CONTENTS
Monday, September 18, 1995
Motion M-264. Consideration resumed of the motion 14501
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 14505
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 52; Nays, 124 14507
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14508
Bill C-83. Motion for second reading 14509
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 14523
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 14524
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 14524
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 14526
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 14527
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14528
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14528
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14529
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14529
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14529
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14530
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14530
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14530
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14531
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14531
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14531
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14531
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 14531
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14531
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14532
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14532
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14533
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 14533
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 14533
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 14534
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 14534
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14535
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 14539
(Motion withdrawn.) 14544
(Motion withdrawn.) 14544
Motion for concurrence in 84th report. 14544
(Motion agreed to.) 14544
(Motion agreed to.) 14545
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 14545
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of motion 14553
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 14553
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 14558
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 14570
14501
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 18, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from June 1, 1995, consideration of the
motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should
take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex
spouses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would like to point out to
the House that there are 42 minutes remaining in the debate on
Motion M-264.
[English]
There are 42 minutes remaining in debate on Private Members'
Business Motion No. 264. When M-264 was last before the House
the hon. member for Jonquière had three minutes remaining for
debate.
Resuming debate.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has moved that the government should take the measures
necessary for legal recognition of same sex spouses.
By ``legal recognition of same sex spouses'' I am unclear
whether he means same sex partners should be able to register, as I
understand they can do on Denmark, or that benefits currently
given to married and common law spouses should be extended to
same sex partners.
Neither option is viable to my mind given the current state of the
law. Perhaps it would have been a better motion had it been made in
a provincial legislature rather than here in the House of Commons.
The federal government has very limited jurisdiction in the area
of legal recognition of personal relationships. The constitution
divides jurisdiction in the area of family law between the
provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. The jurisdiction
for marriage is divided, with the provinces being responsible for
the solemnization of marriage.
Until fairly recently historical common law spouses were not
recognized by our law. The term is a misnomer in any event as
common law spouses do not actually exist in common law or judge
made law. They actually are created by statute law; not one statute
at that but by a large number of statutes at both federal and
provincial levels. In other words, unless a particular statute
specifically provides that a reference to spouse will include
common law relationships they are not included for the purpose of
the benefit in issue.
The major statute laws that recognize common law spouses are
the provincial family law statutes. These statutes create the major
legal obligations imposed on common law spouses should the
relationship break down. They deal with the division of property,
support obligations between former spouses and any children, and
yet even here the provincial law is not consistent across the
country. Common law spouses are subject to different legal
obligations under different provincial family law statutes across the
provinces. They are not even recognized in two provinces
including Quebec, the province of residence of the hon. member
proposing this measure.
(1105 )
Common law marriage is a quite different concept from that of
common law spouses. Common law marriage existed only in the
early settlement days of Canada when a minister or a priest was
often difficult to find. Although there is some speculation that the
concept may still exist in common law in Canada, it would apply
only in opposite an sex context. Therefore if the provincial family
law is the main source of legal obligations between spouses, then it
would seem more appropriate that any legal recognition of same
sex partners would come first under provincial family law. As I
understand it, this was primarily the way in which common law
relationships first gained legal recognition.
As a result of several high profile cases before the Supreme
Court of Canada, the courts recognized through the doctrines of
unjust enrichment and constructive trust the contribution of a
woman who had lived for a long period of time with a man as
married, even though they had not married.
Legislative changes followed thereafter, starting primarily with
family law and then slowly with provincial family law and then
14502
slowly moving into the benefits field. This legal recognition is
recent in Canadian law. The changes to the Income Tax Act to
reorganize common law spouses have just come about in the last
year or two, after the majority of provincial family law statutes
recognized the status. It is only recently that the majority of the
Supreme Court of Canada stated in the Miron decision that in the
circumstances of this case it was discriminatory to treat unmarried
couples differently from married couples.
The only references in federal law to personal relationships
either follow blood or marriage relationships, which are relatively
easy to prove, or copy provincial family law definitions of common
law relationships. At the federal level spouses are mostly included
in legislation for the purposes of employment benefits, government
pension plans, income tax and so on.
The concern is that if we were to extend these benefits to same
sex partners at the federal level first, before the provincial family
law extends any legal obligations, this could create a situation of
unfairness. Spouses, both married and common law, are currently
subject to a package of legal rights and responsibilities created by a
combination of federal and provincial laws.
It is because spouses are subject to legal obligations, such as
support obligations on the breakdown of the relationship, that they
are also eligible for benefits, such as survivor benefits under
pension plans. It is for the provinces to extend the obligations
before we should extend benefits under federal jurisdiction.
How would we accomplish what the hon. member is asking for?
How would we take the measures necessary for the legal
recognition of same spouses, even were we to agree that this should
be done? It is clear from the history of the recognition of common
law relationships that this was not accomplished by passing a
statute called the common law spouses act, nor was this legal
recognition even accomplished by the government at any level.
The fact of social change was first acknowledged by the courts in
looking at unfairness and unjust enrichment between two partners
who had not married. The courts felt strongly that individuals who
were living together as if married and so were getting all of the
advantages of being married, such as working together to afford a
better lifestyle than either would have been able to achieve living
alone, should not be able to avoid taking on the obligations of
married persons simply by choosing not to marry. Particularly in a
situation such as that represented in the first few high profile cases,
the common law wife needed the protection of the law.
However, this is a controversial enough subject with regard to
opposite sex common law couples. Many common law couples
continue to disagree and feel frustrated that the law deems their
relationship to be akin to marriage after a certain time has passed.
Many still feel that their choice not to marry should be respected by
the law.
How much more of a problem will this be with same sex couples
who may not be public about their relationships? Conversely, is it
fair to recognize those same sex couples who do wish to be open
about their relationships?
For a numbers of reasons, the motion is premature and not
feasible for the federal government to adopt without the full
co-operation of the provincial legislatures.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased with this opportunity to rise in the House today, especially
since I unconditionally support Motion M-264, which seeks the
legal recognition of same sex spouses. Voting for this motion will
give nearly 10 per cent of the population the recognition to which it
is entitled.
Since the Quebec government launched its prereferendum
campaign, the federal government has spent millions of dollars of
taxpayers' money to convince us that Canada is one of the best
countries in the world to live in, a country that is tolerant and
especially, a country that accepts diversity.
I therefore ask this government to act accordingly and support
the motion standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. In fact, the hon. member for Central
Nova told us in her speech on the same topic that Canadians are
tolerant and respect and appreciate diversity.
Will the government be as tolerant and show as much respect for
diversity as the hon. member? In May 1994, the Minister of Justice
also promised to redefine, in fairly broad terms, the ties between
people who live together, are interdependent and should therefore
have the same social benefits as traditional families, which does
not mean-and I can understand that-changing the concept of the
family. Let us be clear about this. The motion does not seek to
redefine the family but to enhance the rights of certain people and
ensure that discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable in
Canada.
Last June, the Reform Party member for Elk Island reminded us,
and I quote: ``As legislators, we have a responsibility, an
obligation, a high calling to do what is right for our country and its
citizens''. He directed this message to all Canadians, without
exception. It included all Canadians. Consequently, our role as
legislators, in my opinion, is to set an example by being
openminded, by our sense of justice and our sense of fairness.
14503
That is why, according to this motion, we have a duty to amend,
yes, amend all provisions of Canadian legislation concerning
spouses. It is a matter of justice, fairness and equality for all
citizens.
Let us recall that, last May, the Supreme Court of Canada
unanimously agreed that sexual orientation should be added to
section 15 of the charter, thus prohibiting discrimination against
homosexual men and women.
While the cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa-to name but
a few-as well as many private and public companies also
recognize same sex spouses, we in the Parliament of Canada, a
supposedly tolerant country that allows anyone to make racist
comments or distribute hate propaganda, deny such a basic right to
10 per cent of our population.
(1115)
I see this as an injustice. A closer look at the definition of the
term ``discrimination'' shows that it means imposing on an
individual or group of individuals certain burdens, obligations
or-as in this case-disadvantages that are not imposed on other
groups. Discrimination also means denying or restricting access to
the opportunities, benefits or advantages offered to other members
of society. That is discrimination.
In fact, the Quebec human rights commission has recommended
that the government review all its laws and regulations and pass a
law that would make all legislation dealing with spousal issues
comply with the charter, so that same sex spouses can enjoy the
same rights as heterosexual common law couples.
Will allowing same sex spouses to take bereavement leave when
their lifelong partners die change anything for heterosexual
Canadians? Will allowing same sex spouses to receive benefits
from public pension plans after their partners die or to contribute to
spousal RRSPs change anything for the remaining 90 per cent of
the Canadian population? I do not even want to hear the argument
that such a measure would result in higher costs.
According to the studies done by many private and even public
companies, it would cost less than 1 per cent to correct this
situation. Since this Parliament is supposedly not homophobic-as
many members keep bragging about in this House-I see no reason
why we should not recognize same sex spouses. This would be
quite normal and not a privilege granted to one group of people. On
the contrary, it would simply be fair to a segment of our population.
I remind you that this is 1995. Today's reality is completely
different from what it was 50, 30 or even 10 years ago. Federalists
boast that this institution, the Parliament of Canada, is not out of
step, obsolete or ossified. They should just prove it and stop talking
about the status quo. The status quo is nothing but a vacuum.
Again, voting in favour of this motion does not recognize any
special rights except for the right to equality. Quebecers are fed up
with the double standard inherent in this government's policies. We
already know that a sovereign Quebec will fight such measures.
The question is: Will the Canadian government be as courageous as
the Quebec government?
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
welcome back to the House. It is good to be here.
It is a privilege to speak to this motion today because the issue of
same sex marriage has been raised to such a high level of
awareness in Canada.
As I see it the motion can be approached in two different ways.
We can talk about the morality of the homosexual lifestyle which is
a bona fide thing to do. After all, the gay and lesbian community
bases its arguments for inclusion on moral grounds arguing that
what it does is morally acceptable and therefore worthy of
government recognition. However, it is not necessary to cast same
sex benefits in a moral framework. We can leave aside the moral
question for another day and approach this from a pragmatic
viewpoint. To set the stage for a pragmatic discussion, allow me to
talk about definitions for a moment because this motion is really
about societal definitions.
(1120)
Our society is becoming less and less categorical in its societal
definitions and more graduated in every way. Let me give an
example. There used to be a huge distinction between social classes
in society. If one was born a peasant one could never be a nobleman
and vice versa. However, for a variety of historical reasons the
distinctions between classes disappeared and status and influence
are now seen to be on a gradual continuum, except perhaps for a
few people born lucky like the Royals or maybe the Kennedys.
Morality is another example. Things used to be seen in black and
white in a moral sense because the laws people lived by were held
to be revealed by God. Although these laws seemed arbitrary, the
sharply defined moral categories lent a certain stability to life in
society.
Over the last two centuries people became less convinced about
God and divine law so the old value categories became blurred and
fuzzy. The new values are relative to each situation. People say that
there are no absolutes and that each situation must be judged on its
own merits.
The assault on all social definitions in our society also applies to
the family. Last year was the UN year of the family and the theme
was ``The Family-The Smallest Democracy at the Heart of
14504
Society''. This statement marks an enormous redefinition in our
culture, that a family is a democracy.
Authority used to be categorical with parents giving the orders
and the children listening. If the UN had its way, family matters
might be decided democratically. I do not know how but that is
what the UN suggests.
However since any undemocratic organization is no longer
considered to be legitimate in the eyes of the state, this would give
the state the rationale to intervene in what it would call an
authoritarian family or traditional family. The idea of a democratic
family therefore reduces the authority of parents and
fundamentally alters the security of the family in relation to the
state.
Just as the authority within the family is being dispersed, the
definition of family seems to be broadening. Listen to what Hillary
Clinton said last year, ironically on Mother's Day. Talking about
the family she said: ``If it ever did, the traditional family no longer
does consist of two parents, two children, a dog, a house with a
white picket fence and a stationwagon in the driveway''.
The First Lady went on to recommend what she called the
extended family to fill the void as traditional families dwindle and
to look out for friends, neighbours and fellow citizens as they
would members of their own families. She concluded by saying:
``When the traditional bonds of family are too often frayed we all
need to appreciate that in a very real sense we have all become an
extended family''.
What the First Lady really said is that the traditional family, the
defining boundary between the mom, the dad and the kids is now
disappearing and a continuum of other relationships should be
added to it. Here a conflict emerges. At the same time as societal
definitions broaden, for financial reasons the ability of all
governments to grant benefits is being severely restricted. In order
to apportion benefits in some rational manner the logical answer
for government is to narrow its definitions of who may receive
them. Therefore governments should be looking to restrict their
definitions, not broaden them.
I am not pronouncing a judgment on whether or not homosexuals
should live together. However, I am saying that for the purposes of
government benefits society cannot afford to broaden its
definitions to apportion benefits to many more new groups,
including homosexual unions.
The member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve may argue that he
does not want benefits; he simply wants rights, specifically the
right to be recognized as a married couple. He might say that a
marriage ceremony does not cost anything but in Canada rights are
the door to entitlements.
The concept of entitlement is a very powerful thing in Canadian
law. If a person is defined as someone who is eligible to receive
unemployment insurance for example that benefit becomes a right,
an entitlement and no one can deny it to that person. Marriage
brings with it entitlements as well. Once the right has been given
there would be no way to hold back the benefits.
There is another reason to decide against this motion. The
redefinition of the family would open up a Pandora's box of
definition problems for other groups. There is no logical stopping
point between a homosexual couple and any number of other
unions. If a homosexual couple wants to be a family why not
roommates or people living together in group homes? Why not
close friends living under different roofs? By surrendering the
traditional definition of the family, government would surrender its
ability to choose who receives benefits and who does not.
(1125 )
I want to remind members that in practice the concept of the
nuclear family is really quite static. As late as 1949 anthropologist
George Murdock completed a study of 250 societies worldwide and
said: ``The nuclear family is a universal human social grouping
either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit
from which more complex familial forms are compounded. It
exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known
society''.
A Stats Canada study released last year found that in 1941, well
prior to that study, 88 per cent of Canadians were living in nuclear
families. In 1991, 87 per cent of Canadians were still living in this
husband and wife model. In other words the number of people
living in nuclear families or in husband and wife with children
families has remained constant for 50 years.
Therefore attitudes toward the nuclear family and real life
practice are not changing as much as we are led to believe by
activists who manipulate or would like to manipulate members of
Parliament and the media. Members should not be stampeded
toward redefinition by media criticism and noisy pressure group
tactics.
It seems to me that interest groups exercising profound political
pressure over several decades have managed to slice up the
government benefits pie in ways that are advantageous to them and
disadvantageous to nuclear families when the nuclear family is one
of the foundations of our society and needs to be strengthened, not
weakened.
For this reason I introduced a private member's bill called the
auditor general for the family act. This bill would establish a small
body with a limit of 20 employees to advise Parliament about the
ways it could support and strengthen the nuclear family in Canada.
It is interesting that later this week we will be debating in the
14505
House the need for the country to have an environmental auditor
yet we do not have the same sort of thing advocating on behalf of
the nuclear family.
I am proud of the bill I have put together because although
society might accept a wide variety of living arrangements it
should not be obligated to support every societal arrangement. It
must allocate its precious resources to those tried and true social
structures which have been common within Canadian society for
centuries and are common across literally hundreds of cultures
around the world.
The February issue of U.S. News and World Report details
studies from the states showing that moms and dads together are
the ideal parental form. Nothing else is as effective in cutting
poverty and fighting crime, teenage pregnancies, suicide and
mental illness. Even so, nuclear families continue to be
discriminated against even in taxation within our own country. The
time has come to expose this government sanctioned
discrimination against nuclear families. That is why I hope when
my bill does come up for a vote we will be able to deal with that
properly.
In closing, I want the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
with whom I sat on the standing committee for human rights in the
last session to know that I appreciate him and his work on the
committee even though we might disagree on this issue. Although I
state freely that I have moral reservations about the homosexual
lifestyle, I have approached the issue purely on the pragmatic
reasons I have outlined. Same sex benefits are not in the public
interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on the motion
put forward by my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures
necessary for the legal recognition of same-sex spouses.
Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to commend the hon.
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for having the courage to
table in this House a motion that makes us see, in terms of human
rights, what is really at stake here and, more importantly, where the
members of this House, particularly our colleagues from the
Reform Party as well as certain members of the Liberal majority,
really stand on this issue.
Several of my colleagues, including the hon. member for
Chicoutimi who spoke a moment ago, the hon. member for
Jonquière who spoke during the first hour of debate and, of course,
the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, addressed the
merits of the question of recognizing the rights of same sex
spouses, the need to take action and the economic impact of such a
decision. I therefore have no intention of repeating what was said
as these points were quite aptly made.
(1130)
I would like to address what appears to be the main issue: is this
a debate on homosexuality or a debate on human rights?
It is true that we are used to hearing our colleagues from the
Reform Party talk that way. One would think that Reform members
have become all round right wing fundamentalists. We are used to
this kind of language, but there is still a limit to what I can tolerate.
When it comes to despicable, shameful and downright
unacceptable remarks, our Liberal colleague from Central Nova
takes the cake. She was heard making such remarks more than once
in this House; first, during the debate on Bill C-41 and again when
she spoke on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. What she said was a disgrace-I
repeat, a disgrace-for this House, the Liberal majority and
democracy itself.
What is it that the member for Central Nova said and was
applauded for by Reform members? In her remarks on Bill C-41,
she said, and I quote: ``Homosexuality is not natural; it is immoral
and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our
Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned''.
And she added: ``-a faction in our society which is
undermining and destroying our Canadian values and Christian
morality-We have the majority-I suppose she is referring to the
heterosexual community here. We have a democracy. I am
representing in my viewpoint the majority of Canadians''.
If this is the kind of society and the kind of freedom that Canada
has to offer, and if the member for Central Nova is, as she claimed,
speaking on behalf of most Canadians, then it is urgent for us
Quebecers to get out of this country.
We take exception to such comments. The debate in this House is
on the motion tabled by my colleague, the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and it has to do with human rights, not
homosexuality. If there are members in this House who have
doubts as to their own sexual orientation, they should go for some
therapy. This is not the place for group therapy. As a democratic
institution, Parliament must ensure that democratic values are
respected and promoted. I dare say that one of the most important
democratic values is the respect of individuals in each and every
one of our families.
We all know men and women who live their homosexuality. Do
Reform Party members claim that these people should be
eliminated, that their most basic rights should not be recognized?
We are not saying that the House should pass a motion to promote
homosexuality, no more than it should promote heterosexuality.
What we are saying is that if two people, whether a man and a
14506
woman, two men or two women, decide to live together, why
should they not be treated with respect and fairness in our laws?
This is what the debate is all about. This is the issue that we will
vote on in a few minutes.
I did not hear many Liberal Party members speak in favour of
this motion. Am I to understand that they support the views
expressed by the member for Central Nova?
(1135)
I am putting the question to them. There are a few minutes left
and I would appreciate an answer. This is a fundamental debate on
human rights. These days, and this is particularly true of Liberal
Party members, many are trying to champion individual freedoms
in Quebec. I would like to hear some Liberal members address the
issue today.
It should also be pointed out that values evolve with time. Let me
quote the member for Central Nova. She made these comments in
this House, during the debate on this motion. I could not believe
what I was hearing. On June 1, 1995, the member said, in reference
to the motion tabled by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:
``All these demands are encroaching on and undermining the
inherent and inviolable rights of families. Families have existed
before the church. Families have existed before the state.
Parliament has absolutely no legal or constitutional authority to
redefine family, or to enter into the realm of the sanctity of
marriage''. Given the reasoning of the member for Central Nova,
there would never have been a Parliament, since Parliament is there
to pass legislation and grant rights to the population.
Again, since Parliament necessarily came after families and after
the church, it would never have existed, based on the member's
reasoning. As we all know, and as the member for Chicoutimi
pointed out just a few moments ago, values change over time.
Thirty or forty years ago, there was no recognition of common law
spouses. Divorced people were pointed at, perceived within their
communities as abnormal, as needing to be watched and reported
on. Unwed mothers had to hide away, give birth to their babies in
institutions and then give them up. All that barely 30 or 40 years
ago. That is how it was in Quebec and I imagine it was the same
everywhere in Canada.
The disabled were seen as invalids who generally had to be
institutionalized. Seventy-five years ago, Canadian women did not
have the right to vote. Fifty years ago that was the situation in
Quebec. There was slavery in the United States 150 years ago. Four
hundred years ago Galileo was imprisoned for saying that the earth
was round. Human kind has evolved since it first appeared on this
planet. I trust that this process will continue and that the example of
the member for Central Nova will be nothing more than one
unfortunate anecdote in the history of humanity.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I remind the House the
question will be put at 11.45 a.m. We entered this debate at 11.03
a.m. with 42 minutes of maximum debate time. I want to forewarn
the House.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in speaking to Motion No. 264 I will focus my discussion on three
of the concerns I have relating to this motion: the opposition
Canadians appear to hold in recognizing same sex relationships;
the extremely limited number of people such drastic changes would
benefit; the excessive cost both in time and money resulting from
the passage and implementation of Motion No. 264.
Much of the debate over this motion has centred around the
various financial and legal benefits currently available only to
opposite sex couples. The reasoning behind these benefits lies in
the desire of all levels of government to protect and preserve the
two parent nuclear family.
From biblical times to the present day, the traditional family has
been viewed as an ideal family structure. As well, it is the building
block of the extended family, the cornerstone of contemporary
Canadian life.
The dozens of programs directed toward traditional couples and
families have been brought in over many years after careful study
and discussion.
(1140 )
Support of the traditional family remains widespread today.
According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 68 per cent of all Canadians
believe the traditional two parent family is the very best family
model in which to raise children. If we talk to educators and
counsellors across the country they will tell us that on average the
most well adjusted, well behaved children are those who come
from the traditional ideal family model consisting of a father, a
mother and children.
The sorts of radical changes advocated by the motion do nothing
whatsoever to enhance the nuclear family. Rather, they remove the
distinctiveness and uniqueness, reducing the traditional family
structure from the ideal choice to simply one choice among a range
of options. I refuse to stand by and let this happen.
It appears this opinion is shared by the vast majority of
Canadians. Again according to a recent Angus Reid poll, a poll
conducted for the international year of the family, a solid 60 per
cent of Canadians rejected the idea of benefits for same sex couples
and 85 per cent objected to paying higher taxes to fund benefits for
same sex couples.
As well, a recent constituency poll showed me that 77 per cent of
the people in my riding oppose the official sanctioning of same sex
14507
couples in the manner the hon. member is advocating. The people
of Cariboo-Chilcotin and the people of Canada have spoken out
on the motion. They are not saying no to the principle of personal
choice and they are not saying no to members' sexual orientation.
They are saying no to full legal recognition of same sex couples.
Motion No. 264 is asking for our opinion as MPs on the issue.
Members of Parliament are charged with the duty of representing
their constituents and reflecting the will of Canadians in
legislation. Canadians have clearly stated their opinion in the
matter and I certainly intend to respect it.
We must also be realistic about the number of people the motion
and the changes it could bring into being will affect. Often the
figure of 10 per cent is cited as if to create the impression of a large
invisible minority clamouring for rights. However, numerous
studies have placed the percentage of homosexuals within Canada
at between 1 per cent and 3 per cent. According to Professor
Edmund Bloedow of Carleton University, fewer than 5 per cent of
these individuals are in some form of permanent or committed
relationship. Sociologists Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, in their
book Homosexualities, assert that a mere 1 per cent of people
within the homosexual community are committed to a single
lifetime partner.
I therefore question the necessity and urgency of debating the
principle of same sex couple recognition. The hon. member has
shared with the House the normality of same sex couples and how
they are virtually identical to opposite sex couples. However,
academics have gone on record to argue that committed same sex
couples are more the exception than the norm by far within the
homosexual community.
Before the House even considers making the kinds of changes
advocated by the hon. member, we as members of Parliament have
to see proof that committed relationships are the ideal majority
preference, not the abnormality in the homosexual context.
To grant the sort of recognition the hon. member is seeking he
would have the House use hundreds of hours of precious time,
changing every piece of legislation mentioning the word couple
and spending millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees,
additional payouts, and supplemental benefits. The end result of
the motion, when all is said and done, would be either higher taxes,
increased debt, or reduced funding for programs supporting the
traditional family. These are results Canadians do not support.
Canada has little to gain and much to lose with the passage of the
motion. When the matter comes to a vote I intend to heed the
wishes of my fellow citizens and my constituents and vote against
Motion No. 264 as it now stands.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a tradition in this
House allowing the sponsor to close the debate. If I may I would
therefore request the consent of the House to make use of that
entitlement, two minutes more.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since the period of debate is
over, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is requesting the
unanimous consent of the House to conclude the debate, for a
maximum duration of two minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
[English]
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to close the
debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1145 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no consent. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(1200)
[Translation]
Before the taking of the vote:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As is the practice, the
recorded vote will be taken row by row, beginning with the mover.
I will then ask the other members supporting the motion on the
same side of the House as the mover to kindly rise. Next, the votes
of those supporting the motion on the opposite side of the House
will be recorded. The votes of those opposing the motion will be
recorded in the same order.
(Division No. 331)
YEAS
Members
Anawak
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Caccia
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Clancy
Cohen
Copps
Crête
14508
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Guay
Guimond
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Marchand
McLaughlin
Ménard
Milliken
Minna
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
St-Laurent-52
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Anderson
Assadourian
Asselin
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Deshaies
DeVillers
Discepola
Easter
Epp
Flis
Frazer
Gagliano
Gilmour
Goodale
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jennings
Jordan
Kerpan
Kirkby
Landry
Lastewka
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Payne
Penson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Rideout
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Thalheimer
Thompson
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest) -124
PAIRED MEMBERS
Nil/aucun
(1210)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
point of order under citation 501 of Beauchesne's sixth edition and
a ruling of the Speaker last June with regard to the wearing of
exhibits in the House. I would like to challenge that the member for
Halifax is wearing an exhibit which I do not think is proper in this
assembly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the member for
Lethbridge for his intervention. Perhaps I might seek the counsel of
the table officers for a moment, please.
The member for Lethbridge raises an issue following a ruling
made by the Speaker on an issue as we drew near to the summer
recess period. I would hope, as an occupant of this same chair, to
maintain the consistency of the ruling of the Speaker at that time.
I must state unequivocally that I did not personally view the
exhibit, be it a lapel button or otherwise. However, if in fact it drew
the attention of a member or others we would hope and call upon
members on both sides of the House to be mindful of the ruling of
the Speaker in June regarding exhibits, lapel pins, et cetera. The
Chair will endeavour to maintain a consistent interpretation of that
ruling throughout this session.
(1215 )
I thank the member for Lethbridge for his intervention. I regret I
cannot act differently. As I said, I did not personally view this
exhibit. I trust that this intervention will remind us all of the ruling
in June, that we will be respectful of that ruling and adhere to the
intervention of the Speaker.
I thank the member for Lethbridge for his intervention.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
14509
I believe you will find unanimous consent to have the following
motion put to the House without the usual notice and that it be
disposed of without debate.
I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be modified as follows: Arseneault, Guy; Beaumier, Colleen; Boudria,
Don; Catterall, Marlene; Duceppe, Gilles; Frazer, Jack; Langlois, François;
Laurin, René; Malhi, Gurbax Singh; McWhinney, Edward; Milliken, Peter;
Parrish, Carolyn; Ringma, Bob; Speaker, Ray.
And that the associate members of the said committee be as follows:
Bélanger, Mauril; Bellehumeur, Michel; Bertrand, Robert; Brushett, Dianne;
Cowling, Marlene; Epp, Ken; Gauthier, Michel; Grey, Deborah; Jordan, Jim;
Leroux, Gaston; Pickard, Jerry; Plamondon, Louis; Solomon, John and
Williams, John.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
14509
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.) moved that Bill C-83, an act to amend the
Auditor General Act be now be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, today with the proposed amendments to
the Auditor General Act, I believe the government is making
profound changes in the way it does business in order to make sure
that it's environmental agenda is integrated with Canada's
economic agenda.
Today we are also fulfilling a major election commitment of the
Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. In the red book we said:
Sustainable development, integrating economic with environmental goals
fits in the Liberal tradition of social investment and sound economic policy.
Preventive environmental care is the foundation of the Liberal approach to
sustainable development.
We also said:
It is past time for the federal government across all departments to act on this
understanding by adopting economic and environmental agendas that
converge.
Since assuming office we have tried to be guided by this belief.
Our approach has been to integrate economic, social,
environmental and foreign policies.
I believe we are serious about promoting sustainable
development. We are serious about the greening of government.
We are serious about getting the federal government's act together
on environmental issues. We want to be held accountable for our
environmental actions and our environmental planning.
We are serious about these things because Canadians want a
healthy country in which we and our children can work to achieve
our aspirations.
[Translation]
One vital aspect of our approach is to ensure that the
environment and sustainable development form an integral part of
the decision-making process in all federal government
departments.
We are therefore talking about decisions on new policy, new
programs and new regulations or legislation and on existing texts.
We are also talking about decisions concerning departmental
management of buildings, facilities and operations.
Proposals for amendments to the Auditor General Act now
before the House will result in much of the integration we are
aiming for. They form a key part of the government's response last
fall to the initial report by the Standing Committee on Environment
and Sustainable Development, entitled the ``commissioner of
environment and sustainable development''.
(1220)
Under the enlightened leadership of the hon. member for
Davenport and with the support of all the members, the report gave
careful consideration to the government's commitment in the red
book to establishing an environmental function equivalent to that
of the auditor general. The committee felt that, while it is vital to
audit existing government documents, it is even more important to
ensure that environmental considerations are a fundamental
consideration in all departmental planning.
The committee called for greater environmental auditing of
government policies, programs and legislation. It felt that the
government must report to Parliament and to the public on the
progress it makes in achieving its objectives.
[English]
The committee advocated the idea that the government go
beyond simply an environmental auditor and instead establish a
commissioner of environment and sustainable development. In
these proposed amendments to the Auditor General Act the
government will establish a commissioner and I hope meet the
objectives of the committee's report.
The amendments do contain one departure from the committee's
report and that is to create the commissioner of environment and
sustainable development not as a separate position but within the
existing framework of the office of the auditor general as
recommended in the minority report. This is not in any way to be
seen as a retreat from our red book pledge. Indeed I believe it will
prove to be an effective way of achieving our promise.
The office of the auditor general has clout. When the auditor
general speaks, departments of government listen. It is indepen-
14510
dent from government, it is well respected and it has the expertise,
as we saw recently in its initial assessments of environmental
auditing of the government.
For all these reasons I believe it can greatly enhance the
government's auditing of its environmental performance. There is
another advantage to this innovation. Within the work of the
auditor general, issues of environment and sustainable
development must be directly integrated into economic
considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable
development must be about. It is not a separate vertical approach
but rather a horizontal approach which must de facto involve every
department of government.
What then is the substance of these amendments to the Auditor
General Act that I am proposing today?
