36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 93
CONTENTS
Monday, April 27, 1998
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF SEPARATION ACT
|
| Bill C-237. Second reading
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1120
1125
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1130
1135
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1140
1145
| Mr. André Bachand |
1150
1155
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1200
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1205
1210
1215
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1220
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1245
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1250
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1255
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1315
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1320
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1340
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1345
1350
1355
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| GIL ROBINSON
|
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
| MINING
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1400
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| NIAGARA RIVER
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1405
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1410
| GLOBALIZATION
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| SASKATCHEWAN FRANCOPHONES
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| HADASSAH WIZO
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1435
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1440
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| B.C. MINE IN BLACK LAKE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NORTH KOREA
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Randy White |
1445
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1450
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1455
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1500
| Hon. David Anderson |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| THE LATE FATHER BOB OGLE
|
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1505
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1510
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1515
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1520
| The Speaker |
| THE LATE CARLO ROSSI
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1525
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1530
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1535
| Mr. David Price |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1540
| VIA RAIL COMMERCIALIZATION ACT
|
| Bill C-394. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| PETITIONS
|
| Bill C-68
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1545
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. John Bryden |
1610
1615
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1620
1625
| Mr. John Bryden |
1630
| Division on motion deferred
|
| DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
|
| Bill S-9. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1635
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1640
1645
| Mr. John Williams |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1710
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1715
1720
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Hepatitis C
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1725
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 93
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 27, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
NEGOTIATION OF TERMS OF SEPARATION ACT
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-237, an act to provide for a national referendum to
authorize the Government of Canada to negotiate terms of
separation with a province that has voted for separation from
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak in support
of my private member's Bill C-237 which provides for a national
referendum authorizing the government to negotiate terms of
separation with a province that has voted to leave Canada.
Because the bill applies to any province voting to separate from
Canada, today I want to speak about both Quebec and my home
province of British Columbia. I believe that Senator Pat Carney
was not wrong. There is a growing resentment in B.C. against the
way central Canada runs this country, primarily to the benefit of
central Canada.
Economic times are tougher now in B.C. than they have been in
recent memory. One of the biggest contributors to these tough
economic times is not the so-called Asian flu but Ottawa itself,
a fact I will discuss this morning. However, regardless of which
province might want to separate from Canada, certain conditions
must apply.
My private member's Bill C-237 would set conditions which must
be met before the federal government can negotiate with any
province voting to separate. Because Canada is a democracy,
which means ruled by the people, the first condition must be to
ensure that separation really is the will of the majority.
My bill requires parliament to determine several conditions,
including whether advance advertising for a provincial separation
referendum as well as the ballots themselves state in both
official languages that a yes vote means becoming a foreign
state, losing representation in parliament, losing Canadian
citizenship and passport and losing the unrestricted right to
enter, travel and work in Canada.
1105
My bill challenges separatists to follow some rules. If they
do, my bill requires Canada to hold a national binding referendum
authorizing Canada to negotiate. It does not spell out what
would have to be negotiated, but I presume it would include such
things as that province's share of the federal debt, rights of
way for highways, power lines, pipelines, cables, payment of
future pensions, cost of transferring permanent buildings and
return of portable assets like military equipment.
This bill would establish a framework in which both the people
of a province voting to separate and all Canadians could have a
say in the future of our country. It would also provide a basis
in law by which everybody would know what is expected, including
separatists, federalists and the international community.
This legislation deals with one of the most difficult aspects of
separation, namely, what must be done about people in the province
who do not wish to leave Canada. This government has stated in
the past that Indian bands that vote to remain in Canada would
have their wishes respected. Why would the same rights not be
extended to other areas where people vote to remain in Canada?
After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If Canada can be broken into pieces so can a province.
Therefore, my bill proposes that a referendum on separating from
Canada should be decided according to provincial and electoral
district. It requires that only those districts with a majority
of votes to separate would be allowed to leave Canada. Some
people will say that this is ridiculous, but I find it no more
ridiculous to suggest, for example, that the Montreal region of
Quebec might want to stay in Canada while the Saguenay region
voted to leave or to say that the Victoria and Vancouver areas of
B.C. might want to stay in Canada while the interior and northern
regions voted to leave than it is to say that we can rip Canada
apart, allowing Quebec to leave while Newfoundland and Labrador
and the Northwest Territories remain in Canada.
Will this be easy? No, of course not. Separating parts of
Canada or parts of a province to become a foreign country will be
extremely difficult. People who talk about separating have to
know that in advance. I repeat that if the popular will can
break up a country then the popular will can break up a province.
After all, Quebec separatists claim to be a nation. They claim
to be a country, so how can breaking up Quebec be any different
than breaking up Canada? I want to emphasize that as a
grassroots party Reform is well aware that only a small
percentage of Canadians, whether inside or outside Quebec, want
to see Quebec separate from Canada.
There was a statement concerning Quebec in the 1991 Reform Party
green book which includes the following comment: “Our desire is
to have a New Quebec as an equal and fully participating province
in a New Canada”. At that time Reformers were trying to change
the Quebec question from: “Do you want to leave Old Canada?”
to: “Do you want to be a unique, equal and fully participating
province in a New Canada?”
The statement concluded:
Reformers believe that the more the people of Quebec and the
people of the rest of Canada are involved in defining the New
Quebec and the New Canada, the higher will be the probability
that the two visions can be reconciled. This is because ordinary
people everywhere want more or less the same things for
themselves and their children—a safe environment, good jobs with
good incomes, high-quality education and health services, respect
for their personal values and cultural heritage, and the freedom
to live their lives in peace and dignity.
I personally believe that most people in Quebec as well as those
in the rest of Canada want those same things today, but
politicians and governments which do not listen to the people
keep getting in the people's way. One of the most outrageous
topics on which politicians do not listen to everyday Canadians
is the question of unsettled native land claims.
Today for the people of British Columbia, especially people in
rural ridings like my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap, we see natural
resource jobs grinding to a halt. For example, B.C. has half the
mining jobs it had 10 years ago. Mining investment in British
Columbia is too low to replace existing reserves. According to a
letter from a group of mine managers, one of the biggest reasons
for this sharp decline in mining jobs in B.C. is uncertain land
title and uncertain mineral tenure.
1110
Nobody is going to invest millions of dollars in a mining
investment without a certain answer to one basic question:
Exactly who is the landlord?
The same question hurts the forest industry. The same question
hurts the aquaculture industry.
According to the Constitution, land falls under provincial
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, federal policies require that
questions about aboriginal title to land be settled by the
supreme court. Many in B.C. say it is time for B.C. to demand
that the highest provincial court must be the court to decide
questions of land rather than the supreme court.
The federal government seems totally oblivious to the enormous
impact which the Delgamuukw decision of December 1997 has had on
B.C., where 110% of its land mass is claimed by conflicting
Indian bands, but the entire population lives on about 5% of the
land.
Moreover, the entire provincial economy is based on natural
resource jobs which are being choked off by unsettled land claims
combined with increased expectations raised by Ottawa politicians
and the supreme court.
When B.C. joined Confederation, one condition laid down was that
it must set aside land for Indians in the form of Indian
reserves. Setting aside those Indian reserves fulfilled all of
B.C.'s responsibility to the Indians living there according to
the terms of union.
However, Ottawa expects the people of B.C. to bear enormous
additional costs in settling native land claims. Currently on
the table are 50 treaties, with the Nisga'a treaty widely seen as
the prototype for the others.
Ottawa is now expecting the people of B.C. to supply 20% of the
cash costs and 100% of land treaty settlements.
A couple of summers ago my wife and I had the opportunity to
visit with the Nisga'a and to talk with them firsthand. We saw
the land surrounding the Nass River inland from Prince Rupert,
which will form the land settlement of 1,930 square kilometres,
plus $190 million in cash, $59 million for interest or inflation,
another $122 million for their new highway, $100 million to
compensate commercial interests like forestry, fishermen and big
game guides for loss of their tenures, $21 million for the
Nisga'a commercial fishery and unspecified millions to underwrite
the cost of Nisga'a self-government.
Additionally, other forest companies in B.C. pay substantial
amounts to the forest renewal fund from which the Nisga'a already
receive about $2 million a year to reforest their lands. Funding
will continue after the treaty but the Nisga'a will not have to
contribute.
What will the taxpayers of B.C. and Canada get in return for
this extremely generous settlement? No extinguishment of
aboriginal title and a statement that the treaty is not final.
Yet this government, and this Prime Minister in particular, have
said that the costs of about $2 billion to compensate all victims
of hepatitis C from tainted blood are so huge that they threaten
the very future of medicare. Fifty unsettled B.C. native land
claims times $2 billion apiece is 50 times as great an amount as
that for those additional hepatitis C victims.
This government figures that the land claims are okay while the
law-abiding citizens who get sick after receiving tainted blood
must go to court to try to get some help. Why the double
standard? Does anybody remember that there are as many
additional B.C. treaties from bands which have not started the
long process of negotiation?
To a westerner like myself it is crystal clear. Central Canada,
namely the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, exercise
absolute power and control over this country because of their
population numbers and the total ineffectiveness of today's
unelected and unaccountable Senate.
Let me provide a short list of other major offences Ottawa has
delivered to B.C. For example, the softwood lumber deal was a
poor substitute in accepting quotas and tariffs for lumber going
to the U.S. despite the NAFTA. The first big hole is now obvious
in new tariffs and quotas being imposed on us by the U.S. on
pre-drilled softwood.
Another example is that Bill C-68 has been forced upon us
regardless of the important role of rifles and shotguns in the
rural western lifestyle.
Endangered species legislation was put forward and no doubt will
come again soon. It makes little or no effort to compensate
farmers and ranchers, the forest and mining industries for the
cost of protecting species.
Canadian Forces base Chilliwack was closed. It was the only
land force base in the most earthquake prone region in Canada
with a significant population, including millions of
international tourists each year.
An official language policy that ignores freedom of speech has
forced a great cost in British Columbia where the most common
language after English is Chinese although in my riding it is
German.
1115
B.C. gets no protection from an immigration department that
imports literally thousands of criminals into British Columbia
who prey upon law abiding citizens while our own MPs hear
accusations of bribery interfering with legitimate immigration.
The government has disbanded the ports police throwing costs
into Vancouver area municipalities and making it easier than ever
for illegal drugs and weapons to enter B.C. Taxes to support the
so-called have not provinces have helped drive businesses out of
B.C. including high taxes on gasoline. As for fishery policy one
could easily devote more than one speech to the federal idiocy of
a race based aboriginal fishery with no help to the salmon
negotiations with the U.S.
This is the short list of reasons why I think it is possible my
own home province of British Columbia may start talking seriously
as Quebec has done about separating from the rest of Canada.
Up until now B.C. has not played the separatist game of trying
to get special favours or it will leave. On the contrary western
Canada voted for the Reform Party to make changes inside the
system. However many people are becoming fed up with how little
the government respects its commitments to get out of provincial
jurisdiction and to rebalance the federation so there would be no
need for any province to separate.
Therefore we need new rules in place to govern how separatism
could take place so that everyone understands them. This is a
must. This uncertainty has to end.
I will summarize at the end of the hour.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak in opposition to Bill C-237.
In the 1997 Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada
committed itself to modernizing our federation and to ensuring
that as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum on
secession exists debate is conducted with all of the facts on the
table.
The federal government has acted accordingly since then. This
approach will allow all Canadians to face together the challenges
of the 21st century. With this objective in sight the Canadian
government needs a responsible government to ensure there is a
clear understanding of what is at stake in the type of unilateral
secession that has been advocated by the current Government of
Quebec. Such a unilateral declaration would be a deeply
irresponsible and impractical act. It would pose serious risk of
economic and social disorder particularly within Quebec and would
have serious consequences for the rest of Canada.
In any democratic society clarity surrounding the key issues of
the day is vital. The very core of democracy is the respect of
the rule of law and within that the ability of citizens to make
informed decisions about their future.
[Translation]
Much confusion surrounds the legal status of a possible
unilateral declaration of independence. In order to clarify the
legal aspects involved, the Government of Canada referred three
questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we are committed
to respect the court's opinion.
[English]
Thus the reference was an appropriate and responsible course of
action by the Government of Canada. It is appropriate and
responsible for members of the House not to deliberate about the
appropriate process for secession until the supreme court has
rendered its opinion on the question before it.
[Translation]
Support for sovereignty has dropped; this drop was probably
brought about in part to the efforts made by the Government of
Canada to clarify what is really at stake with the secessionist
option. As the premier of Quebec once said “The conditions
required to win a referendum have vanished”.
Recently, a poll conducted for the Council for Canadian Unity
showed that 61% of Quebeckers would voted no to the referendum
question in the 1995 referendum and 38% of those who voted yes
would have voted differently if an economic union could not have
been concluded with the rest of Canada.
1120
In addition, an Ekos Research Associates Inc. poll conducted in
March shows that only 11% of Quebeckers are in favour of
outright independence. A SOM poll released in March shows that
more than 62% of Quebeckers are opposed to Premier Bouchard
holding another referendum. Finally, the poll sponsored by the
Council on Canadian Unity shows that 50% of Quebeckers agree,
while 36% disagree, that a region should be allowed to remain a
part of Canada if that were the wish of a large percentage of
its population.
All these figures go to show that Quebeckers want to remain
Canadians and do not want to have to choose between their two
identities. This is why the sovereignist leaders have no choice
but to foster confusion and ambiguity.
And they were quite successful at it, since polls consistently
show that more than a third of Quebeckers still believe that,
should sovereignty be achieved in Quebec, they would continue to
be represented by members of Parliament in the House of Commons.
That is why this government has decided to counter the
sovereignists' propaganda with clarity and use every means at
its disposal to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians in general
are well aware of the irreparable consequences of secession.
Our primary duty and our responsibility as a government is to
ensure that our federation keeps responding better and better to
the needs of all Canadians. Our government has established
mechanisms to strengthen our economic and social union. This
union is based on our bonds of solidarity, compassion and
openness, which, beyond our linguistic and cultural differences,
unite us from coast to coast.
This is the very basis of our federation.
[English]
Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Government of
Canada has undertaken initiatives to make the federation work
better for all Canadians.
Let me give a few examples of the numerous steps we have taken
in this respect. Thanks to the Constitution Act, 1982, we were
able to effect two constitutional amendments bilaterally to
modernize Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador's education
system.
There has been inclusion of public sector procurement, excluding
health and social services, under the agreement of international
trade. The federal government has now signed job training
agreements with nine provinces and two territories.
Intergovernmental negotiations are under way to develop a more
concerted and co-operative approach to social policy reform.
There is also the harmonization of existing federal legislation
with Quebec civil law and the development of the national child
benefit system.
These are the sorts of initiatives that demonstrate to all
Canadians, including Quebeckers, that the federation can and does
evolve to meet changing needs.
[Translation]
Our efforts have been productive. The deficit has been beaten,
and we can afford to make some choices and to invest in the
future. Quebec is also overcoming its own deficit, which is
something to rejoice about. Last week, the New York credit
agency Standard & Poor's raised Quebec's credit rating. It
pointed out that the decreased popularity of sovereignty had
something to do with this adjustment, since it had reduced
political and economic uncertainty. One hopes the Government of
Quebec takes careful note of this.
Canada has much to offer. Its economic foundations are solid
and it is an exceptional place to live, invest and do business.
Canada is a success from all points of view, and we are the envy
of the entire world.
We must make an effort to continue the progress that has begun
and to make this country an even more remarkable place in which
to live.
Canada was not created by magic; it is the result of a joint
desire to live together. Our country has been built by
generation after generation of Canadians, and it deserves to
remain united so that future generations may continue to benefit
from the efforts and visions of the builders of this country.
1125
[English]
We must focus our energies on building Canada, not on dividing
it. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently told
students at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa:
Canada is not a perpetual constitutional dispute; it is a
principle of caring, one of the greatest that humanity has
invented—.We must remain together and improve further
this—generous federation that is our common achievement.
As we stated in the Speech from the Throne, the single most
important commitment of the government is to keep Canada united.
It is what we are committed to accomplishing through our
initiatives to clarify what would be at stake in the unilateral
secession and to modernize our federation.
For all these reasons I cannot support Bill C-237.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is quite
clear that no member of the Bloc Quebecois can support a bill
such as the one introduced by the Reform Party. Even though the
government says it will not support this bill, that is in fact
exactly what it is doing.
My remarks will be directed in equal measure at both parties and
I will return to a few of the points made by the parliamentary
secretary in his speech. I am surprised, moreover, that the
minister, who is always right, is not here himself to speak on
this topic so dear to his heart. He has been strangely silent
for some weeks now.
I will begin with what the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said were
his bill's objectives.
He said that he wanted to describe the conditions that had to be
met before a province could become sovereign, even pointing out
that there was growing support for such a move in his own
province, British Columbia. We all know perfectly well that
there is a sort of race on between the Liberals and Reformers to
see who can adopt the toughest policy towards Quebec and thus
boost their political ratings.
Having seen the Liberals come out with a very hard-line Plan B, a
reference to the Supreme Court, and flirt with partition, and
not wanting to be left behind, the Reformers, with this bill,
are now very clearly supporting all the partitionist actions in
Quebec. Never has a political party gone so far. Liberal
members must surely be amused to see their colleagues taking
matters a little further than they have, although ultimately
they are echoing the same sentiments. They have encouraged this
discourse.
They say that their primary objective is to ascertain the real
will of the public. They want to make certain that this will is
clearly understood, clearly identified and clearly gauged, as
though Quebeckers were incapable of making their own decisions
about their future, of determining if a given approach is clear
and understandable.
These people claim that we are incapable of understanding what
happened in the 1995 referendum because, if we had, so many of
us would not have voted yes. This is the assumption behind
everything they have done.
The Liberals are saying that they are going to look for a new
way, and use the Supreme Court as an authority in deciding
whether Quebeckers exercised their judgement properly. The
Reformers are saying that another way has to be found. Today,
they have come up with two new approaches.
It is the House of Commons that will determine in legislation
whether the process was clear, whether it was acceptable, and
whether people were properly informed. However, such
determination will not be made only by the House of Commons, but
also by another institution. Indeed, our dear senators will also
determine whether the process was clear and understandable to
all Quebeckers. The first problem with this is that the
government would have to first find and then repatriate the
senators, so they could be in the Senate to review the issue.
This alone would imply some rather extensive delays. Who knows,
if a referendum were held during the winter, perhaps senators
would hold their meetings in Mexico. This issue will have to be
taken into consideration. As I said earlier, it is all a matter
of finding out who is prepared to go the furthest.
However, the bill includes some positive elements, and I will
mention them immediately, because there are very few.
There is a thought process currently taking place in Canada,
particularly outside the Liberal Party and the Reform Party.
That process concerns the possibilities of a partnership between
Quebec and Canada. What kind of relationship will it be?
Even the Reformers' proposed legislation shows that a thought
process is taking place on possible and eventual ties between
Quebec and Canada. For the first time, Reformers do not question
the fact that Quebec could use the Canadian dollar, otherwise
they would obviously have mentioned it.
1130
There was talk of the possibility of using some other Canadian
instruments, but there is no longer any mention of the Canadian
dollar, thus recognizing that sovereignists were right all
along, as we already knew, along with most of the credible
people who expressed their opinion on this issue.
Second, while the bill recognizes the democratic rule of 50% of
the ballots plus one vote, its interpretation is very distorted,
since it is based on electoral districts and not on the whole
territory.
This means that, according to the logic of Reformers, I should
no longer be here. Indeed, since my riding voted yes in the last
referendum, it should be part of a sovereign Quebec made up of
all the ridings that voted yes.
Let me say in passing that this would be true for many regions
in Quebec, including the riding of Sherbrooke and including the
Prime Minister's riding. There would be a serious problem. The
Prime Minister would no longer be in his present riding.
An hon. member: That would be fine.
Mr. Pierre Brien: That might just be fine, but there would be a
serious problem.
The title of the bill was a step in the right direction, but
there is a contradiction between its title and the bill itself.
It is entitled “an act to provide for a national referendum to
authorize the Government of Canada to negotiate terms of
separation with a province that has voted for separation from
Canada”.
It refers to a province and not various regions, parts of
territories, and so on.
However, further on in the bill, the approach changes and
becomes much more radical, like that of Guy Bertrand and other
excited Quebeckers who are in a lather over this issue, incited
by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Now the Reform
Party is giving it its full support.
One very negative aspect of this bill is that a federal party is
not just flirting with those who favour partition for Quebec,
but sleeping with them too.
As I said at the start of my remarks, what bothers me the most
is all the baggage. The bill states the following at page 3:
(2) If a province holds a separation referendum and the Question
is answered in the affirmative, the Senate and House of Commons
shall determine whether
They are even going to decide whether a majority of people voted
affirmatively in the riding. Do they know there is a chief
electoral officer in Quebec? Do they know that elections and
democratic exercises are governed by Quebec laws? Do my Reform
colleagues know that? Where do they live?
An hon. member: They do not know anything.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Our own laws deal with this. The quality of
democratic exercises even serves as a standard around the world.
Do they know that we also have, on political party funding,
something that will not be found here in this House? Do they
know that the provisions of referendum legislation permit the
yes and the no camps to spend about the same amount? Do they
know that?
Do they know that, normally, people should not intervene in
these referenda with money from Ottawa, which comes and meddles
in a process where Quebeckers are deciding their future? No.
According to their rules, Quebec's future will be decided here
in Ottawa, either by the supreme court, or the Liberals, the
Reform members, Senate friends appointed by the Prime Minister.
And we should say to Quebeckers: “Don't worry, some wise people
in Ottawa will take care of properly defining our future”.
This is a bit too much, and we have had enough of all these
approaches, of this race against the clock to determine who will
play the hardest.
This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs arrived with a series of highly
partisan polls. Did members notice that several of them were
conducted on behalf of the Council for Canadian Unity?
Every one here knows what the Council for Canadian Unity is
about, but perhaps not all our viewers do. This council's
purpose is to ensure that Quebec will never be sovereign, to
keep Canada as it is, in a permanent, unchangeable status quo.
It is becoming a federal propaganda tool. They took a few
elements of a poll and threw them in our face this morning.
But let us take a closer look at reality. Let us take a somewhat
historical perspective. In the 1960s, I was not yet born, but
from what I heard, there were a few sovereignists in Quebec.
There was the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale. There
were a few groups, and no one talked about a movement of over 10%
of Quebeckers. During the 1970s, a political party was born. At
first, it was the Mouvement souveraineté-association, and then it
became the Parti Quebecois. Support began to increase, and soon
reached 25 or 30%.
The first referendum, the first time where intentions were
measured in a referendum was in 1980: 40% of the people said
they were in favour of sovereignty, or in favour of giving the
government a mandate to negotiate sovereignty and then come back
before the people.
1135
Later, in the 1980s, after this referendum was defeated, we were
told there would be no more talk about sovereignty, it was over,
archaic, and so on. Fifteen years later, we had another
referendum and 49.5% of people voted yes.
If we look at it from a historical perspective, not according to
some poll conducted yesterday or the day before yesterday, we
see that Quebeckers' willingness to take their destiny into
their own hands is on the rise. Their number is increasing day
after day, year after year. It is an irreversible trend, which
explains why Reform MPs and Liberals alike are so panicky.
Since I have only 30 seconds left, I want to say this to members
of the government party and Reform MPs: our desire to choose et
decide our own future is not negotiable. Whether they like it or
not, Quebeckers are going to choose their own future. They said
it very clearly. Our specialist on polls should look at those
conducted in February, during the reference to the supreme
court; they show that over 80% of people think it is for them to
decide, not the court, not the Reform Party, not the Liberal
Party, and certainly not the Senate.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from Okanagan—Shuswap. I
have had a chance to look over the bill. It seems what we have
wrapped up in the bill and in the member's comments is a unique
combination of all the various complaints the member and his
party have about Confederation and about the nature of the
country.
There are positions in the bill reflecting the Reform Party's
position on the Senate and on free votes. In the member's speech
we heard about land claims and about B.C. separatism. The member
has made it very difficult for people to support elements of what
he said and elements of the bill because it carries so much
baggage with respect to a whole lot of other matters. Clearly it
carries a lot of political baggage in terms of what the member
had to say when he was speaking in defence of the bill.
I am not sure, having read things over, whether this is to be a
referendum before the government negotiates terms of separation
or whether what the government negotiates would be put to a
national referendum. It appears to have elements of both. It is
not clear exactly where this referendum would take place. This
is one of the problems with the bill.
One does not want to speak in principle against the notion that
any significant constitutional change might in certain
circumstances be put to a referendum. Certainly after the
experience of the Charlottetown accord where Canadians had their
first experience in voting in a referendum on constitutional
change it would be very hard not to have significant
constitutional change in the future without Canadians
participating in that way. Whether one thought that was
advisable or a tradition that should have developed, this is a
tradition that has developed. It would be very difficult for the
government to do otherwise.
I am not sure the bill is the mechanism by which that might be
achieved. It is not a votable bill. If it were it would go to
committee and there would be an opportunity to do some work on
this sort of thing. Clearly the member seems to be saying, and I
think a lot of people would agree, there is work to be done on
this.
I sense a contradiction between what the member is saying now
and what I understood his party to be saying in an earlier debate
in the House. They were uncritically supportive of the view that
the supreme court is going to figure all these things out. The
government is being more consistent, not necessarily right, in
opposing the member's bill. The member to some extent speaks for
his party. However, this is Private Members' Business so I
cannot assume that. Maybe he is only speaking for himself in
this respect. But he supported his party's position and seems to
be saying this is a matter for the courts in so far as support
for the supreme court reference.
On the other hand he is saying we should have legislation to
deal with this.
1140
I am not sure where the referendum comes in but I find it hard
to imagine a situation in which a government, having negotiated
reasonable terms of separation with a separating province, would
have to go to a national referendum, knowing what I know about
politics. Even if a very good arrangement had been negotiated,
it would be very difficult to put such an arrangement to a
referendum because there would always be someone or some group of
persons who might be able to point to something in the negotiated
settlement that would threaten to scuttle it.
It is in that sense that I ask the member a question. In a
theoretical way is he, in creating a process whereby secession or
separation as he is suggesting in this bill, not guaranteeing
that a separating province would eventually be driven to a
unilateral declaration of independence? Would this bill not set
up a process that would make it almost impossible for any
agreement, not to be reached, but to be approved?
I also find it very disturbing that the member would talk about
the spectre of separatism in British Columbia. It is well and
good to talk about alienation, anger and legitimate grievances.
Many of the things the member spoke about I can certainly
understand and share his feelings.
The case needs to be made, and many people are making it, that
this country needs more attention paid to what is going on in
western Canada, particularly in B.C. Our media has central
Canadian glasses on. This has been aggravated by the regionalism
of this parliament. The fact that the government is almost
entirely from central Canada does not help.
