days after we passed the medical marijuana motion and
already we are getting answers like this.
The TD Bank says that the reason incomes are so low is that job
creation is too slow.
The reason that job creation is too slow is because taxes are far
too high.
1430
How many reports do we have to have? How many business leaders
have to tell us that taxes are too high before the government
will start to act to give Canadians a tax break?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is evident again from reading the TD study, the
problem arose out of the recession that I talked about from 1990
to 1992 and a whole series of policies that were put in place by
the previous government which in fact led to a very poor 1990 to
1994.
Given the fact that the Reform Party is criticizing that period,
why is it so eager to hop into bed with the Tory party which gave
us those economic policies? Why the united alternative?
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
addition to creating a dramatic rift in the area of cultural
exemptions, the agreement signed this week between Canada and
the United States testifies to the federal government's total
lack of planning and threatens the Canadian publishing industry.
Does the government realize that, far from saving Canadian
publishers, it has betrayed them thereby potentially costing
them $300 million in losses annually? How does the government
intend to compensate the publishers for these losses, which it
has caused?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that an
adjustment will be made when the agreement comes into effect.
cabinet and the Prime Minister have given the Minister of
Canadian Heritage the authority to discuss, with industry
representatives, the terms of an offer of some kind to
compensate for these measures they will have absorb.
These discussions began yesterday morning and should conclude
very quickly so that everything may be submitted to cabinet
soon.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the government realize that the agreement it signed with the
Americans puts half the advertising revenues of magazines at
risk? At stake is 50% of the market, or $300 million, which the
Canadian publishers will no longer have.
Does the government intend to compensate all of this
considerable loss or will it abandon Canadian publishers?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is totally false.
The American advantage as the result of the WTO decision was its
unlimited access to the Canadian advertising market. This access
has been reduced to 18% after three years. The figure of $300
million given by my colleague opposite is totally false.
There will be an impact, we acknowledge this. We will attenuate
this impact and the way we will do so will be negotiated and
discussed with industry representatives. A report will be
submitted to cabinet once the discussions have been concluded.
The members opposite will know the—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's business sector has been promised major subsidy
reduction in the next round of trade negotiations and Canadian
trade officials are working hard to deliver. However,
yesterday's offer of subsidies to the magazine industry is a
contradiction to that position.
Has the trade minister not seriously compromised the work of his
trade negotiators through his actions?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for
International Trade, I want to say that both he and the Minister
of Canadian Heritage have done a wonderful job in bringing this
matter together.
Because of my previous incarnation in this portfolio I know
something about this matter. I must say that they have done a
wonderful job in dealing with this trade dispute. For the first
time there is a recognition of Canadian culture and our right to
protect it. Resolving this problem will not have the kind of
implications and ramifications for international trade that the
opposition seems to think it will.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know if that is gunboat diplomacy or what is happening
here.
If trade negotiators are successful worldwide in reducing
subsidies, is that not going to put this whole policy of the
Liberal government on magazine subsidies under great risk? Is it
not offering something that it cannot deliver, just as it did in
the original Bill C-55?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade is
at this very moment in Budapest having discussions with some 20
other countries as they prepare for the third round of WTO
negotiations starting in Seattle this fall.
Certainly that issue and how to deal with the issue of subsidies
is part of the ongoing discussions in terms of international
trade.
1435
Let me say that what has been decided upon here will in no way
disrupt the Canadian position with respect to trade and
subsidies. In fact, it is a very good resolution.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has made a commitment to help Canadian publishers
with a program, the costs of which, I might point out, are
unknown even to it. The government contends that it has the
assurance of the Americans that they would not contest this
policy under NAFTA, the WTO or American trade legislation.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence, who seems
to be the closest to this matter.
Can he tell us under what legal principle the American
government would not be obliged to submit to WTO or NAFTA
regulatory authorities any complaints from American publishers
who felt that their rights were being infringed upon by Bill
C-55?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the WTO encourages countries that have
disputes such as the one we had with the United States to get
together to settle their differences. This was a difference
between our two countries which has now been settled. It has no
other ramifications that should interest the WTO. I believe that
this particular issue has been resolved and resolved in a very
good way.
In fact an article in the Toronto Star, if I can mention a
publication from my home city, stated that a negotiated
settlement was the only realistic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
very reassuring for Canadian publishers.
Speaking of reassurance, what assurance does the Minister of
National Defence have that none of the other WTO member
countries will ever contest his compensation program when one of
them considers there is unfair competition with its own
publishers who export their magazines to Canada?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of ramifications that
would affect other countries. Certainly the kind of policy
direction we have set in trying to protect Canadian culture is a
very good one and one that I think will be very beneficial to
both American publications and our own, as well as any other
country's.
* * *
DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In 1996
and 1997 three federal agencies, the harbour commissions of the
Fraser River, Oshawa and Thunder Bay, donated $5,780.94 to the
Liberal Party. The members of those three commissions were all,
naturally, ministerial appointees.
Does the minister think that was a proper use of public funds?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for the
Canada Elections Act, I am pleased to answer this question.
On March 5 of this year the government issued directives that
crown corporations—and I am speaking only of crown
corporations—were not to make contributions to political
parties. At least two parties had received them. Ours gave the
money back. I invite others to do the same. No answer has come
to that effect yet.
In regard to the Fraser Valley Commission, that is not a crown
corporation. Again, the Liberal Party and another party in the
House have also received funds. I am presently examining the
situation and it is under review.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very aware that these federal agencies are not
crown corporations, which is the whole crux of this matter. We
want to know if these federal agencies will be subject to the
edict that was issued with respect to crown corporations. Does
this ruling of the House leader apply to them? Does it apply to
the commissions and the port authorities? When can we expect the
money to be paid back to the public treasury by the Liberal
Party?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me answer both parts of the
question.
I already indicated that the issue is under review. Whenever a
decision comes, if a decision is made to return the moneys, I
invite the hon. member across to answer the question himself in
regard to his own party.
* * *
1440
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, between 1981
and 1986, the Minister of Finance was a board member of the
parent company of Connaught, which was involved in the tainted
blood scandal.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is this
responsibility as a board member not, by itself, sufficiently
compromising to require the Minister of Finance not to be
involved in determining the rights of the tainted blood victims?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
matter has been referred in principle to the ethics
commissioner, who has said that a response will be forthcoming.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, June 4 will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the
Tiananmen Square massacre. Can the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific please tell this House if Canada has taken any steps
to improve the human rights situation in China?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to be very concerned
about the human rights problem in China. We have raised this
issue with the highest authority of the Chinese government
whenever we could. At the same time, we have tried to engage the
Chinese government in judicial reforms and, as well, we have
tried to help it reform its institutions.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those
who die and suffer for democracy in China.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week convicted sex offender Clifford Howdle went absent
without leave while on day parole in my riding. For 36 hours he
terrorized people in the area, committing 17 offences which
included three rapes and a kidnapping. In spite of the fact that
the police opposed day parole for Howdle because he posed a
danger to society, he was released.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why was Clifford
Howdle granted day parole?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this grave matter very seriously.
I have directed the Chairman of the National Parole Board and the
Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada to conduct a joint
national investigation into this tragedy. The investigation will
be co-chaired by three former policemen from Lethbridge, Alberta.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
if the Howdle case was not enough to destroy all faith in the day
parole system, another case came to light. In January Frank
Laliberte raped a young woman while on day parole. Residents of
Prince Albert were assured that Clifford Howdle was an isolated
case and we now know that is not true.
What guarantees can the solicitor general give my constituents
that there are not more unidentified day parole rapists in their
midst?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, this is a very
serious matter. I have directed the Chairman of the National
Parole Board and the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada
to have a national investigation to get to the bottom of exactly
what did happen in this very serious situation.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the shipbuilding
industry the Prime Minister wrote: “The challenge for
governments, firms, workers and other interested parties is to
exploit all available...opportunities”, which begs the question
of why the industry minister does not want to reconvene a meeting
of all stakeholders to come up with a comprehensive industrial
strategy for shipbuilding in this country.
I wish to give the government the opportunity to speak directly
to many of the workers who are with us today. Why does this
country not have an industrial strategy for a comprehensive
program of shipbuilding?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to
discuss this subject with the member many times. I should point
out that the government has a shipbuilding policy. We have met
with shipbuilders from coast to coast.
Please understand that we have an accelerated capital allowance
for shipbuilding, specifically a 25% duty on most ships imported
from NAFTA countries.
Both the Department of Foreign Affairs and Industry Canada have
been working with shipbuilding to try to get more markets.
However, let us understand that shipbuilding across the world has
a very high overcapacity, and the member should understand that.
* * *
1445
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the fire
alarm in this building earlier today may well have been sparked
by the incendiary letter from the dean of the Senate to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Senator Sparrow said that AIDA is inadequate to alleviate the
disaster affecting farmers and states what this party has been
saying for months about AIDA including the refusal to recognize
the problem, implying rural Saskatchewan residents are ignorant,
lazy and/or inefficient. The senator states that if the
government chooses not to support rural Saskatchewan then just
say so.
How does the minister respond to these stinging criticisms of
AIDA from a member of his own parliamentary caucus?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the other place
refers to people from his own province in the way in which he
does but I certainly do not. I respect the farmers in
Saskatchewan and all across Canada. I worked with them to put the
program in place. I continue to encourage them to fill out the
forms and get them in. We will deal with them as quickly as we
possibly can.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today the
Prime Minister received 150,000 cards of support for a new
national shipbuilding policy from shipbuilders across Canada.
When he was in opposition the Prime Minister stated in a letter
to the Marine Workers Federation “It is safe to say that most
people recognize that something needs to be done to create a much
more competitive shipbuilding industry”.
We all know that the Prime Minister has a habit of saying one
thing in opposition but a different thing when he is in power. We
want to know what will the government do to bring in a
competitive shipbuilding policy?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the
shipbuilding policy for Canada has been effective in the past.
Members should know that the Export Development Corporation made
changes a year ago with the shipbuilding industry. They should
also know that the Export Development Corporation is presently
looking at a review of projects worth more than $730 million.
That is work being done by our trade, by our people, to help the
shipbuilding industry.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we on
this side of the House are a little tired of hearing about this
whole ship.
American shipbuilding companies are offering work to Canadian
shipbuilders because they are the best trained in the world.
These men do not want to leave Canada. However, until the
government changes the current policy, more and more of our
shipbuilders will be forced out of Canada.
Why will the government not make changes to the current
shipbuilding policy and stop forcing Canadian shipbuilders and
their families out of their own country?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the
procurement for Canada at all times is in favour of the
shipbuilders across Canada. Whether it be national defence,
Transport Canada or the coast guard, or any other departments or
agencies, we continue to work with the shipbuilding industry. We
make sure that any buy or refit of ships is done with the
Canadian shipbuilding industry.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, recently, we have heard here and there that the
government is not doing enough research on toxic substances and
the management of these substances in Canada.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell us what she intends
to do to ensure that the federal government is active in the
management of toxic substances and related research?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that earlier
this afternoon the Minister of Health and myself were able to
announce the first tranche of projects approved under our toxic
management research initiative, $10.9 million to 81 projects
across the country that many hundreds of scientists will be
implicated in.
This will help the government to better understand the effects
of toxic substances on our environment and human health. It is a
very important initiative looking at persistent organic
pollutants, endocrine disrupting substances, metals in the
environment and urban air quality.
* * *
1450
JUSTICE
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights tabled its report and draft legislation entitled
“Toward the Elimination of Impaired Driving”.
The justice minister has said that impaired driving is a huge
concern to her and she places a very high priority on it. Will
the government take steps to introduce immediately legislation
that will reflect the standing committee's report on impaired
driving? Will it do it today?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that
that very subject is one which is before the House leaders at the
present time.
We on our side of the House are prepared to use every device
available to us to give accelerated approval to this initiative.
It is our hope that all parties across the way will do the same.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after putting several questions in the House and getting no
answers or only evasive answers from various ministers, I wrote
to the Prime Minister on December 22, asking him for a
shipbuilding policy. Now, six months later, the Prime Minister
still has not replied.
Considering that, today, a coalition of unions representing the
shipbuilding industry delivered 150,000 postcards demanding a
true federal shipbuilding policy, what is this government
waiting for to finally take action?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I repeat what I said before
for the member. I again emphasize Canada's shipbuilding
policies. An accelerated capital cost allowance which many
organizations do not have; a 25% duty on most ships imported from
non-NAFTA countries; a domestic procurement on a competitive
basis for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs.
Through the Export Development Corporation changes have been made
and we are still looking at changes for the future.
These are the shipbuilding policies of the government. They are
there for the benefit of shipbuilders from coast to coast.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of the homeless.
Aboriginal people make up a large component of the homeless
population in major cities. Many aboriginal people go to the
cities to escape the terrible poverty conditions on reserves
caused by Liberal government neglect. Now the government is
abandoning aboriginal people off reserves by downloading the
urban native housing program to the provinces. Social housing
downloads lead to higher rents and homelessness.
Will the Liberal government reverse its disastrous download or
will it betray urban aboriginal people like it has betrayed
aboriginal people on reserves?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada is committed to honour all its commitments on native urban
housing.
We will continue to honour the transfer of social housing to the
provinces. That will eliminate duplication and will create the
opportunity to have more housing.
The member should know that more than 50% of urban native
housing for more than a decade has been managed by the provinces.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, let me
give the Minister of the Environment a little history lesson.
When acid rain was taking its toll on Canadian rivers and lakes,
we got our own environmental house in order and then took on the
American one and delivered this nation an acid rain protocol in
1987.
To advance the mercury file we need the same kind of true
leadership and decisive action. Mercury is a known killer, yet
Canada presented a divided opinion during recent negotiations for
a United Nations heavy metals protocol. Internal squabbling has
halted any real action to tackle the problem.
When can Canadians expect to see some leadership or some
management from the department on mercury or on any environmental
issue?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the statement I
made a little while ago announcing 81 projects under our toxic
substance research initiative which will include research on
mercury and other metals in the environment.
Canada was the first country in the world to ratify a UN ECE
protocol on heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants in the
atmosphere.
The government is taking a leadership role worldwide on these
very important issues. I think we should—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
* * *
1455
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the last budget provided tax relief for small businesses that
were spending money to become Y2K compliant. Unfortunately these
businesses must do so by June 30, when in fact many cannot get
trained individuals until after that date. I would like to know
from the Minister of Finance if he will extend the June 30
deadline so those who want to can take advantage of this tax
provision.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member from Sarnia has shown a great interest in
this matter. I will certainly take his question as
representation. As he knows, the industry committee is looking
into this matter. I await its report with great eagerness.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government's own competition expert has criticized
this government's abusive anti-dumping duties. He says that they
restrict competition, jack up prices and hurt the welfare of all
Canadians. Because of this criticism, Canada's trade tribunal
has now been told to start paying attention to the impact these
duties are having on average Canadians.
When will the revenue minister review the trade tribunal's past
decisions and reverse those that the Competition Bureau says will
hurt the welfare of all Canadians?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we work very
closely with the industries on areas where there is dumping. Of
course we have to depend on the industries to provide the
information. There is an international tribunal that makes those
decisions as to whether dumping does exist or not. We follow the
law and we follow the ruling of the tribunal.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-435
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
September 24, I introduced Bill C-435, which seeks to have the
$1,000 note withdrawn so as to curb the laundering of money in
Canada.
This measure is supported, among others, by the Canadian Police
Association and the Fédération des policiers du Québec.
My question is for the solicitor general. If he does not want to
make life easier for organized crime, why does he not
immediately order the withdrawal of the $1,000 note in Canada?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite just
referred to a private member's bill.
