36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 92
CONTENTS
Friday, April 24, 1998
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1005
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAPLE SYRUP
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1100
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAKFAST FOR LEARNING
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WAR HEROES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
1105
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1110
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1115
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SASKATCHEWAN FRANCOPHONES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1125
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1130
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1135
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANTHRAX VACCINE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1140
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HATE CRIMES
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1145
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1150
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BURMA
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1155
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DISASTER RELIEF
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1200
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS BENEFIT
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Railroads
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1210
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-32. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1215
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1235
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1300
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1305
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1310
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1330
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLICE AND PEACE OFFICER NATIONAL MEMORIAL DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1345
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1405
1410
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1415
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Apendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 92
![](/web/20061116185154im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 24, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1998
Hon. David M. Collenette (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved 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.
1005
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 1998,
the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-32, an act
respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the
environment and human health in order to contribute to
sustainable development.
Today the minister is in Toronto for the first joint meeting of
energy and environment ministers since Kyoto. The minister will
be taking part in a CEPA debate on Monday.
I am pleased to begin the second reading of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
In 1988, only 10 years ago, the Canadian Environment Protection
Act, or CEPA, became law. When first introduced CEPA was a
significant shift in environmental law and in the way the federal
government protected Canada's environment and human health.
The original CEPA contained several important measures including
various approaches to the management of toxic substances,
provisions for citizens to request an investigation and
parliamentary scrutiny and review of the act after five years.
Similar provisions are internationally and domestically becoming
more common in environmental legislation. In fact over the past
10 years environmental science and law have evolved considerably.
We have much greater insight into the stresses that humans place
on the environment. We know more about what must be done to
reduce and remedy these stresses. We also have a strong and
growing public concern for the environment and related impacts on
human health.
Environmental protection is a core value for Canadians. More
than 90% of surveyed Canadians are concerned about toxic
chemicals, air pollution and water quality. Legislation must
reflect the growth and change of society. CEPA must reflect the
awareness and concern of Canadians.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development when it undertook the year-long review of
CEPA in 1994. Our review, the government response to it and
further talks with stakeholders including provinces, territories,
aboriginal people, industry, environmental and other groups were
included in the development of the bill. The new Canadian
Environmental Protection Act must serve as a tool to help
Canadians as we move into the 21st century.
Overall, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act covers
pollution prevention, managing toxic substances, clean air and
water, controlling pollution and waste. The act is further
comprised of parts including public participation, environmental
matters related to emergencies, biotechnology, federal government
operations and federal aboriginal lands, enforcement and
information gathering, objectives, guidelines and codes of
practice. More important, Bill C-32 incorporates a number of
policy directions or objectives.
Some important goals of environmental management are noted in
the preamble and these include an ecosystem approach, the
precautionary principle and the principle of pollution
prevention.
I would like to address the following goals of environmental
management: the ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle,
user/producer responsibility, pollution prevention, the
management of toxic substances, enforcement, and public
participation.
Our environment is dependent on countless complex interactions
among air, land, water and all living creatures. Ecosystem is
defined under the act as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and
micro-organism communities and their non-living environment
interacting as a functional unit.
An ecosystem approach to environmental management recognizes the
fact that all of these components are interdependent. These
interactions are key to our continued health and existence. We
cannot, for example, protect our air by removing contaminants
from smoke stacks only to dump them into our waterways. We
cannot protect our waterways by removing pollutants from
discharge pipes and sending them to landfills.
An ecosystem approach to managing our environment requires the
consideration of the complete picture and all its
interdependencies, not just specific pieces of it. The concept
of the comprehensive, integrated whole must underpin all our
research activities and the way we make decisions.
The earth is an existing single reality and it can survive—we
can survive—only in its integral functioning.
An ecosystem approach is an integrative, transdisciplinary
approach. It recognizes the interplay and interdependence of
various domains such as biophysical, socioeconomic, human health,
political and ethical domains that make life possible on our
planet. Protection and amelioration of the environment demands
this integrative and transdisciplinary approach.
1010
An essential component of the current CEPA is the minister's
authority to carry out monitoring and research on environmental
quality. Monitoring and research allows us to understand and
respond to environmental challenges. Knowledge is a critical
precursor to informed decision making. The new CEPA specifies
that ecosystem health is included in the concept of environmental
quality and provides authority to conduct studies to detect the
state of and damage to ecosystems.
Bill C-32 also allows for the publication of a state of the
environment report for Canada and the development of ecosystem
objectives, guidelines, codes of practice and inventories.
Efforts will be focused on maintaining the integrity of
ecosystems and not just individual components.
In the preamble of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act
the government is committed to the implementation of the
precautionary principle which is now clearly recognized as a
fundamental tenet of international environmental law.
Precautionary principle means that we act to prevent
environmental damage rather than react after the damage has
occurred.
Under the precautionary principle science is an essential
component of what is done under CEPA. We must act when the
weight of evidence suggests that a potential threat to the
environment and human health exists. The costs of inaction are
simply too high.
I would like to briefly talk about the concept of user/producer
responsibility which has also been included in the preamble to
Bill C-32. User/producer responsibility means placing a greater
onus on the producer, user or importer of a substance to ensure
that it is safe.
This is consistent with current regulations under CEPA that
require information and data to allow for an assessment of these
products before they are introduced into the marketplace. The
bottom line is that individuals who profit from a substance
should ensure that it does not pose a risk to the environment or
to human health.
The pollution prevention approach demonstrates that government
must identify toxic substances, work with others who are in
positions to devise effective solutions to change specific
processes and reduce or eliminate pollutants and waste and, where
necessary, aggressively control these substances.
Pollution prevention is a much better approach than trying to
control or clean pollution up after it has been created. The
pollution prevention approach benefits the environment, improves
the health of Canadians and saves money. Good environmental
practices make good business sense. They lower operating costs,
increase value for customers and build loyalty.
Canadians are particularly concerned about the risks that toxic
substances pose to their health, their children's health, as well
as the long term sustainability of their environment.
It has been recognized that stricter management action is
required for toxics if they result primarily from human activity,
if they persist in the environment for long periods of time and
if they bioaccumulate, that is, the toxins are stored in the
tissues of living creatures.
Minute quantities of these substances can build up over time.
When they do, they can reach levels that cause serious, long term
adverse effects to the environment or to human health. Once in
the environment, these substances will damage our health and our
ecosystem over many generations through subtle effects to the
endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological
systems.
A virtual elimination approach for these substances is required
to protect our health and that of the environment.
Bill C-32 allows the government to completely prohibit the
importation and manufacture of these substances.
Environmental protection compliance orders are a powerful new
tool that work like injunctions. Our inspectors will be able to
issue orders on the spot to stop illegal activity and, if
necessary, require an action to correct a violation so that the
environment and public safety are protected.
Bill C-32 also creates a new category of enforcement officer
called CEPA investigators. These officers will be investigation
specialists with expertise in the gathering of evidence and court
procedures. They will have all the powers of inspectors as well
as certain peace officer powers such as the authority to serve
court documents.
Environmental protection alternative measures, EPAMs, are another
enforcement tool. These alternative measures are essentially
negotiated settlements to criminal charges. They allow the
government to get companies back into compliance and make them
pay fines or restore the environment without proceeding into
costly and lengthy court cases. Charges are withdrawn only once
the conditions of the environmental protection alternative
measures are met.
1015
Canadians have a role to play in maintaining a healthy and
viable environment. Canadians want a healthy environment and
they want to be involved in the solutions. Government alone
cannot be expected to protect the environment. Canadians have
throughout the years expressed their desire to be active
participants.
While provisions for public participation were included by
parliament in the original CEPA they were limited. The new CEPA
seeks to improve opportunities for public participation. First,
Bill C-32 requires the establishment of a registry of
environmental information. It is currently proposed to make the
registry accessible through the Internet. This will increase
information available to Canadians. Use of the registry should
increase public participation, how Canadians make more informed
decisions and make it easier to hold the government accountable
for its actions.
Second, Bill C-32 sets out an explicit requirement to establish
and publish the national pollutants release inventory so that
Canadians have access to information about pollutants being
released in their communities. This inventory exists now on the
basis of a policy decision. With Bill C-32 the government is
going further by making it a legal commitment to provide the
public with information.
Third, under the existing CEPA whistleblower protection applies
only to individuals who report illegal releases of toxic
substances. Bill C-32 also broadens this to include all
violations such as improper storage of PCB contaminated material.
Individuals who report infractions can have their confidentiality
protected and all federally regulated employees can report
violations without fear of dismissal, harassment or disciplinary
action.
In addition, the current CEPA allows citizens to sue only if
they can demonstrate that they have suffered loss or damage
because of a violation of the act. In the original red book we
stated our intention to use the review of CEPA to examine giving
members of the public access to the courts as a last recourse if
the federal government fails to enforce an environmental law.
Bill C-32 allows citizens to sue when there has been a violation
of CEPA and the government fails to enforce the act resulting in
significant harm to the environment. In other words, a person
can sue for damage to the environment without the need to prove
they suffered personal harm.
These changes will foster greater public participation which
will help ensure the protection of Canada's environment.
I call on all members of the House to enter into the debate on
this very important piece of environmental legislation. The
legacy we as members of the House leave our children and
generations to follow is reflected in how we regard the natural
environment.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure. I would like to address the
bill before the House on behalf of the member for
Nanaimo—Alberni, the Reform environment critic.
Reform's position on the environment is very clear. The Reform
Party supports ensuring that all Canadians dwell in a clean and
healthy environment. Reform believes that environmental
considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and
technical considerations in the development of a project. This
is the key to protecting our environment. We believe in public
consultation, public participation and public commitment.
Governments must work together to ensure our environment is a
priority.
When the Canadian Environmental Protection Act came into force
in 1988 the primary objective of the act was to protect the
environment and protect human health. The act was intended to
fill regulatory gaps in certain environmental matters,
particularly with regard to toxic substances. It was also aimed
at enabling Canada to fulfil international obligations. The
Environmental Protection Act replaced and incorporated several
previously existing acts such as the environmental contaminants
act, the ocean dumping control act and the clean air act.
Section 139 of the act requires a five year mandatory review of
the administration of the act, and review began in the last
parliament. The Standing Committee on the Environment and
Sustainable Development held hearings which resulted in a report
full of recommendations so that the then minister of the
environment drafted Bill C-74 in the last parliament. But for
many reasons, largely a result of its inadequacies, which I will
get into briefly a little later, it died on the order paper and
never made it through the House in the last parliament.
1020
The bill we are talking about today is Bill C-32 which is a
revamped version of Bill C-74 tabled in the last parliament. This
new legislation provides measures for protection of the
environment and human health, pollution prevention, management of
toxic substances, virtual elimination of releases of substances
determined to be most dangerous, and partnerships to achieve
highest levels of environmental quality.
Changes to CEPA contained in Bill C-32 include provisions to
implement pollution prevention, new procedures for the
investigation and assessment of substances and new requirements
for toxic assessments, new provisions respecting fuels,
international air and water pollution, motor emissions, federal
and aboriginal land protection, disposal of wastes and other
matter at sea and the export and import of wastes. That is quite
an expansion.
The legislation provides for the gathering of information for
research and the creation of inventories of data, publishing of
objectives, guidelines and codes of practice, new powers for
inspectors, investigators and laboratory analysts, environmental
protection alternative measures and civil suit action guidelines.
Although we are still considering the merits of this bill it
appears the legislation has resurfaced with amendments that work
in favour of the bill. There are many areas in this bill that
Reform supports. However, there is also concerns which must be
addressed both in committee and in the House.
In speaking today there are four major areas that I want to
discuss. Those four areas contained in the legislation are the
main areas of jurisdictional issues, public consultation, science
and enforcement. I will start off with the jurisdictional
issues.
As it stands, environmental jurisdiction is not clearly defined
and separated in our Constitution. Since the 1980s expanded
environmental protection at the federal and provincial levels of
government has caused considerable tension. Although the supreme
court decision ruled last September that Ottawa has the right to
enact legislation to protect the environment the federal
government should not take this as a carte blanche to run
roughshod over the provinces.
Although environmental issues transcend boundaries there is no
reason for the federal government to interfere in provincial
affairs. Federal-provincial co-operation is essential to ensure
environmental policies are carried through. Clearly provinces
must be involved in this process as Environment Canada simply
does not have sufficient resources to take full responsibility
for the implementation of the act.
Reform blue book policy clearly supports the establishment of
clear federal-provincial jurisdiction over environmental matters.
There have been some amendments to the bill introduced since the
last parliament to require co-operation between levels of
government and to better recognize the harmonization accord.
1025
The preamble sets out a shared responsibility for the
environment. This is a start. However, this can be improved as
the bill does not spell out that the government will discharge
its responsibilities by working co-operatively under the
federal-provincial-territorial Canada-wide accord on
environmental harmonization agreed to in principle by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the
subagreements.
Bill C-32 does not and should ensure that the provinces are able
to advise the federal government on an international treaty
requiring provincial implementation and that they take part in
the treaty's implementation strategy. The bill also empowers the
minister to control the movement of non-hazardous solid waste to
or from the United States. As waste management is primarily
provincial jurisdiction, this probably represents an intrusion on
provincial powers that must be addressed.
Furthermore, Bill C-32 creates a national advisory committee.
The concept of a national advisory committee appears quite
meaningful at first observation, yet on examination of this
section of the bill it is clear that the committee may be
compromised by its very structure. The committee, surprise, is
appointed by the minister and not by the provinces. Therefore it
is very likely that this committee may function as little more
than a political vehicle to promote the minister's agenda rather
than a national vehicle to ensure that the provinces and
territories are properly represented in the decision making.
I was going to talk about four issues, jurisdictional issues,
public consultation, science and enforcement. I have talked
about the jurisdictional issues. I am now going to talk about
public consultation.
It is critical that the process for public consultation in the
development of regulations and additions of new substances to
this act be as fair and open as possible. The Reform Party is
founded on the principle of grassroots participation and public
consultation in policy development. This is particularly
important when we deal with issues such as the environment that
affect all Canadians.
In the last parliament one of the strong complaints voiced by
many against the bill was that it lacked proper consultation.
There were over 100 concerns regarding the bill when it was
introduced in the last Parliament. Some areas of concern have
been addressed in the new legislation, though there are still
areas that need attention. Some of the issues concern the public
consultation process. For example, the bill needs to ensure that
all draft regulations and guidelines are released for public
comment 60 days before the minister formally releases the
assessment.
The bill creates and environmental registry. However, the form
and access of the registry is at the minister's discretion.
Access to this registry should be open and the form clearly
announced.
The act allows for notice of final agreements to go into the
Canada Gazette but it does not require that the final text
of all agreements be published in full in the Canada
Gazette or as an alternative that access be provided through
the Internet. These are very common sense things.
The act does not allow the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development adequate time to review proposed
administrative and equivalency agreements. Clearly it is
important that we move away from the old way of doing business
behind closed doors and into a more transparent manner of
conducting business.
The third area I want to talk about is science.
1030
When dealing with the environment, sound science is essential to
good policy discussions and decisions. This is not always the
case with the present government. Our legislation must ensure
that political decisions do not overshadow making the right
choices to protect our environment. Decisions made under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act must be substantiated by
scientific study.
The last bill had serious problems regarding the minister's
power to bypass section 65 and its risk assessment approach for
determination of toxic substances. This section gave the
minister unlimited powers to bypass science in her decision
making. This was one of the critical reasons Reform, industry
and many Canadians could not support the bill. It is likely one
of the reasons for its demise in the last parliament. This
section has now been amended. I look forward to receiving
comments from witnesses as to whether this has been properly
addressed in the new bill.
Some areas of concern regarding the science of the bill includes
the fact that toxic is not defined in the preamble. Yet it is
defined in the section on controlling toxic substances. This is
clearly problematic because it may allow substances to be defined
toxic without scientific evidence which proves that they are in
fact toxic. This section may give the minister of the department
authority to arbitrarily ban substances which, if true, is
frightening to say the least.
This was a major concern in the last parliament. A separate
piece of legislation went through parliament banning MMT without
a scientific basis. We now have an ongoing legal suit from Ethyl
Corporation that is held up by many as a fallout from things like
negotiating the MAI as a complexity that can be made much worse
through something like the MAI. If the decision on MMT had been
done not on ramming legislation through the House without
scientific basis but had been done on a scientific rationale the
whole argument would be moot. We must ensure that the
legislation does not allow that kind of back door thing to occur
again.
Another concern is the fact that provisions to provide for toxic
assessment consultation failed to require that qualified experts
from government, academia and industry be full partners in the
assessment process.
Another controversial section of the bill is where it provides
for a national ban on substances banned in other provinces or
industrialized countries. Such a policy could negate the need
for Canada to carry out a risk assessment as a basis for chemical
control, which is the standard accepted internationally and by
the science community. This policy could also undermine the
necessity of requiring a scientific basis for decisions. It is
critical that the role of science be clarified so that science
forms the basis of decisions made under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. This needs to be spelled out
clearly and precisely. Without that all else fails.
The fourth subject area I want to discuss is the whole area of
enforcement, which is also critical to environmental policy.
The Reform Party has many clear positions on enforcement.
Reform bluebook policy clearly supports the principle that the
polluter shall pay for its pollution controls, that this be
stringently enforced in an unbiased manner and that penalties be
severe enough that polluters will not consider them a licence fee
to pollute.
1035
Reform also supports fines and jail sentences for officers and
executives of companies violating environmental laws. The
biggest problem with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in
this regard is its lack of enforcement. When CEPA was proclaimed
10 years ago the Conservative government bragged that it had
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 of the Environment
simply does not have the resources to ensure that the
requirements of the act are fulfilled. The clearest way to state
that is that the environment department has had almost two-thirds
of its budget slashed since the Liberals came to power. That is
quite a commitment to the environment.
No matter how tough the minister makes this act it will make no
difference unless the department has the resources to enforce the
legislation.
What must be emphasized, however, is more than enforcement. The
operative word is compliance, not enforcement. Compliance is
number one. It is always better to follow the carrot on the
stick approach. A law must have the capacity to enforce its
regulations. Yet it will be a more effective law if it can deter
individuals from breaking the law or, better yet, if it can
encourage individuals to follow the law.