[Translation]
First, as I mentioned, these amendments establish the role of the
commissioner of the environment and of the office of sustainable
development within the office of the auditor general, as the official
opposition has proposed. The commissioner would report directly
to the auditor general and would work with him to evaluate the
government's implementation of sustainable development policies
and practices. The commissioner and the auditor general would
also work together in reporting to the House of Commons on the
government's practices in matters of ecology and sustainable
development.
[English]
No matter who the auditor general is, the amendments bind the
office of the auditor general and the commissioner for sustainable
development to encourage consideration of environment and
sustainable development in all official duties. They do that by
explicitly incorporating sustainable development and environment
into the Auditor General Act. They do it by requiring the auditor
general to take environmental effect into account when preparing
all reports to the House of Commons.
For the first time an independent commissioner has a mandate
and responsibility to follow up and report on what the government
is doing or failing to do in meeting its environmental
commitments. I must say entre parenthèses that one of the first
departments the office of the commissioner will be looking at is my
department, the Department of the Environment. We welcome the
opportunity of independent public review because we believe it
will accelerate the integration of the two key objectives of
sustainable development and their integration into the economy.
We know that the blaze of publicity that attends each auditor
general's report of financial failings has caused governments in the
past to move and to take a different path. We can expect an impact
at least as great for reports of environmental shortcomings and that
publicity or the urge to avoid it should be a powerful spur to
government action, a spur in more ways than one.
(1225 )
At times this may make things uncomfortable for us in
government. It may make things uncomfortable for us as ministers
and as members of the government but we are prepared and
welcome that discomfort if the end is better government for
Canadians. Better integration of sustainable development is a key
factor in making decisions.
Imagine if we had taken into account sustainable development
many years ago when we were making decisions about how to
allocate quota of the cod stock. Look at the price we pay today for
the thousands of fishermen who do not have fish to catch simply
because we did not develop sustainable fisheries, not only
domestically but internationally.
I had the privilege recently of participating in an environmental
trade mission to the Far East. In discussions several governments
were very interested in the concept of the commissioner for
sustainable development. They understand, as we understand, the
times when a department of the environment is the only department
responsible for sustainable development are gone. We need
integration through the highest levels of government. I believe the
influence of the office of the auditor general and the new
commissioner for sustainable development and the environment
will be able to deliver that cross-cutting analysis of all government
policy.
[Translation]
The scope of the amendments goes beyond a mere
institutionalizing of procedures for monitoring and reporting on
government activities.
More directly, these amendments require all federal departments
to take environmental action. They go further than the red book's
commitment in that they vigorously promote sustainable
development through government activities.
Under the Act as amended, each department has two years to
prepare a strategy for sustainable development, to be presented in
the House of Commons by the minister responsible. The strategy
must be results oriented. It should include the department's
objectives and a plan of action to attain those objectives.
[English]
In effect this legislation will make every minister a minister for
sustainable development. For example, the industry minister will
be responsible for the portfolio and also for ensuring the
Department of Industry operates in an environmentally sound way.
The same is true for the foreign affairs minister, the transport
minister and all of our colleagues.
14511
This is a step forward in making sustainable development more
than a concept. The departmental strategies will assist the auditor
general and the commissioner in not only monitoring government
for preparation of their reports to Parliament but they will also
serve as benchmarks by which the commissioner and the auditor
general can assess each government department's performance in
making that shift to sustainable development.
By the way, the auditor general and the stakeholders have
already indicated the need for such benchmarks. We need to show
where progress is being made and if not, why not. This is not a one
shot affair to be undertaken with fanfare and then quickly
forgotten. Every three years each department must update its
sustainable development strategy and its minister must table the
update in Parliament.
[Translation]
Thanks to these amendments, Canadians will be able to play
their part by ensuring that the government is responsive to
expectations with respect to the environment. The Auditor General
will have the authority to receive petitions from the public about
environmental matters and forward them to the appropriate
minister.
The number and purpose of petitions received by ministers and
the status of these files will be monitored, and the commissioner
will report on the results obtained to the House of Commons.
[English]
The amendments also require the commissioner to report every
year to the House of Commons on behalf of the auditor general.
These reports can focus on anything related to sustainable
development, whatever the commissioner feels important enough
to bring to the attention of the House. In particular, the
commissioner's annual report will show how far governments and
departments have gone in meeting the objectives and expectations
they have established in their strategies.
However, the annual report will not be the only report to the
House of Commons on our environmental performance.
(1230 )
These amendments will ensure that environmental observations
continue to be included in the auditor general's report as well. That
is important because the auditor general's reports are more general
in scope and they will include considerations of effectiveness and
the environment. One of the commissioner's duties will be to assist
the auditor general in preparing aspects of those reports referring to
the environment and sustainable development.
We are wasting no time in moving on our obligations under the
Auditor General Act because we are committed to thinking green
and ensuring that green government is a central component of the
decisions we make as a society. Our action plan accelerating the
shift to green practices in government can be reflected in the work
of Environment Canada. That plan has five points: green
procurement policies that emphasize reduction, reuse, and
purchase of environmentally sound products; managing the
department's car fleets to reduce emissions by 30 per cent within
the next five years; making zero waste a target in our offices;
improving energy efficiency and conserving water specifically by
auditing the use of water in all Environment Canada buildings.
[Translation]
We have already had some major successes. At Environment
Canada headquarters in Quebec City, in Sainte-Foy for instance,
water consumption dropped by 9.6 million litres annually
following implementation of effective ways to save water. This is a
good indication of the economic potential of sustainable
development.
[English]
In Hamilton-Wentworth at the Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, which is in the city of Burlington, energy efficiency
improvements are lowering carbon dioxide emissions by 5,900
tonnes. That is the equivalent per year to the emissions from 1,500
cars. That means we are saving enough energy to heat 525 homes a
year.
Another example is the new guidebook entitled ``A Guide to
Green Government'', which is signed by the Prime Minister and all
cabinet ministers, to help federal departments make sustainable
development their business. It will serve as ground breaking
information for the commissioner when she or he reports on the
success departments are having in integrating sustainable
development practices. They already have ``A Guide to Green
Government'' signed by the Prime Minister of Canada because he
believes that sustainable development is a responsibility we all
share. It is a responsibility shared by Canadians.
When governments prepare our strategies we must act in an open
and transparent way. We must include groups with expertise, like
the national round table on the environment and the economy.
[Translation]
Another example illustrates the fact that we take our
responsibilities seriously. The Minister of Finance and I received a
report from a multiparty task force that was asked to identify
obstacles to sound environmental practices as well as effective
ways to use economic instruments.
In the last budget, the government followed the short-term
recommendations of the task force, and we hope it will do more in
14512
the long term. The response will establish how the government
intends to go about using these economic instruments and to
develop government policies that are environmentally sound.
[English]
A final example of our commitment is the proclamation of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act last January. I believe the
legislation will ensure that environment is formally integrated into
the project planning process of government. Through the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency we are already working hard to
make sure that environmental assessments of new government
policies and programs are done well.
These are important measures to establish a framework.
[Translation]
For years, governments have been talking about sustainable
development. We have stated our commitment to this principle, but
it has not been easy to ensure compliance.
That is why environmental groups have been asking for a
governmental monitoring function and for independent reporting
that would focus on the government's environmental activities.
They saw this as a way to force governments to keep their word.
And just as persistently, our predecessors in government have
steadfastly refused to take this route.
[English]
We are convinced that these initiatives will have far reaching
effects within government and within society. I hope and believe
they will move government and the country forward on the path
from talking about sustainability to actually delivering in terms of
government policies and programs. That is something Canadians
can be grateful for today.
(1235)
I want to particularly thank the parliamentary committee under
the chairmanship of the hon. member for Davenport and also the
members of the opposition who brought constructive suggestions
to the table. I think all Canadians understand that whatever one's
political stripe, when it comes to the environment we should be
working on behalf of the whole country. Certainly we saw that
co-operation in the work of the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development. If we can carry on like
that in government, we will be doing okay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we
are back in the House after an exceptional summer during which
many things happened.
First of all, in Quebec, under the Parti Quebecois
government-in partnership with our party, the Bloc Quebecois,
and the ADQ, the Action démocratique du Québec, with the
support of many partners from all sectors of society, and in
accordance with the strong wishes of a majority of Quebecers-all
of us in Quebec are moving toward the referendum, which, I am
increasingly convinced, will give us a country, Quebec, in a few
weeks. This is what happened in Quebec over the summer. Winds
of change have been blowing and are getting stronger every day.
The Prime Minister of Canada, who says he is distinct-and I
fully concur with him-mentioned that the coming referendum
debate would be fun. With the winds of change getting stronger, the
fun expected by our distinct federalist Prime Minister will become
serious and I am sure that he will not find it so funny on October
30.
Other events have commanded my attention this past summer.
As a result of a labour dispute, workers at Ogilvie Mills in
Montreal have been on strike for more than a year. This is the only
labour dispute in Quebec that is specifically due to the use of scabs,
which is allowed by the Canada Labour Code. Yet, the Minister of
Labour, our national aunt, a first class switch-hitter and former
critic of the federal government, promised several times that she
would resolve this intolerable situation. The leader of the No side
in Quebec continues to say no to these Quebec workers.
Another major issue that is of particular concern to me is the
raising of the Irving Whale. I would first like to draw a parallel
between this issue and the bill before us today, in the hope that
creating the position of Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development will help us avoid a similar mess. Let us
hope that the federal commissioner can get involved in such federal
matters in order to alert decision makers and, if necessary, stop or
reverse decisions like the one to raise the Irving Whale.
This salvage operation, which was scheduled for the month of
August, could be described as a total fiasco. In fact, not only the
operation itself but the whole matter is a dismal failure.
Everything, from the decision making to the environmental
assessment, the awarding of the contract and the job itself, was
done in an incompetent and irresponsible fashion. The first one to
blame for this fiasco is the Minister of the Environment who, for
reasons I would describe as very partisan, took serious decisions
without proper thought. The minister's partisanship on this issue is
obvious. Just think back to the announcement she made in this
House, saying something like: ``Twenty five years have passed
since the barge sank, and nothing has been done. But I, just 90 days
after coming into office, made the right decision''.
We now have proof that the minister's decision was in fact a
botched job. The barge is still lying on the bottom of the Gulf, more
than $12 million was spent-taxpayers' money of course, the
procedure selected is increasingly questioned, and a Federal Court
14513
judge even requested that she redo her homework as far as
environmental assessments regarding PCBs are concerned.
Her botched and dicey decision could have caused irreparable
damage to the environment. This partisan political game she has
played is inexcusable.
(1240)
This threat that hung over the Gulf of St. Lawrence throughout
the month of August was a matter of continual concern for those
directly involved.
Speaking of those directly involved, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been conspicuously
reserved over the summer with his dear constituents who, all
summer long, were completely shattered by this decision to lift the
ship in that manner.
The media actually covered the operations, that they questioned
on many occasions. The work was conducted haphazardly and
without any degree of certainty. In a nutshell, it smacked of
amateurism, and that had many people worried.
I certainly hope that the commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development, whose position Bill C-83 seeks to
establish, will have a say in this kind of decisions, which directly
threaten the environment. The commissioner will be in a position
to monitor the whole decision making process.
In the case of the Irving Whale, the process followed was
seriously flawed, thus preventing an appropriate decision, that is
the best possible one. Indeed, the process followed regarding the
Irving Whale was flawed in several ways.
At the end of 1992, two studies commissioned by the Coast
Guard and by the Department of the Environment recommended
pumping the cargo out of the sunken wreck. Marex and CEF both
concluded that was the safest technique.
However, the government ignored the recommendations made in
studies which it commissioned. Instead, the Minister of the
Environment relied on a third study commissioned by an
independent organization, the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund,
which recommended lifting the barge without emptying it and
moving it to a safe place before pumping the oil out.
It should be noted that this study conducted by London's Murray
Fenton firm used the two above-mentioned studies as its main
references. How could this third firm go against the findings of the
other two if it used their studies as its basic reference? At that
stage, the process was very twisted to say the least. All this does
not seem very logical.
What we can figure out however, is the logic relating to the costs
of the operation. In spite of the reassuring words of the minister, it
is clear that the costs of the operation unduly influenced the
decision making process. Indeed, the government chose the least
expensive solution. Bloc Quebecois members and environmental
groups have always said that the government should first pump the
oil out of the barge.
Public hearings and consultations were held following the
minister's decision, but the whole process was obviously a sham.
Surely, the commissioner of the environment will be able to take a
close look at such decisions.
Then we found out that PCBs were present in the wreck. The
government says ``What a surprise-we did not know.'' Yet page 3
of chapter I of the Marex report submitted to the government in
December 1992 states that the capacity of the heaters ``was
transmitted to the cargo via a heating fluid (Monsanto MGS 295S)
and heating coils in each tank''. Thus the presence of PCBs was
already mentioned in the 1992 documents.
So, in June 1995, another environmental assessment and
consultations were carried out, this time not only fabricated but
hastily fabricated at that. The outcome: a federal court judge issues
a stop order and makes the Minister of the Environment do her
homework all over again, this time conforming to her own
department's statutes and regulations. That is something else, Mr.
Speaker. What a blow to the pride of our Minister of the
Environment, who had boasted only a few months earlier that she
had settled the whole thing.
So the work was stopped by an injunction, work that had been
delayed continuously and had already used up its budget. They say
that it would cost between $150 000 and $180 000 a day to go on
with the project.
(1245)
And while all this flagrant bungling was going on, those in
charge of the Coast Guard and Environment Canada were telling us
``No problem. This is a well-oiled operation.'' Never were words
so well chosen, for the whole danger of this controversial operation
lay in its ``well-oiled'' nature.
We are continuing to follow this issue very closely and are
anxious to see what the minister's next steps will be. I have drawn a
parallel between this issue and Bill C-83, an act to amend the
Auditor General Act, since the purpose of that bill is to create a
commissioner of the environment responsible for overseeing
situations like that of the Irving Whale.
It gives me pleasure to intervene, because this bill arises from
the dissenting opinion expressed by the Bloc Quebecois in the May
1995 report of the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development on the commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development.
As a result of the committee's work on this subject, the Bloc
members proposed three essential criteria in the creation of the
position of environmental auditor. They are as follows. First, it is
the government's responsibility to establish the policies and the
auditor's to examine them. Second, we must avoid creating more
14514
organizations with similar mandates. Third, economic and
environmental elements must be intrinsically linked.
These criteria gave rise to our party's proposal that the mandate
of the auditor general of the environment be given to the office of
the auditor general along with the resources it requires to
effectively carry out its role.
That is what we proposed at the time. Our proposal was
influenced in large measure by the testimony given by the auditor
general, Denis Desautels. In testifying before the committee, Mr.
Desautels indicated that his office performed the audit duties that
would constitute the prime responsibilities of an auditor general of
the environment. In other words, the auditor general indicated that
he was already involved in environment issues and that he spent
$4.5 million on them annually.
He also felt that his office could take on full responsibility for
examining environmental and sustainable development matters
with an additional appropriation of $4.5 million-making a total of
$9 million. The route proposed by the auditor general struck us as
the most sensible, simple and effective one to take. The Bloc
Quebecois therefore proposed this route, and with Bill C-83 the
government confirmed that we were right.
Most committee members were in favour of increasing
structures. The Liberal and Reform members advocated, at one and
the same time, a new body to be known as the office of the
commissioner for the environment and sustainable development
and the retention of the auditor general's duties in this area.
Liberals and Reformers recommended an office of the environment
and of sustainable development, with a budget of $5 million and
staff of 30 professional and 15 support employees.
Also as mentioned in recommendation No. 17 of the report, they
wanted to congratulate the auditor general on his initiatives on the
environment and urge him to keep up the good work. The
committee also recommended amending the Auditor General Act
so he would have the appropriate instruments to do his job.
Liberals and Reform Party members on the committee were in
favour of a new, specific structure, while maintaining and
enhancing another structure with the same responsibilities. This
would have been inconsistent, inefficient and very costly.
Fortunately, the Bloc made its own proposals, and the Liberal
minister listened to us, instead of acting on the recommendations
of her own members which would have created duplication and
overlap within the federal government.
I am glad that the Bloc and the auditor general opted for a
common sense approach in this matter.
I think the Liberals and Reform Party members on the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development do not
have a clue what common sense means and what the
environmental facts are, and I am referring to problems out there
that must be dealt with quickly and effectively.
Another instance of this lack of realism on the part of Liberal
and Reform members on the committee could be seen in the report
on the quinquennial review of the CEPA, the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act.
(1250)
Liberals and Reform Party members were convinced that it was
absolutely necessary to further centralize authority in Ottawa in
order to protect the environment. In this report, members opposite
and next to us raised several considerations to justify increased
centralization of authority in environmental matters. They referred
to the growing globalization of environmental problems, the issue
of national interest, the increasing importance of international
trade and an ecosystem based approach as so many reasons for
suggesting that the federal government expand its role and take full
responsibility for environmental protection.
With these proposals the committee, in its report on the
CEPA-by the way, the Bloc did not agree with the
report-ignored the fact that the provinces already had most of the
responsibility in this area. The committee, minus the Bloc, takes its
cues from the government. They speak the same language, the
language of centralization. The federal government wants more
power, steadily encroaching on areas that, either directly or
indirectly, come under provincial jurisdiction.
This encroachment by the federal government obviously leads to
legislative and regulatory duplication which has the effect of
setting back and undermining environmental protection. This
duplication also causes some reluctance and apprehension among
developers who no longer know where they stand. It is not very
good for the economy. And this while members opposite keep
talking about the economy and creating jobs.
With its increasing propensity for minding the business of the
provinces the government is hardly stimulating the economy. In
fact, it makes things increasingly difficult for its beloved economy.
This is very disturbing. And it is very disturbing for an economy
that is supposed to produce all those jobs promised by the Liberals
and for the environment, which is in dire need of being protected
and renewed.
Is there a way out of this extreme centralist approach? No, not
unless we take matters into our own hands as we are about to do in
Quebec on October 30. Federalism as such is centralizing, and I
would say very much so. This excessive centralization and the
manifold duplications it generates means established businesses
have to work harder in order to be heard by both levels of
government, face double the paper work and are obliged to meet
the requirements of two levels of government.
14515
One convincing example of the federal government's
duplication involves the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
which came in effect last January. Environmental assessment had
been, until then, essentially a matter of provincial jurisdiction, had
it not? The federal government's unilateral action turned the rules
of the game completely around. We in Quebec have been doing
environmental assessments for more than 15 years. We have
developed an expertise and have established a reputation. With its
legislation, the federal government wrecked everything. Worse
yet, the federal government did not incorporate any of the
amendments proposed by Quebec or any of the other provinces.
The repercussions of this affront to Quebec and the other
provinces on the CCME, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment, were significant. While the federal minister was
inviting her provincial counterparts to discuss harmonization, the
events of January 1995 cooled things off considerably.
According to some sources, the climate between the minister and
her counterparts remains unsettled. The federal minister would
appear to be acting in a somewhat cavalier fashion by showing
little concern for the provinces or for the environment. But what do
you expect, Mr. Speaker, the minister is much more a political
creature than an environmentalist. She is also much more of a
federalist at all cost, a vehement centralist, than a decentralist.
Her partisan instincts lead her to unacceptable behaviour that
raises a lot of concerns about the environment. She will certainly
not effectively manage the environment by treading on the backs of
the provinces-quite the contrary. The provinces, and Quebec in
particular, have a considerable lead in this area. The minister
should respect this and stop meddling in areas of jurisdiction
already occupied, and well occupied at that, by the provinces.
(1255)
If the new Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development looks carefully at the federal government's intrusion
into areas of provincial jurisdiction, I am sure that he will focus on
how overlap and duplication is detrimental to sound management
of the environment.
To get back to this bill, the minister proposes to amend the role
of the auditor general by giving him the specific mandate to look
into matters related to the environment and sustainable
development. As I said earlier and as he himself pointed out during
hearings, the auditor general has already opened the door by setting
aside $4.5 million a year for this purpose.
The bill provides for the appointment by the auditor general of a
senior officer to be called the Commissioner of the Environment
and Sustainable Development, who will perform this specific task.
One of the commissioner's duties will be to submit an annual
report to the House of Commons on behalf of the auditor general.
This report will deal mainly with two things: first, the extent to
which departments have met the objectives and implemented their
plans concerning the environment and sustainable development;
and second, a record of the petitions received and their status.
What is new in this bill is that it requires the new commissioner
to do two things: one, to ensure that category I departments table a
sustainable development strategy within two years after this bill
comes into force; two, to open a door by allowing citizens wishing
to be heard to file petitions calling for action on the environment
and sustainable development.
These two initiatives seem worthwhile in principle. In reality,
however, one may wonder how much actual impact they will have.
Let us have a closer look at this new opportunity for people to
file petitions with the commissioner.
This is a very simple procedure. The petition must be filed
within the specified deadline; certified copies must be sent to those
directly concerned; finally, the department responsible must
provide a response. The procedure will be implemented without
problems.
What I question though is the effectiveness of such petitions. Is
this bill merely and stupidly putting in place a mechanism by which
petitions can be tabled or will it really enable the people to have an
say and to effect change?
In light of what is achieved through the petitions we table in this
House, allow me to doubt their ability to effect any changes. The
government's will to respond by taking swift action is seriously
lacking. Petitions are given only trivial answers, based on facts,
statistics or results and in no way sway the government or compel it
to do anything. Petitions are not taken seriously by the government.
What will become of petitions to the commissioner of the
environment? They will have the same fate as the rest of the
petitions tabled in this place, since they will be answered by the
same departments. There is no doubt that the government should be
forced to pay greater attention to this means of applying pressure
that the taxpayers have. Greater merit should be recognized to
petitions.
I can remember the petition I tabled in this House regarding the
Irving Whale. On September 23, 1994, petitioners from the
Magdalen Islands asked that leaks be stopped and that further
public, and particularly more transparent, hearings be held on this
issue. To no avail. The barge continued to leak and is still leaking
as we speak, but no further hearings were held.
14516
The Minister of Transport's answer was flat and did not take
into account the concerns expressed by the people. Petitions are
useless since governments pay little attention to such demands.
This is highly regrettable and it aggrieves the people. On the
other hand, while not signing any petitions, lobbies are paid much
more attention to by ministers. The Liberals opposite are
particularly lax in that area. Recent decisions clearly show that
lobbyist and minister go hand in hand, while petitions amount to
nothing.
This concludes my remarks on the petition aspect of the bill. Let
us now turn to the other key element, namely the development and
tabling of sustainable development strategies by the departments.
I immediately wonder about the two year time limit for tabling
these strategies. What will the commissioner do during those two
years, since his job is to make inquiries and monitor the
implementation of departmental action plans and report annually
on the extent to which objectives were met? What is the
commissioner going to do for two years? This measure means that,
to all intents of purposes, he or she will have nothing to audit for
three years, assuming that the initial report will be on the first year
the strategies are implemented.
(1300)
Let us now examine these sustainable development strategies.
First of all, it needs to be pointed out that they replace the green
plan, that famous green plan which held such promise, but has
passed on after years of neglect by the government.
We in the Bloc see this new federal government approach as
another serious threat of encroachment and intrusion into
provincial areas of jurisdiction. This concept of sustainable
development which the federal departments are to develop
concretely into plans raises some legitimate concerns. Does not
sustainable development concern resources, an area of provincial
jurisdiction?
Recent federal government actions, including the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Liberals'
ultracentralist intent in the report on the CEPA, are clear evidence
to us of this tendency to interfere.
The federal government, under the guise of ecologizing the
operations of each department, is actually implementing an overall
result-oriented sustainable development strategy. On first view,
one might believe this to be an initiative with exclusively federal
effects, but when the description and orientations of this initiative
are examined, it can be seen that it will be able to influence all of
the provincial governments directly.
This initiative goes much further. By introducing sustainable
development, each department has an opportunity to take
responsibility for certain areas under federal jurisdiction. To
achieve the desired results, the federal government has identified
certain objectives for sustainable development which it intends to
promote. For instance, it wants to ensure that the development of
renewable and non-renewable resources, many of which, I may
remind you, are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, is
sustainable.
Even if the provinces play a major role in achieving these
objectives, the federal government has clearly indicated that it will
emphasize communications and consultations with individuals and
the private sector. It has only hinted at the possibility of joint
management agreements with the provinces and aboriginal
communities.
This approach, including implementation of the concept of
sustainable development and an emphasis on relations with
individuals and the private sector, may be seen as a threat to the
provinces. A very subtle threat, which nevertheless reveals the
cavalier approach of a federal government that uses this diversion
to satisfy its hunger for centralism. In fact, the federal government
increasingly resorts to this kind of strategy to get around the
provinces and encroach on a number of areas.
As far as the environment is concerned, this approach is both
unfortunate and dangerous. The federal government's record is not
outstanding in this respect, and centralism does not tend to produce
quick results where they are needed. We must not forget that the
environment is out there, not in the offices of Ottawa's bureaucrats.
We think that before making any claims that they can do a better
job, federal departments should start by complying with provincial
legislation. The environment is one area where the provinces
played a very active role well before the federal government did so.
In fact, the Constitution confers on them a role that is more
important than that of the federal government which, over the
years, has used and abused its spending power in provincial
jurisdictions. Ever since the federal government broke this delicate
balance in the middle of the eighties, the result has been
overlapping jurisdictions, conflicting objectives and costly
duplication.
Fortunately, in Quebec, on October 30, Quebecers will decide to
make their own country. Our environment will no longer be at the
mercy of the federal government and will be able to breath easier.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I get into talking about the bill I would like to make a few
comments about the previous speaker, my colleague from the Bloc.
I find it most interesting that the Bloc would want the federal
government to bow out of environment on the federal arena.
However it is quite prepared to accept Canadian tax dollars to raise
14517
the Irving Whale. This is part of the double message, the double
standard. I expect it is some of the nonsense that we will have to
put up with over the next six weeks from Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition.
(1305)
A similar issue is the pensions. Bloc members want out of the
country but they sure do not want out of the pension plan. They are
quite prepared to accept it.
To get back to the bill we are talking about today, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on the bill to amend the Auditor
General Act. I want to make clear from the outset that the Reform
Party supports efforts that balance economic and environmental
considerations to maintain a clean and healthy environment for
future generations.
We are into the third session of the 35th Parliament. Yet to date
the government has been visibly lacking in its environmental
initiatives. A recent study by the National Centre for Economic
Alternatives ranks Canada as the second worst in deterioration of
land, air and water. We have seen little action from the minister to
address this situation. We have heard plenty of rhetoric but have
seen very little action to address key environmental concerns.
Bill C-83 is one of the very few initiatives the Minister of the
Environment has announced and it is far from revolutionary. Bill
C-83 amends the Auditor General Act to create the position of
commissioner of the environment.
The commissioner of the environment was one of the initial
undertakings of the standing committee. This bill comes to the
House after a lengthy process of consultation with witnesses before
being sent to the minister. During committee I listened with
members on both sides of the House to witnesses who came
forward with recommendations on what role and which
responsibilities the new position of an environmental auditor
general should take.
At the end of the hearings the recommendations were
consolidated and I worked with members of the committee to sort
out and weigh the various recommendations. We put together a
standing committee report of recommendations which was then
forwarded to the Minister of the Environment last year.
It was a long process of deliberation. I commend the many
members and witnesses who contributed to the process. I am also
pleased to say that for the most part the members of the standing
committee on the environment were able to put aside partisan
politics to work for a common goal: to establish the role of a
commissioner of the environment.
It is unfortunate, however, when so much time, effort and
expense goes into these studies and committee reports that the end
result is barely acknowledged by the minister in the resultant
legislation.
Representatives are flown in from all over the country at
taxpayers' expense to present their concerns to the committee. One
of the roles of standing committees is to listen to and consult with
people on government initiatives and bills before the House, a role
which has been widely abused by this and previous governments. It
is unfortunate that the process of consultation under this
government is somewhat meaningless.
Despite any decisions made by the parliamentary committee or
any feedback from Canadians while the government is on the road
supposedly consulting with people, the bottom line remains that
decisions are still made behind closed doors at the whim of the
cabinet. It is particularly disappointing to note that very little of
Bill C-83 reflects what was contained in the recommendations of
the parliamentary committee presented to the environment minister
last year.
Why have a lengthy consultation process when the minister is
going to ignore the results?
If the bill is representative of the minister's initiatives on the
environment it speaks volumes. Members on both sides of the
House proposed a number of excellent recommendations regarding
the commissioner of the environment, most of which the minister
chose to ignore in the bill.
When the Canadian public has had the opportunity to examine
the bill they will conclude that it accomplishes particularly little to
protect the environment. It is little wonder Canadians have
criticized the minister for coming up short on her
accomplishments. Clearly this legislation is not the answer to
environmental concerns.
(1310 )
Canadians are waiting for the government to take charge and
pass reasoned, meaningful legislation, not bills like this one which
is completely lacking in substance and will do very little to change
the status quo on environment.
It should be noted that the commissioner of the environment was
not only a committee recommendation but also a Liberal red book
election promise which the minister again fails to deliver.
The environment committee made several recommendations for
the office of the commissioner of the environment, 17 in total. The
Reform Party supported the initiative. Yet few of the committee
recommendations have been followed through in the bill which
barely resembles the intent of the parliamentary submission
presented to the environment minister.
For example, the standing committee recommended that the
office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable
14518
development be established by new and separate legislation.
However the bill is an amendment to the Auditor General Act. The
bill is neither a new nor a separate piece of legislation.
The government promised in its red book that it would appoint
an environmental auditor. The bill does not do that. It creates in
legislation the position of a clerk who reports to the auditor
general, a clerk with a limited role and with very few powers, not
anything remotely close to an independent environmental auditor.
The standing committee on the environment recommended that
the government establish a new office designated the commissioner
of the environment and sustainable development. The legislation
does not establish a new office.
The commissioner of the environment is clearly not an
independent environmental auditor general but a clerk reporting to
the auditor general who will assist with environmental issues. It is
not independent. It is not powerful. It is a clerk.
I am sure the auditor general already has several assistants to
help him with environmental issues. I question the need to entrench
the position in legislation, especially given the limited mandate
spelled out in the legislation. The government has severely reduced
the scope and extent of the position by establishing the
commissioner of the environment within the offices of the auditor
general in a position.
I can question how much if any the new position will actually
change the status quo. The auditor general already responds to
environmental issues. Now he has his new clerk entrenched in
legislation to help him with the issues. This does not change
anything.
The red book promised the environmental auditor general would
report directly to Parliament. This was also recommended by the
standing committee. Again the government has reneged on its
promise. The bill comes up short of fulfilling this promise. Bill
C-83 proposes the new assistant to the auditor general will report to
the auditor general, not to Parliament as promised. When the
commissioner reports to Parliament it is through the auditor
general, not as an independent body.
The committee also recommended that the commissioner submit
an annual report to Parliament. The bill proposes that the
commissioner's annual report to Parliament will be on behalf of the
auditor general who does the same thing. Appointing an assistant to
speak for the auditor general hardly changes the status quo.
