37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 062
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
1005
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Falun Gong
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Poison Control
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
|
| Bill S-3. Second reading
|
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
1035
1040
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1045
1050
1055
1100
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1105
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1220
1225
1230
| Division on motion deferred
|
1235
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1240
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
1315
1320
1325
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1330
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1335
1340
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1345
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. John Herron |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICES ORGANIZATION
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| CENSUS DAY
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1400
| INSECTARIUM DE MONTRÉAL
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| BREAST CANCER
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
| RIDING OF QUÉBEC EAST
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| FIREARMS REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| QIKITANI INUIT ASSOCIATION
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1405
| NATIONAL MARINE DAY
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| NATIONAL MARINE DAY
|
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
| CAVEAT
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| MARINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
1410
| MARIJUANA
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| POLICE WEEK
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1415
| NATIONAL MINING WEEK
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1430
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1435
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MARINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1440
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| PARA TRANSPO
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BULK WATER EXPORTS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. John Manley |
| MARIJUANA
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1450
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| Mr. James Lunney |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| TOMATO INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1455
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| HAROUN M'BAREK
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE OLYMPICS
|
| Mr. Alan Tonks |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| PYRITE
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1510
1515
1520
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion
|
| NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| PRIVATE DISABILITY INSURERS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Motion
|
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1540
1545
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1550
1555
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1600
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Transportation
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1605
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1610
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 062
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
THE House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Export
Development Corporation's environmental review framework.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes to the
parliamentary calendar.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 16th report later this day.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the second
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on the main estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.
The report was the result of a very full and frank discussion
with both the Minister of Human Resources Development and status
of persons with disabilities, and the Minister of Labour. The
discussions ranged over skills, union-management concerns,
employment insurance, disability issues and homelessness.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs presented earlier today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1010
[Translation]
PETITIONS
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present, on behalf of the workers of the Sigma
mine, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and of the residents of the City
of Val-d'Or and of the Vallée de l'Or, a petition asking the
government to take action to reinforce its presence and increase
its activities in resource regions that are experiencing
difficulty in adapting to the new economy.
The petitioners are asking the government to make the rules
governing existing programs more flexible and to ensure they are
used in resource regions.
At the same time, the petitioners call upon parliament to set up
a financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in
Quebec and Ontario resource regions.
[English]
FALUN GONG
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition signed
by any number of people in Edmonton, Cold Lake, Bonnyville and
the Northwest Territories. These people are very concerned. They
are asking that practitioners of Falun Gong, also known as Falun
Dafa, and herein after referred to as Falun Gong, are being
discriminated against and persecuted in China by government
officials and around the world through agents of the Chinese
government.
The petitioners pray and call upon parliament to pass a
resolution condemning the discrimination and persecution of
practitioners of Falun Gong and request the Chinese government to
lift the ban on the practice of Falun Gong.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition from citizens mainly of the
Peterborough area who would like to see VIA Rail service between
Peterborough and Toronto re-established. They point out that
this would strengthen Peterborough as a business community, as an
educational centre and as a tourist centre. They also point out
that it would save the environment by reducing greenhouse
emissions, reduce accidents on the main highways and generally,
by the way, improve the efficiency of public transit in the
greater Toronto area.
This is a petition which has support in eight federal ridings.
We are pleased that it has already resulted in one very
constructive meeting with the Minister of Transport and
representatives of the Peterborough area, and also very
constructive discussions with VIA Rail.
POISON CONTROL
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on
behalf of constituents in Saskatchewan concerning the use of
liquid strychnine for controlling Richardson's ground squirrels.
The Richardson's ground squirrels have been doing a great deal of
damage to rural Saskatchewan. The constituents who have
forwarded the petition to me wish to have the government take
this issue very seriously.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT ACT, 1987
Hon. Gilbert Normand (for Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act,
1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to open the
second reading debate on the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987.
Bill S-3 focuses motor carrier regulation on safety and
specifically on the federal-provincial national safety code for
motor carriers. The bill is one of several initiatives to
further improve road safety with the overall goal of making
Canada's roads the safest in the world by the year 2010.
Canada currently ranks ninth in the world when measured by the
number of people killed per 10,000 registered motor vehicles; a
stark statistic. That is why the council of ministers
responsible for transport and highway safety have announced an
extension of the national road safety vision initiative to the
year 2010. Included in the vision is a national target calling
for a 30% decrease in the average number of road users killed and
seriously injured during the 2008-10 period compared to the five
years from 1996 to 2001.
1015
Those countries at the top of the league, notably Norway, the
U.K. and Sweden, are themselves still working hard to improve
road safety. There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that
Canadians enjoy the safest roads in the world.
To focus this work, the minister and his provincial colleagues
have identified nine subtargets. One of these subtargets is a
20% decrease in the number of road users killed or seriously
injured in crashes involving commercial vehicles, a toll which
currently stands at 500 killed and 11,000 injured each year. It
is this subtarget to which Bill S-3 will contribute directly.
The target for deaths and injuries involving commercial vehicles
is 20% and not the same 30% as the overall target. Why should
this be? The reason is a very important one. According to the
best information we have, in collisions involving commercial
vehicles it is much more often the non-truck vehicle involved
that is found to be at fault. For example, drivers of vehicles
other than commercial vehicles are found to have committed a
violation in 45% of such collisions. Drivers of commercial
vehicles are found to have committed a violation in 20% of those
same types of collisions.
This is very important because there is often a perception that
heavy trucks are the cause of all accidents when in fact the
problems which need to be tackled frequently lie elsewhere.
Therefore the major opportunity to reduce fatal and injury
producing collisions with commercial vehicles is in the hands of
the operators of other vehicles, mostly private cars, sport
utility vehicles, light trucks and vans. It is a shared
responsibility.
This is not in any way meant to minimize the importance of
ensuring that commercial vehicle transport is as safe as it can
be. Bill S-3 is a major goal for the federal and provincial
governments. This is what the amendments to the Motor Vehicle
Transport Act are about.
One of the important realities is the undoubted success of
trucking as a means of transporting goods in our economy. The
preference for road transport is pervasive. It is consistent
with other developed countries and very likely will continue into
the foreseeable future.
Over the last decade domestic truck tonne kilometres increased
by 60% and even more impressively international activity, that is
north-south traffic, has tripled. These figures support the
observation by many Canadians that there are ever more heavy
vehicles on our roads.
The government believes that the House will recognize the
importance of truck transport to the Canadian economy and will
fully support the goal of ensuring that it is carried out in the
safest possible manner. With this background I will talk in more
detail about Bill S-3 and the amendments.
Bill S-3 updates the federal government's longstanding
involvement in road transport regulation. This is founded on
federal delegation to the provinces and territories of federal
constitutional responsibility for certain parts of the road
transport industry, those parts that cross provincial and
international boundaries. There is a shared jurisdiction which
will be respected in the bill.
The federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act supports provincial
regulation and specifically safety regulation of motor carriers.
By so doing it provides a national framework for provincial
regulations and enables provincial governments to co-operate in
regulating motor carriers that operate from one province to
another. The act governs the tens of thousands of truck and bus
companies that fall under federal jurisdiction. These are known
as extraprovincial motor carriers or federal carriers.
Extraprovincial motor carriers are those that operate beyond the
boundaries of a single province. This is a large and
increasingly important proportion of all truck and bus operators.
Regulation of extraprovincial motor carriers is the
constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
Provincial governments are responsible for carriers that operate
solely within a province, which are known as intraprovincial or
local carriers. Provinces are also responsible for licensing
drivers and vehicles and for traffic enforcement.
Recognizing the prominent provincial role, the federal
government has historically delegated the implementation of its
authority for federal motor carriers to provincial
administrators. The Motor Vehicle Transport Act provides the
mechanism by which provincial and territorial governments are
empowered to regulate federal carriers. The legislation is
therefore an essential component of a shared responsibility for
national motor carrier safety regulation. It is also important
for the policy direction it provides to the national regulatory
framework.
As I have already indicated, the trucking industry regulated by
this act is a vital part of our economy and is a significant
engine of growth. The value of trucking activity in Canada as
measured by freight revenue is $40 billion annually.
1020
Trucking accounts for 84% of all Canadian surface freight
revenues and about three-quarters of this activity is by federal
carriers. The trucking industry is diverse. It features a
number of large international companies, many intermediate and
small businesses, and a great number of individuals who drive
their own trucks. There are over 700,000 heavy vehicles in
Canada and nearly 250,000 fleet operators.
The Canadian intercity bus industry is much smaller but also
meets an essential transportation need. Intercity and charter
buses generate a half billion dollars in annual revenues. Buses
account for about one-third of all intercity passenger travel
that is not made by private passenger car.
It is in all our interests that buses can continue to provide
Canadians with economical and safe transportation. Buses have a
continuing impressive record of safely transporting passengers.
In fact there are years when there are no bus passenger
fatalities at all. There is however the occasional tragic
accident and any collision involving a school bus rightly creates
significant public concern. Bus safety must remain a priority,
just as heavy truck safety is a priority.
In February of this year the minister released a report on
cross-country consultations on bus safety recently conducted by
Transport Canada. The recommendations are currently being
considered by the department, the provinces and industry.
I would like to say a word about a related act administered by
Transport Canada. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act prescribes safety
standards for new trucks and buses. This is an important part of
ensuring that all vehicles on the road are manufactured to be as
safe as modern technology can reasonably make them. Recent
advances in the standards for commercial vehicles include
anti-lock brake systems, automatic brake adjusters and reflective
markings to increase visibility. The House can be confident that
by virtue of these standards new heavy vehicles coming on to the
road incorporate appropriate safety technology as it becomes
available.
Once a vehicle is registered for use on the road its operation
and maintenance falls under provincial jurisdiction. As
indicated earlier, each province has laws and regulations
governing the operation of commercial vehicles. These provincial
safety regimes are patterned after a set of national standards
called the national safety code for motor carriers. There are 15
national safety code standards covering all aspects of safe
commercial vehicle operation. The standards address the driver,
the vehicle and motor carrier management.
Over the past few years federal, provincial and territorial
governments in consultation with industry and public interest
groups have made a major effort to develop an umbrella standard
based on real on road safety performance. This effort recently
culminated in new national safety code standard No. 14 under the
category of safety rating. This safety rating standard provides
a framework for provincial government to assess and rate motor
carriers, that is commercial vehicle operators, based on their
actual on road safety performance.
Based on this knowledge governments are able to take appropriate
enforcement action. Carriers know where they stand relative to
the industry and shippers are able to choose a carrier in a more
informed way. The safety rating process will ensure that all
involved parties will have important real world information on
motor carrier safety. At the same time the safety rating
standard places primary responsibility for safe vehicle operation
clearly where it should be, with the motor carrier itself.
The new standard No. 14 safety rating regime means that records
of collisions, traffic offences and violations of safety
standards will be collected for each motor carrier. This
information will be gathered from every jurisdiction where a
motor carrier operates. The province in Canada or the U.S. state
where a motor carrier safety incident occurs will transmit the
information to the province where the carrier is registered.
Based on a compilation of all those records the home jurisdiction
creates a safety rating for each motor carrier.
This may be a useful juncture to mention the matter of
commercial vehicle driver hours of service. The hours of service
regime in Canada is implemented by federal and provincial
regulations, all of which are based on national safety code
standard No. 9. Drivers' hours of service performance is one of
the several elements which contribute to the calculation of a
carrier's safety rating.
I want to make clear that the specific issue of hours of service
is not however the subject of Bill S-3.
1025
Members may know that on April 30 the minister requested the
Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations to
examine the rules governing commercial drivers' hours of service.
The matter is therefore the subject of a separate examination,
one that is distinct from the bill before us today. I understand
the committee has already started those hearings.
As indicated earlier, the federal government has the
constitutional authority to regulate extraprovincial motor
carrier undertakings. The amendments being debated today will
enable provincial and territorial governments to apply the new
national safety rating regime to federally regulated motor
carriers as well as to local carriers.
In practical terms this means that a province will be authorized
to issue safety fitness certificates to all motor carriers
registered in that province. Clearly in a national program it is
important that carriers are rated in a similar fashion in every
jurisdiction.
A carrier has the right to receive the same safety rating in
every province or territory for comparable safety performance.
For this reason the bill establishes a framework for nationally
consistent safety ratings. The certificate will be the carrier's
permission to operate anywhere in Canada: one stop shopping at
its best.
The volume of Canada-U.S. motor carrier traffic has increased
dramatically, threefold since 1991. Bill S-3 recognizes that
fact and contains provisions to encourage reciprocal recognition
of motor carrier safety supervision in other countries,
particularly our immediate neighbour, the U.S. and our next
closest continental trading partner, Mexico. In this way motor
carriers can look forward to seamless treatment from safety
regulators north to south on the North American continent.
I want to close by drawing the attention of the House to the
partnership and co-operation that exists among governments and
stakeholders in the area of motor carrier safety. The national
safety code for motor carriers is the product of a
federal-provincial-territorial memorandum of understanding signed
in 1987.
National safety code standards are developed and maintained by
federal-provincial committees that also comprise industry, labour
and public interest groups. Since the inception of the code all
governments have made a strong effort to develop national
approaches to motor carrier regulation, including vehicle and
driver licensing training and enforcement.
The bill before us today reflects the resulting progress. Since
1987 we have moved from a patchwork of local regulations toward
consistent national safety regulations. This process is not
necessarily completely to the satisfaction of all safety interest
groups or the national and international motor carrier industry.
However there is serious interest by all governments and other
participants to see it progress and keep progressing to achieve
maximum safety results with efficient implementation.
In this regard the Canadian Council of Ministers of Transport is
preparing a memorandum to update the original 1987 document to
re-energize the national commitment to harmonization of safety
regimes. The minister expects the council of ministers
responsible for transport and highway safety will consider this
document at its meeting in September.
The bill establishes a framework for a program founded on the
national safety code and administered by provincial governments
in a consistent manner toward all motor carriers. We believe
that this co-operative arrangement is the best way to achieve the
highest feasible level of safety for commercial vehicle operation
throughout Canada.
In conclusion, road fatalities in Canada are at their lowest
level in history. In spite of this, road accidents still kill
nearly 3,000 Canadians a year and cost Canadian society over $10
billion annually. The toll in human suffering cannot be
measured.
All governments need to keep road safety a priority. The bill
to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, is one of several
important steps toward improving highway safety in Canada. The
bill is a product of consultation and consensus and is founded on
partnerships.
The passage of the bill will provide an important impetus for a
continuing co-operative process among governments, industry and
public interest groups, building on work that has already been
accomplished.
1030
The bill would apply safety regulation based on real life
performance. It would recognize responsible motor carriers and
encourage their efficient operation across Canada and North
America.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and
with the provincial ministers, together with the motor carrier
industry, to further the improvement of highway safety in Canada
as provided for in this legislation.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will indicate at the outset that the Canadian
Alliance is supportive of the bill. That does not mean the bill
is perfect. We feel that the bill is a half measure. The bill
deals with the important issue of highway safety in the country
and that is a worthwhile area for public policy and for
government to be involved with. I will spend some time talking
about the role of the private sector in this whole area and also
about the areas the bill missed the boat on.
I would like to acknowledge the improvements I have seen in
highway safety because of innovation by the private sector. My
learned colleague mentioned anti-lock brakes. Anti-lock brakes
were developed in the private sector. The government was very
quick to pick up on that, take credit for it and make a
regulation. However, anti-lock brakes were developed by the
industry before government even thought of them. The area of
airbags is another area where the industry was away ahead of
government. As well, the reliability of motor vehicles on our
roads today is far superior to that of the vehicles we had 20, 30
or 40 years ago and there are more innovations on the way. Fuel
economy has improved tremendously and from an environmental
standpoint that is good.
Why has industry been able to improve the safety and quality of
motor vehicles? Is it because of government regulation and bills
such as this one? I think not. It has more to do with a
competitive global market in which industry cannot stand still.
Industry has to constantly improve its products. Improvements
also have a lot to do with something called ISO, the
international standard that assures quality in parts and in the
system of putting products together. ISO probably has a lot more
to do with safety than any bill that this House could pass.
I raise these issues to acknowledge the private sector's
contributions to improved safety on our highways.
My learned colleague pointed out that there has been a massive
move into truck transportation in Canada. For the most part, the
reason we have had a massive movement into truck transportation
in the country is the government's failure to move on modernizing
our rail transportation system.
The government has had two excellent reports on rail
transportation, the Estey commission and the Kroeger report, but
has been very slow to respond to those reports and modernize the
rail system. A lot of shippers are being forced to use the
highways and to use trucks. From a safety standpoint I would
suggest that there are a lot of products being moved by truck
that should be moved by rail. There are hazardous products out
on congested highways such as the 401 highway and if there is an
accident there is a real problem.
Rail is a much more suitable means of transporting a lot of
these goods, but because of our reluctance to modernize our rail
system a lot of shippers are forced into shipping by highways
whether they like it or not. In that respect government is the
problem, not the solution.
That brings me to another point. I am sure that if you asked
truckers or people who are on our highways a lot what their
single biggest safety concern is today, they would say it is the
highway system, the roads they have to drive on. The roads are
falling apart. They are full of holes.
1035
Anyone from my part of the country who wants to take a summer
trip to visit relatives in Ontario or Quebec, unless they have
their heads screwed on wrong, will find the first interstate in
the United States and drive through the U.S. to get to Ontario or
Quebec. They do not use our national highway system because the
roads are just not that good.
That raises a point. The bill misses a very important angle.
The government collects $4.5 billion in fuel taxes. Approximately
5% of that goes back into our highway system. That is not the
policy in other countries. Other countries have policies whereby
fuel taxes are reinvested in infrastructure and highway systems.
The U.S. is a good example. That is why it has its interstate
system and a good highway system. However this government
refuses to deal with that problem.
I want to raise another point. There is a philosophy that is
far too prevalent in the government, which is that the solution
to a problem is more government, more laws, more regulation and
more bureaucracy. The government thinks that is the way to get
results. It has been my experience and the experience of many
other people that if we want results we need a plan, teamwork,
co-operation, vision, management and enforcement.
The government is too quick to create more bureaucracy, more
laws and more regulations. It forgets about all the other
components that make for good public policy. The government's
attitude is that if we wanted a Canadian team to win the Stanley
Cup next year we would pass a law saying it is the Montreal
Canadiens' turn to win the Stanley Cup. It would pass a law in
the House of Commons and dictate that result. We know that is
not how the world works.
If we want a result we have to manage that result. Passing laws
will not solve a problem. Last week there was a good case in
point. Everyone in the House basically got up in support of the
feel good motion about safe water in Canada, but no one in the
House addressed the real question, which is how we are going to
get modern water treatment systems into all the communities
across the country. The assumption of course is that if the
federal government passes a law, we will solve the problem. If we
look at the fisheries, we see that we have more people in the
fisheries department than we have fishermen, I think, and look at
what has happened to our fisheries. If the federal government is
so darned good at water, why are most people, even aboriginals on
their reserves, reluctant to drink tap water? Reserves are an
area that federal government has had jurisdiction over for 125
years.
However, that is the government's approach: more government,
more regulation and more bureaucracy. The government thinks that
if we get enough of that sort of thing in place somehow through
the vast weight of the state we will get some results. I think
there is a better way of doing things and I wish the government
would start to look at it. The auditor general has been pointing
out for eight or nine years now that the government just does not
get results. It comes up with these feel good bills and laws,
passes more laws and regulations and hires more bureaucrats, but
the results are not there. In fact, sometimes they are
counterproductive, but I guess it makes my colleagues on the
other side of the House feel good at night because they say all
these warm, fuzzy things in the House about safety and so on.
In conclusion I would say that the bill is a half measure. If
we expect government to have regulations, laws and bureaucracy in
place, the Liberal government is strong in those areas. It knows
how to do that and thinks that the more laws, regulations and
bureaucracy we have, the better things are. However, in a lot of
the other areas the government is deficient. The biggest single
deficiency in the bill is the biggest safety issue we have in
highway transportation in the country: the state of our roads.
My colleague from the government side pointed out that there has
been a massive movement of transportation on our highways,
especially extraprovincial.
That is a federal area, if I understand my law correctly. When
we move into extra-provincial issues, that is federal
jurisdiction.
1040
Where is the government's commitment to building our highway
system and getting it up to high standards? In the bill there
are high standards for motor vehicles, the operators and
everything else, but it completely misses the roads on which
these vehicles have to drive. It has not done a darned thing
about them. It runs away from that.
If the water safety bill ever becomes law, I am sure the real
omission in that area will be that the federal government will
just not put the money into it. I recall the government moving
into the health area, which is a provincial jurisdiction, with
the five principles of the Canada Health Act and all the rest of
it. However, how much funding does it provide? It provides
something like 13% of the health care budget. This is a bad
habit of the federal government. It intrudes into an area,
passes laws and then does not provide sufficient funding to make
the plan work. The thing then falls off the rails, so to speak.
We support the bill but we are not enthusiastic supporters. It
is a typical Liberal half measure. The Liberals always lean
toward more regulation, more government and more bureaucracy and
forget the other things that are required to really manage a
result. If we do not have those ingredients, we will have
limited results from the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since I became the transport critic, at the beginning
of the session, the Bloc Quebecois has supported with
reservation the bills dealing with transport put forward by the
government, because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
This time, however, the Bloc will oppose Bill S-3.
This bill concerns the safety of motor vehicle transport.
Theoretically, that is a bill designed to say it all, which ends
up saying nothing. Why? Simply because the government is basing
the whole bill on the National Safety Code for Motor Carriers,
which is already in force.
For many years, the provinces have been trying to harmonize a
series of measures to ensure that road safety standards are
enforced.
It is all very well for the government to put on kid gloves and
say “Today we are tabling a bill on road safety”, go on about
the number of road accidents and claim to be this great advocate
of safety in this country, but there remains a harsh reality.
Safety is not only a matter of quality of the work done by
truckers. It is also a matter of road conditions. We do not see
federal money getting into provincial treasuries to help the
provinces put in place an effective highway network in Canada, a
network safe not only for trucking users but also for all those
who share the road with these huge vehicles.
This safety component, which was intended as a true highway
renovation program across Canada, does not originate with this
government. I was present at the last meeting of the Standing
Committee on Transport when the President of the Treasury Board
presented the allocation figures. There is still the same good
old figure of $600 million hanging around in the federal
government's coffers for the next five years for all highway
projects throughout Canada. In the last election campaign, in
Quebec alone, the federal government promised $3.220 billion in
investments, whereas the total figure allocated for the next
five years is a mere $600 million.
A true policy, a true bill on highway safety could have involved
the industry but needed to involve government as well, in order
to ensure significant investment in the quality of the highways
across Canada and, of course and above all, across Quebec.
A true highway safety program, a true highway safety bill,
should have included a whole chapter, a whole component, on
highway renovations.
1045
Returning to this bill, there must also be an understanding of
the desire for a Canadian highway safety code, saying “We will
harmonize our efforts with the provinces”. A little realism is
required about all the work the provinces are trying to do to
harmonize their legislation. We are not telling all those
listening to us, all the people of Quebec, anything new.
There must be an understanding of the provinces, who have the
responsibility for highway safety. Besides, the bill states
that safety is a provincial jurisdiction, and declares that all
highway safety legislation in each of the provinces is valid.
We have to understand that the provinces are working together to
harmonize their extraprovincial transportation standards. As we
speak, they still have not managed to agree on a procedure, a
modus operandi, that would satisfy all stakeholders.
The government introduces Bill S-3 and says “Here, we are
dealing with road safety throughout Canada”. It says in this
bill that safety is a provincial responsibility. What it fails
to say is that, as we speak, there is still no harmonization
between the provinces, between the governments, with respect to
a safety system.
Before we, in the Bloc Quebecois, can support such a bill,
efforts will have to be made in the field.
Mere wishful thinking, introducing legislation and claiming to
be the champion of road and highway safety throughout Canada is
not enough. The government must at least be sensible and
realistic about the implementation problems in the territories
and about the will to have a Canadian-wide safety standard.