That applies to all legislation in the House. If we could
follow the basic principle that incentives, all things being
equal, work better than sticks, I think we would all be much
further ahead. The business community certainly knows about
natural incentives.
Other areas of enforcement contained in Bill C-32 also need to
be examined and possibly amended for improvement. For example,
the right to supervision 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 practices, 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 the bill include improved time lines for adding
new substances that have been assessed to the domestic substances
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 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 these plans do not
become akin to excessive regulatory burden.
How does a bureaucrat cut red tape? The answer is lengthways.
As we can see many changes have been made to Bill C-32 to make
the bill more acceptable to the public than Bill C-74 which died
in the last parliament.
1040
There are still areas of concern that need to be worked out.
Canadians have waited a long time for the government to pass
meaningful and realistic environmental legislation.
We had the recent example of the fiasco over Kyoto. We do not
need another one of those. Canada went with no plan, no
preannounced target. We abandoned our own negotiators for
political reasons. We had no cost benefit analysis, no idea of
how to get to our commitment. It was an international
embarrassment due to a Liberal search for political correctness,
without caring about the downstream consequences. It was almost
as if we would not bother to measure them so that we could not be
held accountable later. It is sort of like make it up as we go
along.
I am hoping to see our government get away from its empty
rhetoric and destructive political agenda and move toward
something more realistic and acceptable to Canadians that will
truly benefit our environment.
It appears there has been progress in amendments to the
legislation since the last parliament. The bill has shortcomings
and some revisions are certainly required, as I have pointed out.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today on a subject of the utmost importance. We in the
Bloc Quebecois consider that the relationship between developing
our economy and protecting the environment is one of the major
challenges facing our society.
For the past few generations, the capacity of the human race to
modify the world ecosystem has undergone a spectacular increase,
as the result of the population explosion and our dizzying rate
of technological progress.
World economic activity, for example, is more than 20 times what
it was in 1900.
Consequently, many human activities are on the verge of
surpassing our planet's potential to replenish its resources.
Every year, the energy we consume is responsible for releasing
billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and for using up
more than 40% of the planet's organic material. Every year, we
burn almost as much fossil fuel as the earth was able to produce
in a million years.
Although we are forced to acknowledge that poverty and hardship
exist throughout the world, and will continue to exist, we do
not throw up our hands in despair at its scope. Similarly, we
are capable of seeking solutions together to many of the
challenges posed by our deteriorating environment, and the
multiplication of substances that are a threat to human health.
A short-sighted view will not enable us to solve these problems.
What we need is a fundamental change to our way of making
decisions at all levels of society. We need to start
incorporating environmental considerations in our day to day
decisions as individuals, managers and legislators.
We must treat the environment as the limited and unique resource
that it is. We must treat human life like the fragile thing
that it is.
Let there be no illusions about this. The precarious state of
our environment is the result of what will soon be two centuries
of neglect. There can be no quick fix. There will be more
crises, more ecological accidents. What is needed essentially
is to restore the ecological balance that has been upset
gradually over the centuries, and particularly over the past 100
years.
This is a long term undertaking, and one which will require the
commitment of each and every one of us, from the various
governments down to the last individual. Any serious response to
the environmental challenge will lay our present lifestyle open
to question, because the environmental issue is more than just
pollution, domestic and chemical waste, or land use management.
These are just symptoms of a larger problem.
1045
The main thing is the way we approach our relationships, define
our prosperity and select a lifestyle. In this respect, we are
witnessing a real revolution in attitudes. Recent polls,
newspaper forums and radio hot-lines all agree.
The public, and young people in particular, consider quality of
life more important than the mere accumulation of consumer
goods. They choose health over the pursuit of economic expansion
at all cost. These new values are priorities.
They should be used as the basis for the political will to
allocate sufficient resources to the preservation of the
environment we all care about.
It is paradoxical that this government repeatedly drew upon this
widely held public opinion to finally come up short in terms of
a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and protect the
collective scientific tools used to assess our environmental
situation.
This government cannot be satisfied with reacting to
environmental crises. Never has the government developed a long
term action plan which takes into account the collective
diversity of the territory for which it is responsible under the
Constitution. Never has the government given any serious thought
to where it wanted to be five or ten years down the road and
even after that.
In order to have a political will, governments must be able to
set out the goals they wish to achieve through specific actions.
For the time being, we must unfortunately express concern about
this government's lack of vision on environmental issues in the
current constitutional context.
In fact, since I have been sitting in this House as the member
for Rosemont, not one federalist party has been able to come up
with a vision of the future that reconciles two fundamental
values in my view: respect for societies, including Quebec
society, and implementation of sustainable development.
Bill C-32 as it stands symbolizes the failure of a unilateral
federal approach, which denies the right of the Quebec people to
decide their own future. This is my view of Bill C-32. Because
of what I believe in, I cannot consider this bill simply from a
sovereignist or environmentalist point of view.
I am opposed to Bill C-32, because this Liberal bill fails to
reconcile two fundamental values for Quebeckers.
First, my vision of sustainable development is based on the
conclusions of the United Nations commission on the environment
and development, chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway,
Gro Brundtland. The commission defined this new concept that it
was proposing to the world, namely that economic development must
now be subject to environmental considerations.
Let us be clear: it is wrong to claim that the environment must
now be at odds with economic development. These two basic
realities are not at odds: they are essential elements of a type
of progress that is now sustainable in our society.
The notion of sustainable development simply means that we must
no longer endanger the resources of our planet and that we must
make sure our natural resources will still be there for future
generations. In other words, economic development must be
achieved by preserving our planet's resources, rather than by
using them up, or, to use a financial image, by using the
interest and not the capital, in terms of our resources.
Economic development must not jeopardize the planet's natural
balance. Since I first came to Ottawa, all too often I have seen
people try to change the meaning of sustainable development. They
closely link that concept to economic growth and then use it to
oppose environmental concerns.
These people are not helping anyone's cause. If anything, they
take us back 10 years, before the Liberals and before the work of
the United Nations on development and the environment.
We now have to recognize that the respect for individuals must be
extended to their surroundings.
1050
In other words, it is not a question of choosing between
economic growth and environmental protection. Since both of
these concerns are essential to global survival, what matters is
finding an approach that takes both into account.
This environmental challenge still requires changes in attitude
that force us to reconcile what might initially look like
contradictory goals. I am convinced that we can forge a
consensus in Quebec around these environmental and economic
convictions. I am sure that a great many Canadians and
Quebeckers also share my vision of sustainable development.
The misunderstanding does not lie at this level. The difference
resides in our identifying with distinct peoples.
We want to acquire as many tools as possible for orienting our
development.
Our wishes are the opposite of those of the majority of
Canadians, who basically want to see Ottawa play an increased
role in numerous areas, including that of the environment.
Elected representatives from Quebec, whatever their political
stripe, have always fought to be able to retain the prerogatives
that allow us to shape our future as we see it.
If there were any sign of this feeling of belonging and this
desire for freedom in the other provinces, Bloc Quebecois
members would not be the only ones rejecting the federal
government's attempts to keep on grabbing a little more power.
We can only conclude that this wish for autonomy is confined to
Quebec.
The fact of the matter is that, every time this country wanted
or had to make weighty decisions of the sort that reveal basic
natures, it went into crisis.
Instead of finding comfort in the face of adversity, instead of
being galvanized by a challenge, and united in trust and hope,
like a normal country, it instead fell into painful division.
From the Riel affair to the schools in Manitoba, from
conscription in World War I to conscription in World War II,
from the 1982 patriation to the passage of the free trade
agreement, from the Meech Lake accord to the Charlottetown
accord, each time the same wounds were opened anew, the same
tenuous solidarity was torn apart along the same stress lines by
the same tensions. Paralysis and uncertainty were the poisoned
fruits of this inability to live together.
Two recent environmental initiatives provide another
illustration of the forces blocking the legitimate aspirations
of two peoples still bound together by one federal government.
The first issue is of the highest importance for our future,
since it involves climactic changes affecting the nature of life
on earth as we know it today. As I speak, millions of tonnes of
carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere. In North
America alone, we are responsible for more than a quarter of
these emissions, which are having an unprecedented effect on our
atmosphere.
For some time already, scientists from the four corners of the
globe have noted that the planet has been warming up at a rate
unprecedented in the past hundred years or so. Naturally, many
research teams have looked at this phenomenon to understand its
origins. One after another, the teams have published their
disturbing results, which have begun to reveal that human
activity is responsible for global warming.
Their conclusions were immediately contested by many scientists,
who were astonished to learn that humans could have such an
impact on the atmosphere protecting us. For a long time these
scientists and ecologists were reduced to preaching in the
wilderness. However, by the mid-1980s, we were becoming
increasing aware of the seriousness of the environmental problem
we now face.
Once the main concerns relating to the 1982 economic crisis were
resolved, our societies began to realize the scope and the
amplitude of our environmental problems. We all benefited from
the expanded debate that ensued. It did not take long for the
environment to become a concern to society as a whole.
Public awareness supported both specialists and political
leaders in their efforts to further protect the environment.
After facing the many challenges necessitated by greater levels
of protection of waters, air, forests and the earth, we looked
to problems at the global level, such as those concerning our
atmosphere.
The international scale of these problems necessarily involves
global and co-operative action by nations.
1055
This led to the signature in Helsinki, in 1984, of the first
international protocol to reduce transborder emissions
responsible for acid rain. Three years later, in 1987, Montreal
hosted an international meeting that resulted in the signing of
the Montreal protocol, the purpose of which is to reduce the
production of gases harmful to the ozone layer.
Five years later, over 150 nations got together in Rio for the
earth summit. This meeting led to the signing of a UN framework
agreement to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases.
At this unprecedented summit, developed countries adopted the
common goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at the 1990
level by the year 2000.
Today, five years after the Berlin conference, Canada as a whole
has achieved nothing but a resounding absence of concrete
measures for meeting this challenge. Why? Because the Liberal
government, which has been in office since 1993, seems to have
devoted more effort to developing an environmental doublespeak
than to implementing concrete measures for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
There is no lack of examples. In a self-congratulatory
advertisement that appeared on April 24, the Liberals claimed to
have demonstrated international leadership by helping reduce the
causes of climate change in the world. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Unless, in Liberal speak, leadership means one of the worst
performances in the world when it comes to reducing greenhouse
gases.
Indeed, compared to other OECD members, Canada has done poorly
in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, in spite of the good
results achieved by Quebec, which is still in a position to meet
the objectives set in Rio. For Canada as a whole, however,
observers expect that there will be an increase of 13% in
emissions by the year 2000.
If, by international leadership the Liberals are not referring
to this country's notorious failure to reduce greenhouse gases,
perhaps they are referring to its apparent wish to be the last
to present a reduction goal for the period up to 2010.
In fact, thanks to the Liberal government, Canada was the last
G-7 country to present its negotiating position for the Kyoto
summit. For a long time, the only public position that was
endorsed by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of
Natural Resources was the Regina position. Once again, this
decision widened the gap between two blueprints for society.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but
he will have 23 minutes left to conclude his remarks after oral
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MAPLE SYRUP
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the maple
sap is flowing in many parts of this great country of ours.
Around the world one of the things Canada is known for is the
delicious maple syrup produced here. The most recent edition of
the Canada Catalogue, a publication sponsored by the Canadian
Tourism Commission to help sell Canada globally, includes two
pages of information on Jakeman's Maple Products of Beachville in
Oxford county.
I want to assure Canadians and those around the world who
eagerly await the syrup season each year that high quality maple
syrup and other maple products like maple sugar leaves, maple
pops, maple crisp and maple brittle are being produced in my
riding and many other ridings throughout Ontario and Quebec.
I look forward to taste testing this year's vintage of Jakeman's
fine maple syrup in its many forms as the year progresses.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, is there no limit to which this government will sink
into the stinking swamp of political degradation?
How can an opposition motion ever cause a vote of confidence in
the government? Only when the government is determined to strong
arm its members into holding their noses and voting against what
is right.
Hepatitis C victims are further victimized by this government's
unwillingness to provide just compensation for the government's
irresponsibility. Why is the government putting its politics
before the needs of these victims?
Only a thorough reform of this parliament will allow it to be
the democratic institution that represents the Canadian people
and not a political machine.
Call your MP, call the health minister and call the Prime
Minister to let them know what you think, not only about their
hepatitis C compensation package, but also about their refusal to
listen to Canadians and the need for parliamentary reform.
* * *
1100
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each
year I like to stand and invite all of my hon. colleagues and
their constituents to my riding of Hillsborough, and Prince Edward
Island in general.
P.E.I. has in the past few years really strived to enhance its
tourism sector. We are graced with beautiful sandy beaches,
gentle rolling hills and inviting warm weather. We also have our
eternal tribute to Anne of Green Gables with the various tourist
sites and the famous stage production at the Confederation Centre
of the Arts.
Prince Edward Island is now more accessible since the opening of
the Confederation bridge. In fact the bridge has become an
attraction in itself. As proof, last year there were over one
million visitors. That is up substantially from the year
previous. But we are not yet satisfied. The industry this year
is aiming for 1.4 million visitors.
I invite everyone from across the country to come and enjoy
everything Prince Edward Island has to offer. I can assure them
they will not be disappointed.
* * *
BREAKFAST FOR LEARNING
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to express my support for the Canadian Living
Foundation's Breakfast for Learning Program.
Research shows that children learn better on a full stomach.
Their concentration skills and ability to retain information are
stronger when they enter the classroom on a full stomach after
having a good breakfast.
The Breakfast for Learning Program has been helping thousands of
Canadian children. Since 1992, over 24 million meals have been
served in many schools across this great country, including those
in my riding of Bruce—Grey.
Even the best teachers cannot reach a child without the energy
to learn. With a funding request now before the government I
urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to support child
nutrition programs like Breakfast for Learning. By sending our
children into the classroom with full stomachs today we ensure
the best possible head start for those who will steer Canada into
the future.
* * *
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
volunteers open doors to a better world. That is the motto for
this year's National Volunteer Week.
With the goal of improving our communities and quality of life,
thousands of volunteers and organizations devote their time and
energy to many different worthwhile causes. Whether in times of
crisis or in day to day life, volunteers from all over Canada are
willing and available to help each other and strengthen our
communities.
This week is a chance to celebrate, congratulate and encourage
others to participate and enjoy the benefits derived from
volunteerism. As I told volunteers last night from the York
Region Children's Aid Society, volunteers can make a difference.
They can make a difference for themselves, their children, their
community and their country.
Get involved and make a difference. Be a volunteer.
* * *
CANADIAN WAR HEROES
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's brave young men fought, spilled blood and died on
foreign soil 50 short years ago. Fifty thousand never returned
to their homes. One million Canadians rose to their task in
World War II.
Our country was third in allied military might. Canada trained
all air forces of the free world. Canada's factories built
17,000 planes. Canada's navy and merchant seamen kept sea lanes
free to feed the war effort. Now we shame this memory by
neglect. Now we belittle our proud war effort. Now we
extinguish Canada's war leader from view.
Quebec ought not drop the torch. Quebec must hold it high. Our
Prime Minister Mackenzie King must stand shoulder to shoulder
with other leaders of a war that allowed our flag to fly. All
three must be remembered. Lest we forget.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last December in Kyoto this government agreed to a protocol that
committed Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below
1990 levels by the period 2008-2010.
This week Shell Oil withdrew from the U.S. lobby group known as
the Global Climate Coalition. This group opposes the protocol.
We, as a government, are committed to reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions and honouring our Kyoto commitments. Since Kyoto,
Canada and the international community have been directing our
energies to how we will meet our commitment, because meet it we
shall.
To achieve this Canada will be working with the provinces and
territories, as well as with local governments, community
organizations and the private sector. That is why today in
Toronto the ministers of environment and energy are meeting their
provincial and territorial counterparts.
They want to work with all sectors to design Canada's national
implementation strategy.
1105
Companies like Shell and other people who believe that climate
change is not an economic drain but rather an economic
environmental opportunity are the leaders who will make our Kyoto
commitments a reality.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Armenian community is commemorating today the 83rd anniversary
of the 1915 Armenian massacre.
As an expression of solidarity, I offer my deepest sympathies to
the Armenian people, and I share their grief. Today, we
commemorate the death of one and a half million Armenian
martyrs, and the death of all the victims of the terrible
carnages of our century.
In so doing, we are helping the international community in its
efforts to end such killings. As you know, Canada has always
been and will continue to be a great protector of human rights.
I take this opportunity to commend Montreal's Armenian community
for its spirit of justice and for its constant efforts to have
that historic tragedy recognized as it should be.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hepatitis C is a killer disease. Its victims suffer and die.
Unlike other diseases, hep C is given by the government through
tainted blood. Blood is not for sale in Canada.
Canadians trusted our government, but our government failed
them.
The Liberal government continues to refuse to do the right thing
by not compensating all the victims fairly. I believe the Prime
Minister is confused about what the letter C in hepatitis C
stands for: compensation, compassion or confidence vote.
Earlier the government made a mistake by not screening the blood
supply. Then the government made another mistake by not
compensating fairly all the victims. Now it will make another
mistake by not allowing a free vote in the House for government
backbenchers.
I remind all members in the House that principles should be more
important than policies and—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga
Centre.
* * *
TOBACCO
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to encourage members of this House to join
me in condemning any cigarette advertising or promotion that
encourages youth smoking.
Tobacco addiction is a major public health threat. By some
estimates, over 40,000 lives are lost each year as a result of
smoking.
Tobacco use is an addiction that is almost always acquired in
childhood. That is why I support the government's Bill C-71
initiative and I look forward to future initiatives that will
discourage youth smoking.
Tobacco is a factor in 80% of all preventable deaths. We as a
society must make an effort to prevent addiction among young
people. Bill C-71 started us in the right direction by limiting
advertising and promotion. It will also commit funds to
education, enforcement, smoking prevention and cessation
programs.