However, this is something all the political parties have to
address. To the extent that as political parties we try to build
our political fortunes on regional alienation, we contribute to
the problem. There is a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand we
want to give voice to the anger in our regions but we do not want
to represent it in such a way as to contribute to the
fragmentation of the country. It is part of the art of politics
and something that has to be done as well as can be.
Finally, the parliamentary secretary talked about Canada being a
generous federation. I agree that if Canada were a generous
federation it would be more worthy of being kept unified. I also
agree that Canada has been a generous federation. However, I
would argue that one of the things that threatens this country
now as much as any determination on the part of my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues or the PQ government in Quebec or anything like that
is the breakdown of the social democratic consensus that existed
in this country from the 1940s through to the 1980s.
The breakdown of that by a variety of forces, circumstances and
policies adopted by this government and previous governments is
every bit as much a threat to Confederation as anything being put
forward by separatists, although obviously they are much more
clearly a threat at the political and symbolic level.
I am saying that at the social and economic level there is this
other threat to Canadians' sense of themselves as being part of a
caring community that they feel is worth defending and that many
Quebeckers might feel is worth continuing to be a part of.
1145
I think of the cutbacks the federal government has been
responsible for in terms of federal transfer payments to the
provinces. The federal government is now only paying something
like 15% or 20% on medicare and perhaps it is as low as 10%
depending on the figures that we believe. When it comes to the
cost of health care I do not know how any member on the other
side has the nerve to talk about this being a generous
federation.
We see what this government has done in terms of unilateral
secession. We talk about unilateral secession. There is
unilateral federal withdrawal from cost shared programs, from
programs which in some senses were initially imposed on the
provinces and certainly were initiated by the federal government.
It is something which we supported and still do. But if we are
going to continue to have those programs then we have to restore
much fuller federal participation in those programs. Government
members cannot get up day after day—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the hon. member. Time has run out.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
going to speak briefly to Bill C-237 introduced by the Reform
Party member. Having listened to him, I think that the member
is experiencing major frustration. I urge him to carry out a
rapid consultation and do something positive for the country,
not something negative, as he is with Bill C-237.
What is surprising in this bill—once again we see the dichotomy
of the Reform Party—is that there is recognition for a referendum
in Quebec or in the other provinces while, in February,
indignant Reformers said that they did not recognize the right
of the people of Quebec to decide their own future. In Bill
C-237, they say that now they have the right.
Once again, we see that the Reform Party is inconsistent and
never on the same wavelength as the rest of the country. We
will see this in the next election.
What is surprising about Bill C-237 is that it is a negative
bill. It sets out on paper the Reform Party's position on how
to legally split up the country. It is the same with the
Liberal government opposite. They want to establish standards
on how to carve up the country, taking matters to such an
extreme that there is now a criterion involving gauging results
riding by riding. This is unprecedented.
They say that Quebec, British Columbia, or any other province,
has the right to consult its population as to whether it wishes
to remain in the country, but the bill goes further than that.
It does not say that the province has to be the one consulting.
It says “a referendum or question put to the electors”, meaning
that a riding dissatisfied with its lot in the country can
decide to change country.
That is what is idiotic about the bill.
It makes no sense. They are saying that it is possible to
divide Canada, tear it apart, divide provinces, and they are no
longer necessarily limiting this partition to a country or a
province, but are now talking about regions. This is nonsense.
In this bill, if the aboriginal peoples decide to change
country, no province or parliament can stand in their way. All
that can be done is to hold a national referendum to set the
rules. If the James Bay Cree decide to join the United States,
they will be able to do so easily with this bill. No
legislation or supreme court reference can prevent them.
What this bill does is to give the country's regions, rather
than its provinces, the right to fight with each other and to
split off. This goes so far that it makes no sense. What we
have here is a pizza parliament.
Given the frustration of the Reform member and of other parties
in the country, if such a bill were to be passed, we could be
looking at a “puzzle Canada”, with discontinuous stretches of
country here and there.
That is what Bill C-237 is about.
1150
Constitutional stupidity goes that far. It is totally crazy. I
can understand the Reform Party, though. They will never be in
government in this country, united as it is today, so they say:
“We are going to collect bits of ridings here and there across
the country and make ourselves a little republic of our own”.
That is what Bill C-237 is about.
If the member had anything else in mind, he should have
consulted the other parties, taken a look at what has been
happening in Parliament in recent years and been more positive
in his approach.
The principle of ridings goes far beyond that. If we support a
national referendum, we must apply the same rule to ridings.
What would happen if Quebec or, say, Prince Edward Island
decided to separate? A national referendum would be held to put
the terms of the separation to the people of Canada. What would
happen if Quebec ridings voted no? It does not wash.
Can we not talk positively about the country and stop trying to
sour relations? I want to say something, with much respect for
my Bloc friends. They are my Quebec colleagues. There are,
however, two separatist parties in this House. One is French
speaking, the other, English speaking. That is the reality of
this Parliament. We are going to have to give priority to the
things that count, like putting bread and butter on the table.
The Reform member is right about one thing. There are indeed
problems in certain parts of the country.
I agree with him. However, why waste our time introducing
twisted legislation and telling the Supreme Court and the whole
world that regions can separate? There is no support for the
big bad separatists in Quebec. But there is also a secessionist
movement in British Columbia.
Talk about the country is negative. The most negative thing
about this country is that there are people who cannot make ends
meet. Some people are poor and dying of hunger. All the Reform
Party wants is to introduce bills to blow the country apart.
This is the way to resolve a lot of problems.
What we say is that there should be a more positive approach in
this Parliament. Members should stop trying to dragoon people
into their movement and introducing bills proposing ways to
break up the country. That is bunk. A country is not a
marriage. The difference between a constitution and a marriage
contract is that the marriage contract sets out the conditions
for divorce.
A constitution makes no such mention.
So, the idea is to include in a constitution the rules that
would apply in case of a divorce. But a constitution is not a
marriage contract. The bill goes too far. We favour a
constructive approach. If they wanted, Reformers could do the
same.
Someone close to the Reform Party listed 10 reasons why
Quebeckers should vote yes in a future referendum. His approach
was somewhat sarcastic. Reformers are constantly adding fuel to
the fire. The Liberal Party has failed to try to put out the
fire. But again today, the Reform Party is trying to add fuel to
the fire. This must stop. The best way to destroy a country is
to introduce legislation such as Bill C-237.
Where in this bill is the will to maintain a united country?
There is no such will. This is the Reform Party's approach. The
Liberal Party does not fare much better. There are other
problems.
Again, Parliament will have to start discussing positive things.
It is true that the government does not introduce a lot of
bills. It hides from the public a surplus of $6 or $7 billion in
this year's budget, because Liberal ministers want to spend this
money, and I can understand that.
But why not talk about positive things to promote the common
good of Canadians and Quebeckers, instead of telling people in
some regions of Quebec, such as Montreal Island “If you vote no
in a referendum, you will remain with us”?
On the other hand, the democratic nature of the vote is
recognized. The Reform Party was in favour of the recall. The
whole democratic issue is important. We must have an elected
Senate, we must do this and that.
1155
Reformers want to ensure the constitutional issue is recognized
in Quebec. They want to ensure Canada is divided. They talk
about partition in Canada. They do not recognize the Quebec
province as a whole any more. They take what they need and let
go of the rest. This is what Bill C-237 is about, this is what
the Reform Party is about. It is a separatist party.
If they want to have the opportunity to change their label, they
should introduce far more positive bills: hold a hand out to
British Columbians, to Quebeckers. They know that from history.
They should come and visit Quebec. I invite them to do so. There
are also regional frustrations in that province.
In my riding, there are regional frustrations, but one thing is
clear: we want to work positively to improve this country and
Quebec. People should stop saying it is always Ottawa's fault.
We must take our future into our own hands.
There remains a credible alternative to this government and to
the constitutional issue, and it is here in this corner of the
House.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, to summarize, we have heard a bit about this bill, but
more on partisan politics from a number of parties in this House.
I would like to remind members, especially the separatists, that
when they talk about sovereignty they play the politically
correct game. They tone it down to try to confuse the people in
this country. Let us understand that what they actually mean is
separation, not sovereignty association.
I also address the Conservative Party in the House. We got into
this mess because of two parties basically. We are here today
because of the Liberal government and the Conservative
government. I remind the Conservative members exactly where Mr.
Bouchard came from. He came right out of their ranks, straight
from the Conservative Party. They should remember that.
We get fed up with the political correctness some people say we
have to operate under, that we should not bring these types of
bills before the House and to leave it up to the Senate to make
the decision. I have great concerns about that. This is
supposed to be the highest political office in the land. When we
do not have the intestinal fortitude to take these problems face
on and come up with answers to these questions, then we are in a
sorry state in this country, when we back down from problems like
this instead of facing them and trying to use them for other
reasons.
I would like to repeat what Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow
said the other day. He warned the federal government last week
at the annual meeting of the Council for Canadian Unity that it
needs to take provincial demands much more seriously than it now
seems to be doing. It must continue to rebalance the federation.
At the unity conference the results of a CROP poll conducted
earlier in April were announced. It stresses my point. In
Quebec 75% described themselves as being very attached or
somewhat attached to Canada. The poll showed that many
Quebeckers remain confused about what separation from Canada
would mean. Thirty-seven per cent of those polled in Quebec said
that Quebec sovereignty and an economic partnership with Canada
would not mean that Quebec would leave Canada and become an
independent country. This is in Quebec. Twenty-nine per cent
said Quebec would still elect MPs to go to Ottawa; 39% said
Quebeckers would keep Canadian citizenship; and 36% said Quebec
would still be a Canadian province.
It is time that this place put the rules in place of exactly
what we are talking about when provinces and people want to talk
about separation. Let us come here and do the job we were
elected to do. Let us clear this confusion up and get this
settled instead of it costing us millions and millions of dollars
every year on the same issue. Let us put some rules in place for
a change. Let us do our job.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
The order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Orders of the day.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1200
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the
protection of the environment and human health in order to
contribute to sustainable development, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, there have been
discussions among the parties and I think you would find
unanimous consent to allow the ministers to speak in this debate
later today for the normal time of 20 minutes for speeches and 10
minutes for questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The Reform Party has always supported the concept that all
Canadians deserve to live in a clean and healthy environment. The
key to protecting our environment is to ensure a co-operative
attitude. Without co-operation no piece of legislation will
achieve its purpose.
In order for environmental goals and targets to be met it is
essential that an open dialogue representing social, scientific,
technical and economic considerations be held. The successful
development of any project requires consideration for all these
aspects.
It is important that we never lose sight of the role played by
public consultation and participation. With the recent signing
of the environmental harmonization accord the time has come for
all levels of government to work with each other to ensure that
environmental issues receive top consideration.
In 1988 when the original Canadian Environmental Protection Act
came into force, now simply referred to as CEPA, the goal of the
legislation was to protect the environment and in turn protect
human health.
CEPA intended to fill regulatory gaps where they existed in the
legislative framework with particular attention being paid to the
issue of toxic substances, when and if to ban them and how
harmful they can be to our health and our environment.
CEPA has also played an international role. Canada has always
tried to play an important role in the international arena and
whenever international environmental treaties are signed,
international obligations ensue.
This piece of legislation touches and affects several acts,
including the environmental contaminants act, the oceans dumping
control act and the clean air act. The legislative review that
began last parliament was part of a mandatory review of the
administration of this act. The review resulted in the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's holding
hearings which resulted in a report of recommendations.
The old bill, Bill C-74, died on the order paper and never made
it through the House, the reasons for which I will delve into
briefly. Now a revamped version has been tabled under Bill C-32.
This rather extensive piece of legislation, 230 pages in all,
provides measures for the protection of environment and human
health as well as pollution prevention. Other sections deal with
the management of toxic substances, the virtual elimination of
releases of substances determined to be the most dangerous, and
the partnerships needed to achieve the highest level of
environmental quality. This last section is particularly
important because without strong co-operation between varying
levels of government, science, industry and environmental sectors
no amount of legislation will safeguard our land, keep it in good
health and preserve it for our children and their children to
enjoy.
Among the changes made to CEPA, Bill C-32 includes the provision
to implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the
investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements
for toxicity assessments, new provisions respecting fuels,
international air and water pollution, motor emissions, federal
and aboriginal land protection, the proper disposal of wastes and
other matters at sea and the safer export and import of waste.
Should Bill C-32 be enacted it will provide for the gathering of
information for research and the creation of inventories of data,
the publishing of objectives, guidelines and codes of practice,
new powers for inspectors, investigators and laboratory analysis,
many environmental protection alternative measures as well as
civil suit action guidelines.
The differences between the old bill and Bill C-32 are not
overwhelming.
1205
Bill C-32 contains minor amendments that appear to work in
favour of the bill. That is not to say the bill has no
shortcomings.
However, these concerns can and must be addressed by the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development. One area of concern lies with the issue of
jurisdiction.
Looking to the Constitution for help in this matter is
fruitless. Environmental jurisdiction is not definite in the
Constitution.
For years now much duplication and overlap between different
levels of government have left us with the relatively ineffective
system in dire need of fine tuned co-operation.
Since the 1980s environmental protection has been expanded at
the federal and provincial levels. The result has been a great
deal of tension between the provinces and the federal government
that has been taken to the highest courts in this land.
Last September the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ottawa
has a right to enact legislation to protect the environment.
However, the supreme court also made special note that the
federal government was not to take this as a carte blanche to run
all over the existing provincially run areas of the environment.
This holds true with an important aspect of Reform principles.
Very often some government affairs are best carried out at a
closer level to the people of this nation.
While it is true that environmental issues transcend man made
boundaries, if the provinces are properly carrying out their
environmental duties, there is no reason for the federal
government to interfere.
Federal-provincial co-operation is essential to ensuring that
environmental policies are carried through. If the recent
signing of the harmonization accord between the federal and
provincial environment ministers is any indication, perhaps we
are well on our way to ensuring a partnership rather than an
adversarial approach to environmental protection.
The resources required to adequately protect our environment and
consequently our health are vast. Clearly such a huge task
should be shared by all levels of government.
I would like to emphasize and take this opportunity to mention
municipal involvement. Municipal levels of government are
closest to the people.
Canadians deal with their local city councils on almost a daily
basis and we should encourage grassroots participation in
safeguarding our environment.
Getting back to the problems between federal and provincial
jurisdictions over the environment, a clear understanding must be
achieved in order to avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication.
Reform blue book policy clearly supports the establishment of
clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters.
It is important to keep in mind that every dollar saved in the
administration of the environment would be better spent toward
such areas as pollution prevention, viable alternative energy
systems and waste management, to name a few.
Bill C-32 contains some amendments requiring co-operation
between the federal and provincial governments in an attempt to
show support for the harmonization accord signed in St. John's,
Newfoundland earlier this year.
CEPA's preamble sets out a shared responsibility for the
environment. Here is an important step toward true
harmonization and cost effective environmental protection.
This alone, however, hardly is enough. It is imperative that
CEPA spell out that the government will discharge its
responsibilities by working co-operatively under the
federal-provincial-territorial Canadian-wide accord and
subagreements on environmental harmonization as agreed to in
principle by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment.
Safeguards are in place to ensure that no one province steers
the direction of the federal government vis-à-vis any
international treaties. The federal government must be cognizant
that many international treaties will require provincial
implementation and that provinces should be able to take part in
any implementation strategies.
Bill C-32 empowers the minister with the control of the movement
of non-hazardous solid waste to or from the United States.
Usually waste management falls under provincial jurisdiction and
this is one area that could cause tensions between federal and
provincial levels of power.
This is one section that may need to be reworked. In the area
of accountability, it is interesting to note that CEPA allows for
the creation of a national advisory committee. Unfortunately the
committee structure compromises its accountability to Canadians.
The members of the national advisory committee are appointed by
the minister without any provincial involvement, and this is not
acceptable.
The lack of accountability may cause this committee to act as a
political vehicle to promote the minister's agenda rather than a
national vehicle to ensure provinces and territories are fairly
represented in the decision making process.
This brings me back to my first point, the importance of a fair
and open consultation process for the public, especially in the
development of regulations and additions of new substances.
Reform has always supported the principle of grassroots
participation. We are dedicated to public consultation and
policy development, especially when we are dealing with an issue
that knows no boundaries such as the environment.
1210
Eventually we all eat from the same earth, drink from the same
water and breathe the same air. In short, we are all in this
together, so the best way is a co-operative way because we are
all affected by the environment in one way or another.
I am not impressed with the lack of formal consultation
processes in CEPA. During the last parliamentary session over
100 concerns were raised regarding CEPA and there are still areas
of concern that need to be addressed especially in the area of
consultation.
For example, Bill C-32 needs to ensure that all draft
regulations and guidelines are released for public comment 60
days before the minister formally releases the assessment. It is
unfortunate that too much is left to the minister's discretion.
Another example of this is the environmental registry. Access
to the registry should be open and the form should be clearly
announced. Bill C-32 leaves all this at the minister's
discretion. This secrecy is not justifiable.
Another questionable issue is the lack of requirement to print
the final text of all agreements in the Canada Gazette. I
am unclear as to why this is not a required practice. I ask that
the minister allow all final texts be published in full and
easily accessed through the Internet.
One more area of concern is the lack of adequate time given to
the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed administrative and equivalency
agreements. As a member of this committee I have twice witnessed
the fast track approach taken by the environment minister, once
to push through the harmonization accord and second to pull
together a very last minute and rather hasty position on Kyoto.
Now more than ever Canadians are fed up with the old way of
doing business. Canadians are demanding accountability from
their government. I remind the environment minister that this
means no more dealings behind closed doors. Canadians want
transparency when it comes to conducting business dealings.
One more area required for sound policy decision making is
reliance on sound scientific principles. It is imperative that
legislation reflect the right choices to protect our environment
and not for political gain, as has been the case. CEPA and many
decisions made under this legislation need to be supported by
sound scientific study.
One area where the old bill has serious problems rests with the
minister's ability to bypass section 65 and overlook the
requirements set out in the risk assessment determination on
toxic substances.
I am quite certain Canadians would not be impressed to find out
this bill gives the environment minister unlimited powers to
bypass science in her decision making. This is one of the
critical reasons Reform, environmentalists, industry and many
Canadians cannot support this bill. Perhaps this was one of the
reasons for its demise in the last parliament. Further study will
be required to assess whether the unlimited powers section has
been properly addressed.
It is odd that the word toxic is not defined in Bill C-32's
preamble considering there is an entire section devoted to
controlling toxic substances. This section may allow substances
to be defined as toxic without the necessary scientific evidence
needed to prove toxicity.
It is rather frightening to think this may be yet another
section giving the minister or parliament authority the ability
to arbitrarily ban substances.
Another concern is the provisions to provide for toxic
assessment consultation fail to require that qualified experts
from government, academia and industry are full partners in the
assessment process.
Another controversial section of the bill is the national ban on
substances banned in other provinces or industrialized countries.
Such a policy could abandon risk assessment as a basis for
priorization and chemical control when it is the standard
accepted internationally and by the science community.
This policy could also undermine the necessity of requiring a
science basis for decisions. It is critical that the role of
science be clarified so that science forms the basis of decisions
made under CEPA. This needs to be spelled out clearly.
Another key issue is enforcement which is critical to
environment policy. The Reform Party has many clear positions on
enforcement. Reform blue book policy clearly supports the
principle that the polluter should pay for its pollution controls
and that this be stringently enforced in an unbiased manner and
that penalties be severe enough so polluters will not consider
them a licence fee to pollute.
Reform also supports fines and jail sentences for officers and
executives of companies violating environmental laws.
1215
The biggest problem with CEPA is its lack of enforcement. When
CEPA was proclaimed 10 years ago the Conservative government
bragged that it introduced the toughest environmental law in the
western hemisphere. Yet this has proven to be quite the
exaggeration.
One of the principal concerns regarding this act is inadequate
funding for enforcement. The department simply does not have the
resources to ensure that the requirements of the act are
fulfilled. The environment department has had almost two-thirds
of its budget slashed since the Liberals came to power. No
matter how tough the minister makes the act it will make no
difference unless the department has the resources to enforce the
legislation.
What must be emphasized more than enforcement is the operative
word compliance. It is always better to follow the carrot over
the stick approach. A law must have the capacity to enforce its
regulations. Yet it will be more effective if it can deter
individuals from breaking the law or, better yet, if it can
encourage individuals to follow the law.
Other areas of enforcement contained in Bill C-32 also need to
be examined and possibly amended for improvement. For example,
the right to sue provisions contained within the bill may be
improved if amended so that the government is made a mandatory
party to any suit.
Whistleblower protection contained in the legislation may also
require expansion to include whistleblower protection for workers
who report breaches of the law and bad environmental practice not
just to inspectors but to the public and through the media.
Pollution is a public issue and workers should have the right to
publicize it without fear of sanctions.
Despite the many needed areas of improvement, some of the other
improvements to Bill C-74, which is now Bill C-32, include
improved time lines for adding new substances that have been
assessed and added to the domestic substance list. Pollution
prevention planning guidelines have been further developed in the
new bill. Recognition of voluntary instruments has also been
added.
Section 51 has been amended to ensure that pollution prevention
virtual elimination and environmental emergency plans can only be
required by the minister for substances that are on the list of
toxic substances.
Greater flexibility has been provided in the preparation of
pollution prevention plans to keep with the policy objective that
the plan does not become akin to excessive regulatory burden.
Many changes have been made to Bill C-32, formerly Bill C-74, to
make it more acceptable to the public. There are still areas of
concern that need to be worked out. Canadians have waited a long
time for the government to pass meaningful realistic
environmental legislation.
Especially after the fiasco with Kyoto, I am hoping to see our
government get away from its empty rhetoric and destructive
political agendas and move toward something more realistic and
acceptable to Canadians that will truly benefit our environment.
I hope we never again have to witness such an embarrassment as
the lack of formal consultation and the lack of an implementation
strategy prior to set targets like we did with Kyoto.
On a more positive note it appears that there has been
sufficient progress with Bill C-32 to make it a plausible
alternative to the existing legislation. Depending on further
analysis of the bill, as long as the progress made on the bill is
not lost in committee and some revisions are made to tighten it
up there is a good chance the official opposition may support the
bill.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Lethbridge on his thorough review of
Bill C-32 and for his commitment to the pollution pay principle
as well for the way he stressed the importance of enforcement.
At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Lethbridge
made reference to one specific section, which I was not able to
take note of quickly enough, that in his words needs to be
reworked. I wonder whether he could perhaps amplify on that part
of his intervention.
Also the hon. member for Lethbridge spoke about the importance
of sound science and the desirability of spelling out the role of
science. I would be interested in knowing how he would propose
to spell it out within the context of the proposed Bill C-32.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the
chairman of the environment committee, for being here to listen
and to pose some questions.
1220
When we are talking about science we have to be sure that we
consult with the scientific and academic communities on all
issues to get a good cross-section of existing science. We did
this somewhat with Kotow at the environment committee, as the
member knows. The best people from across Canada came to explain
what they felt was the situation. There were people speaking for
and against the position the government was taking.
We have to make sure that grassroot Canadians, the scientific
community and industry all have an opportunity for input to
assess and debate the science the government is using to base its
positions on.
We should open up the debate to make sure we are looking at all
angles, to make sure it is an open-minded discussion and not a
preconceived look at science by the government. Indeed all areas
of concern should be brought before us.
One of the problems we saw in the past on the environment
committee when we dealt with Kotow was that some people told us
global warming was not happening, although the majority said it
was.
We have to take all that information and put it together in a
position that would force the government to have a better look at
it and maybe come at it from a couple of different angles to
ensure that what gets put into legislation is indeed the science
that community is putting forth.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary
question for the member for Lethbridge. In his speech he made
reference to the discretionary powers given to the minister,
indicating that he found these powers to be too wide.
Is the member for Lethbridge in a position to indicate in which
way he would propose to reduce the scope of the discretionary
powers of the minister in Bill C-32?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas in the
bill where we would like to see some change made is the proposal
to put in place an advisory committee. Members from the
provinces, the aboriginal communities and the departments of the
environment and health will sit on it. However, from what we can
read in the bill the minister will appoint these people.
One way to ensure membership of the advisory committee and
possibly others who will be reporting to the minister is to allow
the provinces to appoint the members who will be sitting on the
committee reporting to the Minister of the Environment. If we do
that we would somewhat get away from the fact that the minister
could appoint some members to the committee who are favourable to
the government position.
We want a little more accountability so that the provinces would
be interested in taking part and being able to put forward their
best person instead of the minister appointing the entire
advisory committee.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of pride that I join
in the debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
The tabling of the bill on March 12 fulfilled an important
election commitment as referenced in our platform document
“Creating Opportunity”. As we promised in the Speech from the
Throne last fall, the health minister, the co-sponsor of the
legislation, and I are taking another step in protecting the
health of our children.
As members know, the legislation was a long time in the making
from the excellent work of the standing committee in 1995 through
to the government's response in Bill C-74 and now in Bill C-32.
The committee's intent and the government follow-through has
been consistent: renew and improve the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act to better protect the health of our children and
grandchildren from the threat posed by toxic substances.
1225
When I was appointed minister of the environment in June 1997, I
chose to concentrate my efforts on four priority areas that would
bring Canadians a cleaner and healthier environment in the next
century. The priorities are clean air, clean water, conservation
of nature and meeting our Kyoto commitments on climate change.
These are not just my priorities. I believe they represent the
wishes of each and every member of the House and the Canadians we
all serve.
I and Canadians need tools to reach our goals. We need faster
action to reduce the threat from toxic substances. Canadians
want more information and a voice in environmental protection.
Business wants a predictable framework in which to operate as
green industries that prosper economically.
The renewed and strengthened Canadian Environmental Protection
Act responds to those needs and demonstrates leadership by
providing Canadians with the tools they want and need for
environmental protection.
The current CEPA has supported significant achievements. Under
the current act Canadians have achieved concrete environmental
improvements including the reduction of specific toxins such as
dioxins, furans and PCBs. We have taken action on known
carcinogens such as benzene in gasoline.
As well in recent weeks I have announced a series of initiatives
that would better protect human health, give Canadians cleaner
air and water, protect nature and meet our climate change
objectives.
Among them are, first, an intergovernmental agreement last
Friday in Toronto to implement early action and to develop a
national implementation strategy to ensure that Canada meets its
climate change goal; second, improvements to the air we breathe
through the reduction of up to 85% of emissions of particulate
matter and toxic metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead and
mercury from heavy oil and coal fired plants by 2003; and, third,
by presenting Canadians with options to reduce sulphur in
gasoline which causes respiratory ailments in our children and
the elderly. The government will announce this fall the new
sulphur level for gasoline which will bring about cleaner air.