He is well aware that private member's bills are usually, if not
always, subject to a free vote in the House of Commons. I am
surprised that he would ask a minister to comment on a private
member's bill.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Toronto
Dominion Bank released a study yesterday that said that personal
incomes in this country are now 26% lower than in the United
States. It also said that much of the damage was done due to
government layoffs and cutbacks between 1993 and 1997 which cost
us 180,000 jobs. Guess who was Minister of Finance during those
years?
Besides cutting taxes for his wealthy friends and his buddies
like Conrad Black, what is the Minister of Finance going to do to
help increase the disposable income of the ordinary Canadian in
this country? I know he is very close to Conrad Black but what
about—
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to be very judicious
in his choice of words, please. The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no doubt it was most unfortunate that there were
cutbacks in the public sector. These were required in order to
get government finances in order. It is important to note what
was also referred to by the TD, that it was not only at the
federal government level but at the provincial government level,
including British Columbia and Saskatchewan, governments the hon.
member knows well.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
premiers of this country spoke in favour of a new national
shipbuilding policy at the conference of first ministers in
August 1997, yet this government has refused to address their
demands. Today shipyard workers across Canada are calling upon
this government to take action. It is only a matter of time
before the premiers come knocking on the Prime Minister's door
demanding the same.
Why does the Prime Minister not pre-empt the attack of the
premiers and after his upcoming cabinet shuffle sit down with his
new Minister of Industry and implement the needed tax incentives
and loan guarantees to get Canadian shipyard workers back to
work?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the fact that we
do have a shipbuilding policy. As everybody knows, the global
capacity is at a very high level. The member opposite knows that
Canada is not going to get into a subsidy war and get this
government and country in a deficit position as his government
did which got us where we were in 1993. We are not going to do
that. We are going to keep encouraging countries not to
subsidize and to have fair competition around the world.
* * *
1500
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader made a very clear and
distinct inference that my party had accepted money from a
federal agency, not a crown corporation but a federal agency. He
was very specific.
I would like to ask the government House leader if he would
table the document—
The Speaker: This is debate and not a point of order.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the government House leader what he will add to
the thin soup agenda of the House for the remainder of this week
and next week.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
excellent question.
Today we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-32, the
environment bill. The legislation, as back-up in the event that
we would complete the consideration of Bill C-32 this afternoon,
which I am sure is very likely, would be Bill C-54 respecting
electronic commerce. Tomorrow we will consider report and third
reading stages of Bill C-79, the victims bill, and Bill C-64, the
expositions bill.
Next Monday and Tuesday, if we have not completed Bill C-32
today, we will complete Bill C-32 at report stage on Monday and
at third reading on Tuesday.
Next Wednesday, June 2, we will put Bill C-54, the electronic
commerce bill, at the top of the order paper. This is our
intention, in the hope of disposing of this very important
government initiative.
Thursday, June 3, shall be an allotted day.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, given the announcement yesterday with respect to the
changes in Bill C-55, does the leader of the government in the
House expect that Bill C-55 will be coming back to the House
before the summer recess? Could he make clear what the
government's intention is with respect to Bill C-55?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, because the bill is
before the other place an amendment to the bill in question would
be made there before it is referred back to this place.
The bill is still before the other place. I do not foresee that
it will be back here before another week. I intend to discuss
this item with opposition House leaders at the earliest
opportunity, probably Tuesday of next week.
All things being equal, hopefully the bill will be back in the
House toward the end of next week or shortly thereafter.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act respecting
pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and
human health in order to contribute to sustainable development,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Group
No. 3.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
before we were interrupted for question period I was about to
allude to a letter from a citizen. I wanted to highlight the
concerns of citizens across the country, especially the youth. I
heard from many students and received many letters. A satellite
link-up was created last year as part of the millennium project
in Ottawa. Students from coast to coast to coast had an
opportunity to converse with the Prime Minister.
The first concern that was raised about the future of our
country dealt with the environment. Our children know that we
have to take care of the future needs, the water, the soil, the
land, the food, the vegetables and the fruits we eat.
Farming is a major industry in terms of agri-food. Family farms
and organic farmers are very dependent on economic survival. They
have been inundated by an industrial revolution in the area of
better produce and better yields, but chemicals have been a
mainstay of this research and development.
Science has proven that some of the food life cycles and the
ecosystem are in danger. In the long term it is a detriment to
our children. Children are nurtured at a young age. They are
dependent on their mothers for nutrition and are vulnerable in
terms of what we feed them.
The long term effect takes time. As adults we are introduced to
new chemicals. Our defence system is well in tact. However,
when children are exposed to them toxins can be released into
their bodies which affect their organs and neurological system.
The letter highlighted the inability of the government to
protect us. It referred to how the government reacted to the
issue of MMT as a manganese additive to gasoline last summer. The
environment minister and the health minister actually endorsed
manganese. The Ethyl Corporation filed a lawsuit. Its country
has banned MMT but Canada seems to be a freewheeling region in
North America. It engages in scientific research to explore
these additives without our being able to protect ourselves. It
is actually infringing on our sovereign right to protect our
environment and our health.
Bill C-32 concerns the Canadian sovereign right to protect our
environmental health and ecosystem. The grouping we are now
talking about concerns provincial and federal responsibilities. I
highlight for the minister and her cabinet that an example was
given to us in the Kyoto protocol. The European Community is not
only self-combining its economic source, social and cultural
entities and currency. It is also looking at itself as an
ecosystem. At Kyoto it brought forward the eco-European bubble
concept.
Canada has to look at itself as a bubble. Whatever we do in
Ottawa, whatever we do in Ontario, affects Quebec. Quebec
affects the maritimes. The maritimes affect Vancouver, the whole
Arctic and its vulnerability. The Arctic does not get a direct
impact from industrial economic events but it gets the
environmental impacts of everything we do in the development of
industry.
I ask Canadians and parliamentarians in the House to make sure
that Bill C-32 protects the future health of our children and the
future of our environment.
1510
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
for those people who have just tuned in, we are debating Bill
C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were over
560 amendments in committee and another 235 that have come before
the House at report stage. The bill has had more amendments than
any other bill in many years.
We are speaking to Group No. 3 amendments. There are eight
amendments in this group. They deal largely with residual powers
and the use of toxic substances. The Reform Party put forward
three of the eight amendments. There is a fair bit of overlap
between our amendments and those proposed by both the government
and the Conservative Party.
Our Motion No. 6 deals specifically with concern over reference
in the bill to the use of toxic substances. It ensures that the
focus in the bill is on management rather than on the use of
toxic substances. The focus of the federal government has
consistently been on managing toxic substances rather than on
their use.
It is important to note that it is the improper management and
release of toxic substances which result in adverse effects on
human health and environment. This is a cause for public concern
and government action, not the use of these substances.
I can use lead as an example. Lead is on the toxic substances
list. When it is used improperly, such as in gasoline, in paint
and in lead shot used to kill birds, management needs to ensure
those practices do not happen. Lead in keels of sailboats, in
weights for divers or in car batteries is perfectly safe. It is
the management of these substances that this legislation should
deal with.
Concerning use separately from the improper release or exposure
to toxic substances derogates from the risk based principles
which are the foundation of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act. The preamble was amended in committee to change the focus
and the direction of the act.
Our amendment returns the preamble to the original language
proposed by the government when Bill C-32 was tabled in the
House. We believe that the act should retain the government's
clear policy to control releases.
Motion No. 6 will ensure that the approach contained within Bill
C-32 is consistent with toxic management strategies already
incorporated and pursued by the international community in its
risk reduction activities.
The government amendment, Motion No. 7, only partially addresses
the same section and touches on concerns regarding the use rather
than the management of toxic substances. Our amendments, Motions
Nos. 137 and 149, both deal with concerns regarding residual
powers.
Our Motions Nos. 149 and 137 propose to empower the governor in
council so that it can ensure parliament provides sufficient
protection of the environment and human health. When Bill C-32
was originally tabled by the government it contained proposals
which established that matters of co-ordination between different
departments were to be determined by cabinet. These amendments
were accepted by the standing committee in all sections of the
bill except for two, sections 106 and 115 which deal with
biotechnology.
The committee amended these sections so that the environment
minister, and where appropriate the health minister, could
determine matters of co-ordination. Our amendments propose to
return the section originally proposed by the government when
Bill C-32 was tabled in the House. This is consistent with the
other sections within the bill.
We propose that the governor in council or cabinet, rather than
the Minister of the Environment or Minister of Health, should
determine whether there is overlap between departments and ensure
that interdepartmental overlap and duplication are avoided in
clauses 106 and 115. Clearly if the weight of significant
decisions falls on cabinet throughout the bill, it should also
consistently deal with areas of biotechnology.
We are pleased to see that the government clearly supports our
amendments as it not only proposed the original section that we
support but tabled Motion Nos. 138 and 148 which are almost
identical to our Motions Nos. 137 and 149.
1515
Our amendments address concerns that were brought to us by many
parties. We listened and we acted on these concerns and
introduced our amendments. Unfortunately, the Conservative party
has missed the mark on its Motion No. 139, which similarly
attempts to amend the same clause that Reform does in our Motion
No. 137.
However, the member for Fundy—Royal has proposed to retain
reference to the ministers rather than cabinet as most of us
agree is far more suited to this degree of decision making.
Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments of the
Progressive Conservative Party.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that our amendments aim
to ensure that Canadians have clear, effective legislation to
prevent pollution and protect the environment and the human
health of Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise once again today to speak to Bill C-32, an act
respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development.
My remarks will be directed primarily at the motions in Group
No. 3, which concern the preamble and toxic substances such as
lead.
I add my voice to that of the member for Davenport in
criticizing this government and expressing my indignation at the
way it has treated and is treating the environment committee by
tabling significant amendments today in the House.
These amendments should have been introduced in committee to
give us an opportunity to thoroughly study them.
Throughout the environment committee's proceedings, we analyzed
more than 500 amendments over the past few weeks. The government
did not hesitate to introduce amendments at the last minute.
They were rushed through the committee. They should have been
thoroughly studied by the committee.
I am extremely disappointed
that the Minister of the Environment affords such cavalier
treatment to a committee comprising representatives of all
parties in this House: the Liberal Party, the Conservative
Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New
Democratic Party.
We analyzed everything that was introduced in the environment
committee, but clearly this government does not have enough
respect for the people there to ensure that this legislation
contains an element of common sense and provides for some
carryover into the future.
We cannot analyze an environment act every year. This law will
be in effect in Canada for the next 10 years. We will move into
the next century with this law, and we have to admit that this
government chose not to give the environment committee the
means, the time or the authority to study the significant
amendments it has tabled today in the House.
When we do not have time to study something, it is better to
abstain or to vote against it.
I wish to point out that the Bloc Quebecois will be voting as a
whole against all the amendments by the Reform Party and the
Liberal Party in Group No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak again to another set of amendments on Bill
C-32. We talked a bit this morning about Group No. 2 and we are
now on Group No 3.
The list is quite a bit shorter than the one we talked about this
morning, but there are some very important issues in this
grouping. Some of the amendments in this grouping could
effectively change the bill and its effectiveness. I will just
go through some of these.
1520
These two groups of amendments deal basically with the use of
toxic substances and the residual powers of the federal
government.
I would like to speak first to the use of toxic substances and
the amendments put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni.
This amendment, which, as stated earlier, is supported by the
minister, would return the original wording back to the preamble.
The preamble to this new CEPA begins with outlining the
commitment that the protection of the environment is essential to
the well-being of Canada, while acknowledging that the primary
purpose of this bill is to contribute to sustainable development
through pollution prevention. That pretty well sums up the bill
in its entirety and takes into account the health and the
continuation of sustainable development, things that are so
important without which we would have little else.
The preamble contains 14 separate commitments and goals of the
government. Three of these commitments or goals would be
reworded versions of four of the six statements found in the
preamble of the current act, while the remaining goals and
commitments would deal with the new concepts and priorities such
as: first, the goal of achieving sustainable development and an
acknowledgement of the need to integrate environmental, economic
and social factors in all decisions by the government and private
sector. That issue is one on which we seem to differ from party
to party in the House as to what weight we should place on each
one of them.
I personally feel that if we leave out the economic and social
factors, then we are leaving out an important fact. If we do not
have any economic or social factors to look at, then some of the
pressure that would be brought to bear on individuals to act is
not there. When some people fight to have economic and social
factors taken out of the equation, they are actually working
against a healthy environment.
Second, a commitment to implementing pollution prevention as a
natural goal and as the priority approach to environmental
protection.
Third, a recognition of the importance of an ecosystem approach.
Fourth, a commitment to implementing the precautionary principle
as defined by the universally accepted Rio definition. It is
very important that the definition that is being used is the one
being used universally in the world. We heard some comments
earlier that is a flexible definition to be decided on by each
country, but we must be very careful that we stay close to what
the rest of the world is doing.
Fifth, a recognition of the responsibility of users and
producers with respect to toxic substances, pollutants and
wastes, and the adoption of the polluter pays principle.
Sixth, a recognition that all levels of government have
authority to protect the environment and that they face
environmental problems that can benefit from co-operative
resolution. Once again we mention co-operation instead of
confrontation and the proper balance between the governing
authorities.
Seventh, a recognition that science and traditional aboriginal
knowledge has an integral role in the environmental and human
health decision making process and that environmental or health
risks and social, economic and technical matters are to be
considered in that process. My hon. friend from Churchill River
talked at length about this in committee and certainly brought
this issue to light. The fact that it is here, we should give
him some credit for that.
Last, an endeavour to remove threats to biological diversity
through pollution prevention and the control and management of
toxic substances.
Because of amendments made in committee, some of the original
intentions have been changed. When the bill was first proposed,
out of the 560 amendments that came forward, our party chose to
put forward 22. That indicated that we were basically pleased
with the balance that had been struck by the original Bill C-32.
We felt that some of the amendments that took place after altered
considerably the original intention of the bill.
Most of the amendments made were fairly agreeable and did not go
against the spirit of the bill.
However, the amendment to the last commitment of the government
has the potential to significantly alter the government's focus.
Until now, the government's focus has consistently been on
managing the release of toxic substances, not how they were used.
That is what the bill should do.
1525
There is a list of some 23,000 substances used by Canadian
industry and manufacturing. The use of these substances to
create something is one thing, but we have to ensure that they
are not released into the atmosphere to harm the environment. As
long as their use is not doing that, we should not be too focused
on managing or restricting the use of these substances.
This focus is shared by much of the international community and
for good reason. Monitoring the use of all substances would be
such a monumental task that the department would be overwhelmed
by these new demands. As it stands right now, the department
cannot even enforce many of its own rules as they exist today.
In committee we heard evidence that enforcement is sorely
lacking in this country. It would be irresponsible for parliament
to impose an additional burden such as this. It is not the use of
toxic substances that is cause for public concern and government
attention but their improper management and releases causing
adverse effects.
The government's responsibility to monitor releases should be
maintained by returning the original wording of the bill. That
is what our amendment would do. To consider use separately from
release derogates from the risk based principles that are
intended to be the foundation of the bill.
The last motions I want to speak to are Motions Nos. 138 and 149
which deal with the residual powers of the federal government, a
subject debated at length at the environment committee on almost
all issues.
These motions which were first introduced by the true champions
of the people, the Reform Party, are nearly identical to the ones
introduced by the government. I want to thank the minister and
her government for backing up what the Reform Party says, and I
want to assure her that any time she needs some more advice on
this bill we would be happy to help.
Motion No. 138 amends clause 106, section 7 by requiring that
the opinion of the governor in council first be sought before any
decisions are made. That would bring in the other ministries
because this bill affects everybody in Canada and around the
world. When decisions are made that affect a wide scope, the
other responsible areas of the ministers should be considered.