We have an opportunity to prevent some of the 40,000 annual
tobacco deaths. Let us keep building on the momentum of Bill
C-71 to ensure that some day this country raises a generation
that collectively says no to tobacco.
April is cancer month, when thousands of volunteers will be
knocking on doors all over the country. Please give generously.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on this 83rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the Bloc
Quebecois wishes to express its deepest sympathy to the Armenian
community and its admiration for the courage of Armenians who,
for many years, suffered atrocities under the Ottoman Empire.
Unfortunately, the government opposite has always refused to
recognize the Armenian genocide. Yet, the facts speak for
themselves. From 1915 to 1923, close to two million Armenians
were executed or deported by the Ottoman government of Turkey.
The commemoration of the Armenian genocide reminds Quebeckers
and Canadians that any country that resorts to violence as a
political instrument—a genocide being the most extreme form of
such violence—is committing a crime against humanity.
Today, along with the Armenian community, the Bloc Quebecois
remembers.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the
direction of the federal government has failed miserably in its
management of fish stocks in Canada.
On the east coast stocks such as lobster, cod, crab, scallops,
salmon, shrimp and silver hake are being mismanaged and poorly
allocated. The same goes for salmon and hake on the west coast,
and yet the livelihood of thousands of families and hundreds of
communities on both coasts are in peril.
1110
It is time this government lived up to its responsibility and
allocated the resources necessary to compensate the victims of
its actions by implementing a community based, comprehensive plan
so that the fishing communities can get on with their lives and
so that we can rebuild the depleted stocks.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to honour all our Canadian military personnel helping keep
the peace in distant corners of the world.
[English]
Today when Canadians think of peacekeeping they think of Bosnia,
Haiti, the Persian Gulf. These missions are Canada's most
visible peacekeeping efforts, but are by no means our only
contributions.
Today I wish to salute the efforts of military personnel in some
of those unsung United Nations' missions around the world. I
salute the following Canadians: the three people serving to
maintain peace in Cyprus; the 28 people in the Sinai Desert
enforcing the 1979 peace accord between Egypt and Israel; the 187
supervising the ceasefire between Israel and Syria; and the seven
military engineers helping the people of Cambodia rid themselves
of antipersonnel land mines.
I am sure that I speak for all of us in the House of Commons
when I say we are proud of them all.
* * *
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, today we
commemorate a tragic event in the history of humanity, the
persecution and murder of a million and half Armenian men, women
and children during the first world war.
Those who managed to flee this genocide have settled throughout
the world, and many of their descendants are today citizens of
Canada.
[English]
It has been said that those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it. We join today with members of the
Armenian community and other Canadians in remembering the
atrocity of crimes against humanity.
This grim anniversary is an important reminder to all of us. We
share a responsibility to help build understanding between
peoples and between nations so that the peace that was denied
their ancestors can be experienced by future generations around
the world.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
September 1993 during a UN peacekeeping operation in the former
Yugoslavia, Canadian troops of the 2nd Battalion of the Princess
Patricia's Light Infantry found themselves in the middle of a
conflict between Croat and Serbian forces. A UN sponsored
ceasefire agreement called on the Croats to withdraw their forces
and let Canadian soldiers deploy into the Medak pocket to
establish a buffer zone.
However, the Croats had different plans. They attacked Canadian
positions with heavy artillery and machine-gun fire. The
Canadian soldiers returned fire to defend themselves. One unit
came under repeated attacks but held its ground. Eventually the
Canadians forced compliance with the ceasefire agreement and
ended an ethnic cleansing operation in the area. The Canadians
were given a rare unit citation by the French UN commander for
their collective bravery and devotion to duty. Unfortunately,
most Canadians know very little about the Medak pocket action.
On Monday the national defence committee will hear from Colonel
Jim Calvin, the commanding officer, and some of his troops. I
would encourage MPs to attend to hear their remarkable story.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, family members, friends, constituents—many people have
asked me for help because they were infected with hepatitis C
from tainted blood. Through no fault of their own, no fault of
their doctor or hospital, they received a product so poisonous
that 20% or more will die and many others will be too sick to
ever work again.
One woman from Vernon wrote to say that because her surgeries
would require several transfusions she asked about their safety.
She said “I was informed by Vernon Jubilee Hospital staff that
the blood had been tested at least three times for all infectious
diseases prior to me receiving it”.
Somebody lied. Somebody assured Canadians that our blood supply
was safe, even though they knew it was not. The Government of
Canada stood behind that guarantee of safety. Now it is time for
the Government of Canada to make good on our guarantee.
I ask all honourable members to look into the faces of friends
who have lost a dear family member to tainted blood, as I had to
do this week, and then vote with your conscience to compensate
every victim.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Jean Charest, the new federalist poster boy in Quebec, announced
that he would accept nothing less than the distinct society
concept. He also stated that the Calgary declaration was just
the beginning of discussions.
Provided Mr. Charest has not changed his tune today, after being
called to order by the Liberal Party brass, we need to remember
that the Calgary declaration was dragged out of the premiers of
English Canada after heavy negotiations behind closed doors.
1115
The federal government is in a bind. It endorsed the Calgary
declaration, the final offer from English Canada, and now Jean
Charest deems it insufficient and Quebeckers want to debate it
in a referendum before they will endorse it.
Is the government going to go back to the drawing board on the
Calgary declaration or will it tell Jean Charest, through its
minister in charge of plan B—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As the hon. member is well
aware, she cannot refer to a member except by riding name or
title in the House I trust that she will continue to comply
with this.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no valid reason to turn Tuesday's vote on hepatitis C
compensation into a confidence vote, and it is a shame that the
Prime Minister has chosen to do that. The only reason he is
whipping his caucus into line is politics, pure and simple.
In 1996 Liberals voted for the opposition motion on the victims
of crime. In 1997 they voted for our national unity motion. Both
these opposition motions passed and the government of course did
not fall.
If he allowed his MPs a free vote then, why will he not allow
his MPs a free vote on this important issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear from the debate yesterday that the Reform
Party and other opposition parties are asking us to vote a lack
of confidence, not just in the federal government but in all the
provincial governments and territories, because they are all
equally part of the agreement on compensation which the Reform
Party and other opposition parties are wrongly opposing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister knows that is simply not true. The House
cannot vote non-confidence in a provincial legislature and it
does not intend to on the federal legislature. Some issues are
bigger than party lines and they are bigger than party
discipline.
I am sure the Liberal whips are a powerful force, but then again
a conscience can also be a powerful thing too. Having to look
yourself in the mirror every day for the rest of your life,
knowing you abandoned those suffering from hepatitis C, sort of
puts party politics into perspective, does it not?
Why will the the Prime Minister not allow his members of
parliament to do the right thing, vote for their constituents and
vote with their consciences in a free vote in the House of
Commons?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when members vote in the House on Tuesday I am sure they
will be doing the right thing in the interest of hepatitis C
victims, in the interest of relations with the provinces.
I ask members of the Reform Party to reconsider their position
because when it comes to political points they do not have to
give any lessons to anybody. They are doing their best to make
this an unwarranted political issue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last month the minister—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think I am hearing
some language that is inappropriate for the Chamber and I ask
hon. members to show some restraint.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, last month the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said “My country before my party”. He
knew that some issues like national unity rise above and are more
important than partisan politics.
Helping hurting hepatitis C victims is one of those issues.
These people are sick because the government neglected to screen
our blood supply. These victims are not Liberals. They are not
Reformers. They are not NDP. They are just Canadians and they
deserve and they need our help.
Why will the Prime Minister not show some heart and say “my
conscience before my party?” Why will he not allow members of
parliament to vote their conscience?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are concerned, but speaking of politics I want to
quote Judy Maddren of the CBC today who says “Saskatchewan's
health minister says the opposition parties in Ottawa are just
trying to score political points in their protest against the
hepatitis C package and Clay Serby says that includes his federal
NDP cousins”.
I think Mr. Serby's view on behalf of all provincial governments
on this matter has a great impact and speaks for itself. It
shows what the Reform Party and opposition members are really up
to in this matter.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this vote is
not a vote for anything but for the victims. It is simply wrong
to say that there are partisan issues brought to bear here.
All opposition parties have stated very clearly that this will
not be an election issue.
The only person who is trying to raise the stakes is the Prime
Minister.
1120
Why is the government so willing to put everything on the line
to defend a bad deal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member, if it is a bad deal, why on the
CBC radio news today did Clay Serby, the Saskatchewan health
minister, say “this has never been a political issue. We should
not be making it a political issue?” Mr. Serby went on to say
“Now you have political parties today who want to try to make
hay politically on this irrespective of who they are. I worry
about that”.
Serby says “The package was put together by health ministers
from all political parties”. He says “They managed to put
aside their political differences and the opposition parties
should do the same, including the federal wing of the NDP”. This
should be something listened to by members of the Reform Party
because it makes sense contrary to their position.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
Prime Minister were not strong arming his backbenchers he knows
he would lose this vote. The victims know it. Backbenchers know
it. The Prime Minister knows it. I am sure the Deputy Prime
Minister knows it.
Is the real reason why the Prime Minister is treating this as an
issue that is so important not that if he has a free vote he will
lose that vote?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. We
are confident that we will win the vote.
In any event I notice that the Reform member did not respond to
my quotation of the representative of all the provinces who said
he and his party colleagues and the other parties are just trying
to play petty politics on that, and that he, Mr. Serby, on behalf
of the provincial counterparts who are part of the arrangement,
reject that and think it is wrong. The hon. member did not deal
with that point and this speaks for itself.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal member of Parliament for Sherbrooke, who is seeking the
leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, now contends that the
concept of unique society included in the Calgary declaration
must have the same meaning and scope as the concept of distinct
society put forward in the failed Meech Lake accord.>
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs agree with this
statement by the hon. member for Sherbrooke?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered yes to this question.
The concepts of “unique” and “distinct” mean the same thing: a
commitment from this federation to show the necessary
flexibility to adjust to the Quebec reality as it does to all
other realities across Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
is no doubt that the hon. member for Sherbrooke clearly stated
that the Calgary declaration did not go far enough. If there is
no difference, and “distinct” means the same as “unique”, why
did they go through the trouble of drafting the Calgary
declaration?
Will the minister admit that the Calgary declaration is the best
Canada has to offer Quebec, despite the fact that even his
federalist allies consider it does not go far enough?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member really believes that the member for
Sherbrooke thinks Canada is not enough, she does not understand
his political philosophy.
He has stated that Canada is a wonderful country, which we can
always make better, and that the Calgary declaration outlines
principles to help us further improve this country we intend to
keep.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN FRANCOPHONES
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
francophones from Saskatchewan denounced here in Ottawa the
ethnocide—and that is their word—they are facing.
According to the 1996 census, although 20,000 of them claim
French as their mother tongue, only 6,000 actually use it. The
rate of assimilation in Saskatchewan is assessed at 71%.
What does the government have to say this morning to
francophones from Saskatchewan, who consider their numbers to be
disappearing?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we say to the francophones from
Saskatchewan and to all other francophone minorities that we
support them.
We in the government do not consider them dead ducks or warmed
up bodies or paraplegics in wheelchairs or second class
Canadians, all of which are descriptions that have been used by
the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
1125
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
shame the minister chose to hurl meaningless insults instead of
responding to something very specific and announcing a policy.
Why, instead of saying any old thing, does he not stop hiding
his head in the sand and come up with some concrete measures to
put a stop to assimilation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on
recognizing that the remarks I have just cited were insulting,
because we Canadians living outside Quebec have had it with
separatist insults. We are full fledged citizens and do not
deserve the separatists' insults.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible to hear the
hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Health suggested those victims who contacted
hepatitis C from the blood system prior to 1986 should seek a
pension under the Canada pension plan disability provisions.
He will know that applicants under the scheme are uniformly
rejected on the first opportunity and that the opportunities to
get a disability pension under the Canada pension plan are very
slim. One of my colleague has a constituents with one leg and
one eye who was not declared disabled.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister not embarrassed that the government
would offer a solution to hepatitis C victims when that
opportunity is slim to none?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned what I did
yesterday I was trying to give an indication to all members who
are concerned about hepatitis C sufferers that there are plans in
the works to try to alleviate the most immediate consequences of
this debilitating disease.
I gave an indication that the provincial health ministers
together with the health minister of Canada are working on the
plans available under the social safety net that included CPP and
all other types of programs. Those discussions are ongoing and
would be put into effect for—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a
question on something he said earlier.
This should not be a political issue. This should be an issue
of principle. The New Democratic Party in the last election
argued that every hepatitis C victim should be compensated in
principle.
Why does the Deputy Prime Minister not take muzzle off his
colleagues? Why will he not let them vote on principle instead
of making this a partisan political question?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is missing the point made on CBC radio
news by the spokesman for all provinces: “Saskatchewan's health
minister says the opposition parties in Ottawa are just trying to
score political points in their protest against the hepatitis C
package”. Clay Serby says that includes his federal NDP
cousins.
If he does not like that position he ought to go after Mr.
Serby.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
year's budget announced an increase in the emergency services
volunteer tax free allowance. The difficulty is that unless they
receive remuneration for their services, volunteers cannot claim
any tax deduction. Typically urban volunteer firefighters
receive some form of remuneration while rural firefighters do
not.
Why is the government treating rural volunteer firefighters as
second class cousins compared to urban firefighters? Will the
minister offer a tax deduction to rural firefighters as well?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this tax deduction has been offered in the case of essential
services for small municipalities that may have trouble paying
their emergency volunteers more than they usually give.
In this case it would be extremely costly to extend it more than
has been done in the budget.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
need to address this problem. Almost every member of the House
has rural communities that are dealing with this issue. It is a
problem that crosses party lines.
The Liberal government chose to extend benefits to urban
firefighters without considering the deduction for their rural
cousins. Rural firefighters across Canada deserve the same
benefits as urban firefighters.
They risk their lives in the same manner and deserve the same
type of benefit and treatment as their rural counterparts.
1130
This Liberal government has refused to assist in addressing this
problem. We really hope it reaches out and tries to do better
for the rural firefighters of Canada.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are many small communities and small rural centres that
find it extremely difficult to pay their emergency volunteers.
They can only give them a small contribution. The federal
government has decided not to tax them in order to help these
emergency service volunteers and we intend to continue that
practice.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is surprising how the government relies solely on the
CBC to deal with such a serious problem as hepatitis C.
The health minister has insulted hepatitis C victims by
comparing their tragic situation to random medical accidents. He
pretends there is no moral difference between being negligently
poisoned by the government and suffering a random medical mishap.
These hepatitis C victims did not suffer an accident. They
suffered a cruel government decision. It is government policy
that infected them, not fate.
He is a lawyer. Can he not see the difference?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would probably irk the member
opposite to know that the Government of Canada and all its
partners at the provincial level have been studying this very
profoundly and have been relying on expert support for all their
decisions.
I make reference to a report by Robert Prichard who is now the
president of the University of Toronto and a blue chip committee
concerning all compensation schemes for persons suffering
significant avoidable health care injuries. We recommended
general criteria for determining which significant medical
injuries are compensatory under—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are normal risks associated with a tonsillectomy,
for example, but everyone knows about them. It is an accepted
part of life. However, being transfused with poison blood during
that operation is not a normal or acceptable risk. It is the
government's fault because it refused to screen the blood.
Why has the health minister said in the past that the government
infected blood is just like any other natural medical risk?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I just said to the
member a moment ago. The Prichard commission recommended the
general criteria for determining compensation should be under a
scheme that would pass the test of avoidability, that the
principal inquiry to determine if an event is compensatory should
be whether with the benefit of hindsight the injury could have
been avoided by an alternative diagnostic or therapeutic
procedure.
That is what doctors, justices and lawyers presented as evidence
to the governments of Canada—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Matapédia—Matane.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last December, the Secretary of State responsible for Fisheries
and Oceans announced in this House that the new fisheries act
would be introduced in February 1998. For the minister's
information, I would like to remind him that today is April 24.
What is the minister waiting for, when this legislation is so
indispensable to the entire fishing industry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
is very concerned about this matter. He is taking his time and
deliberating on it very seriously before bringing in the required
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the reply, but it is no answer.
Since this legislation must be based on the broadest possible
consensus, did the minister prepare it in secret, or did he make
use of the input of the provinces and all segments of the
industry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has consulted widely with provinces and
stakeholders, as we all do when we are bringing in new
legislation. Obviously parliament will have its opportunity to
give its input when legislation is introduced.
If the hon. member has any specifics that he would like contained
in any potential legislation I am sure my colleague would be most
accommodating.
* * *
1135
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
heard from several people in my riding who have contracted
hepatitis C. Recently one passed away. Another fellow in his
early thirties who has two young children is fearful that he will
not be able to support his family. People with hepatitis C
cannot work. They are too sick.
My constituent would like me to ask this question. I will ask
it of the Deputy Prime Minister. What is my constituent supposed
to do to look after his children today? What will become of his
family in the future?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously this issue tugs at the
heart strings of everyone. I indicated to all members yesterday
that the governments of Canada, all of them taking into
consideration the suffering of all the victims of hepatitis C,
put together a package that addressed the most immediate concerns
of a clearly identifiable group. All of them did that in
partnership. They said at the same time we are not stopping any
others from pursuing all avenues open to them through the
procedure—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if it
truly tugged at the hearts of everybody in this House and these
people over here, there would not be this line of questioning.
It would have been taken care of.
This young man in my constituency wants to know what he has to
do. Does he have to resort to begging, selling pencils on a
street corner? He cannot get unemployment insurance. He cannot
buy life insurance. He is looking at a way to put food on his
table and to look after his children when he is gone because he
knows that is going to be soon.
How can they sit over there and not offer some alternatives?
Does he suggest they sue the government? Is that the only
alternative? Come up with something better.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the bluster
is going to be impressive for all those going through this
terrible time. It would be more helpful to recognize the fact
that there is something available already.
In response to a previous question, I gave the House an
indication of what the ministers of health of all the
jurisdictions are considering and that is the assistance under
the current social safety net which, by the way, we support but
they do not. In addition, we have left open all the opportunities
still available to them through every other type of procedure,
both legal and governmental. I indicated—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the Income
Tax Act was unconstitutional because it did not include gays and
lesbians in its definition of spouse, thus denying them benefits
to which they are entitled.