Of course, what we have to consider, before such a bill is voted
on, is harmonizing the definition of basic jurisdiction using as
models—and these are only suggestions—the International Fuel Tax
Agreement and the International Registration Plan, to state that
the basic jurisdiction must be the Canadian place of residence
of the carrier or the place where he carries out the most part
of his activities.
Thus a base of operations must be designated if carriers are to
be held accountable under some legislation. To begin with, we
must agree on a definition, which we do not at the moment. In
none of the provinces throughout Canada is there agreement on a
base of operations for which each administration could be held
responsible.
We must also establish, in each administration, rating systems
with compatible ratings. It is all very well to say that
throughout Canada we have a road safety system. But, to some
extent, we must be able to monitor the trucker, the
extraprovincial trucker.
We must have an rating system to monitor him in order to rate
his behaviour, and this system must be consistent throughout
Canada.
So, in this regard, the federal government does not have the
authority to implement a road safety regime.
This authority rests with each of the provinces. So we must have
an acceptable rating system approved by each province before
introducing a bill on road safety and saying to good Quebecers
and Canadians that we are dealing with road safety.
We must be able to rate the drivers, those who make a living
from the system and the industry. We must be able to rate them
to ensure that they perform adequately and, ultimately, to make
them accountable, and to rate them through a system that is
consistent throughout Canada, which is not the case now.
Today, the government is saying to citizens of Quebec “Look, the
federal government is dealing with road safety”. The problem is
that there is no rating system, no way to find out if a driver
is really reliable. There is no process in place by which we
could track him, monitor his activities in each of the provinces
and set standards that would make it possible for the industry
to know what is going on.
It is not enough for the industry to be accountable. The
industry must also be able to know what is going on in each of
the provinces where some extraprovincial activity is occurring,
and that is not the case at this time.
We must develop a tool to assess each and all of the behaviour
elements referred to in standard No. 14.
They implement a standard, standard No. 14, which the government
member praised earlier, but that standard is based on the
national safety code for motor carriers and we should be in a
position to assess it, at least to some extent.
One must check all the regulations adopted by each of the
provincial administrations to be able to follow the carriers and
the industries, to be able to rate them, to reprimand them if
needed, with some consistency, and that is not provided for in
this legislation.
1050
At the present time, there is still no agreement among the
provinces, which are responsible for road safety. They are
doing a very good job within their territorial limits, but what
they have to do is harmonize with each other, which is plainly
admitted in this bill. Each province is being given authority
for enforcement. This bill gives official recognition to the
road safety standards of each of the provinces.
The problem is that, before introducing this bill and telling
the Canadians and Quebecers who are listening that there will be
one trucking safety code, the government did not look into
whether it would be feasible and whether it would be possible to
monitor the industry throughout Canada, so that carriers are
given the fines they deserve and, if things go well, good
behaviour is recognized.
The bill provides for comparable monitoring from one
administration to another. Our goal is to have standards that
are similar to within about 5%, and to monitor carriers and
administrations Canada-wide. In this country, we should always
be able to monitor between point A and point B, or between one
ocean and the other.
We should be able to monitor effectively and have standards that
are understandable and understood by the industry in each of the
provinces, which is not now the case.
The government is introducing a bill and telling the public
“After this bill is passed, there will be one Canadian safety
code enforced across Canada”. The problem is that, when it
comes right down to it, this is still wishful thinking. This
bill will not be enforceable, because this is an area that comes
under provincial jurisdiction and the provinces have not yet
managed to reach an agreement.
It is not for lack of trying. On the contrary. But there are
important industry lobbies in each of the provinces and they are
trying to maintain the existing systems.
We should give provincial and territorial authorities, and
agencies in charge of road safety a chance to set up standards,
have discussions and reach an agreement.
The government should have called a meeting of all relevant
provincial agencies before introducing such an important bill
and stating “We now have a safety code in effect throughout
Canada; do not worry, we are taking care of you”. The problem is
we do not know how this code will be working in each
jurisdiction, for the simple reason that harmonization is
lacking.
We also need to develop in each jurisdiction a penalty system
setting out the action that will be taken against carriers who
do not comply, and keep reducing ratings until their permits are
eventually cancelled.
We need a process to do this. If we want to have a follow up and
to ensure the safety of the transport network, we must be able
to monitor the industry and the carriers, record their offences
and deduct merit points and eventually revoke their permit. That
is the way to get a national safety code that will work in all
the provinces.
We must find a way to evaluate the efficiency of the assessment
mechanism based on the results. If we are to have a national
code in effect throughout Canada, we should make sure the
provincial agencies in charge have a common harmonized standard,
a follow-up plan to monitor the carriers, a penalty system that
is complementary and easily accessible for all agencies through
electronic means or otherwise, and an evaluation plan.
It is not good enough to say “We are putting a plan in place”.
We must do a follow up, determine whether the carriers did
something wrong, list these wrongdoings and even cancel
licences, if need be. And all the provincial authorities must
have easy access to the registry of cancelled licences, because,
as I said, they have to enforce the Canadian code, under the
terms of the bill. The provinces have the responsibility ,but
they do not have a common rating system.
Right now, it will be very difficult for the industry to
organize, because the provinces do not yet have a common system
to follow up on the carrier and enforce safety standards.
1055
We could use a conformity registry, a negative points system or
another similar system that would make the carrier understand
that, over a certain number of infractions, he could lose his
licence. There is no such system and it is not the federal
government's responsibility to implement one. It is the
provinces' jurisdiction.
Right now, there is no harmonization. The Quebec government did
not harmonize its standards, but it is holding very serious
discussions with the neighbouring provinces. There are almost
daily exchanges between governments on the harmonization of road
safety standards, to protect the public.
The industry must understand these laws, there must be a
carryover from one province to another.
At the moment, the provincial governments have no objection.
They all agree on the need for a uniform standard across Canada
that each of them may apply.
The problem is that they have not managed to select a standard
and to agree on a way to harmonize it between provinces. The
systems must be effective so statistics may be compiled on the
carriers, their progress followed, infractions revealed,
potentially resulting in the cancellation of their
extraprovincial licences. Once again, these licences are given
by the provinces and followed by them. So the whole system of
harmonization must be in place before such a bill is voted on.
I repeat, this bill was meant to provide for everything, but, in
the end, it provides for nothing. This is another example of a
government trying to make political hay over highway transport
safety. This is a very complex area, and all the provinces
daily face the problems that highway transport on the roads of
Quebec and Canada can cause. In Quebec, this is a daily
concern.
Everyone wants greater safety. It takes a modicum of ability to
get it to happen, to ensure it is respected, to ensure it is
applied uniformly across Canada, something that is not the case
at the moment. Once again, our Liberal federal government has
decided to introduce prematurely a bill intended to say it all
and, in the end, says nothing. We oppose this bill.
A harmonization table between the provincial governments should
have been created, so that the result of its work could have
been communicated before the introduction of this bill, whose
purpose is to tell Quebecers and Canadians “Look, we have a
Canadian road transportation safety code. We just passed an act
giving it effect”.
Finally, it will not be possible to implement this code, because
there is no harmonization between the provincial administrations
responsible for road safety, which is a provincial jurisdiction.
The only positive thing about this bill is that it states that
road safety is a provincial jurisdiction.
If it is a provincial jurisdiction, then the government should
wait until the provinces harmonize their systems to be able to
closely follow a carrier who does not comply with the standards
or breaks the law and, if possible, cancel his licence if he is
responsible for too many accidents, or if he commits too many
offences under that safety program.
This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois wants to convey. I
will conclude by saying that Quebecers, and surely all
Canadians, would have appreciated finding in this bill a part
dealing with the upgrading of Canada's highways. This
infrastructure deserves a lot more than the $600 million the
federal government has earmarked for the next five years.
An amount of $600 million to be spent through partnerships
across Canada, on a 50-50 basis with the provinces, means that if
we only relied on federal investments for highway transportation
across Canada, a mere $1.2 billion would be spent over the next
five years on a very extensive highway system that deserves a
lot more funds.
1100
I repeat that Liberal members knew this very well because,
during the election campaign, they promised to invest $3.2
billion in Quebec alone. These investments were to made rapidly.
They promised bridges and roads. Finally, they promised to
improve the whole system throughout Quebec. Imagine, an election
promise of $3.2 billion for Quebec.
However, in terms of appropriations, the federal government only
set aside $600 million for 50/50 agreements with some provinces,
agreements totalling $1.2 billion of work throughout Canada,
despite promises of $3.2 billion in Quebec alone.
This means once again that the government can still fool some of
the people to win an election. But with this bill, the Bloc
Quebecois will not be fooled.
The government cannot introduce a bill that purports to be the
champion of people's safety, when it knows full well that this
bill is not applicable in any of the administrations at this
time.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to speak today on behalf of the New Democratic Party on
second reading of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle
Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
New Democrats are going to be supporting this bill. It
certainly is not perfect, as many other people have said earlier
in this debate but it is a start, and we need that.
The bill establishes a framework for harmonizing the way
different provinces administer parts of the national safety code
for motor carriers. The national safety code pertains to both
buses and transport trucks and is administered at the provincial
level. It was introduced by the Mulroney government in 1987 in
response to safety concerns that arose due to the deregulation of
the trucking industry. However federal government left the
provinces to adopt and administer the code themselves. So far
none have fully adopted it. In essence the national safety code,
therefore is nothing more than a set of suggestions which is a
major concern for New Democrats.
The framework established in this bill would allow provinces and
territories whose safety compliance regimes are compatible with
the national safety code to give extra provincial bus
undertakings a safety rating and issue safety certificates. This
is a nice idea but functionally useless unless all or most of the
provinces adopt the code. This does not appear likely to happen
in the foreseeable future.
In the words of the Canadian Truckers Alliance, the safety code
harmonization framework is “putting the cart before the horse”.
Regardless of what administrative framework the federal
government comes up with, the national safety code will remain
toothless unless the provinces adopt it.
The Liberal government has the constitutional authority to
impose the national safety code on the provinces but is not doing
it.
Road safety, as was mentioned several times earlier, is the
central concern of everyone in the House. We can write all the
bills we want, but quite frankly we all know the highways that we
drive on are in many cases treacherous at this time of year. They
have potholes, cracks and great divides. These are very damaging
to our cars and very often cause accidents between trucks and
cars on our highways. I am sure Nova Scotia is right up there
with Churchill, Manitoba and with many other parts of our
Trans-Canada Highway as being a national disgrace.
The question is what is the Liberal government doing about road
safety? It is one thing to have this bill but the real question
is one of road safety. We need safe highways. We need a real
road infrastructure program that is going to at the end of the
day make it safe to drive from one end of the country to the
other.
For starters, I would suggest in this respect that we need to
see some real investment in improving our highways. Every year
over 200 Canadians are killed because of bad roads and 16,000
more are injured.
These statistics are of accidents caused by bad roads, not by
driver error, bad weather, drunk drivers or problems with
vehicles. They are accidents caused by problems with the road.
Again it has to do with improving the infrastructure and putting
money into our roads. These accidents alone kill hundreds of
Canadians and injure tens of thousands each year.
1105
Studies have shown that if the government would spend $1 billion
a year improving our highways for the next 20 years, the roadwork
would pay for itself in the form of lower health care costs
because of fewer accidents. It would pay for itself in terms of
disability payments and the many additional costs involved in
road accidents.
Let me repeat that because it is a remarkable fact. Fixing our
highways could actually save the government more money in health
care costs than it would cost to fix the highways.
In conclusion, we support the bill. It is not perfect, but it
would be useful some day when we have a federal government with
the conviction and the determination to make the safety of
Canadian highways a priority and turn the national safety code
into something relevant, instead of just a set of suggestions
that none of the provinces follow. We will support the bill at
this stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Accordingly, the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and
Government Operations.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation
areas of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the intent of Bill C-10 without a doubt is a very
laudable intent. In taking a look at the condition of our oceans
and waterways, not only in Canada but indeed around the world,
the environment has to be protected. There can be absolutely no
question about that. There are many areas of degradation which
have occurred and continue to occur.
The intent of the bill is a good one. Coming as it does though
under the auspices of the heritage department, we have some idea
of what the heritage department is capable of doing, particularly
with respect to preservation in parks. We therefore have an idea
of some of the challenges that face the department, indeed some
of the challenges that have been created by the department for
people who also have the laudable intent to protect the
environment under parks.
We should briefly take a look at the template or pattern we
have. We know Canada's oldest national park, Banff National
Park, is under a tremendous amount of pressure, created in no
small part by human beings. The resulting pressure, which has
been created to the changes of the flora and the fauna, has
impacted the wildlife in the area. What has been the response of
the park and what is some of the history relative to Banff and
indeed the four mountain parks?
1110
If we look at the history of Heritage Canada and Parks Canada,
we again realize that with laudable intent they have attempted to
create a situation where we could have interaction among human
beings and the flora, fauna and wildlife in the parks.
In trying to create that situation, they have taken action which
has allowed the build up of ski hills, riding and walking trails
and a whole tourist infrastructure over a period of time. If we
look at Banff Park as an example, believe it or not the town site
generates almost three quarters of a billion dollars a year in
gross domestic product. It is a gigantic amount of money which
comes into Canada, and in no small part from Europe and
particularly from the U.S.
In developing the projects around the park, care was taken over
a period of time to get a proper balance to ensure that the park
would be preserved for future generations of Canadians. What has
occurred though, and it has become clear, is that some of the
provisions to take into account the pressure which this would
create on the environment within the park have some distinct
deficiencies. As a consequence, some gapping holes have been
left in what was formerly the very pristine wilderness area, not
the least of which of course is the location of the town site of
Banff itself. This has a direct bearing.
Under Bill C-10, Parks Canada would be responsible for the
enactment for the use of the legislation. As a consequence, if we
look at the way it has its work historically on land, what would
the results be in terms of marine conservation area?
First, it is a fact that, if we were to take a species like the
grizzly within the confines of Banff Park, clearly the habitat of
the grizzly has been very seriously negatively impacted. As a
consequence there are fewer and fewer grizzlies in that area.
Furthermore, with the number of visitors going into Banff Park it
is undesirable that there would be an increased amount of
interaction between grizzlies and human beings. The two are
simply not compatible.
What does that mean relative to Bill C-10? If we look at the
number of interests with respect to ocean and Great Lakes areas,
we will find that commercial and recreational interests are
already in place in many of these situations.
In trying to come to an accommodation of the environment, the
flora, fauna and the animals contained within a park, it strikes
me that Parks Canada has swung the pendulum absolutely to the
opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of now saying we have
created the situation where human beings, tourists, from all five
continents can come and enjoy what we have, because of these
experiences there will be a cost to the wildlife in the area.
There is a very strong swing to the entire idea of absolute
conservation.
1115
There has been a movement to ban any human interaction into the
back country within the four mountain parks of Banff, Jasper,
Yoho and Kootenay. Yoho and Kootenay are parks that are in my
constituency. These back country areas basically account for 90%
of the park. If we look at it through a very simplistic lens, it
is probably a commendable thing to do, but it really is not
because it does a couple of things.
It means that there is far more pressure brought into the
remaining 10% of the park with far more wear and tear. I will
give an example. Many of us have carpets in our homes or we have
seen carpets in commercial areas. If we had people walking over
the entire carpet it may last for many years, even 50, 60 or 70
years. Theoretically a carpet could last that long even with a
great number of people walking over the entire area. The problem
is if we confine them to only 10% of that area we have wear marks
and have to replace the entire carpet.
That may be a weak analogy, but it presents a picture of what is
currently happening within our park structure. With the correct
intention of not wanting interaction in the back country human
interaction in over 90% of the area would be excluded. That is a
very laudable objective, but it has not been fully thought out
because of the wear and tear on the last 10%.
We are trying to learn from what we are doing on land within
Parks Canada to see how we might apply these things when it comes
to lakes, rivers and oceans. The difficulty is that under the
legislation there is a sufficient amount of discretion on the
part of the government. We may see government whims gaining
speed and decisions swinging back and forth like a pendulum.
People have some very legitimate concerns and a commitment to
preserving what we have in terms of aquifer, species, flora and
fauna that exist below the surface of the water. These people
share the concern of Parks Canada and governments. They are
saying that if we have not learned how to correctly do what we
need to do on land, what will we be doing with respect to the
parks or the water area?
I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton North.
Taking a look at intent is one thing, but we should also keep in
mind the legislation and history. For example, we created a
situation in Kootenay National Park, which is in my constituency,
that does not make any sense. At one point there was no road
there. The road I am referring to is now called Banff-Windermere
Highway 93-97. It ends up circling its way down from Lake
Louise, up over Storm Mountain, down into the Kootenay River, up
over the top and into Windermere.
1120
There is a bottleneck at Sinclair Canyon, which is right between
Radium Hot Springs and the town of Radium itself. Sinclair
Canyon is exceptionally narrow and only wide enough for a two
lane highway. As a matter of fact a river went through the
canyon that has rock going about 200 to 300 feet straight up in
the air. We put in a two lane highway at that particular point
and had to dig the river underneath the highway.
When the national parks built Radium Hot Springs, it encouraged
service providers and private industry to build chalets,
bungalows and tourist accommodations so people could enjoy the
hot springs. These people have ended up having a constant,
neverending battle that has been increasing in noise to the point
where they are now talking about removing those facilities at a
cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Why? They say it
is because it is a wildlife corridor.
It could not have been a wildlife corridor in the past,
particularly for the larger animals, without the highway there.
Putting in the highway meant that the animals could now, at very
low traffic times, walk back and forth through Sinclair Canyon
while dodging the 18-wheelers and the ore trucks.
We will be spending $4 million to $6 million to buy out the
tourist service providers. These service providers are people
who have been paying taxes and fees to Parks Canada. Not only
will we spend $4 million to $6 million to remove those facilities
but in addition we will lose the revenue from the facilities once
we have removed them. This is the concern that I have with Bill
C-10.
I realize this will be the fifth or sixth time that I have said
this but I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the
Canadian Alliance is in favour of the intent of Bill C-10. The
difficulty is that once the bill is enacted it would be under the
control of Parks Canada which has a history of not managing its
assets very well.
For example, there are people on the Queen Charlotte Islands who
have seen the establishment of a park on the islands. They have
also seen the husbandry of the Department of Canadian Heritage
with respect to the west coast trail and all these things. Parks
Canada's track record makes people concerned and nervous about
the commercial access to the Pacific Ocean, and I understand
their nervousness. It does not have a good track record of
consistency and of following through on a prescribed course of
action.
I have consistently accused Parks Canada of using the word
consultation as a noun instead of a verb. It says that it had
consultation. No, it did not. It came out and let people talk
but it had already made up its mind. Consultation is a noun, not
a verb. It is not a form of action. On the basis of the history
of Parks Canada, it is with a tremendous amount of trepidation
and concern that we look at Bill C-10.
There are literally hundreds of examples but I would like to
present one or two more.
1125
Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba has an area with a lot
of natural grasses. Back in 1910 someone decided to plant some
spruce trees. Those spruce trees did very well and grew to be
very tall, straight, clear spruce. This wood is almost
priceless. Each tree is counted in the thousands of dollars. Then
some people from Parks Canada said that the trees did not really
belong there, that we should get rid of them. Not only did they
chop them down and uproot them, they burned them. Does that make
sense? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in trees were chopped up
for firewood so the grasslands could be restored.
Let us assume that the Creator did not intend there to be trees
there and that someone planted them. By the same token, we could
go to Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland, which is an
absolute wonder. It is a wonderful place to go and I recommend
it to all Canadians if they want to see something absolutely
spectacular and be treated wonderfully by the people in Rocky
Harbour and Corner Brook. The park has moose like we have never
seen before. Mr. Speaker, I know you have very large moose in
your constituency but we could have a contest with these moose.
They are that big and there are about 7,000 moose.
Gros Morne is kind of interesting. It is like the top of a
mountain that has been taken off. It is perfect moose country
full of marshland. In its brilliance, in the same way that
someone planted the spruce trees, Parks Canada decided to import
moose to Newfoundland, a place they should never have been. As a
consequence, Gros Morne is literally being eaten into extinction
by the moose.
Someone said that there should be a culling of the moose. Heaven
forbid, we could never do that. Parks Canada can chop down the
trees and burn up invaluable wood, but it cannot have anything to
do with the management of that area because moose are animals
that walk on the earth. The inconsistency of Parks Canada in its
management, as I stated, gives us great pause for concern with
respect to Bill C-10.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to
speak to Bill C-10 to create national marine conservation areas
in Canada. This bill comes back to us under a different form
that during the last parliament.
First, I must say that the Bloc is in favour of measures aimed
at protecting the environment. Speaking of that, we can all
recall how successful the creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park was.
It ought to have served as a model for this bill to ensure that
the necessary consultations were carried out so that, in the
end, the measures taken and the management of the marine
conservation areas respect the various jurisdictions and the
initiatives taken by the various governments.
We have examples of this, such as Vision 2000 and other projects
where the jurisdictions were taken into account and where some
interesting results have been achieved.
In this case, is it because it is a more general bill, a kind of
umbrella act, which will establish a general framework for the
management of marine conservation areas, that the consultations
do not seem to have been carried out appropriately and to
respect what we would like to seeas the bottom line?
To those of us on this side, the consultations do not seem to
have been carried out properly and do not seem to respect what
we would like to see as the bottom line.
1130
As I said earlier, instead of focusing on collaborative efforts,
as was the case for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, with
this bill the federal government will have the right to create
marine conservation areas without regard for Quebec's
jurisdiction over its territory and its environment.
In addition to having a problem with the provinces as far as
jurisdiction is concerned, there are also areas within the bill
that are not very clear as far as the future relationship
between Heritage Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is
concerned. We have experienced certain rather patent examples
of difficulties with Heritage Canada, in connection with
management of the ecosystem. This does not necessarily strike
us as being very promising for the future.
For example, there is the overlap and duplication of Fisheries
and Oceans-protected and Environment Canada-protected zones. This
means that, even within the federal government, there is no
clear vision of marine area management, because several
departments are involved. The wording of this bill does not
seem to reflect what we might have expected in terms of
qualifying the situation. What we have instead is something
that requires more time and more work.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill
unacceptable in its present form. It does not respect the
territorial integrity of Quebec. For example, one of the
conditions essential to the establishment of a marine
conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the
area is to be established. One of the clauses relating to this
states that the minister cannot establish a marine conservation
area, unless, and I quote:
We see in this, therefore, an approach very different from that
used, as I was saying earlier, in the case of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park, where the government agreed to respect
provincial ownership of the riverbed and, thus, build a model
that was unique and that respected the jurisdictions of each.
We know that, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867,
the management and sale of crown lands are matters of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. The bill before us does not totally
respect this jurisdiction.
In addition, the same Constitution Act provides that Quebec
cannot transfer its lands to the federal government and can only
authorize the federal government, by order, to use them under
its federal jurisdiction. Finally, the protection of habitats
and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial
jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a
framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.
I think that, in the context of the consultations, it would have
been a good idea to take this plan into consideration, in order
to achieve a successful outcome in the end. We spoke of
examples of the right of way of doing things. I mentioned the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, but there is the third phase
of the St. Lawrence action plan, another example to follow.
In 1998, the federal and Quebec ministers of the environment
announced the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan,
representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally
by both levels of government. One of the objectives of this
action plan is to increase the area of protected habitats by
100% from 12,000 hectares to 120,000 hectares. The third phase
follows on the first two phases, in which both governments
invested over $300 million.
This co-operation we find in specific projects such as the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and the third phase of the St.
Lawrence action plan, we would also liked to find it in the
present bill. On reading it, we did not.
Another important consideration is the fact that jurisdiction
over the environment is shared, and so both the provinces and
the federal government have responsibilities for it.
For example, section 91 of the Constitution Act provides that
“the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada
extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects
next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,—...Navigation and
Shipping...Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of
Marine Hospitals...Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries...Ferries
between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between
Two Provinces”.
This basically sums up the content of the Constitution Act,
1867, as regards the federal government's responsibility.
1135
Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in certain sections of
the British North America Act, including section 92, which
reads:
In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in
relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next
herein-after enumerated; that is to say—...The Management and Sale
of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber
and Wood thereon...Property and Civil Rights in the
Province...Generally all Matters of a merely local or private
Nature in the Province.