Another recommendation from the standing committee on the
environment which the minister has ignored is that all reports
produced by the commissioner be referred automatically to the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development or to one or more parliamentary committees if the
subject matter of the report makes it appropriate or necessary.
Again there is nothing in the bill to support the committee
recommendations.
Within the duties of the commissioner of the environment the
only reports the commissioner will be making to Parliament on
behalf of the auditor general will be related to the status of
environmental petitions brought to the attention of government and
the status of departmental sustainable strategies. The bill does not
empower the commissioner of the environment to report on much
more than these two items.
In addition, the role of reporting on departmental sustainable
development strategies is not a new initiative of the government. It
was tried before when the last government attempted to establish
an office that would report on the status of departmental
sustainable development strategies. This office was called the
office of environmental stewardship. Its mandate was to carry out
environmental audits of federal departments and agencies in
co-operation with the office of the comptroller general. The details
and funding arrangements were all laid out in the green plan. This
April we learned that the plug had been pulled on the green plan. It
appears that this same office created by the last government has
been dismissed by this government and reintroduced as a new
initiative. The games they play in the tired politics of the old line
parties.
(1315)
The committee also recommended that the commissioner be
granted in legislation adequate access to information powers
commensurate with his or her mandate. Given that the mandate for
the commissioner is so weak clearly explains why the bill contains
no such recommendations.
The minister also completely ignored the committee
recommendation for the commissioner to have the discretionary
powers to appoint individuals to one or more advisory committees
to assist the office in the performance of its duties. This committee
recommendation has been completely ignored.
The committee also recommended that legislation to appoint the
commissioner should be with the approval of Parliament. Instead
the bill allows the auditor general to appoint the commissioner in
accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. Actually, this
is one recommendation of the minister which merits serious
consideration because in this instance it may eliminate the
potential for a patronage appointment, an area where this
government has been so free. By allowing the auditor general to
appoint a commissioner of the environment the position will be
more at arm's length from the government.
There is nothing in the bill that outlines the term or length of
office for the commissioner. The standing committee
recommended that the position be held for a term of five years
which may
14519
be reviewed only once, in other words a 10 year maximum. The
position would have a specified length of term. By allowing the
position to be renewed only once would prevent a monopoly of the
position and would allow fresh new ideas to be injected into the
position on a regular basis.
There is nothing in the bill which addresses the recommendation
that the commissioner be paid a salary equivalent to that of a judge
of the supreme court. However, the salary of course is based on the
role and mandate of an independent, effective position. Given the
measly powers and responsibilities of the position, such a salary
clearly is not warranted.
There is nothing in the bill that subjects the commissioner's
office to a parliamentary review. The committee recommended that
the office be subject to a review every five years by Parliament.
This would allow members of Parliament to evaluate the
effectiveness and usefulness of the position. It is clearly evident
that the minister has failed to carry through on this
recommendation in her bill. Such a clause could be contained in the
bill to ensure accountability. If the role is not effective or necessary
after five years a new government may wish to review and
reconsider the position. I suggest the government consider this.
The red book also promised that the environmental auditor
general would have ``powers of investigation similar to the powers
of the auditor general''. Yet in this bill the responsibility for
reporting on environmental issues remains with the auditor
general, not with a new body. The only powers of investigation that
the new commissioner on the environment will have in the
proposed legislation will be those designated by his boss.
The government is backtracking on another red book promise.
Obviously, as assistant to the auditor general the commissioner of
the environment does not have the same powers as his boss to
whom he reports. Whether issues are reported through the auditor
general or the auditor general's assistant, the commissioner of the
environment, it is still up to the auditor general to decide whether
action will be taken.
The government is not bound to any of the recommendations of
the auditor general nor is it required to make a formal response to
the auditor general's report. As a result-and we are well aware of
this-many recommendations in the auditor general's reports have
been ignored for years by governments which would rather not
recognize the problems or act on the solutions.
The Liberal red book criticized the Conservatives for their lack
of action in the area of environmental assessment, yet this
government refuses to conduct a full environmental assessment of
critical environmental hot spots such as the Sydney tar ponds in
Nova Scotia. It appears the gap between rhetoric and action is as
evident with the Liberals as it was with the Conservatives.
(1320)
The Minister of the Environment has complained that she cannot
perform her job without public pressure. Why then does the
minister not create a real position for the commissioner of the
environment with powers to put some pressure on her department
which she is having so much difficulty handling?
The standing committee proposed to create a separate,
independent office of the commissioner of the environment that
would have real powers and would be responsible to report directly
to the House. The legislation fails to meet the fundamental goals of
the standing committee and of the Liberal red book of election
promises.
It is high time the government came clean on its election
promises. The changes proposed in Bill C-83 to amend the Auditor
General Act are simply cosmetic. It is all just a big show from the
Liberals in an attempt to fool the public into thinking they are
actually doing something when clearly they are not. The bill is
nothing but fluff. It accomplishes little.
The government made a number of promises to Canadians. It is
becoming very apparent that it cannot or has no intention of
keeping promises such as establishing this position. It is time the
government came clean on its agenda. If government is going to
encourage others to clean up their act, it is time it started putting its
own house in order.
From the failure of the government to establish a real
environmental auditor general, or a real ethics commissioner for
that matter, to the failure of individual members across the way to
resist the draw of the pension trough, the picture is clear: the
government has no intention of keeping many of its promises to the
people of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move to the
next stage of debate where members will be entitled to a maximum
of 20 minutes in their interventions subject to a 10-minute question
or comment period.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to begin with, I would comment very briefly on a remark
by the hon. member for Laurentides, who, when speaking on behalf
of the official opposition, accused the minister of partisan politics.
I could not help noting the irony of her remark in a debate on an
environment bill when she talked about the Quebec referendum and
the Ogilvie mills, of her lengthy remarks concerning the Irving
Whale and of course of the usual litany on centralizing federalism
with all its sins and evils.
Even more ironically, while accusing the minister of partisan
politics, she herself admitted that the minister chose the option put
14520
forward by the Bloc Quebecois as the official minority, rather than
the option put forward by the Liberal majority.
I believe that Canadians, including Quebecers, want to set aside
this sort of unproductive debate. Everyone agrees that
environmental concerns transcend political referendum disputes
and so-called centralizing federalism. For this reason, I am going to
avoid talking about this sort of thing and keep to the subject of Bill
C-83.
In 1987, I had the honour of being a member of the Canadian
delegation to the United Nations when Prime Minister Brundtland
submitted her famous report on the environment and the economy,
known today as the Brundtland report. She was followed at the
podium by the president of the Maldive Islands, Mr. Abdul
Gayoom, who remains the president today.
The Maldives are an archipelago of some 100 islands south of
India in the Indian Ocean. Describing his country in the words of
the great Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl as jewels on a
cushion of blue-the Indian Ocean-he said that his country and its
magnificent islands were not hit by storms and adverse weather
conditions until the 1980s. They were inundated by enormous
waves in 1984 and 1985 and then again in 1986 and 1987-for the
first time in their history. These waves became increasingly
violent, bringing about distress, destruction and casualties.
Everybody there was asking the representatives of industrialized
countries: ``Do we, innocent people of the Maldives, have to pay
the price for the destruction you caused, for the harm you did to the
environment, for the greenhouse effect, for all the environmental
problems for which we are totally blameless and for the
consequences of your actions?''
(1325)
I submit this is a fundamental problem and that, as a rich country
with unparalleled natural resources, we must set an example for the
world, especially for the developing countries which have to
endure the consequences of the actions taken by industrialized
countries. We must show the world that sustainable development is
more than just words.
[English]
We have to start practising what we preach on the international
scene. Sustainable development must never be just a catchword. It
must never be that kind of convenient buzz word that makes us
escape from the realities of having to integrate economy and
environment in a realistic and true fashion.
If the federal government does not practise sustainable
development in all its day to day doings in its act of governing the
country then how can it expect its citizens to do the same? How can
it expect municipalities and provincial governments to practise
sustainable development if it does not show the example itself?
This is why in 1993 in the red book the Liberal Party of Canada
devoted a total chapter on sustainable development. One of the key
parts of that chapter was to install a commissioner of the
environment. In the red book the idea was such that it be linked to
the office of the auditor general of the environment.
I am very pleased this is becoming a reality with Bill C-83. We
will become the second country in the world to install a
commissioner of environment and sustainable development after
the leading example of New Zealand several years ago.
This new office will have significant powers. Beyond the
significant powers of the office, the very existence of the office of a
commissioner of environment and sustainable development sends a
powerful signal not only within the government itself but beyond
the government into the reaches of Canadian society. They now
know there will be somebody there, a monitor, an ombudsman,
who will devote his or her duties to the environment and
sustainable development in making sure the government itself
practises what it preaches.
[Translation]
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development held hearings for several months on that topic. Our
colleague from Davenport really deserves to be congratulated for
his sensible and really inspiring leadership. In fact, our committee
had recommended that an independent commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development be designated, a position
similar to that of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but the
government went with the suggestion made by the official
opposition, to set up a commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development within the office of the auditor general.
Despite the fact that the government did not choose the option
recommended by the committee, I think-even though I was a
member of the committee-that it is a major step forward. Today,
with Bill C-83, we are creating this position of commissioner,
which becomes irreversible. With the appointment of the
commissioner, two years from now each government department
will be required by law to table in the House a sustainable
development strategy.
(1330)
These strategies will have to be updated every three years and
the revised strategies will also have to be tabled before Parliament.
So, Parliament will be accountable to the Canadian people for all
these sustainable development strategies in the future.
[English]
It is a tremendous departure for the Canadian public that in the
future every ministry of government will have not only to produce
a strategy of sustainable development but also be responsible to the
commissioner for its being monitored, its being followed up very
14521
closely to ensure that it really responds to the reality of truly
integrating economy and environment in our governance.
Further, the public can now intervene with the commissioner.
The public can send petitions to the commissioner if it does not
agree with government policy or government programs relating to
environment and sustainable development. The commissioner will
transmit the petitions to the ministers and the ministers will be
bound by this bill, Bill C-83, to respond to the commissioner within
a reasonable delay so that the public at large will feel very truly that
in the commissioner for environment and sustainable development
it has an ally, an ombudsman, somebody it can turn to at all times
and in complete open freedom.
[Translation]
The commissioner will have to table before the House an annual
report to Parliament. This annual report will give the status of each
department regarding its sustainable development strategy.
[English]
Furthermore, the report of the commissioner will have to give
details of all the petitions he has received from the Canadian
public, what action has been taken, and what response the ministers
have given in regard to these petitions.
The key issue here is if this commissioner of environment and
sustainable development will be truly independent and have the
necessary powers, autonomy, independence to ensure that he or she
is listened to and that the public feels that through this office it has
a voice and a say.
The best answer to this is that we will now have to amend the law
of the auditor general. I think all Canadians are fully satisfied to
date about the independence, the autonomy, the openness of the
auditor general to freely criticize government when he or she feels
that criticism is deserved and that criticism is carried far and wide
into the land and the government pays heed. I am convinced that it
will be the case with the commissioner for environment and
sustainable development and that the commissioner will have the
full independence and autonomy that he or she deserves on behalf
of the Canadian public.
We have just undergone work on behalf of the committee on the
environment and sustainable development under the leadership of
the member for Davenport on a massive review of the mainstay of
Canadian environmental legislation at the federal level, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This review has touched
on the various aspects of what must guide the environmental cause
in the future: the fact that we cannot govern ourselves now in little
compartments, that ecosystems mean that everything is connected
with everything else and we human beings are connected with the
ecosystems, that without this interconnection, this interdependence
of all the elements that form the ecosystems and bioregions,
economic development or profit is impossible. You cannot plant
trees in a desert. You cannot use water if the stream has dried up.
(1335)
We who are blessed with natural resources beyond compare have
a duty to guide ourselves in the future so that instead of short term
we look to what our aboriginal brothers and sisters say: seven
generations ahead. We really truly believe, as they do, that a
healthy mother earth provides a healthy quality of life but a sick
mother earth makes us sick as well.
I believe that the CEPA review, having put out all these new
ideas into the realm of the Canadian public today, will see in the
office of the commissioner of environment and sustainable
development a tremendous opportunity for these ideas gaining
ground in actual governance inside the federal system.
I believe the time has come for us to realize that we cannot be the
society of waste we have been. We cannot continue to be the
society of overuse of energy. We must live differently. We must
find new ways of production. We cannot toxify and harm our
natural resources forever without suffering the consequences. This
is why this bill is so important to all of us today.
I was listening to the official opposition with all its litany of
partisan politics about the referendum. I have always believed and
my experience has shown me, as a politician in Quebec and also at
the federal level, that the environment is the greatest binding thread
among people because it knows no colour, it knows no race, no
creed, no physical boundary. The environment is all of us. It is life
itself. It is whatever sustains life and living. It is a tremendous
binding force for good.
I think at this time especially we should reflect on the
tremendous binding force the environment can be among
Canadians. If we really truly believe in the environmental cause, in
quality of life, in the seven generations, then we will back Bill C-83
with great conviction. I am convinced that it will change the way
we govern ourselves. It will lead to change in the way we act and
live as citizens so that we will look to our natural resources to be
there not only when we ourselves grow old but for the generations
to come.
It is with great conviction that I will vote for Bill C-83.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to be here today to take part in the
debate and listen to the hon. parliamentary secretary respond to the
bill before us.
The parliamentary secretary make a couple of important
notations in his remarks to the House. He talked about sustainable
development being more than just words. Obviously all of us agree
14522
with that. The whole activity of working toward sustainability must
be more than just words. It must be seen to be happening, not just
heard to be happening. Governments often are not trusted because
they say things that cannot be seen.
The committee did a tremendous amount of work on this, as the
parliamentary secretary has already indicated. In his remarks he
referred to Canada now being only the second country in the world
to install a commissioner of the environment. He pointed out that
New Zealand was the first country to have a commissioner.
(1340 )
The point I wish to address my question to is the concept of
sustainable development being more than words. The New Zealand
model for a commissioner is much different from the model being
put forward in Bill C-83. Helen Hughes, the commissioner of the
evironment for New Zealand, appeared before the parliamentary
committee and said at the time that she would find it very difficult
to operate without being able to look at government policy. The
commissioner of the environment in New Zealand has the ability to
look at government policy, has the ability to look ahead.
Bill C-83 simply gives the commissioner of the environment
within the auditor general's department the ability to look at what
government has done and tell us whether we have made a mistake,
not to tell us where we have to go and how to get there, not to look
at the future, the seven generations the member spoke about.
I wonder if the minister could tell us how he can talk about New
Zealand as a model to look up to and then indicate his support for
Bill C-83, which does not come close to the New Zealand model.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question
and also for the very significant contribution he made to our
committee when we studied this question. All of us on the
committee were truly grateful for his presence and his contribution.
I concede that we did not go as far as our report suggested.
Sometimes politics is the art of the feasible. However, I think it is a
significant start toward the New Zealand model.
The commissioner will have the task of ensuring that every
ministry of the government will have to table before the House
within two years strategies for sustainable development. Strategies
for sustainable development as such obviously will touch on policy
and programs because sustainable development is effectively how
we integrate the economy to the environment within a framework.
As the Minister of the Environment stated, environment will not
be carried just by the Minister of the Environment in the traditional
sense; every ministry will become a sustainable development
ministry. Furthermore, by law it will have to produce to Parliament
within two years a strategy of sustainable development.
This is looking forward and not backward. Obviously the
strategies will look to the future. If at the time the strategies are
tabled in Parliament Canadians or parliamentarians are not
satisfied, the commissioner will be subject to petitions on every
aspect of these strategies. He will have the power to report once a
year to Parliament on the status of these stratgies, which will have
to be updated every three years through Parliament.
Therefore, I do believe it is a significiant step forward. It may
not go as far as the New Zealand model, considering that New
Zealand is a country of 3 million people and we are a country 10
times larger and far more complex. At the same time, I am
convinced that it is a significant step forward.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
have a question for the parliamentary secretary.
As he heard earlier, the hon. member for Laurentides spoke at
length about an assumption of hers. She stated that the federal
government is using the environment as a means of concentrating
power in a big way in its own hands. I would like the parliamentary
secretary in order to tell us what he thinks about the point made by
the hon. member for Laurentides.
(1345)
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. As an
environmentalist of many years, as someone who has spent most of
his political life standing up for the environment, I must say that
wherever I go in Canada, whether it be in British Columbia, in
Newfoundland or especially in Quebec where I laboured for most
of my political career, including three years as Minister of the
Environment, whenever I talk to environmentalists or
environmental groups, I realize that they do not make any
distinction between the federal government and the provincial
government, when the environment is at stake.
All they want is for things to work out. All they want is a
collective approach where everyone can work together.
I know there has been duplication and overlap at times. It is
unavoidable in a government system like ours. But at the same
time, given all the positive work that has been done for the
environment these last few years, and the very fact that the Council
of Ministers of Environment has become a worthwhile body which
meets regularly, I think it would be a total exaggeration to say that
the federal government is using the environment to infringe upon
provincial areas of jurisdiction. In fact, I think we should put this
issue aside and find ways to turn the environment into a major
cause that could rally all of us, because for the sake of the
environment, we must all work together. Otherwise, we are
doomed to failure.
14523
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, to follow up on my previous comments and questions,
again I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words about
my work on the committee. I did enjoy the work on the committee.
I have congratulated the committee on its work since the report
was brought forward. The committee certainly did a tremendous
amount of work. I congratulate the chairperson and the
parliamentary secretary for their activity with regard to the
committee as well. I wish the government had listened to the
committee's recommendations because obviously we would be in a
better position today with regard to this bill.
My question has to do with the departmental strategies the
parliamentary secretary talked about. The bill asks the auditor
general for the environment to look at departmental strategies. The
bill gives the departmental officials two years to write those
strategies and then exempts them from redoing it again for another
three years. Does the parliamentary secretary know the purpose of
the auditor general for the first two years while the departmental
people are writing these strategies we are all supposed to be so
excited about?
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important
point which has also been raised by the official opposition.
Obviously during the first two years the commissioner will have to
set up the office and will have to organize the whole work of the
auditor general's department relating to the environment.
Today the auditor general carries out a significant amount of
work on the question of environment and sustainable development.
The commissioner will take over this work and will assist the
auditor general in carrying out this work further.
Also, the bill provides a very important function which cannot be
lessened or minimized which is the power of Canadians to be able
to submit petitions to the commissioner about government
performance in sustainable development. These petitions from
Canadians will certainly go forward and the commissioner will
have to deal with them.
The two years are a very wise investment in time. At least the
office will be well prepared to deal with infractions that will ensue
and will also help the auditor general with his important work on
environment and sustainable development.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of the legislation we are discussing this morning, that is
Bill C-83, is to amend the Auditor General Act so as, first, to
ensure that environmental considerations in the context of
sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor
general's reports to the House of Commons. Second, it provides for
the appointment of a Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development. Third, it imposes requirements for
responding to petitions received by the auditor general about
federal environmental matters in the context of sustainable
development.
So that it be clear for all constituents, a petition does not
necessarily have to be signed by hundreds of people. A complaint
made by only one person will be processed normally as if it were
endorsed by one or two thousand people.
Four, it requires monitoring and reporting to the House of
Commons on petitions and the extent to which departments have
met the objectives, and implemented the plans set out in their
sustainable development strategies. Fifth and finally, to require
each department to establish and table in the House a strategy for
sustainable development.
By tabling the bill in this House, the Liberal government across
the way will be able to claim that it is respecting one of its
campaign commitments as set out in the red book. In this
connection, the red book stated-if I may, I shall repeat the exact
quote that the Minister of the Environment gave a few minutes
ago-that a Liberal government will ``appoint an Environmental
Auditor General, reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of
investigations similar to the powers of the Auditor General. This
office would report annually to the public on how successfully
federal programs and spending are supporting the shift to
sustainable development. The report would also evaluate the
implementation and enforcement of federal environmental laws.
Individuals could petition the Environmental Auditor General to
conduct special investigations when they see environmental
policies or laws being ignored or violated''. End of quote from the
famous red book which, incidentally, has become very rare and
therefore worth its weight in gold.
The red book is now being kept hidden away under the counter,
and it is very difficult for anyone outside the Liberal Party to get a
copy.
It was, however, at the suggestion of members of the opposition
that the government decided to modify the Auditor General Act to
integrate the position of Environmental Auditor General. Let us
indicate right at the outset that the Deputy Prime Minister would
have liked this position of Environmental Auditor General to report
to her department, no doubt out of a desire to build up her influence
within her government or her party, or maybe both. But that is
another story we can get to later in more detail.
Here I would like to make a parenthetical remark. A few
minutes, a few seconds ago, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of the Environment stated in his response to one of my
colleagues that the environmentalists and ecologists wanted things
to work out.
(1355)
He says he is convinced that there is some overlap and
duplication in terms of public servants, services and money, but
what people, and particularly ecologists, really want is for the
operation
14524
to work. I am almost tempted to tell the parliamentary secretary to
the Minister of the Environment that we too hope it will work. I
remind him that it was 25 years just a few days ago that the Irving
Whale, a barge full of oil, sank off the Magdalen Islands and PEI.
At the end of June, we learned that there was not only bunker crude
oil but also PCB-contaminated oil in the wreck.
That oil is leaking, slowly but surely, in the Atlantic ocean. If the
hon. member is so intent on making it work, then he should take
action. He awarded a contract in the spring and the operation was
supposed to go smoothly. Yet, the barge is still at the bottom of the
ocean and hundreds of litres of bunker crude oil are leaking from it.
Again, if the hon. member really wants the operation to work, he
should take measures not only to pump the bunker crude oil out,
but also to get the Irving Whale out of there.
With leave, I will carry on after question period, but for now I
will conclude by reminding the hon. member of the St. Lawrence
action plan, phases I and II. The government took $6.5 million
allocated to phase II and invested that money in Miramichi, several
hundreds of kilometres away from the St. Lawrence River. This is
the vision of the federal environment department.
Indeed, a good part of the money allocated to clean the St.
Lawrence River, that is $6.5 million out of $20 million, was spent
in Miramichi, New Brunswick.
Such examples must be brought to light daily in the House of
Commons. I will get back to the green plan after question period.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5),
the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
14524
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
August 17, St. Catharines stood before the world's international
rowing body representing Canada's bid for the 1999 World Rowing
Championships.
Canada won the right to host the biggest world rowing event in
1999. The federal government played a leading role in the success
of the bid. The community, local fundraisers and other levels of
government will also assist in ensuring this project is a success.
The 1999 World Rowing Championships will bring millions of
dollars and hundreds of jobs to Canada. The event will bring the
athletes, coaches and media of some 40 countries. It will be the
final event in a summer long rowing festival in Canada including
the Pan American Games in Winnipeg, the Canada Cup in
Montreal, the Commonwealth Regatta in London, the Regatta of
the Americas in Welland and the Royal Canadian Henley and the
World's in St. Catharines.
I thank all my colleagues for the wonderful support they have
given in putting this bid forward. Canada's reputation in rowing is
known and respected around the world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, through
my participation in the NGO Forum and in the World Conference
on Women, I consider it a privilege to have witnessed the
dynamism and proud determination of women everywhere to
improve their living conditions. The Secretary of State for the
Status of Women who headed the Canadian delegation made a
commitment on behalf of her government to promote the equality
of women via the plan for gender equality.
On the strength of those promises, I invite the Canadian
government to translate words into actions and to immediately
adopt measures to create employment, daycare services, social
justice and measures to ensure employment equity as well, bearing
in mind those areas that are under provincial jurisdiction.
One thing is certain; with sovereignty, Quebec would finally
hold all of the powers necessary to continue to act in the best
interests of women.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
Parliament returns for its fall session, the country faces a number
of important challenges: health care reform, tax reform, pension
reform, UI reform. Yet none of these issues are on the
government's fall agenda. Why? Because the government has been
hijacked by the Quebec referendum.
We in the Reform Party refuse to be silenced by the separatists.
We will be the national opposition party, offering solutions to the
real problems that face the country.
14525
Our medicare-plus proposal will give provincial governments
the funding and flexibility they need. Our flat tax proposal will
revolutionize the tax system of the country. Our super RRSP
proposal will personalize retirement planning.
The message is clear. If neither the Liberals nor the Bloc will
speak on behalf of all Canadians, the Reform Party will. We have
the people, we have the plan and we have the will to confront the
tough issues.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Transport with his new marine strategy is considering a
recommendation concerning the policing of Canada's ports.
A recommendation that local ports simply use municipal police
forces or private security firms is just not adequate. The Canadian
Association of Police Chiefs has expressed its concerns and has
stated that Ports Canada police officers are specialists in their field,
they are trained and knowledgeable in national and international
crimes such as drug trafficking, illegal immigration and terrorist
activities.
Chief Sherwood of the Saint John Police Department has said
that he does not want the extra responsibility nor does he have the
manpower or the expertise.
I ask, for the safety and security of our country, that the
recommendation concerning port policing not be endorsed by the
government and that the port policing continue to be funded and
operated under federal jurisdiction.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the efforts of the
Hants County Youth for Youth, a group working in my riding of
Annapolis Valley-Hants.
Under the Youth Service Canada program, this dynamic group is
working to meet local community needs by focusing on a youth
newsletter, a project in tourism and to establish a youth centre,
which will officially open September 30.
In return, these participants are gaining valuable experience in
communication, personal development, entrepreneurial skills and
community development. I am proud of the efforts of these young
people.
I want also to thank the Hants West District School Board and
their partners, the Windsor Plains Recreation and Social
Development Committee and the Hants Shore Community Health
Centre for making this program a success.
I would ask that all members of the House join me in
congratulating everyone involved in the Hants County Youth for
Youth program.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just a week ago, Frank McKenna led the Liberals to a third
victory in a row, forming a majority government.
New Brunswickers gave the McKenna government the mandate
to carry on with its action plan based on job creation, a plan
showing that New Brunswick is always at the forefront.
[English]
I would like to congratulate all the elected MLAs, especially
those from my riding: Jean-Paul Savoie, Restigouche West;
Edmond Blanchard, Campbellton; Carolle de Ste. Croix, Dalhousie
Restigouche East; Albert Doucet, Nigadoo-Chaleur and Alban
Landry, Nepisiguit who all won their seats, keeping
Restigouche-Chaleur Liberal red.
I am also proud to say that the Confederation of Regions Party,
an anti-bilingual and regionally based party, was wiped off the
electoral map. Let this be a warning to the regional parties in the
House: Canadians have had their fill of one issue and regionally
based parties.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to recognize and compliment the newly named
Business Development Bank of Canada for creating a new micro
business loan for small business.
This program is aimed at helping both existing and new small
businesses with amounts up to $25,000. It will help ensure that the
entrepreneurial spirit in Canada is encouraged and that ideas that
will lead to new businesses and new employment will not be
starved for lack of capital.
(1405 )
An important component of this program is training. All
participants will be required to demonstrate their ability to handle
the financial aspects of operating a small business.
This is an example of the bank's new role as a complementary
lender. It is an example of the government's commitment to small
business and it is an example of how government can create an
environment in which the private sector can create jobs. I applaud
this initiative.
14526
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend a CROP poll reminded us once again that 50 per cent of
Canadians are open to a partnership with Quebec after a yes vote.
Beyond the unyielding stance of politicians who do not want to
have anything to do with any kind of association with a sovereign
Quebec, the people show plain common sense, realism and
pragmatism. As a matter of fact, half of the respondents agree that
the rest of Canada should maintain an economic and political
association with a sovereign Quebec.
This should be no surprise for government members. Even
before the federalist scare campaign, the majority of Canadians
outside Quebec said they were in favour of maintaining an
economic association. As we can see, they have not changed their
mind. The Canadian people knows where its true economic
interests lie.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the city of Calgary. After many months
of hard work and patience, Calgary has won the competition to host
Expo 2005.
The bid committee for Ottawa-Hull deserves tremendous credit
and congratulations for all the work it did on its bid. The healthy,
high quality competition only serves to raise the performance of
Calgary as it moves on to compete internationally to bring Expo
2005 to Canada.
On behalf of Canada, Calgary will make its submission au
Bureau des Expositions Internationales, a winning bid that will
make all Canadians proud.
[Translation]
I would like to congratulate again all participants in the
competition to host Expo. Calgary, Alberta and the federal
government must now work together to win the international
competition for Calgary to be a good hostess to Expo 2005. Once
Canada has won the right to host Expo 2005, I would like to invite
everybody to celebrate with us in Calgary.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Fourth World Conference for Women has ended in China amid
conflicting claims of great success and monumental failure.
As Canadians we have much of which to be proud. We have a
reputation world wide as a country which supports diversity and
equality. Canada's contribution to the United Nations' discussions
and Canada's non-governmental organizations played a large role
in promoting human rights and social and economic justice for
women on all continents.
However there are those who choose to present the results of the
conference as anti-family and to make outrageous claims about the
intent of the platform of action. I challenge those who choose to
manipulate the facts to Canadians to answer why it is anti-family to
condemn female genital mutilation of the girl child and neglect of
girl children; why it is anti-family to condemn rape as a war crime;
why it is anti-family to take measures to combat the feminization
of poverty; and why a platform of action which recognizes the
family as a basic unit of society that should be strengthened is
anti-family.
I now call on the government to put some force behind its words
and to have an action plan for implementation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the Leader of the Opposition showed us how much he scorns
democracy. According to him, a yes vote would clearly reflect the
opinion of Quebecers while a no vote would only give separatists
the excuse to impose referendum after referendum to Quebecers,
until sovereignty finally wins.
The words of the Bloc leader reveal a paternalistic attitude and
are an insult to the intelligence of Quebecers. People of Quebec are
often victims of such partiality because whatever separatists cannot
obtain with truth, they will try to obtain through cheating and
deception. In spite of all the PQ and BQ schemes-
The Speaker: My colleagues, we should not use such hard
words. Words like cheating seem too harsh to me. I would ask you
not to use words of that nature please.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
young people in the Matane region just discovered another aspect
of the intolerance of separatists. Last June, students at the Matane
secondary comprehensive school joined forces with the local
community service centre of that municipality to produce a video
against drugs. Since the beginning of the school year, that video has
been shown on the Radio-Québec channel in eastern Quebec.
14527
The director of the yes committee in Matane, a separatist,
protested against that video which underlines the courage of young
people who say no to drugs. There, I have said the n word, no
to drugs. The separatists put so much pressure on the LCSC that
it decided to withdraw that publicity from the air until the end
of the referendum campaign.
Obsession and paranoia have prevailed over the initiative of a
group of young students who had decided to do something
worthwhile for their community. No to drugs was for their future,
that of our youth. No to separation is also for their future.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in exchange for a pseudo-commitment on the part of
France to recognize an independent Quebec, the leader of the PQ
and his faithful lieutenant, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, have
refused to condemn France for resuming nuclear testing.
Until recently, the PQ had always advocated peace and
demilitarization. The PQ's political program published since 1970
states that Quebec will have to gain recognition within the
international community as a pacifist people by favouring
disarmament over war as a way to settle international disputes and
by opposing the testing and use of nuclear and bacteriological
weapons.