Will the minister immediately undertake to follow up on this
ruling and amend the Income Tax Act, which is now
unconstitutional according to the Ontario Court of Appeal's
ruling?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ruling
was published yesterday. The government has 60 days in which to
respond. We are now going to look at the legal, social and
political consequences of the ruling and respond within the time
allowed us.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
lacks conviction.
Will the minister agree that the discrimination to which gays
and lesbians are subject requires a review of all Canadian
legislation containing a definition of spouse? Let us see some
conviction, please.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent
years the government has shown what it was prepared to do to
decrease and eliminate discrimination, and allow the full
exercise of human rights.
Again, in this case, the ruling was handed down only yesterday.
We are going to study it and, within the 60 days, make a
satisfactory reply.
* * *
[English]
ANTHRAX VACCINE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Health Canada granted permission to use an anthrax vaccine on
Canadian troops. The vaccine was produced by a United States lab
that was cited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a
matter of fact, it was shut down for quality control violations.
Yesterday the defence minister said the vaccine had been
retested and was in fact safe.
1140
Could the government explain today why the defence minister
neglected to tell Canadians that the retest was done by the same
company that produced the vaccine?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the medical staff has
assured me that the vaccine administered to Canadian forces was
safe.
I understand that the U.S. military has hired an independent
contractor to oversee the quality and safety testings of its
entire stockpile of anthrax vaccine to ensure its safety.
Several million doses have already been cleared as safe. A
batch of anthrax vaccine administered to Canadian forces
personnel was among those retested and considered safe.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe the government could tune in again because the company that
is doing the retesting is the same company. The United States
Food and Drug Administration cited violations for quality
control, including cleanliness, faulty testing equipment and the
wrong calibration on its testing equipment.
Will the government ensure that a made in Canada test is done on
that anthrax vaccine immediately?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our approach is to
ensure that Canadian forces personnel are protected. For their
own safety and for the safety of the mission, the anthrax vaccine
we have given to our troops has been proven to be safe.
An hon. member: By whom?
Mr. John Richardson: Certainly not by the Reform Party.
For this reason they have been vaccinated against anthrax and
this approach is adopted by our allies and is supported by many
members in this House.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is the
result of what the federal government has been doing in the
matter of asbestos in the past two years. In Asbestos, 250
people were laid off and the BC mine there has been closed. We
have just learned that the Council of Europe has decided to
prohibit the use of asbestos throughout Europe.
My question for the Minister for International Trade is quite
simple. Is the government waiting until there is no more
asbestos industry in Quebec before acting and lodging a
complaint with the WTO?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is in fact continuing to work on this matter in
partnership with the Government of Quebec.
We have taken a number of measures to date to help the
manufacturers and producers of asbestos and to fight the
European tendency to prohibit the import of asbestos. We will
continue these efforts.
* * *
[English]
HATE CRIMES
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were outraged to hear of the recent hate crimes and the
tragedy that occurred in B.C.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
inform this House what initiatives government has taken to
prevent hate crimes from happening in the future?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question. Existing laws in this
country are already covered in Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, the Criminal Code and the human rights act.
Criminal Code provisions concerning hate propaganda, obscenity
and the possession of child pornography apply to the Internet as
they apply to other forms of communication. The enforcement of
the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the provincial
attorney general.
This government takes its responsibility seriously. I hope that
attorney general also takes his responsibility seriously.
* * *
BORDERS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, American border authorities are taking an
increasingly hostile attitude with Canadians, now barring anyone
who has ever smoked marijuana and detaining MPs at airports.
Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs reiterated that he had
extensive discussions with Secretary of State Albright to
facilitate movement at the border.
It is obvious that these discussions are not getting anywhere.
The situation is worse now than before these discussions. What
other steps is this government going to take to stop the
harassment of Canadians at the border?
1145
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did have some very
positive news yesterday as a result of the amendment brought
forth by Senator Abraham to section 110 of the U.S. immigration
act. It has been adopted by the senate judiciary committee to
exempt Canadians from the U.S. border controls, the draconian
measures. That is a victory for constant representations by
government members and by the minister to the United States
government and the United States legislators. On the issue of
the 1974 administrative controls and their applications, we would
recognize of course that each country is sovereign.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he is quite correct that the senate
judiciary committee did approve it. Yesterday Senator Dianne
Feinstein of California vowed to fight Abraham's section 110 on
the floor of the senate.
Since the minister is relying so heavily on his feelings that
Albright is supporting this and on the support of the American
congress, does the government really believe that its attitude on
Cuba and the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba are going to assist
support from the American senate?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our discussions with the
United States on the application by the U.S. of border controls
on Canadians go back a long time. The results we have had have
been pursued in that context and have been successful to date. We
are working on the second question the hon. member is referring
to. The United States government is sovereign. That is a fact of
life but we have succeeded by friendly persuasion so far by
encouraging Senator Abraham and a group of allies in the United
States senate.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
If governments had to carry warning labels the Liberal
government would be plastered with the message “Warning:
Continued dependence on this product could be hazardous to your
health”. Hepatitis C victims learned that the hard way. Now
young people and old people are in peril. The Department of
Health intends to cut funds to programs that allow kids and
seniors to stay active and improve their chances of staying
healthy.
Will the government abandon these hazardous policies today and
give Canadians the chance we all deserve to work and to stay
healthy?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has tried
to confuse several issues here. I thought she was going to be
talking about hepatitis C, but I gather that she abandoned that.
She must have abandoned that after she heard what the
Saskatchewan health minister, who is a member of her party,
indicated about the cheap partisan treatment of this issue.
If the hon. member has another specific program she would like
to address, I would be delighted to address it.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the member was not briefed on my question.
If the Department of Health is not responsible in assisting
Canadians when they become ill due to no fault of their own and
intends to withdraw funding for proven preventive measures for
seniors and children, my question is simple. What is the ministry
responsible for if not for the health and welfare of all
Canadians?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite will
join all members in this House in applauding the wisdom of this
government in some of the measures it indicated already in the
budget.
We have indicated several billions of dollars worth of extended
benefits through transfers to the provinces. There is a
transition fund that is designed to improve research and
development in the area of health sciences. There is an
additional $800 million that the federal government itself put
forward for hepatitis C. The hon. member would probably be
delighted to know that the CAPC program has been expanded to $100
million.
I do not know how much longer she would like me to go on, Mr.
Speaker, but I—
The Deputy Speaker: That may not be clear, but I do not
want you to go on any longer. I am sorry about that. The hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Recently the New Brunswick minister of transportation said in
the New Brunswick Road Builder magazine “The latest
federal-provincial highway agreement worth $300 million on a
50:50 basis will be used to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway from
Longs Creek to the Quebec border”. The agreement has been
finalized.
Will the minister confirm the provincial minister's statement
that this $300 million agreement has been finalized, or at least
indicate the status of the agreement?
1150
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has agreed to allocate more
funds to the Canada-New Brunswick highway agreement. It will
take three years. It will cost about $150 million in terms of
the federal contribution in that period of time. That is to
afford the valuable twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway from the
Quebec border into the Fredericton area.
This is good for tourism and it is good for the economy. It
shows how this government is committed to putting funds into
Canada's highways.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on February 3, 1998 the minister said in the House in
discussions regarding the toll highway between Moncton and
Petitcodiac “we intend to make sure that this kind of situation
is planned for in future agreements with regard to preventing
toll highways”.
Would the minister absolutely and definitively assure the people
of New Brunswick and all Atlantic Canada that this $300 million
agreement will include clauses and conditions that preclude and
prevent any tolling of this section of highway?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the commitment was made before the hon. member drew
the valuable options to our attention with respect to highways
and the construction of highways in New Brunswick. As a result
we now have to look at that particular agreement to see that it
does reflect the concerns the member raised. This does not
mitigate the points the member made earlier, but we will
certainly look at it before any money is sent.
As the member knows, the money is only paid once the work is
done. There is still time to realize the objectives he has raised
in the House.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic
Diversification.
The Government of Canada has pledged to break the cycle of
economic underdevelopment in the aboriginal community. What is
being done in western Canada to enhance and encourage the
economic development and growth of aboriginal communities?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 100 points of service in western Canada
serving all western Canadians. Among them there are seven
community futures development programs that are exclusively for
aboriginal communities.
Just a couple of weeks ago there was a $950,000 investment to
the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg to develop entrepreneurship
among the aboriginal and Metis peoples.
Just recently there was $5 million for the Saskatchewan Indian
Federated College for infrastructure for a college of their own
to develop their human resource base.
Aboriginal peoples play a very important role in the economic
development of western Canada. What is good for the aboriginal
peoples of western Canada is good for western Canadians and is
good for Canada.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, someone should tell the Liberals where the province of
B.C. is. I did not hear that mentioned.
As Canadians are filling out their tax forms this year, they are
reliving the nightmare of the high tax levels in this country
while the government continues to dream up new spending programs.
While Canadian families are spending about $4,000 less now
because they do not have it since this government took over, why
do they have to have tax nightmares while the Liberal government
is dreaming up new spending programs?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if there is one government in the last 50 years that should be
congratulated for its results and in particular for reducing the
deficit in the country, it is ours.
As announced in the last budget, the government has indicated it
would reduce taxes for 14 million Canadians. This is what was
done in the last budget. More than 400,000 Canadians have been
taken off the tax rolls completely. This is what this government
has done for Canadian taxpayers.
The government has also indicated in the budget that over the
next few years it would continue to reduce taxes.
* * *
[Translation]
BURMA
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister for International Co-operation said she would be
prepared to restore the programs to provide assistance to
Myanmar.
However, Canada's ambassador to this country recently stated
that Burma was one of the worst Asian countries for human rights
violations and a major heroin exporter as well. He added that
changing the existing system would be a protracted effort.
1155
Does the government support the position of its minister, who is
thereby condoning one of the worst dictatorships in Asia?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts as reported by the hon.
member opposite are incorrect.
The Minister for International Co-operation has made it very
clear on many occasions in this House that we would all want to
be able to do more to help the people of Myanmar, or Burma, but
we cannot do anything until conditions improve.
I hope we can count on the support of the hon. member opposite
when conditions do improve—which will not be anytime soon, as
we all know—to help these unfortunate people who are in dire
need of help.
* * *
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I just learned that three curing plants have been visited by
armed Fisheries and Oceans officials. The owners of these plants
were treated like criminals. What is criminal in this issue is
for Fisheries and Oceans not to let herring fishers finish their
fishing season last spring.
We have had it with being treated this way. We have had it with
being harassed. Enough is enough. There is no work in our
region. The time has come to get off our backs.
Why does this government continue to attack our coastal
communities while ignoring the criminal activities of large
foreign vessels? People in my region want to know what is going
on.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed at the charges made by the hon.
member. I am sure that my colleague will be equally amazed. If
the member has some substantive information on these allegations,
she should provide that to the minister so he can respond very
quickly.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
This government has not learned from its make it up as you go
strategy for Kyoto and climate change. The environment minister
announced that a key component of her post Kyoto strategy would
be rewarding industries for early action.
Why did the government fail to provide a tangible sign that it
was serious when it tabled its budget in February? We saw no
serious tax incentives for research and development on energy
efficiency and renewable sources of energy. The government spoke
about the need for early action. Canadians would be happy with
any action from the government.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member
has effectively given me the opportunity to do is to point out
that Canada is indeed very committed to providing solutions to
this global problem. We will be participating with all Canadian
stakeholders in a made in Canada solution.
I point out that in the February budget we did introduce
measures which will provide solutions in terms of research and
development. We will be working with industry, other
governments, provincial governments, environmental stakeholders
and all Canadians to come up with a made in Canada solution. We
will be active.
* * *
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
Consumers across Canada are shopping on the Internet or doing
their banking from their homes. Canadians want to know what
initiatives the government has taken to ensure that they are
protected as consumers when they engage in electronic commerce?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government recognizes the enormous potential that
there is in electronic commerce. We expect to see its usage
increased dramatically over the next few years. We are intent
upon making Canada a world leader in its use and in building the
proper legal framework for electronic commerce.
Earlier today I addressed a group of consumers and business
representatives at a consumer round table on electronic commerce.
We are committed to bringing forward legislation as required to
deal with consumer protection issues and other issues that
concern consumers on electronic commerce, including the
protection of privacy, cryptography and other issues that are of
importance.
* * *
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the ice storm was in January. In February the minister
of agriculture unilaterally created a $50 million special program
for Quebec part time farmers ineligible under current disaster
relief criteria. Last month he announced a similar $20 million
for Ontario farmers, much needed quick action. However, for
Peace River farmers devastated by two years of excessive
moisture, there has been no help.
The Alberta agriculture minister wrote to the minister on April
1. He is still waiting for a response. Why is this minister
stonewalling western farmers—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
1200
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. The
assistance put in place by this government for part time farmers
in Quebec and Ontario was to make sure they got the same coverage
as the disaster funding assistance agreement provided to full
time farmers.
The farmers in Peace River are covered for all those things that
are insurable, as were farmers in the Quebec and Ontario regions.
They have been treated exactly the same for coverage as the
farmers in the other areas.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIORS BENEFIT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
current old age income security program has always been based on
the principle of universality.
Yet, the proposed new seniors benefit is to be based on family
income, which would deprive many women of their pensions.
What is the government waiting to make changes to its proposed
reform, so that all women get the equal treatment to which they
are entitled?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the seniors
benefit being implemented by the government gives special
consideration to the situation of women in particular.
Indeed, the proposed reforms will ensure the sustainability of
the seniors benefit program and will allow it to become even
more generous for those who will need it in the years to come,
particularly women. Our proposed amendments will help those who
have the greatest need for that benefit, and will make the
system—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt to hon. minister,
but Oral Question Period is over.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to the following motion.
I move:
That on Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the ordinary time of daily
adjournment, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall
take place, but a minister of the crown shall propose a motion
“That this House take note of the intention of the Government of
Canada to renew its participation in the NATO-led stabilization
force, SFOR, in Bosnia beyond June 20, 1998 in order to maintain
a safe environment for reconstruction and reconciliation and a
lasting peace for the people of Bosnia-Herzogovina”; and
That during the consideration of this said motion, the first
spokesperson for each party may speak for no more than twenty
minutes, other members may speak for no more than ten minutes,
no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent for any purpose
or dilatory motion shall be received by the Chair and, when no
member wishes to speak, the House shall adjourn to the next
sitting day.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, to clear up any
misunderstanding, could the government House leader clarify that
this will take place after the votes that are scheduled for
Tuesday.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, not only after the votes,
because after the votes there is also private members' hour, but
after the conclusion of private members' hour; in other words, as
the motion indicates, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment
which is immediately following the end of private members' hour,
which will be delayed by the time of the votes. In other words,
it will take place around 7.00 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[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 five 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 28th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and
Government Operations.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the report be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
RAILROADS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of identical petitions bearing a total
of 1,236 signatures from residents of west central Saskatchewan.
These people in rural Saskatchewan are very concerned about the
imminent threat to their railroads which are in the process of
piecemeal abandonment by Canadian National railway. They are at
this time attempting to negotiate with the railroad to have
piecemeal abandonment stopped and wish to buy all the track in
the area, some 300 miles of track, from the railroad.
The petitioners ask parliament that CN be required to abide by
the spirit of the law and make available for purchase the branch
line in its entirety.
Second, they want parliament to review the Canada Transportation
Act to ensure that railways cannot obstruct the creation of short
line railways on branch lines that they intend to discontinue.
HEALTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
present another in a series of petitions on behalf of the 18,000
Canadians who suffer from end stage kidney disease.
These over 300 petitioners work in places like Cogeco, the GM
truck plant, the medical centre, Beaver Lumber and various
branches of the CIBC in Peterborough.
The petitioners support the development of a bioartificial
kidney in Canada. They recognize that kidney dialysis and
transplantation are useful treatments for many people, but they
believe that dialysis service is inadequate across the country
and they call on parliament to work and support the bioartificial
kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis
and transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
BILL C-68
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition with 50 signatures from my
constituents in Courtenay, B.C. and Comox, B.C.
The petitioners are asking parliament to repeal Bill C-68, the
firearms bill, and to direct the funds that are being used on the
licensing of responsible gun owners into more cost effective
programs to reduce violent crime by improving public safety
through crime prevention programs, more police on the streets,
more anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting
organized crime and street gangs.
1210
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed by 35 people from my riding on
the multilateral agreement on investment. These signatures
indicate that they are very concerned with the MAI and they are
concerned with the impact on the environment, employment, social
programs, health care and culture.
The petitioners are asking that there be public hearings before
any of this goes on further.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition
signed by some 480 citizens calling on parliament to raise the
age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an
adult from 14 to 16.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table multiple
petitions that I continue to receive with respect to the
opposition from hundreds of people of Cape Breton Island in the
province of Nova Scotia with respect to the changes to the Canada
pension plan.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by members of my constituency in the Regina area
asking that parliament support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that
will set a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I address my comments to the parliamentary secretary. I would
like to draw his attention to my production of papers motion P-8
which has been on the order paper for five months.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has a problem.
Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers are dealt with on
Wednesdays and his intervention in respect of that on Wednesday
would be entirely inappropriate.
If the member is seeking to raise something about the written
questions, I would be glad to hear his point of order. If it is
on Motion for the Production of Papers, I respectfully suggest he
do that on Wednesday when those come up. They are not up for
discussion today.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I will raise that on
Wednesday.
However, my Questions Nos. 78 and 79 are beyond the requested 45
day reporting window and I have yet to receive a response. I
would like to know from the parliamentary secretary when I can
expect a response.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member
if there is this delay. I have noted Questions Nos. 78 and 79
and I will do my very best to find out where they are. Even
though it may be out of order, I will look into P-8.
The Deputy Speaker: I am simply trying to save the time
of the House. I think it would be appropriate to raise this
matter on that day and I hope the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt understands the reason for the ruling.