Environmental decisions affect everybody from farmers and
ranchers to health officials. Because these decisions have such
far-reaching implications, it is important that all perspectives
are properly heard. Bringing these matters to the cabinet table
will ensure that all the affected stakeholders will have an
opportunity to make their views known and influence the decision
making process.
Motion No. 149 amends clause 115, which is actually the second
part of a two clause cluster that deals with regulations. The
preceding clause, clause 114, would empower the governor in
council on the recommendation of the minister responsible to make
regulations relating to living organisms.
These regulations covered a variety of different categories
ranging from organisms for research to organisms for export.
Section 115 would further empower the governor in council, once
again on the recommendation of the ministers of health and
environment, to make regulations for implementing an
international agreement respecting living organisms and
respecting their effective and safe use in pollution prevention.
The second clause of section 115, the section to which Reform
has proposed an amendment, would prevent the governor in council
from making such regulations where the same aspect of any living
organism was regulated by or under any other act of parliament.
The issue comes back again to broadening out the base of
decision making and bringing into play the other ministries
involved. It considers the scope of the bill to deal with the
control of substances so they cannot be released. It does not
deal with their abolition or if they are being handled properly.
These amendments are important and we feel that they alone can
change the entire scope of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 now before
the House.
1530
The first motion in the group was introduced by the Reform Party
and seeks to amend a provision in the preamble. Once again the
Reform Party chose to side with industry, which wants everything
that goes against its vision of environmental and health
protection to be watered down.
The wording of the preamble which is the subject of the Reform
Party motion reads as follows:
[English]
Whereas the Government of Canada will endeavour to remove threats
to biological diversity through pollution prevention, the control
and management of any adverse effects of the use and release of
toxic substances, products of biotechnology, pollutants and other
wastes, and the virtual elimination of persistent and
bioaccumulative toxic substances;
[Translation]
It is thanks to the work of the committee that the words
products of biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes were
added to the bill. The Reform Party would like to change the
wording to completely eliminate the notions of products of
biotechnology, pollutants and other wastes, and the virtual
elimination of persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances.
I wonder why the Reform Party is so adamant on siding with
industry, which is asking that the bill, which was already
watered down when it came to the committee, be further watered
down. After weeks and weeks of work by the committee, we were
able to strengthen a web of provisions that, originally, had no
teeth to speak of.
There is a consensus that, following the work by the five
parties, during which scores of amendments were discussed and
some of the important ones will be accepted, the bill as it
stands is a compromise. It is a far cry from what we and the
environmentalists would have liked, but we believe it is a
reasonable compromise under the circumstances.
What has happened today is that the Reform Party has
systematically sided with industry to water down the amendments
adopted by the committee.
[English]
In the same group of motions the government would split this
preamble in two. It would introduce the notion of the control
and management of the risk of any adverse effects of the use and
release of toxic substances. There are some among our
researchers who feel that using the word “risk” improves the
clause from the environmental point of view because it makes the
proof lesser than the proof of adverse effects themselves.
However, the question is asked: If this were so, why in those
weeks and weeks of discussion within the committee was this
notion not brought about? Why now? Why does it happen under the
prompting of industry that this should be introduced?
The other side will say that risk is much more subjective than
the effects themselves. People can decide what is risk and what
is not risk and evade the very notion of the adverse effects.
It is one more notion to add to a disposition that seemed to us
to be quite clear in its effect to start with after it had been
amended in committee.
1535
I would suggest that we reject both of these amendments which
will lessen the importance of this clause in the preamble. There
are some who would say that it is only a preamble and a preamble
is not part of the operative part of the law. However, it sets a
sense of direction as to what we are trying to do.
What I find in a great bulk of the amendments that have been
brought forward, except for those in Group No. 2 that we
discussed, which put a timeline on consultation, and except for a
few that have been proposed by my colleague from the New
Democratic Party who sat with us in committee, is that they tend
to lessen the power of the act as it stands today.
The sad part is that in the key elements of the legislation,
which have been repeated time and again, inherent toxicity,
virtual elimination and the precautionary principle, and the
powers of the two ministers, the sponsors of the legislation, the
Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health, to act
autonomously in all of these respects, the amendments that have
been brought in dilute those very powers.
None of the elements which are crucial to the legislation have
been reinforced. On the contrary, they have been lessened, they
have been weakened and they have been diluted. For these
reasons—Group No. 3 amendments concerning the provision of the
preamble that I discussed, all of the clauses that come up in
Group No. 1, some in Group No. 2 and others in other
groupings—we feel that this legislation does not stand the
scrutiny of the House.
I hope that together we will defeat the amendments that tend to
weaken this bill so that the bill will remain the way it is; a
fair, reasonable, effective compromise which was achieved as a
result of the work of many members of the House. It was diligent
work, painstaking work, which led to much compromise and
consensus.
It is on that basis that I would support the bill, about which
otherwise I have strong reservations.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to
speak to the amendments in Group No. 3 to Bill C-32, which will
amend the the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
As I already mentioned when discussing Group No. 1 amendments,
the bill that was sent to committee included clause 2.2 which
called for the avoidance of duplication and overlap in
legislation and regulation in areas that involved the protection
of the environment and human health.
The clause proposed to resolve any potential duplication by
having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health
and the minister responsible for the other act “jointly
decide whether measures that can be taken under the other act are
appropriate and sufficient to address the matter”, and that
matter has to be that of human health and the protection of the
environment. This clause, however, was removed from the act
during the committee stage of review in favour of introducing
separate and more specific clauses in appropriate sections of the
bill where the potential for overlap and duplication existed.
The new clauses shifted the power to decide which law would
prevail to cabinet from the three ministers, except in the case
of biotechnology where the Minister of Health and the Minister of
the Environment would take a decision.
The government is trying to make all sections refer to cabinet
for this decision making process. Its proposed motion to amend
was already defeated in committee in the biotechnology section.
In fact, even Reform voted against this particular proposal.
The essence of what we are talking about, as mentioned by the
member for Lac-Saint-Louis, is that most of these amendments
would water down the strength of the bill.
1540
The amendments that we have tabled within this section address
the applicable situations. Instead of having all decisions
referred to the governor in council, which we know to be cabinet,
we are advocating that the Minister of the Environment, the
Minister of Health and the other applicable minister decide
whether measures can be taken under the other act with respect to
protecting human health and the environment in addressing the
matter at hand.
In this era of political accountability more often than not the
folks who live in the ridings want to know who is accountable for
the decisions we make. What the Progressive Conservative Party
is advocating is to maintain the same intent that we had with
respect to clause 2.2.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who has personally helped me out on an individual
basis. I know that he works hard in his particular portfolio,
but I know he does not spend a lot of time on the environment.
Therefore, I am advocating that the Minister of the Environment,
the Minister of Health and the other applicable minister, whether
it be the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or any other
minister, should actually have the capacity to make a decision
and be held accountable. If the wrong decision is made, or
perhaps the correct decision, those ministers will be the
accountable ministers who come into play, as opposed to sending
it to cabinet where other concerns may water down the influence
with respect to health and the environment.
I am troubled that perhaps in some circumstances there may be
some industrial concerns or some agricultural concerns. For the
most part, 99.9 times out of 100, ministers want to ensure that
we look after human health and the environment as well. However,
I am concerned that at times political pressure might water down
the influence of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister
of Health.
I am particularly concerned that the budget of the Department of
the Environment has been cut by well over a third since this
government took office in 1993. The weight which the Department
of the Environment has in cabinet today versus what it once had
during the Jean Charest and the Tom MacMillan era may not be the
same in terms of making sure that human health and the
environment are protected.
It is also interesting to note that members of the Reform Party
in committee supported the change that removed the old section
2.2. They also voted to amend the clause to read as it currently
does in the biotech section. They supported amending the clause
to read that the Minister of Environment and, where appropriate,
the Minister of Health would make a decision. Now they seem to
have changed their minds. They propose restoring the section to
its original state.
Reform went along with this during the deliberations at
committee because they believe in more political accountability,
as do many members of parliament. The Progressive Conservative
Party does as well. That is why they supported that initiative.
They have now reverted to the preference of having it done by the
governor in council for other reasons. This is more of a concern
of Reform members not wanting to empower the ministers of health
and the environment to be accountable and to make that the first
priority above all others. I think we owe that to all citizens
who live in this country and to future generations as well.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that its proposal
would provide the public with an accountability mechanism for the
ministers who make the decision as to which act better provides
sufficient protection for the environment and human health. We
also believe that our amendments provide an appropriate and
necessary balance for the decision making process.
That is the issue I want to put forth with respect to the
amendments that we have tabled in Group No. 3. It comes down to
the issue of, if there is another act that comes into play, we
definitely want to avoid duplication. We definitely want to
avoid excess regulation. We want to do it in a capacity where
health and the environment are the leads and the ministers will
consult to ensure that the other minister has a fair say, as
opposed to sending it to cabinet where we do not know who makes
the decisions, why a decision was made and what matters were
actually taken into play.
1545
The bill is co-sponsored by the Minister of Health and the
Minister of the Environment. They should be the quarterbacks.
They should be the people who actually lead this omnibus bill,
this pioneering bill, to quote the member for Davenport.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the principle
legislation that controls the use of toxins within our
environment. We should ensure that those two ministers take the
lead and consult their teammates, the appropriate ministers.
Sending it to cabinet tears apart the political accountability
that all citizens of the country want to have from their
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
here we are again. This is the third and even the fourth time I
speak on this bill.
I am pleased to speak on the third group of motions with respect
to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Normally, one should expect a bill on environmental protection
to emphasize the sacred trust of sustainable development.
Needless to say that, today, nobody wants to go back to the days
of unchecked development with an utter lack of respect for the
environment and our nourishing earth.
However, we do not want to go to the other extreme and let our
concern for environmental protection become a barrier to
development.
That is one of the reasons why we object to the motions in Group
No. 3 moved by the hon. members for Fundy—Royal and
Nanaimo—Alberni, and the environment minister. In one case, I
think we would go back to the days of unchecked development
without much respect for the environment and, in the other, we
would go to the other extreme, which might hinder development.
Since we are debating the motions in Group No. 3 at report stage
of the bill, and there are eight groups of motions in all, I
think it is important to note that this bill is quite different
from the original one that was introduced in the House.
As a matter of fact, in committee only, the clause by clause
examination of the bill required 60 sittings. Moreover, 580
amendments have been prepared on this bill and 160 of them have
been adopted in committee.
I join my hon. colleagues from Davenport and Jonquière in
decrying what I would call the contempt the government is
showing for the work done in committees, since it is moving, at
report stage, a whole new series of amendments which will
further redesign and revamp a bill that has already been greatly
tinkered with.
Unfortunately, this bill no longer makes any sense. Its original
purpose has been lost in the countless amendments that have been
moved. I think the committee might well have set a new record
for the length of its clause by clause study of this bill.
At the outset, it is important to mention that we oppose the
very paternalistic approach of the federal government, which
claims that we need two security nets to better protect the
environment.
The duplication the government is providing for in this
environmental protection legislation will only help to establish
additional environmental protection standards that will
undermine economic development. These new standards will create
more red tape, which means more headaches for all businesses and
manufacturers throughout Canada and Quebec, who will now have to
meet not one but two sets of environmental standards.
1550
Besides, despite the fact that the environment is, under the
Canadian Constitution the Liberals claim to hold so dear,
supposed to be a shared jurisdiction, this bill shows that the
government wants to make provincial governments its vassals in
terms of decision making. This is totally unacceptable.
The bill even goes further.
It goes so far to say that even if there were to be agreements
between the federal government and provinces on certain
environmental issues, the federal Ministers of Health and of the
Environment, in their infinite wisdom, could ignore the
agreements negotiated between the two levels of government.
As I said earlier, this is a totally unacceptable paternalism.
Once again, “Ottawa knows best”. We can in no way approve such
an attitude.
The new series of environmental standards the federal government
could implement through this Environmental Protection Act will
place Quebec in a difficult situation compared to other Canadian
provinces. I will explain why.
If Ministers of Health and of the Environment decided, in their
infinite wisdom, to implement a number of uniform standards to
reduce toxic emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, throughout
Canada, without taking into account the progress already made by
each province, this would place Quebec in a very difficult
position.
As we know, provinces like Alberta have been very negligent in
recent years in terms of toxic emissions, of greenhouse gas
emissions, while other provinces like Quebec have been much more
vigilant in the last 10 to 15 years. The latter have implemented
very strict environmental protection measures, with the result
that in Quebec emissions may have been reduced by 10, 15, 20 or
25% in recent years.
If the federal government in its infinite wisdom—since it always
knows more than anyone else about all issues relating to the
environment—were to decide that we need to make an additional 5%,
6% or 7% reduction to industrial emissions, to toxic emissions
in the atmosphere, under the agreements negotiated at Kyoto, on
a uniform basis across Canada, this would be easily complied
with by Alberta, where the emissions have increased in recent
years. It would, however, be very difficult for Quebec, which
has already reduced toxic emissions by 10%, 15%, 20% or 25%.
The job has already been done.
In our respective political parties, in the companies or
community organizations with which we may have been affiliated,
we all know that the first $1,000 are very easy to collect in a
fundraising campaign.
It is the next $1,000 that are hard. This is a harder objective
to attain.
Under the circumstances, the powers the federal government is
taking onto itself for applying standards across Canada are
liable to place the most environmentally active provinces, the
most disciplined ones, in a terribly difficult position.
I need not point out to hon. members once again that we are
totally opposed to the motions in Group No. 3. We are opposed
to this bill, and we are, of course, going to oppose it with all
the energy we can muster.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on the Group No. 3 amendments
to Bill C-32 which deal with animate products of biotechnology.
1555
The essence of the Group No. 3 motions is to remove the powers
of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health
to give the governor in council the exclusive responsibility for
decisions on animate projects of biotechnology. At a time when
Canadians are asking more and more questions about the unknown
factors of biotech and asking for further information and
transparency, Motion No. 138 of the Liberal cabinet puts
decisions on environment and health effectively behind closed
doors, the governor in council doors.
When a lot of folks listening hear the term governor in council,
I am sure they are wondering what it means. It is the executive
arm of government. It is in effect cabinet. If this piece of
legislation goes through, neither the Minister of the Environment
nor the Minister of Health will be responsible for this area but
rather it will be the governor in council. The entire cabinet
will be responsible. There is an old saying that when everybody
is in charge, no one is in charge. That is the fear we have with
the particular piece of legislation before us this afternoon.
Canadians today are watching and listening to the news from
around the world about a variety of biotechnology issues such as
food labelling, biotech crops, genetics and cloning. They do not
necessarily understand everything but they are certainly
listening. They require some answers and they deserve some
answers. I submit that only through public debate can
misunderstanding and fear be addressed.
Throughout the world we are witnessing an exponential growth in
the technology field. At the same time the international alarm
bells are ringing and some people are even beginning to wonder if
we are in fact going too far too fast in this area.
Canadians witnessed the recent debacle related to bovine growth
hormone and the silencing of scientists at the health protection
branch. Their concerns are shared by many across the country.
The science and studies necessary to protect Canadians are based
on cost recovery far too often. Cost recovery for whom? For
industrial clients. As the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis asked
earlier today in the debate, is the fox guarding the henhouse?
Canadians want to know how the promoter, this government, can
also regulate against any possible harmful effects. The KPMG
analysis done for the health protection branch mentions the need
to consider the various industry and client interests. There is
concern that there may be a conflict of interest bias, and
Canadians certainly deserve an open and clear process.