So, some co-ordination is required to ensure that the federal
acts respect this jurisdiction. The Constitution Act, 1867, also
states that:
In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in
relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the
province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable
natural resources and forestry resources in the province,
including laws in relation to the rate of primary production
therefrom—
Clearly, this bill should involve some kind of partnership that
does not currently exist.
The example of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park could have
been followed as an essential condition to the creation of
marine conservation areas, as far as land ownership is concerned.
If the bill is passed as it now stands, the federal government
could set up marine conservation areas on the seabed that it
claims as its property and ignore Quebec's jurisdiction over the
environment.
This is not satisfactory for the Bloc Quebecois and it also
breaks a tradition I referred to earlier, a tradition of
co-operation, which could have led to the establishment of
interesting programs.
It is all the more frustrating and questionable, because this is
framework legislation, which will define the way the federal
government will act in this field. The government is proposing
new principles as far as respect of mutual jurisdictions is
concerned.
It seems that the federal government intends to create marine
conservation areas under the responsibility of Heritage Canada,
marine protection areas under the responsibility of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada and marine wildlife areas under the
responsibility of Environment Canada. This covers a lot of
territory.
We could for example end up with one site with several zonings,
each one of these departments considering that there is,
according to its own criteria, a marine reserve or marine
protection area for Fisheries and Ocean Canada, a marine reserve
for Environment Canada or a marine conservation area for
Heritage Canada. Then, in each of these cases, there would be
three monitoring levels, three jurisdictions for three different
departments.
Perhaps I could give an example.
If Heritage Canada felt that certain wrecks in the St. Lawrence
River had a historic role that deserved to be recognized and the
environment was part of the conservation area, but Environment
Canada wanted this same location recognized as a marine reserve
for fauna, and there were a contradiction between the two, it is
clear that the bill does not contain the desired logic to settle
the matter.
Is it not fair to wonder today whether, ultimately, this bill
will not create even more confusion?
We believe that it will.
We believe that the fact that the bill allows each of the
federal departments to maintain its jurisdiction over marine
conservation areas may end up creating total confusion. As we
explained earlier, with three departments having jurisdiction
and being able to define marine conservation areas according to
their own different objectives, the final results might not be
consistent.
The bill also provides that, when the Department of Canadian
Heritage deems it appropriate, it may, in co-operation with the
minister concerned, pass regulations, in respect of a marine
conservation area, which differ from the existing provisions.
In such a case, the amendment arrived at between Heritage Canada
and the minister concerned takes precedence over the other
regulations passed under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection
Act, and the Aeronautics Act.
In other words, despite the fact that this is framework
legislation, there is provision for the Department of Canadian
Heritage, through its minister, to negotiate a piecemeal
situation such as this, when it deems appropriate, and for the
results to take precedence over all the legislation mentioned.
1140
This discretion should be controlled very differently to make
sure that it will not lead to squabbles between departments. It
would also be subject to a change in ministers. If a minister
from the Atlantic or the Pacific region has his own priorities
in that area, he could use his powers under the act to put
pressure on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or another
minister, to demand some kind of acknowledgment of marine
conservation areas not included in the planning by existing
departments.
This section of the bill provides for a fourth way to create
marine conservation areas, very specifically, on a case by case
basis.
I do not believe that framework legislation should provide for
something like that.
We are all the more concerned by this situation that in the past
there has been very severe criticism from the auditor general,
among others, about the inability of Heritage Canada to protect
ecosystems in existing national parks. Now that they want to get
involved in marine conservation areas, are we going to be faced
with the same kind of situation?
Very concrete examples can be found in chapter 31 of the auditor
general's report, which states:
In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's
biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete.
The report states further:
Although monitoring the ecological integrity of the ecosystems
in national parks is a high priority according to Parks Canada
policies and guidelines, in many national parks the Department
has not monitored ecological conditions on a regular, continuing
basis.
How can we trust a department that was the subject of such
comments in relation to existing parks, when there are plans to
establish new parks in an even more unclear situation, where the
government will not be accountable for its actions?
In another comment, the auditor general said:
In almost all of the parks visited by the auditor general, there
was no link between business plans and management plans.
In the end, it meant a lack of co-ordination in the activities
listed in the business plans to make the parks better known and
help them reach their public, as well as in day to day
management, to make sure the services that are in demand and
that are offered to the public can be provided. If park visitors
do not get this kind of service, it is inappropriate to give
this responsibility to a department which has had big problems
in the past.
Last spring, the panel on the ecological integrity of Canada's
national parks made its report public and urged the government
to put ecological integrity back in the centre of its missions.
The panel found that the integrity of ecosystems was at risk.
For example, the panel found that, in some national parks, the
stress on the resource was so great that some species were
disappearing. All the more so in marine areas, where we can have
this type of situation if they are is not properly managed.
In Fundy park, in New Brunswick, three species have disappeared
since the park was created, in the 1940s. Only one of the 39
national parks of Canada does not experience this stress. The
situation is worse than what the panel of scientists expected.
Given all this information, one really has to wonder how Parks
Canada will manage to preserve the marine areas of conservation,
when it does not seem to have the wherewithal to protect
existing parks.
There are more reasons to oppose this bill. Consultations before
the introduction of the bill have been more or less a failure.
A consultation paper was made public and sent to 3,000 groups
across Canada, but unfortunately there has been no real
consultation on the report.
For example, the Bloc Quebecois had asked for a copy of the
300-page report, which was really only 73 pages long, the large
majority of which constituted the reply-coupon joined to the
consultation paper. That was very succinct as a consultation
result. We could hardly use it to improve the bill.
1145
We must also realize that the decision concerns the fishing
industry, which is in turmoil. In the past, we have witnessed
tremendous failures in the federal policy dealing with stock
management. Entire areas of Quebec and Canada saw their regional
economy suffer badly.
Clause 10(1) of the bill states, and I quote:
10.(1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation
with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies ...
in the development of marine conservation area policy—
How are they going to ensure that there will be consultation in
the fisheries area in order to avoid an unacceptable outcome,
when we are already aware of the failure of the federal fisheries
stock management policy?
The way this bill is worded, the information given does not
provide assurance, despite reassurances by departmental
officials, that the objective will be attained, i.e. that marine
conservation areas will be better protected. We have no
assurance that Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected.
When the application of this bill is reviewed in another five,
ten or fifteen years, we will probably find it was just one more
failure. This review will probably show that the Bloc Quebecois
was justified in what it has said about the bill being passed
within a context of insufficient consultation of the provinces
and insufficient co-ordination by the various federal departments
involved. By then, we will have one or two examples available in
which the discretionary power conferred upon the minister will
have been used to solve problems in a specific region, not
necessarily within the spirit of the law.
Given all these facts, the Bloc Quebecois invites the House to
vote against the bill. We do not feel it is acceptable at this
stage.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise again on Bill C-10, which is going
through another life cycle. At the beginning of the 36th
parliament it was Bill C-48 and at the end of the 36th parliament
it became Bill C-8.
I was pleased to be critic at the time for Canadian heritage and
I spent some time on the bill. However it now rises again. These
things seem to die on the order paper fairly regularly. The bill
originated in 1988 when the Mulroney government introduced the
National Parks Act that would permit the establishment of marine
parks.
I will not go through all the details but I will hit a few high
points about the intent of the legislation. I do not think
anyone in the House or across the country would disagree that
environmental protection and sustainability are paramount.
Whether they pertain to national parks, marine areas or
regulating the pollution of large companies, environmental
protection and sustainable development are very important issues.
However these issues do not fall specifically within the
jurisdictional power of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We
talk about ecosystems, fish, aquaculture and so on. It would be
wise to place some of the responsibility for these issues with
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could then talk about
the Department of the Environment and how important it is to look
at environmental sustainability in the whole area of marine
conservation parks.
I also sense frustration with the amount of input parliament
would have. I am not sure if this place is becoming more and
more irrelevant.
1150
Bill C-10 would pare down anything parliament would have to say
on the issue. It would limit parliamentary input by giving
cabinet the authority to create marine conservation areas on
crown land without going through the normal legislative process.
The question is, why bother with this place at all? Cabinet
might as well get together, have coffee, bring up an order in
council and throw a dart and pick a marine conservation area.
A lot of people and advisory committees have done an incredible
amount of work on this issue. I have seen the maps and the areas
and they seem well thought out. However the whole idea of going
to cabinet and just zipping something through in a morning
session, or maybe not even that long, maybe even before coffee,
is no good. The House of Commons is where such debate should
take place.
We know in the years we have been here that the amount of
discussion and the power of parliament itself has been pared
down. Members have also witnessed incredible growth in
government. Budgets have ballooned. The debt has certainly
ballooned and hopefully we are starting to control that. The
annual deficit is somewhat under control. That is probably a
good start.
Let us look at the amount of governing that would occur under
marine conservations areas. Once a marine conservation area is
established the minister may maintain and operate the facilities,
conduct scientific research and monitor and carry out studies
based on traditional ecological knowledge of the areas.
That is a nice tidy sentence. We can all guess where it may
lead. It could lead to mushrooming bureaucracies, advisory
committees and all kinds of studies and scientific research. Such
things are essential but if they are not monitored they could fly
loose. The legislation could be an entity unto itself. When
members see the mushroom cloud it places under the government, a
cloud with no checks or balances that will only get bigger and
bigger, they should be careful.
This whole area unnecessarily expands the minister's domain to
areas that fall outside her ministerial responsibility. The
minister talks about marine conservation areas, which is again a
nice thought and something that perhaps needs to happen sooner or
later to a degree, but it is by order in council and should be
under DFO control as much as anything else.
What about the Minister of the Environment? The bill would
require the heritage minister to establish a management plan for
marine conservation, ecosystem protection, human use and zoning.
Somewhere in there surely the Minister of the Environment and his
department should be involved. We then start saying that it is
this department or that department and the whole thing blows
loose because it gets bigger and bigger rather than adopting
tighter checks and balances.
In addition, each marine conservation area would require the
establishment of a management advisory committee to review and
implement management plans. For every marine park or
conservation area there needs to be a whole advisory committee. I
am not necessarily questioning the wisdom of that. A lot of
people have a lot of expertise in the area and I do not. I
certainly respect the ability of advisory committees to review
and implement plans.
However where does it stop? That is the question. This thing
will get bigger and bigger. There must be rules and regulations
and the government needs to come forward with them. Unfortunately
we see no checks and balances in this piece of legislation.
Ministers have all kinds of power, which we have certainly seen.
I could digress and talk about Bill C-15, the enormous omnibus
justice bill, but there is no point in getting into that right
now. It is certainly before the House. It is an unbelievable
piece of legislation and an example of phenomenal ministerial
power. I hope it gets chunked down into bite size pieces so we
can deal with each section on its own.
Regarding ministerial powers and perhaps overuse of powers, the
minister states that commercial fishing and shipping would be
appropriate in conservation areas. I would like an expert to
tell us those things rather than the minister.
1155
In the last bill we talked about whether the minister would be
able to curtail or eliminate commercial flights over marine
conservation areas. What would that do to small charter
companies that fly over the ocean three-quarters of their lives
on the B.C. straits?
The clauses would allow commercial fishing according to the
minister's will. All aquaculture fisheries management, marine
navigation and marine safety plans would then be subject to the
approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister
of Heritage. Do we not see the thing getting bigger and bigger?
It looks like mushrooming to me.
The whole idea of putting regulations into place is essential.
However, how do we enforce them? We have seen all kinds of
legislation over the years where regulations were put in place
and not enforced. How do we enforce regulations? That is the
frustration we see with the National Parks Act.
My colleague talked about Kootenay Park, Banff, Jasper and Yoho.
The parallel is that the National Parks Act does not give park
wardens sufficient authority to enforce the law. Park wardens
drive around in their brown trucks. We see them all the time. I
live very close to Elk Island National Park. It is 45 minutes
east of my home in Edmonton. Lew and I ride out there a lot. We
see park wardens and we know they are people we ought to respect.
I am a law-abiding citizen. When I see the rangers' authority I
do not try to pull anything on them. We have gone around and
around the block in the House about sidearms for park rangers. If
a person is up to no good or wants to poach moose, elk or bison,
they know park wardens are fairly powerless. The government is
very irresponsible in terms of the National Parks Act.
The parallel can then be drawn: What would the government do
with the marine conservation act? The director of Parks Canada
has suggested allowing the RCMP to get involved. That is good,
but there are lots of parks where the RCMP is more than a 12
minute drive away. Park wardens should have all the power and
authority vested in them by the government and the minister to
protect both wildlife and public safety.
For marine conservation acts the record is not stellar. We must
ask what would happen. Would people be chased around in boats?
Is that what enforcing the regulations would come to?
Let us look at the history of the legislation. This is the
third swing around. Who knows when it might get passed? Is the
government really committed to the legislation? It has died on
the order paper a couple of times, as I mentioned. Will we put
regulations in place that the minister will live by, or is this a
grandiose plan that will not be enforced?
Many think parliament is irrelevant. A proposed amendment
structure in the legislation would allow 20 days for amendments
and a three hour debate on them. Such amendments may affect
shipping lanes, commercial fishing, sport fishing, aquaculture,
commercial flights, and who knows what. Recreational boating may
not be allowed in some areas. If an amendment is put forward
there would be only three hours to debate it. That is almost an
admission that parliament is irrelevant and does not matter.
Decisions would be made around the cabinet table.
The legislation would severely limit the ability of
parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas
are set up. The bill would give the Minister of Canadian
Heritage free rein to create unlimited advisory committees for
each marine conservation area. We know where that could go when
people are absolutely unchecked.
1200
Limitations on the size and structure of each committee must be
established in the legislation. We need to make sure the
parameters are in place. If we get an unlimited number of people
with unlimited amounts of salary, and it looks like a big pot out
of which we can draw cash, we all know that it could go on for a
very long time. It may need to be studied for a little longer
and, because it is important, we may need to bring in 15 experts.
The thing needs some parameters in place but unfortunately we
are not seeing that at this time.
I will wrap up by drawing a parallel with the land national
parks and some of the things going on there. The parks of Banff
and Jasper are absolutely glorious. They have a lot of building
projects going on. The minister took her first swing out to
those parks last summer or the summer before and was able to see
first hand how fabulous these parks are and how important it is
that we balance economic and sustainable development with
environmental protection.
We want to make sure there is a balance in nature. We may not
be able to please both sides of the equation but if I want to go
to a park or spend money on a hotel or in a restaurant, I want to
be able to do that. If I have the money to go camping in Jasper
Park, I want to be able to go there and enjoy the pristine
wilderness, have a campfire outside my camper and enjoy the
campground. I am not sure that anyone ought to be telling me
that I cannot do that.
It would be the same if we were talking about a marine
conservation area. It is important that I am able to make use of
that area but at the same time I do not want heavyhanded
regulations. I want wisdom, not advisory committees. This may
sound foolish, coming around in boats, but there needs to be
absolute common sense from the government. I do not think we see
that to this extent with some of the things I have discussed. I
hope the government takes into account, when it swings through
the legislation again, that too many rules and regulations
certainly are unwise. At the same time, this just cannot be an
open can or basket for people to help themselves.
I am really nervous about the fact that the minister would have
far too much power and that it would be essential for joint
ministries to work together. If we look at heritage we see that
we have a marvellous heritage. We can also look at the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the
Environment. I certainly hope that no one is just trying to make
a legacy for themselves. That would surely be unwise and people
would be able to see right through that.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would first
like to point out that my riding is Saint-Jean. There is a big
difference between Lac-Saint-Jean and Saint-Jean. They are two
very beautiful regions. When you can, I invite you to come and
visit my riding. The French immersion school is in my riding,
but I know your French is excellent. Nevertheless, I extend a
personal invitation to you; you will always be welcome in my
riding.
I am making a point of speaking to the bill before us because I
think it important for Quebec to express its opinion on all
bills.
I am immediately struck by the title of the bill, which concerns
national marine conservation areas of Canada. I understand
that, in the context of nation building and the great and
beautiful Canada, national means Canada. The proof that there
is some authority there is that all provincial legislatures are
called legislative assemblies, with the exception of Quebec's,
which is called the National Assembly.
1205
In my opinon, the bill before us today can be summed up in three
words: centralization, centralization, centralization. If some
are pleased with this type of legislation, it is most certainly
officials from the Queen's Privy Council or from the Council for
Canadian Unity. For these people, this type of legislation
promotes nation building. Let me explain.
Earlier, I talked about centralization.
I think we all agree that, when Canada takes part in treaties
such as the FTAA, other types of international agreements or
international forums, such as a forum on the environment where
the topic may be marine areas, it must often deal with the fact
that there may be two levels of jurisdiction involved, and
sometimes even three, when municipalities have a say. The
federal government often speaks on behalf of the provinces, and
this is where the problem lies.
Over the past several years, Canada has undertaken a major
centralizing operation. When it speaks at these international
forums, Canada wants to do it on behalf of everyone, but it
knows full well that it is not that simple. In Quebec, there is
a national assembly, just like there are legislative assemblies
across Canada, and these bodies have their own jurisdictions.
The federal government told itself “In the coming years, we will
have to centralize as much as possible”. How? By intruding in
the provinces' jurisdictions, with or without their agreement.
The bill before us is an invasion of a provincial jurisdiction,
particularly in Quebec, since we have jurisdiction over, among
other things, the river, the estuary and the Gulf of
St. Lawrence. Quebec has jurisdiction over the bed of these
waters. But through its centralization process, the federal
government is taking over part of that jurisdiction.
How is the government going about this? Not just through bills,
but also with its spending power. If conservation areas are
strictly federal entities, the government will use its money to
do it, as it does in other areas.
For example, in the case of young offenders, the government will
use its money to do this. In the health sector, where it is
more and more tempted, the government is using its spending
power, a ploy which has been approved by the highest court, the
Supreme Court of Canada. The government has the right to spend,
even in jurisdictions that are not its own. It does this all
the time.
Worse yet is the way in which it has managed to arrange things
so that it can invade the jurisdictions of Quebec and of the
other provinces. First, as everyone agrees, it did this on the
backs of unemployed workers, but it also did it through transfer
payments. The government decided, using an analytical grid
based on the capacity to generate wealth, that it would reduce
its contribution to postsecondary education, health and social
programs and that it would send a little less money to the
provinces, and much less to Quebec.
It rakes in the money and then turns around and uses its
spending authority to invade provincial jurisdictions.
That is what the bill before us today is all about. It is the
same logic that was used with respect to the issue of young
offenders, where Quebec has excellent legislation which has
proven its worth. The consensus in Quebec is that the federal
government should not invade this jurisdiction, that
rehabilitation is working in Quebec and has done so for some
time. But the government is obsessed with centralization and
keeps on invading provincial areas of jurisdiction.
Another example is parental leave. The Government of Quebec is
saying that it is capable of providing better parental leave for
young Quebec mothers. The federal government disagrees and says
that this should come under the employment insurance plan and
that that is where it will put the money.
It is not interested in hearing about our plans to improve our
parental leave plan.
The same goes for privacy. The government has introduced a
privacy bill, even though we already have privacy legislation in
Quebec.
1210
We can see that the federal government, with the money it has
managed to extract from the provinces by decreasing transfer
payments, is encroaching on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
This is one of them. As I have said, it is one because as far
as jurisdiction is concerned, the beds of rivers, the bed of the
St. Lawrence, the bed of the estuary, the bed of the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, are all a provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government is telling us “We are going to establish
a new area of jurisdiction, a marine conservation area”. This
will likely be against the wishes of the Government of Quebec,
which has not been consulted in any way whatsoever.
The notes on partnership I have before me indicate that it was a
very simple matter to put paid to partnership, and to say “Here
we are, and this is what we are going to impose”.
This is totally deplorable, which is why it is important for me
to ask all these questions. The Quebec National Assembly would
surely object to a law of this kind. When I say object, this
would likely be by consensus. Even the federalists in the
Quebec National Assembly understand that Quebecers have a
different way of thinking than the rest of Canada.
The nation building mentality of Canada does not make any
differentiation, however. To it, there is but one nation in
Canada: the Canadians. It renounces and closes its eyes to the
nation of Quebec. This is totally deplorable.
This is the type of bill which, if presented to the Quebec
National Assembly, would most likely be rejected by the Quebec
Liberals, because they would realize that their jurisdictions
are being eroded.
Perhaps there is a consensus elsewhere in Canada. Social union
is perhaps another example where the rest of Canada agrees with
what is proposed and says “Fine, let us go ahead with the social
union. We need the federal government's money, so we are
prepared to relinquish part of our sovereignty over
jurisdictions such as health”. Whether it is homecare or
daycare, the government is always trying to intrude further in
these provincial jurisdictions.
This is exactly what the bill before us does.
Quebecers feel that the integrity of their territory is
jeopardized. Canadians should know what a threat to the
integrity of a territory is. They are making every possible
effort to protect their territorial integrity, including in the
context of issues concerning national defence—I am my party's
critic in the matter—such as patrols in Canada's far north, etc.
The integrity of the Canadian territory must be respected.
However, when it comes to the integrity of the Quebec territory,
the federal government does not seem to really care. It
constantly uses themes such as “Quebec's separation” or
“Quebec's partition”.
It is very clear that the Government of Canada, in its obsessive
nation building, completely forgets the importance of its
partners, of Quebec in particular, when it comes to areas of
jurisdiction, marine conservation areas and other issues.
I think that things are pretty clear with regard to the
integrity of Quebec territory. The government has no say with
respect to the floor of the St. Lawrence, the river, the estuary
or the gulf. And yet, it shows up with a bill that says “Well,
I will do it”.
There is no shortage of good examples. In the case of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal government acted
properly. It announced its intention to the Government of
Quebec and they held consultations and agreed on it.
They wondered whether they were capable of doing the job while
respecting each other's jurisdictions, and they reached an
agreement.
But with this bill, there is nothing about consultation. The
government's aim is to impose once again, to intrude into
Quebec's jurisdiction, the environment, river beds, and the
floor of the St. Lawrence, the estuary and the gulf. Clearly we
must object to that.
Now, there are other more internal reasons, which include
overlap within federal jurisdiction even. Because there are
other departments in this great government, including Fisheries
and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, each of which has its
protection areas.
1215
I find this to be a typical example, within the big federal
machine, of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is
doing. Some say they will create marine conservation areas, but
others say that such areas already exist, which means that there
is a possibility of duplication between different departments
within the federal government.
The government seems to be dealing with this issue hastily. It
prefers to cut corners, so to speak. It does not care about what
goes on at Fisheries and Oceans Canada or at Environment Canada.
National parks are the responsibility of Canadian Heritage.
There are some forty national parks in Canada, but only a few in
Quebec, which is another issue. Quebec often criticizes the fact
that there are very few national parks in that province compared
to the rest of Canada.
What I want to say is that Canadian Heritage is totally
incapable of protecting ecosystems in national parks. Now it
wants to interfere with provincial jurisdictions and create
whatever it wants without looking at what goes on at Fisheries
and Oceans Canada or at Environment Canada. Canadian Heritage is
not even looking at what goes on in its own department with
regard to national parks.
Certain parameters require that Canada conduct studies every
five years. In certain parks, these studies have not been
conducted for 12, 13 or 14 years.
Some species of flora and fauna are disappearing.
It needs to be understood that, when a national park is created,
people visit it. It is a place where people can go. There is a
real danger for the flora and fauna in the park. A way must be
found for nature and humankind to co-exist. When human visitors
are numerous, when they do not stay on the paths, this can
endanger certain species.
The government should do this follow-up. I think that the
government is in a poor position to push this sort of bill
through. When people are not reaching their own objectives
within a department, they should not be asking for even more
work so that they can make an even worse job of it. People
should start with getting it right in their own jurisdiction and
then they can think about extending their reach.
If the government could be more respectful of jurisdictions, I
think that the Bloc Quebecois would be more inclined to support
this type of bill. But this is not what has happened: quite the
contrary. There is overlap. Heritage Canada is not able to do
its job with its existing responsibilities, and it is looking
for more.
The worst thing for the Bloc Quebecois is that there is a lack
of respect for what is going on in Quebec and in the provinces.