Is it agreed that all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1998
The House resume 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.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this second
part of my speech, I would like to draw members' attention to
the fact that Bill C-32 is not part of a decentralizing approach.
It renews the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has
been so vigorously opposed by the various governments of Quebec.
In the last parliament, the Liberal government attempted to get
the previous version of this bill passed, but gave up the
attempt in light of the huge outcry, which could have
jeopardized the upcoming elections.
Bill C-74 therefore died on
the Order Paper last session, but CEPA calls for a five-year
review and that deadline is already past, so the government is
at it again, introducing a bill that maintains the national
vision, which still does not sit well with the members of the
National Assembly.
What is the purpose of this bill? With it, the prevention of
pollution becomes a national objective.
1215
The government wants to amend Canada's legislation on the
environment by changing certain technicalities while maintaining
the essence of a centralizing vision of environmental
protection.
The legislation introduces 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.
There is a broad range of such substances. Investigators will
be given new powers, for example, and there will be new
regulatory measures to deal with offences. Barely a few weeks
after the sensational statement by senior officials of the
Department of the Environment, who wondered openly whether their
department could still monitor offending businesses as cuts had
been so draconian, we may well ask ourselves what purpose is
served exactly by tightening offence regulations if they cannot
be enforced.
We are in favour of including the Native peoples in the
environmental assessment process. We wonder, however, about the
double standard in the degree of openness toward the Native
peoples and Quebec.
Native representation on a national advisory committee, as with
the provinces and the territories, in fact diminishes the power
of Quebec, which like the Native peoples wants to deal with the
rest of Canada nation to nation.
What powers will the renewed CEPA delegate to Quebec and the
other provinces in Canada? Although in theory Bill C-32
recognizes that responsibility for the environment is shared
between the federal government and the provinces, in practice it
delegates no powers to them, and this runs counter to real
environmental harmonization between the various levels of
government.
Bill C-32 unfortunately aims at strengthening the federal
government's preponderance in the field of environmental
protection.
This centralization runs counter to the clearly expressed wish
of the National Assembly to participate fully in the
environmental assessment of any project on its territory. The
bill is also in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of the
harmonization process launched between the federal government
and the provinces.
This is why the Government of Quebec has pulled out of
negotiations, and is looking further into this promising
process.
The bill thus opens the door to duplication of federal and
provincial powers. The federal government is justifying its
interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by invoking the
recent supreme court decision with respect to Hydro-Québec. This
case has always been contested by Quebec.
All the courts that ruled on it, including Quebec's highest
court, the Court of Appeal, declared the federal government's
order invalid.
Only the supreme court, with its unitary vision of Canada,
overturned the Quebec court rulings.
Bill C-32 also contains a number of new features. For instance,
the government wants to replace the existing federal-provincial
CEPA committee with a new national advisory committee. This
committee would consist of one representative each from
Environment Canada and Health Canada, one representative from
each province and territory, and up to six aboriginal
representatives.
This committee will advise the two federal ministers on the
drafting of regulations, the management of toxic substances, and
other matters of mutual interest. The provinces will advise the
federal minister through a national advisory committee.
The bill contains provisions for the signing of co-operation
agreements covering activities such as inspections,
investigations and the collection of monitoring data.
The bill also includes provisions relating specifically to
aboriginal governments. They will have the same rights and
responsibilities as provincial and territorial governments,
including the right to conclude administrative and work-sharing
agreements and equivalent provision agreements with the federal
government.
In addition, they must be consulted with respect to all
environmental matters affecting their territories. Up to six
representatives will sit on the national advisory committee.
Again, it is surprising to see that Quebec does not get such
recognition of its specificity and its culture.
The new act also provides for increased public participation and
for better protection for those who report CEPA violations.
Individuals will be allowed to play a role in the decision
making process, by submitting to the Minister of the Environment
comments or notices of opposition following certain decisions,
and by asking the minister to investigate alleged violations of
the act.
1220
The bill also provides that individuals' identity may not be
disclosed, and it protects employees who report violations under
the federal legislation. It will also allow individuals to bring
civil action to protect the environment when the government is
not enforcing the law.
As for public information, such information will no longer be
limited to the data found in the Canada Gazette. The act will
create a new public registry that will include all environmental
information published under the CEPA, including decisions and
regulations. This registry will complete the 1993 National
Pollutant Release Inventory.
As regards pollution prevention, this issue will become a
national objective.
The minister will have the authority to require a pollution
prevention plan in respect of substances deemed toxic under the
CEPA. A tribunal will also be authorized to demand a pollution
prevention plan, an environmental emergency plan, or to rule
that research must be done on the use and the elimination of the
substances involved in the violation.
The new act creates a national information centre on pollution
prevention to help the industry share the knowledge and
technologies that relate to pollution prevention activities. The
new CEPA also provides for the establishment of a reward program
to recognize the voluntary efforts made by the industry to
prevent pollution.
As for the protection of water, the bill seeks to protect marine
environment against land and atmospheric pollution sources.
It also limits what can be disposed of in the sea to a list of
non-hazardous materials, and will require those desiring to carry
out such a disposal to prove that this is the best solution and
that reuse or recycling is not possible.
The federal government feels that this bill will enable it to
work, with the United States in particular, to prevent or
restrict cross-border marine pollution.
Bill C-32 will enhance the EPA's authority as far as fuel and
fuel additives are concerned. Imported fuels, as well as those
crossing Canada's provincial and territorial boundaries, must
meet certain requirements. The bill will confer the ability to
establish a national fuel mark to indicate compliance with
environmental standards for fuel.
Where international atmospheric pollution is concerned, the
government wants to do onto others as they do onto it. When a
state has not allowed Canada rights similar to those Canada has
allowed, the federal minister's will have the option to take
action in cases of international atmospheric pollution.
As for protection of the air, Bill C-32 calls for a national
emissions mark for equipment meeting its standards. It
incorporates the power to limit engine emissions. These
provisions apply to motor vehicles in general, which include
pleasure craft, construction equipment, farm machinery,
snowblowers and lawn mowers.
The bill also includes enhanced federal power over cross-border
traffic involving hazardous and non-hazardous waste, domestic
garbage in particular.
We have touched on some of the aspects of this bill.
We cannot explain why the bill clashes with the harmonization
the government claims to have as a priority.
As we recall, Quebec refused to sign the Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment agreement this past January 29.
When the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment met at
that time, Quebec Environment Minister Paul Bégin refused to
subscribe to that agreement, as long as the conditions called
for by Quebec are not met by the federal government.
These conditions include recognizing that Quebec has primary
jurisdiction in certain areas, under the constitution, a firm
commitment on the part of the federal government to amend
federal legislation accordingly, and finally, the signature by
Quebec and the federal government of a bilateral agreement on
environmental assessment.
1225
Moreover, Minister Bégin stressed that the federal government's
plans to revise the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,
giving the federal government increased powers, contravened the
spirit and goals of the environmental harmonization accord
negotiations, especially with regard to preventing overlap and
intergovernmental conflicts.
Minister Bégin's position underscored our own, as expressed in
the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion made public in December
1997. This step followed the one taken on November 20, 1996.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment had then
tentatively agreed to the Canada-wide environmental harmonization
accord as well as two subagreements on inspections and
standards. The subagreement on environmental assessment was
negotiated during the winter of 1997.
It was aimed at improving the protection of the environment in
order to contribute to sustainable development, while respecting
each government's fields of jurisdiction in a more efficient
manner. It contained general principles to be implemented
through subagreements.
The Bloc Quebecois has always supported harmonization between
the federal government and the provinces if it eliminates
overlap and administrative and legislative duplication between
both levels of government.
So, we are in favour of environmental harmonization as long as
it is not used by the federal government to hide its
interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction or, conversely,
to dump programs on the provinces without the appropriate
funding.
It is essential that harmonization recognize the exclusive or
primary jurisdiction of the provinces in the areas entrusted to
them by the Constitution. The spirit of harmonization must be
reflected in the changes the federal government is making to
existing legislation.
Lastly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that only the Quebec
environmental assessment process must prevail in the province of
Quebec.
The harmonization sought by the federal government must be
reflected in its legislative agenda. However, we think that Bill
C-32 does not take into consideration the legislative
harmonization process envisioned by the federal government and
the provinces and is simply another example of federal
interference in a provincial area of jurisdiction.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that this new piece of legislation
goes against the past positions taken by Quebec and against the
spirit of the federal-provincial harmonization initiative.
The Bloc Quebecois thinks it is unfortunate that the federal
government refuses to put into law its good intentions in terms
of environmental harmonization and prefers to hide behind a
Supreme Court ruling that it can use as an argument for
centralization.
In conclusion, the bill confirms that, with the latest Supreme
Court ruling on environmental matters, the federal government is
trying to broaden its powers in this area. Although the federal
and provincial governments share responsibility for the
environment under the Constitution, the Liberal government
clearly wants to subordinate the role of the provinces to that
of the central government.
The emphasis on pollution prevention as a method of priority
intervention with the power to require pollution prevention
plans, which are mandatory for substances included in the list
of priority toxic substances, involves the development of a
direct partnership between the federal government and industrial
sectors that are already partly covered under Quebec programs,
such as the industrial waste reduction program that has been
implemented in the pulp and paper industry.
The measures contained in Bill C-32 will allow the federal
government to establish national priorities for intervention.
Therefore, the provinces will have no choice but to adopt
federal regulations, otherwise they will be forced to see the
federal government serve the same clientele.
1230
The legislative and regulatory powers that the federal
government is giving itself are very important, and while the
Liberal government is constantly talking about its willingness
to work in partnership with the provinces, it nevertheless
institutionalizes its powers in order to play a paternalistic
role towards the provinces. That is what the Bloc Quebecois
deplores.
In conclusion, in light of what I just said, we in the Bloc
Quebecois are against the principle of this bill at the second
reading stage.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, an act respecting
pollution and the protection of the environment and human health
in order to contribute to sustainable development.
On behalf of my colleague, the member for Churchill River, my
constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore and the New Democratic
Party, we are 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 which continues the Liberal policy of
devolution and the removal of federal responsibilities for
environmental protection.
Bill C-32 is a reintroduction of Bill C-74 which died with the
election call last year. I will not speak today on it section by
section, clause by clause, point by point. The legislation spans
200 plus pages and contains 356 clauses. I wish to address the
reasons for and the basic principles behind the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, also known as CEPA.
CEPA was developed in the mid-1980s when there was growing
concern about the presence of toxic substances in the environment
and the adverse impacts on the environment from a variety of
pollution sources and industries contributing thereto.
This consciousness was not an oversight revelation that
something was suddenly wrong with the environment. The move
toward and calls for improved environmental protection came from
a heightened awareness that man can damage the environment, that
man can poison the air we breathe, that man can contaminate the
waters we drink and that man can destroy the soil we walk upon.
A key turning point was the publication of a book written by a
very brave woman ahead of the times, a book of revelations and
thoughts so contrary to the industrial complex and the misguided
beliefs that the earth is an endless supply house for our
personal use and pillage.
The book provoked controversy. The very idea that someone could
espouse such views was considered an outlandish travesty. The
book was Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. I urge my
colleagues to read it as we embark upon the review and
restructuring of CEPA. It paints the picture I believe we are
revisiting in the current Bill C-32.
Environmental protection is a requirement. Environmental
protection is not an option. The Brundtland statement on
sustainable development is not words. It is a practice few
countries embrace by deed or implement by actions. It is
development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
The founding principles for sustainable development can include
some compromise adaptation for different regions or socioeconomic
concerns. However there are lines we cannot cross if we are to
avoid the mistakes of the past, the environmental degradation we
must acknowledge if we are to move forward as a society and
protect the environment for future generations.
Bill C-32 states “the protection of the environment and human
health in order to contribute to sustainable development”. The
environment and human health cannot be considered as separate
entities. They are tied together as one. A healthy environment
provides healthy living. Rachel Carson identified the link in
the basic process through language easily understood by
individuals.
Several events contributed to the original CEPA: beyond
Silent Spring, the travesty at Love Canal, the accident at
Bhopal, the poisoned Beluga whales washing ashore along the St.
Lawrence, the acid rain carried between countries and the near
loss of North America's Great Lakes ecosystem.
The original CEPA provided the first steps toward recovery, a
check and balance between dangerous environmental practices and
sustainable policies.
1235
Why do we need the legislation? We were being poisoned. Our
children's future was being compromised. Legislation to ensure
the protection of the environment which supports us as a species
was required. The polluters polluted; the victims suffered and
died. By victims we cannot consider man as the sole reason for
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 polluters and to support
sustainable development beyond the generation.
Bill C-32 has strayed from the original principles to protect
and to provide recourse. As science and technology evolved in
the past decade, the ability and capacity for corporations and
people to act responsibly toward the environment and to
demonstrate environmental stewardship also evolved.
The industrial complex has discovered that clean operations
equal efficiency and increased profits. The majority of former
polluters practise environmental stewardship. This is a fact. It
is recognized internationally that environmental protection and
sustainable development can flourish together.
Going green does not cost jobs or decrease productivity, a
principle the New Democratic Party has stated time and again in
the House and across the country. The original CEPA followed a
command and control regulatory framework to be reviewed for its
adequacy every five years. A decade has passed and we are
revisiting our responsibility as a federal government and as
members representing Canadians from all regions and provinces.
Bill C-32 is straying from that original regulatory structure
and visiting the very policy that required CEPA in the 1980s:
voluntary measures and limited federal intervention.
The Liberal government has demonstrated a consistent approach to
environmental policy: ignore until an issue climate change and
global warming; finances first before the environment or, as my
colleagues have described, Environment Canada decimated by
resource and staff cuts; economic concerns first and
environmental consideration second, an example is Cheviot mine in
Alberta; unit politicking and devolution to the provinces, the
harmonization accord; international embarrassment for failed
targets, Rio and in a few years Kyoto; and global competitiveness
as a moral marker.
The Liberal government has demonstrated time and time again that
the environment is not important. “Let the provinces handle the
problem, similar to what they are doing with hepatitis C. We can
wash our hands clean of the responsibility. The next Plastimet
will be someone else's travesty. The Swan Hills plant will
continue to spew poisons. The Sydney tar ponds, the United
States abandoned military sites, the Lachine canal, northern
contamination through the Arctic and poisons in mothers' milk,
not our problems”.
What is wrong with this Liberal picture? It is not protection
by design and legislation: sign an accord, cry co-operation and
put the Canadian public at the mercy of economics and global
competitive policy.
It took a year for the House Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development to complete the last review of CEPA.
Its report entitled “It's About our Health: Pollution
Prevention” echoes Ms. Carson's Silent Spring. This
massive report contained 141 recommendations to improve Bill
C-32's predecessor, Bill C-74.
The Liberals refused the majority of the recommendations and the
majority of the 400 responses received by the government during
the public review. They ignored the consensus and followed a
detrimental path: devolution, voluntary programs and voluntary
participation. In most cases this practice works and the New
Democratic Party recognizes this fact. There are however bad
apples.
The rules and regulations are necessary to ensure that when
damage occurs, when environmental degradation occurs, when
protection is required, there is a mechanism for redress, a legal
course of action.
We do not believe that Canada's environment requires a command
and control regulatory framework as the sole parameter or measure
of environmental protection. There should be co-operative
measures including sharing of responsibilities between provinces
and territorial governments, indeed at all government levels, to
ensure environmental protection of the highest possible standard.
On a more personal note, my family and I firmly believe that the
bill does nothing to protect my children's future or my
children's children's future. I encourage the government to
revisit Bill C-32 and to listen to the voices out there to
improve these regulations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chris Axworthy): The hon. member
for Fundy—Royal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
sincere congratulations on fulfilling your role as Speaker this
afternoon.
I must say decorum and conduct in the House are almost
unprecedented.
1240
It is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, a most comprehensive piece of
legislation with respect to environmental management and
development.
It is an extremely complex piece of legislation. It is long. It
is over 200 pages and covers a wide variety of subjects from
toxic substance and waste management to vehicle emissions and air
and water pollution. It has been called everything from an
environmental war measures act to a piece of legislation so vast
and sweeping that it defies categorization.
I do not wish at this point to go into any great detail on any
specific clause. That will be our role in committee. There are
a couple of areas of concern to me. First is the issue of
pollution prevention. The government has stated that pollution
prevention is the cornerstone of the bill. It calls it a
national goal, which is fine for me because I believe it is a
very laudable intention.
However I am concerned about the consequences of this
commitment. Has the government thought it out? The bill gives
the minister the authority to require any person or business to
develop and submit a pollution prevention plan. How much will it
cost? How detailed will it have to be? Will it be the same for
small business as for big industry?
What about time? The bill states that the government can tell a
business how much time it has to draw up and implement a plan.
Will there be any guarantee that business will be given enough
time to study the problem and consult the people who will help
draw up the plan, or will everything be left merely to the
discretion of the minister?
I make reference to a clause found in paragraph 6. It states
essentially that lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
damage. Any kind of environmental legislation must be based upon
science. At the end of the day it is imperative that we take a
very prudent approach to our sustainable management if there is
any thought that any kind of environmental initiative or toxin
could potentially harm any citizen's health or the environment of
the country. The government should be applauded for this very
prudent initiative.
This is a different era in terms of political parties in Canada.
We can look at the number of parties we have on this side of the
House. We talk about the Progressive Conservative Party. We
talk about the Reform Party. I make clear that I respect
individuals who chose to vote Reform in past years for different
reasons. In some situations it was a way to express a desire for
better representation for the western provinces. We applaud
that.
More often than not, the media and the electorate are looking at
areas that actually distinguish political parties. One such area
is a prudent approach to science. We believe categorically in
the science of climate change. The Reform Party has chosen to
ignore the science of climate change because it believes there is
some doubt. The primary scientific body on climate change set up
by the United Nations said there was a discernible human
influence on climate change. This is a case in point for people
looking for areas to distinguish the two parties. Ours is a
prudent approach to the environment.