There are calls for the government to rebalance the scale, to
step back from the ardent proponent and remember that a balance
is necessary to be struck on the side of public health and
safety. The decision making must return to science, away from the
political arena and backroom deals.
All of us as children spent some time on a teeter-totter. Some
of us in political life still spend time on teeter-totters. What
I remember about them is that the centre point of a teeter-totter
is the fulcrum. If there is too much weight on one side it
becomes unbalanced.
What is happening now on the teeter-totter of biotechnology is
that we have industry and government on one side and the
consumers are up in the air literally and figuratively on this
issue. We need to have the government in the middle, in the
fulcrum, so that there is a reasonable balance between industry
and certain protection and assurances for the consumer.
Cross-pollination from modified crops to other crops has
occurred and the question is could this cause problems. The
process must be an open one. Can we expect the Liberal
government to take a precautionary approach and err on the side
of protection? A series of Liberal motions to weaken
dramatically the precautionary principles suggests to us that we
cannot.
Canadian farmers are becoming concerned about the issue. The
potential loss of producer markets in Europe, and I will talk
about those in a few minutes, presents additional concerns as
well.
We certainly cannot lose sight of the success Canadian
agriculture has achieved around the globe with specialty crops.
We think of winter wheat, in particular, and the food delivered
to less fortunate tables.
I am our caucus critic on the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
We all had the opportunity to travel to Washington this past
February and had a good week of discussions on the future of
agriculture.
1600
One of the things that I recall from those discussions is that
with 80 million new mouths to feed each and every year for the
next 20 years food production will need to double throughout the
world over the next 50 years, by the year 2050. It cannot be
done, as it has been done in the past, by more irrigation and
more development of arable lands. We simply do not have the
capability. We recognize and scientists generally recognize that
agricultural biotech will be the future for the millions of new
mouths to be fed over the next half century.
We must ensure however that the best process for scientific
review, analysis and monitoring is in place. It has to be based
on science not on science fiction. Why can Canada not have the
best, most open, highest scientific standards that ensure product
safety for the environment and human health? An increasing
number of Canadians are calling for food labelling to provide
informed choices in their decision making.
I said I was going to talk very quickly about Europe. I want to
note that following European labelling regulations, restaurants
and fast food outlets in Britain have been ordered by the
government to tell consumers if their meals contain genetically
modified products. “People who are supplying food, whether it
is in a shop or a restaurant, are really duty bound to know as
much as they can about where the food came from before they offer
it to the public”, said the food safety minister, Minister
Rooker.
Genetically modified food is a hot political topic in Britain.
The government says that it is confident genetically modified
food is safe, but opinion polls show most consumers are anxious
remembering similar early assurances before the mad cow crisis of
a few years ago.
On this topic, recently the Western Producer had an
editorial entitled “GMO familiarity may breed comfort”. I want
to read a little of that editorial into my comments. It states:
One of the biggest debates surrounding genetically modified foods
is whether they should carry an identifying label. In Europe in
recent months, the issue has come to a head and the European
Commission has instituted rules for labelling GMO foods.
There is a climate of growing public distrust in Europe.
Denmark, Britain and France have all called a partial halt to GMO
approvals, while Austria, Luxembourg and France have slapped
unilateral bans on certain new crop strains.
The companies that have created genetically modified seeds are
generally against mandatory labelling.
They say that if there is no real nutritional or health
difference between altered and regular food, why should GMO
products be singled out? It could be viewed not as information
but as a warning.
As I have noted, and the editorial notes:
Many consumer groups say that for the public to make an informed
decision, products must be labelled.
Last year AgBioForum, a quarterly on-line magazine devoted
to agricultural biotechnology, tackled the issue.
The contributors, mainly academics at Canadian and American
universities, argue that labelling, especially if voluntary,
could build acceptance for agricultural technology.
To conclude the editorial, it further states:
Companies with products made from GMO foods might do well to
institute voluntary labelling. Although they might take some
heat in the short-term, in the long-term they will familiarize
the population with the benefits of the science.
And the process should become easier as researchers move from
the first wave of bio-tech crops, which were directed at giving
farmers more options, to products directed at consumer needs like
lower fat levels and higher protein.
To wrap up, how can well-informed consumer decisions be made if
the entire process is clouded and under a veil of secrecy?
Shutting out environment and health ministers and placing
critical decisions behind closed doors with the governor in
council sends a wrong message to Canadians. What is this
government trying to hide? Why limit the safety net in the
decision making process if everything is above board?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise for the second time to address Bill C-32, which replaces
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly referred to
as CEPA in environmental and parliamentary parlance.
1605
Our position on Bill C-32 and on the legislation passed by this
parliament, and the position developed by Quebec are not new. My
Bloc Quebecois colleagues stated it a number of times since the
beginning of this debate: we are clearly opposed to this bill.
It is important to explain why we are opposed to Bill C-32. Let
us not forget the stand taken many times in the past by the
Quebec government regarding the protection of the environment.
Let us not forget January 29, 1998.
Let us not forget that important date for Quebec, when the
Quebec government, through its Minister of the Environment,
Claude Bégin, decided not to sign the proposed environmental
harmonization agreement. It was supposed, in principle—and I
emphasize the word “principle”—to reduce duplication and
overlap, and to respect the exclusive or primary jurisdictions
of the provinces under the Canadian Constitution.
I am referring to the spirit of harmonization because
essentially the content of that agreement was far from
respecting the principle stated a few months earlier by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
Through its government, Quebec has said loud and clear that it
will sign the environmental harmonization agreement the day this
agreement will actually permit—not only in principle but in
actual fact—the elimination of overlap and duplication, and
include the recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at least
primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the provinces
under the Constitution.
It is important to remember these facts because they explain the
Bloc Quebecois' position on Bill C-23. If the federal government
had respected the spirit of the harmonization agreement, we
might have supported Bill C-23, but the problem is that every
time an environment minister sets out to renew the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act in this parliament, he takes the
opportunity to interfere in areas of provincial responsibility
and increase duplication and overlap.
The renewal of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act did not
start yesterday. On December 15, 1995, the Liberal government
proposed revising the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The
proposal by the Minister of the Environment at the time was the
government's response to the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
entitled “It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention”.
This report set out the broad lines of a proposal to renew the
federal government's main legislative measure on environmental
protection.
At the time, the Bloc Quebecois, which opposed the bill,
denounced the fact that most of the recommendations supported
the centralizing tendency of the federal government in
environmental protection matters.
As my colleague for Verchères—Les-Patriotes mentioned, the Bloc
Quebecois refutes the theory of the double safety net and
contends that the environment would be better served if
responsibility for its protection were given to one level of
government only.
1610
The Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the provinces, including
Quebec, have greater knowledge of the specifics of their natural
environment and are in a position to arouse the interest and
encourage the participation of local residents, are more open to
the claims of environmental groups, are able to conclude
significant agreements with national and international partners
and have indicated their desire to find solutions to
environmental challenges and to contribute actively to
sustainable development.
Our vision is shared by many experts studying how federations
work.
As Barry Rabe, a researcher from the United States, stated in
the 1997 Fall issue of the scientific magazine Canadian Public
Administration, and I quote:
For the most part, literature on environmental federalism shows
decentralization in an extremely favourable light.
Bill C-32 is not part of a decentralizing approach. It renews
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has been so
vigorously opposed by the various governments of Quebec. In the
last parliament, the Liberal government attempted to get the
previous version of this bill passed, but gave up the attempt in
light of the huge outcry, which could have jeopardized the
upcoming elections.
As the House will recall, Bill C-74 died on the Order Paper
during the last session. But CEPA provides for a five-year
review, which is already overdue, as the government backslides
and introduces another bill holding to the national vision that
still does not sit well with members of the National Assembly.
With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national goal.
This is the second whereas in the preamble. The government
wants to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by
amending certain technical provisions, but keeping the essence
of the centralizing vision of environmental protection.
The bill contains provisions dealing primarily with pollution
prevention, the establishment of new methods of reviewing and
evaluating substances, and the creation of obligations with
respect to substances that the environment and health ministers
consider toxic.
The list of these substances is extensive. There are new powers
and new dispute regulation mechanisms for investigators. This
bill gives investigators new powers. But it does not give them
new resources for doing their work. That is what is ironic. We
are given a stronger, more robust CEPA, an act with more teeth,
but the Minister of Finance is still refusing additional funds
to enable officials to take action.
It is a no go. We cannot protect the environment without
resources. Now is the time to realize this. In a few weeks, I
will have an opportunity to perhaps meet again with my former
colleagues in the Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development, and say no to Bill C-32, because it is
still predicated on centralization, which Quebec cannot accept.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-32. However, I
am sad at the same time, because we need only think—and I know
whereof I speak—of the federal government's miserable performance
at managing the environment for many years now.
I can give you striking examples from my riding. I was a
municipal councillor for four terms over a period of 14 years,
and God knows how many times we had to deal with the federal
government, on the matter of the erosion of river banks for
example.
1615
In the town where I served as councillor, there are four beaches
and I can name them for you: going from west to east there are
the Monagan, Ferguson, Routhier and Lévesque beaches.
They are fine beaches and have a fine shoreline. People worked
very hard building houses, clearing an area where they could
enjoy life and resorts would flourish. Through dredging and
other operations by the federal government, by rockfilling, they
affected the tide. It destroyed roads, infrastructures and
houses.
There is another fact I remember very clearly.
In the fall 1994, I asked for a meeting with officials from
Environment Canada and representatives of the Sept-Îles airport,
which was held at the airport. At that point, I warned the
airport authorities that the product used to de-ice airport
runways was noxious and contaminating the soil. There were
serious consequences.
The airport is on a cliff. The Routhier and Lévesque beaches lie
just below. I warned them that they were polluting the water
table. Four years later, after various tests were done, the
Department of Transport acknowledged that, by using the material
they spread on the runways to de-ice them, they had polluted the
soil, that they were responsible. They contaminated the water
table, they contaminated the sources of drinking water the
public had invested in, had created.
For the last two years, the solution has been to provide people
with bottled water. I personally asked questions in the House to
hurry the Minister of Transport into finding an appropriate
solution. Indeed, the solution is quite simply to extend the
Sept-Îles pipeline to bring drinking water from downtown to that
population.
I have met with Health Canada officials and a medical officer of
the Quebec health ministry, who have told me that the most
dangerous thing is not to drink water, since our body can
eliminate it. Actually, the most dangerous thing is to take a
shower or a bath in contaminated water because skin pores cannot
eliminate it. Mothers are forced to bath their babies in bottled
water, which is totally ridiculous.
We ask the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the
Environment to take action.
Public health is at stake. This is an environmental issue. It
seems as though this government could not care less about the
health of people, allowing issues as important as this one to go
unresolved.
Here is another example. During the night of March 22 to 23, an
ore carrier, the Gordon C. Leitch, collided with a wharf at
Havre-Saint-Pierre and spilled more than 40,000 tons of fuel in
the waters of one of the most prized attractions of my riding,
the Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve.
Hundreds of birds were contaminated and nearly 80% had to be put
down. New traces of fuel are now showing up as ice melts.
Incalculable damage has been caused to this extremely fragile
ecosystem.
1620
Ridiculous as it may seem, the environment minister never made
any commitment to the people of the Minganie area concerning
what she could do or should have done most urgently, despite the
representations and letters from the people. She had the
responsibility to reassure the residents of the archipelago,
these pioneers who have worked so hard over the years. She
should have done something then to protect the archipelago in
which they have put so much work because it is a unique tourist
attraction.
When we talk about the people in the Minganie area, we talk
about the Mingan archipelago.
We also talk about the people in Havre-Saint-Pierre, Sheldrake,
Rivière-Saint-Jean, Rivière-au-Tonnerre, Baie-Johan-Beetz, Aguanish,
and Natashquan.
All these people have been working very hard to develop this
archipelago of which they are so proud, and which is also an
economic asset because it is a great tourist attraction. The
minister never did anything. She never bothered taking serious
measures to solve the problem and clean up the oil slick that
was spilled on that night in March.
Let me remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois moved the
following motions at report stage. One was to remove the
paragraph in the preamble dealing with the establishment of
national environmental standards, and environmental quality
guidelines and codes of practice.
Without those changes, since the environment is not an
exclusively federal jurisdiction, this sub-clause was
unacceptable to us.
We also want to remove the paragraph of the preamble where
reference is made to the presence of toxic substances, which is
a matter of national interest. Once again, the federal
government is looking for an excuse to meddle in the environment
from coast to coast.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling upon the federal
government to amend the preamble so that Quebec may speak for
itself internationally when its interests are at stake,
particularly in the areas of culture, education, health and the
environment.
The federal government boasts about recognizing Quebec's
distinct nature. It should let us speak for ourselves when our
interests are at stake.
In clause 2, we wish to delete the words “endeavour to” in
reference to the federal government's acting in co-operation with
the provinces. In our opinion, the federal government must
always act in co-operation with the provinces, and with their
approval. The use of “endeavour to” gives the federal
government a loophole we do not wish it to have.
We are calling on the federal government to do away with the
matter of uniform environmental standards from coast to coast,
because this ignores our specific situation. Here again, we
want the words “endeavour to” deleted in order to have assurance
that the federal government will act within the spirit of the
intergovernmental agreements on the environment concluded with
the provinces. This amendment eliminates the federal loophole.
Finally, I would point out that we are proposing the same
amendment several times, requiring the federal government to
obtain provincial approval when assigning the power to adopt
regulations and implement legislation.
The federal government must obtain provincial approval when
adopting regulations relating to the environment.
For all of these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois, including the
member for Manicouagan of course, will be voting against Bill
C-32.
1625
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the motions Group No. 3, which deal with toxic
substances.
One could certainly talk at length about what is going on with
toxic substances at the federal level. However, before trying to
give teeth to this bill, I think we should first look at what
the federal government has done in the past regarding toxic
substances.
We need only think of the Irving Whale, the wreck that lay on
the ocean floor off the Magdalen Islands for years before the
federal government finally decided to raise it.
However, 90% of the PCBs on board seeped out and nothing was
done to recover them.
The government did not do everything it should have. It was very
important to raise the wreck because there was a major risk that
all the oil could have been spilled. Everything was done so fast
and without any consideration for the possibility that the BPCs
could seep out that eventually 90% of these substances were
spilled. We do not know the extent of the damages, nor the
middle and long term effects, and nothing is being done to
correct the situation. As far as the government is concerned,
the problem has been dealt with and that is the end of the
matter.
However, there could be a very significant impact on marine
wildlife, shellfish and fish in that region, and 10 years from
now we will be told “Yes, there are problems. We will have to
conduct more studies and stop fishing. There are problems with
marine wildlife in that region”. Once again, this will be
because the government has not taken its responsibilities.
There is also the famous Irving Oil Limited, which, as members
know, is a very powerful company in Canada. In fact, it does not
even pay taxes here, because of a promise made by children to
their parents. That company is responsible for the Irving Whale
disaster, and the government could easily have made sure that
Irving foot the bill, instead of making the taxpayers pay once
again.
This is just one case involving toxic substances where the
government did not go as far as it should have.
This will come back to haunt us in the years to come. There will
be problems because of these PCBs that remained at the bottom of
the ocean. We will then realize that something should have been
done, but it will be too late.
Another important issue relating to toxic substances is the use
of MMT. The government tabled a bill to ban the use of MMT in
gasoline. At the time, we fought against that legislation and
asked the government to conduct a very simple study to determine
whether MMT is indeed a toxic substance. There is still no
evidence to that effect. On the contrary, there is evidence that
using MMT in gas is a good thing and that, in some way, it
protects the environment.
Until a solution is found, we will be faced with the same
problem. We would love to get rid of greenhouse gases and
everything else that is toxic.