Fourth, Canada was the first country to ratify the 1997
amendments to the Montreal protocol which shows our dedication to
reducing methyl bromide, one more substance which depletes the
earth's protective ozone layer.
I have been able to take these actions by using the current
legislation but more needs to be done. Our environmental
problems are becoming more complicated. We need new modernized
legislation to deal with emerging issues and to integrate new
solutions. Pollution prevention and the ecosystem approaches to
sustainable development must be incorporated into legislation.
The proposed act before the House of Commons reflects the
greater understanding, giving us new tools to protect our health
and the environment. It tackles toxic substances and puts the
most dangerous ones on the path to virtual elimination.
Strengthened legislation for toxics is crucial to clean our air
and our water and to protect our health.
[Translation]
Under the renewed legislation, pollution prevention will become
a national objective. When the original act was enacted, most of
the environmental protection efforts focused on pollution
management through last-resort solutions.
We must, however, prevent pollution and not worry about it once
there has been a leak, a spill or harmful emissions.
Toxic substances affect the health of Canadians. PCBs and other
harmful substances have been found in the breast milk of mothers
in the Arctic.
Urban smog makes our children sick, the number of children
hospitalized for asthma having increased by 27% for boys and 18%
for girls. According to Health Canada, one person dies every day
from air pollution in the greater Toronto area.
1230
[English]
The renewed legislation will control air pollution, including
urban smog, more effectively. Among other things it will allow
for regulations requiring cleaner fuels and tougher emissions
standards for new motor vehicles. In addition, for the first
time, the federal government will be able to set emissions
standards for other types of engines such as those used in lawn
mowers and off road vehicles. Getting toxics out of the
environment will mean cleaner air.
Clean water is also an objective of the legislation. Canada
borders on three of the world's oceans. We are also stewards of
9% of the world's available freshwater. These are enormous
responsibilities, ones which I do not take lightly.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act will provide a
means to help fulfil our stewardship responsibility and to meet
our goal of cleaner water for Canadians. It puts in place a
process for quicker assessment of toxic substances to identify
those that need to be eliminated or controlled, together with
strict deadlines for action.
We know that pollution does not respect borders. Whether toxics
reach our waters in effluent or are transported by air, getting
them out of our environment will mean cleaner water. New
provisions in the act will provide a framework to take action on
Canadian sources of water pollution that affect both our country
and other countries.
We know our wildlife is being poisoned by toxic substances in
our air, land and water. Last summer I saw for myself the effect
mercury poisoning is having on loons in Nova Scotia. I want an
environment safe for loons and all other species, including human
beings.
The renewed Canadian Environmental Protection Act will put in
place an ecosystem approach that recognizes the fact that all
components of the environment are interdependent. It means we
have to look at the whole picture and make the link between our
actions and their effects on nature and us.
That is only a brief description of how the renewed Canadian
Environmental Protection Act will help to make our air and water
clean and preserve nature. In all cases the new act will focus
on preventing pollution before it is created. It will shift the
focus from cleaning up toxics to stopping them from getting into
the environment in the first place.
The environment is a shared legacy. It is beyond the ability of
any person, industry or government to solve environmental
problems on their own. We not only need to continue co-operative
international efforts but we need to build and continue domestic
partnerships in order to achieve success. This includes
partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities
and of equal importance, partnership with business and industry.
Business and industry are the ones with the tools and the know
how to stop pollution and toxics from entering our environment.
In addition to protecting the environment, pollution prevention
is good for the bottom line. Ford Canada knows this. Its St.
Thomas, Ontario assembly plant now uses 27 million fewer gallons
of water and has reduced paint sludge by 500,000 pounds each year
saving the company $275,000 annually.
[Translation]
Good regulations promote innovation. Canadians and Canadian
businesses just proved it. The new Canadian Environmental
Protection Act will further stimulate innovation, helping our
businesses to maintain their status as world leaders in the
development of environmental protection techniques.
These businesses have been able to meet the challenge because
they viewed it as an opportunity not only to make profits but
also to become good corporate citizens who are aware of their
social responsibilities within the community.
[English]
Business leaders want a clean environment just as much as we do.
Some are members of ARET, the accelerated reduction and
elimination of toxics program. These members reported recently
that in 1996 emissions of a number of toxic substances such as
zinc, benzene, lead and copper were reduced by over 5,000 tonnes,
a decrease of 27% from 1995 emission levels.
1235
The 152 member companies of ARET are implementing the process
changes and other measures to reduce these toxic substances
voluntarily. They recognize that voluntary action can work with
a regulatory regime such as provided by the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
Businesses have told us that they want predictable regulations
which protect the environment yet still allow for growth and
prosperity. That is exactly what they are getting. In addition
the renewed act provides many opportunities for consultations as
measures are developed. When businesses clearly understand what
the law demands of them, they can plan more effectively. This
ensures a higher rate of compliance. Together we will put to rest
the myth that good environmentalism precludes economic growth.
The two are in fact mutually supportive.
For businesses that will not live up to their end of the
partnership, the renewed act has strengthened the enforcement arm
of the new legislation. We have expanded the powers of officials
who are charged with enforcing the act.
Officials will have the ability to issue on the spot orders to
stop illegal activity or to require action to correct a violation
to protect the environment and public safety. They will be able
to use environmental protection alternative measures to provide
corrective action and penalties without the need to proceed with
a lengthy court case. There will be a new sentencing criteria to
guide the courts to take into account such things as remediation
costs for damage.
We know that environmental problems respect no boundaries,
provincial or federal. Their causes and solutions are rarely
found within the borders of one jurisdiction. Tackling these
issues requires action at local, regional, national and global
levels.
[Translation]
Positive results will best be achieved by governments working
together. This way, we can plug any holes in environmental
protection and more effectively meet the challenges that the
environment poses to the community.
We have learned from past collaborative efforts with the
provinces that, on environmental issues, the best results are
achieved through intergovernmental co-operation.
Through partnerships between governments, significant
improvements were made in areas such as acid rain and ozone
depletion. This renewed legislation is based on this reality and
provides a framework for co-operation between the federal and
provincial governments.
[English]
This legislation is not, as some have said, a federal retreat
from environmental protection. It is consistent with the
harmonization accord I signed with the provinces last January. I
remind members that harmonization is about working together to
achieve the highest national standards. The federal government
has not given up its authority to act. The renewed Canadian
Environmental Protection Act is proof of that.
Finally we come to the reason we are protecting the environment
in the first place, the Canadian public. Canadians are telling
me they are worried about the effects of pollution on their
health and the health of their children. Nine out of 10
Canadians are worried about the effects that environmental
problems are having on their children and grandchildren.
Greater public participation is key to protecting the
environment. Canadians want to be part of the solution. They
want more power to influence environmental decisions and stronger
measures to ensure a legacy of clean air and clean water. The
renewed act responds to their demands. It provides Canadians
with more information giving them the tools to act in their
communities.
One of the ways that we will do this is through the
environmental registry. The registry will provide comprehensive
information on regulations and decisions made under the
legislation. In addition, the national pollutant release
inventory, an accounting of the releases of 176 pollutants from
all significant sources, will continue to provide Canadians with
information about the toxics in their communities.
Under a new Canadian Environmental Protection Act this program
would become a legal commitment for the government in an effort
to provide Canadians with as much information as possible.
1240
The current act safeguards the confidentiality of persons who
voluntarily report illegal releases of substances. The new act
expands this protection to cover all violations and protects
federally regulated employees from discipline, dismissal or
harassment for reporting violations in the workplace. In
addition, to ensure the government does its job, Canadians will
be given the right to sue if the government does not enforce the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act where significant harm to
the environment has occurred.
I stand firmly behind the renewed Canadian Environmental
Protection Act not only because we committed to it in the red
book, not only because I believe it is what Canadians want, but
most importantly because it will protect the environment and the
health of Canadians.
One day when my grandchildren ask me what I did, I want to tell
them that I worked to ensure that the environment I left them was
clean or cleaner than the one my grandparents left to me. I want
them to be able to tell their grandchildren that the Canadian
government and I had their health and their legacy in mind when
we passed this renewed legislation.
This legislation and this portfolio is particularly timely for
me. As I look forward to the birth of a new grandchild I want to
be proud of the environmental legacy I pass on.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the minister for her presentation and for being
here today and for giving me the opportunity to bring up one of
the points I made, which is the national advisory council.
As I read the legislation, and perhaps she can define it for me,
it indicates she will be appointing all the members to the
council. Would the minister allow the provinces to appoint them
so that we could truly get a national scope to that council?
Also, is there going to be more responsibility for the municipal
governments in Canada?
The minister mentioned stewardship and the fact that Canadians
are good stewards of the environment. Will the minister be
putting the concerns or the value of stewardship of the land in
the upcoming legislation on endangered species? We know that we
have stewards of the land across Canada who take very good care
of it. Hopefully the value of proper stewardship will be
reflected in that legislation as well.
Hon. Christine Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the
national advisory council, this is federal legislation and
therefore the federal government appoints. The legislation will
be going to committee. Certainly I am interested in listening to
comments committee members will make in terms of how those
appointments might be made for recommendation to the federal
government.
We are hoping that we can have a wide and diverse representation
in that committee. In that way it will as much as possible
reflect the broad cross sector of Canadian interests.
With regard to the involvement of municipalities, municipalities
are really within the provincial jurisdiction of responsibility.
My personal view is the municipalities represent a grassroots
level of government where we can most effectively produce some
results on the environment. I am hoping I will be able, with the
assistance of the provinces, to work very closely with the
municipalities to achieve the results we need on the environment.
The hon. member asked a question about stewardship and the
environment. Stewardship crosses over all environmental issues.
It is my belief which is affirmed through polling information
that Canadians in all sectors of our economy truly are concerned
about the environment.
They want tools from the federal government to help them, to
assist them in making sure the environment is protected, whether
it is water or air or our natural ecosystem.
1245
The purpose and intent of my legislation is to put in place
instruments with which I can work collaboratively with all levels
of government, with all sectors in our society to protect the
environment and to make sure we have the authorities there as
well that when we see problems or abuses we are able to take
prompt action.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
must express my amusement with the speech by the Minister of the
Environment in which she refers to her environmental concerns.
She tells us that she wants to act before there are any
ecological catastrophes and before our environment deteriorates.
I might begin by reminding her of her government's terrible
record as far as greenhouse gas reduction is concerned. I believe
that this government's failure to meet the objectives of Rio is
an obvious sign of its lack of desire to take these environmental
concerns into consideration. That was my first comment.
Second, the minister had very little to say about the
negotiations surrounding the harmonization process. I would
remind her that, in principle, it was intended to eliminate
potential conflicts between the provinces and the federal
government. It was also intended to eliminate duplication and
overlap.
I would remind her as well that Quebec refused to sign that
agreement, for two basic reasons. First, it wanted recognition
of Quebec's exclusive and overriding areas of jurisdiction
within its constitutional rights.
It also wanted changes to the legislation, such as those in Bill
C-32, to take the concerns I have referred to into account.
I take pride in speaking out against this bill, simply because
it does not address the concerns defended by the Quebec Minister
of the Environment.
My question for the Minister of the Environment is a very simple
one. When I look at the bill and the spirit of that bill I see
that it calls for interventions at the national level, for
instance those in clauses 139 and 140 on national fuels marks
and clauses 152 and 150 on national emissions marks.
Does the minister not agree that her bill represents a direct
attack on the provinces and an obligation for them to adopt
provincial regulations, as otherwise the federal government will
end up directly interfering with what Quebec can do in
environmental matters?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
last question is not at all. The federal government is here
representing the interests of all Canadians. I articulated this
very clearly in this legislation, in carrying out a mandate to
protect all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
With regard to air, water and our natural environment, we work
in consultation and in collaboration with other levels of
government, including provincial, and I believe that is the way
we can most effectively protect the environment. This government
is committed to continuing to do so.
I was also criticized as a representative of the government with
regard to our efforts on climate change and the reduction of
greenhouse gases. As late as last Friday I had a very successful
meeting with provincial and territorial counterparts from across
the country. We discussed the very serious issue of climate
change.
We all agreed we would support early action to reduce greenhouse
gases but also that we would together develop a national
implementation strategy so that together we can find the way to
reduce greenhouse gases, to meet our target which is to achieve a
reduction of gases to 6% below 1990 levels.
1250
We want to reduce greenhouse gases to that level in the most
cost effective way which means that we all must work together to
find out where there is the greatest economic advantage to our
achieving the reductions, recognizing this is an issue that will
not only preserve, conserve and improve our environment but will
represent very significant economic advantages.
With regard to the accord on harmonization I signed at the end
of January with provinces and territories across Canada, with the
exception of Quebec, I am still hopeful that there will come a
day when Quebec will see that it is to its advantage as well to
sign in with the federal government and all the other provinces
and territories to understand that is the best way to protect our
environment.
However, the principles and guidelines we signed into under that
accord recognize the jurisdictions of all levels of government.
It does not mean devolution of authority on the part of any level
of government. However, the Quebec government was requesting not
only in its words the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec in
environmental matters, which we know is inadequate, but for the
federal government to devolve its authorities to the province,
and that we will not do.
We want to work in harmony with provinces and territories to
protect our environment to the highest level but we each want to
maintain our significant authorities to protect that environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-32. This is an
important issue, because Quebeckers must ask themselves whether
the federal government is trying to apply an old formula to a
new area.
It is an important issue for Quebeckers, because they went
through this before, in many areas. When the federal government
gets involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction, it slowly
changes the province's way of doing things, through the
regulatory process.
In doing so, it is supported by the Supreme Court, as I will
show a little further on.
Quebeckers have the right and the duty to ask themselves whether
this bill will ultimately allow Quebec to assume its
responsibilities, and whether it will allow for the harmonious
development of its territory and its environment. But such is
not the case.
The federal government had two options regarding this
legislation. The first one would have been to establish a
harmonized environmental approach with the provinces. The
harmonization agreement mentioned earlier might have given the
impression that the government was headed in that direction.
Unfortunately, it is now tabling the bill while invoking the
fact that there is a harmonization agreement. However, it
conveniently forgets to say that Quebec is not part of that
agreement, and it forgets to say why our province is not part of
it.
So, the federal government decided to go ahead with its
legislation, even though it was not able to reach an agreement
with Quebec.
We do not know what motivated such a decision by the federal
government in this area, and in other areas in the past. We do
not know if it is because of the undue influence of senior
federal officials who want to ensure they have a future in the
public service, or if it is elected people, who say in good
faith, as does the Minister of the Environment, that the federal
government must regulate in this area and get involved, because
there are all sorts of problems and issues at stake.
The environment is a major issue, but getting involved in areas
of provincial jurisdiction is not the right way for the federal
government to fulfil its role.
The example of the greenhouse gases is very telling.
We cannot ask the federal government to get involved in all
sorts of areas, if it does not properly fulfil its
responsibilities at the international level.
1255
Contrary to what the minister might have said earlier, I did not
get the impression that the working session with the ministers
last week was a success. What the media reported was that
Canada would have a hard time meeting its commitment and that
some provinces had no chance of doing so at all.
This information was not reported by journalists. It came out
in many of the statements by the ministers, including the
minister from Alberta. The leadership the government was
wanting to assume in this sector has amounted to lip service
only up to this point.
They saved face in setting international standards and now, back
home, they are wondering how they will go about it.
As things were not solid to start with and the position of the
Government of Canada was taken at the last minute, there is no
consensus on this position.
The federal government cannot claim that the bill being debated
at second reading has a strong foundation and that all
governments in Canada support it, because Quebec, among others,
has not signed the harmonization agreement.
We should understand the roles assigned by this bill. It refers
to a national advisory committee comprising representatives of
both Environment Canada and Health Canada and of each province
and to the negotiation of agreements where consensus is not
reached. Reference is made to two thirds in a number of
decisions.
At this point, when they talk of two thirds, it means that
Quebec, which has not signed the harmonization agreement and
which may have other claims in certain sectors, may frequently
find itself in the minority. It has, however, had significant
environmental successes.
In the case of the objectives Canada may promote
internationally, particularly with respect to greenhouse gases,
much is due to the fact that Quebec, through its energy choices
and its advantages due to hydroelectricity, is helping to make
it possible to attain these objectives.
If, on the one hand, we make a positive contribution and, on the
other, we lack the influence to act as we should with respect to
our environment, it is obvious that Bloc members cannot approve
this policy.
We consider it just as important to criticize the so-called
double safety net.
The federal government is arguing that, with two levels of
government involved in environmental matters, the level of
protection would be higher than if only one government was
responsible.
We know this old recipe has never worked anywhere. What people
want is to know who is responsible for environmental problems,
so that they do not have to deal with two levels of government
and two sets of regulations allowing polluters to slip through
the net yet again.
The principle put forward by the federal government is not
valid. It would have been much better to carry through to the
end of the harmonization process in order to clarify roles.
Before introducing this bill, the government should have made
sure the accountability system was clear.
When people have to assess the actions of various governments
with regard to the environment, they need to ascertain whether
the government acted properly and protected the environment
adequately.
If not, they need to determine why the protection was not
adequate and what legislative changes are necessary, instead of
getting entangled in the web of legal and regulatory fights
which will be the direct result of the principle put forward by
the federal government, namely the double safety net and the
sharing of environmental responsibilities by both levels of
government.
On January 29, 1998, Quebec refused to sign the harmonization
accord. The accord is one thing, reality is another.
It includes several cases of overlap which will lead to
intergovernmental conflicts. This is one of the main reasons why
Quebec did not sign the accord.
1300
In the proposed accord, there was a willingness to recognize the
various levels of responsibility, but Quebec was denied the
place it deserves in this area. Obviously, at the time of
Confederation, not much thought was given to the environment,
which has become such an important issue today. It must be
understood that Quebeckers want to have adequate control over
this sector.
This issue is present everywhere around us. It would be
irresponsible on the part of the Quebec government to allow
decisions to be made at another level, especially since there
would be overlap.
We think the federal government should have shown some good
faith and goodwill before introducing this bill. Several pieces
of legislation are slated for introduction and consideration in
the near future, such as those dealing with endangered species,
fisheries and environmental protection.
In view of the way the federal government has assumed its
responsibilities in the past in the area of fisheries and in
view of the present situation both on the Atlantic coast and on
the Pacific coast, people may be reluctant to give the federal
government too much power with regard to the environment,
because a parallel can certainly be drawn between those two
areas.
The lack of co-ordination in managing fishery resources has
yielded terrible results that have threatened the survival of
entire communities.
Fishing had been their livelihood for several decades.
Mismanagement of our fish stocks has forced the government to
close down certain fisheries, which is an important blemish on
Canada's record both nationally and internationally. This
example leads us to say that, before introducing a bill such as
Bill C-32, before amending the Environmental Protection Act, the
government should deal with other problems such as endangered
species and the fisheries. These are important areas where the
federal government has not necessarily shown its effectiveness.
There are other irritants in this bill. Bill C-14 on water
management is a perfect example of the contradiction that
exists. In the harmonization agreement, the federal government
says it will respect everyone's jurisdiction.
This bill has been received negatively by all environmental
stakeholders in Quebec.
There have been meetings about this. It is quite obvious that
drinking water is under Quebec or provincial jurisdiction. The
introduction of Bill C-32 has confirmed our apprehension that the
federal government will be able to justify through this another
intrusion into several areas where there are environmental
impacts and that are, at this time, under Quebec's jurisdiction,
because the Quebec government can claim this jurisdiction, or
can demonstrate that it has taken relevant steps, that this
matter is being debated in Quebec and that people want a made in
Quebec decision.
Through this more comprehensive piece of legislation, Quebec's
responsibilities will be further eroded and reduced.
We will end up with repeated regulatory and legal squabbles over
which government is right or wrong. On this point, I think
Quebec's concerns are justified, and we have to speak on behalf
of Quebeckers.
In the pulp and paper industry, the Quebec government introduced
the industrial emissions reduction program. The federal
government may well feel the urge to take action in the same
area. In the past, we have had to make representations. There is
a paper mill in my riding. After my election, the first request
made by the mill was this: Is there any possibility of
eliminating duplication in forms to be filled out?
Is there any possibility of avoiding having the two levels of
government asking us the same thing?
1305
Pulp and paper mills are affected by how rivers are managed.
This is an issue that is linked to the environment, an area
usually dealt with by the provincial governments in the past.
Federal involvement in this area is not desirable.
In fact, when we say that Quebeckers are of the opinion that
Bill C-32 intrudes in some of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, we
are reporting not only the views of the ordinary citizens, but
the views of the business community.
If we want to ensure that Quebec will be able to react
appropriately in the future in terms of being competitive, we
cannot allow unacceptable environmental criteria to be set. We
have to ensure, for example, that jurisdictional issues are
settled and that our businesses do not have to abide by two sets
of regulations, which is why we find the bill before the House
very dangerous.
My colleague from Rosemont said earlier that the bill provides,
among other things, for the possible creation of national
emissions marks for fuels. This is in direct conflict with what
Quebec or any other province can do in this area.
Environmental issues are very complex issues. Since this is the
appropriate season, let me use as an example the migration of
snow geese.
Migratory birds are covered under international law, which means
that the federal government, in an area where it entitled to act
on international agreements, passed an act to protect snow
geese. Nowadays, the population has grown and has a huge impact
on agriculture, such an impact that a compensation package had
to be developed for farmers who suffer losses when the geese eat
the seeds they have sown in their fields.
Under this package however, farmers are not fully compensated.
The federal government, which is responsible for the migratory
birds legislation, has not yet found the means whereby, through
the Canadian Wildlife Service, we could ensure the controlled
management of geese.
It developed a model because it wanted to ensure the snow goose
population to increase. It succeeded in this regard, but now
seems to have lost control over the population. It seems to be
going in a direction where there is a never ending increase of
that population, to the detriment of our agricultural heritage.
It would be important, in such an area, to harmonize action
plans, but only after assessing the situation as a whole, and
not through specific ad hoc actions that deal with the crisis on
a yearly basis, but do not deal with the fundamental issue.
This is an example where, before giving the federal government
the controls provided for in Bill C-21, we would want to know how
it would manage the snow geese, which I give as an example,
because we have some concerns about what passage of Bill C-32
could lead to.
In conclusion, I believe it is important point out that the
political consequences of the passage of this bill are clear.
If, for example, the Government of Quebec wanted to implement an
environmental policy that would be positive and provide
incentives, through tax credits, and the federal government were
to adopt a punitive approach based on the Criminal Code, the
Government of Quebec would have no choice but to comply with
such a federal law because the supreme court, in one of its
rulings—which was a very close one, five to four—has given a
very wide interpretation and has given a very important national
scope to the regulatory weight of the federal government on
environmental issues.
1310
This is a blatant example clearly showing that, like the leaning
tower of Pisa, the supreme court always leans on the same side.
In this case, a court appointed by the federal government
arrived at a ruling by a very narrow margin, but however narrow
the margin, this ruling gives the federal government almost
total discretion and allows it to act as if it were the national
government of Canada instead of the federal government. This is
an important distinction.
In Canada, we have a federal government and provincial
governments. But no one should lay claim to having a mandate as
the national government, especially not in areas that are not
under its jurisdiction.
If the approach taken by a province, Quebec for instance, is
very different from the course of action chosen by the federal
government, we could end up with a serious lack of harmony.
This ruling allows the federal government to prohibit pollution
and to regulate all pollution issues. The supreme court ruling
is clear: in case of disagreement between the federal government
and the provinces, the federal government will always win. That
is why it is important that we, in this House, be logical and
use common sense to prevent passage of this bill. It should go
back to committee, or the minister should withdraw it, so that
the harmonization agreement can really become a reality and that
Quebec can make its arguments.
In an area like this one, which is the way of the future, this
ruling shows once again how centralizing the Supreme Court of
Canada and the federal government are. It seems important to me
that we send a clear message saying that jurisdictions must be
respected and that henceforth Quebec should have control over
its own environment.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I
am pleased to address the House on this very important piece of
environmental legislation, Bill C-32, a bill to renew the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as CEPA.
CEPA is a comprehensive environmental protection and pollution
prevention statute. Since 1988 it has been the cornerstone of
federal environmental and health protection legislation. One of
the most crucial components of the act allows for the control of
toxic substances.
Many toxic substances do not stay put once they are released
into the environment. Toxic substances such as mercury and PCBs
have been found in the blood of aboriginal people in communities
in the high Arctic located far from industrial developments.
These substances are transported to remote and otherwise pristine
environments by air currents and they can have long term adverse
health effects on the people and the wildlife that breathe air,
drink water or consume food that contain these substances.
Canadians are very concerned about the risks toxic substances
pose to their health, their children's health and the long term
sustainability of their environment. Certainly the residents of
my riding of Waterloo—Wellington are concerned about these
issues and I know that is true for all Canadians.
Bill C-32 helps to reduce or eliminate this threat. It is
important to know exactly what that is. The good work already
under way to identify and manage toxic substances will continue
and the bill introduces innovations to allow more efficient and
effective government action in carrying out these activities.
It also incorporates in the legislation key features of the
federal toxic substances management policy which sets out
precautionary proactive and accountable rules for dealing with
toxic substances. Bill C-32 will ensure that decisions are based
on sound science and will provide a management framework for
dealing with toxic substances that is preventive and
precautionary. Our aim is to take all reasonable precautions to
reduce or eliminate the exposure of Canadians to these toxic
substances.
1315
Bill C-32 will impose new deadlines for the development of
preventative or control actions. It will require that the
ministers of the environment and health propose concrete actions
to prevent or control the release of substances within two years
of declaring a substance to be toxic. These preventative or
control actions must be finalized within the following 18 months.
The goal of virtual elimination is new to CEPA. The Government
of Canada recognized in its 1995 toxic substances management
policy that our traditional approach of managing the release of
toxic substances into the environment throughout their life cycle
is not sufficient for certain toxic substances. These substances
that require stricter management actions result primarily from
human activity. They persist in the environment for long periods
of time and they bioaccumulate, that is, the toxins are stored in
the tissues of living creatures.
Every minute quantity of these substances may build up over time
to levels that cause serious long term adverse effects to the
environment or to human health. Once in the environment these
substances will continue to damage our health and the health of
our ecosystem over many generations, often through subtle effects
on the endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive
biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to protect
our health and that of the environment.
Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic
substances. This will achieve results faster and will provide
greater flexibility. A reactive and control management approach
is often costly and time consuming. In some circumstances
traditional regulations remain the best solution. However, they
are only one of several tools which Bill C-32 places at our
disposal. These tools include pollution prevention plans,
voluntary initiatives and economic instruments such as tradable
permits to control toxic substances.