My second area of concern is about the enforcement clauses
contained in the bill. These are found in part 10 which contains
almost 100 clauses of the 356 clauses in the legislation. They
cover areas like inspection, search, detention, forfeiture,
offences and punishment. In light of the preponderance of
enforcement clauses in the bill, almost one in three, I am
surprised no mention is made in the preamble of the government's
position on the matter of enforcement. To me 100 clauses says
that we are determined to do something.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes the bill is
important. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
introduced the Environmental Protection Act in 1988. It was
brought forward by the Hon. Jean J. Charest.
1245
We think that protection of the environment is important, but
recent reports of the auditor general and the environment
commissioner have raised doubts about this. Not only do they
take issue with this government's ability to manage the
environment properly but, more fundamentally, they seriously
question its very commitment to protect Canada's environment and
its ability to enforce environmental legislation.
In January of this year the federal, provincial and territorial
governments, with the exception of Quebec, signed an
environmental harmonization accord. This accord, like much of
what this government attempts to do in the environment field, has
been the target of much criticism. People are asking why it
contains no provision guaranteeing environmental enforcement.
They are upset that the federal government is offloading its
responsibilities to the provinces, particularly in the areas of
environmental inspection, assessment and standard setting.
One of the other criticisms they have on the harmonization
accord is the fact that the government actually chose to do
inspections of environmental regulations during the first
subagreements with the provinces, but not enforcement. So
inspections can be done, but violations cannot be enforced.
Perhaps the government understands this. However, the
environmental community and common sense Canadians understand
that enforcement and inspection should have been part of the
first set of subagreements.
The government claims that it is not downloading its
responsibilities to the provinces. It is simply harmonizing
environmental programs and policies. It is making sure if one
level of government is fulfilling a task competently that another
level will not come in and begin doing the same job. That is the
intention of harmonization and that would be a good thing.
However, according to the information on the accord I obtained
from the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's
website, it is clear the government is devolving power to the
provinces.
Looking at the objectives of the accord, they include using what
the government calls a co-operative approach. Under the
principles of the accord we see that decisions pursuant to the
accord will be consensus based. In the part entitled
“Subagreements”, No. 8 states specifically that in areas where
governments have been unable to reach a consensus on a
Canada-wide approach, each government is free to act within its
existing authority and will advise the other governments
accordingly.
Co-operative approach and consensus approach are words that mean
only one thing. The federal government is getting out of the
environment business. It is abandoning its role as a setter and
a guarantor of national standards.
The government's haste to relinquish power and responsibility to
the provinces over environmental matters is going to have a
direct consequence on environmental enforcement. This much is
certain. Regional disparities or the so-called patchwork effect
are going to become the rule rather than the exception. The
environment is a shared jurisdiction and we know that shared
jurisdictions lead to unequal application of laws and
regulations.
I would refer to a question that I asked on March 19 in the
House during question period with respect to this very issue. I
believe it would be very important for us to revisit the question
at this time. Essentially, I pointed out to the minister that
when it comes to enforcement in the province of New Brunswick
there is only one enforcement officer for a province of 750,000
persons. There is only one enforcement officer for an economy
that is resource based, with industries such as pulp and paper
and other heavy industry. I believe it would be more prudent to
have better investigations.
It is not just New Brunswick. In the province of Ontario one of
the minister's officials stated in committee on February 26 that
if there are not the resources for a CEPA regulation that needs
to be investigated, then it basically sits in a file until an
investigator is freed up. If an investigator is not freed up
over a period of a year or two years, then a file is simply
closed. That is shameful. Canadians want to know how many
environmental regulations which are violated end up in a file
that simply gets closed.
The environment is a shared jurisdiction. It is known that
shared jurisdictions lead to the unequal application of laws or
regulations. This is especially true when there are no national
benchmarks and no single points of authority.
In this country each province and territory has its own
political culture, its own employment needs and its own set of
relationships with business and industry.
Each applies and enforces laws and regulations according to their
needs. Lacking in overall authority, namely the federal
government, it is clear that the chances of CEPA being enforced
with any rigour or consistency are remote. They get even more
remote when we consider how little money and resources are being
allotted to enforcement.
1250
With 100 clauses the government is making a major commitment to
enforcing CEPA. Yet as the draft report of the environment
committee points out, at the same time the government is failing
to provide the department most responsible for enforcement the
necessary wherewithal to accomplish its task.
When this government came to office, Environment Canada's budget
was approximately $750 million and it employed nearly 6,000
persons. Today the department's budget has been reduced to a
touch over $500 million and the number of employees has shrunk to
a little more than 4,000; a 33% cut on environmental management.
That is the record of this government.
Obviously these reductions have not been without consequences on
the department's ability to enforce CEPA properly. Last summer,
in fact, things got so bad that the director of the department's
enforcement branch admitted publicly that it was considering
asking the RCMP to help track polluters. The Mounties would
be going after polluters.
Just last week we learned that this same branch plans to cut
more staff, meaning that Environment Canada will be dedicating
the grand total of approximately 1% of its staff to enforcement.
This is a bizarre situation.
If we really think of it, one in three or 33% of this bill's
clauses deals with enforcement. Yet out of a total budget of
$500 million, a mere $16 million is allocated to enforcement.
These are hardly the types of figures a government claiming to be
committed to protecting the environment and enforcing CEPA's
rules can accept. If it can, Environment Canada cannot
realistically be expected to play anything but a minor role in
the enforcement of environmental regulations in this country from
now on. This means that by default the task in enforcing CEPA
will fall to the provinces.
These statistics are very sobering; indeed, alarming. We are
going to ask the provinces to actually carry the enforcement ball
even more so. Let us look at what the provinces are doing these
days with respect to environmental management.
In New Brunswick annual spending on enforcement, planning and so
forth has dropped from $17 million in 1991-92 to a mere $12
million today. In Newfoundland the environmental department has
had to absorb a 60% cut in its budget since 1994-95.
These statistics are indeed sobering. They also point out that
the environment is not a priority of this government any more. It
does not take a nuclear physicist to judge the impact that these
continued and sustained cuts to environmental budgets are having
on the ability and the will of different environmental
departments to enforce regulations. Governments simply cannot
continue cutting budgets and staff while maintaining, in some
cases increasing, the mandate of their environment departments.
I would like to point one thing out. I am what I consider to be
a devout fiscal conservative. I think it is very important for
governments to live within their means. We need to ensure that
we have very strong debt reduction targets so that there is an
actual investment in our future and we do not continue to
mortgage the future of younger generations.
High debt levels actually affect our country's competitiveness
to be able to compete. Why? It is because taxes actually impede
our ability to compete, but we can never lower taxes unless we
eliminate the pressures that cause high taxes and those pressures
are spending.
What we need to do is pay down our debt so we actually pay less
money in interest charges on a year to year basis. Then it comes
to establishing our priorities. A government that has too many
priorities, by definition, does not have any.
What I am pointing out is that the government should be
investing in its people and its future. We should allocate our
moneys where the citizens of this country want them, in the
health care system and in the education system. As well,
Canadians want to be assured of a healthy, sound environment in
which to live.
1255
My last concern about this bill relates to the proposal to allow
anyone over 18 to provoke an investigation of any person or
business felt to be contravening the act. This particular clause
makes me very uneasy. I am in favour of measures to increase
public participation in the environmental process, but we are
opening the door to malicious and vexatious investigations by
individuals and groups with personal grudges or corporate
agendas.
Overall, I am somewhat disappointed with the scope of this bill.
This is particularly so in light of the great expectations
engendered by the Liberals over the environment issue. In fact,
Great Expectations could well be the title of the Liberal
environmental policy since 1993.
Members will recall that one-eighth of the first red book was
devoted to the environment, thanks to the efforts of one of its
authors, the present finance minister, who was then the
opposition environment critic. The red book was not the only
promise. Since coming to government one environment minister
after another has made promise upon promise to do great things
for the environment. That is why this bill is so disappointing.
It simply does not live up to its billing. It fails to meet the
hopes raised through years of unbridled rhetoric.
The question that inevitably comes to mind is: Why, after so
much debate and so many promises, has this bill fallen so short
of the mark? The first and most obvious reason is that the
Liberal Party has lost interest in managing the environment. In
its rush to adopt as many of the previous government's policies
and positions as it could, there is no longer any room on the
policy plate for the environment.
The second reason is that the former environment critic, the
current finance minister, has other things on his mind these days
than the protection of the environment.
After this government was hit hard by its pre-Kyoto “make it up
as we go strategy”, we would have thought that one of the
principal actions of the government in the new year, given the
minister's comments in January that the cornerstone of its
post-Kyoto strategy was rewarding industry for early action on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, would have been to put an
initiative in the budget for tax incentives for research and
development on energy efficiency, for the use of renewable energy
sources and for the development of renewable energy sources.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the
Progressive Conservative Party will support Bill C-32 in its
current form. We will have to look at in terms of what comes out
of committee. It is a more workable bill than Bill C-74 was. It
is an extension of what the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
was initially set out to be. It is our cornerstone bill of
legislation with respect to the environment. It is a bill that
the current member for Sherbrooke brought in when he was
environment minister between 1990 and 1993.
That gentleman had a very successful record in managing the
environment. This House will actually miss his leadership and
his commitment to the environment, as well as his commitment to
Canadians as he takes on other challenges for our country.
In the time remaining I would like to point out that this
government must be challenged over the coming days and weeks to
ensure that the environment becomes a priority again.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated
my Conservative colleague's presentation. I know from often
discussing environmental issues with him that we often share
concerns in this respect. We sit on the same parliamentary
committee and we often attend the same international
conferences, including the one in Kyoto, to reduce greenhouse
gases.
We also agree on the federal government's inability to resolve
the problem. I think that we can agree on that.
1300
What we never agree on—“but that is how our system works—” is
which level of government should be responsible for
environmental issues. Is it a centralized or central government?
Is it the responsibility of the federal government or the
provinces? Does the Government of Quebec have jurisdiction?
The harmonization process and the agreement were quite clear.
There was a principle which stated that every effort would be
made to eliminate duplication and overlap. Today, the government
brings in Bill C-32. Every aspect of this bill is set in a
national context or spirit.
I have a simple question for my colleague from the Conservative
Party.
Does he agree that the national principle underlying Bill C-32
is contrary to the stated principles of harmonization?
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows there will
be a long answer, but my short answer to the question generally
is no.
Canadians believe that the management of the environment is a
shared jurisdiction. All levels of government, provincial,
federal and I may also add municipal, have a role to play with
respect to environmental management.
That said, it is imperative that our federal and provincial
governments work in a more co-operative manner so we can manage
and utilize our resources to ensure that whichever level of
government is best served to deliver a certain function with
respect to environmental management, that level of government
should do it. At the end of the day, I believe the provinces
should deliver a number of services which the federal government
does today.
The population of Canada wants to know that the federal
government is the principal governmental body that provides
leadership for this country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since I was
the official opposition environment critic in the last
parliament, I will make a few comments.
In the last parliament, we studied Bill C-74 for almost a year
and a half. The Bloc Quebecois had tabled a minority report
during that study and our concerns remain the same. They are
still related to the fact that, in the bill, the federal
government is again interfering in provincial jurisdiction.
Here are my concerns: are there not some risks, in this bill, of
never ending legal challenges between the federal and provincial
governments, once again?
If we look at the CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, that was passed during the last parliament, and if we look
at what is happening at this time, we realize that legal
challenges have already been launched, involving Quebec and the
federal government, again because the federal government is
interfering in provincial jurisdiction.
In Quebec, we have the BAPE, which does some extraordinary work
with environmental assessments. If the federal government comes
and interferes in assessments that have already been done, and
says it is not satisfied with our assessments, this will delay
some projects, business projects, big projects, major projects
that will not be undertaken because for five, six or seven
years, money will be spent going around in circles because of
dry legal challenges.
That is my concern. Is the federal government not again
interfering in a provincial jurisdiction?
Having been involved for more than three years, I think the
environment is better managed close to the people than at a
higher level.
If we look at the cuts in the federal environment
department, how are they going to properly enforce an act when,
because of the huge cuts, they do not know who will enforce it?
How will they succeed in doing this? Will there be an
environmental police on the highways? That is impossible,
because they do not have the means to do it.
1305
Are the revision of the CEPA and the meddling in provincial
jurisdiction and causing endless legal wrangling nothing more
than window dressing?
I do not know whether my colleague has any comments in this
regard. Clearly the environment is a priority because it
involves our future. On the other hand, we must ensure, if
legislation is to be properly applied, that we do not
systematically block what is already happening provincially.
Let us look at the broader picture and cut in financial terms as
well. If we try to come up with situations that are intolerable
and unliveable we will be doing the environment no favours, in
fact, quite the opposite, we will harm it.
I would like to hear what my colleague in the Conservative Party
has to say.
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for the question. She raises a number of very relevant points
some of which I would like to touch on.
I understand that where my colleague is coming from is that the
government has shown a tendency to interfere in a number of
provincial jurisdictions where it is just not welcome. At the
end of the day it does not make sense for the federal government
to interfere in areas which are clearly within provincial
jurisdiction.
A case in point is that of education. Education is something
that belongs in the provincial realm. Except for maybe
post-secondary education, the federal government really has no
direct role in interfering with the provinces unless the
provinces want to participate in a particular program. For
instance if the province of Quebec wanted to do something about
post-secondary education with the federal government and it was
more Quebec's idea than that of the federal government, then
maybe they might go ahead and do that, but education is something
that belongs to the provinces.
Another case in point is Quebec's right to self-determination.
Clearly Quebec's right to self-determination and the unity issue
of this country is a political decision. It is not a legal
decision. There is no reason for the government to privatize the
political process and send this issue to the supreme court.
If the hon. member has concerns about federal interference in
provincial areas, I understand where she is coming from because
there are times when the federal government interferes in areas
where it does not belong. That said, I fundamentally believe the
environment is an area of shared jurisdiction.
The hon. member touched on a couple of points. One of the things
I would like to comment on is that this is the first piece of
environmental legislation of any note that the government has
brought forth since being elected on October 25, 1993. Bravo. It
is a good piece of legislation because we first brought it in
back in 1988. The only piece of legislation the government has
actually brought forth was to update a solid piece of legislation
which our party first introduced in 1988.
The hon. member raised some questions and concerns with respect
to enforcement of environmental regulations. There are 100
clauses in the legislation which refer to enforcement but the
federal government does not allocate the resources to have
enforcements in the first place. If the hon. member is concerned
that it is really nice that we have this legislation but we are
not going to enforce it, I think at the end of the day the
federal government is required to send the resources to the
provinces to ensure that the environmental regulations are
actually carried out.
As to the other points the hon. member brought forth, perhaps I
could catch up with her at a later time to finish this
conversation to permit other questions in the House.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is spinning so hard he is driving himself
into the ground in terms of this and other legislation.
My question relates to the member's comment. He is justifying
the legislation on the basis that because it was introduced
during the time of the Tory administration in 1988 it has to be
good. Does the member feel the same way about all legislation
introduced by the previous government?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that
question is absolutely no. The fact is that the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, known as CEPA 88, was a solid piece
of legislation, something that should continue on a regular
basis.
1310
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me on behalf
of the Minister of Health to support the opening remarks made by
my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment on Bill C-32 and to bring to this debate the
perspective of the Minister of Health.
Health Canada's mission is to help the people of Canada maintain
and improve their health as a colleague opposite indicated during
question period. To protect and promote the health of Canadians
is a federal responsibility embedded in the constitution.
[Translation]
The Department of Health plays an important role in the
application of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and
will continue to do so under the new legislation, which bears
the appropriate title of an act respecting pollution prevention
and the protection of the environment and human health in order
to contribute to sustainable development.
I would take this opportunity to remind members of our
responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act.
In conjunction with Environment Canada, the Department of Health
conducts investigations to identify substances requiring
immediate attention, it evaluates the risks presented by such
contaminants, drafts regulations under the act, such as
regulations on the provision of notices and the evaluation of
new substances and, finally, develops national strategies to
control toxic substances.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was and will remain a
significant legislative measure for protecting public health.
Other legislation generally focuses on controlling substances in
products, whereas this act controls the dumping of contaminants
into the environment at source throughout their production and
use.
[English]
Canada's action on lead is a good example of the significant and
measurable benefits to human health that environmental
legislation can and does make. We have a variety of legislative
means of controlling exposure to lead in Health Canada through
for example the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, the Hazardous
Products Act and the Pest Control Products Act. These have all
played their part in reducing risks to human health.
It was only through the use of CEPA that we could control a
major environmental source of exposure for the general
population, lead in gasoline. Similarly, regulatory controls
have been put in place under CEPA for PCBs, polychlorinated
biphenyls, used in the past as insulation fluid for transformers;
and dioxins and furans, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
furans, which are toxic byproducts from the incomplete combustion
of chlorinated material.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an important
mechanism for addressing the issue of toxic substances because of
its framework for identifying, assessing and managing toxic
substances. This is what Canadians want, a comprehensive
approach for managing toxic substances throughout their life
cycle, that is, from production, through use, to disposal.
The basis for economic progress is wealth creation. At the core
of wealth creation is the contribution of knowledge, knowledge of
how to transform the gifts of nature into wealth. It is
essential to remember first that nature's gifts and how
abundantly we have them here in Canada are not infinite. This is
not a bottomless treasure trove.
Second, it is salutary to remember that human development is at
the core of sustainable development. One cannot have sustainable
development without healthy people, a fact that we have
underlined in our department's sustainable development strategy
entitled “Sustaining Our Health”, tabled in parliament in
December 1997.
1315
I know my colleague who spoke a moment ago would want to take
note of that as being a little different from his recollection of
history and parliament at least as it relates to innovative
legislation from this government.
I would like to take this opportunity, though, to remind hon.
members that the preamble to the declaration on sustainable
development to which Canada committed by signing agenda 21 of the
Rio declaration states: “Human beings are at the centre of
concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a
healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”.
It is these twin targets that the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act has in its sights. It is an act respecting the
protection of the environment and of human life and health. This
legislation then is is intended not only to protect our
environment for its own sake but it aims also to protect the
environment because of its direct links with human health. These
are not disparate targets but vitally linked, linked for life.
One is reminded of the saying that our fate is connected with
the animals, from Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring
published in the early 1960s, a book which did so much to promote
the awareness of the need for environmental protection.