But right now there is no proof that MMT is a toxic substance.
We therefore asked the government to do a study. It has not
been done. Once again, our recommendations have been ignored.
Now I hear that the government wants to reintroduce the same
bill to ban MMT. My impression is that something is getting in
the way, because precious time is being wasted. Let us do
things properly, as they were done in the case of the Irving
Whale and MMT, commission a public or private study, it does not
matter which, and convince people—and convince me—that MMT is a
toxic substance and we will react accordingly.
But this has still not been done. In fact, the company recently
won a court case and is still allowed to use MMT.
1630
All this is costing a lot of money. And to what end? To
indulge in petty politics, keep a few friends of the party
happy, make the government look good?
This is not how the environment works. I am sorry, but the
environment is our future, the future of our children and of our
grandchildren. The government must invest in that future now,
and it must do so in a concrete and logical way, consistent with
what is now taking place in the provinces. We already have
environmental legislation.
Another example is that of environmental assessments. This bill
was passed in the House during our last term of office.
It is still very contentious. There is a case before the courts
involving Quebec and the federal government.
Quebec has the BAPE, which is an agency that does environmental
assessments and ensures that any proposals meet Quebec's
environmental standards.
Now, the federal government is duplicating and overlapping what
is already being done in Quebec. For example, an entrepreneur
who wishes to develop a project of some sort has to submit to a
battery of studies. He has to apply to the BAPE and hope he
meets the necessary standards. If the federal government then
steps in and says that it is not happy and the process must
start all over again, costs are doubled. An entrepreneur will
probably go under, or close to it, because these things can take
years to resolve.
Environmental lawyers will have an opportunity to make a lot of
money.
I can assure members that with the entire bill before us now, if
provincial jurisdictions are not respected, serious problems
will occur. The only thing the government will be able to brag
about is that it gave environmental lawyers the opportunity to
make a lot of money.
Common sense must prevail in all this. I agree that the
environment absolutely must be protected, but I also agree that
common sense must prevail. Agreements must be made between the
federal government and the provinces, because there are some
provinces that are doing their part. Perhaps there are some that
are not, but I do not want Quebec to be penalized because the
federal government has decided to put everyone in the same boat.
I am sorry, but this is not the way things work.
We brought forward some amendments. I would ask the government
to consider them carefully, to ensure that somewhere there will
be some harmonization, some agreement.
Finally, instead of quarrelling about which level is responsible
for the environment, I say that everyone should be responsible
for it in a normal fashion, in an appropriate manner, without
constantly quarrelling and going before the supreme court,
before the Quebec court, for decisions that will take years and
that will not help the environment in the least. Quite the
contrary, this will delay all the work that should be done now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, motions in Group No. 3 are deemed put,
the recorded divisions are deemed demanded
and deemed deferred.
The House will now move on to the motions in Group No. 4.
[English]
Pursuant to order made earlier this days the motions in Group No.
4 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions
Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 47.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 3 with the following:
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on
page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 25 on
page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 37 on
page 4 with the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 11 to
14 on page 5 with the following:
“(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(m) and (n), if this
Act does not provide for the avoidance of duplication where
measures can be taken under this Act and under another Act of
Parliament to address a matter affecting the environment or human
health, the Minister, the Minister of Health where appropriate,
and the minister responsible for the other Act will jointly
determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other
Act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.”
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after
line 40 on page 5 the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after
line 9 on page 9 the following:
“hormone disrupting substance” means a substance having the
ability to disrupt the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding,
action or elimination of natural hormones in an organism, or its
progeny, that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis,
reproduction, development or behaviour of the organism.”
That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after
line 23 on page 9 the following:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 41
on page 10 the following:
““waste” means any solid, liquid or gaseous material or materials
or a combination of them, discarded or intended to be discarded
as useless and valueless, but excludes recyclable material.”
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-32, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 36 on
page 30 with the following:
1635
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an effort to direct my
comments specifically to this group, I would like to identify
that the government amendments in this section are restricted to
administrative duties.
Specifically, the government response to the standing committee
report on CEPA committed to using the version of the
precautionary principle agreed to by Canada and the nations of
the world during the 1992 United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro.
Motion No. 8 by the government seeks to ensure that the
statement of the precautionary principle in the administrative
duty section is consistent with the Rio version. The government
has put precautionary principle into the body of the legislation,
strengthening our government's commitment to take precautionary
measures and putting the environment and health of Canadians
first, even in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Specific to the other motions that are in this group, the Reform
motions seek to reverse the standing committee amendments that
deleted cost effective elsewhere in the bill. The government
would like to see those remain deleted. Furthermore, we are not
in support of the Reform Party's motion to restore the residual
clause 2(2), which is one of the motions before us.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this House one more time today. I am very
happy. It is not very often that I speak so often in one day.
Bill C-32 is very important. It is very important for Quebec
because we have our own environmental legislation. We have been
a leader in this area, and the federal government now wants to
appropriate the good things we have done in Quebec.
In Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 8 and 10 deal with cost-effective
measures. We had a lengthy debate on the word cost-effective in
the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development, and we noted that it was not clearly defined.
We decided to take it out. Now I see that Motions Nos. 8 and 10
propose that the word be reintroduced.
I do not know if people did their job in the standing committee,
to at least try to have this bill make some sense. We see today
that the motions brought forward by the government, the Reform
Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative
Party deal with things that were already done by the standing
committee.
These things were debated, maybe not from the same point of
view, since the same amendments could not be brought forward in
the House, but from a similar one.
The closer we get to the end of consideration of this bill, the
more I realize this issue is not being taken very seriously.
With this bill, the federal government is again trying to
interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. As my
colleague was saying earlier, let us leave these things in the
hands of those who have jurisdiction over them.
1640
I think the government wants to undermine the authority of the
provincial governments, which have developed some expertise
through agreements with municipalities, industries, individuals
and environmental groups. They have ensured that some progress
can finally be made in terms of the environment.
Why take a step backward when we can move forward? With this
bill, the government not only takes a step backward, but it
prevents the environment from being the focus of concern for the
current and future generations.
What we have before us today is not a progressive, but rather a
regressive piece of legislation. It is regressive in its
concrete measures, in its vision for the future and in the bad
image it gives the world of Canada, because of our poor
performance. Nothing in this bill will help us become visionary
environmental leaders.
We made some commitments in Kyoto. I do not think the government
has been able to meet them, quite the opposite, in fact. With
the bill before the House, we will fall behind in our
commitments. Why? Because, for the time being, there is no
co-ordination between the various departments dealing in one way
or another with the environment in Canada, like Health Canada
and Environment Canada, for instance. As the commissioner of the
environment said, we are once again quarrelling.
And what happens when people quarrel? They are unable to move
forward.
I do not believe this bill will be beneficial to endangered
species, water and other matters of interest to our generation
and future generations. We should be concerned about that.
Today, we witnessed a historic event: a woman from Quebec went
up into space. This bill, however, won't make history. I believe
we could have done better.
The Bloc Quebecois wanted to move things ahead. However, this
government is not doing what it should. It says it will invest
millions of dollars here and there for studies and so on. This
is not what people want. They do not want studies, they want
action, but this government does not know the meaning of the
word. We always hear the same old story.
This government is like a dog chasing its tail.
This is unfortunate because nowadays no one can ignore
environmental issues. This government was elected to run the
country, and it is not doing its duty. It does not act, whether
it be on the issue of importing or exporting toxic substances or
on any other environmental issue. It is as if they had hit the
wall. They seem to be living in a virtual world. Everything that
deals with the environment seems to be nebulous. We have to tell
them that all environmental issues are actually part of our
everyday life.
I would not like to be in their shoes tomorrow when people tell
them “What did you do? You had the power to make decisions for
our children and our grand-children but you did nothing”. We
cannot look back. We must look to the future. We can build on
past experience, but we cannot go back in time.
I believe very strongly in the future, but this government has
no hope. It has no hope now and will have none in the future. As
the hon. member for Davenport said, it is important.
1645
It is very important for me, for the hon. member for Davenport,
and for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. For us in the Bloc
Quebecois, it is very important. I realize we missed the boat.
When we miss the boat, it is very hard to move forward.
I hope the government will think it over before the bill is put
to a vote, and consider the amendments introduced by the Bloc
Quebecois and those by the Reform Party. Some, not many, are
forward-looking.
I ask government members to search their soul and take a
positive view of the Bloc Quebecois' amendments. I ask them to
see to it that this bill benefits future generations.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the subject of the precautionary principle there are many
definitions. We can ask ourselves within the context of this
discussion why we need a strong rather than a weak definition of
the precautionary principle.
The answer comes by way of yesterday's report provided by the
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development,
Brian Emmett. He writes that Canada is not properly monitoring
and draws the attention of parliament in his report to the fact
that Canada is not managing pesticides and toxic chemicals. He
goes on to cite poor data collection, interministerial
squabbling, cuts to science spending and pollution monitoring.
Cuts to science spending have been corrected in recent days by
an announcement by the minister. However, there is a widespread
feeling among senior scientists in government employment. They
are alarmed at the government's declining ability to detect toxic
substances and prevent their harmful effects.
In committee we recommended cleanup plans for industry based on
a strong precautionary principle paving the way for the
environment minister who would deem toxic chemicals to be
inherently dangerous and implement controls without waiting for
definite scientific proof of harm. Unfortunately the government
under pressure from the Canadian Chemical Producers Association
has diluted that requirement by ensuring by way of this amendment
that the minister would have to have evidence of long term harm
before acting and has burdened the minister with this additional
cost effectiveness feature.
We can ask ourselves why we need a strong rather than a weak
definition of this precautionary principle. Again we find the
answer in yesterday's report by the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development when he writes that
government departments “with shared responsibility for dealing
with toxic chemicals not only do not co-operate, but in some
cases have radically different views on what to do”. He points
out that Environment Canada, fisheries and oceans, and health are
often at odds with Industry Canada and the Department of Natural
Resources. He states:
In many cases, departments are deeply divided on the risks posed
by toxic substances and this has led to considerable
conflict...In many cases, conflicts between departments have
surpassed a healthy level of debate and have led to strained
relations, indecision and inaction.
Therefore, because of the problems pointed out by Mr. Emmett, it
becomes evident that what is needed is a strong precautionary
principle that would help in improving the existing situation.
1650
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise in the House today to congratulate the Minister of the
Environment and the Minister of Health on the recent announcement
of the first phase of research projects under the Government of
Canada's $40 million toxic substance research initiative. The
TSRI is a joint Environment Canada and Health Canada initiative
to fund scientific research into the links between toxic
substances, human illness and environmental damage.
Building science capacity within federal departments is an
important first step in improving the government's ability to
make effective decisions to address urgent environmental and
health issues. Without an adequate science capacity it becomes
increasingly difficult to detect, understand and prevent the
harmful effects of toxic substances on Canadians and their
environment.
Protecting and strengthening science capacity is fundamental to
making good environmental and health decisions as science itself
evolves and changes. New information and research continually
informs and improves our understanding of how ecosystems operate,
of how toxic substances interact and impair health functioning of
ecosystems and what is required for remediation, rehabilitation
and restoration of these ecosystems.
However, lack of full scientific certainty must not immobilize
us. It must not impair our ability to act. The precautionary
principle means that we act in a cautionary way to ensure the
protection of the environment and human health where threats of
serious or irreversible harm exists.
Having 23,000 chemicals in use in Canada without proper
evaluation is hardly cautionary. The member for Davenport has
pointed out why we need a strong precautionary principle. This
has been a longstanding public policy issue.
As early as 1950 Rachel Carson outlined in her book Silent
Spring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had declared that
it was extremely likely that the potential hazard of DDT had been
underestimated. By 1951 residues had been recovered from human
milk samples tested by Food and Drug Administration scientists.
This meant that breast-feeding human infants received a small but
regular addition to the load of toxic chemicals building up in
their bodies.
She went on to write that at that time it was believed that
chemicals of that type freely crossed the barrier of the
placenta. 1951 was also the year that my mother became pregnant
and I was born in the spring of 1952. It took until 1978, the
year that my daughter was born, before DDT was banned in Canada,
six years after it was banned in the U.S. An entire generation
had to pass from the time that evidence of harm existed before
real action was taken. This is hardly a precautionary approach.
And today, 21 years after being banned in Canada, DDT is still
present in our environment and in our body tissues.
Thousands of tonnes are produced each year. It is used to stop
the spread of malaria in some parts of the world. This is only
one chemical story among thousands of others.
The post World War II baby boom generation has been exposed to
more pesticide residues in childhood diets than any other
generation before or since. However, the most significant
results of this exposure will not be seen in the baby boom
generation but in the next generation with our children and
perhaps in many generations to follow.
Many health and environmental witnesses, for example the
Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment, the Learning Disabilities
Association of Canada and the World Wildlife Fund, pointed out to
the committee that children are particularly vulnerable.
From before conception chemicals work to harm a fetus as fathers
are subjected to toxics that can damage sperm. The fetus lives,
grows and develops inside mothers who have been exposed to
chemicals that can impair key body systems and functions. Even
the purest food, breast milk, contains residues of harmful
substances.
The sad irony is that the most pristine places on the planet are
not immune. Women in the far north, people not responsible for
the creation or use of these contaminants, have higher levels for
example of PCBs in their breast milk than mothers in the south.
1655
As the president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Sheila
Watt-Clouthier said last summer at the international POPs
negotiating meeting in Montreal, “As we put our babies to our
breasts, we feed them a noxious chemical cocktail that
foreshadows neurological disorders, cancer, kidney failure,
reproductive dysfunction. This should be a wake-up call to the
world”.
Children interact with the environment in very different ways
from adults. They eat dirt. Considering that we grow our food
in dirt, this is not such a bad thing except when that dirt comes
from a lawn recently sprayed by pesticides. Relative to their
size and body weight, children breathe, eat and drink far more
than adults. They breathe two times more air, eat three to four
times more food and drink two and a half times more water. Their
pathways of exposure to environmental pollutants are different
from adults and the same level of chemicals in the environment
can have much more dramatic effects on a growing child.
The incidence of some cancers may be affected by lifestyle
allowing adults to reduce their risks by changing their
lifestyle. However, as Sandra Steingraber points out in
Living Downstream, “the lifestyle of toddlers has not
changed much over the past half century. Young children do not
smoke, drink alcohol, or hold stressful jobs”. Moreover, for
the vast majority of cancers we cannot point to a cause in
children or adults, but evidence is suggesting that increasing
cancer rates are correlated with the tremendous rise in our use
of chemicals.
We know these problems exist. They have been documented for
decades. Few would argue that the environment and human health
are top priorities for Canadians. In fact, Canadians view
environment as the number one determinant of health. We must set
environmental priorities as if children mattered. More than ever
our children and their children require us to act in a cautionary
manner and if we are to err, we should err on the side of
protecting their health.
If this bill is really about pollution prevention and health
protection, then we as parliamentarians must act in a
precautionary manner. The addition of cost effective to this
section of the bill would add an unnecessary barrier to act when
a serious or irreversible threat exists.
I urge members of the House to defeat this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are not
surprised at the way the Liberal government is now presenting
Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the
protection of the environment and human health in order to
contribute to sustainable development.
How is the government laying out Bill C-32? True to itself, it is
once again taking the way of duplication.
In theory, Bill C-32 recognizes that the environment is a
responsibility that is shared between the federal government and
the provinces, but in fact, it does not devolve any power to
Quebec or other provinces, it flies in the face of a true
harmonization with all levels of government in environmental
matters. The intent of Bill C-32 is to strengthen the primacy of
the federal government as far as environmental protection is
concerned.