These new tools focus on environmental results rather than on
the means by which the results are achieved. They give operators
the flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit
their needs without the direct intervention of government, as
long as the required environmental protection objectives are met.
The result is oftentimes a greater reduction in toxic emissions
than would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory
approaches. Examples of such programs include the accelerated
reduction and elimination of toxics challenge program that was
launched in 1994 and a number of voluntary initiatives such as
the Canadian automotive manufacturing pollution prevention
project. The recent ARET report noted that in 1996 reductions in
releases amounted to 5,064 tonnes, a decrease of 27% from 1995
emission levels. Participants have reduced their emissions by
almost 21,500 tonnes, a 61% overall reduction from base year
levels.
Canada can learn from the actions of other countries. Bill C-32
requires the federal government to review decisions and control
actions on toxic substances taken by other countries to determine
if they are relevant and applicable to the Canadian situation.
The government will regularly review decisions taken by provinces
in Canada or by member countries of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development to ban, schedule for elimination or
severely restrict toxic substances.
We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic
substances. This environmental legislation addresses these
concerns. A strengthened CEPA along with other relevant federal
legislation and our international environmental commitments
provide the Government of Canada with the tools and measures
needed to protect the Canadian environment and the health of
Canadians.
[Translation]
The federal government will continue to look after the interests
of all Canadians. It will lead us into the next millennium with
vision and foresight.
[English]
I urge this House to support this legislation and to give it
speedy passage in order to usher Canada into the 21st century.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member said that there are provisions in this bill to allow for
creative measures to improve the environment.
I would ask him to expand on some of those creative measures. I
would also ask him where in this bill and what are the provisions
for educating Canadians on environmental protection and how much
emphasis his government has placed on education.
1320
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
I come from a municipality and a riding where in fact we take
the environment very seriously, as do all Canadians. I was
thinking about how important it is for the municipalities to have
a role, for a watershed, often a conservation authority, to have
a role, for the provinces to have a role and for the federal
government to have a role.
Certainly in terms of education that is a key component. We
as legislators need to ensure that people are aware, especially
our young people, of the importance of the environment and what
we as Canadians can do to secure it and ensure that we pass on to
the next generation the kind of environment they should have, and
rightfully so.
I encourage whatever efforts we can make to ensure that all
Canadians, especially our young people, know precisely the kinds
of efforts we need to make to ensure that our environment remains
the best in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have just
heard the final remark by my colleague across the way, who
wishes to pass on to the next generation a country with a clean
environment. But, once again, I remind him that the federal
government wants to play a leadership role when it comes to the
environment and says it is doing its job. The problem is that
the results are very different.
Unlike Quebec, the federal government has not even managed to
attain the goals it set in Rio. There is a problem somewhere.
It is therefore not true that objectives are reached more easily
with a central, federal and paternalistic government.
The purpose of this bill is to give the law more teeth.
That is what the minister and public servants are telling us.
Existing enforcement of the legislation is lagging in this
regard. I think that there is difficulty enforcing and
implementing this legislation, and that there is a desire to
give the federal government more ammunition. I think there is a
problem.
There is the example of transborder movement of hazardous waste.
Although there is legislation, it has not been possible to
enforce it, with the result that Montreal has now become the
black market centre for hazardous waste in Canada and even in
North America. So there is a problem.
My question for my colleague opposite is as follows. The issue
is not the level of government, but which level of government is
in the best position to respond to requirements and to resolve
the actual problems. Is that not the real issue? The issue is
not whether it should be the federal or the provincial
government, but which is in the best position to address
environmental problems.
In many instances, the provinces are in the best position to do
so.
It must be remembered that the provinces are forced to meet
their environmental commitments in addition to shouldering
responsibilities that have been transferred from the federal
government to the provinces. Will my colleague opposite not
admit that the provinces are in the best position to address
environmental problems?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I listen in amazement to
members of the Bloc speak to jurisdictional issues. It seems to
me that the environment is of such grave concern and of such
great importance to all Canadians that there is a role for all of
us to play. There is a role for provincial people, there is a
role for municipal people, there is a role for conservation
authorities and there is a role for the federal government, and
that is a very important role.
I heard earlier the hon. member opposite talk about a lack of
good faith, when in reality the federal government, in good
faith, is doing the kinds of things that are required for the
betterment of our environment and is doing so in a way that
benefits he and I and all Canadians, no matter where they live.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had
the privilege of working with the committee that revised the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1994. We spent
something like 18 months listening to witnesses from all
segments of society and all parts of Canada.
1325
We travelled from one end of Canada to the other, including the
Arctic regions. If today we are proposing certain underlying
principles in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, this is
precisely because of what we heard from many Canadians across
the country.
Those underlying principles are as follows:
[English]
First there is pollution prevention, the idea that instead of
curing we have to prevent; that if we can stop toxic waste which
is the biggest assault on the environment before it happens then
all of us are healthier.
There is the precautionary principle that we should always act
as careful, prudent citizens, managers of the common weal. In
that case I refer to one of my colleagues from the Reform Party
who talked a lot about sound science. Let us wait until science
is proven before we act. I would remind him that when Rachel
Carson wrote her famous book, Silent Spring, DDT was being
used all over the place. She did not wait for sound science to
send warning signals.
When lead was being used in our gasoline, more recently, we
acted to ban MMT because of the threat of manganese to the
environment and to human health. In other words, we have to be
precautionary. We cannot wait for proven science to act. We
cannot wait until it is too late. That is why the thrust of our
report has been to reverse the onus of proof.
Instead of us having to prove that a toxic substance is harmful
to human health and the environment, it would be for the user of
that toxic waste to prove that it was not harmful to the
environment and human health. This is why we believe in the
principle that the polluter must always pay, must always bear the
burden. This is why we have also enshrined the principle of
virtual elimination of the most hazardous toxic substances
released into the environment so that there will be a burden on
the polluter, on the user of toxic substances, to avoid using
them if there is any notion at all that they could be harmful to
health and the environment.
[Translation]
I was the Quebec Minister of the Environment when the first
Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1988. I can state
without fear of being contradicted that my repeated
interventions to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment are responsible for the inclusion of an equivalency
clause in the act at that time, and I strongly believe in this
clause.
The equivalency clause means the following: if a province has an
equivalent regulation or act dealing with any issue covered by
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and if that province
also has a complaint investigation system similar to that
provided in the CEPA, the provincial regulation applies rather
than the Canadian legislation.
This clause completely demolishes the argument of my Bloc
Quebecois colleagues that this act was completely exclusive. It
is up to the provinces to establish regulations and a similar
complaint investigation system. Then their act would apply.
There is an important role for the federal government in the
entire environmental area. Today the Bloc Quebecois spoke as if
the Constitution prevented the federal government from dealing
with environmental matters. Yet all the Constitution says about
the environment is that all levels of government have a role to
play.
As the government, the legal entity that represents us at the
international level, the federal government has a predominant
role to play in the environment. Moreover, this is what the
Supreme Court stated in a ruling on the CEPA.
1330
[English]
Therefore I think we should look at the present myth that there
is no place for federal authority in environmental protection,
that the federal authority should be lessened and reduced, or
that the federal government should hide, should not be a leader,
should not take leadership along with the provinces,
municipalities and all other Canadians. We need a system whereby
all of us are involved. The record shows that no one
jurisdiction is strong enough to take care of the environment.
I have spoken to many environmentalists in Quebec, in Ontario,
in Alberta and elsewhere who have signified to me that they need
that safety net and that they need as many jurisdictions as
possible to be involved in the environment because at the moment
the environment has never been looked after as sadly as today.
Everybody is devolving. Everybody is cutting back staff.
Certainly the provinces are the major culprits in that case.
There was a case for instance in 1996 in Ontario, our largest
province, our largest industrial base, when the minister invited
industry to let her know what environmental regulations it would
want to see in place so that they could do better business, more
progressive business.
There was a deluge of answers from the mining industry that
wanted to be absolved from regulations on toxicity and effluence.
There was an instant answer from the chemical industry that said
it wanted to be absolved of regulations concerning illegal
dumping of hazardous waste. There were answers from this
industry and that industry that said to get rid of regulations,
that they would look after themselves.
There brings me to the second myth, that regulations are bad for
us, that they are a hindrance to progress and advancement, and
that suddenly we should get rid of them. Regulations have not
been a hindrance to society's progress. They have been one of
the major catalysts for creativity, for inventions and for
progress in society.
The examples are around us in multiple form: the seatbelts that
we use in our cars, the catalytic converters that we use in our
cars, airline safety, registration of medical drugs, registration
of pesticides and the control of toxic wastes.
Where would we be without these regulations? Where would we be
without a regulation that says we stop at a red light? There
would be chaos on our streets.
Today we have the myth that regulation is bad for us, that we
should get rid of it and look after our own territory. This
would be a way to chaotic non-enforcement of what really means
the goodwill, the public trust and the common weal which
government is supposed to look after. Its mission is the value
system of looking after human health, protection of the
environment and protection of basic values in society. The
government is the trustee and guardian of this system. It can
only do so if it has a background of laws and regulations which
enforce in fairness and with reason.
We need a strong CEPA, an active and dynamic CEPA, and a
steadily and ceaselessly enforced CEPA. We need a commitment
that is there because Canadians need it and want it very badly.
Of all the issues facing us as we go into the next century, the
environmental protection case has to be the most cogent. The
environment is the defining issue of the next millennium. We
need water. We need fresh air. We need a safe environment so
that human health can thrive, so that our society can live in
peace, harmony and knowing that tomorrow will be a better day.
How can we ensure that if chemicals and toxic wastes are being
released into our environment without protection and without
regulation?
1335
We need a strong CEPA, a dynamic CEPA, a very strong and
effective presence of the federal government in environmental
protection.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's dissertation by and large was
motherhood. He is saying that we have to keep the world clean
and protect our environment. I do not think anyone questions
that.
I have a little problem, though, with his philosophy that it is
only a benevolent and all powerful federal government that can
look after the interest of the general public.
Surely in this day and age with the examples we have seen over
the last 50 or 60 years in the world, or in Canada just within
the last decade, of the results of federal benevolence we should
go slowly in that regard.
However that is not the main point I picked up as a point of
dispute. I really have a problem with people in certain branches
of the environmental movement who use the argument that we can
never be certain about anything before we take action, that we
have to take a preventive stance even if we do not know what we
are doing, just in case.
This reminds me to some extent of what might have happened in a
medieval society where after a period of ongoing crop failures
the finger was pointed at some poor old lady in a village and
they said she did it, that it was her fault, that she cast an
evil spell. They were not sure. They could not prove it so they
played safe. The safest thing they could do was to burn her and
not worry about logic. They did not worry about debate or, in
the case of the hon. member's presentation, they did not worry
about science.
What on earth do we have highly paid experts for? Why do we
have universities? Why do we have research institutes if we are
not to take seriously both the negatives and the positives of
their work? Why must we get side tracked and say “It might be
toxic. It might be dangerous. Therefore let's be sure. Let's
get rid of it and do the science later?” That is a backward way
of operating.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, this is what is called
an absurd argument. I never made the case that without any
signals or without any presumptions we should ban this and that.
I never said that.
I said that the precautionary principle puts an onus on us to
act when there is a very strong presumption. Of course we do not
act when there is no presumption at all.
Let us take the case of endocrine disrupters in the environment.
Many eminent scientists in the world are finding out that because
of the toxic effluent being released in lakes and so forth fish
life is being changed. There is a sort of sexual impact of great
magnitude on populations of living species, including the human
species.
Scientists in Scotland, Denmark, Canada and the United States
have come to the same conclusion. Do we wait until the final
proof has been given by all the scientists of the world, by all
the scientific bodies?
I remember the argument about global climate change. The Leader
of the Opposition still believes in the flat earth society.
Although 2,500 scientists have told him there is climate change,
he does not want to believe it. They will wait until it is too
late.
This is what we are talking about. We are talking about
effective presumption and when there is presumption that we move
and act before it is too late.
The Deputy Speaker: Under the circumstances I will call
the time expired. There is little time left and I see two
members rising, but we will move on.
1340
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to continue debate on Bill C-32, an act respecting
pollution and the protection of the environment and human health
in order to contribute to sustainable development.
I thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his comments
on the bill last week. On behalf of my Churchill River
constituents and the New Democratic Party we continue to be
opposed to Bill C-32. The New Democratic Party is not opposed to
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are opposed to
Bill C-32 as it continues the Liberal policy of devolution and
removal of federal responsibilities for environmental protection.
I will speak today on the need for a strong federal presence in
protecting the environment. I will continue as my colleagues
indicated at the outset last week to address the reasons for a
strong Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My colleague made
reference to Silent Spring by Ms. Rachel Carson as an alarm
bell that man has continued along an unsustainable path. The
book describes the losses we may face as a society if poor
environmental practices, pollution discharges and ecological
degradation were to continue unchecked.
As my colleague stated environmental protection is a
requirement. Environmental protection is not an option. The
original 1998 CEPA evolved because Canadians recognized something
was wrong with the environment. There was growing concern about
the presence of toxic substances in the environment and the
adverse impact on the environment from a variety of pollution
sources and industry contributing to environmental degradation.
I remind my colleagues that these concerns continue today. As
mentioned by colleagues last week, the majority of Canadians
believe more needs to be done to protect the environment. Science
and technology have evolved to the point where environmental
stewardship does not compromise profitability or contribute to
job losses. As my colleagues stated and I shall repeat, going
green does not cost jobs or decrease productivity, a principle
that the New Democratic Party has stated time and time again in
the House and across the country.
As we embark upon the review and the restructuring of CEPA we
should remember that recent events demonstrate there are
environmental protection problems across Canada. As stated last
week Canadians are fully aware of the Plastimets in Swan Hills,
the abandoned contaminated sites that dot the landscape from
coast to coast to coast and the spills and accidents, some of
which could have been prevented.
In the north there are contaminants in mother's milk. What is
wrong with this picture when entire food chains are contaminated
and where thousand of square kilometres contaminated by man can
be accepted as the way things are?
We are continuing to promote environment degradation through
inaction and further studies. We have placed economics before
the environment. Sustainable development is a theory, not an
accepted and practised principle.
My colleague made specific reference to the only comprehensive
review to date on CEPA, the report tabled in 1995 by the House
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It
was entitled It's About our Health—Towards Pollution
Prevention. This massive report contains 141 recommendations
to improve then Bill C-74, the predecessor to Bill C-32.
The Liberals refused the majority of the recommendations in the
400 responses received by the government during the public
review. They ignored a consensus that more effort was needed to
ensure the highest standards of environmental protection for all
Canadians as a favoured response from the Liberal benches. This
statement does not only relate to fact.
Recent environment committee meetings demonstrate that there is
something wrong with basic environmental standards, never mind
the highest environmental standards. The problem is not the lack
of standards. It is the reality that standards on paper or in
bills are not being followed, implemented or enforced. The New
Democratic Party does not support a sole command and control
regulatory framework as a sole parameter or measure for
environmental protection.
1345
Co-operative measures, including sharing responsibilities
between provincial and territorial governments, indeed all
government levels and local governments, to ensure environmental
protection at the highest standards can be achieved. However,
this government appears to fully embrace the devolution of
environmental protection and the abandonment of environmental
responsibilities.
Canadians have been fed a line by industry and provincial
authorities that overlap and duplication are serious problems.
There are limited examples that this is true. This was
demonstrated by recent committee hearings which describe
non-enforcement and the lack of resources by any level of
government to enforce entire sections of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
This pattern of federation devolution and no responsibility
continues with Bill C-32.
As parliamentarians it is our duty to ensure that Canadians
receive the environmental standards they expect, deserve and call
for.
My colleagues, the Liberal government has demonstrated time and
time again that the environment is not important “Let the
provinces handle the problem; we will wash our hands clean of
this responsibility”. The New Democratic Party cannot support
legislation that allows and condones further decreases in
environmental protection.
The administrative duties section contains an alarm bell that we
must recognize as dangerous. Clause 2(1) makes specific
reference to “act in a manner of intergovernmental agreements
and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the
highest degree of environmental equality throughout Canada”.
We believe that this is a direct reference to the harmonization
accord which was signed in January by the federal, provincial and
territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. This
accord operates on a consensus basis where any province that
protests against or declines participation with the environmental
measures can effectively stop, delay or defer cautionary,
preventative or proactive environmental efforts.
If a province that relies on a specific industry or economic
sector decides to not implement environmental standards for
specific toxics or limit an industry's discharge of greenhouse
gas emissions for example, CEPA in essence can become null and
void.
How can we ignore the calls by business and different levels of
government for a level playing field when one province can decide
that a lower level of specific standards is okay while a
neighbouring province decides higher standards are necessary to
protect the health and safety of its citizens and voters?
We are trying to limit job raiding and promote interprovincial
co-operation. Why place this opportunity for squabbles on the
table?
We will be embarking on a climate change program, we hope, and
the country may be held hostage by one, two or three provinces, a
grave environmental issue that will affect all Canadians, future
generations and the entire planet.
Our concerns are shared by environmental organizations across
this country. I expect we will be presented with numerous
scenarios as the legislation passes through committee.
The non-protection course the Liberal government appears content
to follow is included in various sections of the new act, as was
the case in C-74, where specific outs and escape clauses are
identified to provide the devolution authority this government
cherishes. The equivalent provisions in section 10(3) states:
“The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the
environment minister, make an order declaring that the provisions
of the regulations do not apply in any area under the
jurisdiction of the government”.
Members of Parliament and Canadians have been shocked by the
reality that these agreements represent. Environment departments
across Canada have been cut as a result of deficit battles and
transfer reductions. The ability and capacity for environmental
protection enforcement and monitoring has reached a critical
level.
The federal government signs equivalency agreements with the
provinces. The provinces do not have the resources to monitor,
inspect and enforce and environmental standards continue to
plummet.
The department of fisheries for example is still scrambling to
provide water monitoring resources in Ontario after the province
opted out of its partnering and harmonization agreement with that
department. The fisheries minister has waived inspection
responsibilities in several provinces and has not provided
reports on enforcement although this is a regulatory
responsibility. The provinces are not keeping DFO up to date.
The impacts on ecosystems, such as those affected by aquaculture,
are ignored by the federal government. Even though there is a
memorandum of understanding, the federal government decides not
to enforce fisheries regulations.
These are a few of the many examples of the highest standards
possible, the Liberal definition.
1350
The environment minister heralds a partnering with Quebec pulp
and paper effluent regulatory responsibilities. Lo and behold a
few days after the ink is dry, it is reported that companies are
being let off the hook. Over 20 offences were not being acted
upon. We are paying that province to do our job.
My colleagues have mentioned improvements contained in the new
Bill C-32. One colleague emphasized enhanced sharing of
responsibilities for environmental protection. He obviously has
not followed the committee's proceedings.
Through these committees, in the news, from corporate and
provincial representation, Canadians have been fed a story of
duplication and overlap, restrictive regulations, too much red
tape, provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions, unfair
representation as stated by my colleague.
Evidence presented over the past several months as Bill C-32
drew near is a direct contradiction. There are improvements in
the proposed legislation, legislation which this government is
more than happy to ignore and sign off. Regulations are not being
enforced. Pollutants are being released. There are overworked
staff and insufficient resources. These are the facts. Canadians
should not be fooled by what the paper promises.
My colleagues, we need to proceed carefully. We must embark
upon this further path of devolution and harmonization. We have
the opportunity to create positive and constructive improvements
in a new CEPA. We have the opportunity to stop the devolution
and weaker environmental protection.
We must ensure that the loopholes for federalist escapes are
closed. We must ensure that the checks and balance approach, the
precautionary approach is maintained and not lost. We must
revisit the outstanding issues and committee recommendations the
Liberal government chose to ignore in 1995. We must consider the
expansion of whistleblower protection to beyond the public sector
and who we are trying to protect otherwise. We must acknowledge
the need for improved toxic substance identification and
phase-out, not limited by the Liberal example and points on
paper, but by action. We must recall the promises made from the
fanfare the previous environment minister made in reference to
toxic substances, fast track one and two.
The bureaucracy needs five years to study less than three dozen
carcinogens. This record must be improved to protect the
environment and all Canadians. Sunsets must be included to stop
these toxic substances. We must improve the capacity for
identification and really fast track the carcinogens issues and
toxicity of thousands of chemicals we face in today's
environment.
We must expand the environmental registry to include real time
access for community right to know, to avoid the Plastimets and
the Swan Hills. We must ensure that the readily available
information on pesticide use on Canadian lawns and in agriculture
is provided and is not only industry based. We must revisit the
ability for the environment minister to act swiftly and
conservatively when confronted by environmental hazards, not to
tie the minister's hands as presented in the new CEPA.
We must ensure that the recognition and inclusion of aboriginal
participation in the proposed advisory committee includes
opportunities for results, not just lip service. We must
seriously consider an environmental bill of rights for all
Canadians to provide equal footing for the polluters. We must
debate the inclusion of such rights in the charter of rights and
freedoms. This was the dream of author Rachel Carson.
The original CEPA followed a command and control regulatory
framework. We acknowledge that this can be improved and should
include voluntary measures but not as a mandate to pollute.
Studies identified that compliance occurs when there is a strong
regulatory process and the political will to enforce the said
legislation. We must not follow the voluntary path. We must
strike a balance between regulatory efforts, enforced efforts and
voluntary measures.
There are differences between the original 1988 CEPA and the
1998 CEPA. The different sciences, technologies, chemicals and
dangers must also be acknowledged. At the same time effective
environmental protection and a truly sustainable path are
possible today.
In many instances, such as industrial discharges, corrective
measures and controls were not readily available previously.
1355
We must ensure that a flexible yet strong continued federal
presence in environmental protection is maintained to ensure the
protection of the environment as it supports all species. Before
the original CEPA the polluters polluted and the victims suffered
and died. By victims we cannot consider man alone as the sole
reason for our action. All species suffered, the wildlife, the
flora and the fauna.
The original CEPA provided an ability to act to protect the
environment, to levy fines, to expose the polluters and support
sustainable development beyond this generation. Bill C-32 has
strayed from the original principles to protect and to provide
recourse. As parliamentarians we must ensure we return to the
path which protects the environment first and foremost, a path
which includes socioeconomic factors, but not at the expense of
our future.
We have an opportunity to enter the next century as responsible
citizens, as a society that recognizes the importance of our
environment and as a country that enforces the protection of our
environment.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River
for his intervention. I would like to ask him to explain to this
House the new and expanded measure which refers to citizens
actions in this bill. This was actively advocated and advanced
by the committee a few years ago, by the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis. It seems to me that it is a feature in this bill
which deserves to be highlighted. I wonder if he would like to
give us some of his views on that particular aspect of the bill.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the new
CEPA has highlighted the citizen's right to know. In terms of
opening up the dialogue and making the communities, the workers
and the many industries involved aware is sometimes lacking. The
report the hon. member has mentioned is a help. This was a major
recommendation which was echoed by many respondents and in many
submissions.
I must refer tot he whistleblower legislation as well. The new
CEPA limits itself to federal agencies and federal employees. It
should be open to public input as well, the union members, dock
members and industry members, the workers. It should raise
awareness of the environmental impacts these industries or
employers are practising. This is part of the citizen's right to
know. This is not in the new CEPA and we should enhance that to
protect our workers.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Questions and comments will continue after Oral
Question Period. There are almost eight minutes left.
It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GIL ROBINSON
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to pay tribute to Gil Robinson, a
constituent who has recently returned from working overseas for
CESO, Canadian Volunteer Advisors to Business.
[Translation]
Mr. Robinson just completed two terms in Guyana. He was asked
to improve the operations of a supermarket in Georgetown and to
develop a strategy plan for another supermarket, in Linden.
[English]
For the Linden store Mr. Robinson established internal controls
to correct a problem with theft, established an operations manual
and changed the layout of the store. The Georgetown store was
losing money due to excess inventory and high interest rates. Mr.
Robinson trained staff in all aspects of food store management
and established objectives and priorities.
[Translation]
On behalf of everyone in the greater Moncton area, I want to
wholeheartedly congratulate Mr. Robinson for the remarkable work
he has done in Guyana.
* * *
[English]
MINING
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, May 3 to May 7 in Montreal the Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum will celebrate its centennial so
the government is releasing a new stamp honouring mining.
It would be better if it acted on federal issues which endanger
mining jobs.
1400
Unsettled native land claims make land ownership and mineral
tenure uncertain. That uncertainty was made worse by the supreme
court's Delgamuukw decision which raised expectations so high as
to endanger settling native claims.
In B.C. alone 50 major land claims are on the table with more to
come. Not knowing who is the landlord scares away investors. But
Canada's high taxes along with an unfavourable tax structure as
well as federal-provincial overlap of regulations also prevent
opening new mines.
On the east coast the same negative federal policies combined with
low nickel prices have delayed thousands of jobs at Voisey's Bay,
Labrador.
It is past time that this government acted on House committee
reports to protect Canada's 350,000 mining jobs and help promote
new ones instead of just issuing a stamp.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during this
debate, the national assistance initiative for hepatitis C
victims put forward by the government was harshly criticized.
What has clearly emerged from this scathing attack was that the
criticisms themselves did not focus on an issue of major
importance: should governments give financial compensation to
all those who are harmed not through anyone's fault but as a
result of risks inherent in medical practice?
Although a large number of members from the opposition talk
about our duty and our moral obligation to pay additional cash
compensation, we have not heard much about the impact such
compensation would have on the health system itself.
As the health minister clearly indicated in the House last week,
the first moral responsibility of the government is to safeguard
health insurance for the hepatitis C victims who will need
continuous medical attention.
Despite its shortcomings, the Canadian health system is still
one of the best in the world. This is why we should not threaten
it by hastily creating precedents not based on solid strategic
grounds.
* * *
[English]
NIAGARA RIVER
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Niagara River remedial action plan received a
sizeable grant under Environment Canada action 21. The grant
will serve in the restoration of the Baden Powell park to its
natural state as a carolinian forest and enhance the quality of
our environment.
In itself this is wonderful news. However, it is important to
note that more than 20 community organizations including the
city, Niagara College, our park commission and many environmental
and naturalist groups were instrumental in the realization of
this project.
The Boy Scouts were the largest volunteer group and to date they
have contributed more than 3,000 volunteer hours, a wonderful
example of how communities working together are an inspiration to
all.
Our youth with their enthusiasm and hard work are showing that
we can make a difference and be part of the solution toward
healthier communities and a better environment.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to join in the debate around hepatitis C and to
speak to the fact that many of my constituents who have called me
have focused on a couple of areas. One is the legitimate
symptoms of the disease such as profound fatigue and the
debilitating effects hepatitis C has on their health.