I know Mr. Speaker remembers the environmental movement of the
1960s. You lived through it as a young person in university. I
recall your activist days at Queen's University and then later on
in Toronto. You earned quite a name for yourself in this regard.
I know you did not want me to draw attention to that. But in
view of the fact that members opposite are interested in the
activities of all members of this House prior to their presence
here in this institution, I thought it would be appropriate to
draw attention to the fact that you were not always a Speaker nor
a member of parliament but quite an active and interested citizen
of this great land.
While we are happy that movement generated your presence in this
House, it is also worthy of note that the environmental movement
of the 1960s culminated in the establishment in Canada of a
strong federal presence on the issue with the formation of the
Department of the Environment in 1972.
We have come a long way since then when a series of high profile
ecological disasters worldwide spurred on the environmental
movement. Our view of the issues has changed as has our means of
protecting the environment.
In Canada this federal involvement began with the environmental
contaminants act in the mid-1970s, legislation which seemed fine
at the time. By the mid-1980s it was clear the act needed
expanding and strengthening. In 1988 the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act was launched.
As the cornerstone for federal environmental protection with the
arrival of the 1990s it was time for the review once again of the
administration of our environmental protection legislation by a
parliamentary committee. I might take a moment to compliment the
committee on its whole and on its individual representation for
the fine work it has done over the course of this last parliament
and in this current parliament in coming forward with suggestions
that have been incorporated in this legislation.
I would like to express on behalf of the Minister of Health my
appreciation and admiration for the work of the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development in
laying the groundwork for the bill before us today.
It became clear from the committee's review of the present act
that it could be and should be enhanced in several ways to focus
more on pollution prevention and so contribute in a more
significant way to sustainable development and the health of
future generations.
1320
With this very concern about the future there is the need for
all of us not think in terms of business as usual or development
without regard costs but about what we should do now to build a
sustainable future for generations to come. That makes this bill
to renew and revitalize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
of critical importance as we prepare to enter the new millennium.
We believe the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an
essential tool in helping to shape the future of sustainable
development.
The renewal of this act will satisfy at least two federal
priorities by increasing the effectiveness of the environmental
protection in Canada and by meeting the objectives of the Liberal
government such as making pollution prevention a national goal
and enhancing the role of the public and setting timetables for
phasing out releases of those toxic substances which are of most
concern.
Members will know that chemicals in one way or another are an
essential part of technological development. Because of our
dependence on the environment for our well-being both now and in
the future, those chemicals that are assessed as toxic persisting
in the environment and tending to build up in animal and human
tissues must be prevented from gaining entry into the
environment.
[Translation]
I therefore support Bill C-32 for the following reasons: its
prudent approach, which consists in taking steps to avoid
possible damage; its adherence to the principle of pollution
prevention, which consists in taking steps to prevent
contamination; its concern with reducing the overall costs
associated with environmental pollution, that is to say, not
just repercussions on the public's health and well-being, or its
costs in financial terms, but also its impact on the cost of
health care in Canada; and its science-based decision-making
process.
Under the provisions of Bill C-32, the Department of Health, in
conjunction with Environment Canada, will continue to assume
responsibility for setting objectives and drqfting guidelines
and codes of practice for the protection of human health.
In addition, and in order to respond to public concerns about
the effects of pollution and toxic substances on health, the
department will step up its efforts to assess and manage risks
associated with new and existing chemical substances and with
biotechnology products.
The federal government is increasingly aware that international
action is required to address pollution from outside the
country.
In response to this new priority, the Department of Health will
take the opportunity offered by the new bill to broaden its
sphere of activity and move from a mere assessment of
international atmospheric pollution to a more global assessment
of international air and water pollution.
[English]
To provide comprehensive protection for Canadians in the most
effective of manners, Bill C-32 complements but does not
duplicate other legislation. As an illustration of this effort
the federal government has included a consequential amendment to
the Food and Drugs Act and regulations as part of Bill C-32. This
amendment allows the Minister of Health clear authority for the
first time to collect and assess information on the environmental
impact of foods, drugs and medical devices under the Food and
Drugs Act.
To provide comprehensive protection for Canadians in the most
effective manner, Bill C-32 complements but does not duplicate
other legislation.
1325
The Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization was
recently signed by the federal, territorial and most provincial
environment ministers. The accord is evidence of a strong
national desire to provide a co-ordinated response to
environmental protection. In this context I mention the recent
endorsement of the principles of co-operation on health and the
environment by all levels of government which ensures a
co-ordinated approach to the protection of human health from
environmental contaminants.
These principles underscore the importance of environmental
integrity to human health and affirm that governments in Canada
are responsible for ensuring their decisions to protect the
health of people and the environment for creating conditions that
encourage individuals and communities to adopt sustainable
practices. But we recognize that governments alone cannot solve
the problems. I am encouraged by the efforts of the chemical
industry which has been on the forefront of engaging in the
challenge of sustainable development with its reasonable care
program.
Environmental protection is an important matter for all
Canadians. As we have seen in the results of recent public
opinion polls, most people see issues of environmental quality
largely in terms of health, their own and that of their children.
They are willing to take part in protecting the environment to
accomplish those goals.
In response to the recommendations of the standing committee,
Bill C-32 explicitly recognizes that protecting the environment
and human health is a responsibility that must be shared by all
sectors of society. The present Canadian Environmental
Protection Act includes participation rights. The renewed act
will give the Canadian public the right to examine all phases of
risk assessment and management and to provide recourse if it has
reason to believe the government has failed to live up to its
obligations.
Aboriginal people with their unique history and knowledge of
environmental management have an important role to play. For the
first time the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will include
aboriginal peoples as partners in environmental protection.
[Translation]
Concepts such as pollution prevention and sustainable
development had just emerged when the first Canadian
Environmental Protection Act was drafted. It was also the case
for concepts such as globalization. Today, the world is smaller.
No country can live in isolation, particularly when it comes to
toxic pollutants.
Canada must be ready to face the challenge of globalization.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be an
essential element of the federal government's strategy to take a
proactive approach with environmental issues, in a global
context.
The act provides a whole range of options beyond direct
regulation to monitor toxic substances, and this should help us
move toward an approach that better reflects the principles of
sustainable development.
[English]
I provide a quote from a previous minister of health, Mr. Marc
Lalonde, who did so much to promote the emphasis on preventive
care in public health with his report “A New Perspective on the
Health of Canadians”. He closed this report with a quotation
from the Bible: “Who shall prepare for battle if the trumpet
gives an uncertain sound?”
The proposed new CEPA gives a very clear and certain sound. It
signals to all Canadians this government is serious and is truly
committed to pollution prevention and sustainable development.
Canada needs this legislation for the 21st century and beyond. I
strongly urge all members to support it and I thank them for
their attention.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate on this matter resumes
there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments to the hon.
member.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1330
[English]
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICER NATIONAL MEMORIAL DAY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September
should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The
Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day” to honour the
memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to rise in the
House today in support of Motion No. 342, a motion I introduced
some two months ago.
As a quick recap for members present, Motion No. 342 states that
in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September should
be formally recognized from this year forth as the police and
peace officer national memorial day to honour the memory of those
officers killed in the line of duty.
I would like to thank the Canadian Police Association for
bringing the lack of formal recognition for the memorial to my
attention. As always the CPA has been a strong voice on behalf
of the police officers in the street. In particular Scott Newark
has assisted me in my efforts in bringing this motion forward.
In September of last year one of my first public engagements as
the Progressive Conservative justice and solicitor general critic
was to attend the 20th annual memorial service for police and
peace officers on Parliament Hill. It was a very moving event in
which thousands of people, law enforcement officers from all
parts of Canada, the United States, their families and friends,
participated. They gathered not only to honour the memory of
their comrades or loved ones, but also to remind all Canadians of
the law enforcement community's dedication to public safety, a
dedication for which men and women have been willing time and
time again to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
From my own perspective, it allowed me to pay personal tribute
to the many police officers I had worked with during my time as a
crown attorney. Their commitment and contribution to public
safety and community on the front lines helped me to do my job in
a more satisfactory and professional way in the courtroom.
The national memorial service for police and peace officers is a
story of how a single incident can provoke something of a much
grander scale.
On this day 21 years ago there was not any memorial service for
law enforcement officers in Canada who had lost their lives in
the line of duty. That situation changed one tragic summer night
in 1977. A 21-year old rookie officer with the Ottawa-Carleton
police by the name of David Kirkwood paid a professional visit to
710 Gladstone Avenue, about a 20-minute walk from Parliament
Hill.
The young constable with only four months service on the force
went with two other officers to serve Frederick Koepke, himself
only 22 years old but with severe emotional and psychiatric
problems, with two warrants for assault causing bodily harm. The
three officers were met at the door with gunfire and a stand-off
ensued.
While awaiting reinforcements, David Kirkwood was assigned to
cover the rear of the residence where, upon attending that
position, he was shot at point blank range. He died instantly on
July 11, 1977 leaving behind a pregnant widow and a police force
fraught with grief and sorrow. A veteran constable who served
with David Kirkwood described the loss of the young officer as a
death in the family.
The members of the Ottawa Police Association wanted to do more
than grieve, they wanted to send a clear message to the entire
country. On September 24, 1978 David Kirkwood's comrades held a
service on Parliament Hill to honour his memory and remind
elected officials that peace officers continue to be killed in
the streets daily in the name of public safety.
The 1978 ceremony began with a two-gun salute fired by members
of the 30th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. After
the salute, one brass shell case was saved and mounted on a
commemorative plaque. This plaque contained a simple yet
powerful inscription: To fallen comrades, Parliament Hill,
September 24, 1978.
Although Ottawa police officers continued to hold the ceremony
subsequent to that year, the number of participants increased in
size and scope. This memorial began to take on a more national
focus.
The ceremony's evolution through the past two decades was
incremental.
At the 1984 service a memorial book of remembrance for police
officers and correctional officers killed while on duty was
unveiled by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police. In 1994 the Prime Minister
joined with more than 700 police officers and relatives of slain
officers at the site just behind these parliament buildings as
the Canadian Police Association and the CACP dedicated the new
Canadian police memorial pavilion.
1335
That granite stone at the base of the pavilion contains the
names of more than 200 officers killed in the line of duty since
1879. Two other stones were also erected, one for peace officers
who died in the line of duty and the other explaining the
pavilion's history. In 1995 the memorial honour roll was expanded
to include the names of slain officers from other Canadian law
enforcement agencies such as customs and excise, natural
resources and fisheries and oceans.
I am proud to say that my father in his last ministerial
portfolio of public works played a key role in realizing the site
in the early 1990s. In fact there is a photo in my office
showing my father speaking at the ground breaking ceremony.
Recently I have been advised that construction near the site has
jeopardized the integrity of this pavilion. It is certainly
hoped that great care will be taken.
In expanding the memorial to include peace officers the event's
organizers cited the basic principle behind the annual ceremony:
to pay tribute to those who have sworn an oath to protect the
lives of others.
The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police established three criteria to establish the
names of those who should be listed in the memorial book and on
the stone.
The deceased must have been a sworn police or peace officer and
death must have occurred as a result of a traumatic event
influenced by an external agent. The deceased must have been on
duty at the time of death, or if off duty, acting in their
capacity as a police or peace officer, or the death must have
been brought about because of the victim's official status.
Lastly, the deceased must have acted in good faith in doing all
that was expected, while bearing in mind the incident, the rights
of those involved and the safety of all concerned.
The names of the more than 200 Canadians displayed on this
memorial, all of whom have met these extraordinary benchmarks,
distinguishes the highest act of sacrifice and selflessness. So
long as we add more names each year to this memorial, Canadians
and their elected representatives will be challenged to do more,
to strive to bring about better policy and legislation in the
hope of ensuring that fewer names will be added to this gallant
but tragic list.
It is most certainly time for parliamentarians to take the next
step in the evolution of this memorial and to grant formal
recognition to this very special occasion.
By passing Motion No. 342 parliament can send a strong message
of respect and gratitude to our law enforcement officials who
have made the alternate sacrifice for public safety. It would
also express our collective solidarity with the families and
friends who have lost loved ones, along with those men and women
in the law enforcement profession who put their lives at risk
each and every day.
Let us rise above the usual political fray that exists in this
place and pay tribute to one of society's most demanding and
important vocations. Let us accord the respect that many law
enforcement officials presently feel that perhaps they do not
receive from their elected officials.
Although the procedure and House affairs committee opted not to
classify Motion No. 342 as votable, I would ask that all hon.
members give unanimous consent to allow the motion to be voted
upon in the House.
I would like to quote from a passage of the Bible which was read
at last September's memorial service. It is taken from chapter
3, verses 1 to 6 of the Book of Wisdom:
But the soles of the righteous are in the hands of God,
and no torment will even touch them.
In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died and their
departure was thought to be an affliction and their going from us
to be their destruction but they are at peace.
For though in the sight of men they were punished,
their hope is full of immortality.
Having been disciplined a little,
they will receive great good
Because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial
burnt offering he accepted them.
Sombre but telling words. I hope all members of the House will
support this motion and as requested, make this motion a votable
item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is their unanimous consent that the
motion be a votable item?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
1340
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on
the motion to designate the last Sunday in September as a
national police and peace officer memorial day. I do so on my
own behalf and especially on behalf of my colleague the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General and I hope on
behalf of all other members on this side as well.
For the past 20 years Canadians have honoured police and peace
officers in a memorial ceremony and reception for the families
and colleagues of officers killed in the line of duty. That
memorial takes place on the last Sunday of every September. Each
year this memorial service has been conducted on Parliament Hill.
It is always a well attended event. In fact it is a day when all
of us set aside our differences and pay our respects to those who
sacrificed their lives so that we can live safely in our
communities.
Chief Thomas Welsh first introduced the service in 1978 in
response to the shooting death of Ottawa Police Constable David
Kirkwood in 1977. Since then Constable Kirkwood's memory is
honoured each year along with others who lost their lives so
suddenly and tragically.
Now in its 21st year the memorial service has had in attendance
special guests such as the Governor General of Canada, numerous
solicitors general, members of the fallen officers' families and
police officers from around the world. It is a solemn occasion
to pay tribute to the men and women who have given their lives
over the years to protect all Canadians. It is an occasion for
families and friends to remember their loved ones. More
important it is an occasion for all of us to remember that part
of the reason we live in a safe and just society is because of
the dedication of police and peace officers.
Each year we hope that new names will not be added to the list
of the memorial. Sadly this has not been the case. While
Canadians live in one of the safest countries in the world there
have been times when danger could not be avoided and when those
on the front lines have lost their lives while protecting the
safety of others.
Although those in law enforcement garner a great deal of respect
from Canadians they are also facing unprecedented challenges.
In our current social environment there is a public perception
that crime is much more prevalent than it actually is. Even
though crime rates have been steadily decreasing in recent years,
the perception is that crime is on the rise. Police race
relations, youth gangs, violent crime, organized crime, drug
trafficking, smuggling, hate crime and even fear of crime are at
the forefront of the daily challenges police face across this
country.
These competing demands make it even more necessary for police,
our communities and government to continually look at how we can
do things better and to find new ways to meet these problems
directly. Responding to crime and criminal behaviour is no easy
task. The very nature of police work involves some intrusive and
at times aggressive interventions in order to control situations
and to solve crimes. It is important to provide a fair and
equitable framework for police work in legislation.
As part of this government's safe homes and safe streets agenda,
we have done much in the way of improving the tools with which
police are able to carry out their duties. We have worked very
hard to introduce legislative reforms that strike the right
balance.
In addition to the memorial tribute each year, this government
continues to honour the work of peace officers across Canada by
doing what we can in our capacity to provide the tools that those
in law enforcement need to do their jobs as safely as possible.
That means providing legislation that tackles crime head on such
as the anti-gang legislation which was passed last year. It
means focusing correctional resources on those who need it most.
It means ensuring that we continue to live in safe homes and safe
streets.
This motion speaks to the need to officially recognize a service
that has taken place for over two decades. It has become a
tradition we observe each year and it is clear that the families
and colleagues of fallen officers count on all of us to pay
tribute to the memories of those who are no longer with us. It
is a time when we all pause to reflect on the contribution our
police and peace officers make to our society and to honour the
fallen.
A formal national memorial day such as the one proposed in this
motion will serve Canadians well. Quite often it takes a
ceremony of this magnitude for us to realize that our safety
sometimes comes at the cost of our best and brightest peace
officers.
While many of us take public safety for granted, Canada is one
of the few countries in the world where we can walk in our
streets and feel relatively safe.
1345
Public safety is a priority of law enforcement for this
government. This is demonstrated on a number of fronts. It
means providing legislation to tackle crime head on such as the
anti-gang legislation which was passed last year. It means
focusing correctional resources where they will be most
effective. It means taking crime prevention seriously to ensure
that we will continue to live in safe homes and safe streets.
An official recognized national police and peace officers
memorial day would provide Canada with a specific occasion to
express our appreciation for what we have. This government is
committed to taking a balanced approach to reducing crime in
Canada which includes the underlying factors that lead to
criminal behaviour.
The hallmark of our efforts includes close co-operation with
federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is essential
in order to build an effective and efficient criminal justice
system.
The record on public safety speaks for itself. Since the last
peace officers memorial, this government has taken steps toward
making Canada a much safer place to live. First, we have
introduced legislation to create Canada's first national DNA data
bank so that repeat offenders can be apprehended more quickly.
Second, we have supported studies that tell us more about the
nature of crime and what we can do to change the behaviour of
those who commit criminal acts.
Third, we continue to work with our partners across Canada and
beyond our borders to stop crime in its tracks.
Fourth, we will continue to take tough measures against violent
and dangerous offenders.
Fifth, we remain committed to making improvements to the
legislative foundation of Canada's correctional system, the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where the need for
change is demonstrated.
There is more to be done and this government is prepared to take
on the task. In the name of public safety and for the safety of
those who work each day to enforce our laws on the front lines,
we will continue to build on our successes and to learn from our
past.