The National Assembly of Quebec would oppose this kind of bill
because it is an intrusion in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
For all these reasons, it is clear that, unless major changes
are made to the bill, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it. I
appeal to my Canadian colleagues.
When they introduce bills, they should bear in mind that there
is a National Assembly in Quebec, that there is a second people,
a second nation, the one in Quebec.
When they want to take things away from that nation, the Bloc
Quebecois, whose main purpose is to defend Quebec's interests,
can be counted on to oppose such bills, and will be opposing
this one.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am
pleased to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-10,
the Liberal government's attempt to create national marine
conservation areas.
1220
The objective of establishing marine conservation areas is to
protect and conserve marine ecosystems found in the ocean
environments of Canada and in the Great Lakes. The purpose of
the bill is to establish rules that would allow the creation of
national marine conservation areas.
The bill is actually unfinished business from the last Mulroney
government. It took the weak Liberal government more than 13
years to tinker with the idea of creating marine conservation
areas. It is still at step one after feeble attempts to
introduce legislation in previous parliaments, namely Bill C-48
and Bill C-8. It shows the lack of commitment of the Liberals to
protecting and conserving our environment.
In addition to preserving marine areas for the benefit and
enjoyment of Canadians, the bill strives to establish a framework
for regulating marine ecosystems and maintaining biological
diversity. It is important to note that while environmental
protection and sustainable development are important issues, they
do not fall within the administrative responsibility of the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
The bill makes provision for two schedules that are intended to
include the names of marine conservations areas and reserves. The
minister has identified 29 marine conservation areas and the
intent to create new national parks, but in Bill C-10 the two
schedules are blank. The actual locations of all 29 parks have
not been identified.
As a past co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I
would imagine these lists could be filled in by regulation and we
would find the 29 locations somewhere in the thousands of pages
of regulations that no doubt accompany the bill. That is
governing through the back door, not through the front door and
not through the voices of elected members in the Chamber. The
bill should describe the location of each park and that
information should be inserted in the two schedules. I hope the
matter is fleshed out during the committee hearings.
Bill C-10 would limit parliamentary input by giving cabinet the
authority to create a new marine conservation area on crown land
without going through the normal legislative process. Currently
the government is required to come before parliament any time a
new national park is to be established or an existing park is to
be changed. The legislation would remove the power from
parliament and would allow parks to be created or changed by
order in council. That is ridiculous.
The minister states that activities such as commercial fishing
and shipping would be appropriate in conservation areas. However
all fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation
and marine safety plans are subject to the approval of the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
Similarly regulations affecting navigation or safety rules under
the responsibility of the Minister of Transport must be made on
the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and
the Minister of Transport.
Disposal regulations pertaining to sections 127 and 128 of the
Environmental Protection Act require the joint approval of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of the
Environment.
What is to be done about these contradictions and overlapping
responsibilities? Clause 13 of the bill would limit or prohibit
the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons, minerals,
aggregates or any other inorganic material in all marine
conservation areas. I anticipate hearing from stakeholders about
this clause at the committee hearings.
1225
There are considerations with respect to private property and
reasonable search and seizure. Clause 22 of the bill states
that, in the discharge of their duties, marine conservation area
wardens, enforcement officers and persons accompanying them may
enter and pass through private property. This is an invasion of
the property rights of law-abiding citizens.
The weak and arrogant Liberal government has shown its pattern
of disrespect for privacy rights and interference with personal
property. We have seen that in Bill C-5, the endangered species
legislation, where the arrogant Liberal government refused to
offer fair compensation to Canadians.
Enforcing regulations is a serious issue and it is not addressed
in the bill. In reference to Parks Canada, the director of the
organization suggested that the RCMP be allowed to be involved in
enforcement activities. Currently Parks Canada is involved in a
labour dispute with its park wardens over personal safety. The
bill contains the same deficiencies as the National Parks Act. It
does not give park wardens sufficient authority to enforce the
law.
Since 1993 there have been three separate reports recommending
that sidearms be issued to wardens in order to fulfil their
responsibilities. With park wardens off the job and other law
enforcement agencies overburdened with enforcing criminal code
violations, wildlife is being slaughtered in our national parks.
The bill does not address any of these situations.
The Canadian Alliance affirms the federal government's role in
the preservation of Canada's natural and historical heritage such
as national parks. It supports sustaining and developing
national parks and marine conservation areas that exist for the
benefit and enjoyment of everyone. It also supports sustainable
development and environmental protection regulations that have
been fully debated by parliamentarians, not through the back door
but through this Chamber.
The bill would strengthen the power of cabinet while diminishing
the effectiveness of elected representatives. The bill is
virtually unnecessary because the regulatory framework already
exists to accomplish what the bill purports to achieve. It is
just a power grab by a department that understands that it has a
weak minister who does not understand that the new regulations
are not required.
The legislation would clearly limit the ability of
parliamentarians to consider all options when new marine areas
are introduced or existing areas are expanded, with no input
whatsoever when new parks are being created. The weak and
arrogant Liberal government, time and again, abuses the Chamber
and uses elected members as a rubber stamp. It does not give
enough opportunity for debate by elected officials. There is no
reason for this tight fisted form of control and undemocratic
manner of proceeding. Like the bogus changes the government is
proposing to Bill C-9, the Elections Act, Bill C-10 is also
virtually anti-democratic.
The scope of the bill, as it relates to fishing, aquaculture and
transportation, is such that changes to any schedule should
require an act of parliament. Affected communities would be at
the whim of the minister. The bill would give the Minister of
Canadian Heritage a free reign to create unlimited advisory
committees for each marine conservation area.
1230
Limitations on the size and structure of each committee should
have been established in the legislation. Will the committee
that hears the bill allow these limits and rules to be
established? I doubt it very much.
These advisory committees would give the government an
opportunity for patronage in the way membership is composed and
would serve no other purpose than that of a rubber stamp under
the guise of public consultation. What we have here is yet
another job creation program for failed Liberal election
candidates and their supporters.
If marine wildlife and ecosystems are to be protected, park
wardens should have exclusive jurisdiction in the enforcement of
laws and regulations relating to each conservation area.
Unfortunately, wardens are increasingly finding that they cannot
do a proper job due to interference from Ottawa.
The decision by Parks Canada management to transfer
responsibilities from park wardens to law enforcement agencies
like the RCMP is Ottawa's way of centralizing tight fisted
control away from the frontline officers who have the practical
experience to know what does and does not work in Canada's
national parks. What a shame.
The bill is a mess. It is as much an assault on our environment
as an assault on the stakeholders in the regions that will be
affected by it. My heart goes out to my colleague the Canadian
Alliance heritage critic because I cannot see how the bill can be
fixed or amended during committee stage.
On the one hand, the bill is not required because everything it
does can already be done under regulations. On the other hand, it
is a power grab by the minister and should be stopped 100%. Those
concerned about preserving the environment can see that after 13
years of trying to bring the bill forward for debate in the House
the government does not care about the environment.
I hope the bill looks significantly different when it comes back
before the House following committee hearings. However, knowing
the government's record, I doubt it. I hope the minister's secret
agenda of power grabbing is exposed. I hope Canadians see
clearly how little the government cares about the environment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the vote is deferred
until Wednesday, May 16, at the end of government orders.
* * *
1235
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. Gilbert Normand (for the Minister of the Environment)
moved that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the
House on the second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I will begin by congratulating the Minister of the Environment
for bringing the legislation before the House. Bill C-19 is a
continuation of an important effort that dates back 25 years in
Canada's history. It would bring environmental factors to the
table when government decisions are made.
The proposed legislation is based on the results of a national
consultation completed last year as part of a five year review of
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It is also based on
the Minister of the Environment's personal commitment to improve
the federal environmental assessment process so that it can
continue to be the best in the world.
I will be clear on what we are proposing. Although Bill C-19 is
not a major rewrite of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
it would strengthen the act, an act that has served its purpose
well over the past five years and has resulted in notable
environment assessment success stories.
The act has had a positive effect on projects ranging from the
creation of an inland navigation channel in New Brunswick to the
protection of Pukawska National Park in my home province of
Ontario. In British Columbia it enabled the Government of
Canada, in collaboration with the province, to ensure that the
construction of a new road to end the isolation of a first
nations community did not have a significant impact on the
sensitive grizzly bear population.
Those are just three of the many environmental assessment
successes Canadians have achieved over the past five years.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, proclaimed by the
Liberal government in 1995, has had a positive and lasting effect
on ecosystems and development projects from coast to coast to
coast. It has helped integrate Canada's environmental goals with
its economic, social and cultural values. In other words, it has
moved us down the road toward sustainable development.
Our experiences over the past five years have identified
concerns that need to be addressed to make the federal
environmental assessment process even stronger, more certain and
more accessible. In short, the current process is effective but
imperfect.
Coincident with other environmental initiatives, the revised and
strengthened Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would help
protect and preserve Canada's diverse and sometimes fragile
environment. It would assure Canadians of the clean air and
clean water they have a right to expect. It would allow
Canadians to benefit economically from responsible development in
the use of our natural resources.
The purpose of Bill C-19 is to establish a more predictable,
consistent and timely process, to improve the quality of
environmental assessment in Canada and to strengthen
opportunities for public participation. The amendments would
ensure that the federal environmental assessment process better
serves the interests of all participants in the years ahead, not
the least of whom is the Canadian public.
Not everyone may be familiar with the goals and intent of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I will therefore take a
few moments to provide some context for the proposed amendments.
As already noted, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was
brought into force in 1995 with the goal of promoting a healthy
environment and economy through sustainable development. The act
requires federal departments and agencies to undertake an
environmental assessment if they intend to develop projects
themselves. It requires them to provide funding or land for such
projects and to issue licences or permits for the projects such
as might be issued under the Fisheries Act.
One can imagine the scope of such activity. Last year alone 30
federal departments conducted about 6,000 environmental
assessments. Many of the projects had the potential to affect
the health of local and regional ecosystems for decades to come.
The act also touches on billions of dollars of potential
investment in Canada each year. For environmental and economic
reasons it is important that we get the process right.
1240
The underlying principle and main strength of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act is that a project's environmental
effects receive careful consideration before development begins.
The act is also built on the premise that the Canadian public
should participate in the review of development proposals.
Based on the findings of an environmental assessment, the
government must decide whether to proceed or to withdraw its
support for a project. Depending on the scale of the activity
and the type of assessment, the decision may be made at
department level or by cabinet.
Environmental assessments often result in recommendations on
actions that should be taken to protect the environment or
improve benefits to affected people and communities before the
project goes forward.
Used as a planning tool for sustainable development rather than
a barrier to growth and development, environmental assessment
allows projects to be designed in ways that are economically
efficient and rewarding but which are also compatible with a
healthy environment and a healthy society.
Let me be clear on this. The government, through the leadership
of the Prime Minister, views environmental assessment as a
cornerstone of its commitment to protect our tremendous
environmental heritage, our air, water and natural spaces, for
the benefit and use of current and future generations of
Canadians.
That was a central theme of January's Speech from the Throne.
Our government recognizes, and I quote from the Speech from the
Throne, that “A healthy environment is an essential part of a
sustainable economy and our quality of life”.
Environmental assessment has been and will continue to be an
indispensable tool for pursuing the government's environmental
priorities. Within this context, our approach to environmental
management is being driven by three emerging global trends.
First, human activity is placing unsustainable burdens on the
ecosphere, particularly on natural habitat and on our landscapes.
Second, there is a resurgence in public concern about
environmental issues and a shift in public values in favour of
increased environmental action.
Third, businesses and the marketplace are learning that
unsustainable business practices are bad business and
unacceptable to consumers. The old tradeoff of the environment
versus the economy is ringing more hollow with every passing
year.
Those three trends offer an enormous opportunity for change.
They call for environmental management which builds on
partnerships, promotes incentives and is based on science.
Environmental assessment is an essential part of our efforts to
ensure clear air, clean water and the protection of Canada's
natural spaces. Project by project and step by step,
environmental assessment helps avoid the adverse effects of
development. That is why it is important to improve the process
by making it more predicable, consistent and timely and by
strengthening opportunities for public participation.
These were our goals when the Minister of the Environment
launched a public review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act in December 1999. At that time the discussion paper served
as a launching pad for an open, comprehensive and public dialogue
about how to improve the act.
To convey the scope of our consultation I will share with the
House that almost 1,200 people in 19 cities participated in the
public meetings and regional workshops. A website to inform
Canadians about the review and give them an opportunity to have
their say received over 14,000 visits.
We have received more than 200 written submissions about
possible changes to the act and the environmental assessment
process. The Minister of the Environment received a report and
recommendations from a multisectoral regulatory advisory
committee established some time ago to provide input on
environmental assessment regulations and policies.
The committee brings a unique perspective to issues. It
includes representatives of industry, the federal government,
provincial governments, environmental and aboriginal groups.
1245
Staff of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have
consulted their provincial counterparts and colleagues from other
federal departments. We have received input from several
processes, including aboriginal people who have been deeply
involved in some of the more high profile and successful
environmental assessments undertaken in Canada to date.
The consultation process has been exhaustive. By using
electronic means of communication like the Internet we have been
able to reach Canadians from all walks of life, in all cities,
rural areas, and remote parts of the country. These amendments
are the product of one of the most open and thorough public
reviews that I have witnessed in my time in government. They
represent the consensus view of diverse groups in their intent to
move us forward toward the goal of sustainable development, which
has been embraced by all elements of Canadian society.
There is always room for argument when developers and
environmentalists come together at the same table, but our
consultations reveal a remarkable level of agreement on the
merits of the existing act and how it can be improved. After
hearing from literally hundreds of Canadian businesses,
communities, associations and individuals, there is strong
national support for an effective and efficient environmental
assessment process at the federal level.
Canadians are looking to the federal government for leadership
in ensuring that environmental assessment remains an important
tool for making decisions in support of sustainable development.
I assure hon. members that we intend to provide that leadership.
Our review of the act has confirmed that many strengths of the
current environmental assessment process do exist. Canadians
have endorsed the fundamental process and the principles of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They have endorsed the
basic structure of the process and the factors that must be
addressed when dealing with an environmental assessment. They
have given their blessings to the role of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency.
These features of the act would be retained under a revitalized
federal environmental assessment process, but we also heard
strong messages about the need for change. I do not intend to
review these concerns in detail. They are addressed in the
report of the Minister of the Environment to parliament which was
tabled on March 20, 2001. Instead I will spend the rest of my
time explaining how we intend to address them through the
proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Our first goal in bringing forward the legislation is to
establish a more certain, predictable and timely federal
environmental assessment process. This would not only save time,
money and effort for all affected parties, but it would build on
confidence in the process and improve the climate for investment
in Canada. Bill C-19 proposes amendments to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act that would provide for a focus on
the appropriate projects and would move away from assessments of
insignificant matters like window replacements and erecting road
signs.
Reducing the number of assessments of small, routine projects
would free up time and resources that could be put to better use
assessing projects that are likely to produce adverse
environmental effects. This would be achieved through a new use
for class screening reports as a replacement for project specific
assessments when accepted design standards and mitigation
measures are used on small and routine projects.
Under Bill C-19 the scope of the act would also be expanded to
include federally funded projects on reserve lands and would
allow regulations to be developed for federal lands leased or
managed by a third party such as local airport authorities. These
are important gaps in the current legislation that need to be
addressed.
Bill C-19 also includes measures that would improve
co-ordination among federal departments involved in environmental
assessment. Our goal is to reduce delays in project planning and
to assure proponents that information requirements and timing of
decisions would be more consistent from project to project. The
act would be amended to provide for the appointment of a federal
co-ordinator for screenings and comprehensive studies.
The co-ordinator's job would be to bring together appropriate
federal authorities when necessary and to consolidate the
information required for an assessment. For projects subject to
the assessment process of another jurisdiction and for large
projects requiring a comprehensive study, the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency would take the role of
co-ordinator.
1250
To increase certainty in the process, which in turn would
promote more effective project planning and reduce project delays
and costs, Bill C-19 would amend the act to eliminate the
possibility that a project may be referred to a panel review even
after undergoing a comprehensive study.
The revised comprehensive study process would provide the
Minister of the Environment with new powers to set conditions for
mitigation measures and follow-up programs, to require more
information to bring a comprehensive study report up to standard
and to direct that action be taken to address public concerns.
The bill would promote greater use of mediation in dispute
resolution and would clarify the powers of federal departments to
impose conditions on a project. Another overriding goal of Bill
C-19 would be to improve the quality of environmental
assessments. High quality assessments contribute to better
decisions in support of sustainable development and help build a
more accountable planning process.
The amendments contained in Bill C-19 would establish a clear
role for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to promote
and monitor compliance with the act. Specifically the agency
would be given authority to lead a quality assurance program for
assessments across federal departments.
Changes would also be made to ensure more and better follow-up
of projects after an environmental assessment. Bill C-19 would
also propose that the results of regional studies, studies of the
effects of several future projects in a region, would be
recognized and used in the consideration of cumulative
environmental effects; in other words the combined effects of
many projects in a region over a long period of time. Finally,
it is our intention through Bill C-19 to ensure meaningful public
participation in assessments.
The environmental assessment process of the Government of Canada
must remain worthy of the trust and involvement of all Canadians.
The fundamental value of meaningful public participation in
environmental assessments was one of the strongest measures
emerging from the review of the existing act.
The legislation would propose to strengthen public participation
in three ways. First, Bill C-19 would establish a single,
government-wide Internet based registry to provide public access
to relevant information. The registry would be administered by
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and would replace
the existing system in which a seldom used separate paper based
registry had been established for each environmental assessment.
Second, we wish to better incorporate the knowledge and
perspectives of aboriginal people in the assessment process,
particularly where assessments involve reserve lands, traditional
territories, or treaty and land management areas. Amendments
proposed in Bill C-19 would formally recognize the value and use
of traditional knowledge in conducting environmental assessments.
An aboriginal advisory committee would also be established to
offer advice on assessment issues.
Third, specific opportunities for public participation in
assessments would be expanded under Bill C-19. These amendments
would clarify that a responsible authority may establish
opportunities for public participation at any stage during the
screening of a project.
In the case of comprehensive studies, two new opportunities for
public participation would be built into the legislation early in
the scoping phase of the assessment and during the comprehensive
study itself. In addition, the participant funding program now
in place for panel reviews would be extended to the comprehensive
study review process.
This is a broad overview of the changes proposed in Bill C-19.
They are practical, fair and realistic. Bill C-19 would build on
the core values of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as
it exists today. These include the notion that environmental
assessment should be applied as a planning tool as early as
possible in the development process. We are also maintaining the
principle of self-assessment by responsible authorities.
The principle of public participation is not only retained, but
greatly strengthened under Bill C-19. We are reaffirming the
principle of one project, one assessment. The co-operative model
of working with other jurisdictions has served us well in the
past and would continue to do so in the years ahead.
At the same time I assure the House that the federal decision
making authority would not be delegated to other jurisdictions.
1255
The process of developing these amendments to the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act was launched more than a year.
Through the dedicated efforts of many people we have come to a
consensus on both the need for change and the nature of the
change. I ask members of the House to do their part by
supporting Bill C-19.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege to be able to speak to the amendments in Bill
C-19 as proposed by the Minister of the Environment.
As the environment critic for the official opposition I have
spoken on numerous occasions in the House of my experiences and
concerns relating to environmental issues. I have also learned
that there is one very important thing to pay attention to when
dealing with environmental issues, and that is co-operation.
There has to be co-operation with all levels of government and
industry as well as with people who are interested in the kind of
legislation we are passing.
The federal government is in a unique position to act as a
leader in the area of co-operation and to bring all stakeholders
together when we talk about the environment. Environmental
issues are consistently found at the top of the list when we talk
with various stakeholders.
We have often heard people of all ages ask what they can do to
help the environment. They then go on to describe their feeling
of helplessness and of being overwhelmed by the issues. The
federal government has a real lead role to play in co-operation.
It should empower Canadians so that they feel active in their
communities and can improve their health as well as the
ecological system in their areas.
The federal government must also work to provide for the
public's best interest and must provide objective knowledge
concerning many of these issues. It can act as a facilitator of
information and provide venues for the public to engage in the
issues. The public must be consulted as often as it possibly
can. An informed and empowered citizen is the best friend of the
environment.
I have witnessed in the last few years amazing discussions with
public groups. We have examples of environmental groups working
with industry to bring their joint concerns about endangered
species before the environment committee.
In my own community I was part of the parks board for about 10
years. We looked at building a trail system and how that would
impact on the potential development of our river escarpment and
valleys. The fact that people, industry and real estate people
would get involved and work together with city council on that
scale made it happen. We are very proud of a parks system which
is a selling feature of our community.
No matter where we look, whether it is at endangered species,
pollution or water resources, involving people is important. We
must get away from the concept that big government runs
everything, that it knows best and does not need to consult with
people.
Canadians sometimes forget that they can work with industry.
They sometimes feel alienated from government and industry. It
is incumbent on us, and I believe the bill goes a long way in
accomplishing that empowerment and making people feel part of the
whole system. Empowerment is an important part of the fabric of
a country, a province or a community. Many environmental issues
demand government co-operation.
1300
While many think this is only an issue for the federal
government and the provinces, we must show people that the bill
goes a long way in showing they can be involved. That
co-operation is critical.
We must also work on the relationships people have with their
government, and I apply that at all levels. The provinces and
the federal government must work together to develop initiatives
and programs which understand and address the concerns and the
very health of people. Whether we talk about the water
situation, which we had a lot of discussion on lately, or sewage
or whatever, this involvement is so critical and affects people's
health.
I believe growing co-operation at all levels is a sign of our
observations of the patterns discovered in nature, which we call
biodiversity. While competition and combat have an important
role in our interactions with each other, humans and nature
cannot be reduced to these elements alone.
Co-operation and construction are also integral to the system of
nature of which we are all a part. We recognize that we must
have both competition and co-operation. Our end goal is what is
best for both people and for the natural world that people
participate in. With a recognition of the transforming power of
both competition and co-operation, the solutions to our concerns
are made more apparent.
This brings me to Bill C-19 specifically, the amendments to the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
First, I will talk about some of the bad news, the competition
side of things. Then I will talk about the good news in the
bill, which is the areas of co-operation.
The current government continues to have a serious problem when
it comes to environmental commitment. It has been said by a
number of people that the government is very long on promises and
relatively short on action, sort of chameleon-like in approach,
constantly changing its colour to fit the surroundings. It
betrays the trust of Canadians who once believed that Liberal
means environmentally friendly.
As the environment critic for the official opposition, the
Alliance Party, it will be my job to show Canadians that we have
an environmental conscience and that we care about the
environment and the kinds of changes it needs.
The OECD, the Organisation on Economic Co-operation and
Development, reported several weeks ago that we were the second
worst in the ranking of those 29 countries in terms of
environmental progress. That is a rather serious indictment for
a country that prides itself in our environment.
The auditor general in his final report released several months
ago argued that the current government had significant problems
putting words into actions.
We have toxic waste sites around this country numbering in
thousands. We have someone sitting on a hunger strike outside
here who is saying that something has to be done about the Sydney
tar ponds, the most graphic example of where promises have been
made but nothing has happened.
We have raw sewage which is being dumped into St. John's Harbour
and into the Halifax and Victoria harbours by a G-8 country, an
advanced industrial country. That is not an environmentally good
record to have.
The far reaching implications of Kyoto promises and endangered
species legislation, if implemented without the proper
consideration of costs and benefits by the government, are not
the way things should be done by a government. We should know
what it is going to cost. We should consider the socio-economic
impacts. We should look at the whole picture and work with
Canadians to solve those problems.
Important detailed information on voluntary and co-operative
programs, said to be the emphasis of the new endangered species
act, is not there and creates an uncertainty for landowners. When
someone is told that some of their land will be taken out of
production, where their family is going to suffer, and
compensation is not provided for in the legislation, that is a
serious lack of co-operation with the people, the people who we
must co-operate with if we want to save something. That is the
bad news.