To rectify this situation human resources development has
assured me that it will be introducing special training for
medical adjudicators to increase their understanding of the
progression of the disease and that the government is looking at
establishing a special centre of expertise on hepatitis C to
increase knowledge and understanding of the disease among
Canadian health professionals.
The government is also aware that some individuals with
hepatitis C have already experienced difficulty in receiving
disability benefits—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a letter from Olis Davies of Langley, British Columbia to the
Prime Minister:
Dear Sir:
You seem to have decided which hepatitis C victims should be
compensated, for a disease brought on us, through no fault of our
own.
We had no control over the year we would be given a death
sentence.
Perhaps, Mr. Prime Minister, you would feel differently had
someone told you, when you had your illness—sorry, sir, we
can't treat you, it's not the year for you to be sick.
All we have to look forward to is very little happiness and an
early death.
Do you not feel compassion for the sick people, that up to this
time, were loyal, tax paying citizens of Canada?
We send money and help to other countries, why not our own
Canadians?
Surely you can cut costs and unnecessary expenses, such as
purchasing outdated equipment and unnecessary government
spending.
Please! Let your Liberal members vote with their conscience and
not force them to go against their better judgment.
Olis Davies
* * *
1405
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support today the decision made by the Minister of
Health and his partners from the provinces and territories with
regard to the compensation of hepatitis C victims. Of course,
the easy way for the minister would be to simply pay all those
who are asking the government for compensation.
Opposition members seem to believe that moral superiority
belongs to those who favour the easiest and quickest solution:
offering a global compensation package today without thinking
about the consequences it would have tomorrow.
However, it is clear that moral superiority belongs to those of
us, on the government side, who will oppose the motion.
We have chosen to oppose the motion because we accept the
responsibility given to us by Canadians to protect the health
care system that is cherished by everyone in this country.
I would like to conclude these brief remarks by congratulating
the Minister of Health for having the courage of his convictions
and for holding up in the face of harsh, misinformed and petty
criticism from those who would want us to compromise the long
term welfare of Canadian society for short term political gain.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
assessing the motion before the House on hepatitis C it is
important that we look beyond the rhetoric to its real
implication for Canadian society.
The opposition motion advocates that we remove any distinction
between those who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system
within the period 1986 to 1990 when risk reduction actions should
have been taken and those people who became infected before or
after this period.
The principles this government is applying for hepatitis C are
clear, sustainable and responsible. They are the result of some
very hard and difficult decisions. In looking at the question of
hepatitis C compensation, the Minister of Health and his
provincial counterparts had to work from some very broad terms of
reference, ones I am sure the opposition would like to hear, ones
which encompassed the entire health system.
The collective responsibility of the ministers of health is to
ensure the ongoing sustainability of the system for all Canadians
now and in the future. I urge my colleagues in this House—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a constituent writes:
I am 32 years old, married and have three young sons. I work
hard, pay my taxes and I do what I can for my country. But in
the last several years, I find it increasingly difficult to go to
work and take care of my young family, because hepatitis C is
sucking the life out of me. I am always tired and find it hard,
if not impossible, to be a dad to my boys and keep up with my
responsibilities.
Not knowing how much longer I will be able to work, or how many
years I have left, it would be of great comfort if the government
would take responsibility and compensate all victims of tainted
blood so I could slow down and preserve my health.
I pray and trust that the Government of Canada will take
responsibility and do the right and honourable thing.
Ed Neufeld, Winkler, Manitoba.
I implore this government not to let innocent victims like Ed
Neufeld down.
* * *
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to rise from my seat representing the
riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam. I take this opportunity to
acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor who used to sit
across the House, Mrs. Sharon Hayes. Mrs. Hayes was a strong
candidate and we respect her reasons for leaving. We wish her,
her husband and their family the best.
The citizens of my riding spoke loud and clear on March 30. They
chose a party whose government speaks for all Canadians, a
government that has eliminated the deficit and is practising
strong financial management for the future of all Canadians. They
elected a member with a long record of service to the community.
I am honoured to sit in a seat that belongs to the people of
Port Moody—Coquitlam. I pledge to those who voted for me and
the ones who did not that I am here to voice their concerns.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, researchers
from the University of Toronto's faculty of medicine recently
published a study of mothers who have to rely on food banks to
feed themselves and their children.
This study, commissioned by the health department, paints a
gloomy picture. These women often have to deprive themselves of
food so their children can eat. More than 26% of women who were
interviewed said they had suffered from severe undernourishment
during the last year. Seventy per cent of these women relied
solely on social welfare to survive, and their meager income was
just 52.8% of the amount needed to reach the poverty line.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois strongly denounces the political choices made
by the Liberal Party and accuses the government of being largely
responsible for the increase in poverty—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am sure these statements are
all very important to us. I would ask you to keep these little
side conversations toned down.
[Translation]
Does the hon. member for Québec have anything to add?
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Scientists from the faculty of medicine at the University of
Toronto have just released a study on mothers who depend on food
banks to feed their children.
The study commissioned by the health department reveals a very
alarming situation. In order for their children to eat, these
women often go without food. Over 26% of the women surveyed said
they had been seriously undernourished during the past year.
Seventy per cent of them depended entirely on social assistance
to survive and their meager income was only 52.8% of the amount
needed to reach the poverty line.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly condemns the Liberal Party's
political choices, and accuses the government of being largely
responsible for the increase in poverty.
* * *
[English]
GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
people around the world are recognizing the serious problems
inherent in the current model for globalization. They are
recognizing that the unfettered global marketplace is increasing
social inequality and committing countries to a race to the
bottom. People are demanding that governments live up to their
responsibility to ensure that globalization serves democracy,
equality and human need. Examples of the failure of the current
model are everywhere. The Asia crisis has demonstrated that
deregulated financial markets are a threat to sane and stable
development.
Today at the MAI negotiations in Paris, the trade ministers of
the 29 richest countries are discussing their publics' concern
following an attempt to make the rights of working people and the
environment subservient to investor rights.
Let the MAI die a well deserved death and let us seize the
opportunity to explore ways of ensuring that globalizing markets
serve the common good and not just the interests of the wealthy
global elite. We call on this government to live up to its
responsibility and engage the Canadian people in a debate about
concrete ways to advance our values of social justice and
equality in the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
* * *
[Translation]
SASKATCHEWAN FRANCOPHONES
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday
marked the 10th anniversary of Bill 2 in Saskatchewan, an act
abolishing French as an official language. Representatives of
Franco-Saskatchewanians, who are 20,000 strong, but only 6,000 of
whom still speak French at home, came to Ottawa looking for
help.
However, the heritage minister refused to meet with them. She
claimed the president of the Fédération des francophones de
Saskatoon, Richard Nadeau, is a friend of the Bloc Quebecois.
Again, according to her, the people protesting against the
Liberals' UI reform were separatists masquerading as unemployed
workers. In fact, in the opinion of the heritage minister, you
either belong to the Liberal Party and wrap yourself in the flag
or you are nothing but a separatist.
The heritage minister is trying to discredit a representative of
the francophone community in Saskatchewan so as to downplay the
urgency of this community's situation.
Francophones outside Quebec are only of interest to her when she
can use them as weapons against Quebec sovereignists. Respecting
their rights is secondary.
* * *
[English]
HADASSAH WIZO
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today Canadian Hadassah Wizo honoured women in public
life. Hadassah Wizo is marking its 80th anniversary and the 50th
anniversary of the birth of the state of Israel by creating a
fund to provide a scholarship in women's studies at the
University of Ottawa.
For 80 years the incredibly talented women of Hadassah Wizo, a
grassroots network, have represented the spirit of volunteering
in this country with special emphasis on women and children and
their health and education needs. Over the decades Hadassah Wizo
has evolved from a project called Youth Aliyah during the second
world war to remove Jewish children to safety in Israel. Today
its project “Women to Women” is helping abused women.
I congratulate and thank Hadassah Wizo, Canada's largest Jewish
women's organization, for its contribution.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
18,000 people in the province of Newfoundland about to be thrown
off the TAGS program are crying out for a sign of compassion from
the federal government. Scientific assessment of the cod stocks
seems to indicate that it will be quite a while before many of
these people can return to the commercial fishery.
Therefore it comes as no surprise when we read in the media that
the Premier of Newfoundland has personally informed the Prime
Minister that the Newfoundland economy cannot possibly absorb
these people if the TAGS program is cut off cold turkey.
1415
I call upon the federal government not to turn this issue into
another hepatitis C issue. The federal government is responsible
for the mismanagement of the cod. It has a moral responsibility
to compensate the people in the fishing industry who have been
affected by the shutdown.
We need a post-TAGS program and we need it now.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Prime Minister offered publicly and promised to bring
up the issue of human rights in Cuba. In fact he said “I am not
shy”. But in a speech nationally televised across Cuba he
failed to mention human rights even once. It appears that he
would like to have that little chat behind closed doors where
Cubans and Canadians will not hear a word of it.
Why were human rights not at the very top of the Prime
Minister's public agenda? Why so shy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's question because if
there is one thing the Prime Minister is not it is shy.
I am confident that the Prime Minister did put human rights at
the top of his agenda, along with the other items on the agenda
expressed by the memorandum of understanding that we have with
Cuba.
Certainly I am confident that human rights is an important
consideration of the discussions the Prime Minister is having.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
any discussions the Prime Minister may have had were a pure
embarrassment for Canada.
Human rights was not the only thing the Prime Minister was
silent on yesterday. He just stood there as Fidel Castro
compared the peaceful economic sanctions of Cuba to the
Holocaust. During the week in which we are celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the state of Israel, this disgusting comparison
must not be allowed to stand.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will the government do
today what the Prime Minister should have done yesterday and
condemn Castro for these disgusting remarks?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have been engaged
now for a year and a half in a very active dialogue with the
Cubans on a variety of human rights matters. We have actually
seen some progress made. I know that members of the Reform Party
would not be aware of it because they do not attend to human
rights matters.
The purpose of the trip is to advance that file, to make
progress in these areas and to ensure that we make the case, as
has been made over the past several years, that we need the
Cubans to establish themselves as adhering to a fundamental set
of international standards on human rights.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fact of the matter is that the economic peaceful sanctions
against Cuba right now may be questionable foreign policy, but
they are not the Holocaust, they are not genocide and they are
not the use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, as Fidel
Castro said they were.
Let me ask the minister again, will he condemn Castro right
here, right now, for the disgusting comparisons he made
yesterday?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that nobody is endorsing
the remarks of President Castro. The remarks he made are his
remarks.
What we are saying is that it is time we started building some
effective bridges into the western hemisphere so that the kind of
transition and changes going on in Cuba can be reinforced.
The Reform Party is missing the whole point. The trip to Cuba
is not to start a confrontation. The real purpose of the trip is
to provide reconciliation.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
reported today that the government is ready to reopen its bad
deal on hepatitis C. At least that is what the Liberal
backbenchers are being told.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is the government in fact ready
to reopen the deal so that all victims of hepatitis C will be
treated equally?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our position remains the same.
A deal has been made between the federal government and all of
the provincial governments and we feel this deal is one that
deserves the support of the House.
We continue to believe that when the House votes on the Reform
motion tomorrow it will vote to defeat the motion and will
endorse the position of all the provincial governments which is a
part of the deal with the federal government.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe I
should remind the Deputy Prime Minister that he is talking about
things like a CPP disability plan for these victims, even though
he knows that people have to line up for those plans. He is
talking about medical plans for these people, even though health
care provides those things.
He is offering not a single thin dime more to these victims.
Is it not true that he is offering these things just to keep
the dissident backbench Liberals in check?
I will ask him the question again. Is he going to give equal
treatment to all victims of hepatitis C in Canada: yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised by the nerve of the hon. minister talking
about dissident backbench MPs after what his party did to Jan
Brown and after what his party did to Jim Silye when they dared
to say something different than the Reform Party line.
We have confidence in the fact that this deal is deserving of
support—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: It is time to retire, Herb.
The Speaker: I was having difficulty hearing the answer.
I am sure we are as interested in the answers as we are in the
questions. I will permit the hon. Deputy Prime Minister to
finish his response.
Hon. Herb Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I have
made my point, that the Reform Party is wrong in the way it is
asking people to vote on its motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government must use threats of expulsion and arm-twisting to
impose its incomplete and unfair compensation program for
hepatitis C victims on its own members.
Does the government not understand that it is on the wrong track
and that its attempts to use threats to impose its views on its
own members are plunging it further into unfairness and
insensitivity towards those who are the victims of its
negligence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we took
a government stand. It is a question of government policy and,
tomorrow evening, government caucus members will be here to vote
against the Reform Party motion.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very surprised to hear the Minister of Health say that members
will be here tomorrow to vote against the motion. That is
perhaps the problem.
Has the Prime Minister not handled this very clumsily by turning
the Reform Party motion into a government confidence motion,
thus forcing members of his party to choose between the
government and what is fair?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
agreement has the support of the Government of Quebec's health
minister, Mr. Rochon. Does the Bloc Quebecois think that Mr.
Rochon is not being fair?
It would be strange for them to speak against their friend, Mr.
Rochon, in the House.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the president
of the hemophiliacs' association said that it was absolutely
disgraceful that the Prime Minister was turning the vote being
held tomorrow, Tuesday, into a vote of confidence in the
government.
Instead of turning tomorrow's vote into a vote of confidence,
should the government not instead make it one of conscience and
allow members to vote in accordance with what they really think
with respect to hemophiliacs?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do
not think that Mr. Rochon's views in this area of policy are
disgraceful. I reject the point of view expressed by the Bloc
Quebecois.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister is well aware that the reason we are questioning
the federal government is because it has primary responsibility
for Canada's blood supply.
Having first been the victims of the government's incompetence,
are hemophiliacs now going to be victims of the Prime Minister's
stubbornness?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
stubbornness on this point also extends to the Government of
Quebec and to Mr. Rochon. I think the hon. member should
address his remarks and his concerns to Mr. Rochon and not just
to the Government of Canada.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government is finally, if feebly, acknowledging that more needs
to be done to compensate hepatitis C victims.
Will the government commit now to do the right thing as Krever
recommended and compensate all victims of hepatitis C, or is this
simply a new spin aimed at shoring up support to get the
government through tomorrow's vote?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the position of the government has not changed. We spent time
with the provinces and arrived at an agreement by which
compensation is offered to those who were infected at a time when
governments could have acted and did not.
We are compensating avoidable harm, in the words of the Prichard
report of 1990. That was our position last week, it is our
position this week and it is the right decision.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
absolutely absurd for the health minister to say, as he has, that
fair compensation is a threat to medicare. The minister himself
fought for full compensation at the cabinet table.
It is absurd for the Prime Minister to declare tomorrow's vote a
matter of confidence. This is a theatre of the absurd.
Is it not true that this government will say anything no matter
how absurd to avoid looking hepatitis C victims like Jo-Anne
Manser in the eye?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during my many personal meetings with victims of hepatitis C,
both before and after 1986, I have explained the approach taken
by governments to this issue. I have explained it, as Premier
Romanow did last Friday when he was here in Ottawa. The premier
is of the hon. member's own party, the New Democratic Party of
Saskatchewan. Premier Romanow said that it was a tough decision
on a difficult issue.
However, as Premier Romanow said, reflecting the view of all
governments in Canada, this is the right thing to do. If we are
going to preserve a publicly funded health care system we should
compensate in cash those who were harmed in a way that was
avoidable had governments acted properly.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
February 6, 1998, the Minister of Health wrote to Mrs. Eleanor
Nelson of Ottawa regarding hepatitis C compensation.
The health minister wrote and stated “I wish to assure you that
I have no desire to see Hepatitis C victims spend precious time
navigating a maze of litigation”.
Why is the minister now forcing those victims to hire lawyers in
order to be compensated? This is absurd.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
because of the conviction which was expressed in that letter, I
convened a meeting of provincial ministers. I had officials work
hard getting at the facts of this case. The federal government
provided the leadership necessary to pull together an agreement
among all governments in this country.
As a result of those efforts and that commitment some
22,000-plus Canadians will not have to go to court if they accept
the offer that we have made in compensation.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
past 48 hours or so we have seen that the Liberal government is
opening up a bit to more assistance to the hepatitis C victims.
I would ask the Minister of Health what he thinks of this, and
if he can assure this House that the door is not closed
officially forever, and that the Liberal government might offer
other types of compensation to the hepatitis victims.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's position has not changed. All of the governments
in the country have reached a common accord.
We have adopted the same position , which is to say that we have
offered compensation to those infected from 1986 to 1990, in
order to reflect government responsibility. That is our
position today, as it was in the past.
1430
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
66 year old Laurette Sylvester from my riding writes “In 1981 I
had a lung removed and had a blood transfusion and was infected
with hepatitis C. All I am asking for is just and fair
compensation”.
Unfortunately there is nothing new for Laurette Sylvester today,
not one thin dime. The government speaks of Canada pension plan
disability benefits and home care benefits. Those are available
now.
I want to know and Canadians want to know when the government
will give equal and fair compensation to all hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have said that the position of all governments is that
compensation should be paid when governments were at fault in the
period when they could have acted.
I invite the hon. member to speak to his colleague from Macleod.
Last Thursday during the debate on his motion the hon. member for
Macleod agreed with our position. He said “I accept his
point”, referring to me, “that government should not pay cash
compensation to people who are injured when there is no fault. No
fault, no compensation, I accept”. That is the position of the
hon. member for Macleod. That is our position. That is the
right position.
The fault was from 1986 to 1990. That is the period during
which we are paying compensation, and I am glad my colleague from
Macleod agrees with our position.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there was a test in 1981 to prevent the plight of Laurette
Sylvester, and the government knows it.
The talk of a new deal by the government this morning is nothing
more than the political spin doctors trying to convince backbench
Liberals that there is a lousy deal on the table, and that is the
one the government has come up with. It is a bad deal. Hepatitis
C victims do not need Liberal spin doctors. They need
compensation now.
When will the government stop the rhetoric and announce a real
compensation plan for hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the only spinning I can see from here is the hon. member trying
to distance himself from his colleague from Macleod.
What we have done is to take the simple position. If we
compensate people because they become ill, we will no longer be
able to have a public health care system in Canada.
We have offered compensation for the period of time during which
governments were at fault. The Red Cross and governments should
have acted and did not. That is the principle, a principle with
which the member for Macleod apparently agrees.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Francophones outside Quebec are threatened; everyone except the
federal government can see it. Again last week, the president of
the Fédération des francophones de Saskatoon sounded the alarm
on behalf of his community, which is being assimilated at a rate
of more than 70%.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it outrageous that,
instead of replying to his arguments, all the government did in
response to Mr. Nadeau's cry for help was to try to undermine
his credibility?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are the ones
who are systematically trying to undermine every francophone
outside Quebec with their statements.
I recently heard the author Antonine Maillet reply to the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois “They want us to assimilate with
Quebeckers, while accusing us of already being assimilated”.
That is what the Bloc Quebecois said and what francophone
leaders outside Quebec replied.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why does the
minister, who is himself a francophone, not answer the
Franco-Saskatchewanians' question regarding their survival
instead of being the mouthpiece for such demagogy?
Will he continue to refuse to face the facts or is he prepared
to recognize that francophones outside Quebec are the only
official language minority whose survival is threatened?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the hon. member
is right to a point. It is true that the remarks made by the
Bloc are typical of demagogues; I am the first one to say so and
I agree with him.
With respect to the assistance provided to francophones in
Saskatchewan, in 1997-98 for example, the federal government
committed $4.2 million to the Official Languages in Education
Program; $3.2 million to school management; $252,000 to French
language services; and $2 million to the Canada-communities
agreement.
This funding comes from the federal government, not from the
Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
1435
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Karen is a hepatitis C victim from Medicine Hat. She contracted
hepatitis C from tainted blood in 1985, years after testing for
hepatitis C was first available.
Under the imaginary new deal that was cooked up by the Deputy
Prime Minister this morning, I am wondering how much compensation
Karen will receive.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should remember that the government has one
position. It was a position that was developed with all
governments in the country. It is an offer of compensation of
$1.1 billion, to which we are contributing $800 million, to the
22,000 victims in the period of 1986 to 1990.
The hon. member should also remember that we do not and we
cannot compensate people because they become ill. If we did that
we would not have a health care system.
We are offering compensation during a period where governments
could and should have acted. That is the right thing to do.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a shameful position. It is a case of government
negligence.
These are the facts. All the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called
deal allows hepatitis C victims like Karen to do is to take
advantage of health care services that already exist. Thank you
very little.
Instead of a deal for Liberal backbenchers when will we see
compensation for all hepatitis C victims, victims like Karen?
When?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, if we were to do what the hon. member suggests we would
not have a health care system for very long because we would not
be able to afford it.
Second, the hon. member should talk about this issue with his
colleague from Macleod, because the hon. member for Macleod last
Thursday in the House accepted the point that governments should
not pay cash to people who are injured when there is no fault.
“No fault, no compensation, I accept”. Those were his words.
The hon. member should talk to his colleague. He understands
this issue. The hon. member should try as well.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Following the recent decision of the Council of Europe to ban
asbestos products, the situation is becoming increasingly
difficult and the asbestos industry is asking the federal
government to change its strategy.
Does the government agree that diplomacy has failed and that the
time has come to file an official complaint with the WTO?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should point out
to the hon. member that the Council of Europe has no legislative
power to ban anything.
Canada continues to work with Quebec and with France to achieve
a positive result. We have been asked if we are willing to take
this to the World Trade Organization. At the appropriate time we
will, but this is not the appropriate time.
We will continue to work through the channels we have started in
order to obtain a positive result.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
question was simple and called for a straight answer. When does
the government intend to file a complaint with the WTO?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have to make
that decision when we feel the time is appropriate. We do not
feel the time is appropriate yet.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister has chosen to quote my words in the House last week. He
says that when there is no fault there should be no compensation.
What did Justice Krever say about the fault of the federal
regulator as it related to hepatitis C? He said that the federal
government was negligent. That is fault from where I stand. That
is why we want compensation for all victims of hepatitis C.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Krever report made it clear that fault on the part of the
federal regulator was in January 1986 not insisting that the test
be put in place.
The hon. member is caught by the facts of this case. Any fair
reading of the Krever report makes it clear that it was January
1986 on that the federal regulator should have insisted that the
test be put in place. The hon. member has said that we should
not pay cash compensation except where there is fault.
I invite him, in view of his position and in view of the Krever
findings, to withdraw his motion before the House.
1440
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me go
to the source himself, Judge Krever.
During the 1980s the federal bureau of biologics did not decide
independently whether to use its authority. Instead it depended
upon the Red Cross. In effect it made itself dependent on an
organization whose activities it was supposed to regulate. That
is why Judge Krever said to compensate all victims of hepatitis C
without regard.
Why does not the health minister do exactly what Judge Krever
said?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is quite clear that in the statement he made last Thursday the
hon. member has adopted the position of the government.
Our position has been that we cannot simply pay people because
they become ill. The sympathy we feel for people who become ill
is reflected in the fact that we maintain one of the world's best
systems of health care and we provide them with that care.
When governments pay cash compensation, we have said, should
depend upon an element of fault. The hon. member has agreed and
in view of the position we have expressed I think he should
withdraw the motion he has put before the House.
* * *
[Translation]
B.C. MINE IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the B.C. mine in Black Lake closed, six
months ago, the 250 former workers have been asking for a joint
support program to help stabilize their income. The minister
continues to turn a deaf ear and is only prepared to fund
so-called active measures.
Since only six of the 250 workers benefited from the minister's
programs, when will he finally realize that active measures are
simply not working in this particular case?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I met with
representatives from the mine that is unfortunately closed. Six
former employees have already benefited from the active
measures, while 40 to 50 are interested in training for other
jobs. The courses will begin in August and September.
Our government was the first to take action following the mine
closure, by allocating $3 million for active measures designed
to help these workers. There are other possibilities, and we
will help workers, because they want to work.
* * *
[English]
NORTH KOREA
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
Efforts are continuing worldwide to address the severe food
shortages in North Korea. Could the minister tell us and the
House what Canada's efforts are in this area?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has contributed almost $15 million to the crisis
in North Korea. This was the largest contribution of food aid to
any country last year and $2 million of that aid came directly
from Canadians through the Canada Food Grains Bank.
We will continue to monitor the situation because Canadians care
and want to help.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is one terrible undemocratic fact in the hepatitis C issue,
and that is the government is whipping its members to do what is
wrong and vote against hep C victims.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the
punishment for backbenchers in doing what is right in voting for
hep—
The Speaker: I find the question, as it is put, is not in
order. I see the Deputy Prime Minister standing to answer it. If
he wishes to address himself to it he may. If not I will take
the next question.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a hypothetical question. The vote has not taken
place. I am confident the government's position will be upheld.
In any event the hon. member is out of order. I do not know how
he can ask a question of a party whip.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a hypothetical question to thousands of
hepatitis C victims, is it?
Let me ask this minister of no compassion where in the
government's throne speech, in its election platform or in the
rules of the House, does it say they will whip their members to
vote against their conscience?
1445
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister if he wishes
to answer.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, where in the Reform Party platform is it stated what
they did to Jim Silye and Jan Brown?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, reports out of the Deputy Prime Minister's office today
pertaining to the hepatitis C compensation matter show that the
government is really working hard to try to take the sting out of
tomorrow's vote. I want members to know that the leadership of
the Hepatitis C Society has said that such statements are
meaningless and that the requirement for blood injured Canadians
is still the same, fair compensation for all.
Will the government reopen the discussions and put in place an
agreement that is fair for all blood injured Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all the governments of Canada have entered into an agreement that
is fair. It reflects the reality that if we are going to keep a
publicly funded health care system in this country and operate on
the right principles then we should offer cash payments to people
who were harmed in a way that was avoidable. That is the
principle. That is the policy that underlies this position. It
is a position that is shared by every government including the
governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
We have made an agreement and an offer to the victims based on
the right principles.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today in the House the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore
announced on behalf of the government a study of the way in which
hepatitis C disease progresses. She talked about training
adjudicators and setting up a centre for excellence. That is
trifling with the realities of blood injured Canadians. The
blood injured do not need studies to tell them how the disease is
progressing. They live with it each and every day.
Why is the government offering a dry twig to blood injured
Canadians instead of an olive branch?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows it is not appropriate to offer cash
payments to people because they become ill. I do not think
anyone suggests we can run a country like that. We have offered
cash payments to people who were harmed in a way that could have
been avoided if governments had acted in a timely fashion. That
is what underlies this offer of settlement.