René Lévesque, the founder and former leader of the Parti
Quebecois, would be ashamed to see his so-called heirs make this
kind of shady deal.
* * *
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by awarding
to GM, in Ontario, the $2 billion armoured vehicle acquisition
contract, the federal government is once again making it clear that
Quebec does not get its fair share of defence contracts.
In addition, with total disregard for correct procedure, Chatham,
New Brunswick, was awarded the contract to refurbish old tanks as
compensation for the closure of the base.
On the other hand, in Saint-Jean, base operations were reduced
and the college was shut down. Why was Oerlikon not even
considered as a potential supplier of turrets for the new armoured
vehicles? Talk about a double standard!
It is clear now why the Minister of Defence stated, referring to
Quebec, that they could not afford the luxury of being totally fair.
That is what Canadian federalism is all about: while jobs are
created and R and D funds invested in Ontario, Quebec is left with
measly maintenance contracts.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
call attention to the need for appropriate sentencing in order to
prevent habitual offenders from victimizing communities.
The tragic death of Melissa Deley in my riding of Surrey North
so horrified my constituents that they were moved to march
spontaneously in the streets of Surrey. The police were vigilant and
swift in their pursuit and capture of the man accused of ending this
innocent child's life.
However, my constituents were horrified to learn that previous
to this, the accused stood before a judge and a crown attorney
pleaded with the judge to incarcerate this man because of his
record. He had attacked a guard while he was in custody. Instead
the accused was released by the judge with a $500 fine.
Melissa's parents and my constituents refuse to believe this is
the way our justice system should operate. They refuse to believe
the crown is powerless to protect law-abiding citizens from
habitual criminals. Surrey North wants criminal justice reforms
that work and it wants them now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois would have us
believe, not all Quebec artists are sold on separation. In an
interview carried by almost every major newspaper in Quebec,
singer-brewer Robert Charlebois expressed very little enthusiasm
over the prospect of Quebec separating.
His fear is that it will divide Quebecers, the end result being a
royal mess, with bitterness and jealousy on both sides, since the
whole process was based on hate and frustration; nothing great is to
be expected.
(1415)
Like most Quebecers, Robert Charlebois would rather have
governments focussing on job creation and the economy instead of
wasting time on futile quarrelling.
Robert Charlebois believes, and our government shares his view
on this, that the real solution for Quebec is an economic solution.
His way of helping Quebec, he says, is by providing employment.
14528
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday, we heard the news that the Bloc Quebecois will not
accept as final a No vote in the referendum. The Leader of the
Opposition said it in so many words: ``It is a non ending issue as
long as it would not be resolved by a Yes''.
Please allow an English speaking Quebecer to teach some
French to Mr. Bouchard. The Robert dictionary says-
[English]
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to refer to each other
by the names of their ridings. I will permit the member to continue.
[Translation]
Mr. Discepola: Please allow me to ssuggest that the Leader of
the Opposition check in the Robert dictionary, which says that No
is a negative adverb expressing a negative answer or refusal. It
certainly does not mean ``maybe'', ``some other time'' or ``next
time''.
Will we ever be done with the ``indépendantistes''? They
generate this economic instability and they are really costing us.
_____________________________________________
14528
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last year, Quebecers elected a sovereignist government
with a mandate to hold a referendum as soon as possible on
Quebec's accession to sovereignty.
Acting on its electoral promise, the government presided by
Jacques Parizeau triggered the referendum mechanism in the
National Assembly.
Recently, the Minister of Labour and federal minister
responsible for the Quebec referendum was called to order by the
Prime Minister for having said, and I quote: ``We have always said
that Quebecers had the right to express themselves on the future of
Quebec, either within or outside Canada. We live in a democratic
country, so we will respect the vote-''.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister: What was so
wrong about the minister's statement, which reflected the most
elementary principles of democracy, that would justify the
humiliating retraction he inflicted on her?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers will be able to express their opinion on
October 30 in a referendum.
As far as I am concerned, the country has other problems to deal
with as well, and I will not spend my time answering hypothetical
questions from the Leader of the Opposition who says that if it is
yes, it is yes, and if it is no, it is not the right answer.
So I do not need any lessons from him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I will be able to answer the
Leader of the Opposition if he tells me if it is supposed to be a
play-off, two out of three, three out of five or four out of seven.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think someone put on the wrong record, because the
question was about whether the Prime Minister could tell us why he
called his minister to order.
I would like to ask him whether we are to understand that taking
the same line he took with his minister, he also intends to call to
order the chairman of the No Committee, Daniel Johnson, who last
Tuesday in Quebec City recognized the right of Quebecers to
decide on their future and promised to respect their decision.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have always said they had the right to have a referendum
in Quebec. Quebecers can be consulted and can explain their point
of view.
(1420)
However, we on this side of the House are convinced that
Quebecers, if they are asked an honest question about the
separation of Quebec from Canada, not a trick question, no clever
twists and turns but an honest question: Do you want to separate
from Canada? If the leader of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Parizeau, was truly intellectually honest, he would have asked
Quebecers: Do you want to separate? And Quebecers would have
answered: No, never.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with respect, I deplore the fact that at the very beginning
of this fundamental debate, we are hearing applause for a prime
minister who has just impugned the intellectual honesty of Mr.
Jacques Parizeau, who certainly does not need lessons from this
prime minister.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bouchard: If I understood the Prime Minister's answer
correctly, he sees the outcome of this referendum merely as a point
of view to be expressed by the people of Quebec. I think we should
consider this from the legal point of view, and I may remind the
Prime Minister that the National Assembly and the Quebec Gov-
14529
ernment based their referendum strategy on the right of peoples to
determine their own future in a peaceful and democratic manner. I
want to ask the Prime Minister whether he recognizes the right of
Quebecers to do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask me about the
legal aspect, he already has an answer from the Quebec courts, and
I am not going to get involved in that, but I can answer his question.
When the Leader of the Opposition says that the right to
self-determination does not apply to aboriginal people in Quebec,
he is contradicting himself. So if he wants to have that kind of
debate, we can have one.
As far as I am concerned, I simply want to say that I am
surprised at the attitude taken by the opposition, which is hiding
things from the people. They did not want to ask an honest
question. The Leader of the Opposition told the Americans: ``I am
a separatist'' and when he is in Quebec, he is afraid to say he is a
separatist. As for what is happening in Quebec right now, when his
own economist, Mr. Mathews, prepared honest studies, the leader
of the government, the leader of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Parizeau, said he was incompetent. Does the Leader of the
Opposition agree with Mr. Parizeau that his own economist is not
competent?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it will be
noted that the Prime Minister is carefully trying to avoid answering
questions on the recognition of the right of Quebecers to make
decisions on their own future. He is also creating confusion by
censuring his minister responsible for the referendum in Quebec
because she made the terrible mistake of saying frankly that the
government should respect the wishes democratically expressed by
Quebecers.
My question to the Prime Minister is very clear and simple, and I
want an answer. Given the important consequences for all the
people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, can the Prime Minister
tell us clearly whether or not he will respect the choice expressed
by Quebecers in the upcoming referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the opposition to tell the government that
they will respect a No vote. We won the referendum in 1980 but
they did not respect the wishes of Quebecers.
They are doing the same thing again today. The Leader of the
Opposition says that he does not want the No side to win and that
he would not regard a No vote as final. When will he stop playing
with the future of the people, who want their governments to deal
with the real problems, look after their interests, create jobs and
provide sound public administration. That is what the people want
and what the opposition refuses to do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, they have
very short memories. Quebec sovereignists have always respected
the results of the 1980 referendum, as shown by the fact that, 15
years later, we are still in Canada discussing the Constitution
because two things have occurred since the referendum. The
situation has changed, Mr. Speaker. He unilaterally repatriated the
Constitution-
Some hon. members: Yes. Yes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: -and he killed the Meech Lake accord. He is the
one who is creating problems.
Some hon. members: Yes. Yes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to the man who said in 1980 that No
meant Yes and that Yes meant No, I ask the following question, and
we would like an answer.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that by refusing to
admit that he will respect the results of the democratic referendum
to be held in Quebec, he is contradicting the chairman of the No
committee and his boss in this case, Daniel Johnson from Quebec,
as well as his minister responsible for constitutional matters and
the referendum in Quebec? Does he realize that his irresponsibility
is creating uncertainty and that he is duty-bound to give real
answers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, how can Quebec separatists talk to me about the Meech
Lake accord when they were against it? They were against the
Meech Lake accord, and so too was Parizeau.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): And you stabbed-in the back.
Yes.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Although the Leader of the
Opposition was not present at the end of the Meech Lake debate, he
claims that it was a humiliation for Quebecers. They claim in their
propaganda that the rejection of the Charlottetown accord in a
referendum was a humiliation for Quebecers. Yet, they all voted
against it. They helped humiliate Quebecers by voting against the
accord.
I reiterate to the opposition that only 3 per cent of Quebecers see
the Constitution and the referendum as priorities. The remaining
Quebecers want their parliamentarians to deal with the real
problems such as job creation, social justice and Canada's place in
the world. They want us to deal with the real problems and, on
October
14530
30, Quebecers will say clearly to the separatists that they want to
remain in the best country in the world, Canada.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want this Quebec referendum to be decisive
and conclusive. They do not want any confusion or ambiguity
concerning the meaning of the vote, before or after.
Yet the Leader of the Opposition clouds the issue when he says
that he is prepared to accept a yes vote as binding and conclusive
but not a no vote, and the Prime Minister does not help things when
he implies that he is prepared to accept a no vote as binding and
conclusive but waffles on the meaning of a yes vote.
For the benefit of all Canadians including Quebecers who want
clarity and certainty in interpreting the Quebec referendum, will
the Prime Minister make clear that a yes vote means Quebec is on
its way out, that a no vote means Quebec is in the federation for the
long haul, and that 50 per cent plus one is the dividing line between
those two positions?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we had a clear question. They are asking the people of
Canada: Do you want sovereignty? At the same time they say they
want to stay in Canada.
Last week The Economist had the title ``They want a divorce
today and they want to be lovers tomorrow''. It is not a very clear
question. I have been asking them for a long time in this House of
Commons to give us a real question, an honest, clear question on
separation. They have clouded the issue talking about divorce and
remarriage at the same time. They want me on behalf of all
Canadians to say that with a clouded question like that with one
vote I will help them to destroy Canada. You might, I will not, Mr.
Manning.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to please direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a simple supplementary in response to the Prime
Minister's reply. If the question asked in the Quebec referendum is
not clear and is ambiguous, is he prepared to ensure a clear
question is put to Quebecers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there will be a clear answer by Quebecers on the 30th of
October. They will say they will stay in Canada so the question is
purely hypothetical.
The Speaker: Colleagues, the questions today have bordered on
the hypothetical. I would ask all hon. members in phrasing the
questions to please pay strict attention to the fact that they be
questions which deal with policy matters of the government as
opposed to hypothetical questions. I would ask you to do that.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find the Prime Minister's answer adding to the
ambiguity which as I said at the beginning Canadians do not want.
He just said that the question was unclear and therefore the answer
would be ambiguous. Then he said that the response to that
question would be a clear answer.
The majority of the members of this House believe that a yes
vote in the referendum means the separation of Quebec and an end
to its participation in the Canadian union. The separatist members
can talk about a new marriage or partnership but it will be a
partnership without a partner, a marriage without a spouse and
Quebec will find itself at home alone.
Will the Prime Minister therefore state unequivocally that a 50
per cent plus one yes in the referendum will mean, sadly, an end to
Quebec's position in Canada and not a new and better union?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, very often when the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois say that
they will all have an economic and political union, that they will
have a passport, citizenship, that they will have the same currency
and so on, they are not being very frank with the people of Quebec.
That would be decided by the rest of Canada if it were to be the
case.
(1435 )
But why waste our time? We have so many other problems
facing this nation. Six weeks from today the people of Quebec, the
people who were here, who opened up this country, when the
francophones of this land left the Saint-Maurice valley to open the
prairies, do we think these people will want to let go of the best
country in the world? They will not.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, you should have the rules of the House
respected. Hypothetical questions are not permitted in this
situation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his
autobiography, In the Lion's Den, published in 1985, our current
Prime Minister, undertook to abide by the decision made by
Quebecers, saying that his party was betting on democracy. That
they would convince that they should remain in Canada and would
win. If they lost, they would respect Quebecers' wish and accept
separation.
14531
How does the Prime Minister explain his about-face in refusing
to accept the outcome of the Quebec referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I actually made this statement in the riding of the Leader
of the Opposition, in Alma. At the time, when they asked me, I said
there would be a referendum and we would win. And we had a
referendum. All this took place before the first referendum. Since
then, the Leader of the Opposition and the separatists have been
saying that they will never take no for an answer. So they have
never said they would accept a no vote as valid.
The Leader of the Opposition has again said recently himself
that there will be referendum after referendum-except Quebecers
have heard enough talk about the constitution and do not want to
hear any more about it. They want to hear about the real problems
concerning Quebecers: job creation, income security, peace for
seniors. This is exactly what this government wants to do-look
after the country's real problems-while they are busy playing with
hypothetical questions. However, they will be making no more
speeches after October 30.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question was not about hypothetical remarks, but
about remarks the Prime Minister took the time to write. I imagine
it was he who wrote his book. It was before 1985, well before the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, well before Meech and all that. I
am asking the Prime Minister how he can justify changing his mind
on such a basic question, when he stated before the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, in 1990-1991 I would remind
you, and I quote: ``I am a democrat, and I said so in 1980. Had we
not recognized that Quebec could decide to separate, we would
have acted differently''.
Why is he not saying the same thing today? Are the years
eroding logic?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made that statement before the other referendum. We
had a referendum, but Canada won. So the problem was settled.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I wrote that before, in 1986, and
I said at the time that we were going to respect the referendum that
was held and we won. Now the opposition keeps saying that there
will be no end, that there will be a referendum so long as it fails to
win. I have to say that it is very important to respect democracy and
that, at the moment, the question put by the Parti Quebecois, by the
leader of the Leader of the Opposition, is ambiguous; it will create
an ambiguous situation, and Quebecers do not want an ambiguous
situation. They decided to remain in Canada, and Canada will be
the winner on October 30.
(1440 )
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
to say that I am extremely disturbed and I think Canadians will be
disturbed at the answers the Prime Minister gave to the leader of
the Reform Party.
We have the separatists in Quebec telling Quebecers that they
can vote yes and have this imaginary union. Now we have the
Prime Minister saying that a no vote counts and a yes vote may not
count. I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that position
carefully. Is he not really telling Quebecers that it is easy and
without risk to vote yes when that is not the case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what the real question is the member is
asking me. I am always telling Quebecers that they have a chance
to vote again on this.
For months and months I have asked the Government of Quebec
to ask a clear question. It is asking an ambiguous question. Reading
any comment on that from abroad they all say it is terribly
confusing. They say we will get divorced and then remarry.
The member is asking me to say yes to the question without any
analysis. Even then they say to Quebecers that separation will not
come the day after. Therefore, do not tell me to tell them that it will
be over on October 31. This country will be together on October 31
of this year and on October 31 of next year. As long as I am alive it
will be part of Canada. Therefore, I do not want to spend my time
talking about separation.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
country is not going to stay together just on the basis of one man's
interpretation of a referendum question. It will stay together
because the Prime Minister and others are successful in convincing
Quebecers to vote no.
I again ask the Prime Minister why he does not simply do what
the Leader of the Opposition is unwilling to do and tell Quebecers
that their vote counts, yes or no, and that democracy is on the side
of the federalists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one that I know of has talked more about Canada and
Quebec. I know they will vote for Canada even with this
ambiguous question. Therefore, I do not want to spend my time
replying to these hypothetical questions. We will campaign in
Quebec and Quebecers will know that it is in their best interests to
remain in Canada.
I do not understand why the Reform Party is trying to score
political points when it is time for all Canadians to be on the same
side in convincing Quebecers to stay in Canada.
14532
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, strangely enough, the Prime Minister did say-although it
is not so clear today and I am not too sure any more-that he
acknowledged the legitimacy of the referendum process under way
in Quebec. Unlike the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the
No committee, Daniel Johnson, however, he still refuses to
recognize the eventual results of this referendum process through
which Quebecers will decide their political future.
How can one logically reconcile acknowledging the legitimacy
of a democratic public consultation process, take part in it and at
the same time refuse to recognize its eventual results?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said several times already, we have asked for a clear
question and none was forthcoming. They do not even have the
courage to tell Quebecers that they are separatists. They looked for
and coined a word to describe themselves, which is not even in the
French language. They call themselves ``souverainistes''. It is
nowhere to be found in the dictionary.
They do not have the courage to let Quebecers know that they
want to separate. They are trying to disguise their option and they
want me to play their game, when I only want them to ask the
people, I challenge them to ask them this question because the
debate is not over in Quebec: Do you want to separate from the rest
of Canada? Period. Then I would be the first one to admit that they
were honest enough to put an absolutely unequivocal question to
Quebecers.
(1445)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, are we to understand from all the answers given by the
Prime Minister that, as far as he is concerned, the Quebec
referendum will only be valid if the results are what he is hoping
for? Is that his idea of democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition who says that a No vote
does not mean No, but that a Yes vote means Yes. They are the ones
who say that. They refuse to respect the people's wishes. They say
they will go on and on.
Quebecers have heard as much as they can take about
referendums and constitutional issues. They want politicians to
deal with job creation, provide sound public administration and
give them an honest and competent government. That is exactly
what they lack in Quebec and that is why they will be voting for
Canada on October 30.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian agenda includes a lot more than the Quebec
referendum.
Documented lawlessness was occurring at Camp Ipperwash
since the native occupation on July 29. The local community is
feeling betrayed by the total absence of military policing. This
absence culminated tragically and unnecessarily in the death of
Dudley George at the adjacent Ipperwash Provincial Park.
Why did the Department of National Defence allow the
2,000-acre military camp to go totally unpoliced after a 16-year old
crashed the bus into the camp buildings area?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the
band occupied part of Ipperwash in the fall of 1993.
In the budget of 1994 the government took the decision that
Camp Ipperwash would close. It was surplus to our needs. We then
entered into dialogue with the chief of the Kettle Point Band, Mr.
Bressette, to talk about transferring ownership as part of the
original agreement. Those discussions were rather long and
involved questions of compensation about environmental clean up,
all of which the government was committed to do.
When the rest of the renegade group, which does not accept the
main band and the chief, occupied the camp some time ago-I
guess it was in the month of July-the commander on the spot took
the correct action. Rather than have confrontation where there
would be loss of life, and given the fact that the camp was not being
used by the military, the military agreed to withdraw temporarily,
pending negotiations.
Those negotiations have borne fruit with the discussions that
were held last week by the minister of Indian affairs. Everyone
should congratulate him on the job he did in bringing a resolution
to this subject.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister was begged by the town, by the province, by
the Reform Party, and the chief and council of the band to militarily
police the camp and instead left a policing vacuum over lands
under his jurisdiction.
The minister swore an oath as a cabinet minister and privy
councillor to uphold the laws of Canada. When is the minister
going to do that?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, rather than
listen to the inflammatory remarks of the hon. member, what we
14533
have seen in the recent events is that only with dialogue and
negotiation with Canada's First Nations can we resolve these
disputes.
There was division within the aboriginal community on the
question of entitlement to that piece of land the federal government
wants to give back.
After the negotiations conducted by my colleague, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, this now appears to
be on the way to a satisfactory resolution.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Minister of Labour responsible for the
Quebec referendum made the following comment: We always said
that Quebecers have the right to express their views on Quebec's
future, whether that future is in or out of Canada. We live in a
democratic country; consequently, we will respect their wish.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Does the minister
responsible for the Quebec referendum still stand by her statement
to the effect that she will recognize the result of the referendum
vote?
(1450)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said, and I am proud to say it again in the House of
Commons, that Canada is a democratic country and this is why I
hold it so dear, as a Quebecer as well. Let us never forget that.
Mr. Speaker, we have always said that Quebecers have the right
to express themselves in a clear and democratic way regarding their
future. Where is the clear question? Where is the clear question
from our colleagues? Why are they hiding what is really at stake
with this referendum? What are they hiding?
They are hiding studies. What else are they hiding? Why do they
not want to tell the truth to Quebecers? The answer will be clear on
October 30.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's reprimand was heard clearly. The
fact is that when the minister said she would respect the wish of
Quebecers, she knew what the question was.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: So, will the minister recognize that, rather than
treading on her own principles, she should have had the courage to
resign to stand for her beliefs, express her attachment to Canada
and preserve her own credibility?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat what I was just told. I do not need any advice
on democracy. I was just told, as Yves Duhaime once said: Is she a
true Quebecer, since she was elected by the people of
Saint-Henri-Westmount? Since English speaking people voted
for me? Mr. Speaker, this is what was just said.
You can see the kind of moral standards and ethics we are
dealing with. Do we have the courage to tell the truth to Quebecers?
They can decide for themselves. If you ask them ``Do you want to
separate from Canada?'', the answer will be no.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the World Bank made public its report on the wealth
of countries. We are all thrilled to see that Canada ranks as the
second richest country in the world. I ask the minister to tell us
what this means for Canada and for Canadians.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for the question.
I am glad to share with my colleagues the decisions of the World
Bank and the new studies they have done and the new methods they
have used. It not only measures the industrial output but the
national wealth and the human resources of a country.
I am proud to say that Canada now ranks number two in wealth,
complementing the recent statement by the United Nations that
said we were number one in the world.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, another issue of
importance on the Canadian agenda is health care, even in Quebec.
The Liberals made a promise in the red book to have a national
forum on health care chaired by the Prime Minister. Could we have
a progress report, please?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to say that the forum is doing its work. It has released a
number of papers. It recently released one in Toronto on the issue
of private and public funding. It will commence a series of public
hearings some time this fall. Stay tuned, there will be more
coming.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the national
forum on health is an abject failure, but there is a meeting going on
right now that might bear some fruit. The provincial health
14534
ministers are meeting in B.C. Is the government going to listen to
constructive suggestions coming from that meeting?
(1455 )
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the first things I would like to state in the House is that
medicare works. The Canada Health Act enables medicare to work.
I am going to Victoria. I am leaving as soon as question period is
over. I am going there to work with the provinces. I will work with
them in any way I possibly can, but I will not allow the creation of a
two tier system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour. After publicly expressing
her vision of democracy by stating that the government would
respect the Quebec referendum results, the Minister of Labour, who
is responsible for the referendum in Quebec, was put in her place
by the Prime Minister a few minutes later.
Since she can no longer express her convictions in public, can
the Minister of Labour at least undertake to plead privately with the
Prime Minister to convince him to recognize the results of the
Quebec referendum?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said before, Quebecers have the right to express
clearly and democratically what they want their future to be, and
we will respect this right. That is why we are sure that, faced with a
clear question, Quebecers will say No to Quebec's separation from
the rest of Canada.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister admit that, by doing an about-face and saying she no
longer recognizes the obligation to respect the results of the
referendum, she is renouncing the loyalty she owes to Quebecers?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, who can claim to be real Quebecers? After reading the
bill's preamble, which says that we will lose our identity as
Quebecers if we stay in Canada, I wonder who they think they are. I
myself am a proud Quebecer and I will vote No.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today we have
heard a great deal about the October 30 Quebec deadline, but the
government has an important September 30 deadline on the future
of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission. Given the massive ongoing
fighting that is occurring in Bosnia and the fact that this afternoon
Boutros Boutros-Ghali announced that the peacekeepers should
leave Bosnia, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs do the right thing
and immediately announce that our troops will be withdrawn from
Bosnia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian soldiers are doing the right thing every day in
that part of the world. They are there serving in a very difficult
environment in order to protect civilians and help people to be fed
and protected. Canada and Canadians should be very proud of what
our soldiers are doing there.
We are committed to the end of the mandate. It is quite clear that
Canada will respect the mandate it has received from
parliamentarians and that the Canadians will stay to the end of the
mandate. We will have a chance to discuss with our colleagues and
other countries who are contributing troops in that part of the world
what is the best thing to do in order to enhance the peace process
that is taking place.
We hope that Mr. Holbrooke, on behalf of the contact group, will
conclude his negotiations with the parties in order to install peace
for all the parties in the region.
(1500 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our troops have
been hunkered down for months now. They are not delivering on
their mandate, as Boutros Boutros-Ghali said today.
As the minister said, they are there for peacekeeping only. That
is the only function they should be there for but there is no peace to
keep. Again I ask the minister, why are you breaking faith with our
troops, abandoning them-
The Speaker: Earlier in question period I mentioned that you
should please address your questions through the Chair. I would
ask you to do so please.
I am going to permit the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs to
answer.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say through you to the hon. member that I do not
know where he is getting his information.
The soldiers who are there now, those who have served there and
those who have come back from Croatia have all indicated their
pride in participating in such a UN peacekeeping operation,
although it is a very difficult one.
The Canadian troops are part of a UN peacekeeping mission. If
the secretary-general decides to terminate the mandate I am sure it
will done through proper consultations and we will obviously
respond to the decisions of the United Nations.
14535
Despite what the hon. member is saying, there is still a task
to be performed and Canadians will be performing it to the end.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Ottawa this summer 230 parliamentarians from 48 countries,
members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, by resolution urged the French government not to hold
nuclear tests.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In addition to
the representations he made on September 6 to the French
government, is he now prepared to call for a boycott of goods made
in France?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada deplored the decisions of France and China to
continue nuclear testing. However, Canada mentioned that it
wanted the recently unanimously approved UN resolution to end
nuclear testing by 1996 complied with by all parties that already
have a nuclear strike force. We expressed our satisfaction to the
Americans as well as to the French who said they intended to
comply with the 1996 deadline.
Under the circumstances, I do not think that we can blame
French authorities for announcing that they will comply with the
1996 objective.
[English]
The Speaker: This brings question period to a conclusion.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ung Huot, Minister of
Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation of the Kingdom of
Cambodia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also draw your attention to the presence in the
gallery of my brother Speaker from Alberta, the Hon. Stanley
Schumacher.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to mark the anniversary
of the birth of John Diefenbaker 100 years ago today.
John Diefenbaker was a predecessor in the office of Prime
Minister. I know I speak for everyone in the House when I salute
him on this historic day. I am also one of the lucky few in this
House today who had the opportunity to know John Diefenbaker, to
see him in action and to serve with him in Parliament.
John Diefenbaker was one of those rare public figures who was
larger than life and who remains larger than life. He helped define
an entire era in our history. Like all Prime Ministers he left a mark
on his country through his accomplishments in office, but like only
a very few Prime Ministers he left a mark on our national psyche
just by being the way he was. His style, his voice, his very presence
have all become part of our identity, part of of our mythology.
Dief loved politics. He was a career politician and he was proud
of it. He considered politics and public service an honourable
calling, the calling of a lifetime, and he gave it everything he had.
You could love him or hate him-most Canadians fell into one of
those two categories-but you could never for one second question
the sincerity and the personal integrity of John Diefenbaker. You
could disagree with him on an issue-which I often did on a lot of
things from the Canadian flag to bilingualism-but you could
never doubt his deep patriotism and love of Canada.
Of course, Dief was a populist. Perhaps his greatest
accomplishment was bringing the firebrand populism of the
prairies into his House of Commons and into the Government of
Canada. He never forgot who he was or where he came from. His
connection to Main Street in Prince Albert connected him with the
Main Street of every town and city in Canada and with the
Canadians who lived and worked on those main streets. He was
their champion. He stood up for them. He railed against the
establishment, against Bay Street, against the Grits, against the
socialists and of course very often against his own party. He never
fudged. He never wavered. He took a side on an issue and he stood
firm.
Like all populists he loved the heat of the battle, the competition,
the excitement. He loved campaigning. He was truly a great
campaigner, whirling into town, diving into crowds, shooting at his
opponents the Grits and the socialists with his arsenal of drama and
humour. Dief used to say, ``I don't campaign, I just visit with the
people''. Nobody ever connected better with the people than John
Diefenbaker.
[Translation]
Above all, he felt at home in the House of Commons. He liked
this place and I might add that, for a young 29 year old from
Shawinigan, Mr. Diefenbaker's flights of oratory in this House
were quite impressive. I used to sit in the last row-my seat was at
14536
the back over there-and listen to him, because this was quite the
show as we say. His imposing presence, penetrating stare, theatrics
and thunderous voice are all as clear in my mind as they were 32
years ago when I first came to this place. For me-as for millions
of Canadians-John Diefenbaker will forever epitomize the
essence of this place.
(1510)
[English]
Patriot, populist, parliamentarian, unhyphenated Canadian: John
Diefenbaker was all of those things. He left our country a far richer,
more interesting place than when he entered it 100 years ago today.
During his life, he touched the lives of millions of Canadians.
His legacy will continue to inspire Canadians, be debated among
Canadians, always people taking different sides because that is the
way Dief loved it. It will last for a long time because John
Diefenbaker was a great Canadian.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
listening to the Prime Minister, I could not help but note the irony
of his remarks and his experience in having the privilege of sitting
in this House with the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.
He draws his comments from his own personal memory, in
contrast to myself who was not yet born when Mr. Diefenbaker
became Prime Minister of Canada in 1957 with a minority
government.
I draw my remarks today from the collective memory of
Canadians who will look back on this great man, sometimes with
questions but most of the time with great admiration.
It is important to note that John G. Diefenbaker did not get
elected the first time he ran. He ran for office many times before
being successful.
At the outset of his life, he knew that the path he would walk
would be his own and he remained true to that destiny. He became
Canada's first western Prime Minister, the first Prime Minister who
was neither of British nor French descent.
He brought a unique and rare style of politics to Ottawa. He took
the populist firebrand politics of western Canada and made it
mainstream. He came to this place with very deep convictions of
what Canada represented. Most of all, he had very deep convictions
in regard to our rights and our responsibilities.
In this regard, he meets one of the lasting tests of history. He has
left behind a legacy that is still with us today: Canada's first Bill of
Rights was the work of John Diefenbaker.
He also brought to national politics a vision of northern Canada.
He was the first national leader to understand what it meant for
Canadians to embrace this great, massive land, what it represented
in our minds and in our imaginations in its limitless potential that
he went on to describe as being something that extended from ``sea
to sea to the northern sea''.
John Diefenbaker's passion for Canadians and Canada helped to
attract people from across the country to politics. I still meet people
today who say to me that I am a Diefenbaker Tory. I am sure that
colleagues in the House have from time to time met those samw
people.
I want to quote today one of those Canadians who was
influenced by John Diefenbaker, the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He said
following Mr. Diefenbaker's funeral in 1979: ``In a very real sense,
John Diefenbaker's life was Canada. Over eight decades he
spanned our history from the ox cart on the prairies to the satellite
in space. He shaped much of that history, all of it shaped him''.
What we may begin to appreciate today, 16 years after his death,
is his impact on the way which we view ourselves as Canadians.