This scenario is typical of the behaviour of the Liberal Party
of Canada since its re-election in September 1997. It also fits
in nicely with the speech from the throne that was read at the
time to outline the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada and
the present government.
Just as it happened in education and health care, the federal
government is once again intruding in an area of shared
jurisdiction.
1700
When one looks at Bill C-32, one understands why our party
decided to propose so many amendments. We worked very hard in
committee. There were 60 sittings, many amendments were put
forward and about 160 were adopted. That explains why there are
now huge inconsistencies in the bill and many provisions that do
not square any more.
There must be a large number of lawyers hoping that the bill
will pass. There are so many clauses where the wording is not
clear and where there are inconsistencies between what was
initially proposed and what the clauses read now that we will
see a battle such as we have never seen between the federal
government and the provinces.
Our party has put forward a series of amendments aimed at
correcting these inconsistencies and getting the federal
government to understand the intents of a real environmental
policy. A real environmental policy is not developed with
centralisation tactics like the ones we have been seeing since
this bill was introduced, but rather with harmonisation and
consultation.
As I was saying earlier today, this government is trying to show
us that it is consulting, listening and negotiating but,
basically, it is always true to what it promised and to what it
has been saying and what it has been doing for two years.
So, what are we to do? We are here to fight for Quebec's
interests and the interests of Quebec's environment. Therefore
we have to work hard. In clause 2, the federal government used
the phrase “endeavour to act” instead of just “act”.
I am concerned when I look at what has been happening in the
last two years when the federal government says it is
endeavouring to do something. I would much prefer to hear the
word act, which means that something is actually being done.
When the government says that it is endeavouring to do
something, this is a way for it to shirk its responsibilities
and abover all to meddle in areas under provincial jurisdiction.
It was also decided to create an advisory committee to manage
environmental issues. The members opposite are really good at
coming up with all sorts of committees.
In the last two years, we have witnessed the establishment of
the Canada Revenue Agency, and more recently that of another
board whose objective will literally be to grab $30 billion
dollars out of the pockets of retired public servants, members
of the RCMP and armed forces personnel.
I am a bit scared when I hear that a committee will be struck.
What scares me most is when I hear that this committee will
advise the two federal ministers and that it will take the
federal minister's place to hear the provinces' claims.
With this new measure, the federal government will be able to do
as it pleases, as usual, while pretending to be waiting for an
answer from the provinces or consulting, and adopt really
centralizing directives. If Bill C-32 is passed as amended by the
committee after many sittings, Quebec and the other Canadian
provinces will end up losing some of their jurisdiction.
It is difficult to believe the government when it talks about
harmonization because, in the last two years, it has always been
confrontational, in its dealings with the provinces.
The federal government is acting this way because of the
upcoming WTO negotiations.
1705
It must try to prove that Canada is a powerful country, but it
is not. It is a divided country where there are many squabbles,
because some people do not respect the constitution and
constantly interfere in provincial jurisdictions. This will give
Canada a very bad image when the WTO negotiations start next
December. Let us face it, the other countries at the table will
know what is going on in Canada.
The government tries by any means at its disposal to grab as
much power as it can so as to get the most for Canada in the
negotiations.
However, before dealing on the international level, it should
respect its own constitution, respect the provinces and above
all consult them before submitting legislation like Bill C-32,
which is now before the House.
Have we not talked enough about Bill C-32? It has been a long
time since another bill was debated for so long: 60 sittings,
580 amendments proposed, 160 of which were adopted. As a result,
the bill we have in front of us is completely different from the
first draft. The only thing that stayed the same is that it
promotes confrontation instead of harmonization. We also know
that there were no consultations but the same old very strong
tendency of the federal government to impose its views on the
provinces, particularly Quebec.
This is why I once again ask the government and the hon. members
across the way to take the time to read the amendments brought
forward today and to realize that they are so important that, if
they were adopted and included in Bill C-32, we would have a bill
harmonizing relations between the federal government and the
provinces. I very much hope that this will happen.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the Group No. 4
amendments to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act.
I compliment my colleagues in the NDP on their motions which
propose to add a definition of endocrine disrupters to the
definition section of the bill. These substances are referred to
in the information gathering section of the bill but are not in
the definition section where it would permit the government to
more directly identify harmful substances which are hormone
disrupting substances that have very negative implications with
respect to human health.
For those individuals who are not that familiar with hormone
disrupting substances I would like to share some of my concerns.
These substances have the capacity to affect the nervous system
or immune system particularly of children yet to be born or in
the early years of development.
The world wildlife fund, physician organizations and learning
organizations have pointed out that substances such as DDT have
hormone disrupting tendencies or capacities which have very
negative implications on the development of children, their
capacity to learn, their nervous system, their immune system and
their hormone system. This NDP amendment is worthy of the
support of the House.
I also applaud the efforts of numerous individuals within the
committee who have advanced this subject. The original Bill C-32
which came to committee had no reference to hormone disrupting
substances.
1710
Through the collaboration of my Conservative colleagues, the
member for Jonquière, the NDP environment critic from Churchill,
the member for York North, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and
others, we were able to turn up the political tinderbox to ensure
the information gathering component of the bill.
Canada is already a world leader in terms of studying the
hormone disrupting substances on which the bill now has the
capacity to gather information. Eventually we will be able to
use that research to ensure that we are protecting human health
in that regard.
We had a definition that was very similar to the definition in
the NDP amendment. Some individuals would have us believe that
there is an internationally accepted definition with respect to
endocrine disrupting substances. That is not quite true. In
fact the NDP definition that was passed under the information
gathering section is essentially a melange, a blend of what the
U.S. EPA actually approved and the Weybridge definition.
Departmental officials with Environment Canada think this is a
very workable definition for us to utilize.
Going back to the other definition known as the Weybridge
definition, some individuals would advocate it as being the most
internationally accepted definition. It is one that many
countries have been exposed to, but by no means is there any
consensus. The definition we have right now is supported by some
environmental NGOs concerned about human health, so that is the
definition we should go into as well.
There is another amendment which the Conservative Party will be
supporting. Again I am referring to my colleagues in the NDP and
their definition with respect to aboriginal peoples which is
taken directly from the Constitution. We support that amendment
as well.
We are looking at clarifying some definitions with respect to
recyclable materials, endocrine disrupting substances and
aboriginal people as outlined in the Constitution.
Those are the amendments I wanted to highlight in Group No. 4.
Those are the ones we will be supporting. Again I applaud the
efforts of my colleague from Churchill.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I wanted to have the opportunity to speak to Group No. 4, a
portion of distinct amendments that are coming into play.
I refer to a statement that was made during clause by clause
consideration. After listening to the witnesses that had come
forth and presented in honesty their reflections on Bill C-32 as
it was originally drafted, we had the task of going through the
bill clause by clause. The only thought that came to mind was
that we were dealing with a document that resembled pulp fiction.
It had good covers. It had a colourful preamble. It had a good
title. However the inside of the bill had no powers.
We had cost effective measures that were highlighted in terms of
the precautionary principle. We had powers that were diminished
by the minister. We had pollution prevention. Virtual
elimination was certainly the highlight of the elimination task
of the bill. It seemed like we were continuing to pollute the
environment and to be a major disruption to our human health.
Along the way and through committee we were able to work with
all the party members who were in attendance and thoroughly put
their minds, their thoughts and their consciences to work.
We came up with Bill C-32 which resembled the needs of Canadians
and was balanced on the sustainable development model of the
environment, the economy and social well-being. All of these
balances were reflected.
1715
What we have with the amendments that have come forward, and a
lot of them are highlighted in Group No. 4, is that the
government is basing them on cost effectiveness. That is a major
detriment to what we have to do. If we are going to take
measures to protect our health and our environment we cannot
qualify them on cost effectiveness. It is reprehensible that it
would be considered at this point. The Liberal cabinet is very
adamant about this. We would like to challenge the cabinet to
put a price tag on human health and on the protection of our
children. That is basically what is happening here. Once we use
the terminology of cost effectiveness we put a price tag on the
measures and their effects.
There was a very brave Liberal member who in the clause by
clause review brought forward the elimination of cost
effectiveness. In the parliamentary process, the democratic
process, we voted and we all agreed that cost effectiveness
should not be part of the precautionary principle terminology and
it was voted out. Democracy ruled. Now the Liberal cabinet is
not satisfied with that process. It has not respected the
democratic process and has come back to the House, with its power
and strength in numbers, to try to bring back cost effectiveness.
I challenge members to vote their conscience for the well-being
of their families and the well-being of their children and to
vote in favour of a strong environmental bill.
Attaching conditions to protective measures is certainly
something that was highlighted throughout the deliberations.
I have some examples that I would like to share with members.
Recently we heard about Frederick Street in Sydney, Nova Scotia,
where toxic ooze began to leak into backyards. It made headlines
a year ago. It was on a railway bed. This toxic ooze was
included on the priority substances list. Arsenic and other
chemicals were in this concoction which was leaking.
What was cost effective? Cost effective was to leave the kids
and put a little plastic fence around the area, which was very
cheap. It cost maybe $50 for the fence and $10 to hire somebody
to put it up. For $60 there was a fence. That was the cost
effective measure for environmental protection to keep the kids
away from the ooze.
Then this spring the ooze was showing up in their basements. As
they were dusting off their bicycles to enjoy the weather, with
winter gone, these kids found this ooze on the basement floors
and walls of their Frederick Street homes. What is cost
effective? It was a major embarrassment. The environment
minister has now made some assurances that the federal government
will roll up its sleeves to attack this problem. Is it going to
take atrocities to knock us on our heads before we smarten up and
take action?
Basically we have to get past this pulp fiction issue. We
cannot make plans, have good intentions and put up a neon sign
saying we are open for business when we have nothing to sell. We
have to have substance. We have to have the human resources and
the financial resources to act and enforce the laws in this bill.
I would like to continue to speak about the cost effectiveness
issue which is a major detriment in terms of Group No. 5.
However, I would like to speak about the definitions which are
included in Group No. 4.
We have included a definition that covers hormone disrupting
substances. It is a major accomplishment in the country and in
the world to have this definition included in the bill. It was
included in part 3 of CEPA. It is a clause which deals with
information gathering. We are adding the hormone disrupting
definition at the beginning of the bill so that it plays and
resonates throughout the whole bill. If the minister decides,
beyond the information that she will be gathering, to make
regulations to that effect, there will be a definition in place
and we will not have to look for a new one.
This bill will have some of the homework done before the minister
takes action.
1720
This definition did not have the support and the collaboration
of the ministers. The parliamentary secretary played a role. A
colleague of mine filled in on the day, a very successful day,
when we managed to get this definition. A lot of people remember
that historic moment. I believe that everybody deserves a pat on
the back for making this happen. It was a win situation for all
of us.
Witnesses from the World Wildlife Fund helped to bring forward
this definition and they should be congratulated as well. It has
been approved by academic, scientific and professional health
circles throughout the world. In terms of gender benders we are
on the right track and this definition needs to be included.
Included in this group is the definition of aboriginal people.
We overlooked this situation. There was a well intentioned
inclusion of the aboriginal ecological knowledge of this country
where the significance and importance of aboriginal knowledge was
recognized.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
A lot of peoples and tribes have lived here for many
generations, many decades before us, and they have a tremendous
knowledge of the ecological and biological diversity of this
country. If we do not tap that knowledge and give it a weight
which is equal to scientific knowledge we will be missing a great
wealth of knowledge.
Aboriginal people should be defined as the Indian, Metis and
Innu peoples of Canada. That should put us well on track for a
good definition.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in
the few minutes that we have left, I would first like to address
the precautionary principle, which is the issue in this group of
amendments.
Frankly, I must admit there are reasons for the position taken
by the government. In its response to the committee report,
entitled “This is About Our Health”, the government clearly
explained that it would introduce the precautionary principle
according to the Rio definition. This definition includes the
notion of cost effectiveness. This is what the government had
decided to do.
At the same time, there is another way of looking at this
amendment. When we got to committee, the member for Davenport
introduced an amendment concerning the administrative duties
section of the bill, which aimed at ignoring the notion of cost
effectiveness.
[English]
I think it was a pity to reintroduce this notion of cost
effectiveness. The committee had a chance to debate it fairly.
All sides had a look at it, voted on it and the amendment
presented by my colleague for Davenport was voted in. It was in
the bill. There was no earthly reason that it should have been
changed again. The real definition, admittedly, was part of the
government's response, but it is not sacrosanct.
In several international instruments which the government has
signed definitions do not include the cost effectiveness notion.
In fact, in our oceans act the precautionary principle is written
this way:
Whereas Canada promotes the wide application of the precautionary
approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of
marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve
the marine environment;
1725
There is no notion there of cost effectiveness. This is a law
of our own government.
It was a real pity that we lost a wonderful chance to improve on
the Rio definition. That is what the environment and the
protection of human health is about. There is an evolution
happening. The concepts that we knew in 1992, which might have
been the subject of a compromise in Rio, will not be there
forever. If they evolve for the better, toward better protection
of the environment and human health, then why not? Why go back
in time? Why sacrifice a gain, something which is positive, that
was gained within our committee?
[Translation]
In the last minutes that I have left, I would have liked to
touch on an issue that was raised by several speakers from the
Bloc Quebecois. They are using all the debates to blame the
federal government. Everything goes well in Quebec and
everything goes badly at the federal level. Everything that goes
badly is the federal government's fault. The same old song.
I heard some speakers tell us why their laws were
forward-looking, how everything was going well in Quebec. Well, I
would like to remind them of a couple of things.
First of all, over the last two years, the environmental groups
themselves have blamed the Quebec government for its failure in
the environmental area. Very recently, the Quebec premier, a
former environment minister, suspended the application of part
of Quebec's environmental legislation, the Loi des impacts
environnementaux, which is absolutely perfect. He suspended its
application to have a Hydro Quebec power line built pursuant to
an order in council. The issue was brought to court and Quebec's
case was dismissed.
What did Quebec do? It passed a special law to continue
building the line, even though the court had said it should
abide by its own environmental legislation.
It is totally farfetched to say that there is disproportionate
centralization on the part of the federal government. Canada is
the most decentralized country in the world.
I want to remind Bloc Quebecois members that 24 federal
regulations related to the Environmental Protection Act and the
Fisheries Act have been transferred to the provinces, three of
them to Quebec. In Quebec, those regulations cover 61 plants,
more plants than all the others together.
The commissioner's report, which members of the Bloc Quebecois
so abundantly quoted earlier, shows that, of those 61 plants, 20
1995, 20% were at fault in 1996 and fully a third of them did
not comply in 1997. What did Quebec do? It sent warning
letters. There was only one prosecution.
The federal government is not always at fault. I am quite ready
to admit that, as democrats, we can sometimes condemn others,
but there is a lot to be said here.
[English]
I would like to thank all members who worked so diligently on
this bill, the officials of the ministry, the parliamentary
secretary and others. All we want is to better the quality of
life of the people we are here to serve. I have certain
reservations about this bill. They are few in number; however,
four or five are key.
I hope that somehow between now and the final passage of this
bill we will find some wisdom together to rectify what we feel
are the inherent flaws in this bill so that all of us can join
together to vote for it. That would, by far, be my fondest wish.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for
raising the issue of conflict prevention and how international
organizations can be reformed to play a more effective role in
this regard.
We are all aware of the radical changes that the world has
experienced since the end of the cold war. While the threat to
the global community's security posed by the cold war has been
removed, the number and intensity of violent conflicts has
escalated over the last decade. In recent years conflicts have
taken an enormous toll on many countries in Africa particularly,
which has seen its progress seriously undermined by debilitating
wars.