1305
The good news is the co-operation. The federal government,
under the PCs, developed this tool for environmental impact
assessment in co-operation with government, industry and other
levels of government. It was soon entrenched in law as the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Its regulations were a
provision for a five year review of the act. This was undertaken
last year by the current government with direction from the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The review was close to what a public review can be and should
be. It involved the participation of thousands of Canadians from
many different walks of life, those involved in non-governmental
organizations, the provinces, industry and aboriginals. We
called many of them to ask them what they thought about Bill
C-19. Many came back and said they had looked at it and listened
to us. They sounded somewhat shocked that the bill included what
they had said. I compliment the government for doing that.
There were consultations and workshops across the country.
There were and continue to be regular meetings with the
regulatory advisory committee, a stakeholder group made up of
industry, environmentalists, aboriginals and government
representatives. The process began with background studies, a
government discussion document and ended with a draft bill. This
was good business practice and these were good consultations.
Many of the amendments in Bill C-19 addressed the various
weaknesses in the original act. That is exactly what should
happen when we do a review.
There were some infamous cases of environmental assessment that
did not work very well, such as the Oldman River case in my
province. There was duplication of effort between provincial and
federal governments. There were late interventions. There was a
lack of consultation and some rather foolish decisions.
In the winter I had a bridge put in to haul lumber out for
Sunpine Forest Products. The bridge was put a way up on the
banks so it would in in any way touch the river. Yet, through an
environmental assessment called by a small group, the company had
to lay off 100 people and the project did not go ahead because
the bridge would shade the fish. The problem was that it was
only there to be used in the winter. The fish were not swimming
or breeding at that time. There was ice and snow on the river.
That is the kind of foolish decisions that are sometimes made.
Hopefully, these amendments will stop that sort of thing.
The amendments would increase the ability for the public,
industry and government to work effectively and efficiently on
environmental assessments, saving time and money for all
involved, increasing public participation in many cases and
aiding in protecting the environment.
I am particularly interested in the environmental assessment
co-ordinator assigned to each federal assessment and the
possibility of having this co-ordinator there. Often what
happens is the public does not know who to talk to and are
shifted from one level of government to the other. Having an
environmental co-ordinator assigned to a project should end this.
I would suggest several changes as well to make the bill even
better. Public participation is essential to quality
environmental assessment. There are three improvements that
should be made to improve this even further and I will just touch
on those.
First, the public and industry want to work together on this
issue. Early public involvement means less long term suspicion
and delays. The scoping determination must be open to public
scrutiny.
Second, while the government is keen on going electronic, and I
applaud this effort, it must not forget that many Canadians are
still not plugged in. Rather than an immediate switch to an
electronic public registry system for access to information on
project assessment, this government should go a little bit
slower. I have been told that there have been significant
problems in the past with an electronic format. Therefore,
instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I suggest
working on a new one while keeping the old and relatively
reliable format for the time being.
Third, it is essential that there be another review of the act
and the effectiveness of these amendments in the next five to ten
years.
This would be to everyone's benefit and I believe would interest
all stakeholders. Co-operation between government departments
and other levels of government is critical for the success of
environmental assessment in Canada and outside Canada. We must
stop the duplication between different levels of government.
1310
It is natural for people to be suspicious of new changes,
especially when these changes significantly alter the way they
must think about how things have been done for so long. The
environmental assessment has been around for some time now and it
is time for all federal departments to act in co-operation
through the leadership of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency, so that environmental assessment can be done well and
with a strong public input.
Crown corporations in particular have been very slow to rise to
the challenge of environmental assessment. While there are
provisions in these amendments for developing environmental
assessment regulations for some of these corporations, the public
must have input into these regulations and have an opportunity to
respond to drafts. There must be assurances that Canadian
standards are not different in some places or for some
departments or corporations.
Co-operation with the provinces, I repeat, is critical. While
the amendments to Bill C-19 reflect several suggestions made by
the provinces, there is still significant discretion on the part
of the responsible minister regarding key elements of decision
making. Turf wars are one of the most serious problems between
the two levels of government. I would like to see the provinces
consulted before the minister's discretionary powers are invoked
in sections 25 and 28 of the act. This would demonstrate to the
provinces that the federal government is truly working with them
and not against them.
I congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency for their work. I also sincerely
congratulate all those who have spent much precious time on
developing these amendments, those in the public who gave their
time in public consultations and workshops and those who have
given their time to work on the regulatory advisory committee.
All of them deserve many thanks for their commitment to this
process and this country.
I started this speech by talking about how environmental
legislation best works. It is first through co-operation with
the citizens and all levels of governments. It is through
empowering people with information, with venues for dialogue,
with support for dialogue, involvement and action. It is through
the federal government taking the lead, setting the example and
co-ordinating the efforts.
Too often the government has failed in keeping its many words
regarding action on the environment. It has failed many times to
consult Canadians, has failed in some basic business practices
and has said “just trust us”. However suspicion wins when
government fails to be up front. The health of Canadians, the
economy and the environment suffer if we are not up front with
this information.
The five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, while certainly not perfect, was a successful exercise in
consulting with Canadians. Such success means better
environmental assessment, better co-operation, better government,
and the government, industry and citizens will protect the
environment better. It means time saved, money saved and human
health and the environment saved. Environmental assessment is a
good tool to work toward sustainability. There is still much
room for improvement, but I have indicated where some of that can
come from.
In conclusion, I suggest that the government use the five year
review as a model of what can be achieved with other
environmental issues such as global warming, species at risk,
space preservation and other environmental issues. Taking the
lead through co-operation first with all of the citizens of
Canada is the very best way to guarantee human health,
environmental health and protection for now and the future for
all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed
to the bill before us, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. Being opposed to Bill C-19 is in
line with the position traditionally taken by representatives
from Quebec.
1315
Since 1992 and even before that, the federal government has been
trying to get involved in environmental assessment, an area that
falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction and in which the
province is doing very well.
Quebec has the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement,
which does environmental assessments based on criteria that were
accepted and approved by successive legislatures in Quebec.
Once again, we must speak up in the House.
It is not an easy task, but it is not easy either for all those
who are watching us, particularly Quebecers, who do not often
have the chance to see the kind of duplication that a bill
dealing with environmental assessment can create.
Quebec has always been and still is at the forefront in the area
of environmental assessment. What the bill before us says is
that, whenever the federal government invests money in the form
of loans, loan guarantees or direct grants, or whenever it leads
a project, an environmental assessment will necessarily be done.
All that in spite of the fact that Quebec has its own Bureau
d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, a concept that is
totally independent from political decision makers. We saw the
BAPE in action recently with regard to major projects by
Hydro-Québec.
The BAPE went against the major orientations of the agency.
This is a system that works well in Quebec.
Once again, here we have federal duplication. If there was no
representation by Quebec at the public hearings that were held,
there was a good reason for it. There has been none since 1992
purely and simply because, that year, the government of Robert
Bourassa had passed a unanimous resolution in the National
Assembly, stating as follows, and I quote:
I have dropped the number.
This was an act identical to the one introduced today. The
resolution continued:
This was a resolution unanimously passed by the Quebec National
Assembly in 1992, under the Liberal government of Robert
Bourassa.
It is, therefore, a matter of integrity and honesty for all
Quebecers in this House, to defend the interests of their
constituents.
The federal government is too quick to interfere in provincial
jurisdictions for all kinds of political reasons.
The only thing that should guide a government when adopting a
legislation is the protection of the interests of the citizens.
In this case, the interests of the citizens are well protected
by the Quebec government's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur
l'environnement which, I repeat, is a non political, arm's
length organization. Historically, it has had a very good record
and rendered very good decisions.
It is difficult to understand how Liberals representing Quebec
can defend a bill which constitutes a direct interference into
Quebec's jurisdiction.
The federal government has so much money that it could invest to
help develop road infrastructure. We have an infrastructure
program in which the federal government, the Quebec government
and municipal governments pay one third each. This program was
announced with great pump by the federal government, and
received the support of the provinces, the Quebec government and
the municipalities.
Once again, that infrastructure program will cover projects in
this area.
1320
Since the federal government is contributing one third, through
subsidies, to several of these projects, environmental
assessments will be made by it, even though Quebec has its own
environmental assessment service, namely the Bureau d'audiences
publiques sur l'environnement. This is a striking example of
duplication that is extremely costly to Quebec taxpayers because
we already have a good service.
As I said, in 1992, the National Assembly, under the leadership
of Robert Bourassa, unanimously adopted a motion rejecting a
similar bill, which was to be passed in the House of Commons at
the time. That motion was adopted unanimously.
During the public hearings on this bill, no one came to
represent Quebec, for the simple reason that we have our own
environmental assessment service.
It is because of examples like this one that an increasing
number of Quebecers are fed up with the federal government. It
interferes in jurisdictions in which it has no business. The
federal government should let Quebecers do their own thing, since
they have an environmental assessment system that reflects their
needs and that has proven successful. The Bureau d'audiences
publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, is very helpful because
it conducts environmental assessments for many projects. It is a
Quebec agency that works well and that Canada is trying to copy
for the benefit of the other Canadian provinces. That is fine
with us, but leave Quebec alone with its own resources and
structures.
We have something that works well, namely the BAPE. Why impose a
new level of assessments that will generate additional costs?
Instead, the government should put that money in the tripartite
infrastructure programs involving the municipalities, the Quebec
government and the federal government.
Or let them invest more than the mere $600 million they said they
would invest in highways throughout Canada. In the election
campaign, this Liberal government promised Quebec alone over $3
billion in investment, when there is only $600 million in the
federal budget. We have just looked at the votes in the Standing
Committee on Transport, and only $600 million is available for
the next five years.
Rather than waste energy and money and spend resources on adding
another service to the one that is very well operated in Quebec,
the government should keep this money, invest it in municipal
infrastructure projects, and government highway infrastructure
projects in Quebec and Canada. It should leave the organizations
and institutions that work well in Quebec. The Bureau d'audiences
publiques sur l'environnement is one Quebec institution that
works well.
It is hard for the public, for Quebecers watching us, to hear us
discuss a bill that has a pleasing title, the act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, except that it pleases the
Canadian provinces that do not have environmental assessment
procedures in place.
We in Quebec do have one. We are proud of it. I repeat, in
1992, the government of Robert Bourassa, unanimously called on
the federal government to withdraw from this area of
jurisdiction, environmental assessment, because it is a
provincial jurisdiction.
There is good reason no Quebec organization appeared before the
various committees studying this bill.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot support this bill, which is a blatant
example of interference. It is because of measures like this one
that an increasing number of Quebecers no longer believe in this
Canada. The federal government is only investing in an attempt to
gain political popularity. It is trying to achieve that by
duplicating services that are already provided by Quebec
agencies. This is unacceptable.
I cannot understand why Liberal members in this House, who are
aware of the problems associated with infrastructure programs and
the constant needs of municipalities and of Quebec's road
network, support a bill that will create a new level of
environmental assessments.
1325
Whenever the federal government will invest, lend or guarantee
even the smallest amount, it will be in a position to set up an
environmental assessment program that will be in addition to the
one that already exists and that works so well in Quebec. There
are such aberrations in this Canada. I hope people will remember
that, and the sooner the better.
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with the member for Churchill. It is a
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, at second reading. For
the record, the New Democratic Party will be opposing the bill
and will be voting against it at second reading.
Currently the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not go
far enough to protect our environment. The changes proposed in
Bill C-19, unfortunately, would only further weaken the
legislation. The bill is an attempt to streamline and speed up
the environmental assessment and review process to benefit
developers and industry instead of protecting the environment.
This enactment would implement the results of the statutory
review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act conducted by
the Minister of the Environment. It would establish a federal
environmental assessment co-ordinator for projects that undergo
screening or comprehensive study level assessments. It would
modify the comprehensive study process to prevent a second
environmental assessment of a project by a review panel while
extending the participant funding program to comprehensive
studies.
This enactment would expand existing regulations, making
authority for projects on federal lands, provide the new use for
class screening reports as a replacement for project specific
assessments and makes follow up programs mandatory for projects
after a comprehensive study or review panel. These amendments
would provide Canadians with access to information about the
environmental assessment of a specific project.
This enactment would create the Canadian environmental
assessment registry. It would require that the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency establish and lead a quality
assurance program, promote and monitor compliance and assist
relevant parties in building consensus and resolving disputes.
New Democrats believe that we need measures to strengthen and
improve safeguards to protect the environment and this bill
unfortunately does not go nearly far enough.
Canadians are increasingly concerned about the state of the
environment in their communities and around the globe. They
worry about the quality of the air they breathe and the safety of
the water they drink. They are deeply concerned about the kind
of ecological legacy they will be leaving their children.
The question is: What kind of measures are we talking about?
At the present time outside the House of Commons we have a
demonstrator from the Sierra Club, Elizabeth May, who is on her
14th day of a hunger strike. She is trying to force the federal
government into taking action on the environmental travesty at
the Sydney tar ponds. She wants to force the government to
permanently relocate the many people who are living in the area
directly around the tar ponds who have experienced colossal
health problems for decades because of the pollution in their
environment. This is a very concrete example of a measure that
the government could take right now to ensure the environmental
and health safety of many Canadian citizens.
Another very important measure in my mind is the Halifax harbour
clean up. I come from a community that has been dumping raw
sewage into the harbour for many decades. The only benefit is
that we have ocean currents that continue to move the sewage
around at quite a pace, but we have a huge job ahead of us.
The Halifax regional municipality has worked very hard to get
both the provincial and the federal government on side to work on
that essential infrastructure project. Something of that size
has to be done on a three way split. Each level of government
has to be involved because of the cost and the scope of the
project. At this point in time the federal government is nowhere
near offering the kind of money that is required from its side of
the equation. That is another measure the government could take
right now.
1330
Clearly it is time that Canada implement comprehensive,
enforceable and understandable standards for water and air
quality and food safety. The government should be investing in
services that clean up the water and the air, stimulate green
investment and expand public transit. It should also take action
to make work places safer. The government's record on the
environment is a litany of neglect, delay and broken promises.
The NDP believes that we should protect the environment in some
very specific ways. I will put forward suggestions for the
government to take into account when it is doing further work on
the act. We need to assert a strong federal presence in both
environmental monitoring and regulatory enforcement. We need to
implement comprehensive, enforceable and understandable standards
for water and air quality and food safety. We need to develop
and implement a national water strategy including development of
national safe drinking water standards and a ban on bulk water
exports.
It is time we institute agreements that give environmental
protection precedence over trade agreements in transboundary
movements of hazardous wastes and other environmentally dangerous
goods. We need to ensure that a green screen integrates
environmental criteria into all federal government decision
making.
It is time we implement endangered species and habitat
protection legislation developed in co-operation with other
governments, affected communities and labour, making use of
traditional aboriginal knowledge and vesting identification of
species at risk with independent scientists.
We need to expand marine protected areas and the national parks
system and protect the parks system from commercial development
that threatens its integrity. We need to introduce tough
punishment for polluters including criminal charges for corporate
owners, directors and managers that break the law. We need to
develop the environmental bill of rights to ensure the legally
enforceable right of all Canadians to a safe and healthy
environment.
In conclusion, I repeat that we will be opposing the bill. We
will be voting against it at second reading. We believe that the
environmental assessment act does not go nearly far enough. It
needs to be strengthened. We need the federal government to
invest and commit immediately and generously to an environmental
cleanup that will protect our children for generations to come.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to emphasize, as the hon. member for Dartmouth mentioned, that
the New Democratic Party is opposed to the bill and intends to
vote against it. Hopefully there can be some improvements to the
bill somewhere along the line, even though it is becoming clearer
to most of us that the Liberal government does not follow through
on its talk of being there to protect the environment and to do
what is best for Canada. I doubt we will see those changes and
certainly there need to be changes.
To follow on what my hon. colleague said, public services like
clean water, effective waste disposal, diversion, good roads and
accessible public transit are essential to strong, healthy
communities. By the 1990s Canada was investing just 2.1% of its
gross domestic product in public infrastructure. That was about
half of what was spent throughout the 1960s and 1970s. We have
had two decades of neglect. This has meant poorer public
services resulting in major problems like poor water quality,
pollution, and a $75 billion deficit in municipal and
environmental infrastructure.
No one group has suffered more from the neglect than Canada's
first nations people. We heard of the situations with water in
Walkerton and North Battleford. There was little emphasis on the
number of first nations communities that have boil water mandates
in place on an ongoing basis. Many Canadians do not know that
although there were standards in place for water treatment in
communities throughout Canada, the government and the first
nations communities never bypassed the bare minimum standard for
anything in first nations communities.
Whether it be water, sewer or housing, bar none the bare minimum
standard was met. We know what happens when only the bare
minimum standard is met. That is exactly what they get. As a
result, with little money going into the infrastructure we have
seen even greater problems in those communities.
1335
The occurrences of stomach and gastrointestinal problems that we
hear about in non-aboriginal communities are ongoing issues in
first nation communities. They struggle and fight with the
government to put in place ongoing funding for these programs so
they do not have to go to the government. I hate to say it, but
often immediately before an election the government says it will
do something and then right after the election we see many
communities having to go on bended knees begging the government
for what should be rightfully theirs in the first place, which is
quality water and sewer infrastructure and quality housing.
Ecologists warn that without major new investment and a national
approach to water quality, access to freshwater will soon become
Canada's worst environmental crisis. Significant public and
private investments are also needed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, improve energy efficiency and cut back the release of
waste into the environment.
Too many corporations have opposed efforts to deal with these
pressing issues. The Liberals have listened to corporate Canada,
ignoring the fact that no economy or society can exist
independently of the environment. The Liberals have made no
progress in developing a sustainable economy for Canadians.
We know the Liberals have listened to corporate Canada. We also
know and fear the fact that our Prime Minister is now listening
to the American president and vice-president saying they want
more energy resources from Canada instead of the U.S. addressing
its problems of overconsumption, greed and misusing energy when
it should be putting into place conservation processes. We see
our government buckling under to the U.S.
We all wants jobs and economic prosperity, but we also want to
protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we
eat. With leadership from the federal government working
families can have both environmental and economic security. New
Democrats believe Canada needs a new commitment to rebuilding our
publicly owned and operated infrastructure.
The NDP has called for a multi-year national environmental
infrastructure investment program to channel investment into
pressing environmental concerns like water and air quality, toxic
waste disposal, energy efficiency and the clean up of
environmental hot spots.
A national environmental investment and infrastructure program
could be used for the set up of a clean water fund to upgrade
municipal water and waste water treatment plants to improve water
quality, water conservation and effluent management. We cannot
have another Walkerton.
We could clean up toxic hot spots like the Sydney tar ponds and
the sites of the Great Lakes. I know my colleague mentioned this
as well, but a number of colleagues from that area of the country
over the past three or four years have constantly pushed and
fought for the clean up of the Sydney tar ponds. This has made
me realize just how terrible are the Sydney tar ponds. When
hearing about it on a daily basis and getting all the background
on it, we realize that this is a government-company sponsored
environmental wasteland with no serious effort to clean it up.
The sad part is there is real concern it cannot even be cleaned
up now. The least we should be doing is getting the people whose
health is at risk out of that area. That is why Elizabeth May
has been on a hunger strike for the past two weeks. The
government has failed to address the issue of getting those
families out of there. Instead it puts their health at risk.
The national environmental investment infrastructure program
could renew efforts to achieve short term reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions in the wake of the Liberals' abandonment
of commitments it made at Kyoto, Japan, in 1997.
We could set up a clean air fund to back community based
initiatives that reconcile job creation with the challenge posted
by climate change. The fund would be used for tree planting,
alternative energy and transition programs for workers displaced
by actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We could support expansion and encourage greater use of public
transit. We could put mandatory limits on sulphur content in
gasoline.
1340
We could change the federal tax system to ensure that tax
policies encourage a more sustainable economy. Taxes should be
reduced on sustainable activities, particularly those that
involve a greater investment in labour and an increase in
non-sustainable activities.
We could create a jobs fund to provide loan security for the
cost of retrofitting residential, commercial and industrial
buildings to meet higher standards of energy efficiency and make
greater use of energy from alternative sources, resulting in
reduced greenhouse emissions and lower costs. We could improve
recycling, composting and recovery systems to improve the
diversion of household and commercial industrial waste.
This fund could encourage dynamic environmental industries and
the development of new environmental technology. We could invest
as a partner in integrated and co-ordinated affordable public
transit and commuter rail service in and around major urban
centres. This would be part of a national transportation
strategy.
Often we are criticized as New Democrats for thinking about the
environment too much, for not considering the cost. I say we can
never think about the environment too much. We can never put too
much into the environment.
We have shown today that the cost savings are there. This is an
economical opportunity for Canada. It is an opportunity for
jobs, but even more so it is an opportunity to continue having
the country we have now with a relatively decent environment and
relatively clean air. We have some bad spots, but we have a
country of which to be proud, a country to which people from all
over the world want to come.
A young woman from Mexico attending university in Ottawa
commented to me that it was nice to have her children go outside
and play and not have to worry about their health because of the
air. We have a clean environment to offer people of the world.
Let us continue to offer it to them by making sure that we
protect it. Let us fix the legislation and toughen it up instead
of watering it down like the Liberals have done.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Churchill on her excellent speech and
the suggestions she made. I want to ask her a question about
aboriginal people and the quality of their environment.
Over 20 years ago I was living in Kenora, Ontario, where two
reserves, White Dog and Grassy Narrow, were tragically affected
by mercury poison in the Grassy River system. The irony is that
we see pristine wilderness that is completely polluted by
external forces, by pulp and paper mills or by other industries
such as mining.
How would the member for Churchill tackle that problem in her
area, which is certainly a home to many native communities?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond. Within the Churchill riding in Manitoba
I actually have more than half the first nations in Manitoba. I
have been to all 31 of their communities. Over my years living
in northern Manitoba I knew many of the problems those
communities faced. As their member of parliament I have had the
opportunity to view firsthand the situations they live in.
We often hear members of the House criticize why first nations
live in such conditions. The people in those communities do not
want to live like that. That was not the bargain they made with
the Government of Canada when they made a decision to share the
land and in return receive certain benefits from the government.
They do not get specific funding to ensure that they have water
and sewer services in every house. They do not get specific
funding to ensure that they will have fire hydrants in their
communities. The amount of funding for housing for all first
nation members is so limited that we see literally a third of
their populations leaving their communities because they do not
have houses to live in.
Although we will hear great criticism of why first nations
people live like they do, the criticism should be directed at the
governments of Canada which over past number of years have not
sufficiently supported first nations people.
1345
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the member. I know she has close
ties to the aboriginal community and environmental issues. She
mentioned the Sydney tar ponds. I had an opportunity to view
that disgraceful mess and I would sure like to see something
started there to clean it up and get the people living nearby who
have been exposed to it away from it.
Is the member aware of anything the government has done in the
last few years to clean up some of the messes that were left in
northern Canada by military bases, air force bases, the DEW line
and things like that? I know that some were pretty bad. Could
she comment on what has happened in that area?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I actually recall
questions in the House that were specifically on the issue the
hon. member asks about.
If we were listening to the answers from the government we would
say yes, there was a commitment that it would clean up these
areas. My understanding is that very few of those areas have
been cleaned up.
To go back to the situation in first nations communities, there
were diesel powered generators in a lot of the communities for
the nursing stations and schools. Over the years there were huge
diesel spills in those areas that affected the health of the
first nations people. In some cases schools or nursing stations
were moved. In other cases they were not. In most cases areas
affected by diesel spills were not cleaned up. The hazards are
still within the first nations communities. There are affected
communities in my riding. They are attempting to continue their
fight with the federal government to get it to pay for the
cleanups.
Certainly the federal government has not been strong in
following through on its comments about cleaning up its
environmental messes.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, as
opposed to the proverbial comment we hear in the House that it is
a pleasure to participate in such a debate on Bill C-19, I might
actually say that every time I have had an opportunity to speak
on issues pertaining to the environment I usually preface my
comments by saying that it is with great sadness that I have a
chance to participate in the debate.
What I am referring to is Bill C-19, which is the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. It was first brought forth as a
very progressive piece of legislation by the Conservatives in
June 1992 when the Progressive Conservative Party was in
government. Those governments have been described by individuals
such as Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club, who is outside fighting
the environmental degradation at the Sydney tar ponds, in this
way: the Conservative governments were the most environmentally
progressive governments in the industrialized world.