(1515 )
John Diefenbaker helped form Canada into a country where it is
possible for a man from Ontario but raised, educated and formed in
the prairies to be embraced by all Canadians. He illustrated what
one man can do in a country like Canada.
There is no doubt that John Diefenbaker helped shape this
country into a better, broader and prouder nation than the one
before.
[Translation]
Mr. Diefenbaker had qualities and faults, but we have to give
him credit for supporting, when he was Canada's Prime Minister,
efforts to reach Canadians in order to promote individual freedoms.
At the time, he was criticized for not supporting the Official
Languages Act, but let us not forget that it is thanks to him if
bilingualism was introduced in several Canadian institutions.
And while he did not agree with some specific initiatives, he was
always convinced of the importance of protecting individual rights.
[English]
There is no doubt that John Diefenbaker helped shape Canada, as
I said, into a better place. As leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada in 1995, I am very proud to be associated with
him.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, John Diefenbaker was a passionate man. Passionate about
his vision of his country, passionate in his attachment to his roots,
firmly anchored in the dense and fertile soil of the Prairies.
Throughout the career of this resolute man, one would be
hard-pressed to find examples of half-measures, grey areas,
sidestepping and gobbledygook. He belonged to a generation that
spoke and acted unequivocally. After returning from the Great War
injured and with the rank of lieutenant, he suffered, a few years
later, several defeats at the municipal, provincial and federal levels,
14537
which helped him acquire his legendary determination, before
coming to this House to which he was re-elected 12 times.
Cut and dried as he was, it is not surprising that opinions about
him are equally passionate on both sides. His career as a people's
lawyer and the rejection he was subjected to made him sensitive to
the plight of the disadvantaged and the workers. For example, he
opened the door to the adoption of the federal health insurance
policy.
He showed the same generosity in the promulgation of the
Canadian Bill of Rights. In 1961, he condemned apartheid. But
francophones will also remember him as a fierce opponent of
bilingualism. And who can forget his fight against the adoption of a
Canadian flag?
His attachment to England was coupled with an embarrassing
coolness toward our American neighbours. But above all, he
constantly refused to recognize Quebecers as a founding people,
even denying Quebec's distinct character. Unfortunately, we know
that his ideas gained widespread acceptance and that, 32 years after
his government was defeated, the present government still refuses
to recognize Quebec as a nation.
Quebecers now have the ball in their court and they have to
express their political will. But, no matter what people may say,
nobody can accuse John Diefenbaker of backing away from a fight.
He talked about the country, the language and the people that he
loved so dearly.
In the upcoming debate, he would not, of course, share the
opinion of Quebec sovereignists. He would certainly be a fierce
adversary, but I think he would understand that others, like him,
feel the need to protect their identity, their language and the right to
exercise their choice as a people.
[English]
Yes, he was a great fighter. I cannot help thinking that he would
enjoy very much to be living now. He certainly would have been
very much involved with the debate since its beginning. I think he
would certainly fight for Canada as he thought Canada was, but he
would understand that many Quebecers would fight for Quebec, for
what they think Quebec is.
(1520 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to join with other members in paying tribute today to
the memory of John Diefenbaker on the 100th anniversary of his
birth.
John Diefenbaker has been described today by the Prime
Minister and others as a prairie populist, as a man with his roots in
the common people who sought to give expression to their hopes,
fears and dreams through the medium of politics and public policy.
As a student I once attended a huge rally which he addressed in
Edmonton's Jubilee Auditorium. The place was packed and there
was no place left to sit except at the press tables on the platform
behind where he was speaking. I took out a notebook and disguised
myself as a scribe and ended up sitting about 20 feet behind him
while he addressed about 5,000 people packed into a building that
would hold about 3,500.
As was his custom he had a large sheaf of papers on the podium.
For the first 10 minutes he simply flipped through the pages
touching lightly on a subject, assessing the feedback from the
audience, moving lightly to another subject, touching lightly on it
and assessing the feedback from it and so forth, until he had a fix
on the concerns and the hopes of that audience.
These he returned to with a vengeance, speaking directly to their
concerns and hopes with an accuracy and a vigour that defied
imagination. He had a peculiar ability to read an audience very
quickly and to relate quickly and forcibly to the hopes and fears of
his fellow Canadians.
As a prairie populist John Diefenbaker was one of a select list of
characters that cuts across party lines, including F. W. G. Haultain,
the last great premier of the Northwest Territories; John Bracken
and Henry Wisewood of the Progressives; William Aberhart, J. S.
Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas. What set John Diefenbaker
apart was that he was the only prairie populist in this century to
become the Prime Minister of Canada.
Like all of us he had weaknesses as well as strengths. He had
detractors as well as admirers and supporters. However there was
one point on which he could not be faulted and that was on his love
and commitment to Canada, ``one Canada'' to use his favourite
phrase.
On behalf of my Reform colleagues, the people of Saskatchewan
and the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who either loved him
or hated him but were never indifferent to him, I pay tribute to John
Diefenbaker and his commitment to one Canada, on the 100th
anniversary of his birth.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today, September 18, 1995, is the 100th anniversary
of the birth of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker.
Mr. Diefenbaker represented the city of Prince Albert and area in
the House of Commons from 1953 until 1979 and was elected to
this honourable House 13 times. He became Canada's 13th Prime
Minister on June 21, 1957 and served our nation in that capacity
until April 21, 1963.
14538
On this the 100th anniversary of his birth I wish to recognize
John Diefenbaker's great contribution to the citizens of Prince
Albert. We remember that contribution in our community. We
have the Diefenbaker Bridge, the John George Diefenbaker
School, Diefenbaker House and a statue of John Diefenbaker in
Memorial Square. In addition we have Prime Ministers' Park. We
will not quickly forget the legacy of John Diefenbaker in our
community.
I also express our gratitude to the lasting and profound legacy he
left to our entire nation, including the very important Canadian bill
of rights. Mr. Diefenbaker believed, as do the vast majority of
Canadians, in the economic and cultural benefits expressed in a
phrase that he was very fond of and used often: ``The economic and
cultural benefits of one Canada, united now and forever''.
(1525 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to join my colleagues from other parties in
the House today in marking the 100th anniversary of the birth of
Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker.
When John George Diefenbaker was elected Prime Minister of
Canada I was six years old. Mr. Diefenbaker was 62 years old and
had already been in Parliament for 17 years. Yet I had the honour,
however briefly, of being a colleague of his when I like him was
elected to the 31st Parliament of Canada on May 22, 1979.
I remember walking into the parliamentary dining room and
seeing Dief in the alcove to the left where Prime Ministers like to
eat and feeling like I was now in authentic parliamentary company.
It should be repeated of John Diefenbaker often that not unlike
other parliamentary legends, some of whom are still with us today
such as Mr. Knowles, he loved Parliament and all that it stood for.
He understood Parliament. He knew it to be a place where different
ideas and different idealists clash with each other and have it out
with each other. The sanitized corporate boardroom view of
Parliament which we see encouraged in some quarters today was
not for John Diefenbaker.
While we are talking about corporate boardrooms it is also
appropriate to note that in my judgment John Diefenbaker was
probably one of the last Prime Ministers of the country who served
for any length of time, who was not at home in the company of the
Canadian corporate elite. His politics though not socialist were
populist and he was certainly more at home on Main Street than on
Bay Street. That is why he was able, much to the distress of my
party on occasion, to win ridings that otherwise should have been
NDP.
He was progressive for his time and for his party on human
rights issues, on the equality of women, on social programs, on
aboriginal issues, on South Africa and on other such issues. One
recalls with fondness his opposition to capital punishment, for
instance. Most of all, though I concur with many of the critical
analyses offered of his prime ministership, I remember Mr.
Diefenbaker as a Canadian, an unhyphenated Canadian, who had a
vision of Canada that far exceeded the banal images of the
marketplace so commonplace in our way of speaking today.
It was a vision of an independent Canada, a Canada that did not
take its orders or its agenda from Washington, a Canada that
determined its own way in the world and its own way of doing
things. It was this independence that George Grant lamented the
loss of when he wrote a ``Lament for a Nation'' after the fall of the
Diefenbaker government and the acceptance of nuclear weapons by
the government that followed.
John Diefenbaker struck a chord in the hearts of many
Canadians. It was not long after the election of 1979-three months
actually-that his funeral train wound its way across the Canadian
landscape. It was the last trip on the hustings for a man who loved
politics, who loved Canada, who loved political life and who
always said that next to the ministry he regarded politics as the
highest calling.
Finally, on a personal note, my exposure to John Diefenbaker
came long before my election to Parliament or the few occasions
on which I had an opportunity to discuss issues with him as a young
person interested in politics, because I did have that opportunity.
Some members may also know that I play the pipes. As a piper I
had the task of piping him into the hall at a number of events in
Winnipeg over the years. I remember one in particular at the
Rossmere Curling Club when I could barely make it through the
crowd to the front for the crush of people reaching out to shake
hands with their Chief.
Dief was fond of the phrase ``in my day and generation''. I am
grateful that in my day and generation, however briefly, I had the
opportunity to see that great Canadian in action. We should all hope
when our day and generation are judged we will be able to say,
however differently and however varied our ways of doing so
might be, that we too served Canada with the loyalty and the love
of this great country that John Diefenbaker demonstrated. May it
always be said of us, as he said of himself, that though we might be
on the wrong side from time to time, may we never find ourselves
on the side of wrong.
(1530)
The Speaker: I did not say at the beginning that the tributes
were of course to John George Diefenbaker.
The tributes now are for Jean-Luc Pepin.
14539
[
Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, like all Canadians, I was deeply saddened to
hear that Jean-Luc Pepin, who was one of my colleagues here in the
House of Commons, had passed away.
He was elected in 1963, at the same time as I was, to represent a
riding close to mine, near Drummondville on the other shore of the
Saint Lawrence, and we began our career together. We even went
back to university together. At that time, we were expected to be in
the House in the evening. We both took courses in administrative
law, so that we would be able to come to the House if there was a
vote. We became good friends. We both had the privilege of
studying, if I can use the term, under Mitchell Sharp. Mr. Pepin had
been appointed parliamentary secretary to Mr. Sharp when he was
at Trade and Commerce; I became Mr. Sharp's parliamentary
secretary when he moved to Finance.
Jean-Luc Pepin was an intellectual who was actively involved in
public life. One could not have wished for a nicer guy. He was kind
to everyone, but at the same time he was extremely hard working.
Any issue he was given would be examined in depth, so much so
that he sometimes almost made himself ill through his
thoroughness. I have rarely seen colleagues read through all the
documents that had been prepared for them, but Jean-Luc Pepin
certainly did.
Jean-Luc Pepin also had a broad vision of Canada. He always
searched for solutions to our problems, and his participation in our
very animated discussions, both in caucus and here in the House of
Commons, was always followed with great interest. He was always
well informed and constantly sought out new solutions.
[English]
He was a very good minister. He started as Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce. He was the first among the ministers to visit
China right after we recognized China 25 years ago. He led the first
businessmen's mission to Latin America. When today as Prime
Minister I am involved in visiting the same area, I cannot help but
think about the vision and wisdom of Jean-Luc Pepin in doing his
work as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I remember he unfortunately lost an election in 1968, and he
came back. It was a very amusing moment, because after-
[Translation]
When he lost the election, everyone deplored his loss and
lamented the fact that Jean-Luc Pepin would no longer sit in this
House. But suddenly, after a recount, he was back. He showed us
all the glowing editorials that he had received and just as he was
about to use them in the House in powerful speeches, he was ousted
again following a judicial recount. He was absent from this House.
He served in numerous positions. He was a member of the
Pepin-Robarts Commission and submitted a very important report
which was widely discussed but which was not fully implemented.
However, a good loser, he always accepted the decisions that were
made, offering new solutions and never giving up. He chaired the
commission on price and wage controls, something that was not
easy to do at the time. He did so very tactfully and competently. Of
necessity we became friends because when you are not from the big
city of Montreal, when you come from the country, you tend to join
ranks. He was a very good friend but first and foremost, he was an
outstanding member of Parliament, an outstanding minister and a
great Canadian. With his passing last week, our country has lost a
great public servant.
(1535)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of my political party, I would like to pay tribute today to Mr.
Jean-Luc Pepin, who passed away a few days ago.
Born in Drummondville in 1924, Mr. Pepin had a brilliant career
both as an academic and a politician. He was first elected to the
House of Commons in 1963 to represent the
Drummond-Arthabaska riding.
In 1968, under the Trudeau government, he became the first
Quebecer ever to be put in charge of an important economic
portfolio when he was appointed Minister of Industry. During his
career as a member of Parliament and a federal minister, he was at
the centre of several major reviews and often had to meet tough
challenges, including implementation of the metric system,
transport deregulation and the development of a more open
relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China.
It is particularly important to mention the contribution of
Jean-Luc Pepin as co-chairman of the Pepin-Robarts Commission,
a working group set up to examine the constitutional and political
problems facing Canada. Despite the extremely centralizing vision
of the Trudeau government, this Quebecer had the fortitude to
defend with conviction the concept of asymmetrical federalism. As
we know, according to this concept, the province of Quebec would
have been able to display its specificity and to have, as indicated in
the commission's report, all the powers needed to preserve and
develop its distinctiveness.
The rest is history, as we say. Pierre Trudeau and the current
prime minister turned dow the report before forever entrenching in
the 1982 Constitution the principle of equality for all provinces.
14540
We will remember Mr. Pepin for his exceptional contribution
to the political debate which is still going on today. We will
remember how this Quebecer tried without success to ensure that
the right of Quebec to develop as a distinct entity was recognized.
On behalf of my colleagues in this House and on my own behalf,
I would like to extend to his family and friends our deepest
sympathy.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
join with other members of the House in paying tribute to the
memory of Jean-Luc Pepin and his contributions to the public life
of this country over the years.
On behalf of my Reform colleagues I would also like to extend
our deepest sympathies to the Pepin family on their loss and indeed
our country's loss.
The media and other speakers today have made reference to the
long list of achievements and contributions to our national life
associated with Jean-Luc Pepin. These include his contributions to
academic life, particularly at the University of Ottawa, his
contributions as a senior minister of the crown, including his
proposals as Minister of Transport for reforming the Crow's Nest
freight rate, and his contributions as co-chairman of the task force
on Canadian unity. Of course on the subject of national unity, if
some of those proposals had been brought forward and acted upon
more vigorously we wonder where we would all be today.
What we find most memorable about the contributions of
Jean-Luc Pepin is that in his case we not only remember what he
did and proposed but we remember even more vividly and fondly
the manner and the spirit in which he did it: his humour, his
enthusiasm, and his positive outlook. I can remember being a
young woman in Canada in my high school and university days and
seeing a picture on television of some mysterious man that was so
far away in eastern Canada. I remember that glint in his eye when
he was being interviewed. It is a wonderful memory I carry of him.
In a country where too often the spirit of pessimism prevails, the
cheerfulness and optimism of a man like Jean-Luc Pepin should not
only be remembered but imitated. In so doing we would be paying
fine and fitting tribute to a man and his memory. May all of us in
this House remember the remarkable role model he has been to us
in Canada.
We wish his family well and we sympathize with them.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): I thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to pay tribute to the late hon.
Jean-Luc Pepin.
Jean-Luc Pepin passed away a few days ago. This great
Canadian, always gracious and charming, gave a good name to
political life.
I first met Mr. Pepin as a student at Ottawa University where he
taught political science.
Jean-Luc Pepin was first elected to the House of Commons in
1963 as member for Drummond-Arthabaska where he served
until 1972.
(1540)
A man of ideas which he expressed with the greatest of ease, he
loved to serve his country. He was a firm believer in Canadian
unity. He will probably be remembered for his significant
contributions to Canadian life, especially his contributions to the
Task Force on Canadian Unity know as the Pepin-Robarts
Commission.
In 1979, he was reelected, but this time as member for
Ottawa-Carleton which he represented until 1984. For the most
part, this riding later became the new riding of
Carleton-Gloucester, as a result of the 1988 readjustment of
electoral boundaries.
It is for me a great honour to have been elected in the same riding
as the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin who served it so well in the House of
Commons as a minister and where he lived until his death.
I salute a man who defended both our official languages and
promoted bilingualism across Canada. I salute a man who
promoted Canadian unity with integrity, compassion, elegance and
charm.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the NDP caucus, I join with others in the House of
Commons in expressing condolences to the family of Jean-Luc
Pepin and say a few words about him by way of recollection on the
basis of my own experience in this House between 1979 and 1984.
One should be honest and say that what I remember of Jean-Luc
Pepin is fighting him on all fronts with respect to the Crow rate and
VIA Rail cuts. He had the misfortune, I would suggest, of being
assigned these tasks by the then Liberal government.
I suspected at the time that he was not always completely happy
in the role he was assigned, especially when it came to the VIA Rail
cuts, because I know that his father worked for CN and he had a
railway background. He sometimes looked a bit uncomfortable, but
he handled everything. He handled those issues as he handled
everything, with a great deal of grace, a great deal of generosity, a
great deal of humour, and with a kind of philosophical touch that
one does not see all that often here in the House of Commons.
The thing I remember most about him was the sort of intellectual
delight he took in argumentation and debate. He was one of the few
members of Parliament I can remember who sprinkled his debates
on the Crow rate and other more seemingly practical issues with
14541
quotations or allusions to Sarte and Camus and Nietzche and
various other philosophers whose works he was obviously familiar
with.
I remember him as a great parliamentarian, a great Canadian,
someone committed, as so many have said, to Canadian unity. It is
unfortunate that at this very critical time in our history we will not
have the voice of Jean-Luc Pepin being able to contribute to the
debate that is upon us about Canada's future.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I
heard members pay homage to Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Pepin
today, I could not help thinking that these two men, although
coming from different parts of the country and having had very
different, maybe totally opposite experiences, if they were with us
today would both speak with equal fervour about Canada, each
with his own point of view, as some others members in this House
would.
Who knows, maybe it is a coincidence that we should be paying
homage to both these men on the same day. As it has been said, Mr.
Pepin was an intellectual but he was also a very sensitive man. He
had an exceptional political career; that proves it is not always
necessary to be aggressive to succeed in politics and it is not true
that the political environment is always a very harsh one. On the
contrary. Jean-Luc Pepin has always acted with a lot of tact and
respect for others. It characterized his political career.
(1545)
I am happy to stress that fact today for the benefit of all those
who wonder if political men and women are people who still
believe in the values Mr. Pepin cherished.
As my colleague just mentioned, Mr. Pepin was entrusted with
very difficult departments and very complex issues. I am thinking,
among other things, about the rail subsidies and the Crows Nest
rate, two issues that were never easy to deal with, needless to say.
He always took on the responsibilities with an exemplary sense of
duty. He did the same thing when he co-chaired the Pepin-Robarts
Commission. Colleagues from our party who had the pleasure and
privilege of working with Mr. Pepin remember him as an
absolutely exceptional man.
[English]
Jean-Luc Pepin and John Diefenbaker whom we have honoured
today are two Canadians who, even though they came from two
very different backgrounds, if they were with us in this House
today would agree wholeheartedly on one thing and that is about
Canada and its future.
On behalf of the party I represent and the men and women who
knew him in this House I want to pay a special tribute to him. I
extend our condolences to his family. I know he will be missed.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
September 5, the right honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, one of the most
significant figures on the Canadian political scene since the 1960s,
died on the eve of his 71th birthday. The death of this former
member of Parliament and minister caught us by surprise. All those
who knew him were also caught by surprise, but we also witnessed
his numerous achievements and his departure can only fill us with
sadness and nostalgia.
It was largely thanks to this great Canadian that our country
adopted the metric system. It was mentioned earlier that it was also
largely thanks to him that the Canadian government became more
open to the People's Republic of China well before other countries
did. The same goes for his work in the Department of Transport,
with the elimination of the Crow rate and with Via Rail.
We will also long remember him for the Anti-Inflation Board
and for the Pepin-Robarts Commission, whose findings still remain
relevant today in any discussion concerning relations between the
federal and the provinces. I wish I could avoid being partisan,
because Mr. Pepin always avoided excessive partisanship. But after
listening to some remarks, I cannot help but mention that, during a
dinner that was held about ten days before his death, we had the
opportunity to discuss the political issue of the day, the
referendum, and I wish to note that, even though he was almost 71
years old, Mr. Pepin clearly said to me at the time that, if necessary,
he would willingly agree to campaign for Canada.
I wish to thank him as a personal friend, as one of his
students-because I was one-as his assistant, as an admirer and
now as the member for Ottawa-Vanier. I would like to extend my
condolences to the Pepin family as well as those who were close to
this great political man.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first met the late Jean-Luc
Pepin in 1979 when I was elected to this House. That was the year
the Conservatives won the election against the Liberals.
Every time there is a change of government there is also a
change of caucus rooms because each party has a different size
caucus. Jean-Luc Pepin was advising me as a newly elected
member on what and what not to do. He always gave 100 per cent
of his time. He was so intent on talking to me that when we arrived
at the caucus room the camera lights all flashed and I did not know
what was happening. What happened is that he was so engrossed in
advising me that we walked into the wrong caucus room. That is a
bit of the humorous side of Jean-Luc Pepin. It shows how helpful
14542
he was to new members and when he spoke to us he gave 100 per
cent. When he listened he gave 100 per cent.
(1550)
The Prime Minister mentioned about his term when he was
parliamentary secretary to the Hon. Mitchell Sharp. I happened to
be his parliamentary secretary in 1982-83 when he was Minister of
Transport. Yes, I along with the late Jean-Luc Pepin faced the Via
Rail debates here and placards over our heads about the Crow bill,
et cetera. He made the tough decisions. One thing about him is he
listened to all sides before he made a decision. I think that is why
he was so popular.
His immediate family and extended family can take great pride
in the fact that he was a great Canadian. But we have not lost him;
he will always be with us.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty today to rise in tribute to Dr. Charles
Willoughby who was a former member of this House.
Dr. Willoughby lived a long and very distinguished life
practising medicine in the interior of British Columbia for many
decades and serving as MP for Kamloops from 1963 through to
1965 when Davey Fulton was serving in provincial politics. He was
said by one of his successors in the riding, now Senator Len
Marchand, to have been regarded as one of the finest gentlemen of
his community.
There are few Canadians who have been privileged to witness
the unfolding of Canadian history as much as Dr. Willoughby who
was born in rural Ontario 101 years ago when David Thompson
was Prime Minister. He served in this House in the days of Prime
Minister Pearson and Prime Minister Diefenbaker and indeed lived
to see a fellow member of the class of 1963, the member from
Shawinigan in turn become Prime Minister in 1993.
Dr. Willoughby wrote two books, one when he was 99 years old.
One is called From Leeches to Lasers and is about the development
of medicine. The other is titled Shuswap Memories, his warm,
vivid and sympathetic recollections of his years in the Shuswap
country in the early decades of this century.
Dr. Willoughby had four children, 20 grandchildren and 33 great
grandchildren. I know everyone in this House offers their
condolences to his family and friends at this sad time.
While it is sad to say goodbye to such a distinguished British
Columbian and Canadian, I am sure that all of us also hope to enjoy
as long and as rich a life as that of Dr. Charles Willoughby.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pay tribute to Dr. Willoughby and, on behalf of all the members of
the Bloc Quebecois, offer my condolences to members of his
family and his friends.
Dr. Willoughby was a member of this House in 1963; you will
understand that at that time I was only 21 years old and did not
have the opportunity to know him. However, from the notes I have
in front of me, I gather that he was 69 when he was elected for the
first time to this House. I understand that Dr. Willoughby first
made a career in medicine, devoting himself to his fellow men, and
then at an age when most people take a well deserved retirement,
he decided to devote a few more years of his life to the service of
his fellow citizens of Kamloops.
This is indeed remarkable, and it must be said that since he died
this year at the age of 101, public life obviously rejuvenates and
gives a taste for life. On behalf of all the Bloc Quebecois members,
I reiterate our deepest condolences to his large family, to his
children and grand-children and to all his friends.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to honour the memory of Dr. Charles James McNeil
Willoughby who passed away September 5 of this year in
Kamloops, British Columbia.
Dr. Willoughby's life was a life of service to others. It is clear
from his history that he with the support of his wife Marjorie
recognized the full responsibility that comes with citizenship and
actively sought to make his community a better place, a selfless
characteristic we would all do well to emulate today.
(1555)
From all accounts he was committed to Kamloops and her
people as a physician and surgeon with the Burris clinic for 40
years, as a member of the Kamloops school board, as chairman of
the United Appeal, and as the member of Parliament for Kamloops
during the 26th Parliament. That commitment has now become his
legacy, a legacy which has influenced many including his children,
Marjorie, Lorene, Ann and John, his 20 grandchildren and his 33
great grandchildren.
During these times when outside forces pull against our families
and our communities, people like Dr. Willoughby provide a strong
and quiet leadership that inspires us to draw together.
To his three surviving children, Marjorie, Lorene and Ann, and
to his daughter-in-law Berte, I send on behalf of my colleagues our
deepest condolences. I hope they will find comfort in the
knowledge that their father will be remembered as a courageous
man who embraced the responsibility of making this place a better
one.
14543
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, all of us who
knew him were sad to hear recently of the passing of Dr. Charles
Willoughby.
Dr. Willoughby was one of those rare individuals who certainly
left a lasting impression with those who met him. I had the honour
of knowing Charles Willoughby for more than 30 years, first when
he was member of Parliament for Kamloops. He was one of those
individuals who was admired by all. Even his political foes could
not find a negative statement to make about him ever. He was loved
by all who came in contact with him. He was a gentleman in the
true sense of the word.
As others have indicated, he was a very dedicated family man.
He was an admired doctor for decades. Again he was one of those
rare individuals in that every patient who came in contact with him
loved him and admired him. He was certainly a respected author.
He was a distinguished parliamentarian. He was a proud citizen not
only of the city of Kamloops but of the world.
Over the years I would encounter Dr. Willoughby at public
functions and on the streets of Kamloops. He always had words of
advice and suggestions and was always aware of the issues of the
day. His family said that even beyond his 100th year when the
evening news came on all became quiet to allow Charles
Willoughby to be updated as to the events of the day.
He was a wonderful individual. The people of Kamloops loved
him to the end. Our hearts and our thoughts go to his family today.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay
tribute to the hon. Dr. Charles James McNeil Willoughby.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada lost a great
colleague this year and the people of Canada lost a great Canadian
with the passing of Dr. Willoughby at the age of 101.
Before being elected to the House in 1963 as the member for
Kamloops, British Columbia, Dr. Willoughby was a local icon who
was very well known. He helped found and establish the very
successful Burris Medical Clinic, a clinic which is still functioning
and thriving today.
As was mentioned by the minister from British Columbia, Dr.
Willoughby wrote a very insightful book, From Leeches to Lasers
which detailed the medical advances during his life. The title
accurately illustrates what technological and medical changes Dr.
Willoughby saw during his lifetime.
Dr. Willoughby was renowned for being a staunch federalist
whose love for his country was second to none. Even after his term
as a parliamentarian Dr. Willoughby kept abreast of national events
and is rumoured to have stopped to watch the evening national
news every day regardless of what he had been doing.
Dr. Willoughby's then Dominion of Canada lapel pin was his
trademark. It is with great pride that I recognize his contribution to
Canadian politics. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the family of
this wonderful great man.
_____________________________________________
14543
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1600)
[English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report
of the Privacy Commissioner for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1995, pursuant to subsection 41 of the Privacy Act.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this document is referred
permanently to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
affairs.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have the honour to inform the
House that Mr. Bob Ringma, member for the electoral district of
Nanaimo-Cowichan, has been appointed as member of the Board
of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Jim Silye, member for the
electoral district of Calgary Centre, for the purposes and under the
provisions of chapter 42 of the first supplement of the Revised
Statutes of Canada 1985, entitled an act to amend the Parliament of
Canada Act.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) and
pursuant to subsections 198.1(2) and subsection 333.2 of the
Canada Elections Act, I have the honour to table in both official
languages copies of the Northwest Territories election fees tariff.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (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 responses to 254
petitions.
14544
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation to the meeting of the Standing Committee of the
Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association, held in Paris on
May 23 and 24, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the
fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled
``Towards Holistic Wellness: the Aboriginal Peoples''.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the
government table a comprehensive response to this report within
150 days.
Your committee decided to undertake a study on the health of
aboriginal peoples following a request by one of the national
aboriginal organizations.
[Translation]
The Committee concentrated on the mental health of aboriginal
peoples. It received written and oral evidence from numerous
representatives of Indian, Metis and Inuit communities.
[English]
Following consideration of the evidence heard over the past year,
your committee takes the position that all levels of government and
representatives of aboriginal peoples must work jointly with
communities to develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated plan for
wellness.
[Translation]
Therefore the Committee asks that the federal Minister of Health
propose to the meeting of health ministers the immediate
establishment of a consultative mechanism to allow development
of a national action plan to improve the well-being of aboriginal
peoples and that she present every year a status report on the plan to
Parliament.
[English]
On behalf of the committee I want to thank all the witnesses who
appeared before it, as well as the many community representatives
who so warmly welcomed us during our visits across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 84th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs dealing with the list of
members of committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move adoption of this
report later today.
* * *
(1605 )
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my private
member's motion, M-377. This issue has already been dealt with
by the House of Commons.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I also
respectfully ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw my private member's motion M-418 from the Order
Paper.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would move that we dispense with reading the 84th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I
presented to the House a few moments ago. I believe you would
find unanimous consent that the following motion be put to the
House and adopted immediately without debate:
That the 84th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have another consent motion to put
to the House.
I move:
14545
That notwithstanding Standing Order 106(1), the several standing committees
may meet for the purpose of electing a chair commencing at 9 a.m. tomorrow,
September 19, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and
the Yukon.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition. This petition not only bears the signatures of constituents
from my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt but also
signators from across this country, including places such as Bath,
Ontario, Seeleys Bay, Lansdowne, Ontario, and also Victoria,
British Columbia.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Bloc
Quebecois has publicly dedicated itself to a disloyal objective, that
being the secession of the province of Quebec from the Canadian
federation. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to preserve
unity, parliamentary tradition, and to protect the rights of all people
of Canada by prevailing upon the Speaker of the House of
Commons to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official
opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament of Canada.
It is not only my duty but my privilege to present this petition on
behalf of Canadians.
(1610 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a
petition today on behalf of constituents who live in the area of
Crossfield, Alberta.
This petition calls for a loyal opposition in the House of
Commons. The petitioners call on Parliament to preserve
Canadian unity, parliamentary tradition, and to protect the rights of
all the people of Canada by prevailing upon the Speaker of the
House of Commons to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the
official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions today.
The first group of petitioners is extremely concerned about
including the phrase sexual orientation in federal legislation. They
believe this sets a very dangerous precedent for society.
The second group of petitioners requests that the Government of
Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to
homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as
married couples.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 172, 184,
189, 194, 202, 203, 206, 207, 211, 212, 213, 217, 219, and 220.