The face of war has also been transformed by the large majority
of conflicts now taking place within the borders of states,
rather than between states. Many of these intra-state conflicts
have had a devastating impact within the country and on the
region as a whole. Civilians account for the majority of victims
of such conflicts and are often targeted by belligerent forces.
Indeed, many of the threats to the security of the individual are
the direct or indirect result of conflict, very often of the
intra-state variety.
Despite the indisputable importance of conflict prevention to
the people of the world, the international community does indeed
find itself short of adequate tools to manage conflict and to
consolidate peace processes. Global and regional institutions,
most of which were created in the years immediately following the
end of the second world war, have been slow to adapt to the
realities and demands of a rapidly evolving global environment.
It would be misleading, however, to conclude that the
shortcomings of the international community's capacity to play a
more effective role in preventing conflicts, or indeed responding
to an early stage of emerging conflict, is due solely to the
flaws in the structure of mandates of international
organizations. In many cases, the missing ingredient prevents
timely and effective intervention and that indeed is the
political will and the willingness of members of the international
community to commit the required resources.
Canada believes that a dynamic and responsive United Nations
should be at the centre of the international community's efforts
to prevent conflict. Many components of the United Nations have
a contribution to make in building a global community less prone
to conflict.
The security council has a central and irreplaceable role to
play in the maintenance of peace and security. During our
current term as a member of the security council, Canada is
determined to press the council to assume its proper leadership
role which it has frequently abdicated in recent years.
Furthermore, the government believes that the council must
re-examine the traditional interpretation of its mandate. We
have advocated that the security council needs to broaden its
horizons to addressing emerging threats. A credible and relevant
security council must be quickly apprised of emerging intra-state
conflicts and seek ways to prevent them from occurring.
We reject the argument that the security council should limit
its attention to traditionally defined conflicts between states.
The human security consequences of intra-state conflicts and the
potential of such conflicts to destabilize adjacent countries
demand preventive action by the international community. The
security council is the appropriate forum that should be assuming
the lead in such action.
During our presidency of the security council in February,
Canada convened and chaired a special debate on the protection of
civilians in armed conflict. In addressing this debate, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs called for “vigorous, comprehensive
and sustained action” by the council to address the tragic
brutalization of civilians which characterizes so many of these
contemporary conflicts. He identified four challenges facing the
council. These include the prevention of conflict, the respect
for international humanitarian and human rights law, the pursuit
of those who would violate humanitarian norms and standards and,
finally, the issue of the instruments of war.
I am pleased that the security council agreed to ask the
secretary-general to prepare a report, due this September, which
will identify concrete measures that can be taken to improve the
protection of civilians in armed conflict. We see this as one
step in an ongoing process which will provide an improved level
of protection to the vulnerable.
1735
Canada has also stated clearly to the United Nations membership
our view that the security council must not focus on solving the
problems of one region while remaining indifferent to the
problems of others. Political will and leadership, including the
large and powerful members of the international community, are
needed in order that the security council may play its proper
role in preventing and resolving conflict.
In addition to our efforts to encourage the security council to
assume greater responsibility in preventing conflict, Canada is
active in many other ways to enhance our own and the
international community's capacity and effectiveness in this
regard. Of particular significance is the Canadian peacebuilding
initiative launched in 1996 which is designed to improve the
coordination of Canadian peacebuilding activities, both
government and NGO, and to strengthen Canada's contribution to
international peacebuilding.
Peacebuilding is the effort to strengthen the prospects for
internal peace and decrease the likelihood of violent conflict.
It is rapidly becoming an essential element of the UN's
involvement in conflict-torn societies. We will meet these new
challenges by strengthening the UN's capacity to prevent
conflict, respond rapidly when conflict erupts and to provide
post-conflict peacebuilding instruments.
Making peace, maintaining peace and building sustainable peace
must be understood not as three separate elements but as three
vital and interdependent components of the same mission; that of
eliminating violent conflict and building lasting peace in all
societies.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the government
appreciates the interest of the hon. member in the issue of
conflict prevention. The government shares the view that the
global community must find ways to enhance its ability to prevent
conflict, including international organizations. More effective
conflict prevention is clearly essential to assuring the human
security of people in many parts of the world.
Canada is working actively and energetically at the United
Nations and in other forums with a wide range of states that
share our commitment to developing an improved conflict
prevention capacity of the global community.
The motion under consideration contains the proposal that the
government should convene an international meeting to develop a
multilateral plan to reform international organizations to
enhance their conflict prevention capabilities. This is a timely
suggestion. However, the fact is that there are ongoing efforts,
both formal and informal, involving a broad range of countries
that are aimed precisely at the objective contained in the hon.
member's motion. Canada is at the forefront of those efforts and
is determined to find ways to improve the international
community's conflict prevention capabilities.
The complexity of the issues involved and the divergent
approaches of members of the global community would suggest that
meaningful progress toward enhanced conflict prevention capacity
of international organizations will likely be incremental rather
than revolutionary. Launching a new process to promote an end
that is already being pursued as a priority by Canada and many
other countries in different forums is not likely to add value.
In fact, it could detract resources and focus from ongoing
efforts despite the best intentions of those who would propose
such initiatives.
For this reason, the government is not convinced that the
adoption of this motion would be conducive to advancing the
worthy objective of improving the international community's
conflict prevention capability.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak today to the motion from the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to read it back into the
record. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should convene
a meeting of “like-minded nations” in order to develop a
multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations
(e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) so
that they can identify the precursors of conflict and establish
multilateral conflict-prevention initiatives.
1740
It should be easy to support the motion because it talks in
general terms about the need for reform. As speaker after
speaker will admit, there is a crying need for reform in each of
the multilateral organizations mentioned in the motion. The theme
is common within the organizations themselves as they seek to
change their mandate in this post-cold war era. They are
searching for answers and a consensus from the international
community and the leaders in the international community on where
to go from here.
The 21st century does not look like it is going to be the
century of peace and prosperity. If anything, this post-cold war
era has been an era of increasing regional conflicts that require
the thoughtful intervention of world leaders and community
leaders before the conflicts erupt into violence.
The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has a bit of a track
record in this area that should be noted as people consider this.
It was his initiative, long before it was a topical or faddish
thing to do, to support the abolition of landmines. It was his
initiative, both nationally here in Canada and internationally as
a medical doctor and dealing with the aftermath and fallout of
the landmine situation, which started the ball rolling in many
countries as people decided to come together.
How did they come together? They came together in a meeting of
like-minded nations—the same sort of initiative the member has
put forward here—to talk about ways to do away with that curse
on mankind that is the landmine.
Long before Princess Diana got on board and the government
grabbed this initiative and ran with it, the member from Juan de
Fuca had started the idea in many people's minds that this could
be achievable. Some of the same protests that I hear from the
government side about it being hard to do and that it has already
tried to do it here, there and everywhere, we found that when we
got together in what became the Canada initiative, we could
change the world. We did, we have and we should be thankful for
that.
The motion deals with, as some would say, a good theoretical
discussion, but it is far more than a theoretical idea. It is an
idea whose time has come. When the government chooses to
disengage from the debate or says that it is already doing all it
can, we see, as we saw today in Pakistan, what happens when we
disengage too much.
We have disengaged from India and Pakistan because of our anger
over what they have done on the nuclear front. We now hear that
a couple of planes have apparently been shot down in the area
between these two nations. One has to wonder what the precursors
were to the conflict. One has to wonder what was in the tea
leaves. If only we had an active international organization of
like-minded nations that saw the precursors to the violence, to
list them and to find ways to mitigate them by working through
the reform of international organizations.
Every night on the news we see the situation in the Balkans. We
hear people, who seem to be coming out of the woodwork, saying,
“For 10 years we have told you this was coming. You could see
it”. All the evidence was in place and all the signs were
there, but none of the international organizations chose to read
the signs and react in any meaningful way.
1745
Now we are reaping the whirlwind. That goes for the Balkans,
the India-Pakistan situation and most of the continent of Africa.
People come back with horrible eye witness accounts. They say
that it has been going on and building for a number of years and
that if we had just looked at the signs we would have seen the
disaster that was coming.
When disaster struck in Rwanda people literally cried on
television. They said they told the United Nations there were
signs that big genocidal problems were brewing and that it had
better do something. The United Nations is just not geared
react. It reacts after there is a war, a conflict or a genocide
taking place, but it does not have the precursors in place, as
this motion says, to deal with a situation before it erupts in
violence.
That is why the motion is so timely. It is interesting that we
have had a series of motions in this session dealing with either
peacekeeping initiatives or conflict prevention initiatives such
as this one. I guess it is a sign of the times. It is the sign
of the need that many backbenchers see even if the government
does not. Backbenchers see the urgency of finding ways to deal
with the changing international situation.
As I mentioned earlier that situation is not less tense because
of the end of the cold war. All that has done is allowed a
series of smaller but hugely important regional conflicts to take
root and to fester unchecked until they erupt in violence.
When people are considering the importance of this issue they
should go through the House of Commons list of why this motion
should be considered important. Why should it be votable, for
example? Is it something of international significance? The
answer in this case is an obvious yes. The government says it is
doing all it can do or should do so we should not worry about it.
The truth is the international organizations have said this is
something they have to grapple with. In the case of
Pakistan-India we have spent billions of dollars in aid but have
not spent at least a small portion of that on making sure we have
identified the precursors to conflict, finding ways to reduce
those conflicts and finding ways through the World Bank, the IMF
and the United Nations to help reduce the tension levels rather
than just saying the answer must be more money. Money is not the
answer in these situations. It is to identify a whole series of
indicators and then deal with them through international
organizations.
First, the motion meets the criteria of being of international
significance. Second, it is important because it is on the
cutting edge of foreign policy. I mentioned that there has been
a series of initiatives from both sides of the House on foreign
policy issues.
This initiative does not conflict with the government's agenda.
It dovetails nicely into what I believe Canadians would like us
to do in the House, that is to work co-operatively not only in
this place but internationally to move forward this peacekeeping,
peacemaking and war preventing measure.
Third, it capitalizes on something that Canadians too often take
for granted, our good international reputation. It would send a
signal to the international community and the people who watch
these debates and are keenly interested in our foreign affairs
that we have taken this matter seriously, that we will make it a
priority and that we are willing to work co-operatively with like
minded nations to make sure that peace is not just a theory but a
reality in the 21st century.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I too am
very pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's
motion which deals with the need to develop a multilateral plan
of action to reform international organizations such as the
United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank.
1750
The crisis we are facing today is defining how history will
remember this era as one of interstate conflict with grave
humanitarian implications. Whereas the first half of the 20th
century was characterized by wars between states, today this
concept seems to moving toward obsolescence. Countries with deep
seated pluralist traditions are now facing dissent from within
their borders as a result of intensifying extremist tendencies.
Strident voices and belligerent actions replace peaceful
cohabitation. Victims of these so-called modern conflicts are
more often than not civilians and this situation denotes
increasing violations of basic human rights. While the principle
of state sovereignty restricts external intervention, the
international community should never justify an action through
the mindless invocation of this principle.
[Translation]
There is one thing we should never forget about the sacrosanct
principle of national sovereignty, and that is that a nation's
sovereignty counts for nothing if it does not exist for the much
greater good of the sovereignty of its population.
The roll call of these new-style conflicts is a long one. The
names of a few countries will suffice: Algeria, Sierra Leone,
Rwanda. They will forever be associated with the atrocities of
which they were the theatres and their populations the actors,
the spectators and the victims. While our attention is turned
elsewhere, some of these crises continue to rage.
But no example is more striking by its immediacy and its scale
than the crisis in Kosovo.
What will be remembered of this very sad chapter in the history
of humanity? Milosevic's intractability, the horrendous
atrocities that are taking place and a very small part of which
have been discovered so far or the obvious ineffectuality of the
international community. While it is true that people are not
insensitive to what is happening in Kosovo and that many have
shown a generosity that has been of a great help to the
refugees, we are left with no choice but to conclude that the
NATO strikes have been ineffective.
[English]
The international community has seen its efforts reduced to
nought by the stubborn and single minded perseverance of
Milosevic. If the primary goal of the operation allied force
includes facilitating the timely return of refugees to their
homes, the intensity of the air attacks brings into question
their utility. The reintegration of refugees into their homeland
becomes more and more difficult the longer the attacks rain down
on a country steadily being reduced to rubble. Peace must be
negotiated even if this process has to go forward with a leader
accused of numerous crimes against humanity.
As the crisis drags on, the realization that there are only two
remaining options is crystallizing: we can perpetuate violence or
we can choose to negotiate. The last few weeks of NATO's air
campaign have demonstrated the futility of the former option.
Negotiation is the only viable way to achieve a resolution to the
conflict and a lasting peace.
My intervention today is not designed to focus on the atrocities
being committed in the former Yugoslavia but rather to identify
and denounce the general inefficiency of international
organizations that deal with the types of situations which have
been clearly evidenced by the crisis in Kosovo.
The architecture of international organizations needs a profound
revision as their current form highlights their irrelevance. The
relative lethargy of the United Nations can be partly explained
in light of the organization's subordinations to the political
whims of the security council. In order to address the UN's
paralysis, a system whereby a member state's monetary
contributions are respected must be devised and implemented. I
must say parenthetically that the United States needs to know
this and know this well.
[Translation]
By its very structure, the UN is obsolete. We can be pleased
with the great work that the UN has accomplished for peace and
development in these last fifty years, but we must not forget
that more could have been done. To ensure it remains effective,
the UN must adapt to the new realities. It was built on the
respect of the sovereignty of nations. This principle still
holds as long as a nation's sovereignty exists for the good of
its people.
1755
This is why, in the face of blatant and repeated human rights
violations in a country, the international community has a duty
to overlook the notion of sovereignty and to react in order to
correct the situation.
The actions taken by NATO, which circumvented the UN security
council, clearly show the obsolescence of the two organizations.
Even though NATO leaders, including Canada, are prestigious
members of the United Nations, this did not prevent them from
bypassing the UN. On the other hand, the UN did not respond to
such action. How can we tolerate such a blatant lack of
co-operation?
I believe it is Canada's responsibility to take a leadership
role in the face of such obsolescence.
We avoid consuming outdated products. We update our old
software. We offer retirement packages to tired workers to make
room for younger blood. Similarly, it is our duty to review the
role of our major organizations.
[English]
Whereas our international organizations were born out of the
crucible of the second world war and designed to deal with the
post-1945 era, it is plainly evident that the contemporary
international security environment has changed dramatically
since.
As previously mentioned the very nature of wars has evolved
considerably. Today we face significant crises in both
development and the environment. Poverty continues to grow and
foreign aid has taken on the guise of public relations gestures
instead of bona fide humanitarian assistance.
Both World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actions
leave much to be desired in form and function. Loans from these
organizations have served to put into debt the poorest countries
on earth, to the point where they can never hope to escape from
their debt traps. This situation is akin to sacrificing future
generations and represents the antithesis of sustainability. Poor
countries have become loan dependent, a state of affairs
perpetuated by the western world and the actions of international
financial organizations.
Numerous development projects have proved hopelessly
inappropriate, dealing with short term results at the expense of
the long term viability and sustainability of the populace. Truly
sustainable practices and development must aim to enfranchise
their brothers and sisters throughout the developing world and
must result in a significant form of international organizations.
We must restructure and rework international environmental
policies. If these policies are to be effective they must be
applied and implemented globally. By their very nature
international environmental policies necessitate a strong guiding
role for international organizations. As such the inherent
inefficiencies displayed by international organizations in
dealing with environmental concerns and issues must be addressed
by the reform of these institutions.
The time has come to convene a global summit with the aim of
reforming international organizations, rewriting the
international code of conduct in order that our organizations not
only reflect contemporary realities but also new more efficient
modes of actions to deal with the challenges of today and
tomorrow.