This government supports Motion No. 342 and I am sure all
members will do the same.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the last member speaking from the government
side was from the Eglinton—Lawrence riding. I also believe that
is a member who called out no when there was a request for a
votable motion here today.
Listening to his comments and remarks with regard to this
motion, it borders absolutely on being anti-police. It was
nothing more than a self-serving discussion, a brag of what is
perceived to be great accomplishments in the area of crime
fighting and support for our police forces and peace officers.
This is a very important motion and I do not intend to dwell on
the kind of speech I heard. The mover of this motion has devised
an important motion for all of us in Canada because there is no
one in this country who is not either related to a police
officer, has been served by a police officer or has supported
police officers as they go about trying to do their work.
As such, I can assure the member that the Reform Party totally
supports his motion and that it should have been allowed to be a
votable motion. A special day should be set aside for these
people who serve our communities so well.
In my comments today I will not go over the slightly more
technical, historical, chronological events that have occurred to
bring this about. I would like to expand a bit on the human face
that was put on this motion by the presenter and just expand a
bit on his comments in support of him.
As members know, I am a former police officer in the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police.
I have attended these memorial functions, not in Ottawa here on
the Hill but in other divisions, and attended the funerals of
members slain on the duty days when they went to work not
expecting anything unusual.
1350
Who are these police officers who serve in front of us every day
in uniform and in plain clothes? They started out as boys and
girls in our high schools thinking about the occupation they
would like to take up. The ones who lean toward public service,
toward helping their fellow man, recognize right from wrong,
these are the people who have traditionally joined police forces
across this country.
I speak of all police officers and peace officers designated by
the various provincial and federal statutes and who serve with
every municipality, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
Surete, the Ontario Provincial Police.
Of course we should not forget either those members of
yesteryear police forces that are no longer in existence. Those
members also gave up their lives on occasion for the Canadian
public and the Canadian good.
These young boys and girls graduated from high school in days
past and currently graduate from university and then continue on
to police work. They do not realize at the time they go into
police work the full extent to which they are dealing with the
most unpredictable animal on the face of the earth. That happens
to be a human being.
These people go into cadet training and training at the RCMP
academy full of idealism, hope and a sense of service, little
expecting and little knowing what lies ahead. While they are in
training they begin, through the studying of the Criminal Code
and the training programs they go through where instructors start
to speak of the reasons why they are hammering home self-defence
and the law, to fully understand their rights and authorities in
carrying out their duties.
This is done for two reasons. One is obviously so that the
maximum quality of service can be given to Canadians, and the
second is for the protection of those peace officers as they go
about their duties.
It is certainly a concern of mine that these future members of
our police forces not be lulled into a false sense of security
through government propaganda about all the protection they are
going to get out of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, that they will
somehow know before going into a dangerous situation, a family
dispute or whatever, that so and so is not the owner of any guns
or in possession of any firearms. That is not true and I
sincerely hope that the trainers of these young police officers
do not put forward the government's propaganda with regard to
Bill C-68.
I was putting a human face on these young police officers, that
first patrol when they are first assigned to their duties,
whether it is walking in the tough end of a city or driving their
first patrol car at night.
As they pull over that first car for a spot check or attend that
first alarm indicating the possibility of criminals in a
building, their hands start to sweat a bit and there is a knot in
their stomach. They know at that point that their safety is not
guaranteed and cannot be guaranteed. Relying on their training
and knowing they have in essence volunteered to put themselves on
the line on behalf of the rest of us so we can sleep safely at
night, they proceed along with their duties taking the best
precautions possible but knowing they cannot protect against
everything.
1355
As they go through their service in the police force they end up
doing specialized duties such as highway patrol duty, traffic
duty. They are exposed to more dangers than just firearms,
knives and being assaulted. They are subject to contamination
from blood and other bodily fluids at different scenes.
When a member is killed on duty a terrible situation obviously
arises for the family, and there is always family. These people
need a place to go from year to year for the rest of their lives
to make sure they can see their son or daughter is being
recognized. Such a place is in Ottawa, such a place is in their
home provinces and towns. It would be really nice if there were
one day that everyone could point to as being the day that
recognizes their sons' and daughters' contribution to Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in this House today to speak on the motion put
forward by my colleague, the parliamentary leader of the
Conservative Party.
I must say, however, that I am terribly disappointed that my
colleague opposite, the hon. member for Eglinton«Lawrence, would
refuse to make this motion votable and turn this into a
political, partisan issue, when in fact every member of this
House should support the motion.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September
should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The
Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day” to honour the
memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.
The Bloc Quebecois enthusiastically endorses this motion and
will support it.
Society as a whole is indebted to police and peace officers for
the work they do so we can live in peace and security within our
families, in our homes, at work and everywhere else. Men and
women have paid with their lives for this dedication to their
communities, and their families too deserve our gratitude in
recognition of the great sacrifice resulting from the choice
made by their spouse, father, mother or child.
Everywhere in Quebec and in Canada, police and other law
enforcement officers perform their duties under difficult
circumstances, and we become aware of the importance of what
they do only when some tragic incident wakes us up to the harsh
reality of it.
On behalf of my colleagues in this House and the general public,
I wish to thank all those who work tirelessly to make our
society a fairer and a safer place to live.
The media report only the most spectacular tragedies, so we tend
to be collectively unaware of what these law enforcement
officers go through every day, as they live with the possibility
that their future may be jeopardized if a seemingly routine
incident turns sour on them.
1400
I urge the government to implement the measures needed to
eliminate human dramas altogether. Whole families are being
torn asunder, and, as lawmakers, we have a moral obligation to
ensure that social and family dramas are not repeated.
I encourage the government to take note of the motion and to
support it so the will of this House may be realized. The issue
is not political and therefore there is no need for speeches to
promote party positions.
I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague and friend,
the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the motion of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough:
That, in the opinion of this House, the last Sunday of September
should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The
Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day” to honour the
memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.
I congratulate the member for bringing this matter forward. As
we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health,
this matter is supported by members from the other side although
they oppose making it votable. The parliamentary secretary says
that the government supports the motion. He also says that there
is more to be done and that the government is prepared to take on
this task. Obviously the government is not prepared to take on
the very modest task of voting in support of this most worthwhile
motion.
From time to time police officers, firefighters and others with
the job of protecting and assisting many in difficult situations,
at risk or in danger, are prepared to risk their lives in doing
so. They have asked not only for recognition of this sort but
also for a public pension to be available to their families if
they are killed in the line of duty.
That is a financial question that most members of the House
would support. However it is not what is being asked today. The
motion does not ask the government to provide funds. It merely
asks all members of the House to have a day to recognize the most
supreme sacrifice made by Canadian police and peace officers in
the continuance of their duties to ensure we live in a secure and
safe community. Most Canadians would find it odd to think that
the government was not prepared to support what is a modest yet
important provision.
The Prime Minister was involved in the 1994 ceremony in which
over 700 police officers and relatives of slain officers gathered
at the site behind the Parliament Buildings to dedicate the new
Canadian Police Memorial Pavilion. The Prime Minister and his
government were supported then in their initiative to recognize
and respect those police and peace officers who had lost their
lives in the line of duty. The year 1994 is not very far in the
past, yet here we are five years later with the same Prime
Minister and the same government not being prepared to recognize
a day to honour officers who died in the line of duty. Canadians
would wonder why.
The sacrifices and the risks taken by police officers in the
line of duty may not be better described than by the words of
dignitaries at a memorial ceremony that was held just behind the
House in 1997. I will quote a couple of those dignitaries. Neal
Jessop, president of the Canadian Police Association, said:
Once again we gather to honour our fallen comrades and keep faith
with them and their families left behind. It is a duty most
sacred of all of us within the law enforcement family and a
commitment that exemplifies the bonds in our larger family.
1405
It is a duty and commitment of all of us. He continued:
This service honours those who gave their lives in service of us
all. It is also our way of ensuring that the family members of
those we remember today know that they are forever in our
thoughts and prayers.
This year's service stands as a stark reminder that the duties,
responsibilities and risks of law enforcement are a 24 a day
reality.
Vincent Murray, president of the Canadian Peace Officers'
Memorial Association, said the following important words:
Today is the twentieth anniversary of the Memorial Service, a
service which commemorates the great sacrifice our officers have
made. They have lost their lives protecting society from the
evils of violence and crime. These officers served their country
with integrity, honesty and courage, well known values of the law
enforcement family.
Let us now remember and honour those brave officers who gave
their lives in service to their country. Let us remember them as
they were, for time does not age them as it does us. They will
stay forever young in memories, but we will not forget them.
Surely all of us in the House share those words and sentiments.
It would not be asking very much to have the motion votable and
to have this day set aside to remember peace officers.
I have a few words to say about the police service in my
community of Saskatoon. I have spent time, as I am sure have
many members of the House, with them in the line of duty. I have
watched the tasks they have to perform and the risks they have to
endure. Nobody could but be impressed by their commitment to all
of us and their preparedness to take on risks in the line of
duty.
It is incumbent on all of us to recognize that and to do what
little part we can to make sure that they know and that the
families of those who have died in the line of duty know how
important Canadians regard their work, understand it, and
consider with compassion the circumstance in which they find
themselves having lost a loved one. It is incumbent upon us to
ensure that our thanks is provided in any way we possibly can do
so.
One police officer who died in the line of duty comes from
outside my community of Saskatoon. His name was Brian King. He
was hijacked, taken hostage and killed in the most outrageous
circumstances. All in Saskatoon and indeed all in Saskatchewan
remember this police officer and his family. There is a centre
named after him in the town of Warman where he served with the
RCMP.
It is not enough to say thanks to those police officers who have
provided services to date. It is not enough to say to the
families of those police officers who died that we are sorry,
concerned about them, appreciate the service that was provided
and understand the circumstances in which they live. It is not
enough to say that and go no further.
I hope members opposite would reconsider their opposition to
voting on the motion and would support it. I cannot imagine any
Canadian would be opposed to this important motion except maybe a
few on the Liberal benches. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary
for the Minister of Health is not opposed to setting aside this
day. Surely the member from Prince Island is not opposed to
setting aside this day to respect and honour police officers who
lost their lives in the line of duty. Surely the member for
Nunavut is not opposed. Surely, if they are opposed, they would
be one of four or five people in the whole country who are not
prepared to come forward and support the motion.
1410
Let me close by just asking once again if the members would
reconsider and by asking for unanimous consent to make the motion
votable.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My hon. colleague opposite has been in this place for
such a long time that he should know his party and the parties on
both sides have members on the House procedures and affairs
committee that make decisions about how to deal with the motion.
While the government side supports the intent of the motion, it
also respects the decisions made by the all party committee.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order. It sounds like a point of debate to me.
In accordance with the request for unanimous consent by the hon.
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, is there the unanimous
consent of the House to make the motion votable?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak today in support of the motion to
designate the last Sunday in September as the police and peace
officer national memorial day.
Since 1978 Canadians have been afforded the opportunity to
officially commemorate the memory of police and peace officers
killed in the line of duty. The annual Canadian police and peace
officers memorial weekend service is a solemn occasion for family
colleagues and all Canadians to honour and pay tribute to the men
and women whose job it is to enforce the law and to protect
society.
I have attended these services and they are an occasion to
honour the memory of those who did so at the price of their own
lives. The participation at last year's service is testimony to
the increasing respect and esteem we all have for our peace
officers whether they be police, correctional people or others in
law enforcement.
It is because of the work of these officers that we as Canadians
live in a safe society. However we sometimes take for granted
the security we enjoy and it is commemoration ceremonies such as
a memorial that remind us of the courage and dedication police
and peace officers display day after day.
More important, it brings us all together to thank them for a
job well done. Each year we hope that new names will not be
added to the list of those to remember. Unfortunately this has
not yet been the case.
Despite the fact that Canadians are fortunate to live in one of
the safest countries in the world, adversity is a real risk and a
real danger. Peace officers are vigilant about the safety of the
entire community but the safety of their own lives may be
compromised as they carry out their duty. In this regard I am
especially grateful for the services provided by Canadian police
and peace officers.
I have firsthand knowledge about police service in Canada. I sat
as a member of the Waterloo Regional Police Services for 10
years. As chairman I was intimately involved with the work of
police and the police service. I certainly applaud the loyalty,
the commitment, the dedication and the outstanding
professionalism of not only Waterloo Regional Police but of
police and peace officers across Canada wherever they may be.
The motion speaks to the need to officially endorse a national
police and peace officer memorial day on the same day as what has
become an unofficial tradition for the past 20 years. It is a
time when we all pause to reflect on the contribution our police
and peace officers make to society and to honour the fallen. In
addition, it is a time when we can pay our respects to the
families who have also lived with the risk that each day brings
and who have been called upon in their own way to make great
sacrifices.
In addition to the memorial tribute each year, the government
continues to recognize the work of police and peace officers
across Canada during National Police Week. Again I have been
intimately involved with that.
The government also provides practical support through the
provision of new and innovative tools required by law enforcement
officers to carry out their duties as safely as possible.
This means passing legislation that will prevent crime as well
as legislation that will tackle crime in many ways simultaneously
whether it be targeting high risk offenders or putting in place
special measures to deal with criminal gangs.
1415
This government will continue to make public safety its
priority. This is demonstrated on a number of fronts. For
example, through our efforts to combat organized crime, to
develop crime prevention initiatives, to fight drug abuse and to
redefine correctional strategies. The record on public safety
speaks for itself.
Since the last police and peace officers memorial this
government has taken steps toward making Canada a much safer
place to live. The last Sunday of every September gives us all
an opportunity to appreciate the difficulties and the importance
of the work of police and peace officers.
Therefore, it is my belief that to designate the last Sunday of
September as the date of the memorial service for the police and
peace officer national memorial would entrench our respect as
Canadians for police and peace officers who protect us, sometimes
at the price of their own lives.
A formal national memorial day, such as the one proposed in this
motion, would serve Canadian police and peace officers. It would
serve their families, their colleagues and indeed all Canadians.
This government supports Motion No. 342. I am honoured to do
likewise and I urge all members to do the same.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to make a couple of brief comments.
I rise to support Motion No. 342 brought forward by the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. As he stated in his
comments, I too attended the memorial last September on the Hill.
I attended with the widow and the son of a member of the old B.C.
highway patrol who was killed in the line of duty on his way to
responding to a traffic incident.
I also remember some two decades ago, just after I moved into
the area of Surrey, how a young RCMP constable was purposely
drawn out of the police station by two people driving a car
wildly. He was purposely drawn to them and was shot at point
blank range as he walked up to the window of the car. These two
people were convicted of first degree murder at that time and
sentenced to death. The death penalty was withdrawn and, to the
best of my knowledge, at least one of those persons was
successful on a 745 application. However, this is not the time
nor the place to debate that issue.
I think for most people in this country the most common contact
with police officers is through speeding tickets and roadside
breathalyzer tests. Fortunately, for most people, that is their
only contact. However, I have a personal connection. Five and a
half years ago there was an incident within my family and I was
forced to deal with the police for about two years, on a very
personal level. I saw their dedication and the honour these
people work with and how diligent they are at their jobs,
especially in the investigative process.
Since that time I have had many opportunities to ride along with
the constables on the streets of my city, to see them work and to
see what they are exposed to. I advise all members of this House
and any member of the public who has a problem with the police to
go out and spend a Friday or Saturday night on the streets of
their community to see what policing is really all about. It is
a lot more than just speeding tickets and roadside breathalyzers.
Fortunately, in most cases, police officers are not forced to
put their lives on the line. They realize when they leave the
house every morning to go to work that it is a possibility, but
very fortunately for us and for them they do not have to always
deal with it. However, occasionally they do and far too often,
in my estimation, these people lose their lives and widows and
families are left behind to suffer.
I speak in support of this motion because I think it is long
overdue. There should be full public recognition and a
recognition by this place and a day should be set aside to
remember these people and what they have given for their country.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the remarks and words of
support that have come from all present here today. I know as
well, Mr. Speaker, that you have been very supportive of the
police in your community. Again, I think this is a time and a
place for us, as a House, to express our support for those in the
law enforcement community.
1420
The hon. member opposite, the Liberal secretary for the Minister
of Health, spoke of crime and crime prevention as being a major
priority for his government. I can certainly advise that it is a
priority for all here in Parliament and in fact all Canadians.
The hon. member did take the opportunity today to talk about the
government's moves toward combating this most serious problem of
crime in Canada, the DNA data bank legislation still before the
House which we are hopeful will include the ability of the police
to taking samplings at the time of charge to ensure they have the
opportunity to use this important technology in crime prevention.
The member also spoke of the anti-gang legislation and changes
to the Young Offenders Act. Quite frankly, those are certainly
legislative moves we support but we are yet to see and yet to
have the opportunity to vote on the floor of the House to bring
about the necessary changes.
We have also heard mention of ill conceived gun registry.
Unfortunately I can state uncategorically we do not believe this
is going to help the legal community or Canadians, nor is the
continuation of section 745, as alluded to by the hon. member for
Surrey North.
I reiterate the importance of an opportunity for us to rise
above the fray and be unified in our support of day that would
recognize those in the law enforcement community, the men and
women who are daily out there on the streets willing to put their
actions forward for the protection of all; not to talk about it
in the way the government talks about what it will do, but these
men and women are out there daily putting forward their actions,
not their words, toward this cause.
I am disappointed and saddened by the position taken by the
Liberal members opposite. Many of these individuals should go
home to their communities and consult with police officers, look
them in the eye and tell them why they were not prepared to do
more than just talk about it in the House but allow this motion
to be votable which would then bind them to make this happen.
This is not a vote of confidence. This is not something like
they are going to face on Tuesday where the Prime Minister has
decided to make this a vote of confidence. This is an
opportunity for a non-partisan commitment, a commitment that
everybody in the House should be quick to embrace.
In the name of conscience, good will and patience I ask members
present to give unanimous consent for this motion to be made
votable. I ask members to check their conscience and if they are
not willing to do so they should go home to their constituents
and to the police community and hang their heads in shame. This
is an opportunity for us to do something right for all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make the
motion votable?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
[English]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
[Translation]
It being 2.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at
11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.24 p.m.)