The Conservatives actually developed the omnibus bill on the
control and use of toxins in the environment, known as the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was a Progressive
Conservative government that led the international community in
1987 with respect to developing a protocol known as the Montreal
protocol. That challenged the industrialized world to eliminate
or drastically reduce ozone depleting gases.
During that same era, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall
that the prime minister and the minister of environment of the
day, Jean J. Charest, led a delegation in which Canada was a
world leader by bringing the world together with respect to
climate change and biodiversity. In contrast we now have a
government that has been in office for nearly eight years and has
yet to pass a single piece of environmental legislation of note.
That is the record.
These are not just my comments. I can even refer to Stewart
Elgie, who is the executive director of the Sierra Legal Defence
Fund. These are his words, not just mine.
What we are looking at is a mandatory review, which was put in
place by the Progressive Conservative government in 1992 in the
first piece of legislation and which shows the understanding that
what we do today with respect to environmental management will be
drastically different in the very near future.
That is why it is incumbent upon the government to review
legislation of this sort.
1350
In addition to this initiative, we should be doing what the
minister of the day, Lucien Bouchard, said in 1990. He found
three legislative gaps with respect to the environment. First,
Canada essentially has a pesticide act that is over 30 years old.
Second, we really do not have a framework to establish
legislation to ensure safe drinking water in Canada. Last, at
the time he was advocating that we have legislation in place to
protect species at risk.
Here we are a decade later, after eight years of Liberal
government, still waiting for those three initiatives to be
brought forth to the Canadian public. However we do have some
housekeeping, in that the minister has tabled in a timely manner
the mandatory review of the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act. According to the minister's press release, the purpose of
the act is essentially tenfold. I will list the ten points very
briefly.
One purpose is to focus the act on projects with a greater
likelihood of adverse environmental effects as opposed to having
only broad screenings of issues that have less or a minor impact
and could be managed more effectively and exclusively by the
provinces. The Progressive Conservative Party has a proud
tradition of being respectful of jurisdictional issues with
respect to the provincial governments and the federal government.
That is why we support the idea of harmonization, not to the
lowest common denominator but to ensure that this is done in the
most cost effective, time effective and environmentally effective
manner possible.
On this list with respect to this new review the minister
advocates: improving co-ordination among federal departments and
agencies when several are involved in the same assessment, which
I think is a good initiative; reaffirming and enhancing
co-operation with other governments in conducting environmental
assessments where jurisdictional overlaps and duplications occur,
which the Progressive Conservative Party indeed embraces; and
increasing certainty in the process in order to reduce the
potential for project delays and cost increases. Industry will
play by the rules. We can develop faster and that will help our
economy grow, but industry and the provincial governments that
want to take initiatives of this sort have to know what the rules
are. The certainty in reducing overlap and duplication is a key
component.
In the bill the minister advocates strengthening the role of
follow-ups to ensure that sound environmental protection measures
are in place for the project as well as improving consideration
of what the cumulative effects of the project might be. One
project on its own may not have an impact that would
significantly degrade the environment in any way, shape or form,
but the cumulative effect may come into play.
The eighth point the minister advocates is that of providing
convenient and timely access to reports and other information
about assessments. As well, he advocates strengthening the
incorporation of aboriginal perspectives in the federal process,
an initiative I strongly applaud, along with expanding public
participation.
The House may be aware that within the last year a task force
led by the federal government was struck to study issues with
respect to environmental assessment. A myriad of items was
tabled in that report. The sad thing is that in going through
the legislation at first blush it seems that only a few were
acted on in this revision of the act. When this gets to
committee the Progressive Conservative Party wants to ensure that
we have a full vetting of the committee's report.
It is a report that I have not gone through in any detail, but
through our research we have discovered that only a couple of the
items were touched upon.
1355
Here we are dealing with a mandatory review of a piece of
legislation which the government is compelled to actually
perform. We will do our process, but what Canadians want is
environmental leadership across the board. As the former
minister of the environment, Lucien Bouchard, said in 1990, we
need new pesticide legislation. It is 30 years old. The
Minister of Health said he would table it quite soon. I remember
Claire Franklin, the executive director of the Pest Management
Regulatory Agency, saying that framework legislation or draft
legislation has essentially been in place for three years. Yet
the government has not acted and does not table the legislation.
We are still waiting for a species at risk bill that will work.
The Progressive Conservative Party will not support that piece of
legislation for four reasons, primarily because it does not
include migratory birds and it still contains the belief that
politicians rather than scientists are a better fit to determine
whether or not a species is at risk. It is also extremely
intrusive in one regard, and very hypocritical, I might add. The
species at risk legislation says that it has the capacity to
force a private landowner to engage in recovery plans and the
capacity to force a province to participate, but it is permissive
with respect to habitat protection within its own backyard, on
federal land. We will have a chance to address that bill later
on.
We are a long way from being able to give a definitive answer
about whether we will support this legislation in its compulsory
review. We will let the committee do its job, but ultimately the
Government of Canada should take up the myriad of recommendations
made by the task force that studied this issue. We will do our
work in committee.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to commend the outstanding efforts of two
of my constituents who have recently returned from working
overseas for the Canadian Executive Services Organization.
Mr. Don Stockton went to Bangkok to advise a manufacturer of
flour and starch on techniques to improve production. Don
developed a repairs and maintenance system and advised the
company on warehousing and small packaging programs.
Another Guelphite, Mr. John Van Esch, went to Guatemala City to
suggest quality and productivity improvements for a company that
produces dairy products. Among other things, John advised the
company on a new formula for yogourt production and added a new
flavour. The company reports that the new coffee yogourt is a
real hit.
Mr. Stockton and Mr. Van Esch are just two examples of the good
people we have in Guelph—Wellington doing fine things both in
the community and across the world.
* * *
CENSUS DAY
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, have you mailed in your census form yet? I certainly
hope so, because today is Census Day and according to the
government everyone should be mailing in their forms today.
The problem as I see it is that there are large numbers of
people who are very uncomfortable with the current census form
and some of the questions that are asked.
I find it difficult to explain to my constituents why the
government needs to know the answers to questions such as what
religion they practise. It seems to me that we split church and
state quite a few years ago.
Other questions that have raised eyebrows include who pays the
rent, how many bedrooms are in a person's home and are any
repairs needed.
1400
The government insists that our census information is absolutely
private and will not be accessed by anyone other than census
officials, except maybe for HRDC officials who in the past used
census information to put together a list on every Canadian in
the country.
By all means, Canadians should mail in their census. They just
should not be too surprised if the tax collector happens to
know whether a husband and wife sleep in the same bed.
* * *
[Translation]
INSECTARIUM DE MONTRÉAL
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Insectarium de Montréal, which opened in 1990, is the largest
museum in North America that is wholly devoted to insects.
It houses a prestigious collection of 160,000 specimens from
every part of the world. In summer, there is an outdoor flight
cage containing the most beautiful of Quebec's butterflies.
Every year, the Insectarium receives 400,000 visitors. Its
educational programs add to the knowledge of thousands of young
people about insects.
The quality of its live insect colonies and its innovative
approach to museology have made the Insectarium de Montréal a
model for numerous other projects throughout the world,
including China, Taiwan, the United States, France and Brazil.
Until September 2, thanks to a contribution from the Millennium
Bureau of Canada, the Insectarium will be presenting “Mad about
Research”, an interactive exhibit on the work of entomological
researchers.
Take my word for it, it is an enchanting experience to discover
the world of insects under the competent and professional
guidance of the Insectarium staff.
Bravo, and thank you, to all those who are involved day in and
day out in this endeavour.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the Cure Foundation is
today holding its annual national denim day to raise money for
breast cancer research.
This one day event asks employees across Canada to come to work
dressed in jeans and to donate $5 to the fight against breast
cancer.
The Cure Foundation works in tandem with health professionals,
other foundations and Canadian teaching hospitals to improve
breast cancer outcomes. The most frequently diagnosed cancer in
2001 will continue to be breast cancer for women. Added to that,
there is a little known but lethal statistic that shows 3% of all
breast cancers occur in males. By the time it is diagnosed the
cancer is well on its way to killing the patient.
Health Canada is committed to improving these results and
actively participates through funding for research. Funding is
aimed at prevention, early detection and diagnosis of breast
cancer, as well as treatment and care for those living with the
disease.
Please join me in extending my best wishes for a successful
national denim day.
* * *
[Translation]
RIDING OF QUÉBEC EAST
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
maiden speech in this House I referred to the historical nature
of my riding and to the fact that it had been represented by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, Ernest Lapointe, Louis St-Laurent and Gérard
Duquet.
I also pledged to do my best to follow in the footsteps of these
great builders in representing my constituents in a worthy
manner.
Today I would like to inform the House that a hundred or so of
those same Quebecers, these same Canadian men and women, have
travelled to their national capital to salute their Prime
Minister and to show support for their government and their MP.
In so doing, they are demonstrating their profound attachment to
their country and to their fellow citizens, and to the Canadian
values of tolerance, personal freedom, equality, justice and the
institutions that symbolize our democracy.
I wish all those who have come here from the beautiful riding of
Québec East a wonderful day in the national capital.
* * *
[English]
FIREARMS REGISTRY
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's gun control
bill will cost $1 billion before it is fully implemented. It may
cost an additional $1 billion to operate it over the next 10
years. This is $2 billion that should be spent on the real
priorities of Canadians, such as health care and our farmers who
are facing disaster because of foreign subsidies, drought and
flood in my own province.
Canada's privacy commissioner, George Radwinski, has confirmed
that information collected under this law has led to
investigations based on unsubstantiated hearsay and incorrect
information.
Sixty per cent of gun owners in some provinces are ignoring the
law and have not applied for possession licences.
It is obvious that the Liberal's wrongheaded attempts at gun
control are enormously expensive, do not help the police reduce
crime and are not accepted by Canadians.
My constituents did not want Liberal gun control when it was
forced through the House. They used their vote to show they did
not want it in 1997 and in 2000, and they still do not want it
today. The Liberals should finally start listening to Canadians.
* * *
QIKITANI INUIT ASSOCIATION
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the board of directors of the Qikitani Inuit
Association of Baffin Island are in Ottawa for board training and
meetings.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the
following translation:]
[Translation]
I am pleased they could be here.
1405
[English]
The Qikitani Inuit Association is one of three regional Inuit
organizations in Nunavut. As its mission statement says, the
role of QIA is “to safeguard, administer and advance the rights
and benefits of the Inuit of the Baffin region; to promote the
Inuit language and traditions; Inuit environmental values, as
well as Inuit self-sufficiency, economic, social and cultural
well-being through succeeding generations; all in an open and
accountable forum”.
I invite my colleagues to meet with the board members at the
reception I am co-hosting with the president at 5 p.m. in the
Wellington Building and enjoy Inuit hospitality.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL MARINE DAY
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, representatives of the main components of the
shipping industry—pilots, carriers, shippers, port managers and
shipbuilders—are here in Ottawa to draw attention to the second
National Marine Day. This event is intended to raise the profile
of the important economic and social roles of the marine sector.
Last year, the marine industry carried nearly 400 million tonnes
of goods, representing $80 billion, and 50 million people.
With the federal government opting out, the marine community was
able to count on the Bloc Quebecois to bring the government to
its senses in the business of ice breaking, and it knows the Bloc
will rise up again against unreasonable fees for aids to
navigation.
I encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to listen carefully
to the various shipping stakeholders here today so we may one day
have a real integrated shipping policy.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL MARINE DAY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my privilege to rise in celebration of National Marine Day. Today
in Ottawa, representatives of marine communities from across
Canada are meeting with government officials to discuss ways to
ensure a healthy, safe, efficient and competitive shipping
industry.
Through technological advancement and a highly skilled
workforce, the marine community continues to be an effective and
efficient component of Canada's transportation infrastructure. As
the most environmentally responsible mode of transportation, the
marine industry in Canada is well positioned to support the
nation's emissions reduction goals in the coming years.
In my own riding of Hamilton West, the livelihood of thousands
of women and men depends upon the competitive future of marine
shipping in Canada. The same is true in hundreds of communities
across our great country.
Therefore, I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in welcoming
members of our country's marine community and wish them well
during National Marine Day.
* * *
CAVEAT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, after a decade CAVEAT has closed its doors. CAVEAT
is a victims' rights group well known in this country for
pioneering many of the victims' rights that have come to us.
CAVEAT was begun by Priscilla de Villiers who lost a child to a
criminal. Through just common, plain folk that were involved in
CAVEAT a lot of good has been done in this country. They worked
very closely with many people across the country on victims'
rights for all Canadians.
I would also like to thank a member of the provincial CAVEAT
group, Chris Simmons, who became their president. Chris and Sue
lost their young daughter as a result of criminal action. They
have helped so many other victims across the country.
I would also like to thank those who carry on the torch in many
victims' issues, like Steve Sullivan with the victims group here
in Ottawa. Victims' rights have yet more to come.
* * *
[Translation]
MARINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
representatives of Canada's marine industry are here to meet
government officials and members of parliament to discuss a
partnership that will guarantee a healthy, effective and
competitive industry.
After carrying over 400 million tonnes of cargo last year,
evaluated at over $80 billion, the Canadian marine industry
played an integral role in the economic health of our country.
Furthermore, as the most environmentally responsible mode of
transport, the marine industry in Canada is well placed to
support the gas emission reduction objectives the country has set
itself for the coming year.
Over half of international cargo trade is moved by water. The
marine communities across the country are eager to work with all
governments so as to be ready to meet the environmental and
economic challenges of our great nation.
I invite my colleagues and all Canadians to welcome the members
of the marine community to Ottawa. I wish them as well great
success on National Marine Day.
* * *
1410
[English]
MARIJUANA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the decision of the U.S. supreme court yesterday to criminalize
the use of marijuana for medical purposes and strike down state
laws, which permitted the same, reveals the tragic dogmatism at
the heart of the official American attitude toward drugs. They
are committed to a prohibitionist, universally criminalizing
strategy that is ineffective and particularly unfair to Americans
in need of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.
Canada fortunately seems tentatively headed in a more
intelligent and compassionate direction. Not only have our
courts ruled differently on medical marijuana and our government
responded accordingly but there is a growing chorus of
established opinion for a different approach to the possession of
marijuana for personal use.
The Canadian Medical Association has joined the Canadian
Association of Police Chiefs in asking that such an approach be
seriously considered. These voices should be seriously listened
to. Canadians and their government should continue to seek a
superior alternative to the failed approach entrenched in the
United States of America.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this being
the Semaine québécoise de la famille, as well as the
International Day of Families, I wish to say how important the
family unit is to people's social and emotional development.
The Government of Quebec has understood this and that is why it
looks after its children. Through family allowances, $5 day care
and a progressive tax system, Quebec takes families' needs into
account and thus helps young families to balance work and family
responsibilities. In addition, Quebec will soon be introducing a
parental leave plan which will refuse to treat a pregnant woman
as someone who is losing her job, if the federal government stops
putting obstacles in our way.
Despite the fact that the federal government saves over $70
million annually through $5 day care and refuses to recognize the
Quebec consensus on parental leave, Quebec stands as a model when
it comes to family policy.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF FAMILIES
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to remind the House of Commons and all Canadians
that the International Day of Families, which is observed on May
15, is a very special day for families the world over.
[English]
This year is also the International Year of Volunteers and I
invite members to reflect upon the important contribution
families make to the voluntary sector. Families are the
cornerstone of society. It is through families that we learn to
be caring, responsible adults.
[Translation]
Offering families the support of the community is one of the
best investments we could make in the long-term health and
well-being of Canadian society.
* * *
[English]
POLICE WEEK
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as police forces all across Canada celebrate Police
Week, I rise in honour of the brave men and women from New
Glasgow to New Westminster who work tirelessly to protect the
public and maintain law and order.
Commencing in 1970, Police Week brings public recognition to the
valuable work of our local provincial and national police forces
and it highlights the continued need to give police the resources
necessary to fight crime and improve public safety.
Police have lobbied the Liberal government for legislative
action. They want meaningful, specific legislation creating
stiffer penalties for serious offences, efforts to streamline
procedure, technical upgrades and a national sex offender
registry. Routinely we see Liberal half measures and
complicated, cumbersome legislation which often drags on for
years.
As the solicitor general will attend tomorrow's Police Week
event, Rendez-vous 2001, here on Parliament Hill, I encourage him
to listen to police in attendance and respond to their concerns
with meaningful legislation.
We want to thank the police everywhere very much.
* * *
MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's silence on the Bush administration's missile
defence system is being seen as an agreement bordering on
complicity.
We need to speak out clearly against this flawed proposal which
not only fails to accomplish its objective of nuclear deterrence
but in fact increases the likelihood of nuclear proliferation.
What deterred before still deters today. The anti-ballistic
missile treaty is necessary to the international stalemate. The
abandonment of this treaty would take the lid off nuclear
non-proliferation and essentially kickstart nuclear rearmament as
states, such as China, Russia and India, perceive themselves at
risk.
This government must be firm in denying support for such a
destabilizing doctrine and, in so doing, be consistent with our
foreign and defence policies.
There are times when saying no to a neighbour and ally is
difficult. It does not absolve us of our responsibility to do
so. There should be no silence on the front or back benches
regarding this tragically flawed proposal.
* * *
1415
NATIONAL MINING WEEK
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of National
Mining Week which is celebrated annually to increase public
awareness of the importance of mining.
How often do Canadians think about mining, minerals and metals
and the crucial role they play? About 400,000 Canadians think
about it every day because their livelihood depends on mining.
Minerals and metal exports represent 13% of total Canadian
exports, 70% of the total volume handled at Canadian ports, and
more than half of all total rail freight revenue. Canadian
mining is a global leader. It is a productive and innovative
sector closely linked to the knowledge based technology driven
global economy.
I encourage all Canadians to reflect on our mining heritage and
to recognize mining's contribution to our prosperity and to our
international reputation as a centre of mining excellence.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one economist after another is saying
that the government's budget numbers simply do not add up. For
instance, we have the former assistant deputy minister to the
finance minister on record as saying that the government just
never added those numbers together, so we are in the whole by
$1.5 billion. This confirms what others are saying.
Now that the evidence is mounting, will the finance minister
admit that we are headed to a planning deficit by at least the
year 2004?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are in the fifth year of a surplus, something that
has never been seen in Canada in many years. We remember very
well that for months and months they were telling us that we were
always too prudent in our analysis.
Now the big problem they face is that yes, we predicted a
surplus of $10 billion and it will be $15 billion. We are not
going in the direction of having a deficit. We are doing exactly
the contrary at this moment.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): He avoided the question, Mr. Speaker. I can
assure him that I have never accused a Liberal spender of being
too prudent. I have never said that.
Canadians have worked too hard to see the deficit eliminated.
They are still working hard, too hard, to see it squandered
because of poor planning on behalf of and on the part of the
government.
Will the Prime Minister commit to and charge his finance
minister with tabling a five year update, as the finance minister
has done in the past, to try to give assurance? Now he is
talking about a two year update as if there is something to hide
in year three. Will he tell his finance minister to table a five
year update as he has in the past?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell the Minister of Finance to do exactly what
he has done in the last eight years, and that is to be a good
Minister of Finance and produce more surpluses in the years to
come.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think that he said no.
It is very clear that this government is going to take the
contingency reserve and use it to pay for its election promises.>
Will the Prime Minister tell us here and now that he will not
dip into the reserve, except in the event of an emergency?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the word contingency reserve means for use in the event of an
emergency. That is why we have a contingency reserve. Why?
Because emergencies sometimes arise.
So we will not use the reserve if there is no emergency and, if
there is no emergency, we will once again use the contingency
reserve to pay down the debt.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is in fact wrong. All economists are telling
us that we are looking at a planning deficit that will lead into
the contingency reserve by the fourth year of this fiscal plan.
We are also told that the finance minister will only give us a
two year projection. Last October before the election he gave us
a five year projection.
Why is he changing it? What will happen in those three ensuing
years, like the planning deficit which he is afraid to admit to
this House and to Canadians.
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never talked to that person, but there is a person by
the name of Craig Wright, chief economist of the Royal Bank, who
said:
Everything this government has done in the past would suggest we
don't have to worry about a deficit.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, his own member for Markham said last October “the
Liberal proposal does eat into the prudence reserve”. The Prime
Minister has just told us that reserve is there for emergencies
and emergencies only.
His former ADM of finance commented in the Economist. His
own members are admitting that he is going to use the emergency
reserve, which we may need for an economic downturn, to finance
increases in Liberal spending.
Will he clearly commit that will not happen and that we will not
have a planning deficit in the fiscal year 2004?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where his economists come from, but I have
another quote from a gentleman named Tim O'Neill, chief economist
of the Bank of Montreal. He said:
That was in the Toronto Star of May 11, 2001.
* * *
[Translation]
MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some
new facts support the statement made by a senior federal
official to the effect that Canada is about to give its support
to the U.S. missile defence shield program.
Indeed, the Department of National Defence has confirmed that a
Canadian lieutenant-colonel will soon be at the Pentagon to act
as liaison officer under the missile defence shield program.
When will the government finally be upfront, stop fooling the
public and the parliamentarians, whom it has not yet seen fit to
consult, and admit that it will support the missile defence
shield program of the Bush administration?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
told President Bush that we wanted a dialogue on this issue. He
agreed to have a dialogue with us, with the NATO allies, with
Russia and with China.
We are keeping an eye on what is going on and we are waiting for
the President of the U.S. to make proposals and to discuss the
issue with us. We want to be involved in the discussions. Once
we have all the information, we will be in a position to make a
decision. But we cannot make a decision on a project that the
Americans themselves are not sure they can implement.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today, at the end of the meeting with the U.S. envoys, the
federal government will hold a briefing for the media. However,
the government has not planned anything for parliamentarians.
Why is the government so intent on not having parliamentarians
involved in this issue? Is it to put members of parliament
before a fait accompli and thus avoid a true debate in the House
before the government adopts its position and makes it public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we talk to the media, we generally assume that some members
of this House will read the newspapers.
Second, there are House committees that review these issues.
Third, nothing prevents the Bloc Quebecois leader from calling
public officials and asking them to provide him with the same
information that they are giving to the media. This is public
information. Therefore, it is available to all. I do not
understand why they are moaning.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a week ago the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois asked the Prime Minister for a
meeting with the two U.S. envoys who are today in Ottawa to
provide the Canadian government with more information on the
missile defence shield project.
Does the Prime Minister intend to respond favourably, and what
is more important immediately, to the request by the Bloc
Quebecois to meet with the U.S. envoys. This is a decision that
can be taken readily. All the Prime Minister has to do is say
“right away”.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is not a political visit, but a briefing for
departmental officials, a technical briefing.
If the hon. member wishes us to prepare a briefing, we can get
the appropriate departmental officials to prepare it. That is
not a problem.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government
seems to be up to its old tricks once again. It is informing us
that it is going to brief the journalists and departmental
officials, while all parliamentarians are kept uninformed.
I find that this government is absolutely arrogant in making
decisions like this one.
1425
I would ask the Prime Minister to rise and tell us that he
intends to make a commitment for a debate to be held in the
House on this matter, and that he will assure us that Canada
will not take an official position until there has been a debate
and vote here in this House.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just offered the hon. member
a briefing on the matter. We have therefore just said yes to
him, yet he is rising to tell us that we are being arrogant.
Second, yes, there will be a debate in the House of Commons. I
hope hon. members will also discuss it in committee.
We are not prepared to reach a decision. We want to know
everyone's position, not just the position of the hon. members
but also that of the public, before a decision is reached. That
is what I have told President Bush.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. CMHC has estimated that $4
billion yearly is needed for the next 15 years just to maintain
safe water and water waste management systems. That is $4
billion annually that is needed urgently from the federal
government.
Will the Prime Minister indicate whether such a clean water fund
will have the priority it so desperately deserves in the
forthcoming economic statement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the infrastructure program we put forward we said to
the municipalities that money would be available for their water
systems.
In fact almost 50% of the money in the infrastructure program is
for what we call for green infrastructure. We are already doing
that, and I hope this will satisfy the leader of the NDP Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
point is it will not satisfy the need. It is a drop in the
bucket compared to what is required.