As to research, it is in the interests of all victims of
hepatitis C that research focus on treatments and cures if we
could find them. It is in the interests of all hep C victims
that we do what we can to improve the quality of treatment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to organized crime, Canada's top cop
is all talk and no action. Last November the solicitor general
promised to introduce legislation to give police power to act on
illegal financial activity. Recently he promised to bring bikers
to their knees and eradicate organized crime once and for all.
These are bold words. Six months later Canadians are still
waiting. When will the tough talking minister live up to the
rhetoric and introduce much needed anti-organized crime
legislation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government introduced tough anti-organized crime
legislation in the last Parliament. On Friday there were
representatives of 50,000 police officers in Ottawa to work out
the strategy. Today at noon I met with the Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police. We are on the job.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, lots of consultation, lots of talk, no action. In
its annual report on the international drug trade the United
States state department singled out Canada as “an easy target
for drug related crime and money laundering”. It lists Canada
alongside Columbia as a great place to hide illegal cash.
Will the solicitor general introduce legislation to give police
the tools they need to fight organized crime? Will he do so
before the conclusion of the sitting in June?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said in the House last fall when we introduced the
first ever statement on organized crime in this place, we will be
introducing that legislation.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Economic growth is important to the peaceful resolution of
ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Can the minister inform
this House of the impact of the free trade agreement between
Canada and Israel which was signed almost two years ago on the
population of Israel including the Palestinian authority?
1450
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for the question. He has expressed a great deal of
interest in this subject through his attendance in committee over
recent months.
Canada has four free trade agreements and one of them is with
Israel. As a result of the signing of that free trade agreement,
trade has increased by 19%. I should also point out that goods
produced in the West Bank and Gaza get equal treatment with goods
produced in Israel.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa once
stood up for what was right and voted against his then Tory
government on the GST. For the unpardonable crime of voting with
his constituents, Brian Mulroney kicked him out of his party.
When it is time to vote tomorrow, will the Deputy Prime Minister
allow the secretary of state to stand on principle, to do what is
right and vote with all hepatitis C victims, or will he do what
Brian Mulroney did and kick him out of the party?
The Speaker: I find the question to be out of order. It
deals with party matters.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
an effort to calm the members of the Reform Party, the Minister
of Justice is prepared to ignore the recommendations of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on the matter of
the Young Offenders Act and go so far as to propose publicly
identifying young people aged 16 and 17 who have had run-ins with
the law.
Will the Minister of Justice acknowledge that bowing to western
intolerance and proposing to publicly identify young offenders
do not serve the purposes of the law and do not help in
rehabilitation, which she claims to support?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned to think
that the hon. member believes everything he reads in the paper.
As I have said in this House many times before, the standing
committee has prepared a thorough report on the renewal of the
youth justice system in this country. This government will
respond to that report in the coming weeks.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The failure
of a mining tailings pond in Spain this weekend near Doñana
national park, a world heritage site, demonstrates that accidents
can occur.
Canada has in place an oil spill response program funded by that
industry. Can the Minister of the Environment tell Canadians what
response program is in place for a tailings pond failure in
Canada? Who would be responsible for the clean-up bill, industry
or the Canadian taxpayers?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the
soundest environmental records of any country on the globe. Quite
frankly our mining industry is one of the most responsible, most
proactive in the industry. We have a particular set of
environmental standards under the environmental protection act
and the fisheries protection act which I think leads to
responsible behaviour. Most importantly, our companies are
responsible. We are doing the right thing. We do the responsible
thing.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the minister of fisheries. Media reports
indicate recently that Newfoundland Premier Tobin met with the
Prime Minister a few days ago to make a case that the
Newfoundland economy cannot absorb the 18,000 people soon to be
cast off the Atlantic groundfish strategy program.
Will the federal government take its responsibility seriously?
Does the minister of fisheries not see the pressing need for a
post TAGS program? Will he give me a simple direct answer? What
is it? Will there be a post TAGS program or no post TAGS
program?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on many occasions in this House we have
responded to the many dilemmas that are faced by the post TAGS
situation.
I would agree with the hon. member that we have had useful input
from the premier of Newfoundland in this regard as well as of
course from Newfoundland members in this House. I would point
out to the member that it is a complex problem. The measures
announced by the government cannot be piecemeal or minor. I
think that may have been some of the problems we have encountered
in the past. In due course the member will receive the answer he
is looking for.
* * *
CHILDREN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.
Well-developed children become successful productive adults who
are better able to contribute to society's economy. Would the
minister clearly outline what the government is doing socially
and economically to promote early childhood development as a
powerful investment in the future?
1455
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is
currently engaged in a number of efforts to give children in
Canada a good start in life by early intervention programs and
prevention programs.
Starting this summer in July we are contributing $850 million as
a downpayment to low income families following with another $850
million. This will add up to $1.7 billion by the year 2000 in
investments for children. We will also expand the head start
programs. We are building a national children's agenda as well as
a national child benefit with our provincial partners.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that the government may be legally liable to all hepatitis
C victims who have been poisoned by a government controlled
tainted blood system.
My question is for the justice minister. Has her department
estimated the cost of the government's legal liability to
thousands of uncompensated hepatitis C victims who were poisoned
by a tainted blood system under the control of the federal
government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member and his colleagues spent much of the last few
weeks urging us not to take a legalistic approach to this issue.
Now he is asking us for a legal opinion on liability. The member
for Macleod put opposition very well last week.
The member for Crowfoot should know that we cannot pay cash
compensation on the basis of illness. It has to be on the
principle of fault.
We believe in making the offer we have to the victims of 1986 to
1990 with all the other governments in Canada. We have dealt
directly with the issue facing governments.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Not long ago, the Prime Minister told us of a ministerial
committee chaired by the Minister of Human Resources
Development, which had been given the job of developing ways to
provide support after the Atlantic groundfish strategy comes to
an end.
Could the minister tell us which workers in the fishing industry
are covered by these measures and what the eligibility criteria
are?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have no announcement on
this subject today. The hon. member is correct in that the
Prime Minister did ask a number of ministers to look at the
post-TAGS situation.
As we know, there has been a crisis in the industry. We set up
a program that provided help over several years to those hard
hit. The program concludes this August.
We are looking at various angles to see how we can help people
and communities live comfortably afterward and return to the
labour force.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health or as he might soon
become known, the head sophist for Canada, given some of the
arguments he has been making about hepatitis C.
Why does the minister persist in the deliberate confusion of the
public health care system with the federally regulated agency
that caused this problem? Will he give up this deliberate
confusion and admit that there is nothing wrong or dangerous to
medicare—
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have a little problem here
with the word deliberate. I would ask the hon. member to please
not use it in the future. I will permit the hon. Minister of
Health to answer.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is entitled to his view but we disagree. We are not
alone in this. We say that if governments are to pay people
because of sickness or illness and nothing more, then we will not
be able to have what Canada uniquely has, which is a government
funded public health care system.
The principle that should govern when it comes to the question
when should governments pay cash to those who are harmed through
risk inherent in the health system, is that payment should be
made based on avoidable harm. Could we have avoided this? That
is what the Pritchard committee said in 1990. We are following
exactly that principle. This is not some vague, legal—
The Speaker: Final question, the hon. member for St.
John's East.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of fisheries.
News headlines this weekend saw some scientists and
environmentalists recommending that the cod as a species be put
on the endangered list. In the end they listed cod as
vulnerable. This would appear to mean that the cod stock is not
yet ready for commercial fishing.
1500
Given that premise, will the minister please inform the people
and the fishermen of Newfoundland what the alternatives are for
the thousands of people who depend directly on the fishing
industry? Would he please tell us?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misread the committee
on the status of wildlife in Canada's designation as vulnerable
for cod stocks in the Atlantic. That in fact indicates that this
is a matter of serious concern which I think is well recognized
by every member of this House, particularly those who have read
the report of the House committee on fisheries and oceans.
I think the member should also recognize that cod stocks are not
a single mass out there, that are different stocks. There is the
possibility of some fishing in some areas, for example on the
south coast of Newfoundland, this year as there has been in past
years.
The Speaker: Colleagues, that would bring to a close our
question period today. We have three distinguished visitors with
us.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of members the
presence in our gallery of Mr. Maïgari Bello Bouba, Minister of
State for Industrial and Commercial Development of the Republic
of Cameroon, and Mr. Claude-Joseph Mbafou, Minister of Tourism of
the Republic of Cameroon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would also draw your attention
to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Lorne Taylor, Minister
Responsible for Science, Research and Information Technology from
the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Today we are going to have tributes for two
of our former colleagues who passed away, Reverend Bob Ogle of
the New Democratic Party and Mr. Carlo Rossi of the Liberal
Party. The first tribute will be for Reverend Bob Ogle. Our
first intervener will be the Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE FATHER BOB OGLE
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am
extremely pleased to say a few words today about our former
colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon East.
[English]
Father Bob Ogle, as members know, after a 15 year battle with
cancer died on April 1 of this year in Saskatoon. He was born on
Christmas Eve, 1928. He was one of five children of Irish
Catholic parents. He lived his early years in Rosetown,
Saskatchewan.
In 1946, after graduating from high school, he enter St. Peter's
Seminary in London. He was ordained a priest in Rosetown in
1953. The next few years were spent furthering his education and
serving in parishes in Saskatoon and region.
During that time he also founded the Catholic Centre in Saskatoon
and the St. Pius X Seminary.
1505
In 1964 he went to northeast Brazil as a voluntary missionary
where he was engaged in pastoral activities, organizing literacy,
farming co-operatives and medical programs.
In 1969 he co-ordinated a large scale relief operation and house
building program following the disastrous floods in the Valley
of Mundau in Brazil.
He came back to Saskatoon in 1970 as pastor of a large parish
where he served for five years.
Following that he travelled to many countries in Africa and Asia
to study development projects, concluding with the book When
the Snake Bites the Sun.
He was elected as the member of parliament for Saskatoon East in
1979, was re-elected in 1980 and served until 1984.
I do not know that he could have survived the 211 seat tidal
wave of the Tories in 1984, but knowing Father Bob he might just
well have survived that campaign.
He is also the author of two other books, North South
Calling in 1987 and A Man of Letters in 1990. In 1993
he produced a series of nationally televised retreats called
“Ogle & Company” and continued to write letters and many
articles for various newspapers, even as his health deteriorated.
He was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1989 and
received Saskatchewan's Order or Merit in 1995.
Throughout the illness he showed remarkable courage and
maintained interest and care for those close to him and for our
global neighbours. A constant advocate and help to him through
his political work and declining health was his sister, Mary Lou.
He is mourned by the Ogle family: Mary Lou, his sister;
Marguerite Stevens of Qualicum Beach, B.C. and her daughters,
Jennifer French, Francine Kebe, Marianne Kebe and Kathryn Kebe;
his brother, Charles of Saskatoon and their children Shannon
Barclay of Coleville, Sheila Anderson of Calgary and Kelly of
Calgary.
Our departed colleague is mourned by Bishop James Weisgerber and
the priests and people of the Diocese of Saskatoon.
Always close to his heart was the mission in Brazil and anyone
watching this might wish to make a donation to the Brazil Mission
Fund in care of the Diocese of Saskatoon, 100-5th Avenue North,
Saskatoon.
Prayers for Father Ogle were said on April 5 at Holy Spirit
Church and also at the chapel of St. Anne's Home. Funeral mass
was April 6 at Holy Spirit Church.
Mr. Speaker, you and I will both recall vividly about 24 months
ago when Father Bob wanted to meet with you about a dinner he
wanted you to host to promote a better understanding of
Canadians, of our media and the so-called developing world. Such
was his eloquence that you hosted that dinner, which was a great
success despite your early reluctance, if I may say so, to do so
because of cost reasons. No one could say no for long to our
departed colleague and his many, many good causes.
One of his characteristics, which all colleagues who were here
with him cherished, was his constant cheeriness in the face of
adversity. No matter how much pain he was in he always had time
for a friendly word and laugh with every one of us or anybody who
might work in these halls. Only mutual respect and friendliness
came from Father Bob.
A subject he and I never discussed was Mother Teresa, but I am
certain she was a role model for him in his work in Brazil and
elsewhere. She and Robert both did much that was, to use her
phrase, beautiful for God.
All of us in this place and across the country and planet owe
much to him. He will not be forgotten.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to my
former colleague, Father Bob Ogle, the NDP MP for Saskatoon East
from 1979 to 1984. I had the privilege of being elected at the
same time as Bob. We were rookie MPs together in this House,
although he was a fair bit older than me. We became good friends
and that friendship extended beyond the time when he had to leave
this parliament.
As a matter of fact, I had occasion to visit him in January in
Saskatoon, just a couple of months before his death. I was very
glad to be able to visit him at that time.
1510
As has already been stated, he had a long struggle with cancer
and with other illnesses. If my memory serves me right, it was
shortly after the 1984 election that he was given something in
the nature of six months to live. Bob, even when he was health
critic for the NDP, used to say that he was not all that fond of
doctors. After the diagnosis he used to say that he was going
to try to live as long as he could to prove them wrong. I must
say that he proved them wrong time and time again by living until
April 1, 1998, with all the illnesses that beset him.
Much of the biographical material on Father Bob has already been
covered by the secretary of state, but I just want to note a
couple of things. He left this House not because he was
defeated, but because he was obedient. At that time the Pope
made a ruling, to use speakership language rather than
ecclesiastical language, that priests could no longer run for or
seek elected office. I think at the time the Pope was trying to
deal, for better or for worse, with priests who were running for
office in the United States and throughout Latin America, but Bob
was caught in that net, if you like.
There was never any doubt in his mind as to what he would do. He
was a priest first and if he was ordered by the Pope not to run
again then that was his first obligation, given his vows, and he
did not seek re-election in 1984, something which a great many of
us regretted. We felt at that time that the House of Commons
lost a great member of parliament and a great servant of the
Canadian people.
But Bob never looked back. He went on to try to deal with the
issues that were of concern to him in another way. It has
already been mentioned that he had a passion for trying to
develop the Canadian media in a way that made them more sensitive
to developmental problems in the third world. He went to an
awful lot of effort to try to set up a series of sitcoms that
would reflect the problems people experienced in the developing
world. He undertook a number of other endeavours in that
respect.
I saw Bob, of course, not just as a fellow New Democrat, but
also as a fellow Christian who was influenced by liberation
theology and by the effect that the global economy and global
capitalism was having on the poor in the third world. Bob was
inspired by that and by his experience in Brazil where he saw
what was actually happening to people. He came back here to
embrace a political tradition that he thought was the most
faithful to what he had learned there and what he had learned as
a Roman Catholic priest. He applied that without fear or favour,
even when it came to the NDP.
I would be remiss if I did not say this, and I think Bob would
want me to say it, even though it might not make some people
happy. Throughout his life he considered himself to be pro-life.
He considered himself to be a foe of the enemies of life wherever
he found them, whether he found them in Brazil, whether he found
them in global capitalism, whether he found them in nuclear
weapons or whether he found them in the phenomenon of abortion.
He would often get up in this House and say that he was in favour
of life and that caused him to take a view which he saw as
consistently pro-life, being against nuclear weapons, being
against an economic system that ground the faces of the poor, to
use a biblical expression, and being against capital punishment.
We lost a great member of parliament in 1984 and we lost an even
greater Canadian this spring when Father Bob finally succumbed to
his illnesses.
On behalf of my colleagues I would like to extend our sympathy
to his family and in particular to his sister, Mary Lou, whom I
knew and who was a great support to him over the years. He will
be greatly missed.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle
who served as the NDP member of parliament for Saskatoon East
from 1979 to 1984.
1515
As mentioned, he died on April 1 after a long battle with cancer.
As a former MLA for the Rosetown—Elrose constituency, I had the
privilege of meeting Bob Ogle on a number of occasions. He was
born in Rosetown. I am told in visiting there it was a very
proud day for the town of Rosetown when he was ordained priest in
the town of his birth.
Although he is best known in his native province, this great
humanitarian's dedicated approach to human life and human justice
gained him international recognition. His philosophy for which
he was so respected can best be summed up by what he said on the
day of his nomination, September 17, 1977:
I believe that all human rights are all of a piece; ignore one
right and you jeopardize all the others. That is why a single
issue approach to rights will not work. If we are really
pro-life we have to protect human life, from conception through
to death. This requires an active, lifelong concern for a just
social system.
On behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, and I
well recognize all the members of this House, I pay my respect to
a missionary, to a world traveller, to an author and a renowned
Canadian politician.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to join with all of the parties in this House to pay tribute to
Bob. I arrived here in 1984, and he left in 1984, so I did not
have the opportunity to sit with him, but I have often heard
reference made to the spirit of social commitment he brought to
this House.
He sat here until 1984. A priest, he had to leave because the
Vatican decided that priests should no longer be members of any
parliament. Out of obedience to the Pope he gave up his
political career.
His career was in fact four careers. First of all, he was an
influential priest.
He was also an extremely devoted missionary, a highly
conscientious politician, and later a committed writer. He
served in Brazil, Africa and Asia.
We remember his years in politics mainly for his committed
defence of the right to life. He spoke often on euthanasia,
capital punishment and abortion. He constantly fought for the
right to life.
He also had a great belief in the media and felt they had a
vital role to play in raising public awareness of social
injustice. After his departure from politics, even during his
serious illness, he continued to speak his mind regularly in the
press.
He was the recipient of numerous honours in recognition of his
abilities and commitment. These included honourary degrees, the
Order of Canada and the Order of Saskatchewan.
He inspired numerous religious leaders in his home province and
throughout Canada.
The premier of his province said of him “He devoted his life to
helping others, and acquired an international reputation as a
man with a social conscience, committed to peace, justice and
the fight against poverty”, while church authorities in Rome
commented that no one could better incarnate the vision and
spirit of the Vatican II ecumenical council than Father Ogle.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I offer my most sincere
condolences to all his family, his friends and his party.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Progressive Conservative caucus join in expressing
our sympathy to the family of Father Bob Ogle, both his immediate
family as well as his religious and spiritual family.
Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle died on April 1 in Saskatoon after a
courageous and hard fought 15 year battle with cancer.
1520
The 69 year old priest was also a well known missionary,
politician and author. In 1979 he became the first Saskatchewan
priest to be elected as member of parliament representing the New
Democratic Party in Saskatoon East.
Father Ogle is reported to have taken as his personal message a
verse from Isaiah: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew
their strength. They shall mount up with wings as eagles”.
His conscientious work as a priest and as a member of the House
gives ample witness to his dedication to his beliefs and to the
people he represented.
We give thanks for his service in the House. He did indeed fly
like an eagle.
Our sympathies to the family of Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle.
The Speaker: My colleagues, from time to time I
permit myself an intervention.
I served with Bob Ogle for a number of years. Every so often he
would pop in when he was in Ottawa just to say hello. Perhaps
I might tell you two little stories about him to highlight the
kind of man he was.
When I became Speaker he wrote me a note asking if I would host
a dinner, as mentioned by the hon. minister earlier. I was not
too keen on hosting the dinner. I do not know if members know
the term being cadged, but it is similar to being conned. He used
to con me regularly. He was in my outer office and my secretary
came in and said there was a person to see me, a Reverend Bob
Ogle. I asked what he wanted. She said “I think he wants you
to host a dinner”.
He came in and he looked awfully healthy standing there.
“Bob”, I said, “how are you doing?” He said “I am dying”.
I said “You have been dying for the past 10 years. What is it
you want?” He said “Seeing as it could be my last supper, will
you host that dinner?” So I did.
There is another story about him. The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona mentioned that he was first and foremost a
priest. When he was thinking of leaving we were over in the
Confederation Building. I was not part of this conversation. It
was reported to me. One member said to him “You know, Bob, you
have been so successful here; you have been successful in
everything you have been doing. How can you just leave? How can
you just walk out like that?” He is reported to have said “I
was not called to be successful; I was called to be faithful”.
Bob Ogle was faithful to his principles. In my view he was a
good priest. He was a good Canadian. More important I guess
than all of those things, he was a good man and we as Canadians
can always do with good men. We are going to miss him.
We will now go to tributes for another member who shared with us,
Mr. Carlo Rossi, a member of the Liberal Party.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE CARLO ROSSI
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the Easter break, we
learned the sad news that our former colleague, Carlo Rossi, had
passed away.
I had the privilege of knowing Carlo. Almost everyone was on a
first-name basis with him. To all his colleagues in this House
and the community at large, he was an affable man and a friend
to all. Carlo was always there.
I was privileged to know him before being elected myself to this
place. As a police detective, he was a distinguished member of
the Montreal Italian community.
Carlo Rossi's name was already known in this House before he was
first elected to this place in 1979 to represent the riding of
Bourassa, which encompasses Montréal-Nord in the greater Montreal
area. He represented this riding until 1988.
1525
When I first set foot here as a new member in 1984, Carlo had
just been appointed deputy whip. Like everyone who comes to
Ottawa for the first time, I was a little lost. Carlo was there
to advise us, to help us find our way and play our role as
members of parliament. He did so with patience and eloquence.
What struck me the most during my first few months here, in
Ottawa, was the fact that, as busy as he was as deputy whip—having
been a whip myself for a number of years, I am familiar
with the difficulties and time demands of such a position here on
Parliament Hill—Carlo never forgot his riding. Not only did
Carlo spend weekends in his riding, as most of us do, trying to
be everywhere at once, but he managed to attend six or seven
events between Saturday night and Sunday. He was everywhere. Even
during the week, when he was asked to by an organization in his
riding, he would take the train to Montreal, but the next morning
he was back here.
I think he was a truly remarkable member of Parliament, a
member who not only took part in every debate in this House and
fulfilled his responsibilities as deputy opposition whip, but
also represented his riding well.
[English]
We all know Carlo had a tremendous voice. We all know how this
House can be noisy, especially during question period. Despite
all the noise, the voice of Carlo would just come out. Everybody,
whether on the opposition benches or the government benches,
would hear Carlo. Every Wednesday an hon. member leads in the
singing of our national anthem to open the House. If Carlo were
among us, he would lead that singing of O Canada. He was a good
Canadian. He loved his family. He loved his community. He was
very well respected. He loved this place and I am sure we will
all miss him.
I had the privilege of meeting with him once in a while.
Although he was no longer an elected MP, when he attended social
and civic functions people and organizations would call on him
for help.
[Translation]
We will miss Carlo. On behalf of the Prime Minister, my Liberal
colleagues and I think all members of this House, I would like
to extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Raymonde, his
children, Chantal and Roberto, his grandchildren and all the
other members of his family. We will all miss Carlo.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the official
opposition is honoured to pay tribute to Carlo Rossi, who passed
away April 11, 1998. Carlo came to the House of Commons in 1979.
He sat as the member for Bourassa for nearly 10 years. In his
previous life he was a dedicated police officer with a career
distinguished by fairness.
His word was his bond in police work. I was fascinated to hear
the story of how he would negotiate with hostages. If he had
given his word to a criminal who had taken a hostage, that word
was good. If he made a promise he stood by that promise. He
brought the same basic rules of fairness to his work here in
parliament. Members have told me that when he made a deal
it was in fact a deal.
As a decorated police officer he brought a fresh perspective to
parliament, a perspective that showed how closely he had dealt
with both criminals and victims alike.
[Translation]
Mr. Rossi was an ideal politician, with his experience as a
police officer and his life experience, without the restrictions
imposed by political parties. On behalf of my party I would
like to extend our condolences to his family. This is a great
loss to Montreal and to Canada.
1530
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the
honour and the pleasure of sitting with Mr. Rossi from 1984 to
1988. When I arrived here as a Conservative member in 1984
there were many of us, and I found myself sitting on this side
of the House with the opposition.
When Mr. Rossi would rise to speak with his powerful voice, I
must admit that he did not look like an easy person to approach.
I saw him for a few weeks, without getting to know him any
better. Then one day I met him in an elevator and discovered a
totally different person. Here was a charming and very polite,
distinguished and friendly man, interested in getting to know
his fellow members of parliament.
Following that encounter I shared many meals in the cafeteria
with him and also with his colleague, Mr. Malépart, who has
unfortunately left us too. Mr. Rossi had been in the military
and he also had a distinguished career as a police officer. He
was feared and respected as a criminal investigator, and he was
instrumental in capturing some very well known and astute
criminals.
I also discovered that he was a man of culture. He sat on the
culture and communications committee. His comments were very
much to the point and all members, regardless of their political
stripes, would listen carefully.
He was also very involved at the social level, perhaps as a
result of the influence of his colleague, Mr. Malépart. I
remember the fight that he led, along with his friend, Mr.
Malépart, following the first Conservative budget regarding,
among other issues, the indexation of old age pensions.
When these two took the floor the House shook not because
there were shouts, but because of the heartfelt arguments that
were put forward, arguments that had been conveyed to them by
the public in the numerous meetings and functions that they
attended in their ridings.
War veterans chose Mr. Rossi as their spokesperson. At the time
veterans had many demands about health care and other issues
and they would always go to him because he was a former police
officer. They recognized him as an honest and just man, as a man
capable of standing up for them.
Mr. Rossi was also very comfortable with new Canadians. He was
well known among Montreal's allophone population. He could speak
several languages fluently, which is not the case of many of us
here.
He was very comfortable with all minorities from the Montreal
region, and he had warm and frequent contacts with them.
On my behalf, and on behalf of my party and my colleagues, I
wish to offer to his wife and two children my most sincere
condolences. I also offer my sympathies to the constituents of
Bourassa whom he served so well and to his party which he
served so well.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I too would like to pay tribute to Carlo Rossi on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
I served in the House with Mr. Rossi from 1979 to 1988 and I
remember him well. I remember the voice and I remember the
lively heckling of which he was capable from time to time between
himself and particularly other Quebec MPs of different political
persuasions. We all know how lively that can be. Carlo Rossi
was particularly good at it. He always had a sort of mischievous
twinkling smile on his face whenever he was engaged in that kind
of activity.
He is not someone whom I knew well but he is certainly someone
whom I served with in the House. I pay tribute to his work as a
member of parliament, to his work before he came here as a police
officer, to his skill as a negotiator, and to his reputation as
someone who was honest and fair and could be relied on in his
work with everyone he dealt with.
I make special mention of the fact that as a police officer it
was significant in 1987 when he changed his mind with respect to
capital punishment.
I remember that debate very well. It was a difficult but
exciting time for the House of Commons. There was a free vote
coming. It was a significant decision that the House was to
make. People were under a lot of pressure one way or another,
depending on which position they were already holding and
depending on who expected them to do what.
1535
Certainly Mr. Rossi was under the kind of pressure all of us
were under, but as a police officer he certainly had an effect on
the debate when he went from someone who favoured capital
punishment to someone who opposed it. I pay tribute to him for
that as well.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Conservative caucus wishes to express its most sincere
condolences to the Rossi family.