[Text]
Question No. 172-Mr. Strahl:
With regard to the special retirement allowance for deputy ministers
approved by Treasury Board on July 14, 1988, (a) how many individuals are
currently benefitting from this allowance and (i) how much pension is each
individual receiving from the federal government per annum, using figures
broken down by the amount of the allowance and the amount of the remainder
of their pension, (ii) what is the list of their names, (iii) what was the last
employment position they held before receiving the Allowance, (b) how many
individuals will be eligible to receive the special retirement allowance after the
current fiscal year and (i) what is the list of their names, (ii) what is their
employment position, (iii) how much will they be eligible to receive, using
figures broken down by the amount of the allowance and the amount of the
remainder of their pension, and since July 14, 1988, (c) how many deputy
ministers have been recruited directly from the private sector, including crown
corporations and what positions were they recruited from?
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Twenty individuals are benefiting from the
allowance. The amount of the pension received by each individual
cannot be released since it is considered personal information in
accordance with the Privacy Act. For the same reasons, the names
of individuals in receipt of a pension from the federal government
cannot be released, nor the amounts.
It is not possible to determine how many people will be eligible
to receive the special retirement allowance at a future date for
example, after the current fiscal year. Deputy ministers serve at
pleasure and they must retire to become eligible; the decision to
retire is not always communicated ahead of time. Furthermore,
14546
eligibility for pension varies in accordance with age and service at
the date of retirement.
Since 1988 the number of deputy minister positions has been
reduced by 19 per cent and one individual has been recruited
directly from the private sector to a deputy minister position; he
was the CEO at a consulting firm. Four other individuals appointed
deputy ministers, since July 1988 had recent experience outside the
federal public service.
Question No. 184-Mr. Caccia:
What is the amount, if any, of direct and indirect federal subsidies received by
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. since 1950?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed
as follows:
Human Resources Development Canada (Since 1985*)
Canadian Job Strategy Program-$1,667,036.00
Industry Canada (Since 1980*)
Industry & Labour Adjustment Program-$1,300,000.00
Industrial & Regional Development Program-953,000.00
Sector Campaign-Forest Products R&D/Innovation-3,829,303.00
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Application
Program-15,000.00
National Research Council (Since 1966*)
Industrial Research Assistance Program-$4,268,000.00
Natural Resources Canada (Since 1989*)
Forestry Program-$638,010.00
Western Economic Diversification Canada (Since 1984*)
Western Diversification Program-$3,449,461.00
Industrial and Regional Development Program-866,561.00
(Former Department of Regional Industrial Expansion)
Enterprise Development Program-3,863,263.85
(Former Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce)
Regional Development Incentives Program-2,401,708.40
(Former Department of Regional Economic Expansion)
*Date from which records are still available from the financial
system.
Question No. 189-Mr. White (North Vancouver):
With regard to the rate of recidivism for persons convicted of first degree
murder, second degree murder or manslaughter over the past 30 years, what has
the government determined to be the number of those persons so convicted who,
(a) reoffend, are formally charged and subsequently sentenced on a charge of first
degree murder or, (b) reoffend, are formally charged and subsequently sentenced
on a charge of second degree murder or, (c) reoffend, are formally charged and
subsequently sentenced on a charge of manslaughter?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): In so far as
the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and its agency are
concerned, the answer is as follows regarding the National Parole
Board:
Prior to July 1976, murder was separated into capital and
non-capital murder. The category of non-capital murder was
established on January 4, 1968. Prior to that date all murder was
capital murder. The categories of first and second degree murder
were created on July 26, 1976 when capital punishment was
abolished.
A review of statistical studies which examined the outcome of
released murder and manslaughter offenders indicated that 19
offenders previously convicted of a homicide offence,
manslaughter or murder,were convicted and reincarcerated for a
second homicide between 1920 and 1990. This research revealed
that six offenders were convicted of a second murder. Thirteen
offenders originally convicted of manslaughter were reincarcerated
for another homicide offence, five for murder offences and eight
for a second manslaughter offence. The following is a summary of
the findings of these studies.
On follow up of offenders previously convicted of murder, the
National Parole Board 1990 followed murder offenders released
between January 1, 1975 and March 31, 1990 to July 31, 19901.
This study indicated that five persons originally convicted of a
homicide offence were reincarcerated for a second homicide
offence.
There were 752 releases of murder offenders. Of these, 75 or 10
per cent had been convicted of capital murder, 513 or 68.2 per cent
of non-capital murder, five or 0.7 per cent of first degree and 159 or
21.1 per cent of second degree murder.
Five-0.7 per cent of 752 releases-released murder offenders
were reincarcerated for a second murder while on full parole. All
five had originally been convicted of non-capital murder. Of the
five, three were subsequently convicted of first degree and two of
second degree murder.
Statistic Canada 1976 reported on a study which followed a
sample of 232 murder offenders released on parole between 1920
and July 1975.
One murder offender-0.4 per cent of a total of 232-was
convicted of a second murder.
On follow up of offenders previously convicted of manslaughter
the National Parole Board's 1990 follow up study to July 31, 1990
of manslaughter offenders released between January 1, 1975 and
14547
March 31, 1990 revealed that 11 persons originally convicted of
manslaughter were returned to custody for a second homicide
offence.
There were 2,950 releases of offenders convicted of
manslaughter. Of these, 1,407 were released on full parole and
1,543 on statutory release2.
Five-0.4 per cent of a total of 1,407 releases of-those released
on full parole were convicted of a second homicide offence: one for
second degree murder and four for manslaughter.
Six-0.4 per cent of a total of 1,543-offenders released on
statutory release were convicted of a second homicide offence: two
for first degree murder, two for second degree murder and two for
manslaughter.
Statistics Canada 1976 reported on research that examined
manslaughter offenders who were involved in a second homicide
offence between 1961 and 1974.
Two offenders originally convicted of manslaughter and released
on parole were subsequently reincarcerated for a second
manslaughter offence between 1961-1974.
Bibliography: National Parole Board 1990 Follow-up of
Manslaughter and Murder Offenders On Conditional Release
between January 1, 1975 and March 31, 1990 as of July 31, 1990,
unpublished; Statistics Canada June 1976 Homicide in Canada: A
Statistical Synopsis, Ottawa: The Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce, Catalogue 85-505E.
1 The length of the follow up period will vary from 15 years, for those released in
1975, to a few months for those who left prison in 1990.
2 prior to 1992 statutory release was called mandatory supervision.
Question No. 194-Mr. Mayfield:
Since the end of the private contract for operating the Loran C Station at
Riske Creek, B.C. and the takeover by the Canadian Coastguard in November
1994, (a) how many public service personnel have been relocated to Riske
Creek, and what are their rank and where were they transferred from, (b) are any
new personnel to be deployed or hired at Riske Creek after April 1, 1995, (c)
how many of the existing staff have been released, (d) what new furniture and
equipment has been provided for the station since September 1994, and at what
cost, (e) do any personnel commute to Riske Creek from Vancouver and if so,
how frequently do they commute and at what cost, (f) how many hours of
overtime by staff members has been incurred and at what dollar cost, (g) how
much money, broken down by expenditure, has been budgeted for the total
operation for the year 1995/96 for the station, (h) what was the cost of operating
the station since the November 1994 takeover, up to and including March 31,
1995?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Two public service personnel have been relocated from Vancouver
area to Williams Lake. They are one EL-06 and EL-07,
EL-Electronics. There are plans to hire one part time clerical staff
for Riske Creek after April 1, 1995. No staff has been released at
Riske Creek Loran C station. Modular office furniture has been
purchased at a cost of $11,406.23 in lieu of building renovations.
No personnel commute from Vancouver to Riske Creek at
government expense. Overtime for period November 1994 to end
of April 1995 was 167.5 hours at a cost of $11,959.57.
The following is the 1995/96 budget for the station:
Salary-452.3K
Overtime-57.2K
Other personnel 7.3K
Travel-4.3K
Fuel-7.3K
Other costs-157.1K
Total-685.5K
This budget is in accordance with the cost figures utilized in the
cost benefit study which determined that it was more cost effective
to operate the Loran C station at Williams Lake with the Canadian
Coast Guard, CCG personnel than using a contractor. The 685.5K
budget is made up of the two following main elements:
Personnel costs-516.8K
Other costs-168.7K
Personnel costs, 516.8K are those to be compared to the contract
cost, 680K, and are within the cost benefit analysis range costs of
514K to 574K. The other costs, 168.7K, are related to the
maintenance and repair of the equipment and had also to be paid by
CCG when the station was operated by a contractor. The cost of
operating the station from the November 1994 takeover to March
31, 1995 was $253,287.00.
Question No. 202-Mr. Gilmour:
What are the individual and total costs incurred by the deputy minister of the
environment regarding office renovations, furniture, vehicles and sundries
from October 20, 1994, to the present?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and minister of
the Environment, Lib.): The following lists the individual and
total costs incurred by the deputy minister of the environment
regarding office renovations, furniture, vehicles and sundries from
October 20, 1994 to the present.
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2255x02_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2251001_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2251001_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2251001_r2.gif)
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2251001_r3.gif)
![](/web/20061117190408im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2251001_r4.gif)
Question No. 203-Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge):
Given the economic projections laid out in the February 1995 budget, (a)
what will the federal debt be in five years and (b) what will be the corresponding
interest payments per year (based on an interest rate of 8 per cent)?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.: The February 1995 budget
presented economic and fiscal projections for 1995-96 and
1996-97. The government has stated it will not be doing medium
term projections because of the uncertainties involved. Instead, it is
committed to put out two year rolling deficit targets and taking
whatever actions are required in order to ensure those targets are
met. By doing so the federal government will be moving on a firm
path toward the government's ultimate goal of balancing the
budget.
Interest costs projections for 1995-96 and 1996-97 were
presented in the budget. Interest costs are projected at $49.5 billion
for 1995-96 and $50.7 billion for 1996-97.
Question No. 206-Mr. Gilmour:
What was the total dollar amount direct and indirect, and source of
government funding included in the 1995-96 estimates to the western Canada
wilderness committee?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): From April 1,
1995 to the date of the question, the following departments and
agencies have not provided any source of funding to the western
Canada wilderness committee: Canadian International
Development Agency, Department of Canadian Heritage,
Environment Canada, Human Resources Development Canada,
National Capital Commission, Natural Resources Canada.
Other departments and agencies have not been requested to
provide an answer to this question as they had not provided funding
to western Canada wilderness committee in previous years.
Question No. 207-Mr. Gilmour:
What are the sources and amounts of government funding per annum from
1990 to the present, including the 1995-96 estimates, to Native Trappers School
of B.C. Canada and to Fritz Dueck and/or Sigi Dueck of British Columbia?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): The government has no record of
financial assistance having been awarded to the Native Trappers
School of B.C. Canada and to Fritz Dueck and/or Sigi Dueck of
British Columbia.
Question No. 211-Mr. Calder:
Concerning Lyme disease in Canada, (a) how can some areas of Canada be
reported as non-endemic when a thorough examination of vectors/hosts for the
Lyme disease bacteria has not been conducted, (b) why has Lyme disease not
been made a national reportable disease, (c) what is the total number and
location of Lyme disease incidences in Canada, (d) what information is
provided to health care providers to identify Lyme disease, (e) why are there no
protocols to force health care officials to report cases of Lyme disease, and (f)
why doesn't the government provide information for people to protect
themselves against the disease?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib): The following
information is based on current information on the relevant tick
vectors in Canada. The most significant of these ticks from a
human health perspective are
Ixodes scapularis and
Ixodes
pacificus. Although
I. scapularis have been identified in different
regions of Canada, the only place in Canada where this tick species
has been shown to be endemic at present is Long Point in southern
Ontario which is an identified Lyme disease endemic area.
Similarly, the important tick vector
I. pacificus is endemic in parts
of British Columbia and these have been identified as Lyme
endemic
14549
areas. If reports of the Lyme disease bacterium in other ticks
species can be substantiated these endemic areas will be expanded.
A disease is made nationally ``notifiable'' on the
recommendation of the advisory committee on epidemiology,
ACE. In 1988 a subcommittee of ACE recommended 12 criteria to
determine the importance of a disease for making it nationally
notifiable. On the basis of these criteria a number of diseases were
scored high enough to be included in the list of nationally notifiable
diseases; however, lyme disease was not included in this group.
The methods, criteria and list of diseases were published in the
Canada Communicable Disease Report in 1991, 20 April; vol
17-16.
The process used by ACE recognised that ``notification'' was not
always the most appropriate method for studying the epidemiology
of a particular disease and that other approaches such as the use of
sentinel reporting sites or laboratory based reporting might provide
more meaningful information in some circumstances.
For question (c):
Alberta-3
New Brunswick-9
Quebec-1
Ontario-210
Manitoba-17
Saskatchewan-1
British Columbia-14
The Canadian consensus conference of Lyme disease published
in two venues-the Canada Communicable Disease Report and the
Canadian Journal of Infectious Disease-initially provided
guidelines. Updated information when available has been
published in the Canada Communicable Disease Report.
The legal mechanism to ensure reporting of a specific disease is
to make it ``reportable'' and the legal mechanisms for doing this
reside at the provincial government level. For a disease to be
nationally notifiable requires each jurisdiction to legislate
separately for the disease to be ``reportable'' within that
jurisdiction.
Information is made available to the public from health units in
the known endemic provinces of British Columbia and Ontario.
The Ontario fact sheet is currently being updated.
Question No. 212-Mr. Calder:
Concerning the Consensus conference on Lyme disease (1991), why has the
statement not been updated with regard to (a) identification of endemic areas
for Lyme disease in Canada, (b) identification of symptoms, and (c) methods of
diagnosis by newer, more effective antibiotics?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): The
consensus statement is the joint summary of opinion of all
participants and as such stands on its own. Consensus conferences
do not often have further updates to them and there has been no
update to the Lyme disease conference. However there has been
some addition information published in the Canada Communicable
Disease Report on the identification of British Columbia as an
endemic area for Lyme disease in Canada.
In addition isolation of the Lyme disease bacterium from ticks
collected near Thunder Bay, Ontario and Alberta has been reported
in the Canada Communicable Disease Report and isolation of the
Lyme disease bacterium from ticks in Prince Edward Island has
been reported in an international journal as well as at an
international borreliosis conference in Vancouver organized by the
Vancouver, B.C. Lyme Borreliosis Society.
These latter reports do not provide evidence that Lyme disease is
endemic in Alberta, Northern Ontario or Prince Edward Island
since the currently recognized relevant tick vectors have not been
shown to be endemic in these regions but they serve to show that
there may be a low level of risk for humans to contract Lyme
disease in these areas.
There has been no update on the topic of symptoms but the
concensus conference statements are still basically applicable. As
noted in the concensus conference statement, Lyme disease is an
illness with dermatological, neurological, cardiac and/or
rheumatological features. There may be localized manifestations of
Lyme disease which relate to the erythema migrans rash, an
expanding, erythematous skin lesion commonly seen at the site of
the tick bite of many patients. In addition disseminated Lyme
disease may include neurological forms of disease such as Bell's
palsy, cardiac manifestations and arthritic involvement
characterized by recurrent, brief attacks of large joint swelling in
one or a few joints.
Recommendations for the treatment of Lyme disease do change
with time but the basic recommendations for treatment involve the
use of various beta-lactam-pencillin family-and tetracycline
antibiotics. Treatment regimes will vary depending on factors such
as the stage of Lyme disease, the age of the patient, and the specific
clinical manifestations of the patient. The topics of methods of
diagnosis and antibiotic treatment have been further addressed by
the Canadian Paediatric Society which published a position paper
in the Canadian Medical Association Journal Volume 147 pages
169-172, 1992.
Question No. 213-Mr. Calder:
How much money has the government of Canada spent on Lyme disease
research since 1985 and what are the titles of the resulting studies?
14550
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Since 1985
Health Canada, through the national health research development
program, NHRDP, has granted funding of $209,544 for one study
on Lyme disease.
The study was done by Dr. Ian Barker of the University of
Guelph, and was entitled ``Factors Influencing the Distribution of
Lyme Disease''. The funding per year was as follows:
1989/90-$22,068
1990/91-$46,610
1991/92-$42,914
1992/93-$63,152
1993/94-$24,800
1994/95-$1,000
1995/96-$9,000
Question No. 217-Mr. Simmons:
What action will the government take in reference to the claim made by the
Auditor General in his May 1995 report to Parliament that, with respect to the
Drugs Directorate and Medical Devices Bureau, (a) ``key issues identified in
past studies still remain outstanding'', and (b) ``many of the changes
recommended-are still not fully implemented'', and what specific measures
are being developed to deal with high risk products and devices?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Regarding
drugs, there have been a number of studies over the last ten years
with many recommendations and many of them contradictory.
Consequently, two years ago the drugs directorate developed a
major re-engineering initiative called drugs directorate renewal
and has been pursuing an intensive process in which all aspects of
its operations have been reviewed and streamlined within an
environment of scarce resources. Over that period of time the
directorate has consulted fully with all stakeholders. The drugs
directorate has made many changes to its programs and policies
with the aim of streamlining operations and fixing ``known''
problems. While the auditor's report recognizes the strengths of
this renewal exercise, it does not adequately recognize the progress
made in several areas.
The drugs directorate regulates a wide range of drugs, including
radiopharmaceuticals, biologics and narcotics. These products
represent different risks and the drugs directorate systems are
designed according to these risks. Specifically in the area of high
risk drugs, the drugs directorate has significantly improved its
review performance without jeopardizing the well-being of
Canadians. Approval times for submissions received and approved
since January 1993, when a new policy was implemented, show
substantial decreases in time taken.
The government was and is continuing to take action with
respect to the key issues identified in past studies and on specific
measures to deal with high risk medical devices.
As part of the review of federal regulatory program, the Minister
of National Health and Welfare established in 1992 a medical
devices review committee, known as the Hearn committee, to
review the existing infrastructure and make recommendations on
the regulation of medical devices in the future. The committee's
report, ``Direction for Change'', was released in August 1992. The
report identified the key issues as well as made recommendations
with respect to regulation of medical devices. The minister
accepted the committee's recommendations in principle.
Subsequently the health protection branch, HPB, developed a
strategic implementation plan entitled ``Development Plan for
Improved Medical Devices Program'' which was endorsed by the
Hearn committee in April 1993.
In accordance with the recommendations of the development
plan, the following key issues have been addressed or are in
process.
Regarding re-engineering of the medical devices program, a
separate ``medical devices bureau'' was established in September
1993. To improve the level of service to its clients, the medical
devices program was further consolidated by functionnally linking
medical device staff in the five HPB regional offices to the bureau.
Key management and staff positions have been filled within the
bureau. An improvement in service has been achieved by
developing and implementing internal standards operating
procedures. The backlog of submissions awaiting review has been
eliminated.
Regarding risk based approach to manage medical devices in the
Canadian market place, with the help of an advisory committee
comprising medical devices stakeholders, a risk based
classification system, RBCS, for medical devices has been
developed. The intent of the risk based classification system is to
ensure that a device is given an appropriate level of scrutiny based
on the risk it presents to its user.
A set of proposed regulations based on the risk based
classification of devices has been developed and released to the
program's clients for their input.
Regarding cost recovery initiative the cost recovery initiative
received approval from the Treasury Board on May 18, 1995. The
program will charge a range of fees commensurate with level of the
services provided to the medical device industry. The proposed fee
schedule has been published in Canada Gazette I, June 10, 1995.
Regarding improved communications with clients of the medical
devices program, managers of the program now meet with
representatives of medical device industry regularly to discuss
matters of common interest.
Consultation sessions are being held with the program clients to
obtain their input in developing new regulatory requirements and in
implementing cost recovery.
In addition to the existing publications, information letters,
medical devices alerts, dear doctor letters, it is your health, a
newsletter entitled ``medical devices bulletin'' has been introduced
to enhance external communications. The first issue was published
in June 1995.
14551
A medical devices bulletin board service has been established
to provide program related information to medical device clients
electronically.
A communication plan for the program is being developed with
the help of a consultant.
A new computer system has been installed to operate the
program's various databases. Program clients have access to these
databases.
Regarding international harmonization the risk based
classification system and proposed regulations were developed
keeping international harmonization in mind.
Mutual Recognition agreements are under consideration. Canada
is negotiating with the European Union, EU, to ease market access
for Canadian products into Europe and vice versa. The proposed
agreement would enable Canadian manufacturers to meet EU
regulatory requirements in Canada in a cost effective manner and
simplify the process for Canadian exporters to get needed EU
approval based on mutual recognition of testing and certification
procedure.
Similar negotiations are being initiated with the United States of
America.
Question No. 219-Mr. Simmons:
With respect to the family violence initiative, (a) why did Health Canada
choose not to renew the Initiative in March 1995, (b) what will happen to the
community projects which were largely funded through grants under the
Initiative, (c) what specific areas were deemed priorities following the
federal-provincial consultation on ways of combating family violence, and (d)
is Health Canada planning to develop a new policy on family violence in
1995-1996?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Activities to
reduce family violence have been extended for 1995-96 with
resources of up to $30.28 million government wide. During the
year the government will ensure that action is effective, focused
and integrated into a broad federal strategy to reduce all types of
violence, including family violence.
About 74 per cent of the resources for 1995-96 will be used to
support shelter housing, services for on-reserve First Nations and
Inuit communities, and community action projects. As well, the
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence will continue serving
as a national resource centre for communities across the country.
Twelve million, three-hundred thousand dollars of the $30.28
million is being allocated to First Nations and Inuit communities.
The funding will be used to help First Nations and Inuit
communities continue prevention, intervention and treatment,
research, evaluation and professional training to reduce family
violence.
Provincial/territorial governments, non-governmental
organizations and other stakeholders have acknowledged that
federal leadership is needed to co-ordinate a national, cross
sectoral response to family violence. The federal government will
continue to play a leadership role on family violence within the
resources allocated for the year, through co-ordinated, strategic
activities. One of the federal government's objectives is to
determine how best to integrate family violence work into a
broader strategy to reduce all violence in Canadian society. The
federal government, primarily through the justice department, will
lead this activity. In addition, the federal government will continue
to work with other levels of government, non-governmental
organizations and the private sector to build on the work to date on
family violence.
During 1995-96 the federal government will support shelters for
battered women and children, community based action, services
for First Nations on-reserve and Inuit peoples, criminal justice
reform, training of RCMP members, treatment programs for
federal offenders, and the activities of the National Clearinghouse
on Family Violence.
Also during 1995-96 the government will review its family
violence activities to ensure they are effective, focused and
integrated into a broad, federal strategy to reduce all types of
violence, including family violence.
Question No. 220-Mr. Cummins:
With regard to the turbot fishery off Canada's east coast and NAFO
allocations or quotas, (a) what percentage of this years total allowable catch
(TAC) is to be caught by Canadian vessels, (b) what percentage of the Canadian
allocation or quota is to be caught by Canadian vessels, (c) what percentage of
the TAC is to be caught by Russian vessels, (d) what percentage of the Canadian
allocation or quota (northern zone) is to be caught by Russian vessels, (e) what
percentage of the TAC (northern zone) is to be caught by French vessels, (f)
what percentage of the TAC (southern zone or nose and tail of the Grand Banks)
is to be caught by French vessels; other European Union vessels; Japanese;
Russian; Korean; or flagged vessels of other NAFO states, (g) is the French
catch as provided for in the recent Canada-France agreement counted as part of
the EU or Canadian allocation-if Canadian, why is it treated as part of the
Canadian allocation as opposed to the EU allocation?
Hon Brian Tobin (Minister Fisheries and Oceans, Lib): (a) 37
per cent of the 1995 total allowable catch of Greenland halibut in
subareas 2+3 is allocated to Canada; (b) 99.33 per cent of the
Canadian allocation is to be fished by Canadian vessels, (see e); (c)
11.85 per cent of the TAC is to be fished by Russian vessels; (d) 0
per cent of the Canadian allocation or quota in the northern zone
2+3K is to be fished by Russian vessels; (e) 3.5 per cent of the
subarea 2 part of the northern zone, 2+3K, 210t in 1995, is
allocated to France; (f) 0 per cent of the TAC of the southern zone,
3LMNO, is allocated to France, 50 per cent to the European Union,
13 per cent to Japan, 16 per cent to Russia, no part of the TAC has
been specifically allocated to Korea, 7.5 per cent allocated to other
NAFO members including Korea; (g) the French catch is counted
as part of the Canadian allocation as it is provided for under the
Canada-France fisheries agreement.
14552
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if questions Nos. 145, 199, 200 and 221 could be made orders for
return, those returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos.
145, 199, 200 and 221 be deemed to have been made orders for
return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 145-Mr. Shepherd:
Regarding the proposed registration of firearms, would the government, (a)
provide a detailed and comprehensive accounting showing the projected cost of
the administration of such a system, with all costs both incidental and specific to
be taken into account, (b) allocate these cost projections between those costs to
be absorbed or recovered from legal gun owners and those to be borne by the
general public, (c) provide all statistical assumptions taken into consideration in
arriving at these projections and (d) in the case of the general public's
allocation, show this cost on a per taxpayer basis?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 199-Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast):
For the period from October 1993 to the present, what are the detailed
breakdowns of funding from the Cultural Initiatives Programs in the
Department of Canadian Heritage, exactly what was each project, what
individual or organization received it, if it was specifically in a riding which
riding was it in, exactly how much was each allocation of funds, what was the
date of application for the funding and what was the date of approval?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 200-Mr. Hanger:
How many Minister's Permits were issued by the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration in 1994?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 221-Mr. Cummins:
With regard to fishing activity within the 200 mile exclusive economic zone,
(a) what NAFO nations will Canada allow inside the 200 mile exclusive
economic zone on the east coast in 1995-96 to catch national allocations, and for
which species of fish, (b) what nations will Canada be allowing to fish inside the
200 mile exclusive economic zone on the west coast, and for what species, (c) to
the government's knowledge, what other nations allow foreign countries to fish
inside their 200 mile exclusive economic zone?
(Return tabled.)
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: I suggest that the other questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Speaker: I have a request for an emergency debate. The
hon. member for Roberval has today, prior to this afternoon's
sitting, sent me a letter describing the matter he wishes to discuss
today.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with our Standing Orders, my comments will strictly
concern the contents of my letter. Under Standing Order 52, I
request leave for an emergency debate on the federal government's
recognition of the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to
decide, in the forthcoming referendum, on their political future.
This request is particularly timely, considering the ambiguity
that remains after today's Question Period. On September 12,
1995, the Minister of Labour made contradictory statements about
the federal government's recognition of the referendum results.
The Prime Minister of Canada, on the other hand, did not clearly
express the position of the federal government in this respect nor
did he clarify satisfactorily what was said by the minister. A very
substantial doubt remains, and the people of Quebec and Canada
need to know the real position of the federal government regarding
the results of the referendum exercise in Quebec. Disturbing
comments made by the Prime Minister during Question Period lead
us to conclude that his position would be not to accept the results of
the referendum in Quebec.
Considering the importance of what is at stake, you will
understand, since it is impossible to consider, on short notice,
another occasion on which the matter could be put before the
House, I think it is in the public interest that parliamentarians
should have a chance to discuss this fundamental question and
express their views to the government as soon as possible. I wish to
stress the urgent nature of this debate.
In concluding, I simply wish to say I did some quick research
and found that in 1977, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau moved a
motion for debate on Canadian unity. The motion was accepted,
and the debate was a very important one. After the speech from the
Throne in April 1980, there were seven days of debate on the issue
of national unity, and I found that the people who took part in these
discussions stressed their importance at the time.
In this perspective and considering what is now happening in
Quebec, I think it would be important for the House of Commons to
obtain approval for an emergency debate. Thank you.
14553
(1615)
The Speaker: First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for
this letter. I paid close attention to what he said today. As one might
expect, it goes exactly along the lines of the letter.
[English]
In my opinion all of the criteria are not met at this point to have
an urgent debate on this. My ruling would be that at this time it is
not necessary for an urgent debate on this particular matter.
_____________________________________________
14553
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Frontenac had the
floor before question period. He has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can
see that your memory is excellent. Not only did you recognize me,
but you were also able to tell me that I had 11 minutes remaining. I
shall take up at the very word were I left off.
Let us now ask ourselves the question: does the Office of the
Auditor General have the tools required to take on these new tasks?
It is well known that producing the auditor general's report every
year requires a lot of work. It is therefore reasonable to wonder
whether the auditor general will have enough time, and enough
resources particularly, to prepare, on top of it all, a specific report
on the impact of the many contradictions contained in the remarks
made by the Minister of the Environment.
The answer to this question however was provided by the auditor
general himself in his testimony before the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development. At that time, Mr.
Desautels told the committee that, depending on the scope of the
mandate given to the function contemplated, his office could carry
out the related responsibilities.
He also indicated that his office was already spending $4.5
million per year, or 7.5 percent of its total budget, on auditing
programs that have a direct impact on the environment. He figures
that his office could fulfil its parliamentary obligations with an
additional $4.5 million, which would bring to $9 million the total
budget allocated to the environment alone.
Officially, no amount has yet been set aside for this purpose.
Unofficially, however, the auditor general has received the amounts
he had requested in order to assume these new responsibilities.
This fact and the comments made by the minister during an
interview she gave last October suggest that she had to do some
arm-twisting.
In fact, the minister's comments suggest that she understands the
validity of the Bloc's argument that this mandate should be given to
the Office of the Auditor General since, in a press release dated
April 25, she describes this office as independent, influential and
highly respected.
(1620)
The bill provides not only that the Commissioner of the
Environment will report directly to the auditor general but also that
his first duty will be to help him fulfil his mandate with regard to
the environment and sustainable development. For example, the
commissioner will examine how effective departmental action
plans are in meeting the objectives set out in the departments'
sustainable development strategies.
Second, he will have to follow up on all petitions received from
Canadian residents and dealing with the environment and
sustainable development in accordance with the bill's provisions.
Third, the commissioner will make any examinations and
inquiries that he considers necessary in order to monitor the extent
to which departments have met the objectives set out in their
sustainable development strategies.
Fourth, the commissioner will, on behalf of the auditor general,
report annually to the House of Commons, including on the extent
to which departments have implemented the plans set out in their
sustainable development strategies, as well as on anything that he
considers should be brought to the attention of that House in
relation to other environmental issues.
The official opposition does not intend, at least for the time
being, to challenge the mandate that the minister wants to give to
the commissioner of the environment. However, we deplore the
fact that, ultimately, the commissioner will merely have the power
to make suggestions.
He will of course review environmental issues, look at citizens'
concerns and follow up on these with the concerned departments,
as well as conduct various studies and inquiries for the purpose of
his report, as Mr. Desautels already does. But given the way this
government has always treated the auditor general's
recommendations, it can be assumed that the commissioner of the
environment's report will be treated exactly the same way and will
be left to gather dust on a shelf like so many other such documents.
A few minutes ago, I listened with great interest to the tribute
paid to the late Jean-Luc Pepin, who represented the riding of
Drummond, just a few kilometres from my riding. Jean-Luc Pepin,
who strongly believed in the duality of Canada's nations, prepared
a famous report, the Pepin-Robarts report. As you know, Mr.