Water experts and ecologists like David Schindler have been
screaming for a national water strategy from the government since
the day it took office. What do we have eight years later? We
have Walkerton. We have North Battleford. We have up to 100
aboriginal reserves and over 700 other communities that are faced
with contaminated drinking water.
How could the government maintain the fiction that safe drinking
water is a priority when it will not put its money where its
mouth is?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just said yes, it is the priority of the government.
That is why, when we introduced our infrastructure program, we
said our priority was to help the municipalities with the green
infrastructure.
A lot of the requests for money at this moment are coming from
the municipalities, to be approved by the provincial governments
and financed one-third by the federal government.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
stated that as soon as a general retired he received with his
first pension cheque some type of conscience that he did not have
when he was in the CF.
Was he expressing the views of the government? If not, will he
retract those statements or resign his position in government
today?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and all on this side of
the House are certainly quite respectful of all those who have
served with the Canadian forces. There may be times when we
agree to disagree on certain issues.
I can tell the member that with respect to this matter of
whether our troops are combat capable, they are indeed. They are
much better than they have been for a great many years because of
the kind of investment which has been put in place by the
government.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, if the
parliamentary secretary had stayed for the full meeting we had
last week, he would have found out from one of the retired
officers that the government told the officers what they were to
tell the committee.
They are given a document. They are not allowed to tell us
exactly what we need to hear. Will the minister confirm to the
House today that his office continues to censor officers with
talking points before they speak to the parliamentary committee
on defence?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the ability of sexual predators to lure children,
including through the Internet, is a concern to Canadian parents
and members of our party.
1430
Will the justice minister commit today to ensuring that specific
and separate legislation is brought forward dealing with the use
of the Internet to protect children against these predators?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is lobbying to
split a bill. Might I suggest that the House leaders' meeting is
held in room 340-S, not in public, and that it is at 3.30 p.m.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the House leader said that this legislation
was not a priority for his government and that he wanted to see
the legislation put over until the fall.
Will the Minister of Justice correct the House leader and tell
him that Canadians care?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell the hon.
member that not only do Canadians care about the protection of
their children but we care.
That is why I would ask the hon. member and the official
opposition to stop their game playing on Bill C-15. It includes
important provisions to protect our children. What do they want
to do? They want to play their silly little games around
firearms, their silly little games. They are supposed to protect
the children of the country.
* * *
[Translation]
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
interpretation and scope of chapter 11 on investments contained
in NAFTA have been considerably broadened by recent court
decisions.
After saying that this chapter had to be reviewed, the Minister
for International Trade said, in a recent article, that there
was no need to change it. The minister's position is confusing,
to say the least.
Could the minister bring us up to date on NAFTA's chapter 11 and
tell us his intentions exactly?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the article the member for Joliette referred to
I did not set out the government's position on chapter 11.
In this article, I showed that the Bloc Quebecois' idea man,
Jacques Parizeau, the former premier, had supported chapter 11,
had boasted that the Government of Quebec, his government, and
the Quebec National Assembly had been the first assembly, the
first parliament, to pass a resolution to support chapter 11 on
implementation.
This is the subject of the article the member for Joliette is
referring to.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Jacques
Parizeau, who supported NAFTA, is intelligent enough to
recognize that some things needed correcting, something the
government opposite is unable to do.
The minister says that Canada has no position on how to treat
investors in the context of the free trade area of the Americas.
What the minister is not telling us is that two meetings were
held on the subject of investments, and two are planned between
now and August.
After holding ten meetings, how can the minister seriously say
that there is no Canadian position on investments?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Parizeau was intelligent enough to listen to
the comments and position of our own government.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I told the House a year ago that our
government wanted to clarify certain interpretations of chapter
11. I undertook a discussion of this with my counterparts in
Mexico and the United States. We even discussed this last
Tuesday in Washington.
I can assure you that our government is being very vigilant and
was well ahead—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey North.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the minister could answer this question. The
Canadian School Boards Association has passed a resolution asking
parliament to amend the youth criminal justice act such that
justice officials would be compelled to notify school authorities
about dangerous young offenders in classrooms.
This amendment would provide for safer learning environments. It
would also enable schools to direct necessary assistance to those
young persons. Will the Minister of Justice take the step to
help school officials provide a safe learning environment in our
schools?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly
fully aware there is a provision in the proposed youth criminal
justice act that permits provincial officials to provide
information to principals and others responsible for schools.
That is done in the name of safety.
In fact I am very pleased to say that my department helped fund
the pilot project with the association of school boards and
others to develop a protocol under which information would be
provided.
1435
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the present Young Offenders Act already provides for
discretionary sharing of information in these cases but that
process has failed. The new bill simply reintroduces past
failures.
The Canadian School Boards Association is supported by its
provincial counterparts. Why will the minister not listen to
reasonable people from across Canada, people who simply wish to
provide every possible support to students and parents who are
asking for help?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated,
there is provision in the youth criminal justice act that permits
provincial officials to provide information to school
authorities.
I find it very interesting that in response to a question at
committee asked by the hon. member for Provencher of provincial
deputy ministers on whether or not they thought such a mandatory
provision would be appropriate I believe they indicated no
because it is provincial authorities who have to provide that
information.
* * *
[Translation]
MARINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, marine transportation is the safest mode of
transportation there is, the one which uses the least fuel and
produces the fewest air pollutants. The government should
therefore help the marine industry to maintain its competitive
position.
Will the Minister of Transport admit that the competitiveness of
Quebec and of Canada is threatened by his decisions with respect
to recovering the costs to the coast guard of ice breaking and
dredging operations and that this is detrimental to the St.
Lawrence River and Great Lakes marine transportation system?
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way
should not doubt Transport Canada's commitment to safety. It is
the number one priority of the government.
Whether or not there are fees is an issue we dealt with some
years ago, but ultimately safety and the protection of our
offshore waters are number one priorities of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the member did not understand the question.
Is it true that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is planning
a substantial increase in the recovery of coast guard fees, thus
penalizing the marine industry working in the St. Lawrence River,
which would have the effect of driving shippers to other ports?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with the
marine sector today to talk about some of these issues. They
have made a case as to marine fees.
As the House knows, the minister of fisheries prior to me had
frozen marine fees for a three year period. They will be
reviewed in October. We will have another look at marine fees
and work with the industry closely, as we have been doing for the
last few years.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the embattled junior minister of multiculturalism
refused an invitation to attend an anti-racism conference in
Prince George, B.C., next month.
To heal the wounds and have her apology accepted, she should
have offered to go to Prince George even before she was invited.
By refusing to go, the minister is arrogantly demonstrating the
insincerity of her apology.
Does the Prime Minister agree that if she is serious in her
apology she must attend the anti-racism conference in Prince
George?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conference on racism in
Prince George is a priority for me. In fact we funded it.
As well, the dates were changed in April. While I was preparing
to go, the dates were changed and they conflicted directly with a
longstanding commitment I had made to speak at another
conference, and so I was unable to go.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, attending the conference should have been the top
priority on her desk.
The minister has no intention of clearing the air. Her refusal
to go to the conference is proof of her lack of remorse for her
slurs. She is shirking her cabinet duty. She should go. She
has to go. Will the Prime Minister order her to attend the
Prince George anti-racism conference or fire her?
1440
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I already said, this
conference is an extremely important one. That is why we funded
the conference.
I was preparing to go, but the dates were changed. I had a
previous commitment to speak at another conference and it was too
late for me to cancel.
* * *
PARA TRANSPO
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour. The people in the
national capital region who rely on Para Transpo service are
completely fed up with the almost three month old strike, which
has tried their patience and caused them immense inconvenience.
Could the minister tell the House what the federal government is
prepared to do to ensure that Para Transpo services are restored?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that the parties have
agreed to resolve their dispute by submitting it to binding
arbitration. I understand Para Transpo's normal service is
expected to resume on Friday, May 18.
I would like to express my thanks to my assistant deputy
minister, Warren Edmondson, and Elizabeth MacPherson. I
congratulate both sides for negotiating in good faith. What is
important is that the people most affected, the disabled, can now
return to their regular activities.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. A University of
Victoria study shows that Canada has one of the worst
environmental records in the industrialized world. In fact it
ranks us 28th out of 29 OECD countries for 25 different
environmental indications. Protecting the environment has been
one of the biggest failures of the minister across the way and
the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not his government
will commit itself to making Thursday's economic statement in
reality an ecological budget and back up that ecological budget
with a multimillion dollar plan to clean up the environment.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government continues to
make environmental issues a major priority. That is why last
year we put $6 billion into infrastructure programs.
Last year's budget included $1.5 billion as a specific
environmental expenditure over the next five years. That
includes $5 million for climate change, $180 million for—
Some hon. members: More, more.
Mrs. Karen Redman: —$100 million for a sustainable
development technology fund, $25 million for a green municipal
enabling fund and $100 million for a green municipal investment
fund. We are committed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I guess that is why we are the second worst out of 29
OECD countries. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will rise
to the occasion.
In the last couple of years over $20 billion of the unforeseen
surplus was automatically applied to the national debt without a
debate in parliament over whether or not spending on the
environment and social programs would have been more worth while.
Will the government follow the lead of Saskatchewan and Alberta
and establish a fiscal stabilization fund which would, first,
receive all the unexpected surplus and, second, allow parliament
a full and democratic debate on how the money should be spent,
like we should be doing in parliament and not allowing it to be
decided by the Minister of Finance?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a budget that is presented in the House. All
the provisions are there and they are voted in the House of
Commons.
As we have done better than expected at the end of the year, the
surplus was larger. It is the right thing to do. When there is
a surplus it is used to reduce debt, which provides cash in the
years to come, because there will be less interest to pay, for
programs like the ones suggested by the member.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister said yesterday that he may introduce a fall
budget if the economy continues to slide.
The minister has finally admitted that the economy is sliding
but believes budget planning can proceed at his own whim. How
far does the economy have to slide before the finance minister
realizes Canada needs a full budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the government and I will never
let the economy slide the way it slid when his party was in
government.
The slide was so terrible that we had $42 billion of deficit in
the last year the Tories were in power. Now we are having
problems with the Alliance because it thinks that a $15 billion
surplus is not enough.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
number of U.S. officials are in Ottawa today. They are holding
secret talks on the missile defence shield, a program that could
cost billions of dollars.
The government said that parliament would merely be consulted.
We will be informed after the fact, we will be treated like kids
in kindergarten.
Parliamentarians should know the facts. They should have the
opportunity to discuss the options in the House before a decision
is made.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that parliamentarians
will debate the missile defence shield issue before any decision
is made?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
[English]
BULK WATER EXPORTS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in response to my question last week
the parliamentary secretary denied the government's intentions on
bulk water sales.
Now the Prime Minister has contradicted that statement with his
admission that bulk water sales were never off the table as far
as the government is concerned. What will be the position of the
Liberal Party next week on bulk water sales?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a bill before parliament now, in committee,
Bill C-6, dealing specifically with the issue of bulk water
removal from boundary waters in Canada.
The position of the federal government is, has been and
continues to be clear. We are opposed to bulk water removal from
the country.
We have jurisdiction over boundary waters. We have acted on
that. The Minister of the Environment is developing a Canada
accord with provincial governments so that they too can take the
legislative action necessary to make it clear to every Canadian
and to the world that we do not support bulk water removal from
this country.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 provides that the minister
can license federally the sale of bulk water exports.
Canadians are concerned about bulk water sales. Why is the
government intent on ignoring our abundant water heritage and
sponsoring legislation that will allow bulk water exports?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to confuse the hon. member, but let me see
if I can explain.
Bill C-6 creates a legal regime that will prevent the removal of
bulk water from the drainage systems in Canada, thereby
prohibiting the exportation of water in bulk, which we view is
not a good that can be subject to exportation. It is not
permitted under Bill C-6.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIJUANA
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Medical Association has now joined the long list of
those who are asking the government to decriminalize the simple
possession of marijuana.
In its journal, the association contends that arresting people
for possession of marijuana has more serious social consequences
than the moderate consumption of the drug itself.
If the minister is sincere about wanting to help the sick, will
she agree that she has no other option than to listen to the
Canadian Medical Association and decriminalize the possession of
marijuana for personal use?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is already
aware, as it relates to medicinal use, my colleague, the Minister
of Health, has facilitated those and their physicians who would
choose to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
We have also made it plain that at this point we have no
intention of decriminalizing the use of or possession of
marijuana. However, as the hon. member is probably aware, the
Senate has commenced an important study of a number of aspects
surrounding issues of drugs. I certainly look forward, as I know
the government does, to the results of that study from the
Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the Minister of Justice agree that Health Canada's project,
which allows sick people to grow their own marijuana plants, is
unrealistic in many respects and that it is imperative to
recognize the legality of other sources of supply, or else
organized crime will be supplying these people?
1450
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again say that the
Minister of Health has made it plain that in fact as it relates
to medicinal use, he has revised the relevant sections and
regulations in and around medicinal use.
I think the government has taken an important step in clarifying
for those who would use marijuana for medicinal purposes the
rules surrounding that. I think we should all support the
Minister of Health in his attempts to ensure this drug is
available for medicinal purposes.
* * *
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, safety of life at sea, protection of the
environment, and safe and expeditious movement of vessel traffic
along Canadian waterways, which includes oil tankers, container
ships, hazardous materials and warships as well as fishing and
recreational vessels, are all monitored by MCTS.
Since 1995 the coast guard has been cut back to the bone.
Current estimates slash another 25% from the MCTS budget.
Cutbacks are putting lives and the environment at risk. Will the
minister commit to restore funding for the protection that
Canadians and mariners in Canadians waters depend upon?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the time to
look at the last budget and the government's commitments. In
fact the coast guard received $115 million in the last budget. It
is a commitment by members on this side of the House.
Guess what. The Alliance members voted against giving more
money to the coast guard. The hon. member should look closely
before he asks questions.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, current estimates of $80 million being cut to $60
million sound like a 25% reduction over two years to me.
I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding
cutbacks in funding and programming for MCTS on the west coast.
This week I received a reply from the minister advising me that
training for these vital coast guard services and personnel
remains a ministry priority.
The fact is that all training for staff in the Pacific region,
including the ab initio entrance program, was suspended in
November 2000. Why has the minister frozen funding for these
vital services?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what I told the hon.
member. In fact we have given more resources to the coast guard
because we allocated $115 million in the last budget to ensure
that we have the equipment and tools to make sure we can carry
out the coast guard service.
By the way, our coast guard men and women do a tremendous job in
providing rescue and services for the marine sector.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
8.45 a.m. on December 6, 1917, at the height of World War I, the
Belgian relief vessel Imo collided with the French
munitions carrier Mont Blanc in Halifax harbour, resulting
in the greatest man made explosion this country has ever
witnessed. Out of a population of less than 50,000 over 1,600
died and 9,000 were injured.
Today, with only nine pensionable survivors still living, could
the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House when the federal
government will make good on its commitment to provide cost of
living increases to these pensioners?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that request has now been
honoured. It was brought to my attention just a short while ago.
I asked Veterans Affairs Canada officials to address it
immediately. They did.
Letters have already gone out with adjusted cheques, or are
about to do so, with the appropriate economic adjustments
therein.
* * *
TOMATO INDUSTRY
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, once again Canadian producers are
facing unwarranted protectionist actions. U.S. authorities have
ruled there is enough evidence to investigate Canadian greenhouse
tomato producers for dumping.
Tomatoes contribute $1 billion a year to the B.C. economy and
80% are exported. They contribute $2 billion a year to the
economy of Ontario. New U.S. tariffs could devastate a
profitable export industry.
Is the government doing anything to protect our greenhouse
industry today, or are the Liberals just waiting for U.S. tariffs
to shut down the industry?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
following this file very closely. Certainly this is an industry
situation.
We will be supporting our industry all the way. In fact I
expect there are many more tomatoes coming north across the
border that are being unfairly subsidized.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it took the government seven months
to react to the U.S. protectionist blockade against P.E.I.
potatoes.
Greenhouse tomato producers across the country cannot afford to
have the government take that long to protect their interests
from American protectionist actions.
1455
The latest frivolous case against tomatoes is just the last in a
long list of cases, including potatoes and softwood lumber. Why
has the government failed to prevent the latest unprovoked
protectionist attack against Canadian tomato producers?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, anti-dumping
proceedings deal with the pricing practices of this private
sector. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding that will be
defended by the industry itself.
Of course we are very disappointed that the U.S. greenhouse
industry has taken this action, but we will be there for our
producers and we are behind our producers.
* * *
[Translation]
HAROUN M'BAREK
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on January 6, Haroun M'Barek was expelled from Canada, despite
the opinion of experts and the many notes of caution expressed to
the minister on the risks he would face if he were deported to
Tunisia.
On March 10, Mr. M'Barek was sentenced to three years in prison,
without parole, and five years' administrative control, following
what many have called a parody of justice.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs have the courage to
intervene with the government of Tunisia to protest against Mr.
M'Barek's sentence and call for his immediate release so he may
receive proper treatment for torture victims?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member knows very well we have already made
representation to the government of Tunisia. Diplomatic
representatives of consular affairs are trying to observe the
legal proceedings involving Mr. M'Barek. We are continuing to
try to consider the effects on this individual, who is not a
Canadian citizen, but who had interests here.
* * *
[English]
THE OLYMPICS
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the International Olympic Committee released its
evaluation commission report on the five cities bidding for the
2008 summer Olympic games.
Would the Minister for Canadian Heritage tell the House how the
Canadian candidate city performed and measured up?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the evaluation commission reported that Toronto has
an excellent bid and it is ready to welcome the world for 2008.
It particularly underlined the strong personal support from the
Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of Ontario and the mayor of
Toronto. It shows that governments can work together.
I am quite confident that when the Prime Minister is there for
the final decision on July 13 in Moscow the IOC will announce
that Toronto, Canada, will host the games in 2008.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, for weeks now I have been trying to
find a question that the wheat board minister could answer. Let
me try this one.
Communist China does not maintain a monopoly on the sales of
wheat and flour in its domestic situation. Canada forces our
organic farmers to sell their wheat to the wheat board, the wheat
board lends the money to the farmer to buy it back, and then the
organic farmer sells it to his customers.
How does the Canadian Wheat Board Act put more money into the
pockets of organic farmers in view of these buyback provisions?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board,
two-thirds of whom are directly elected by farmers, has
responsibility for this matter.
Certain producers have inquired of the Canadian Wheat Board
about these calculations and a detailed calculation is in fact
available. I can provide that to the hon. gentleman if he would
like. The wheat board is absolutely determined to make this
system as effective as it can be.
Again I repeat, it is the board of directors of the Canadian
Wheat Board, two-thirds directly elected by farmers, that has the
responsibility for this matter.
* * *
[Translation]
PYRITE
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we have twice asked the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services whether the government intends to help
victims of pyrite damage. He told us yes, soon, and very soon.
At least we know that the federal government intends to do
something.
Will the minister tell the House whether he intends to join
forces with Quebec's program to provide financial assistance to
the owners of residential buildings damaged by pyrite, and how
much he will be contributing?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make an
announcement very soon.
* * *
1500
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary-Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is already facing legal action from aboriginals
because of the treatment they received in residential schools.
Has the government even evaluated its legal responsibility and
vulnerability with respect to the dangerous quality of drinking
water on federal lands, including reserves?
Will the government agree today to make immediate changes in
order to eliminate the potentially fatal health threat hanging
over reserves and other federal jurisdictions?
[English]
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I, first and foremost, want
to thank my colleague for what I think is one of the most
important questions his party has asked in the House for a number
of months.
The issue of our responsibility to aboriginal people and their
water quality is, first, that since 1995 the government has put
an extra $500 million into reserves for the purposes of sewer and
water quality.
Second, I want to inform the hon. member that the government is
now in the process of putting a national first nations water
management strategy together and we will be announcing that very
soon.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a couple of week ago in the
Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs the chief of
staff with over 40 years of military experience to this country
said that the NMD project would be a political decision, not a
military decision.
With that in mind, would the Prime Minister of our country
please tell the toxic Texan and his band of salesmen, who are
trying to pedal this project off to unsuspecting Canadians, to
politely go home and that we will have no part of national
missile defence in the hemisphere?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, people in the United States are concerned about the
weapons of mass destruction and their spreading throughout the
world. They are coming here to tell us what their objectives are
with respect to missile defence. We certainly want to listen. We
certainly want to understand what their plan is. We want to
understand what the costs are. We want to understand what the
implications are for global security. We are in that
consultation phase.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Pat Duncan, Premier of
the Yukon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there have
been negotiations among various parties in the House on Bill
C-19. I would propose that we adjourn the debate and then
proceed to Bill C-27.
The Speaker: Is it agreed that the debate on Bill C-19 be
adjourned?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of
nuclear fuel waste, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to present Bill
C-27 for second reading. This is an act respecting the long term
management of nuclear fuel waste.
The nuclear energy option has been part of Canada's energy
supply mix for over a quarter of a century. Canada and, in
particular, Ontario have benefited from this production. With
these benefits, however, comes the responsibility of properly
managing the resulting waste.
The waste in question is solid fuel bundles discharged from
reactors built with our own Canadian Candu technology. Existing
waste is currently stored safely at the reactor sites and await a
long term management strategy. The development and control of
the nuclear energy option falls under federal jurisdiction and
the Government of Canada has a duty to assume its
responsibilities in this area, which includes the very critical
matter of oversight functions.
The proposed legislation in Bill C-27 is a major step forward in
dealing with the management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada over
the long term. The bill is the culmination of many years of
research, environmental assessment and extensive consultations
with stakeholders, including waste owners, the provinces, the
public and aboriginal organizations.
Canadians want a solution to this issue and are looking to the
Government of Canada to establish a clear, fair and comprehensive
strategy to make effective progress. Bill C-27 provides a legal
framework for such a strategy and sets the course for years to
come.
This federal initiative builds on the government response to the
nuclear fuel waste and disposal environmental assessment panel.
The panel, also known, for short, as the Seaborn panel, carried
out a comprehensive, decade long review while consulting with
Canadians from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. I commend the
panel on its efforts to come to grips with this very important
issue.
In March 1998, the panel submitted its recommendations to the
Government of Canada. In December 1998, the Government of Canada
provided its response. In the response, the government agreed
with the large majority of the panel's recommendations. In
particular, the government agreed that federal oversight was
needed to proceed with the long term management of nuclear fuel
waste, and we stated three policy objectives for that oversight:
first, that it must ensure that a segregated fund be established
by waste owners; second, that it must ensure a reporting
relationship between the Government of Canada and a waste
management organization to be set up by the waste owners
themselves; and third, that it must ensure a federal review and
approval mechanism, including the issue of access to the fund.
In 1996 the Government of Canada announced a policy framework
for radioactive waste which highlighted that:
The federal government will ensure that radioactive waste
disposal is carried out in a safe, environmentally sound,
comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner.
1510
The Government of Canada has already provided oversight to
ensure that the safety and environment of Canadians are not
unduly affected by the nuclear energy option. This has mainly
been carried out pursuant to the 1945 Atomic Energy Control Act
which was replaced in 2000 by the new Nuclear Safety and Control
Act. The proposed nuclear fuel waste act is now needed to
complete the fulfilment of government responsibilities by
ensuring that long term waste management activities are carried
out in a comprehensive, cost effective and integrated manner.
Bill C-27 ensures: that all nuclear fuel waste to be managed in
Canada is addressed under a consistent and unified approach; that
all nuclear fuel waste owners fall within the same legal
framework; that waste owners will start setting aside funds to
fulfill all their financial responsibilities over the long term;
and that waste owners will work together in complying with all
relevant Government of Canada policies considering technical,
socioeconomic and ethical aspects.
The proposed nuclear fuel waste act and the existing Nuclear
Safety and Control Act would be complementary. Together they set
the foundation for fulfilling federal jurisdictional oversight
responsibilities for the long term management of nuclear fuel
waste.
What are the main requirements of Bill C-27? First, the bill
requires the establishment of a waste management organization by
the main waste owners in Canada, which includes primarily the
operating nuclear utilities. The organization would be
responsible for carrying out government approved waste management
operations. This is consistent with the regulatory philosophy
adopted in Canada which places the primary responsibility for
safety within the nuclear industry.