[Translation]
While it is critical to correct the current situation, the
solution must not be risky. It must constantly be adjusted to
the changing realities of our world. This is why it will be
essential to introduce a motion to review major international
organizations every decade.
[English]
We must work toward establishing international institutions that
priorize human needs and rights. The sovereignty of states must
be tempered by the primacy of human rights. Thus the flagrant
abuse of this paramount principle can and should be met by swift
and meaningful intervention by the international community.
I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for this very
important and useful motion.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, I
begin by thanking the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for this
thought provoking and important motion. It is a very timely
motion because we live in a period of immense change. There are
tremendous challenges facing Canada in a global environment.
Traditionally Canada has played a very important role as a
middle power, a role that far exceeds our size as a nation, our
population and our ability to influence affairs. Our chain of
events in global events has been significant.
1800
I would argue that over the past several years, particularly
since 1993, there has been a decline in the role we have played
particularly in the defence of human security and in the
traditional linkage that has existed between foreign policy in
Canada and human rights which has existed for some time. I would
argue that there has been a significant de-linkage since 1993.
More focus has been placed on trade missions than on actual
foreign policy in a very positive sense.
Since the end of the cold war the evolution of human security
has increased its pace significantly. There have been over 100
conflicts since the end of the cold war. Most of these have been
interstate conflicts. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has
said there are approximately 40 current conflicts. Many of these
conflicts are between governments and their own people. In that
type of environment the evolution and recognition of human
security becomes increasingly important.
The evolution of human security certainly did not begin at the
cessation of the cold war. Some would point to the birth of the
UN in 1948 and also to the Bretton Woods institutions that began
in 1945 as the modern genesis of the notion of human security.
From their very beginning the World Bank's and the UN's basic
principles and mandates have recognized human security.
The mission of the World Bank is “to help people help
themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing
knowledge, building capacity, and forging partnerships in the
private and public sectors; to fight poverty with passion and
professionalism for lasting results”. These basic tenets of the
World Bank are focused more on human security than national
security.
The United Nations charter initially said “to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small”.
The focus from the beginning with the UN and the World Bank has
been on human security and it certainly should be. The IMF is
more focused on the financial side of things in providing and
ensuring that nation states have the ability through financial
systems and economies to actually provide successful economies
for their people.
Globalization is playing a key role in the evolution of human
security as well. Technology and telecommunications play a role
in bringing the atrocities of war home to people in nations like
Canada and creating political and public pressure for us to
become involved in conflicts such as in Kosovo. There has been
an interesting incidence whereby we have seen NATO, developed as
a defence alliance for the cold war, actually playing a key role
in the defence of human security.
Some would argue that the role NATO is playing in Kosovo should
be played by the UN. In fact, it is the failure of the member
states in the UN to agree and to come to some sort of common goal
relative to the conflict in Kosovo. The UN is not playing that
role but NATO has been able to play a very important role and one
that many of us share.
The role that Canada has played in the landmines treaty with the
UN countries is further evidence of the evolution of human
security.
The issue of institutional reform for the Bretton Woods
institutions and for the UN and other institutions, including the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which are
involved in economic development and human security issues is
very important and timely because there is a tremendous amount of
redundancy between these organizations.
There is also a significant institutional reform needed
individually and collectively and an increased level of
co-operation. There has not been in the past enough co-operation
and communication between these institutions. As a result
sometimes the goals have been muddied. Certainly the effort to
achieve those goals has been even more confusing.
1805
One of the difficulties with the UN is that it is very difficult
to gain agreement from the member states on some common goals.
Recently I believe China had some difficulty with supporting the
UN peacekeepers in Macedonia because Macedonia has had a position
in the past of co-operation with Taiwan.
The U.S. support for the UN has varied over time. The payment
of dues by the U.S. to the UN has been a perennial issue. Even
though the President of the U.S. may be supportive of the UN in a
general sense, Congress sometimes is less so. If we read some of
the comments of Senator Helms in that regard, we can see very
clearly that one of the reasons many Americans are opposed to
supporting the UN and paying the U.S. dues to the UN is simply
that the U.S. does not agree with any devolution of the role of
the U.S. as a national power or as a superpower and feel that
supporting the UN will in some way reduce its power in a global
sense. There are member states like the U.S. that are in some
ways reflecting what is a pre cold war mentality in a post cold
war environment.
I want to speak briefly about the IMF. Many people are critical
of the IMF. I think some of the criticisms are legitimate, but
by and large a lot of the criticisms I hear are not accurate. The
IMF in spite of some of its failures has had some very
significant successes. If we go back to 1995 and look at the
bailout of Mexico for instance, that is an example where quick
action by the IMF and the U.S. and the $40 billion bailout did
help prevent a meltdown in Mexico and Latin America that would
have played a significant and deleterious role in those
economies.
It is questionable whether IMF support has helped in Southeast
Asia. Again there were some criticisms of the IMF, both in the
Southeast Asia crisis and in the ruble crisis in Russia last fall
and late last summer. Many of the criticisms of the IMF have
been based on the rather stringent conditions the IMF set on
lending to those countries. I would argue that some of those
conditions are very reasonable. Some of the conditions for
instance in Russia have been that Russia gains a functional
payment system, a functional tax system. These are reasonable
demands.
The IMF conditions are significant to the debt issue. The debt
issue in developing nations is extremely important. There are
initiatives to retire the debts of some of the developing nations
that are suffering under egregious debt loads at this time and are
simply unable to provide the infrastructure they need in the long
term in terms of education and health care and at the same time
meet these conditions.
The World Bank has undergone some significant reform under
Wolfensohn. It is the type of reform that I would like to see. I
believe that this type of meeting, this type of initiative is
very important.
In closing, in the long term I would like to see more focus on
initiatives like microcredit, issues like early childhood
intervention in some of these countries, and some of the
pre-emptive measures that actually seek to focus on the causes as
opposed to dealing with the conflicts once they have come about.
1810
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first
I would like to congratulate my colleague for putting this motion
before parliament. Certainly it has triggered quite a bit of
debate and interest. It is quite timely to speak about issues of
importance not only to our country but to the world as a whole.
I do have some problems with the motion because it mixes two
different animals. I wish it had focused on only one element,
either the United Nations or the international financial
institution. We would have had a more meaningful debate.
I am going to talk a bit about the economic situation around the
world and what Canada is doing as a nation both on the bilateral
level and on the multilateral level in order to push forward the
agenda of reform, not only for international financial
institutions but also for international financial stability.
As one would say, if something is rumbling in my tummy it is
time for something good to eat. If a nation is not doing well
economically and if the people of a nation do not have enough
food on the table, that to a large extent could create not only
an economic destabilizing factor but also a political
destabilizing factor. It is extremely important to have good
economic stability in a society in order to have good political
stability.
Canada on that front has done a tremendous amount of work. For
the record I would like to indicate some of the initiatives this
government has taken when dealing with poor countries and their
debts.
Over $53 million has been contributed to the most indebted
countries trust funds. The government has given an additional
$33 million of which $21 million has been earmarked for use by
the African Development Bank and $1 million for Guyana. The
government has written off a large portion of its outstanding
official assistance debt to the poorest countries. To date we
have forgiven over $1.2 billion in overseas development
assistance debt.
In 1992 the previous government announced a major debt
conversion initiative for Latin America involving up to $145
million of CIDA as well as ODA debt into local currency to help
finance environment and development projects. So far about six
countries have taken advantage of it, such as Colombia, El
Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Costa Rica. An agreement
has been reached with the Dominican Republic and should be signed
sometime in the near future.
On the multilateral level the government outlined at the 1995
G-7 meeting in Halifax a six point plan. One is to ensure
appropriate monetary policy through the G-7 central banks, paying
close attention and giving appropriate weight to the risk of a
future slowdown in the global economy. The second is expeditious
action to strengthen national financial systems and international
oversight. Third is development of a practical guide or road map
for safe capital liberalization in developing countries. Fourth
is the agreement to work urgently toward a better mechanism to
involve private sector investors in the resolution of a financial
crisis, including the possibility of an emergency standstill
clause. Finally, there is greater attention to the needs of the
poorest countries to ensure they receive the resources and
support they need to reduce poverty and begin growing.
Let me stress one point out of this six point plan, the
strengthening of the financial systems around the world. Very few
countries around the world put out financial statements
indicating the financial affairs of their nation.
1815
There is no international standard. Different countries report
in different ways on the state of the nation when it comes to the
financial end of things. To that extent, Canada is one of the
best countries in the world when it comes to issuing its annual
financial statements, which makes it one of the most transparent
economies in the world.
One of the first things that we have to do as a society, as a
government and as a parliament is to work at the bilateral level
to encourage and assist countries, in particular third world
countries, to start developing proper financial statements so
that at the end of the year the people of that country, whether
private sector, public sector or taxpayers as a whole, will be
able to see how the government is spending its money. Then
corruption could be reduced and eventually eliminated.
There are many countries around the world that do not issue
financial statements. As a result, nobody knows what those
countries have in terms of revenues or expenditures. That is a
major scandal internationally. It is one of the leading causes
for a lot of the problems and economic troubles around the world.
There are some countries in Asia-Pacific that have not issued
financial statements for the past seven years. Some countries
have not had financial statements from their governments for the
past 15 or 20 years. Others are working on 1991 financial
statements. Those very same countries have gone through very
difficult and troubling economic times.
Before one talks about reform of the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank, one really has to address the fundamental
issue of transparency around the world when it comes to the
proper reporting of governments with annual financial statements.
If it was up to me, frankly, I would synchronize and eliminate
some of the organizations. I would fold them into the World
Trade Organization so that we would have one economic power
around the world that would govern. I would bring in the
International Monetary Fund as a part of that economic
organization. I would bring in the World Bank, the OECD, APEC,
the G-8 and every other organization under the economic umbrella
of the World Trade Organization. Once that was done, and it
would take quite a bit of time, then I would talk about making
the World Trade Organization a part of the United Nations. Then
we would have a body that would govern both politically on the
one hand and economically on the other.
Simply having a meeting to bring a bunch of politicians
together, most of the time, is extremely counterproductive and
will not give us the results we want.
I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing this issue before
the House because it has given us a chance to put our views on
the record. It triggered a very interesting debate and I hope we
will have a chance to further debate issues such as this in the
future.
I would say that everything starts at home and I want to take
this opportunity to commend the Department of Finance and the
Government of Canada for being so proactive, not only here at the
local level in Canada but at the international level, in bringing
about reforms to international financial institutions and also in
assisting countries to bring about transparency, economic
development and prosperity for their people, for our people and
for the world as a whole.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1999
BILL C-32—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my duty to inform this
House that an agreement could not be reached under the
provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the
report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-32, an act
respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
Some hon. members: Shame.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1820
[English]
REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is very distressing to me to hear
that the government is once again going to invoke closure or time
allocation to limit our debate on another bill in the House. I
find it abhorrent that this government continues this practice.
I am also sorry that the hon. member who last spoke has left
because he reconfirmed something that I have thought for the last
six years, that this government has no ability to walk and chew
gum at the same time. He talked about fuzzing up the issue and
bringing in too many things to consider at any one time. I would
like to think that it is only the Liberals who do not have the
ability to look at a much broader vision of how the world can
work together and how Canada can participate in working with
other countries to resolve some of the situations in which we
find ourselves.
I would like to speak to private member's Motion No. 338 that my
hon. colleague and seatmate, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, has submitted to the House. I do not feel that he is
placing the government in a difficult position at all. All he is
asking is that the government convene a meeting of like-minded
nations to develop foreign policy, to develop a concept to
prevent conflict around the world and to step in before it
becomes war. When the signs are there that it is inevitable, the
nations of the world could figure out how to determine what the
signals are, what we should be looking for and then what our
response to those signals should be.
I cannot understand how government members can see any reason
for not supporting the motion. I do not understand it.
We have many world organizations—NATO, the United Nations, the
IMF—which have the jurisdiction or the ability to talk to
nations about various issues, to sit down and try to come to some
resolution, but it is not working.
There are many reasons it is not working. We all have
identified and even the organizations themselves have identified
the need to reform these organizations. It would not hurt to
have like-minded nations sit down to talk about how things could
be changed and to reform the various institutions of which we are
a part.
We have the situation now where NATO is in the former
Yugoslavia. There are criticisms that NATO stepped in when it
should not have, that it should have been the United Nations.
However, the United Nations was not prepared to move. Even if it
had moved, it is after the fact. Conflict has broken out. It
should have looked at the evidence, at the situation and at the
signals that this was going to happen and it should have stepped
in many years ago to try to resolve the issues.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has written a number
of papers on this issue. He has looked at it very deeply and has
come up with a number of ways in which these issues could be
sorted out and various responses that could be developed.
I want to share with the House some of the issues that he feels
could be dealt with. He has listed a number of things which
indicate that there could be difficulties which could lead to
crises and he reports on the ways that we could respond to them.
For example: to have diplomatic initiatives to diffuse the
tensions between ethnic groups and encourage peacekeeping
initiatives between these rival groups; to introduce positive
information to counter the negative information that is being
spread; to have an international arms registry that deals with
specific arms, which would go a long way to adding a measure of
transparency and accountability where there are military
organizations.
1825
The member feels that one of the most important ways is to bring
in the international financial institutions, especially the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Why I would agree with
my hon. colleague that these are important is because so often in
world crisis situations the provinces with the wealth, the
developed nations, are asked to enter into a conflict in terms of
a military or peacekeeping venture, as we have seen with Kosovo,
but when the conflict is over they are asked to be the primary
supporters in the post-conflict restructuring.
I would suggest that perhaps through these international
financial institutions we could have the ability to extend that
lever or carrot to those nations that have conflict so perhaps
they could find more peaceful resolutions and be rewarded with
financial support for resolving those issues that are bringing
this conflict to a head.
When countries enter a conflict and show a lack of response to
their citizens by not recognizing the human rights of their
citizens, those nations should be sanctioned by those
international monetary organizations. They should not be funded
for the building up of arms or for the setting up of governments
that do not respect human rights.
I appreciate that our western civilization puts a lot of
emphasis on individual rights and that the European tradition is
perhaps not geared that way, that the European and Asian
traditions are geared more to collective rights as opposed to
individual rights. However, I think there is a respect worldwide
for the need to recognize human rights. No nation, whether it
believes in collective rights or individual rights, has the right
to kill, to hold in captivity or to expel their minorities or
their citizens who they have problems and difficulties with.
Even though there might be a different approach to individual or
collective rights, as an international community we have to use
the ability we have, either through foreign aid or loans through
the International Monetary Fund, to reward those countries that
are developing in a humane way and treating their citizens with
respect and sanction those that are not. That is a powerful
tool.
A meeting of like minds is all the motion is suggesting. It is
suggesting that Canada initiate a meeting with nations that can
start to collectively put their minds together on how to identify
nations that are reaching a position of conflict or are getting
into a situation that may go beyond what is considered to be
acceptable behaviour or treatment. It is to get these nations to
start thinking on how we can avoid such situations. It is to
consider what kind of sanctions or methods we can use to
intervene in those cases.
My colleague deserves a lot of credit for being far-reaching in
his outlook on international affairs and for not being afraid to
consider what others would think might be impossible. I would
like to join my hon. colleague from Fraser Valley in saying that
my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca chose once before to
reach out on, what other people thought was impossible, the
landmine issue. He showed them that it can work.
I would like to commend the member for those efforts with the
landmine issue. I would like to commend him for making us think
that something else that looks impossible might be possible if we
put our minds together.
I hope the Liberals will see fit to support the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence
on the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)