[English]
He was known as a man who kept his word. His courage as a
police officer in Montreal for more than 30 years and his
dedication to the public service as a member of the House are
examples to all of us. His community was always a priority.
In saluting the life of Carlo Rossi we recognize the support
given to him by his family. That love and that support helped
him serve the people of his riding, the city of Montreal and all
of Canada through his active membership in the House of Commons.
We are grateful to them and to Mr. Rossi. Canada is a better
place because of the contributions he made during his life.
[Translation]
We are grateful to him and to his family. Canada is a better
place because of his lifelong contribution.
[English]
The Speaker: I guess it is a sign of my age but I
served with both of the gentlemen who were mentioned earlier
today. I served with Carlo Rossi. It was mentioned that he was a
man of his word. Something that was not mentioned was that he
was the chief negotiator for hostage takings in Montreal.
Whenever there were hostage takings they would call on Carlo
Rossi and he would go in and negotiate with the people. He was a
man of great courage.
In 1972 members may recall the Olympics in Munich, Germany, when
hostages were taken, citizens of Israel, and were shot almost
summarily by terrorists. It was not known to me until one night
when we were talking that Carlo Rossi was in charge of the
security at the Olympics of 1976 in Montreal.
The hon. minister of public works mentioned Carlo's voice. Yes,
it was a voice that carried. I recall one time, when we used to
work out in the Confederation Building, that I heard someone
singing Christmas carols. I went in to get changed and there was
only one person there. It was Carlo and he was getting dressed.
I said “Carlo, who was the fellow who was singing in here?” He
said “It was me”. I said “Come on, you can't sing like
that”.
About two weeks later I heard him sing Ave Maria at the
Christmas party. I know many of you were not here at the time.
It was such a beautiful rich voice from a beautiful and in many
ways very rich man.
I am glad I had a chance to serve with him. You would have
enjoyed him. He was a good member of parliament. He will be
missed.
I on behalf of parliament give our most sincere condolences to
his family.
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 two petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 29th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its order
of reference from the House on certain statements attributed to
members of the House in the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun that
may have brought into question the integrity of the House of
Commons and its servant, the Speaker.
* * *
1540
VIA RAIL COMMERCIALIZATION ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-394, an act respecting the
commercialization of VIA Rail Canada Inc.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this is a very timely
bill but I would be incorrect if I said that. In actual fact it
should have been introduced a long time ago.
VIA Rail loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The
target it introduced in its latest annual statement indicated
that it would be able to bring it down to about $200 million a
year. That is about as far down as VIA can get it. That is over
half a million dollars a day. It is time we put an end to this.
It is timely in one sense. It seems ironic that I am
introducing a bill that will seek to stop the erosion of
taxpayers' money by over half a million dollars a day on the eve
of the day that we are to vote on compensation for hepatitis C
victims. The government is saying it does not have sufficient
money. This might be a good way to take it toward that goal.
It has another effect, that is to prevent something that is very
serious, a predator move by VIA Rail in the past against the
private sector at a time when we are looking at public-private
partnerships as a way out of things.
There is not tremendous detail in the bill other than to provide
a directive toward its disposal. I leave it to the House and to
the committee when it reaches the committee stage to add the
details necessary for the betterment of all taxpayers.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for the very
succinct intervention. I meant timely. I am glad he did not go
into detail.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I have the honour of presenting five petitions
similar in content from Saskatchewan residents of the five
following districts: Weyburn, Wapella, Rocanville, Oxbow,
Macklin and Cut Knife.
The five petitions have a cumulative total of 694 signatures.
This will bring to 1,291 the number of signatures on petitions I
have presented recently with respect to Bill C-68.
The petitioners point out that Bill C-68, which was by the way
promoted partly on the basis of falsified data, will not impede
the criminal use of firearms and will impose a major unnecessary
burden on law enforcement officers.
They therefore call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all
associated regulations and to pass new legislation designed to
severely penalize the criminal use of any weapon.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from citizens
of the Cariboo—Chilcotin constituency who reside in Williams
Lake and 150 Mile House, British Columbia.
The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on
Canadian participation in the MAI negotiation until full public
debate in the proposed treaty has taken place across the country,
so that all Canadians may have an opportunity to express their
opinions and decide on the advisability of proceeding with the
MAI.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
with a petition from more than 500 people who support the
development of a bio-artificial kidney project in Canada.
1545
These petitioners work in such places as branches of the CIBC in
Peterborough, the community credit union, the Leta Brownscombe
Co-operative Homes, the Park Hill animal hospital and the Esquire
hair salon.
These petitioners note that 18,000 Canadians suffer from end
stage kidney disease. They recognize the importance of kidney
dialysis and transplants for dealing with that disease but
believe that those treatments are not readily available.
Therefore they call on parliament to work in support of the
bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for
both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering for kidney
disease.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present a petition under
Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents of mine.
The petitioners call on this government to reconsider its
position with respect to the signing of the multilateral
agreement on investment. They are very concerned about this
government's haste with which it is participating in discussions
to achieve a much more globalized approach to our society. They
are particularly concerned about the impact the MAI will have on
health care, social programs, culture, labour standards and on
the environment.
They call on this government to reject the current framework of
the MAI negotiations and to seek an entirely different agreement
by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading
regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of
governments to act in the public interests.
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be grateful if you would call Starred Question No. 57.
.[Text]
<*Question No. 57—Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
When the Deputy Prime Minister, in a statement made outside the
House on or before November 15, 1997, indicated that the
government's land-mines initiative could be the start of a global
movement to spur the development of an instrument to ban firearms
worldwide, was the Deputy Prime Minister stating the policy of
the government?
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the answer to Question No. 57 be made an order for return.
This return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an
act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development, be read the second time and referred to
committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
speak this afternoon to Bill C-32, a bill that aims to prevent
pollution and protect the environment and human health in order
to contribute to sustainable development.
We will recall that, 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.
The Bloc's position on this report was as follows: most of the
recommendations supported the centralizing tendency of the
federal government in environmental protection matters. I quote
what the Bloc said at the time:
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.
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.
1550
Bill C-32 was introduced at first reading on March 12, 1998. It
is designed to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
This bill, formerly Bill C-74, which died on the Order Paper in
the last Parliament, provides for a five year review, and time
has already expired. I also remind the House that this is a
promise contained in the Liberal red book.
With this bill, pollution prevention becomes a national
objective. This bill replaces the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act.
Among other changes are provisions to implement pollution
prevention, new procedures for the investigation and assessment
of substances and new requirements with respect to substances
that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health
have determined to be toxic. The list of these substances is
very extensive.
The bill provides new powers for investigators and new
mechanisms for the resolution of a contravention. 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.
While, in theory, Bill C-32 recognizes the environment as a
shared responsibility between the federal government and the
provinces, in reality, this bill does not delegate any power to
any province, including Quebec, which, of course, is contrary to
what true environmental harmonization between the various levels
of government should be.
Bill C-32 is designed to reinforce the federal government's
supremacy with regard to environmental protection. Therefore,
this bill opens the door to a duplication of federal and
provincial powers. On this subject, the government even dares to
hide behind the last ruling concerning the environment made by
Ottawa's very own leaning tower of Pisa, namely the Supreme
Court of Canada.
This leaning tower of Pisa considered a case
involving Hydro-Quebec.
I remind the House that this case has always been challenged by
Quebec and that all the various courts who heard the case,
including the Quebec Court of Appeal, concluded that the federal
order was not valid. Only the Supreme Court of Canada, this
leaning tower of Pisa, in its vision of unity, overruled the
rulings made by Quebec courts.
Bill C-32 contains a number of new items. For example, it
replaces the federal-provincial committee provided for in the
current legislation with a new national advisory committee. This
committee is made up of a representative from Environment
Canada, one from Health Canada, one from each province and
territory and up to six native representatives.
It will advise both federal ministers on the development of
regulations, the management of toxic substances and other issues
of mutual interest.
The provinces will advise the federal minister through this
national advisory committee. In fact, the bill provides for
co-operation agreements on such activities as inspections,
investigations and the gathering of information for monitoring
purposes.
The bill includes provisions for native governments, which will
enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as the provincial and
territorial governments, including the right to sign
administrative work-sharing agreements and equivalency agreements
with the federal government. Native governments will also have
to be consulted over environmental issues affecting their
territory. Up to six representatives will sit on the national
advisory committee.
1555
The bill also provides for better public participation and
better protection for those who report violations of the law.
These individuals will be able to take part in the decision
making process by submitting to the environment minister
comments or notices of objection following some decisions and to
ask the minister to investigate alleged violations of the act.
These individuals can ask that their names not be disclosed. The
legislation will protect employees who report violations of the
federal legislation. Under the bill, individuals will be able to
bring action for damage to the environment when the federal
government is not enforcing the legislation.
With regard to public information, the law will no longer be
limited to data published in the Canada Gazette. The law will
create a new public registry containing all the environmental
information published under the act such as rulings and
regulations. This registry will supplement the National
Pollutant Release Inventory set up in 1993.
As for prevention of pollution, it will become a national goal.
The bill creates the authority to request pollution prevention
plans in respect of substances listed as toxic under the act.
Courts will be able to request pollution prevention plans or
emergency environmental plans and research on the
environmentally friendly use and elimination of the substances
involved in the alleged offence.
The new act also creates a national pollution prevention
information clearing house, which will enable the industry to
share its expertise and technical know-how with respect to
pollution prevention activities.
Moreover, the new act provides for the setting up of a reward
program recognizing the industry's voluntary efforts to prevent
pollution.
With regard to biotechnological products, the bill creates a
federal safety net and the authority to regulate the safe and
efficient use of biotechnology for environmental purposes.
Regarding clean water, the bill seeks to protect the marine
environment from land-based or airborne sources of pollution. It
is also aimed at limiting what can be disposed of at sea by
listing harmless materials; people wishing to carry out
disposals at sea will have to prove it is the best solution
possible and that what is to be disposed of in such a manner
cannot be reused or recycled.
The federal government feels that the bill will allow
co-operation with the United States and other countries in order
to prevent or limit transborder marine pollution.
Bill C-32 will also increase the power of the government to
regulate fuels and fuel additives. Imported fuels and fuels
crossing provincial and territorial boundaries will have to meet
certain requirements. The bill will give the government the
authority to establish national fuels marks, thereby identifying
those that meet the environmental criteria.
As far as international air pollution is concerned, the
government wants to treat other countries the way Canada itself
is treated.
Should a country not give Canada rights similar to those granted
to that country by Canada, the federal minister may intervene in
the event of international air pollution.
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.
1600
I would now like to deal with this bill in regard to the
environmental harmonization agreement, which is a crucial issue.
I would like to remind the House of certain facts. On January
29, 1998, Quebec refused to sign the environmental harmonization
agreement proposed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment. During the meeting of the council, Quebec
environment minister Paul Bégin refused to sign the agreement
until the federal government agreed to meet the conditions set
by Quebec.
Those conditions include recognition of Quebec's exclusive or at
least primary jurisdiction in the areas assigned to the
provinces by the Constitution, the firm commitment by the
federal government to pass the legislative amendments required,
and of course the adoption by Quebec and the federal government
of a bilateral agreement on environmental assessments.
I would like to quote from the January 29, 1998 press release by
the Quebec Minister of the Environment:
Minister Bégin also stressed that the declared intentions of the
federal government as to the review of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, which review would lead to a
significant increase in federal powers, contravene the spirit
and objectives of the environmental harmonization negotiation
process, particularly that of preventing duplication and
intergovernmental disputes.
This position of Minister Bégin reinforced the position taken by
the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting report of December 1997.
I will remind the House that, in its dissenting report, the Bloc
Quebecois opposed the report of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development regarding environmental
harmonization.
Hon. members will recall that on November 20, 1996, the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed in principle with
the Canada-wide environmental harmonization agreement and with
two subsidiary agreements on inspections and standards.
The subsidiary agreement on environmental assessments was
negotiated during the winter of 1997. This agreement was to
enhance environmental protection in a sustainable development
context, while respecting each government's jurisdiction, in a
more effective way.
It was to have contained the general principles to be
implemented more specifically through subsidiary agreements.
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. We therefore supported
environmental harmonization so long as it did not serve to
screen the federal government's continued meddling in provincial
jurisdictions.
Harmonization must recognize the provinces' exclusive or at
least primary jurisdiction in areas accorded them under the
Constitution. The spirit of harmonization should be felt on the
amendments the government will make to existing legislation.
The committee also made a number of recommendations. I will
refer to a number of them.
The committee first recommended that ratification of the
agreement and the three subsidiary agreements be postponed,
first until all documents—the agreement and the 10 subsidiary
agreements proposed—were available so the public would have a
real opportunity to contribute and, second, until the
committee's concerns and recommendations had been fully
considered.
1605
As we can see, there is already a little problem there. As for
Recommendation No. 5, the committee recommended that the
consensus requirement in the agreement and subsidiary agreements
be replaced with a two-thirds majority vote.
With respect to these two recommendations, the Bloc Quebecois
said it believed it was premature for the federal government and
the provinces to endorse the harmonization agreement and
subsidiary agreements and for the committee to report to the
House of Commons because we had not had the opportunity to
observe any real desire on the part of the Liberal government to
harmonize with the other provinces.
The Bloc Quebecois expressed the opinion that it might be better
to wait until the endangered species bill, the fisheries bill
and the Canadian environmental protection legislation had been
introduced. The Bloc Quebecois added that we would be able to
fully assess the harmonization agreement when considering these
bills.
Before considering any new subsidiary agreements, the Bloc
Quebecois indicated it might be best for the federal government
and the provinces to deal first with the three existing
agreements on environmental assessment, inspection and
standards. In addition, we proposed that the agreements be
ratified by a unanimous vote instead of a two-thirds majority
vote.
I would also like to touch on Recommendation No. 9. The
committee recommended that a provision be included in the
environmental assessment agreement stating that it will not
require any changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
The subsidiary agreement should also specify that the objectives
and requirements of the environmental assessment should meet the
strictest standards and should meet or exceed the prescribed
objectives and requirements.
This recommendation was contrary to the principles of the
general agreement, which states that governments may change
their respective legislation as required.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois believed that only the Quebec
environmental assessment process should be applied in Quebec.
The federal government's willingness to achieve harmonization
was supposed to be reflected in the legislation, and we
considered that Bill C-14, an act respecting the safety and
effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are
used to treat water destined for human consumption, did not
reflect this spirit of legislative harmonization between the
federal government and the provinces. On the contrary, we
thought it was another intrusion by the federal government in an
area under provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois was of the opinion that several
recommendations in the Liberal majority report were contrary to
Quebec's historic positions in the area of federal-provincial
harmonization and that recent interference by the federal
government did not respect the spirit of the accord.
What the Bloc Quebecois deplores is that the federal government
refuses to transpose in the legislation its good intentions with
regard to environmental harmonization and chooses instead to
hide behind the centralizing screen of our own leaning tower of
Pisa, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois, although very concerned with
environmental issues, cannot support this bill.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member for Portneuf makes the point that the primary
jurisdiction in matters of the environment should rest with the
provinces. He made this point several times in several ways.
Hamilton is near my riding. Some months past there was a
disastrous fire at a company called Plastimet. Thousands of
tonnes of recycled plastic in bales went up in flames, right in
downtown Hamilton, spilling into the atmosphere dioxins, furans,
all kinds of toxic smoke. The fire went on for more than 24
hours. Some people were made sick by the fire. The water table
was contaminated and so on. It was a disastrous fire.
As the probe into this fire goes on, it becomes clear that the
Ontario government failed in its responsibilities to ensure that
the recycling firm was obeying proper standards of protection to
make sure such a fire did not occur. Perhaps not in Quebec but
certainly in Ontario the Ontario government is withdrawing in
every direction from environmental protection. It is getting out
of the field entirely. It is cutting money from environmental
protection. It is laying off staff and so on.
I would suggest to the member for Portneuf, whom I respect
greatly indeed, had the Plastimet fire occurred in Ottawa or in
some community next to the Ottawa River, and that smoke had
spilled over into Quebec and if those dioxins and that
contamination had gone into the Ottawa River, that fire would
have affected and poisoned regions in Quebec as well as regions
in Ontario.
1610
Given that, I wonder how the member can possibly feel that
provincial jurisdiction exclusively held in matters of the
environment would be a protection to Quebec when Ontario is
abandoning its responsibilities. Does he not agree that a strong
national law is precisely what all Canadians need in the event
that any province does not fulfil its responsibilities to the
environment as is the case in Ontario just now?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I can well
understand the concerns of my hon. colleague. His concerns are
healthy and justified. If we use such reasoning, however, are
we to conclude that, because acid rain from the United States
will affect Quebec's lakes, trees and farms, the Canadian
legislation should also look to seeing that the United States
does its duty properly? But no, we understand very well that
some states will not take their responsibilities seriously
enough.
Then steps will have to be taken to encourage them to do so, as
Quebec and Canada have done with our American neighbours, in
order to raise their awareness of such things as their acid gas
emissions which are carried onto Quebec territory by a
combination of winds, clouds and rain. Like it or not, the
prevailing winds carry acid rain to Quebec. Our maple syrup
producers have had problems, as their trees were affected. Our
lakes have suffered, and lime has had to be added to allow fish
to live in them.
Quebec and Canada have made representations to the Americans,
who have seen to it that corrective measures have been put in
place. There is much still to be done, mind you, but at least
they have finally taken their duty as a government to heart.
I am sure that a province like Ontario, rich and responsible as
it is, is in a position to shoulder responsibility, provided it
knows that no one else is going to.
You will note that Quebec does not necessarily want exclusive
control over environmental issues on its territory. It wants
greater power, a priority. It does, however, admit that pooled
efforts, a partnership with the rest of Canada, since we must
call a spade a spade, would be highly desirable.
As a matter of fact, such partnership should eventually apply to
every NAFTA country in order to have uniform environmental
standards so that all industries and businesses are equally
respectful of the environment, and provide for environmental
impacts in their production costs, thus enabling them to sell
their products at competitive prices while respecting the
environment.
In short what we are talking about here is bringing
environmental responsibilities closer to the decision making
centres that are in the best position to assume them. Ottawa
will not be able to tell Mexico how to deal with its
environmental problems. Mexicans will be able to do it
themselves.
We must talk, in a respectful manner, and, in this regard,
Quebec with its environment ministry and the necessary
infrastructure to protect the environment is in a very good
position to play an important role. Essentially, this is what
Mr. Bégin, the Quebec minister said, and this is what I have
ever so humbly repeated.
1615
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I simply wish
to make a short comment following the question put by the hon.
member opposite.
He spoke about provincial governments being irresponsible and
offloading their responsibilities. I want him to look at the
results of his own government in the environmental sector.
Members opposite have been telling us all day long that their
government is always concerned about environmental issues.
However, they said very little about the objectives that were
not reached in Kyoto, after being agreed to in Rio. Not only
that, they also remained silent on the cuts made in recent years
in the Department of the Environment.
Is the member opposite aware that the budget of the Department
of the Environment was reduced by 40%? These cuts were imposed
by his own Minister of Finance and his government. Is the
government aware that claiming to be concerned with the
environment is not enough, and that such a claim must be
supported by concrete measures?
Here is another example. In Quebec alone, 60% of the 1997-98
budget of $1,329,000 for inspection and investigation activities
was used to implement the act and avoid environmental disasters.
The other 40% of that $1.3 million was wasted on all sorts of
administrative procedures.
Not only is the government opposite not at all concerned with
the environment since it reduces its budget, it also shows that
the department is poorly managed and that it is far from meeting
Quebeckers' environmental needs and concerns.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment is
quite relevant. We can pass all the legislation we want. That is
quite easy. We can discuss bills, pass them, and say they should
be enforced. But if officials are deprived of the financial and
material resources and the infrastructure they need, they will
not be able to enforce the legislation adequately.
The fact is that the environment has not been a priority for
this government, despite all it can say. We have to admit Kyoto
has not been the resounding success Canada could have shared in
as a full partner. It got involved at the last minute and played
a lacklustre role, which comes as no surprise, since we do not
meet our environmental goals, particularly concerning greenhouse
gas emissions.
We are well behind our stated objectives.
I hope that we will someday stop dragging our feet. Quebec wants
to go ahead and does not want to be restricted by a federal
bureaucracy that has not served its interests too well,
generally. Quebec has already all it takes to assume full
responsibility in this area.
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity today to
speak to Bill C-32 to replace the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act.
This is an important bill, as my colleague, the Minister of the
Environment, pointed out, because it changes the approach to
environmental protection in Canada from one of reacting to one of
preventing pollution and damage to the environment.
When we look at the overall evolution of the environment, it
becomes obvious that we must change our way of looking at things
and start with pollution prevention rather than waiting for
damage to occur and then reacting.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadians throughout the country began
demonstrating a growing interest in the environment.
They began to become worried about the present, as well as the
potential or future, effects of pollution on their environment
and their health.
As a result, governments adopted relatively effective and
rational strategies for the time, generally in the form of
regulations to control pollutants after they had been created,
but before they were released into the environment.
1620
In addition, businesses improved their operating methods, based
on the technologies then available. Basically, our philosophy
of environmental management consisted in allowing pollutants to
be created and trying to control them as best we could
thereafter.
[English]
Therefore, from a historical perspective pollution control has
been the main approach to environmental protection. It is true
that by limiting the release of pollutants into the environment
we have made a significant contribution to environmental
protection.
As the Minister of the Environment told us in her speech, we
have acted on some of the most dangerous toxins: PCBs, benzine,
dioxins and furans.
We now know that more needs to be done. We are now much more
aware of the impacts on human health and on the environment
caused by every small amounts of substances that are toxic, that
accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and persist in
the environment for very long periods of time.
For these reasons we have to shift our approach from pollution
control to pollution prevention. The Liberal Party's first red
book summarized the challenge facing Canada in precise terms. It
stated:
In the past, environmental policy has focused on managing and
controlling the release of pollutants entering the environment.
This approach has had only limited success. Canada needs a new
approach that focuses on preventing pollution at source—
A Liberal government will use the upcoming five-year review of
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to make pollution
prevention a national goal—
Bill C-32 does exactly this and incorporates pollution
prevention as one of its guiding principles.
[Translation]
Naturally, so that all stakeholders are aware of the rules of
the game, we must provide a clear and accurate definition of
pollution prevention. The bill gives the following definition
of prevention, arrived at after a variety of stakeholders were
consulted. The proposed definition is as follows:
The use of processes, practices, materials, products or energy
that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste and
reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.
This could not be clearer.
Therefore, pollution prevention requires a totally different
approach from environmental protection. It implies on-site reuse
and recycling of materials, changes to existing equipment and
employee training. It calls for a complete overhaul of our way
of designing and operating our manufacturing plants, our oil
refineries, our mines, our farms, our parks, everything.
Planning is at the heart of the pollution prevention approach.
Under Bill C-32, a person can be required to prepare a pollution
prevention plan concerning toxic substances. Pollution
prevention on a voluntary basis in many other areas is also
encouraged.
While they are preparing these prevention plans, managers can
determine ways to avoid creating pollutants and waste or to
reduce them to a minimum.
They can also find ways to save energy and water and to use raw
materials more efficiently. The preparation of pollution
prevention plans provides the businesses with the flexibility
they need to develop pollution prevention approaches based both
on their needs and on environmental goals.
[English]
Bill C-32 supports pollution prevention planning by providing to
establish a national pollution prevention information clearing
house.
I am pleased that the government has already moved to establish
the Internet based Canadian pollution prevention information
clearing house to showcase environmental success stories and to
demonstrate the economic benefit that can be achieved through the
adoption of pollution prevention.
[Translation]
We want to increasingly encourage Canadian companies to take the
initiative. Bill C-32 creates awards to celebrate achievements
toward pollution prevention.
1625
I think we agree that we ought to celebrate all that we achieve
throughout the years.
[English]
To attract progress on the success of pollution prevention
initiatives this bill includes information gathering powers that
require industry to report on pollution prevention activities.
[Translation]
I support this bill, because it will help all of Canada to
implement a pollution prevention plan that will be good for our
environment, as well as for our international endeavours and our
international trade.
As Albert Einstein used to say, an intelligent man solves
problems, a wise man avoids them. I think that, based on
pollution prevention principles, our future Environmental
Protection Act, as renewed and revised in this bill, will rank
among our wiser pieces of legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are: the hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre—Hepatitis C.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's remarks.
Earlier on in an intervention I mentioned that in Hamilton,
which is near my riding, there was a disastrous fire in a
recycling plant which spilled tonnes upon tonnes of toxic smoke
into the air. It caused a great deal of damage to the soil and
the neighbouring area. Indeed, there is great contention between
the various levels of the government, the municipality and the
province, about who is responsible and who should take the blame
for this disastrous fire.
I would like to ask the member his opinion on a situation like
this. Is this not really an example where a national government,
for the benefit of all Canadians, should take matters of the
environment as a matter of first priority? In fact, is the
protection of the environment not a national issue which should
be backed up by very strong legislation and by adequate penalties
that override any provincial jurisdiction that fails to fulfil
its mandate to look after the environment?
Should we not as a national government get tough with those
organizations that deliberately take advantage of lax provincial
laws and put the environment at risk? Should we not get after
these people?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam
Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the House
Standing Committee on Environment, and have had an opportunity
to see some worrisome issues crop up in recent months relating
to events in a number of regions of Canada, including the region
of Ontario to which my colleague has referred.
I believe that there must be more focus on environmental
protection in the years to come. In my opinion, this is a battle
that must be fought every day of every year. There must be a
constant monitoring of needs, for they are ever-present.
If we look at the means available to us, the position of the
federal, and most of the provincial, governments on
environmental problems and the need to protect or to repair the
environment, the means available are definitely unequal to the
needs we are faced with, in this situation as well as others.
This is our role, both as members of the environment committee,
and here in public debate. Very soon, the committee will need to
devote a great deal of time to determining needs and rallying
public opinion, as well as the support of all of our colleagues
in the various parties, in order to come up with the best
approaches to be equal to our responsibilities.
Those approaches encompass funding, personnel availability and
training. They also include legislation and regulation.
1630
For this reason, our legislation includes a practical provision
for re-examination every five years. This commitment has already
been made by the Liberal Party. It is what we are doing at the
present time, and we shall have the opportunity to re-examine all
the issues and to enhance our understanding of ones such as my
colleague has raised.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks which were very
helpful.
Is this not a situation that follows on from what was said by
members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois? Is the environment not a
situation where we do great disservice and put Canadians at risk
if we leave it to the municipalities and the provinces to pass
the appropriate legislation and provide the appropriate scrutiny
to avoid disastrous fires like the one that occurred at Plastimet
in Hamilton? Is this not a situation where the national
government has to bring in strong legislation with strong
penalties to make sure that this kind of abuse of the environment
does not occur, as was the case with the Plastimet fire in
Hamilton?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Speaker, I think future generations
would not forgive those of us who are involved in national
politics if we failed to deal with situations such as those that
arose or with issues of jurisdiction or if we quibbled over
matters of precedence at this or that level.