14554
Speaker, that report is still sitting on a shelf, buried under six
inches of dust. The report tabled each year by the auditor general,
Mr. Desautels, tells us about a few administrative horrors from this
government, which triggers a big show lasting two or three weeks.
It was the same when the Conservatives were in office. We talk
about a lot about the report during the first week, a little less in the
second week, and a great deal less in the third week. Then the
report is tossed onto a shelf.
Therefore, if we are going to spend nine million dollars a year to
produce yet another report which will just collect dust, the official
opposition will be quick to withdraw its support for this
amendment to the Auditor General Act.
A report should shake us up, stir us to action. I remember that, as
the agriculture critic, I noticed in the last report that hundreds of
thousands of dollars were spent on sunflower seeds to feed small
birds.
(1625)
We spent almost a million dollars on a totally unwarranted
expenditure, that was a waste, pure and simple. While some people
in our society go hungry, we spend several hundred thousand
dollars to buy sunflower seeds to feed birds.
Worse, my political assistant in my riding told me this morning
that he had received two calls about some headline in today's
newspapers which stated that Canada is the second richest country
in the world and that each of its citizens is worth a billion dollars.
That is right: one billion, not one million. My riding office got a
phone call from one of my constituents who says he is ready to sell
his share at a reduced price. It is a bargain, at a thousand to one or
even a million to one. If you want to make a good deal with my
constituent, he is willing to sell for a good price. If you ran an ad in
the Courrier Frontenac, in my riding, I am sure quite a few would
be ready to sell.
In a more serious mode, reports by the new commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development should not be left to
gather dust on a shelf, with no action taken, because it would be
simply wasting $9 million annually.
Like my colleague from Charlevoix just said, we are now closing
down employment centres that are 85 per cent paid for by the UI
fund, that is by the workers themselves. Considering that the fund
is supposed to have a $6 billion surplus, not a deficit, this year, it is
a disgrace that we should eliminate services that pay for
themselves.
It is really frustrating that workers should have to fight to keep
their local employment centres that are functional and responsive.
In the last minute remaining, I would like to remind you about an
oil barge that is still sitting on the bottom of the sea, halfway
between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island. Last
week was the 25th anniversary of the sinking of that barge,
obviously an accident. Need I ask which party was the ruling party
in Canada in 1970? I remember which party replaced in 1984 the
one that was in power in 1970, and the one that has now been in
power for two years already under the Right Hon. Prime Minister
and member for Saint-Maurice.
However, this situation has been going on for 25 years. We do
not need an auditor for the environment and sustainable
development to know that this barge is down there, that it has
rusted out and is now leaking hundreds of gallons of bunker C oil
and oil contaminated with PCBs.
Mr. Asselin: The Prime Minister says that everything is
hunky-dory.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Everything is hunky-dory, indeed.
So we have an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. I ask
you to do something, Mr. Speaker, and tell this Minister and this
government to wake up.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kind attention.
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): It is important, Mr.
Speaker, to very briefly indicate that if this bill is before the House
in this form it is thanks to the efforts of the Minister of the
Environment who certainly had to overcome a number of obstacles
in ensuring that this measure would be advanced as legislation.
Even if it does not fulfil all of the recommendations that the
committee put forward it still represents a remarkable step forward.
(1630 )
I listened to the intervention of the hon. member for Charlevoix
and his remarks about the Irving Whale which were also made by
other members in the course of the discussion today. One thing is
certain. Had we had in place a commissioner on sustainable
development monitoring and reporting, that kind of role would
have permitted the catching much earlier of the shortcomings of
the Department of Transport and other affected departments. It
would have, if not prevented, at least rectified the matter much
sooner. Therefore it is only fair to conclude that we are moving in
the right direction with this measure.
I must say the member for Comox-Alberni put forward in a
very straightforward manner the criticism that one would actually
expect from the official opposition. He did that in his usual frank
style, which I fully respect. Of all of the points he made perhaps
there was only one in which he was slightly off the mark, namely
14555
by saying that the proposals in the bill before us today did not fulfil
or reflect the promise made in the Liberal Party's red book.
As far as I can recall, the bill before us reflects that promise very
well. It is not proposing a clerk, as the member for
Comox-Alberni repeatedly said. It is proposing the creation of a
position of a commissioner, which is quite different from that of a
clerk.
Also it needs to be stressed that the commissioner and the bill
create a completely new role in the Department of the Auditor
General, because the act itself under which the auditor general is
operating is being amended. Once the legislation goes through it
will read: ``an act respecting the Office of the Auditor General of
Canada'', as it does now, but will have added to it: ``and sustainable
development monitoring and reporting''.
This is not a minor step. It is a remarkable one. It inserts in the
mandate of the auditor general the importance of monitoring
sustainable development strategy and implementing the meaning,
significance and the interpretation of sustainable development.
That is no minor feat.
It is sad that the member for Laurentides indulged in referendum
matters and in the bashing of the Prime Minister in a manner that
somehow serves another agenda then that of the bill before us. It is
unfair and unreal to claim that the environment is being used by the
federal government as a pawn to intervene or interfere in provincial
jurisdiction.
For heaven's sake, as other reports from departments have done,
the bill ensures that the measure being proposed is clearly and
specifically restricted to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Therefore it is rather absurd to claim that the federal government is
attempting, as the member for Laurentides said, to centralize, to
impose massive centralization or to give more power to itself. The
bill certainly does not do that.
Moving on to the substance of the measure and having listened
to the minister, it seems clear that her reference to
benchmarks-and she dwelt on the subject at some length-is a
very important one. In analysing this measure in committee and in
passing it the reference was made that we would have to be
extremely careful in examining how the commissioner would
operate. By benchmarks I understand her to mean yardsticks,
namely a way of measuring sustainability.
(1635)
The question is: How will sustainability be measured and against
what? Will it be measured against the sustainable objectives of the
department, or will it be measured against the sustainable
development principles that are to be established by way of a
regulatory process emanating from the law itself?
I hope that the yardstick against which the commissioner will be
auditing will be very firm, very significant; will be one on which
the entire federal jurisdiction will be able to agree; and will provide
the necessary motivation and goals to move toward sustainable
development. I suppose this is what the minister had in mind when
speaking about benchmarks this morning. The yardsticks will have
to be established in a manner that transcend those of internal
regulations.
When the House passed Bill C-46 and Bill C-48 some 18 months
ago, I remember the term sustainable development was included in
the two pieces of legislations creating the new Departments of
Industry and Energy Mines and Resources. I have been asking
myself ever since how those departments implement the mandate
of the minister to achieve sustainable development against the
adoption of which yardsticks and against the background of what
principles.
To be brief, it seems in essence the bill is about yardsticks of
auditing which the committee will have to examine and the
principles against which the yardsticks will be established.
We have a number of sources for principles. The Ontario round
table produced six guiding principles to meet sustainable
development: first, anticipation and prevention; second, full cost
accounting; third, informed decision making; fourth, living off the
interest; fifth, quality over quantity; and, sixth, respect for nature
and the rights of future generations. These are six good yardsticks
and I submit them for consideration.
There is also the question of looking at principles which deal
with equity; integrated approaches to planning and decision
making; integration of the economy with the environment, which is
certainly a basic principle; and ensuring that the development of
renewable resources and their harvesting remain sustainable.
There are questions of virtually eliminating persistent and
accumulative toxic substances, of adopting a pollution prevention
approach, of protecting the ozone layer, of reducing greenhouse
gasses and of conserving biodiversity.
We are to examine quite a large collection of principles. I invite
all members interested in this method to think about the necessity
of principles and yardsticks and to provide the committee with the
benefit of their advice and experience.
(1640)
The question of the definition of sustainable development might
have to be examined in committee because the Brundtland
definition is so global and so over-arching that it needs to be filled
in somehow.
A suggestion I have received is that the definition should be to
the effect that sustainable development concerns the integration of
14556
environmental sustainability into the economic development and
social development objectives of the federal government.
At the present time there is a cabinet directive whereby all
ministers are to include environmental considerations in policy and
program memoranda prepared for them for submission to cabinet.
This is done, I understand very dutifully and precisely. Some
departments do it better than others. It is against this practice, it
seems to me, that we should examine the question and the
importance of linking the environment with economic and social
objectives and perhaps improving the quality of the comments
included in memoranda by ministers to cabinet.
I suppose this will be one of the tasks the commissioner will
have to face. The commissioner, also it seems to me, will have to
be protected against the possible threat of decreasing resources
made available to the auditor general. In other words, the role and
the funding of the commissioner must be ensured so that they do
not suffer in times of budget cuts. I am certain this matter will be
taken into account fully.
The legislation envisages the requirement within two years of
the establishment of the commissioner of plans on sustainable
development that each department will be requested to submit to
the commissioner. The commissioner would then review them,
monitor them and report in the proposed manner. It would be
desirable in this process if Environment Canada were to volunteer
the best possible example and be among the first and well within
the two-year limit in providing its plan so as to give the other
departments the example that is required and perhaps the advice
that some departments will require in this respect.
We will perhaps be wise to examine in committee the question of
crown corporations that at the present time are not included in the
bill and possibly the review or the monitoring and reporting on
international agreements.
These matters touch upon the sustainability of our economy and
of the global resources particularly when it comes to delicate issues
like the integrity of the ozone layer and the trend in climate change
which are now being widely observed by meteorologists and
scientists.
One thing is clear. The bill certainly aims at integrating the
environment into federal decision making. Once passed it will
represent a good addition to the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act to which the minister referred earlier, to the task
force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound
environmental practices from which we hope to hear again, and to
the more recently adopted document entitled ``A Guide to Green
Government''.
(1645 )
We should be very clear what is meant by incorporating the
environment and sustainable development into the Auditor General
Act. If we mean balancing the economy with the environment, as
some speakers have indicated in this debate, we would be missing
the boat badly. The two cannot be balanced. It would be a serious
mistake because first of all we implicitly declare that the
environment is disconnected from the economy, that the two are
not interrelated. In balancing the two-and the gesture itself is very
revealing-we indicate also that in certain economic times the
economy would receive all the attention and precedence and the
environment would suffer and would be given different treatment
at a lower level, a secondary level, one might say.
I submit it would be a very serious mistake and give the wrong
interpretation of sustainable development. We would be
proceeding in the same manner that we did in the seventies when
our agenda was limited to the protection of the environment
whenever possible.
We are now in a different phase, in the phase of a sustainable
development. It means instead of integration, there should be a
very strong correlation of the economy with the environment. They
are one. They are interconnected. There cannot be a healthy
economy in the long term unless there is a healthy environment as
its foundation.
It is for that reason that the interpretation and the definition of
sustainable development in this bill and in government operations
are so important. It is also for this reason that the question of
principle becomes so crucial in the operations of departments when
they do embrace-a step which we all welcome, as in the
Department of Industry and in the Department of Natural
Resources-the concept of sustainable development. However that
embrace, that commitment has to be taken a step further and has to
be fleshed out with a number of basic principles.
I enumerated a few of these principles earlier, some taken from
the Ontario round table and some taken from the Guide to Green
Government-I applaud them all-which were signed by each
cabinet minister including the Prime Minister. Those principles
have now received an imprimatur, so to say, that is of great
significance. It confirms the commitment of the government to
sustainable development and to the principles fleshed out in the
guide.
In the time that is left to me I would like to indicate that in
addition to promoting sustainable development the bill will also
open the road to petitions from the public. The member for
Laurentides this morning asked a number of interesting questions
on the effectiveness of this procedure. We will be glad to explore
the questions that she raised because they seem to be very valid.
These questions will be forwarded to the minister who will then be
required to respond to them.
The commissioner will monitor and annually report to the House
on the government's performance. In order to be effective in this
auditing capacity the definition, as I said, of sustainable
development incorporating very clear principles against which the
auditing will become possible is immeasurable and becomes of the
greatest importance. We had cabinet endorsement in June of this
year of the
14557
basic principle of pollution prevention. I applaud cabinet for
having done that.
(1650)
We have adopted on a number of occasions, at home and abroad,
a precautionary principle; that is, that we move and make decisions
even when science is not 100 per cent in agreement, but sufficiently
in agreement to warrant a certain policy action.
I mentioned earlier full cost accounting and equity. In a country
like Canada it is of the utmost importance we ensure that in the
fisheries and in the forests we do not erode the capital but limit our
harvesting to the interest produced by such resources.
We have the delicate question of carbon dioxide emissions,
which is part of the red book commitment. It is very difficult to
implement. We had extensive discussions on this particular issue
last spring in Berlin at the United Nations conference on climate
change.
We are a fossil fuel producing country and, therefore, we rely on
it for a number of reasons. However, we must ensure in the long
term that we gradually but systematically reduce our dependence
on fossil fuels in the interest of the global community, to ensure
that the climate trend is put back on the right track.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport is a humble individual
and a great parliamentarian. In his opening remarks he gave credit
to the Minister of the Environment for bringing this bill forward.
However, members of the House, in particular members of the
environment committee and members of the environmental
organizations in the country will know that the hon. member for
Davenport, as the chair of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
made the concept of environmental auditing the subject of the very
first study of that committee in this Parliament. No sooner was the
government elected than the hon. member for Davenport, as the
chair of the committee, chose to make this the subject of study of
that committee.
It was an exhaustive study. Many witnesses were called.
Members of the committee sat and studied for hours, days and
weeks to come up with a very superb report. That report had few
flaws in it. It was a report which many throughout Canada accepted
as the very least that we could accept. The committee report could
have gone one step further than it did and proposed an
ombudsperson role, an investigative role which went beyond that
of simply auditing and promoting the environment and sustainable
development.
When the report was released the foreword of the report was
written by the hon. member for Davenport as the chair of the
committee. The chair writes in the foreword of the report that as a
result of its deliberation the committee has concluded that the most
appropriate way to implement the government's proposed
functions is through the creation of a commissioner of sustainable
development in conjunction with an expanded role for the office of
the auditor general. The committee believes the creation of a
commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is a
priority, one which appropriately answers the request of the
government and which will provide the necessary momentum for
the shift toward sustainability.
(1655)
The member for Davenport and the committee concluded that
what was necessary as a minimum to meet the needs of the
government's commitment to the people of Canada and the long
term needs of the environment was a commissioner of the
environment along with an expanded office of the auditor general.
What we get in response from the Minister of the Environment is
simply an expansion of the office of the auditor general. The whole
proactive role of a commissioner of sustainable development as
promoted by the committee does not exist.
The member for Davenport as the chairperson of the committee
spoke very well about what is yet needed in this bill. He outlined a
number of things that were yet needed. I applaud him for that step.
I asked him how he can rationalize his comments about the need for
a proactive commissioner of the environment and his support for
Bill C-83 which certainly does not do that.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake has quickly identified the Achilles'
heel.
I can only indicate to him, drawing from my own experience,
that when one goes to cabinet with a proposal one does not always
get everything one wants. That applies also to committees. We did
our best. We produced a report that we knew at the time was aiming
a bit higher than the commitment made in our red book.
As they say in political jargon: ``You win some and you lose
some''. Because of this I started my remarks pointing at the fact
that the Auditor General Act will now be changed in its title. It will
also be changed to include a new mandate. While it is not all we
would have liked, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, it
represents a solid step in the right direction. It is my hope that once
the commissioner has proven his or her merits within the
governmental organization and has proven through monitoring and
reporting this is an extremely valuable role, the commissioner will
be given the additional role of indicating, beyond reporting and
monitoring, what the shortcomings are of a given policy, which is a
very delicate step as we know.
14558
In committee I remember very clearly the auditor general
warning us about giving this additional responsibility to the
commissioner. I suppose it is good to start with what we have now
even if it does not meet all of our expectations. We can build on
the foundation through experience in the years ahead.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-83, an act to
amend the Auditor General Act to create a commissioner of
environment and sustainable development in the auditor general's
office.
I completely agree with the intent and purpose of the bill to audit
and to examine groups, individuals and ministries with respect to
the environmental sector. However, I must ask the question why.
Why are we creating another aspect of bureaucracy to do that
which the auditor general and the Minister of the Environment
should by all rights do within the framework of their job
descriptions.
(1700)
Is it not the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to
actually monitor these things? We are creating another level of
bureaucracy at a cost of over $5 million to the Canadian taxpayer.
Why are we doing this?
The bill is a metaphor for government. When we have a problem,
and most hardworking members of Parliament will agree, we study
it, we observe it, we report on it but do we act? Rarely. If we do, it
is usually nibbling around the edges. We have what I call studyitis.
Instead of acting on a problem, instead of addressing a problem,
instead of getting the best solutions the country has to offer for a
problem and implementing those, if only on a pilot project, we
study it, we observe it and we report on it. That is what we are
doing here.
The purpose of that is to give the illusion we are actually doing
something. When we are engaging in these studies and reports we
give the illusion we are actually addressing a problem. In reality we
are putting off the actual decision making processes for another
time. It has been one of the most frustrating aspects of being in the
House. I know that frustration is shared by many of my colleagues.
That to a large extent is what the bill represents. We are creating
something new to do what should already be done by existing
structures within the government.
Therefore we expose this aspect of bureaucratic expansionism at
the expense of the taxpayer's pocket and should put the
responsibility of these activities squarely back on the ministry's
door and also back on the auditor general.
Apart from that I have some constructive suggestions the
ministry can devote its time to. Instead of spending another $5
million of the taxpayer's money to do something that should
already be done, let us look at some constructive ways the ministry
can apply what it already has to some very pressing environmental
problems that exist within our midst.
There are at least 48 identified high risk areas that are
contaminated within the country. As of March 1995, 11 were
deemed necessary for remediation. The moneys were put forth to
remediate these areas. At the end of 1996 only 13 further sites will
be marked for remediation.
That leaves a total of 24 sites of high risk to our country,
particularly to the people who live around them, and to the
environment. I cannot emphasize strongly enough these are high
risk sites that demand attention for the people who live in the area
and for the surrounding environment now-not next year, not five
years from now but now. This would be a good thing for the
ministry to look at.
Furthermore there is absolutely no plan whatsoever to deal with
these 24 remaining sites. Where is the money coming from? When
will they be dealt with? I challenge the ministry to look at this now.
To give members an example of how we are trying to offset the
decision making process, in March 1989, $250 million was set
aside to clean up contaminated sites. As of March 1995, how many
were dealt with? Absolutely none. Furthermore there was no plan
whatsoever to put this money to good use to clean up contaminated
sites. It has only taken six years to get to the same state of affairs
we were in six years ago.
No plans exist to identify contaminated sites in Canada. We
cannot address pressing environmental issues, areas that are
contaminated, unless we identify those sites first. We have not even
done that. That is the first step in addressing severely contaminated
sites.
For those sites that are identified, there is absolutely no idea how
much it will cost to address the clean up of these sites.
The federal PCB destruction program ended in March 1995.
There is no plan now to deal with sites contaminated with PCBs
and there are sites right now that pose a significant risk to
Canadians living in their vicinity.
(1705 )
Canada is a major producer of waste. We produce over 30
million tonnes of waste a year or more than a tonne per person. We
recycle about 10 per cent of that. That is not bad but it is not nearly
what we could be doing. It is interesting to look at some European
countries that have done a remarkable job in expanding their
recycling programs to become more inclusive and to involve a
14559
larger segment of their population so their waste levels at landfills
and land sites are greatly reduced.
The ministry should also, instead of reinventing the wheel, look
at countries that are doing a good job and see where we can be more
aggressive with our recycling.
Current landfill sites are filling up and it is becoming
increasingly difficult to find sites for our waste products. Landfill
sites we have are leaking contaminants to surrounding areas, a
significant hazard again to those people and to the flora and fauna
in the vicinity.
It is interesting also to look at the costs. We want to spend $5
million for the auditor general to do a job that should already be
done. The costs for a clean up in Canada are in the order of $4.5
billion per year, and it is expanding every year.
Given the current fiscal restraints of the government and
successive governments in the future, we ought to pay careful heed
as to how we will be dealing with the wastes we are producing now
and will be in the future. It will be a common, current and
pervasive problem for all of us in this country.
I speak from personal experience in my riding when I say the
ministry has shown a deplorable inability to identify, prosecute and
penalize individuals and industries that are right now
contaminating our environment.
If we are to deal with this problem we have to start immediately
to stop the wilful neglect to the environment and the wilful
dumping of hazardous wastes occurring as we speak. It is very
important the ministry do this. I do not know why it is not taking a
more aggressive stance with industries and individuals who
continue to do this. Time and time again local communities have
complained at length to the ministry. It is not being able to
investigate these individuals and it is not prosecuting them as they,
day in and day out, dump waste into our waterways and on to our
land.
The ministry also needs to be more aggressive in recovering
costs where the polluter has been identified. It has not been nearly
as forthcoming as it should be in trying to recoup this money. It
could be very important not only to save money for the Canadian
taxpayer but also give a very clear and distinct message to polluters
that it is unacceptable for them to engage in this behaviour and if
they do they will be penalized and forced to engage in the full cost
recovery of cleaning up the sites they have polluted.
I suggest the ministry look at the environment and sustainable
growth in a global context. It is essential to understand that the
amount of destruction we see to our environment is intimately and
directly associated with human activity both in numbers of people
and in the behaviour of those people.
Right now there are over 5.5 billion people on this planet. By the
year 2000 we will have 7 billion. By the year 2020 or 2030 we will
have 10 billion to 11 billion people. The doubling time for our
population has gone from thousands of years to the order of 25 to
30 years. It has dropped down a decade.
If we reflect on that for a minute we will see how important this
issue is; our burgeoning population and the effect that will have on
our dwindling resources. We simply cannot speak about sustainable
development without addressing the problem of rampant
population growth and human activity and the affect that has on our
environment.
(1710)
It is also interesting to see that the gap is actually widening
between population and the ability to provide the basic necessities
for that population. When populations are unable to provide for
their basic necessities we have a population under stress. When we
have a population under stress it leads to conflict, population
migration and a destruction of the local environment where those
conflicts take place. If we want to speak self-centredly, it impacts
on our defence budgets, our foreign aid and development budgets
and it potentially costs Canadian lives. It also impacts on the
resources we use here for our social programs and services to
provide for refugees who have come to our country from areas of
conflict to seek refuge and succour.
I hope the ministry will look at this in the context of other
ministries and also in international venues because nobody is
speaking about this. If we start to speak about the subject we get
accused of being neo-Malthusian. What a lot of rubbish that is. We
have to be blind not to see that with a population expanding
geometrically and the ability for our resources which are flattening
out and in effect declining this gap which is widening will have a
huge impact not only on countries half a world away but on our
own. For the sake of us, our children and our grandchildren it is not
only important but our responsibility to address these problems.
Our environment is our world. What we do to our world and to
our environment we do to ourselves. I hope the ministry will take it
upon itself that rather than repeating what should already be done,
rather than creating new bureaucracies and creating more
opportunities to study and report on a problem, to develop some
good solutions to these problems.
Let us work with the people within our country and with our
neighbours in other countries. Our environment is shared with all
of our neighbours within our country and outside of our borders.
What happens outside and within our borders is our business.
14560
I believe we as a country can take a leadership role in addressing
some of the large and pressing problems with our environment.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in the last federal election the Liberal government said
environmental and economic agendas must converge. That means
all federal departments must act on this understanding.
In our red book we stated:
Sustainable development-integrating economic with environmental
goals-fits in the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic
policy. Preventive environmental care is the foundation of the Liberal approach
to sustainable development.
To make this happen we promised Canadians one of the things
we would do is appoint an environmental auditor general who
would report directly to Parliament and have powers of
investigation similar to those of the auditor general. I firmly
believe Bill C-83 delivers on that commitment and more.
The House owes congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister
and the Minister of the Environment for the leadership she has
shown on this very important matter.
[Translation]
The environment and sustainable development must
automatically be part of all the decisions made by the federal
government. They must not be the result of thinking after the fact
or be taken into account after the real decisions have been made; on
the contrary, they must be an integral part of all government
decision making.
(1715 )
[English]
We need to do what we can to make sure that the environmental
and sustainable development considerations are integral factors in
the decision making of all federal government departments. That
means decisions on new policies, programs, regulations and laws
as well as the existing ones. It also means decisions on how
departments manage their buildings, facilities and operations.
Canadians deserve to live in a country that is prosperous and
healthy and they demand that their national government take a
leadership role in making this happen. Bill C-83 is a response to
that demand. It shows Canadians that the government is serious
about getting its act together on environmental issues. It shows
Canadians that we are willing to change the way government does
business and that we are not afraid to be held publicly accountable
for what we do and what we do not do.
By getting our house in order the federal government can
promote the shift to sustainable development throughout Canadian
society. This is what Bill C-83 is all about.
I have been delighted to serve on the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development. One of the first big
jobs we tackled was to try and find the best way for the government
to meet its environmental auditor general commitment.
[Translation]
Last spring, the committee held wide-ranging hearings and
submitted its report to the House in May.
[English]
I am very proud of our work and our report. We had real input
into how the red book commitment would be delivered and we had
real input in the bill currently before the House.
Under the skilled leadership of my colleague, the hon. member
for Davenport, we wrote a report that called for enhanced
environmental auditing of the government's policies, programs and
laws. We wrote a report that says the government must be held
accountable to Parliament and to the public for demonstrating
progress in meeting objectives.
We wrote a report that advocates going beyond the concept of
simply creating an environmental auditor general and instead
establishing an independent and influential commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development.
It became clear to committee members very early on in our work
that much of what would be the audit responsibilities of the
commissioner are in fact already carried out by the auditor general.
We also recommended in our report that the auditor general
continue to evolve this work and that the Auditor General Act be
amended to meet new requirements in performing such a role.
Bill C-83 does this. It establishes a commissioner of the
environment and sustainable development and it does it right in the
Office of the Auditor General. This is not, I repeat, not a retreat
from our red book pledge. Instead, it is a better more effective way
to carry out our pledge to Canadians.
The Office of the Auditor General has clout. It is independent
from government. It is well respected. It has solid expertise that
can be put to use at once. For all these reasons the Office of the
Auditor General can greatly enhance the auditing of the
government's environmental performance as well as the
effectiveness of the commissioner.
Bill C-83 also augments the role of the auditor general. It gives
him or her the clear legal mandate to include environmental effects
along with the conventional considerations for the economy and
14561
efficiency when reporting to the House of Commons. This ensures
that issues of environment and sustainable development are
integrated directly into government thinking and planning. This
kind of integration is what sustainable development is all about.
(1720)
However this is far from being the government's first initiative
to foster sustainable development. Let me name just a few: the
proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act;
actions to green government operations; the task force on economic
instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices;
and the initial follow-up to the task force in the last federal budget.
Bill C-83 is just the most recent course of action to make the
shift to sustainable development. This bill will promote sustainable
development across all federal departments by requiring ministers
to table in the House sustainable development strategies. The
strategies must include their departments' objectives and plans of
action to further sustainable development. All departments will be
required to update their strategies every three years with ministers
tabling the updates in the House.
The commissioner will be keeping a close eye on this. He or she
will be completely independent and will report directly to the
auditor general on all of his or her environmental and sustainable
development related duties. The commissioner will also assist the
auditor general in addressing the environmental and sustainable
development aspects of his general auditing work.
One of the commissioner's most important duties will be to
monitor and report annually to the House on the government's
progress toward sustainable development. That means reviewing
each department's sustainable development strategy. That means
monitoring their action plans and reporting on their success. It also
means reporting on anything related to environmental aspects of
sustainable development that merits attention.
The amendments are indeed historic and unprecedented and have
far reaching implications for the way the federal government does
its business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general
happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have
a high profile in the work of that office. They force this government
and all governments that follow to promote sustainable
development practices within all federal departments and across all
major economic sectors of our country. They will hold the
government fully and completely accountable to the public for its
performance in making the shift to sustainable development.
Today I am proud to be a parliamentarian and I am proud to be a
member of this government. We have taken a red book
commitment and engaged Canadians in fulfilling it and indeed in
going beyond it. We have taken a major step forward.
No, as has been pointed out by other colleagues in the House, the
committee did not achieve everything it hoped to achieve. That has
been very candidly stated earlier by my colleague, the
parliamentary secretary, and most recently by my colleague, the
chair of the committee. However we have made a major step
forward. We have taken a radical departure in the way government
does business. We have taken a leadership role.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I would like the member who just spoke to clarify
two things.
The first has to do with accountability. As you know, Madam
Speaker, from reading the bill the legislation calls for petitions
from the general public, in other words those matters in which the
public wants to hold the government accountable. Petitions from
the general public that go to the new commissioner are simply
handed over by the commissioner to the relevant government
department for a response. That response is what holds the
government accountable to the citizens of Canada; no
investigation, no specific examination of the complaint, simply
turning over the complaint to the department.
(1725)
In other words, on a matter which happened recently a citizen
was concerned about the PCBs on the Irving Whale. Instead of that
matter going to court and the court telling the government it fell
short on this issue, the department simply said it was no problem,
the environmental impact assessment was sufficient and the Whale
would be raised. The courts came back and said that those nice
words were not good enough, that the PCBs were not a part of the
environmental assessment study and until they were the Whale
could not be raised.
Nice words of the department do not demonstrate accountability
to the public. I would like the member to further clarify his
statement in light of that comment.
The other statement has to do with the clout of the auditor
general. The member indicates that he supports the legislation
because the auditor general has clout. I think I quote him correctly.
In appearing before the committee, the auditor general
acknowledged that the clout he has is embarrassment. The clout he
has is by reporting. The public reads the report and the government
is embarrassed. The government is embarrassed enough already on
environmental issues. How is it that the clout an environmental
commissioner would have would be any different from the
embarrassment the government feels today?
Mr. O'Brien: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very good
questions from my colleague opposite.
14562
First of all it is very interesting to me that the hon. member
raises the issue of PCBs. PCBs have been a major concern in my
own municipality for some 10 years now, particularly in my own
riding of London-Middlesex. Let me say that when as the new
member of Parliament for the riding of London-Middlesex I
brought this concern to the attention of the Minister of the
Environment and the Deputy Prime Minister she was very quick
to respond in putting an end to a long process initiated by the
previous Tory government to try to find a site for the destruction
of these PCBs.
This thing had dragged on for years. There was never a
conclusion to it. They were spending lots of taxpayers' money.
They had not come up with a proposed site and were planning
really to force a decision on one of two or three communities
unhappily in the riding of London-Middlesex. None of those
communities was very excited about it.
When I brought that to the attention of the minister, she took
very quick action. She indicated there would be no need for such a
facility in the city of London, that we had better options to enable
us to eliminate PCBs without creating additional expensive
facilities. I was very impressed with the response on that.
On the member's comment about petitions from the public about
pollution problems be they PCBs or whatever, what the member
may have overlooked in my comments is the fact that ministers
will have to table in the House plans for how they will deal with
environmental issues within their ministry. There will be regular
ongoing reviews of these plans. As the member who is more senior
in this House than I well knows, that will give members in this
Chamber many opportunities to take a shot at any issue they want
to address themselves to in speaking for their constituents.
In his first question the member referred to the courts.