Work has to be done to define environmental responsibilities at
the municipal level—because there are responsibilities
there—and at the provincial level and come up with measures to
protect our environment and our resources for future generations
regardless of where fault may lie. If the municipal governments
fail to assume their responsibilities, the provincial governments
should be there as watch dogs. If the provincial governments
also fail, then there should be measures that enable us to
intervene in very specific cases. That is what we are working
for.
A harmonization agreement has been proposed. I support it.
Work has barely begun. Three chapters of ten have been written,
but the work should continue and should lead us to better define
our responsibilities, level by level, but not for the purpose of
quibbling over final responsibility for our environment in the
coming years and for future generations.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, April 28 at the end
of Government Orders.
* * *
DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (for Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.) moved that Bill S-9, an act
respecting depository notes and to amend the Financial
Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
1635
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the
opportunity to speak today in support of Bill S-9, the depository
bills and notes act.
Basically this is technical legislation. It is
non-controversial in that it updates federal legislation to
provide a legal framework for well-established market practices.
Specifically the proposed legislation supports the secure and
efficient processing of trades in financial instruments. It does
this by allowing instruments to be held in central depositories.
The legislation also allows for the transfer of ownership of
these financial instruments on the books of the depositories.
Before discussing Bill S-9 let me first describe some of the
changes taking place in the Canadian financial industry in
general and the environment in which this legislation will
function.
As hon. members are aware, Canada's financial sector in the past
few years has dramatically changed the way it does business.
International competition which itself is fuelled by ongoing
technological changes has been a major contributing factor. In
actual fact, few parts of business life in Canada have been more
affected by evolving information technology than the financial
sector.
This sector is one of Canada's most important industries. It
contributes 5% to gross domestic product. It creates almost
500,000 jobs and generates $5 billion annually in export
revenues. In addition it delivers essential services and products
in today's modern economy, services such as financial
intermediation, protection against risks and the provision of
financial security.
Globalization, new technologies and deregulation are key forces
of change that have been at work making our financial industry
more modern and more efficient. The government has also responded
to the changing environment.
International trade and investment for example have required
wholesale financial services to be available on a global basis.
Canadian financial firms, whose presence outside Canada is
significant I might add, are strong participants in this global
reality.
New technologies are also propelling change. An institution
that does not or cannot adapt to technological changes is not
likely to fair well in today's economy. Internationally the
removal of regulatory barriers is fostering greater competition
among different types of financial institutions and among
institutions around the world.
Currently we are awaiting the report of the task force on the
future of the Canadian financial services sector which will be
reporting in September and which will certainly trigger further
debate and change. In the meantime other changes are under way.
All major banks, as hon. members know, now have individual
ombudsmen. We also have the Canadian banking ombudsman who deals
with retail and commercial disputes as well as complaints
regarding securities and insurance subsidiaries of banks. Members
of this House and in particular the Standing Committee on
Industry have played a critical role in establishing this new
Canadian banking ombudsman. As the financial sector continues to
change, some have indicated that it might be useful to conduct a
review on the effectiveness of this important office within the
financial services sector.
We are also expecting draft legislation on foreign bank entry
later on this year.
We also have Bill C-82 which gives the government the authority
to make regulations in the area of privacy and also amends the
Bank Act to prohibit coercive tied selling. Tied selling has
become an important consumer issue and one that is presently
being examined by the Standing Committee on Finance. The outcome
of this review will guide the government's decision on whether or
not to proclaim into law C-82 provisions that deal with tied
selling activities.
Another example of change is the successful conclusion of the
World Trade Organization financial services negotiations under
the general agreement on trade in services.
The end result of these successful negotiations will mean greater
international opportunities for our financial companies, new jobs
for Canadians and benefits for consumers.
1640
These are just some of the changes that have been taking place
to ensure the competitiveness and currency of Canada's financial
sector.
The bill we are debating today, the depository bills and notes
act, represents yet another measure designed by the government to
help in the modernization of our financial sector. The depository
bills and notes act updates and modernizes federal legislation
regarding the transfer of ownership of certain types of
negotiable financial instruments, primarily bankers' acceptance
and commercial papers.
In terms of value and volume, bankers' acceptances and
commercial paper are second only to federal bonds and treasury
bills in the Canadian securities market. For example in November
1996 there was a total of $36.8 billion in bankers' acceptances
and $33.7 billion in commercial paper in Canada.
According to the Canadian Depository for Securities, in January
1996 the average daily gross settlements of bankers' acceptances
and commercial paper were $5.6 billion and $5.7 billion
respectively, comprising approximately 400 daily trades in each
security. As I just said, these two instruments rank second only
to federal bonds and treasury bills in value and volume in our
domestic securities market.
As hon. members are probably aware, federal government
securities are held in the Canadian Depository for Securities
debt clearing system. Today banks and other players are
increasingly holding financial instruments like bonds, treasury
bills and other negotiable instruments in a depository
institution.
For financial instruments held in a depository when ownership of
the instrument changes, instead of physically exchanging the
security, the name of the new owner is simply entered into the
records of the depository and it is called a book entry transfer.
These practices are more efficient and more secure than settling
individual trades by moving financial instruments across town.
While book entry transfers are now an established part of the
clearing and settlement system, Canadian financial legislation
unfortunately does not fully recognize the practice for all types
of financial instruments. Specifically the Bills of Exchange Act
still does not acknowledge the use of depositories nor the
holding and book entry delivery of financial instruments that
fall under its rules.
The Bills of Exchange Act still refers to being in physical
possession of negotiable instruments like bankers' acceptances
and commercial paper when describing the rights of the parties
involved in the transaction. For financial instruments held in a
depository, these rules are clearly impractical.
Under the current Bills of Exchange Act for example the term
“bearer” means the person in possession of a bill or note that
is payable to the bearer. This means that the rights as described
in the Bills of Exchange Act are impossible to interpret in the
context of a negotiable instrument that is held in a depository
and the transfer of ownership is done by the book entry because
the instrument itself remains in the depository.
The depository bills and notes act makes the rights and
responsibilities of buyers, sellers and holders of negotiable
instruments compatible with the use of depositories and book
entry transfer of ownership.
Bill S-9 does this by creating two new financial instruments for
classes of securities: depository bills and depository notes.
Both will be eligible to be held in a securities depository.
Someone buying a depository bill or note will generally have the
same legal rights as someone buying a bill or note under the
Bills of Exchange Act without actually taking delivery of the
instrument. Because the depository notes and bills are intended
for relatively wide circulation in trading, the rights and
responsibilities will be defined with specific reference to the
function of the clearing house and book entry transfer. In
addition, to distinguish these new instruments from similar
securities, they will be marked with wording that indicates they
are depository bills and notes subject to the depository bills
and notes act.
In no way will these new financial instruments preclude
individuals or institutions from buying and holding other
negotiable bills and notes which will still be governed by the
Bills of Exchange Act.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, this is certainly
very technical in nature and sometimes dry. But there is one
other part of this bill that deserves to be mentioned.
1645
Bill S-9 also amends section 70 of the Financial Administration
Act to provide added certainty that transfers of Government of
Canada securities from one person to another are legally sound
under a book based system.
I would like to note that the bill is supported by all elements
of Canada's financial community. The Depository Bills and Notes
Act is also consistent with the recommendations made by the
private sector group concerned with the workings of the
international financial system commonly known as the G-30.
The G-30 has been calling for widespread introduction of
securities depository systems and book entry transactions
recordings as they will improve the efficiency of money markets.
As well, the Canadian Depository for Securities has been pushing
to be able to hold negotiable money market instruments in its
depository and to be able to make book entry ownership transfers
as soon as possible, a far more efficient process, it believes,
than having to take physical possession of the instrument. Bill
S-9 will allow it to do just that.
I should point out that the federal government is not alone in
providing a statutory basis for these activities. The Ontario
business corporations act, the Quebec securities act and other
provincial legislation govern the holding and book entry delivery
of government bonds and corporate securities that are not subject
to the Bills of Exchange Act.
Like so many other changes in the financial sector, Bill S-9 is
simply keeping up with the times. Its passage will allow trades
in securities like bankers' acceptances and commercial paper to
be processed in a more secure and efficient manner.
Essentially what Bill C-9 does is put into law an already
established and accepted practice and therefore deserves speedy
passage. I urge all my hon. colleagues to support the
legislation.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
noted the request for urgent passage and support of the bill.
Perhaps we could do a trade-off. If we are to support the bill,
perhaps they could support our motion on hepatitis C. It is a
wonderful opportunity for the government to do the right thing.
Then it would have speedy passage of Bill S-9 which, by its very
title, originated in the other place.
As members know, we have talked long and loud about the affront
to the House of the fact that we are receiving legislation here
after it has been cleared in the Senate. We are quite incensed
that we who represent the public at large, we who have been
democratically elected, we who stood on platforms and said “This
is what we will deliver to you if you vote for us”, have to play
second fiddle to the Senate which sent us a bill that it passed.
I wonder when the government will listen to the wishes of the
people, to the demands made by the Reform Party that it is time
we realize that anachronistic organization at the other end of
the hall needs to be replaced by something more modern, which
means more representative of Canadian people.
Bill S-9, as my hon. colleague mentioned, is a technical bill
and largely will not affect many people. It has to do with more
of the efficient workings of our financial systems than our
financial industry.
I noted that the member mentioned bankers' acceptances and notes
were second only to federal bonds in value and in volume. That
in itself spoke volumes. While industry needs to raise funds for
investment, for the creation of jobs, for new plants, new
factories, and research and development, I have often wondered
why the federal government has borrowed all this money and poured
it down the drain—
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We have one Liberal. I request a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well. We will
ring the bells.
1650
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Just before the quorum call there was a reference to
the presence or absence of members in the House. I wonder if the
Chair might remind members that is not allowed under the rules of
the House.
1655
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
certainly right. I remind members not to forget this rule again.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, I would never want to
forget that very important rule. As the Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Finance pointed out, we are dealing with a
technical bill. Perhaps they nodded off and did not pay much
attention on the government side as to what was going on in the
House because of the technicalities of the bill.
Before I was interrupted I was pointing out that the bill deals
with bankers' acceptances and notes. They are second only in
value to the value and volume of federal government instruments,
bonds and so on which are dealt with by the financial industry. I
pointed out how important raising money is for the vitality of
our economy to create new jobs, to build new factories, to
finance inventory and so on.
The act does not hold true for the federal government which just
borrowed the money, spent it, poured it down the drain for little
or no value whatsoever. Now we have high taxes. Our economy is
being dragged down. We are less competitive than we otherwise
would be around the world because the government never learned
how to manage its books.
We expect organizations and companies that are borrowing money
through bankers' acceptances and so on are able to manage their
books properly. They do not have the concept of taxpayers
standing behind them. They have only profits standing behind
their capacity to pay the interest and repay the principal.
Over the last many years governments including this government
have borrowed many billions of dollars. Since the government
came to office in 1993 it has borrowed approximately $100
billion, to be precise.
That is an affront to all Canadians. We are the ones who end up
paying the interest on the federal government debt whereas it is
investors who earn the interest and corporations that pay the
interest on the bankers' acceptances through the profits they
have generated through extra economic activity they have been
able to create, extra jobs they have been able to create, extra
sales they have been able to create, and extra efficiencies,
productivity and plants they have been able to build. That is
how our financial industry works as a service to the industrial
world to raise the money it needs in order for us to maintain a
healthy economy.
The parliamentary secretary referred to the fact that rather
than the instrument itself having to change hands, as is required
under a bill of exchange, they just need a bookkeeping entry
signed by both sides in the books of the depository to make the
transaction legal. It is a bit of an indictment of the legal
industry that has evolved over the past number of generations.
I return to the old definition of a bill of exchange, which I
learned by heart as a young fellow when I studied banking in my
native Scotland. The definition was brought to my attention
again by the Library of Parliament. It jogged my mind about the
definition of a bill of exchange which is:
An unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to
another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to
whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or a
determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to
bearer.
I know that because I had to learn it many years ago. The bill
of exchange was a simple piece of paper, one sheet saying that
one was owed an amount of money.
Today the instruments of debt are pages thick, sometimes books
in length. Sometimes they refer to all the rest of the
conditions posted in the head office of the organization.
Therefore it becomes a physical impossibility to keep these books
moving around. The legal industry has said to the financial
industry that it will have to cover off this liability or that
liability and ensure the section is covered and that it can
collect the money under these circumstances. They keep getting
bigger and bigger.
1700
Now we have to move these books around, so we are going to put
them in a depository. They are going to sit there in a
depository. We are back to one piece of paper referring to the
books in depository. We are now going to pass this piece of
paper around for the financial industry.
When originally they passed the piece of paper around they did
not need a depository. Now they do. In a few more generations I
wonder where we will be putting this piece of paper which has now
grown into a book. We will put that into a depository also. We
will start off with another sheet of paper that refers to the
bookkeeping entry which refers to the underlying agreement, and
it goes and on. It is wonderful how the paper war does develop.
I appreciate that the financial industry does need to have some
modernization. It does need to have this capacity to be able to
work more efficiently, especially now that we are now in the
computer age. Lots of these entries are now made by computer.
Let us remember too that today is April 27, 1998. We are less
than two years away from the big bash, big blast of the
millennium. On January 1, 2000, we are going to find out whose
computer works and whose does not. Is the government going to be
able to work, not efficiently on January 1, 2000, but at all on
January 1, 2000? Or are all these computers going to grind to a
stop?
The same applies to this depository we are talking about under
Bill S-9, all handled by computers. As the parliamentary
secretary said, there are billions of dollars flowing through
this each day. What is going to happen on January 1, 2000 if the
computer that handles the depository gives up the ghost, the
federal government's computers give up the ghost and industry's
computers give up the ghost? A half hour ago two people in my
office were telling us that there is going to be a major economic
catastrophe on January 1, 2000, predictable right to the very
day.
It will not be the end of the growth period of the economic
cycle that will end in a downturn. It is that the computers are
going to grind to a stop on that day. Those people with accounts
receivable will not be able to collect their money. Those people
who have bills to pay will not be able to write the cheques.
The public accounts committee asked the Treasury Board
secretariat last fall, Mr. Rummell, the chief information officer
for the Government of Canada, and the assistant deputy minister
in charge of information technology, what was the back-up if the
computers fail in the year 2000. They said we will have to write
the cheques by hand. Imagine such an admission by the Government
of Canada. In this day and age when we are totally and absolutely
reliant on computers to do virtually everything, the assistant
deputy minister says they will have to write the cheques by hand.
That is how unprepared the federal government and industry are in
meeting this challenge which is right around the corner.
I was reading an article in the Financial Post this
morning which said that this was one date that we could not play
around with. We cannot postpone it. It will be here on January
1, 2000. When everyone is waking up from the hangover of the
great celebration on the eve of the millennium, it is going to be
a big bust the next day when the computer is turned on. That is
the end of it. It dies. The economy could die too according the
people in my office. There are going to be severe ramifications.
While we are talking on Bill S-9, and while we are talking about
helping the financial industry improve its effectiveness and its
efficiency, let us also send out a clear warning and strongly
urge industry and everyone who has a computer to realize that
January 2000 is not going to be postponed.
If they want their business to survive and to continue making
money in the new millennium they had better do a little
housekeeping of their own as well as Bill S-9 to ensure their
business continues in business on January 1, 2000. The importance
of this issue cannot be underestimated.
1705
Last fall when the auditor general tabled his report he said the
total cost for the federal government on fixing its computers
could be as high as $1 billion. I was reading an article in the
paper the other day that said one contract that the federal
government has given to a group of computer consultants alone
could go as high as $1.4 billion, not to mention all the other
hardware acquisitions, software acquisitions and all the
thousands of other programmers working diligently for the federal
government at this point. The cost of $1 billion has escalated
dramatically.
That cost is also going to apply to industry. It will have to
address the same issues as the federal government. The federal
government has left it far too late. It is still in a situation
of denial. It is still running around the problem and it has not
come clean with how bad it is. Yet we also know industry is too
complacent.
The time will come when there will not be enough programmers
around and therefore what is going to happen to their business?
What is going to happen to the shareholders? What is going to
happen to the bankers' acceptances that are now covered off by
Bill S-9?
I hope that as the government continues to help industry through
Bill S-9, through the efficiencies it is allowing by the creation
of this new type of investment instrument, it also recognizes
that it has an obligation to tell industry that the year 2000 is
serious, it cannot be delayed. If shareholders are to maintain
their investments the companies have to be able to function. If
the computers do not function we know that industry will not
function.
Let me reiterate. We do not like the fact that this bill is
coming to us via the Senate. We think that bankers' acceptances
are good. But he pointed out and seemed to be quite proud of the
fact that federal government debt instruments were the largest
kind of debt instruments in the country. I took issue with that.
We do not like it. We feel that industry has to wake up and
realize that the year 2000 is just upon us and we are glad to
help it as far as the bankers' acceptances and so on are
concerned to improve its efficiency.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague,
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has asked me to speak on his
behalf. I hope that I will not set the record for the shortest
speech in the House of Commons, because what I have to say will
not take very long.
My party will support Bill S-9 because it represents a technical
improvement in the management of the federal government's
obligations.
The Bloc Quebecois will therefore vote in favour
of Bill S-9.
1710
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
very important to recognize that when we are discussing an
extremely dry piece of legislation many people in this House are
possibly not particularly interested in delving into the
intricacies or the details of it.
One of the most important or interesting areas relative to this
legislation is that it originated in the Senate. Recently in his
speech, ostensibly on Nunavut, the Leader of the Opposition
focused his speech on the need for Senate reform. He engaged in
an extended series of character assassinations of many people in
the other place, many of the Senators, and engaged in what many
senators and also many members of this House found to be
offensive.
The important thing to recognize is that while we do have a
Senate and that while we do have an upper chamber, that Senate is
to be and should be utilized to provide service and expertise on
this type of technical legislation to the Canadian taxpayer.
Other members have outlined the purpose of this bill and it is
effectively to facilitate the settlement of securities for which
the investor does not actually take physical possession. I will
not go into great detail about the substance of the legislation.
That has been covered quite thoroughly.
Department officials have said that the Depository Bills and
Notes Act is a technical piece of legislation needed to support
improvements in the efficiency of capital markets in Canada. I
would agree with the Reform member speaking earlier relative to
the risk given the millennium or the year 2000 factor.
Earlier today I was reading Edward Yardeni, a leading economist
from New York. He suggested the year 2000 problem is far more
serious than governments like to admit, partially because
governments fear the eventual law suits that could emanate from
the year 2000 problem. This legislation has the potential to
increase the exposure of Canada's financial marketplace to the
year 2000 problem and this government has yet to make a serious
credible commitment to address this issue.
That the bill was introduced in the Senate should give some of
our colleagues in the Reform Party some evidence of the
importance, necessity and value of the contribution made by our
upper chamber.
The Senate had meaningful committee meetings on this piece of
legislation, as we will hear. It even introduced and passed an
amendment to clarify the bill. Frankly, on this type of
legislation, on financial services, economics or regulatory
issues, the Senate is a bountiful supply of knowledge and
expertise. The Senate is a valuable resource we should utilize
in this House to benefit all Canadians.
To the chagrin of the Leader of the Opposition even his own
caucus members have suggested we use the Senate more. In a
recent finance committee meeting, the chair announced he was
asked recently in writing by the member from Prince
George—Bulkley Valley to strike a joint committee between the
House of Commons and the Senate finance committee to study the
bank merger issue more thoroughly.
I commend the member from Prince George—Bulkley Valley, a
Reform MP, for recognizing the institutional knowledge and
expertise we have in the Senate of Canada. Taxpayers are already
footing the bill for a bicameral government. Why deny Canadian
taxpayers the full benefit of their investment in this system?
Why does the Reform Party not suggest utilizing the Senate more
at this juncture instead of less? Let us make sure Canadian
taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
The Senate has introduced some very meaningful legislation
recently, including Senator Kenny's tobacco legislation and Bill
S-3, which I have already commented on.
1715
Some people will even argue that while the Senate may not be
elected it has offered a more effective opposition to the
government in the past five years than the official opposition
parties in this House. The Senate has also held important and
useful debates on electoral boundary redistribution, the Divorce
Act, the Newfoundland school issue and assistance for
post-secondary education.
Instead, some of the opposition parties have voiced strong
concern over this practice of introducing legislation in the
Senate. In fact when I consider the amount of time the Reform
Party has taken recently to pontificate on the role of the Senate
in a parliamentary democracy I tend to think that we have lost a
lot of good opportunities for meaningful debates about the real
issues in this House.
It is the same Senate that the Leader of the Opposition's father
sat in for a number of years. It seems strange to me that
someone would go to such lengths to attack a Canadian institution
that one's father was actually a member of. I noticed a
particularly interesting statement in the Ottawa Citizen
made by the Leader of the Opposition's father in defence of the
Senate in 1981. In that statement he said:
We constitute more than a chamber of sober second thought. We
have been appointed to represent our respective provinces in this
House. We have been selected to provide the necessary checks and
balances on a parliamentary structure where representation by
population results in imbalances that invite the kind of abuse of
parliamentary majority power that we are witnessing today.
The Leader of the Opposition contradicts his father's remarks
when he speaks as he did last week and said that members of the
Senate do not represent provincial or regional interests. I feel
it is very important to recognize that our Senate can, should and
will, if utilized, provide the necessary leadership, judgment and
expertise we need, especially with this type of legislation.
When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking about the Nunavut
legislation he engaged in a number of character assassinations.
It was unfortunate to hear some of the inaccuracies and the
really incredible allegations that he made. After he would
attack a member of the Upper Chamber at great length, he would
then engage in a bit of a disclaimer and say “Far be it for me
to judge that particular member”, when he knew that his words
were nothing but character assassinations in vitriol.
I had an opportunity recently to visit the official website of
the Reform Party where I read inflammatory and factually
incorrect statements about members of the Senate. I could only
surmise that the Reform Party has compromised its own position in
terms of hate literature on the Internet when in fact it is using
the Internet to spread factually incorrect, inflammatory and what
I consider to be dangerous character assassinations via the
Internet.
It is unfortunate that more members of this House do not
recognize the contribution that the Senate has made and can
continue to make to this type of legislation. Our party believes
and has laid out certain ideas that can be implemented sooner
rather than later, including the provinces putting forward lists
of names for the Prime Minister to choose from when he is making
the Senate appointments and limiting the term of a senator to 10
years.
Indeed, it was our party and the Conservative government under
the leadership of Brian Mulroney that appointed the late Stan
Waters to the Senate.
In the interim, until we have Senate reform, all members of this
House should continue to work on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers
to ensure that we are maximizing the level of expertise that we
have in the Upper Chamber to provide the maximum level of benefit
to the Canadian taxpayer by providing the types of legislation
that will benefit the Canadian taxpayer as we enter the 21st
century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
1720
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would consider seeing
the clock as being 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I believe that the
hon. member for Mississauga South would like the House to proceed
to the adjournment debate. Do we have agreement to see the clock
as being 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to elaborate on
the question that I posed in this Chamber on March 30 pertaining
to compensation for all those who have suffered from the results
of contaminated blood, in particular those who are suffering from
hepatitis C.
This is a timely opportunity to have a further debate on this
issue. It allows all members of this House to think through
their positions very carefully before the vote in this House
tomorrow evening, a critical vote for all Canadians and in
particular the thousands of blood injured Canadians.
On March 30 I posed a question flowing from Justice Krever's
report which all members will know resulted from a very long,
thorough and in depth review of the tainted blood scandal. In
that report Justice Krever said “ The compassion of a society
can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of
tragedy on its members”.
I remind all members of this Chamber of those words on this
critical evening, on the eve of a very important vote in this
Chamber. I appeal to everyone, in particular the members of the
Liberal Party who are in a very difficult position this evening
as they think through this issue and make a final determination
on how they will vote tomorrow. I appeal to those members to
listen to their hearts, to listen to their consciences, to act on
the basis of principle, the principle if not of their own party,
then of the kind of society we believe this country is all about.
I ask all members not to listen to arguments that have no basis
in fact. I urge all members not to listen to the speaking notes
being circulated to members of the government side which are
nothing more than a partisan rag. I urge all members to listen
to the voices of those who deal with this disease day in and day
out, who have felt they have received no satisfactory response
from this government.
Let me very quickly outline the arguments that have been posed
by this government which have to be refuted one by one and then
let me conclude by referencing a number of constituents of mine
and people from across this country who have spoken out so
clearly and so passionately to try to move this government to put
in place full compensation for all blood injured Canadians.
Let us put aside the arguments around the period of 1986 to
1990, being the period for which this government is legally
liable. Let us not forget that the test to determine hepatitis C
in the blood supply was available long before 1986 and was in
fact recognized by our scientific community as a meaningful test
to determine hepatitis C in the blood supply.
1725
Second, let us remember that what we are talking about is not
something that is precedent setting but is in fact dealing with
regulatory failure and is not to be confused with medical
misadventure.
I have a question for the Liberals. If they take that line of
argument how can they in fact acknowledge the compensation for
thalidomide victims and for HIV victims? Surely it is time to
put our hearts and our heads together and agree with the voices
of so many Canadians.
I conclude by indicating that many Canadians are worried and
concerned. I have received just in the last day 500 names of
constituents in the city of Winnipeg expressing their concern and
urging the government to employ compassion—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to reply to the
question.
Let me start by saying that the federal government, along with
the provincial and territorial governments, offered $1.1 billion
to compensate the patients for whom the disease could have been
avoided from 1986 to 1990.
This was a decision arrived at by all provincial governments
including the two NDP governments of British Columbia and
Saskatchewan. It is not a package that was given without careful
and thoughtful consideration for the victims of hepatitis C for
whom the disease could have been avoided.
If we extend the package to those in the absence of fault, we
ought to extend the compensation as well for all kinds of
diseases as a consequence of injury from blood, not only
hepatitis C but even allergies or even shock from blood
transfusions.
The hon. member who raised the question has not told the House
that she has approached the NDP premiers of Saskatchewan and
British Columbia. Neither has she told the House that she has
approached the health ministers of British Columbia and
Saskatchewan, her own NDP counterparts.
If the federal NDP member has a commitment to change the package
announced by the government, why has she not informed the House
that she has already spoken to those NDP premiers and NDP
governments?
The NDP minister of health in Saskatchewan has said that those
who use this issue for the point alone as indicated by the NDP
member are using political opportunism.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.28 p.m.)