Fortunately in a democratic system like we have in this country I
would submit that the courts will always be the last recourse in
many cases. If the courts see fit to overrule government on
environmental issues, then so be it. That is an important right we
want to cherish.
On the member's second question, he quoted me correctly about
saying that the auditor general has clout. I can tell my colleague
that the first standing committee I was honoured to serve on in the
House was the public accounts committee. The current auditor
general, Mr. Desautels, in my view has tremendous clout. When he
comes to that committee on any subject-and he is the star witness
as we all know-he is listened to very attentively by all members
of the House sitting on the committee.
(1730)
I agree with Mr. Desautels that embarrassment is a major
weapon in his arsenal. He told us time and again-and I personally
questioned him on it-that it was not his job to indicate new policy
directions for any government but it was his job to indicate where
governments fell short and where they might have been able to do
better.
If governments and ministers do not live up to the plans they
have tabled and when reviews of the plans indicate shortcomings, I
would hope the auditor general would be at the appropriate
committee to embarrass the government of the day. I would
welcome it, as would all Canadians.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Canada has recently been declared the second wealthiest
nation on earth. This is in large part due to our natural heritage.
Canadians from coast to coast are privileged people who live in a
great nation. We are a country of richly diverse temperate rain
forests, prairie grasslands that expand wide on open horizons, great
inland waterways, beaches full of the scent of ocean life, and
fragile Arctic flowers that hang tenuously on to life season after
season.
Fresh potable water, clean air and arable soil are resources that
cannot be fully valued. Once they are gone they cannot be replaced.
More and more world conflict will arise from fighting over scarce
natural resources. Human health is clearly linked to a healthy
natural environment.
In the spring of 1994 I had the honour of accompanying the
Minister of the Environment to attend a G-7 ministers of the
environment conference in Florence, Italy. At that conference they
made it very clear to the Canadian delegation that the world was
anxiously watching Canada. Canada, they told us, was one of the
last countries of the world to contain large tracts of pristine
wilderness.
The delegates very eloquently told us how they learned too late
about their mistakes. Vast tracts of forested land had been denuded,
arable soil had been turned into desert, fresh waterways polluted
and air made unbreathable.
Paul Hawken, in his book ``The Ecology of Commerce'', paints a
very bleak future for this planet. We currently use 40 per cent of the
earth's biotic capacity to produce. In 40 years the earth's
population will double. If we continue to use the earth's resources
at the same rate with no change, in 40 years when the earth's
population doubles we will use 80 per cent of the earth's biotic
capacity to produce.
Major ecosystem failure occurs at 60 per cent to 70 per cent. We
have already experienced a major ecosystem failure on the east
coast in the fisheries. The long debate over the ecological
implications of our behaviour is over. We can see before our eyes
what is happening. We feel the effects on our health. Our
communities and
14563
industries know firsthand about the devastation of an ecological
crisis.
Canadians, from what polls indicate, are very concerned about
their economic well-being and the economic health of the country,
but underlying all these concerns the environment is still an issue
they have a strong attachment to.
In my one and a half years as vice-chair of the environment
committee I have heard Canadians from all parts of the country,
from all walks of life, both industry and environmental groups,
First Nations people, scientists and lay persons, speak about their
concerns regarding environmental degradation. I have heard senior
representatives of large corporations talk with pride in their voices
about environmental initiatives they are pursuing. We have heard
from community groups, from band councils and from government
agencies all outlining what they are trying to do to help Canadian
society make the shift to sustainability.
(1735 )
However it is not enough. Not everyone in industry, in the
private sector and in the public sector is doing all he or she can.
Government must show leadership, first by taking the initiative to
model environmentally sensitive behaviour and, second, by
developing best practices that can be used by others in the shift
toward sustainability.
The commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development as outlined by Bill C-83 will go a long way in
demonstrating leadership. First, it very clearly demonstrates to
Canadians that the government is committed to sustainable
approaches. Second, it will provide very good working examples of
how we can make the move from theory to practice, from problem
analysis to problem solving.
One key issue addressed at the G-7 ministers of the environment
conference in Florence focused on the practice of sustainability.
How is the shift made in practical terms and how do we undertake
green or environmental accounting? Through building on the
efforts already initiated by the auditor general in the field of green
auditing, the government can help to build capacity in Canadian
society.
Third, the government can show leadership in the shift toward
sustainability by helping to co-ordinate and connect all efforts
currently under way. Many undertakings are happening in various
government departments that need to be documented and
co-ordinated.
Originally the committee had recommended a stand alone office
of the commissioner of the environment to assess government
policy proactively before it is implemented. I would certainly
prefer the forward looking approach of this model as opposed to the
rearview approach of the office of the auditor general. However
this must be balanced by the added clout of the office of the auditor
general that Bill C-83 provides and the ability of the new
commissioner to integrate fully ecological considerations with all
government auditing functions.
The government has fulfilled its red book commitment even
though what is reflected in Bill C-83 is not exactly what the
committee recommended because the committee recommendations
differed from the red book.
I campaigned on the issue of a commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development in the office of the auditor general. I
was very excited about the progressive nature of this campaign
promise. I am very pleased that Canada will join New Zealand as
the second country in the world to have a commissioner of
sustainable development.
In addition to amending the Auditor General Act to require the
appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development, Bill C-83 sets out other things to support the shift
toward sustainability. These include ensuring that environmental
considerations in the context of sustainable development are taken
into account in the auditor general's reports to the House of
Commons, imposing requirements for responding to petitions
received by the auditor general about federal environmental
matters, and requiring that departments prepare and table
sustainable development strategies in the House of Commons. All
these will increase public accountability as the government
exhibits leadership in the shift to sustainability.
We have the resources in the country, the human talent and
expertise and the rich, diverse natural heritage of our land to meet
the challenges that face us as a nation; but as people must be
nurtured, supported and protected. So must the land, the air, the
water and all that they contain.
I ask members of the House: Who ultimately owns these things?
How can a document give full and absolute ownership to a forest or
to a tract of land? Perhaps we should consider how the aboriginal
peoples of the country view their relationship to the land. They do
not individually own it. Rather they must care for the land.
Anything that is done to the natural environment must be thought
of in the way it will affect the seventh generation.
As individuals our time on earth is fleeting. We are like a mere
speck on the beach of time. Yet, in a fluttering second we can
destroy that beach and all the life that depends on it for survival.
(1740 )
It is time to challenge our unsustainable behaviours. It is time for
the government to show leadership in the shift to a sustainable
future in both the spirit and letter of the law.
14564
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, my colleague on the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development spoke to the fact that
the committee preferred a stand alone office of a commissioner
of the environment. She mentioned that however unfortunately it
was not done and that the red book commitment had been kept.
Could she elaborate on the keeping of that commitment and
perhaps speculate at least and explain to the House why the
committee's first option was not in fact brought to fruition?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, as always people have
different visions of where they might like to go. Certainly the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development had decided on a particular vision after interviewing
a number of witnesses and through discussions with committee
members. We thought perhaps a stand alone commissioner might
be the way to go in this regard.
The red book commitment talked about a commissioner of
sustainable development within the auditor general's office. The
government in its wisdom decided to go with that particular
position.
Part of the discussion we had as members of that committee
looking at the particular issue was the tradeoff of a stand alone
office or the clout within the auditor general's office. Given the
kinds of financial constraints the government is operating under, I
think we can utilize the expertise that has already been developed
in the auditor general's office and move in that direction.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from
York-Simcoe.
Could she perhaps elaborate on the aboriginal concept of the
seven generations? What exactly does it mean?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Madam Speaker, my understanding-and I
guess it is the best way to state it-is that whenever anything is
done to the natural environment, when we decide to intervene in
the course of a waterway, when we decide to make changes on the
land or if we decide to cut a forest, we have to think of the
implications of the action on the seventh generation down the road.
It is not just how it is going to affect us next month or in the next
year. We have to think of the seven lifetimes of people who will
follow us. When we are dealing with environmental issues they are
very complex and often we do not properly extend the time
horizon.
One of the reasons I am so supportive of the concept of
sustainability is that it takes into consideration ecological aspects,
economic aspects and social aspects. Something I firmly believe in
is intergenerational equity. Our children inherit what we leave for
them, their children and so on to the seventh generation.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives me a
great deal of pleasure to join the debate since I was a member of the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development and one of our first orders of business about a year
ago was to examine the question of a commissioner for sustainable
development.
(1745 )
As earlier speakers have said, we listened to a great number of
witnesses. I think we were pleased with our report. Now it is time
to say that we are pleased with what the Minister of the
Environment has presented and with the steps the government is
going to take.
An act to amend the Auditor General Act in order to establish a
commissioner of sustainable development will put the government
firmly on the path to meeting one of our red book commitments-
An hon. member: It would be the first.
Mr. Finlay: The first of many. I want to deal with this act in
three main areas. The first has to do with the definition that appears
in the act. This was only one of the definitions that were presented
to the committee. We had a lot of discussion about this. I believe
we have chosen wisely and I am glad that the definition that arises
out of the Brundtland report is the one that is in this act.
Sustainable development means development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. As my honoured colleague,
the member for Davenport, has already pointed out, this definition
is crucial. This definition goes beyond balancing the economy and
the environment. Up to a few years ago, when I asked this kind of
question from an environmental point of view to members of the
previous government I was told with a wry grin that there are jobs
and then there is the environment. Our future is here, and it
includes both jobs and the environment, both industry and the
environment, all industries and the environment. That is a basic
understanding I hope all in the House will acknowledge.
Many people have seen industry and environment as antithetical
and opposite. This definition goes well beyond that. Again, it is
another case where many of our educational institutions, many of
our businesses and industries, and many of our organizations in this
country are somewhat ahead of the government. They are now
teaching courses in waste management, in integrated resource
management. Our ministries of the environment and industry have
also stimulated the Canadian environmental industry, which is one
of the fastest growing areas of our economy.
Let us return for a moment to this definition. It says
``development that meets the needs of the present''. This does not
say the
14565
wants of the present; it says the needs. That means we have to give
it considerable thought. We have to reach some agreements and we
have to do considerable research. The basic fact we have to
understand is that we live on a finite planet. Our resources, our
land, our air, our water, and our energy are all limited. Right now
we have all the air, polluted or not, that we are going to have. We
have all the water, pure or not, fresh or not, we are going to have.
And we have all the land, eroded or not, we are going to have.
Considering that the extent of arable land on the planet is very
tiny compared to the expanse of the oceans, the mountains, the
deserts, and other parts of this fair earth that we cannot use, this is a
basic tenet of all of our actions and it must become ingrained in the
decisions we make in the House.
(1750 )
It states ``without compromising the ability of future
generations''. Politicians are good compromisers. We have to be
sometimes. However, compromise is not possible when we are
dealing with some of the present problems of the environment. In
order to achieve sustainable development we cannot compromise
on the pressing need to improve our performance in protecting the
environment, in establishing sustainable industrial processes, and
in managing our waste. The ``ability of future generations''
requires us to look a little into the future. We need to recognize that
some of the problems that appear before us now are not the only
problems that future generations may face.
We know, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
pointed out, that the population of the earth is doubling now in
decades, not centuries and not millennia. That is something we
have to keep in mind, because future generations are going to have
a much bigger problem than we have if we do not move toward
helping to solve it. Our needs for energy will expand tremendously.
Progressive climate change cannot be allowed to continue on and
on, because the eventual result will be catastrophic.
The global transport of toxics through air and water, which
already affects much of our Arctic area and the Inuit and others
who live there, is going to continue unless we start to reduce it.
The time for compromise is gone. I think we have to get on with
the job. Hopefully this bill will set us on the road to doing that as
expeditiously as possible.
The last part of the definition states: ``We must not compromise
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs''. Since it
is impossible for us definitively to know what those needs will be,
it would be best if we erred on the side of caution and care,
increased our respect for the environment and increased our efforts
to become a conserving rather than a wasting and wasteful society.
Again, as my colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said, we
create a lot of garbage. We are the best in the world at creating
garbage. We are number one in garbage creation and waste. We
would dearly like to become number one in the management of that
and in getting rid of it.
I would like to spend a moment on a fact that has been brought
up by several other members. We talked about a commissioner of
sustainable development. On the committee we wanted a separate
office. We wanted a real proactive position. We find that we have in
this act a commissioner, yes, within the auditor general's
department.
I think perhaps this is a place where our compromise was
needed. Perhaps what we have in this act will in a number of ways
accentuate the role of that commissioner. One of the things we
heard in the committee from witness after witness was that the
federal departments of this government were not particularly up to
date or forward looking or in advance of those things that needed to
be done to preserve the environment. In fact many industries and
organizations told us that some of our departments did not obey the
rules to nearly the same extent as the mining companies, the
industries, and so on. We were shown quite clearly in the
committee from the witnesses we saw and the trips we made, which
were not many but were very effective, that this was so.
(1755)
Hence, the bill puts the commissioner in there to see that
government puts its own house in order by greening policies and
operations across all departments. We talked about co-operation,
and that is needed.
The commissioner will hold the government publicly
accountable for its own environmental performance. The
commissioner will promote sustainable development as an
essential factor in making decisions at all levels of society and
within all departments of government.
Our departments must lead. After all, the Government of Canada
spends more of the people's money than anyone else. It owns more
of the land or is at least responsible for more of it. It employs more
people. Hence it has to be in the forefront if we are going to meet
the definition of sustainable development in this act.
The commissioner will have to monitor and report annually to
Parliament. He or she must know what the departments are
planning. He must assist them in their planning and he must
respond to the public and petitions from the public on
environmental matters.
Although under the old CEPA, Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, there were only one or two requests from the public
for some study or action to do with the environment, we would
hope that the commissioner's office will focus the public's
attention and provide a place where their concerns can be swiftly
dealt with.
14566
A number of members have questioned making the
commissioner part of the auditor general's office. My colleague
from Simcoe Centre has pointed out that the committee's report
asked for a separate office. However, I think the reasons provided
by the Minister of the Environment are worth repeating. The
auditor general already audits the environmental performance of
federal departments, albeit after the fact. That is a function he
fulfills.
The commissioner will strengthen the auditor general's
environmental effectiveness and make sure that the environment
has a higher profile in his audits. The commission will have some
added credibility as part of an expert, respected and independent
office that now operates at arm's length from the government. That
was an important part of the commissioner's mandate.
Given the government's commitment to fiscal restraint and
affordable services, it seems preferable to strengthen an existing
organization rather than create a new separate office.
Finally, the commissioner will be funded from existing
resources.
It has been a pleasure to speak with respect to the environment. I
am committed to sustainable development and to the environment.
I look forward to the first report from our commissioner, whoever
that might be.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are
talking about sustainable development, a very important issue. We
must not pollute the waters where we swim nor the water we drink.
Otherwise, we risk poisoning ourselves. We must not pollute the air
we breathe if we want to avoid intoxication.
We should take measures to ensure that not only future
generations, but our own will have the opportunity to really
appreciate and fully enjoy nature, the world around us.
(1800)
When we speak about an auditor for the environment, I think the
idea is very interesting, but I cannot help having some reservations.
I would like to share these with you. I am sure my colleague will
then reply and allay my concerns.
You know, Madam Speaker, that we already have an auditor
general who, year after year, each and every year, presents a very
extensive report on the administrative failings of the federal
government. God knows this report is not a small document. The
auditor publishes an imposing series of volumes every year.
If we felt, when the report is tabled, that results were not only
expected, but were in fact there, that they had been delivered, I
would say to myself: auditing works, we have set up mechanisms
whereby the government is responsible to the public, and the
government changes course as required.
But this is really not the case. I am thinking of the Commissioner
of Official Languages. As the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Standing
Committee on Official Languages, I repeatedly have occasion to
regret the fact that, despite his good efforts, the Commissioner of
Official Languages still failed to achieve the results he was hoping
for and even that, recently, in February, his budget was cut. He is
not alone. Many government agencies and departments are in the
same situation, but that does not help him do his work.
So, of course, my honourable colleague says that the
environmental auditor will be able to call attention to failures, but
that is not enough. Knowing that things are going badly is a step in
the right direction, but being unable to do anything or being
unwilling to do something is a more serious matter.
Will we once again, and this is the heart of my question, be faced
with a situation where, well aware of the corrective action to be
taken, we must once more regret the fact that such action was not
taken? Perhaps my honourable colleague can answer my concern?
[English]
Mr. Finlay: Madam Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that we
must walk before we run. Rome was not built in a day. Everybody's
budget has been decreased except two.
In last year's budget the only department that was not hit very
hard was the environment ministry. For a very good reason this
year it was the department of aboriginal affairs and northern
development. More aboriginal people need more help.
I share my colleague's concern that we are not doing everything
that needs to be done, or that can be done. That is exactly why we
need the commissioner. The auditor general's function is to audit
what has been done. The commissioner's function is to do
something before it is done to see that the plans are going to work.
I have no magic wand. We cannot make everything work at once
but we can at least try to get on with it if we all understand what the
problem is and what the goal is.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I
wonder if he could clarify a couple of areas for me.
He made the statement that Canada was the largest creator of
garbage in the world. Maybe he could tell us where he got that
information and how he developed the thesis that Canada of all
places is the largest developer of garbage in the world. I am sure it
is something that all Canadians would like to know more about.
Could he tell us the scientific facts and how he arrived at that
conclusion.
14567
(1805)
The second comment I was concerned about was in regard to
global warming. I remember growing up in the seventies when
environmentalists said that in five years if we were not careful the
rivers would boil. I would like the member to share with us where
he received this information. In his statement who is speaking for
science in his comments?
I feel he has left out an important aspect. If he wants to make a
statement about something, he should back it up with some facts.
Mr. Finlay: Madam Speaker, I want to correct one thing I said.
Canada is the greatest per capita user of energy in the modern
world. My hon. friend has corrected me. We are second in the per
capita production of waste. The U.S. is first in the production of
waste, second in the per capita use of energy. These are not figures
I made up in my head. They are well recognized all over the globe.
They come out of the Brundtland commission study. There is not
any great secret about it. It is one of those things we have to keep in
mind when we look at other countries and worry about population.
We sometimes say we have our population under control. We are
pretty well at a zero base population except we receive a lot of
immigrants which is fine. However India and China are not zero
base populations.
The fact is that one Canadian uses something between 20 to 100
times as much of this earth's resources as one Indian or one Central
American or one African. It depends on which country we are
talking about, how developed and how undeveloped.
Concerning global warming, someone said the rivers were going
to boil in five years. That is science fiction. The fact that the breast
milk of Inuit mothers has 20 times-far more-dioxins in it than
the breast milk of mothers in Montreal is not science fiction. It is
fact.
Just as we have deplored for some years the attitude of American
presidents that acid rain was some figment of the scientist's
imagination or that the accumulation of toxins in the St. Lawrence
River was some figment of a naturalist's imagination, we find of
course that it is not, that the beluga whales are diseased, that acid
rain kills the lakes in northern Ontario and northern Quebec,
Lapland and so on. We are not dealing with science fiction. We are
dealing with facts.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak to the amendments to the Auditor General
Act. This is a very important bill and one of the best things we have
done as a government so far.
It will create profound changes in the way government operates
in this country. It will integrate the environmental agenda with the
economic agenda. As well, one of the two or three most important
challenges that we as a society and as a world face in the next 50
years is the environment.
We have been reminded in the last couple of weeks with different
stories in the media of how much of a challenge this is. In fact it
astonishes me to hear Reform Party members who seem to dismiss
the idea of the environment as a major concern.
We have seen reports on global warming. A report last Monday,
September 11 in the Globe and Mail indicated that global experts,
the international intergovernmental panel which has been studying
for years the issue of global warming, after years of saying they
were not sure of this and years of denying it was a real problem,
have finally come to the point where they are saying, yes, we
accept that the level of global warming we are seeing has to be
caused in part at least by human actions. It is human activity which
is contributing to global warming. We cannot ignore it.
(1810)
Even if we were not absolutely sure that our actions were
contributing to global warming, to pollution and problems world
wide, even if there was a 50 per cent chance there are some things
we can do to stop it, are we not wise to be on the right side? I think
we are.
We have also heard stories about the ozone layer. I heard about a
week ago that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic this
summer is twice as large as the year before. The things that are
happening to our world can have a major impact on us.
The idea of global warming to people in Canada sounds great
because we live through some pretty cold winters, especially here
in Ottawa. I can tell the House it is always milder and more
pleasant in Nova Scotia. Winters throughout the country are very
cold. Therefore, global warming sounds nice.
In today's Halifax Daily News, a Canadian Press story reported
some things that have happened this year as a result of the very hot
summer. In 1989 I heard that four out of five of the hottest
summers on record occurred in the 1980s. I am sure that has
changed because in some respects this summer was one of the
worst on record in terms of heat.
There was record destruction by forest fires across North
America. There were terrible floods in southern Alberta. Toronto
recorded the most humid summer in 30 years. In rural Ontario there
was one report of 500,000 chickens dying in one weekend due to
heat. We saw hurricanes. We have seen hurricanes before. They are
not unusual. In the southern U.S. and on the east coast we saw
terrible damage from hurricanes. All of these things added together
have to mean that something is happening.
14568
The summer of 1995 was the third hottest on record and maybe
the muggiest. In Chicago more than 500 people died in a heat
wave. In England it was the driest summer in 200 years. Those
who say that we should not worry, that it is not getting hotter or
that these are not really problems, should reconsider because these
things have a great impact.
I mentioned the ozone layer. We have all become more aware
over the last year since weather reports include UV readings of how
much of a concern this must be. We know the impact of UV in
terms of skin cancer. We should also be aware that if the ozone
layer is depleted further and UV rays get through the atmosphere it
can have a devastating effect. It is a gradual effect but more and
more ozone depletion each year gradually stunts crop growth. If the
ozone layer becomes thinner crops cannot grow. That is absolutely
scary to the world. It seems to me that the environment must be a
priority for the country and across the planet.
It makes sense that we are making it a priority to amend the
Auditor General Act. In the red book the Liberals say:
Sustainable development, integrating economic with environmental goals,
fits the Liberal tradition of social investment as sound economic policy.
Preventive environmental care is the foundation of the Liberal approach to
sustainable development;
The government is serious about promoting sustainable
development. It is serious about being held accountable for its
environmental actions and environmental planning. It really must
be. Canadians want and deserve a prosperous, healthy country in
which we and our children can work to achieve our aspirations.
(1815)
[Translation]
This is also reflected in departmental decisions concerning the
management of buildings, facilities and operations. The proposed
amendments to the Auditor General Act before the House will
permit, to a large extent, to achieve the kind of integration we are
seeking. They are a key element of the government's response last
fall to the first report of the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development entitled ``The
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development''.
The committee was of the opinion that, even though it is critical
to examine measures taken by the government, it is even more
important to make sure that environmental considerations are a
basic planning element in every department. The committee asked
that the environmental audit of government policies, programs and
legislation be stepped up.
The committee believed that the government must report to
Parliament and to the public the progress made to meet these
objectives.
[English]
The committee advocated the government go beyond the idea of
just an environmental auditor and instead establish a commissioner
of the environment and sustainable development. In these proposed
amendments to the Auditor General Act the government will
establish a commissioner. We will meet all of the objectives of the
committee's report.
The amendments do contain at least one significant departure
from the committee's report, which is to create the commissioner
of the environment and sustainable development not as a separate
position but within the existing framework of the auditor general's
office. This is not in any way a retreat from our red book pledge.
Instead it is a smarter, more effective way of carrying out the
pledge.
The Office of the Auditor General has clout. It is independent of
the government. It is well respected and it has expertise. For all
these reasons it can greatly enhance the auditing of the
government's environmental performance.
There is another advantage to this innovation. Within the work of
the auditor general issues of environmental and sustainable
development will be integrated directly with economic
considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable
development is all about.
What then is the substance of these amendments to the Auditor
General Act? These modifications establish the function of the
commissioner for the environment and sustainable development
inside the Office of the Auditor General.
We all know that every year when the report of the auditor
general comes out there is a blaze of publicity. Everyone is aware
of that. We can now expect an equal impact for reports of
environmental failures or shortcomings of government. The fair
publicity we know ministers will feel is going to be a powerful spur
to action because it applies to every minister in every department.
At times this may make things uncomfortable for those of us in
government, especially the ministers. However, the government is
prepared to accept that discomfort if the end result is better
government for Canadians and a better environment for all of us.
The scope of these changes is more far reaching than a simple
institutionalization of the control and reporting procedures on the
conduct of the government relating to ecology and sustainable
development.
[Translation]
More plainly put, these amendments challenge federal
departments to take environmental action. In this sense, they go
further than the red book commitment in vigorously promoting
sustainable development.
Under the amended act, each department will have two years to
develop its own sustainable development strategy which will be
14569
tabled in the House of Commons by the minister in charge. The
strategy must be geared to results and must set out the department's
objectives and the action plan to meet them.
[English]
In effect, every minister will thus become a sustainable
development minister. For example, the industry minister will be
responsible for that portfolio and also for ensuring the Department
of Industry operates in an environmentally sound way. The same is
true of the foreign affairs minister, the transport minister and every
other minister in cabinet.
(1820)
This is a big step forward in moving sustainable development
from concept to reality. The departmental strategies will assist the
auditor general and the commissioner in not only monitoring the
government and preparing their reports to Parliament but will also
serve as benchmarks by which the commissioner and auditor
general can assess each department's performance in making the
shift to sustainable development.
This is not a one-shot affair to be undertaken with fanfare and
then quickly forgotten. Every three years each department must
update its sustainable development strategy and its minister must
table that update in Parliament.
Thanks to these changes, Canadians can get a better idea of how
government is responding to the environmental challenge we face.
The auditor general will be empowered to receive petitions from
the public on environmental questions and then will pass those
petitions to the minister responsible for the particular area, who
must respond within a certain time.
I can see how that could have an impact in my riding. In my
riding of Halifax West in the community of Five Island Lake there
is a former salvage operation site where there is a big problem with
PCBs and other heavy metals and toxins. The clean up of that is a
big problem. Right now it is considered an orphan site because the
small business which operated it for so long really does not have
the wherewithal to enable us to go after it for the costs. It needs
some kind of funding. I do not want to keep pursuing the federal
government. This kind of thing would help to create pressure to see
that it is made a priority.
That will be the overall impact of the bill. It will help to ensure
that environmental issues become a higher priority hopefully
across the country, hopefully across our society but certainly within
government.
[Translation]
The number and the focus of the petitions received by the
ministers and the status of these matters will be monitored, and the
commissioner will report to the House of Commons on the results
obtained.
[English]
The amendments also require the commissioner to report
annually to the House of Commons on behalf of the auditor
general. These reports can focus on anything related to sustainable
development, whatever the commissioner considers important
enough to bring to the attention of the House. In particular, the
commissioner's annual reports will indicate how far departments
have gone in meeting the objectives and expectations they have set
for themselves in their strategies.
The annual report of the commissioner will not be the only
report to the House of Commons on the government's
environmental performance. These amendments will ensure that
environmental observations will continue to be included in the
auditor general's reports as well. That is important because the
auditor general's reports are more general in scope. They will
include the considerations of economy, efficiency, effectiveness
and the environment as well. Indeed, one of the commissioner's
duties will be to assist the auditor general in preparing aspects of
these reports referring to the environment and sustainable
development.
[Translation]
The auditor general alone will be responsible for appointing the
commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I
am sure the auditor general will choose someone with excellent
professional qualifications and strong personal commitment. This
will guarantee that the commissioner will be sufficiently at arms'
length.
A decision on the funding for this position will be made once
these amendments have been adopted. But let me assure you that
there will be sufficient funding to guarantee these amendments will
be implemented effectively.
[English]
The government is wasting no time in moving to meet its
obligations under the proposed amendments. The government is
committed to ensuring the promotion of thinking green as a central
component of decision making at all levels of government and I
hope eventually at all levels of our society.
The Prime Minister and all ministers have signed a guidebook
entitled ``A Guide to Green Government''. It will help all federal
departments make sustainable development their business. That is
good news. It will also serve as a curriculum for the commissioner
when she or he reports on the success departments are having in
14570
integrating sustainable development practices into their own
activities.
Sustainable development is a shared responsibility requiring the
co-operation and involvement of Canadians from all walks of life.
In preparing sustainable development strategies departments must
involve stakeholders. That is one of the requirements of this bill.
Thinking green is a central component of decision making at all
levels because of the bill.
(1825)
Departments will be required to report annually on their progress
and they must provide information on the number, type and status
of environmental assessments they are conducting.
Another example of the government's commitment was the
proclamation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act last
January. This legislation will ensure the environment is formally
integrated into the project planning process of the federal
government.
Through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the
government is already working hard to make sure environmental
assessments of new government policies and programs are done
and done well. These are important measures that establish a
framework for sustainability at the federal government level.
[Translation]
For years, governments have talked of sustainability and
declared their support in this regard. It has always been difficult,
however, to ensure these commitments are met.
This is why environmental groups have long demanded an
independent control and reporting function focussing on
environmental actions. They saw this as a way to force the
government to keep its promise. And just as obstinately, our
predecessors in government have resisted having to keep their
word.
[English]
The Liberal government has a different approach. We are not
afraid of openness, because that is what Canadians want. It might
worry us to be criticized when there are shortcomings on the
environment but it can only do us good in the long run. Therefore
we are making sustainable development the priority it ought to be.
This is another important step along the path to sustainable
development and a healthy future for all Canadians. I recommend
quick passage of this bill.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member. He did
make one error. He said the Reform Party does not care about the
environment, which is not true at all. We have a comprehensive
blue book policy on the environment. It is just that we like to be
logical. We do not like to hear all sorts of generalities quoted as if
they were scientific facts.
We could well question our confidence in an intergovernmental
expert panel which concludes that there is global warming after
observing the disastrous results of government experts managing
things like the fisheries. These governmental panels are quite good
at destroying the environment while at the same time arguing they
are protecting it.
The hon. member quoted from the Globe and Mail that the ozone
layer was opening up a huge hole. However he forgot to mention
that the Globe and Mail also mentioned that the scientist who had
first discovered the ozone holes has now said he realizes it is part of
a cycle and that it may not be a dangerous phenomena at all.
In addition he mentioned that we just had the hottest summer in
200 years but he did not mention what caused the hottest summer
two hundred years ago. What does he think caused the hottest
summer on record 200 years ago? It could not possibly have been
the CFCs from refrigerators or the emissions from automobiles. I
wonder if maybe the jury is still out on this whole thing.
Mr. Regan: Madam Speaker, my bet is Britain has only been
keeping records of that sort in Britain for 200 years. Therefore it
was the hottest in at least 200 years, maybe longer.
There are certainly changes in the environment. We know we
have had an ice age. Temperatures go up and down over a long
period of time. However when we see it happening much more
rapidly it tells us something. We ought to wake up and realize it.
I have reasons for saying Reform Party members do not show the
concern I would like them to show.
They may say in their blue book that they care about the
environment, but what I see in their speeches and in their
comments is a lack of being convinced that the environment is a
real problem. I think it is a big problem, and I wish they would
share that view.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)