The safety record of our Canadian nuclear utilities is
unparalleled. It is recognized internationally. These utilities
understand the need for excellent performance and they understand
the need and desirability of public participation in the decision
making process. They must, in short, earn the public's trust.
The proposed legislation would ensure activities of the waste
owners and of the waste management organization are subject to
public scrutiny and reviewed annually by the government.
Second, the bill requires the waste management organization to
submit to the federal government options for the long term
management of nuclear fuel waste. It is important to understand,
and I underline this point very clearly, that no decision has yet
been made on which management method will ultimately be adopted.
The Government of Canada agreed with the Seaborn panel that more
work needed to be done in this area before any decisions could be
made. Bill C-27 provides a legal framework to carry out that
work. The bill requires that the waste management organization
examine three options: deep geological disposal, onsite storage
or central long term storage. In addition, the waste management
organization can propose any other option as well. The bill
makes clear that the government will make the final decision on
an approach to be adopted for Canada.
Third, the bill requires the main waste owners to put aside real
money in a segregated trust fund managed by a third party.
Canadians want to be assured that when the time comes, money will
be available to fund all long term waste management activities
and the Canadian taxpayers will not be called upon to shoulder
that financial burden. This is entirely consistent with the
polluter pay principle. Therefore, upon entry into force of this
legislation, it is expected that deposits as prescribed in the
proposed nuclear fuel waste act would start the accumulation of
the money that is needed in the trust fund.
The challenge for the government in developing this legislation
was to be fair to all of the stakeholders and to strike an
effective balance in the public interest. I firmly believe that
the proposed legislation fully meets that challenge and it is
supported by initial reactions that have been received on Bill
C-27.
1515
The main owners of nuclear fuel waste have conveyed to me that
they welcome the increased regulatory certainty provided by the
legislation, that it provides them with a clear framework to
fulfil their public responsibilities and that it does not create
an unmanageable financial burden. Small waste owners will note
that the new waste management organization would be required to
provide them, that is, the small owners, with long term
management services at reasonable cost.
In developing this legislation the Government of Canada of
course consulted with the affected provinces, that is, Ontario,
Quebec and New Brunswick. We addressed many of their concerns
and showed as much flexibility as possible without compromising
that fundamental point about federal oversight. The provinces
recognize that the development and control of nuclear energy is
indeed within federal jurisdiction and they are supportive of the
direction that we are taking in this legislation.
Government oversight in the legislative scheme provides for
mandatory transparency. This was recommended by the Seaborn
panel and agreed to by the Government of Canada for increasing
public confidence. For example, all waste management
organization reports submitted to the Minister of Natural
Resources are to be made public. The waste management
organization must carry out public consultations at every stage
of its process. An advisory council must be established by the
waste management organization, whose comments on the
organization's activities would also be made public. In
addition, over the life of the project the government would
exercise additional oversight as required through the Nuclear
Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act.
Care was taken in putting all of this together to avoid overlap
and duplication while ensuring that all requirements are fully
met. Therefore, as recommended by the Seaborn panel, there are
multiple government oversight mechanisms at play here which would
ensure that the process proceeds effectively and democratically.
Aboriginal people have shown considerable interest in this
important initiative. I have sought their active participation
in decision making on the long term management of nuclear fuel
waste. They participated extensively in the Seaborn hearings. I
have met with a number of aboriginal leaders to discuss how they
wish to be further consulted on next steps. This active
involvement of aboriginal people has been recognized and ensured
in Bill C-27.
In addition the government will continue to carry out related
activities pursuant to its fiduciary responsibility toward
aboriginal people and recognizes the valuable perspectives and
insights of aboriginal peoples which can usefully inform and
influence all future steps.
I would make the point that in any of the dialogue that I have
had with aboriginal leaders, whether verbally or in writing,
whenever we have discussed this matter we have not discussed the
issue of where any particular future disposal sight might
hypothetically be located. That has not been the topic on the
agenda. What we have talked about is how they wish to be
consulted in the process, how they wish to have influence on and
input into the process. It has not been any form of negotiation.
It has been a respectful solicitation of their advice and their
insights, because they do have a great deal to offer in this
decision making process.
What of the administration of the nuclear fuel waste act? Under
the proposed legislation the main decisions would be made by the
governor in council. The designated minister for the
administration of the legislation would be the Minister of
Natural Resources. As such, the Department of Natural Resources
would be charged with carrying out ministerial responsibilities
under the act.
The department would provide the focal point for
interdepartmental, technical, financial, social and ethical
reviews and for any independent reviews that might be necessary.
The department would provide the government's direct and regular
liaison with the waste management organization, the public, the
provinces, aboriginal peoples and other interested parties.
The department would ensure that the nuclear fuel waste act is
complied with and thus would manage all auditing, verification,
inspection and enforcement measures.
1520
Bill C-27 was not established in a contextual vacuum. The
evolution of policy was guided by consultations with stakeholders
and by experienced gained in other countries, together with the
invaluable work that was done by the Seaborn panel. The bill
adopts a phased, step-wise approach allowing for all planned and
executed waste management activities to be reviewed and for the
public to participate effectively at every step along the way.
The process would take many years to complete and would possibly
affect future generations. The legislation focuses on this
generation's responsibilities but is flexible in allowing
decision making by future generations if that turns out to be the
case.
Canada can now move ahead effectively toward an appropriate
solution for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste which
takes into consideration not only technical safety matters but
incorporates, in a very integral way, the social and ethical
values of Canadians. I commend the legislation to the House.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, following consultations among all parties, I believe
you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an
act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following consultations among all
parties, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adjourn
the debate on Bill C-27 now.
The Speaker: Is it the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, again, following consultations
among all parties, I believe you will find unanimous consent to
proceed to the consideration of private members' business now.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to call it
5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m. according to the fiction
we have adopted, the House will now proceed to the consideration
of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
PRIVATE DISABILITY INSURERS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That, pursuant to Standing
Order 68(4)(b), a legislative committee be appointed to
prepare and bring in a bill that would create the position
of ombudsman to oversee private disability insurers in
Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting topic because
of the amount of time that it ends up taking up not only in my
office but, I am sure, in your office and the offices of all of
the other members of parliament.
Most MPs who come to Ottawa try to raise issues of importance to
their constituents, which is what I am doing. However, as I say,
the beauty of this one is that I think it is an issue of
importance to all Canadians and all members of parliament trying
to represent them at the national level. Today I want to raise
the issue in the House with this motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b), a legislative
committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill that would
create the position of ombudsman to oversee private disability
insurers in Canada.
1525
There is a terrible injustice being inflicted upon some Canadian
citizens by private insurance companies that are refusing to
honour their policies and pay benefits to people who suffer with
long term disabilities.
Some of these cases involve Canadians who have put their own
lives at risk in careers with the armed forces, the RCMP and the
peacekeepers. Others are what we would call ordinary Canadians
who have worked hard at their jobs as nurses, teachers and
loggers to provide for themselves and their families.
In a nutshell, the problem is that Canadians in the workplace
who find themselves with severe illnesses or disabilities which
prevent them from performing their duties of employment and who
then turn to their insurance companies, under which they believe
they have insurance to assist them in such unfortunate
circumstances, suddenly find the support is not there. Thus, the
stress and anxiety they are under from their illnesses or
accidents, along with the reality that they can no longer work to
provide for themselves and their families, is multiplied by the
process of and treatment by their insurance company.
Of course one must preface this by saying that it is not true of
all claimants and not true of all insurance companies, but surely
all members who are listening would agree with me that two, three
and four times a week in every one of our constituency offices it
happens that people are having difficulty with their disability
insurance.
This is what my constituents have told me about processing their
claims. First they are informed that their only option is to go
on short term disability, from 26 to 52 weeks, only after they
can prove with medical evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that
they are severely disabled and unable to perform their duties at
their present employment. At the end of the short term
disability period, their insurance benefits are cut off and they
are again required to go through the process to prove that they
are still disabled. At that point they may be allowed to go on
long term disability or be granted another short term period, but
even if they are granted long term disability they will be
subject to a review, usually every year. That means their
benefits will again be cut off and they are required to go
through the whole process over and over again with the same
insurance company.
Within the past month I was made aware of two cases of
constituents of mine who have received foreclosure notices on
their homes from their banks due to cancellation of disability
insurance benefits. These were on applications that had been
completed at the bank, the lending institution, on behalf of the
insurance company. They have led to disqualification of
benefits, resulting in the foreclosure action by the bank.
Neither the insurance company nor the bank in these cases would
take responsibility for the intent of the insurance. In other
words, in these cases the bank had the customer sign documents
insuring the mortgage but later the insurance company claimed it
was the wrong document or application and refused to accept it
and process the benefit.
The bank's response in these cases has been to discipline the
employees to satisfy the insurance company. However, the banks
have failed their customers, who in these cases have paid the
premiums attached to the mortgage for years and believed the
coverage was in place should they require it.
The intent of the insurance company and the bank to provide this
coverage needs to be addressed. Do they intentionally provide
wrong applications to their customers? I think not, but do the
insurance companies not provide proper training to the bank
employees? Perhaps. Do the insurance companies not review these
applications and advise the banks that they have not processed
the correct application and that their clients may not be
entitled to benefits as a result? With the banks and insurance
companies happily accepting their clients' insurance premiums
each month, does it not obligate them to pay out benefits?
Surely if the funds are flowing through to the insurance company
there is an expectation, an intent. If the paperwork is
incorrect that is where an ombudsman would come in, because the
banks and insurance companies end up working on and detailing
only the words that are on a piece of paper.
Apparently the fact that people are paying their premiums does
not really make that much difference. The question is: What can
we do about it?
What recourse do average Canadians have against banks and
insurance companies when they find themselves faced with the
circumstances that I have just described? Their insurance
benefits denied, their only option is to accept it or hire a
lawyer and fight for their rights. Talk about David and Goliath.
1530
Of interest to all Canadians at this point is, if the claim is
approved at this point, the insurance companies require the
employee or victim to apply for early Canada pension benefits
thus reducing the insurance companies benefit payable. In other
words, the insurance company is downloading onto the reserves
Canadians have paid into for their retirement pensions. Also of
interest is that at one time all pension benefits received from
an insurance company were in addition to any other pensions
received such as the CPP and WCB.
The insurance companies will review each stage and suggest other
employment opportunities that can be pursued so they can lower
their benefit. Quoting from an insurance group's policy, it
states:
“Totally disabled” shall mean, for the first 30 months of a
total disability, an employee is wholly and continuously disabled
by illness or accidental bodily injury which prevents him from
performing the essential duties of his normal occupation. After
the first 30 months of total disability, “totally disabled”
shall mean he is unable to perform the essential duties of any
occupation for which he is reasonably fitted by education,
training or experience.”
Note that when the insured obtained the insurance it was insured
at his present job.
The tactics of periodically discontinuing benefits or taking
away our financial support mechanism and requiring one to
continually prove he or she is incapable of working is in itself
questionable. We are aware of cases where the insurance company
has hired private investigators or sent their investigators out
to spy on and record all activities of their clients for extended
periods.
I would like to quote from letters from my constituents who,
according to their doctors and medical specialists, were disabled
but were unable to convince the bureaucrats working for the Canada
Pension Act. The insurance providers look for any unfavourable
decision from CPP so they can suspend or deny benefits. The
letter states:
I had been on Long Term Disability—for over two years, at which
point (the company) informed me that I had to apply for Canada
Disability. This upset me at the time as I didn't consider my
disability to be permanent. I am doing everything in my power to
get better. It was explained to me that this is a necessary step
in my health care management, and that I would qualify for
benefits until such time as I was well. I was told (the company)
would “top up” the benefits from CPP to my present level, if in
effect, I qualified for disability pensions.
The next letter said:
Both companies denied my benefits, and I had to go through the
appeal process. CPP has since denied my appeal, and I am
awaiting (the company's) decision. I highly suspect (the
company) is waiting to hear CPP's decision so that it can be used
against me.
What we are looking at here is the fact that there is a
patchwork quilt with which our constituents are faced. Much of
the law that covers this particular activity in our society is
federal law yet its administration is at the provincial level.
Yet when we go to the provincial level, there is no ombudsman
function on the part of any of the provincial governments. This
unfortunately ends up falling between the cracks of federal and
provincial jurisdiction. We recognize that getting an ombudsman
is not the full answer because in effect we can still end up with
fighting and delays and things getting in the way of the
ombudsman to go ahead and work on behalf of the people.
The bottom line to the exercise is this, if people find
themselves disabled and at that particular point no longer able
to be gainfully employed, they now has a number of concerns.
1535
The first concern is obviously their physical or mental
incapacity to be able to perform at an ordinary level. That is a
concern that would relate to everyone around them, particularly
within their family unit.
Second, they will not have any income. Therefore, all their
assets will be threatened and their ability to provide for
themselves and their families will be threatened. It is a highly
stressful situation because the two things work together in a
symbiotic relationship to make both of those issues work. Then,
if they are denied the benefits that they were fully anticipating
by paying into a benefits program, there is a third compounding
effect to their very difficult situation.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, as I said to the previous gentleman in
that chair, that even in your office and in all our offices we
deal with these things on a weekly basis.
The point of my motion is to tell the federal government that we
have a problem and that there is no solution to the problem. The
people who no longer have a job or the resources, and in many
cases do not have the emotions to be able to handle the
situation, require some help. To ask them to put down a $1,000,
$5,000 or $10,000 retainer for a lawyer to represent them is
absolutely facetious. It simply cannot happen.
Therefore, with the motion I am simply asking the government
take a look at this gaping hole between the federal jurisdiction
of legislation, the provincial enactment that relates to the
legislation and find some way to help our constituents.
This is an opportunity for all of us in the House, on a totally
non-partisan basis, to bring a balance to the people of Canada
which balance the rights of the individual against the rights of
these very large corporations that are all, I am sure, obeying
the law but nonetheless represent a very formidable force in the
face of ordinary citizens. I say that collectively, on a
non-partisan basis, we should be working together to represent
individual Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, Transportation; the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lumber Industry.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate
the member for Kootenay—Columbia for bringing forward the
motion.
Like many members on both sides of the House, I too am sometimes
visited by people who have had some difficulties with disability
plans, whether they be private or the Canada pension plan
disability program.
I understand his sense of frustration, but I would submit that
the motion is flawed for two reasons. One has to do with
jurisdiction, and he touched on that point, and the other has to
do with the fact that it would run counter to a number of
initiatives under way right now at the federal-provincial level.
I would like to discuss that.
The motion would create the position of an ombudsman to oversee
private disability insurers in Canada.
[Translation]
I agree that it is important for consumers of financial services
providers to have access to an impartial and fair complaints
resolution mechanism that handles complaints about their dealings
with financial institutions in a fair and impartial manner.
[English]
However, as I say, for two reasons I am not able to support this
motion and I will explain why in more detail.
The first reason is it has to do with jurisdictional
considerations. The second concerns conflicts with initiatives
already under way at the federal and provincial levels to enhance
and harmonize existing complaint handling mechanisms. In other
words, the motion could lead to duplication and overlap.
[Translation]
In general, the property and civil rights power in the
Constitution gives provinces the jurisdiction to regulate the day
to day business activity of federally and provincially
incorporated non-bank financial institutions, including life and
health insurers.
1540
[English]
Accordingly, the federal government cannot designate a
particular dispute resolution system for non-banks. Provinces
have the power to require insurers to be members of particular
dispute resolution mechanisms and specify the design of such
schemes.
Ontario, for example, has established an insurance ombudsman
office to deal with complaints from Ontario policyholders,
including Ontario disability claimants. All insurers in Ontario
are subject to this regime.
In other provinces, provincial regulators respond to consumer
complaints about insurance providers either directly or by
referring consumers to an appropriate industry redress mechanism.
[Translation]
Further, as hon. members know, the marketplace in which
financial services operate today is characterized by convergence,
competition and increasingly complex products delivered through
multiple channels.
[English]
Given this environment, provincial regulators recognize that
financial services providers should be able to assure their
customers that complaints and disputes will be handled promptly
fairly and impartially through a mechanism that provides a
uniform level of easily accessible service.
In this context, a task force on consumer dispute resolution has
recently been established by the joint forum of provincial
financial market regulators. The task force is comprised of
representatives from several stakeholder groups, including the
financial services industry and consumer groups, as well as
officials from the federal Department of Finance. The task force
on consumer dispute resolution is investigating the possibility
of a single ombudsman system for Canada.
[Translation]
The federal government recognizes that there are potential
advantages for consumers in having a single point of contact for
dispute resolution for all financial services complaints. As a
result, we are committed to working with the joint forum and
other task force members towards this end.
[English]
I would also point out that the federal government is working
with the industry to establish a new Canadian financial services
ombudsman, often referred to as CFSO, as mandated by Bill C-8,
which is currently under review in the other place.
As the task force I referred to earlier is still in its early
stages and its ultimate outcomes are unknown, we believe that it
is essential to press ahead with the CFSO to ensure that
consumers will have the benefit of a fair and impartial
complaints resolution mechanism at the earliest possible date.
Two points about the Canadian financial services ombudsman are
particularly relevant to today's motion.
First, the CFSO would operate independently from government and
the financial services industry, with a board of directors that
would have a majority of non-financial institution
representatives. It would replace the existing Canadian banking
ombudsman.
Second, the new ombudsman would reflect the preferences of
consumer and small business groups for a cross-sectoral ombudsman
office.
To facilitate the creation of a single ombudsman for customers
of all financial institutions, the Canadian financial services
ombudsman would be capable of accepting all financial
institutions as members.
[Translation]
Banks will be required to join. Other federally incorporated
financial institutions will be required to be subject to a third
party dispute resolution system and, along with provincially
incorporated institutions, will be eligible to join the CFSO if
they wish to do so.
[English]
The Canadian financial services ombudsman would have the power
to recommend awards to aggrieved customers and while its rulings
would not be binding, it would also have the authority to
publicize the names of institutions that did not comply with its
recommendations.
1545
Further, the Canadian financial services ombudsman would provide
the Minister of Finance an annual report on the number of
complaints received and the results achieved in addressing
consumer and small business complaints.
The government hopes to have the Canadian financial services
ombudsman in place as soon as possible after Bill C-8 comes into
force. In addition, the government would explore ways for the
Canadian financial services ombudsman to interact with
initiatives that may ultimately be launched from the provincial
dispute resolution initiative I discussed earlier.
The hon. member has put forth a worthy proposal. However in
light of the other initiatives and jurisdictional conflicts I
have outlined, the need for an ombudsman to oversee private
disability insurers has been overtaken by other measures.
For these reasons I am unable to support the motion put forward
by the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to speak today to the motion that reads:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b), a legislative
committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill that would
create the position of ombudsman to oversee private disability
insurers in Canada.
I support any initiatives which help Canadians with
disabilities, including this one. I hope members of the House do
not see the creation of an ombudsperson to deal with the
difficult and sometimes discriminatory practices of private
insurers as the complete solution to the problems our friends,
families, neighbours and community members with disabilities face
every day.
The mandate must be broader. An ombudsman must not only be a
mediator who helps people fill out forms. He or she must act on
behalf of people denied benefits by insurance companies. An
ombudsman should also investigate employers who try to keep down
their benefit costs by getting rid of disabled employees.
There is reason to believe that insurance companies encourage
this practice. The most shocking example is the way the Canadian
government, through the Treasury Board and its insurer, Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada, has dealt with long term disability
cases. The most common complaint brought to my attention
concerns the difficulties disabled government employees face when
they try to access short term or long term disability insurance
through work benefit plans.
I will summarize how the system for the hundreds of thousands of
federal government employees is supposed to work. Employees who
develop a disability which prevents them from working must first
use up their sick days. They stay on the government payroll at
full pay for this.
However many employees who develop an illness have few remaining
sick days by the time they apply for disability leave. They then
go off the government payroll on leave without pay and the
insurer takes over. Sick employees must then apply and be
accepted for EI sick benefits for up to 15 weeks at 55% of their
pay. With a maximum income gap in force the tax system could
reduce their income below the 55% level if they were well paid.
They then apply to their insurer, Sun Life or National Life, for
the disability benefit which is 70% of their salary. For the
first two years of disability benefit, which is called short
term, employees must show medical proof that they are unable to
perform all their job duties.
After two years they are classified as long term and receive 66%
of their salary as income. They must then prove to the insurer
that they are unable to do any work at all. That is how the
system is supposed to work.
I am not at all enamoured by this model.
It puts responsibility on the sick to prove their inability to
work. It calls for complex forms to be filled out by doctors, a
process often not covered by medicare. It causes the largest
drop in income to take place at the same time the disability
takes place, which is usually when the costs of having a
disability are greatest.
1550
It is a bad system by design, but the biggest problem is that it
does not work as it is supposed to. I will refer to information
I received, and which I believe other members of the House
received, in May 2000 from government employees represented by
the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
They sent my party a brief entitled “Victimising Disabled
Employees in a deal to Save Insurance Companies Money!”. I have
the document here if anyone is interested in seeing it. They
document the following problems with the current system, which
they say are caused by treasury board policies, to minimize
insurance claims to employees with disabilities. Some of the
problems are simple. There is not enough space on the disability
insurance application forms for medical evidence. It is a simple
problem but it causes high numbers of rejections due to
insufficient medical information.
Applicants then wait a very long time before receiving benefits,
in some cases up to two years. This is a hideous circumstance if
we think about it. If one is sick or disabled or facing the
trauma of being disabled, the bills are not dropping. They are
probably increasing and yet one is forced off the payroll to wait
up to two years for a claim to be accepted or rejected.
If applicants finally get approved for short term disability
after two years, they are forced into the catch-22 of the long
term disability policies of the company and the government before
they see a nickel from the insurer.
The catch-22 works as follows. After 24 months the company
forces the employee to show that no other work can be done which
would pay up to two-thirds of the former employer's salary.
Because the burden of proof is on the sick person the benefit is
generally cut off after 24 months. The person must go to court
to appeal. The company has a policy to not deal with anyone who
starts legal action against it.
That is only part of the problem facing the sick person. The
government has taken an even more odious approach. It terminates
the person's employment after two years, even though the person
is on leave without pay, so that it and the insurance company no
longer need to pay benefits.
According to the brief I have referred to, after 24 months of
medical leave without pay letters are sent to sick employees
giving them four options: first, return to work; second, take
medical retirement, which means no union representation or status
as an employee and being at the mercy of the insurance company,
which may cut off benefits and force employees to take it to
court; third, quit with no benefits at all; and fourth, be fired
for cause.
The government is supposed to be a model for society in
accommodating persons with disabilities. It instead puts
pressure on the sick to get out or be fired so that it and its
insurer can save a buck. On top of this, according to the union,
the names of employees on medical leave for 24 months are given
to the insurance companies. It is hard to see any reason for
that unless the companies review the files in order to cut people
off.
It makes me wonder why we call it insurance. Insurance against
what? Is it insurance against being picked on by an employer,
the government, because one has a disability? Is it insurance
for those who might be discriminated against by the people who
have a duty to protect them?
We need solid insurance against such behaviour by the
government. This is another example of how the government has
good public relations regarding persons with disabilities but
fails when it comes to action. Now is the time to stop.
The federal government should be a model for accommodating
persons with disabilities. The federal government should make
the accommodation of employees with disabilities a condition in
awarding contracts. The federal government should work toward
real income support so that poverty is no longer the biggest
problem facing Canadians with disabilities.
1555
I commend the member from B.C. for bringing forward this
important idea for a disability ombudsman. It is one measure in
regard to tackling an enormous systemic problem that starts right
here at the federal government level with the treasury board.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to private member's Motion M-244. Since we
will be finishing early and since everybody here, including me,
feels very energetic, I will try to make my presentation in
Canada's other official language, English.
[English]
The intent of this bill is to create an ombudsman to oversee
private disability insurers in Canada. While the intent is to
protect those who use this type of insurance, I do not think this
is necessarily the correct way to go about it.
It should be noted that some provinces have set up their own
ombudsmen to deal with these issues. Ontario, for example, has
an insurance ombudsman. That ombudsman's role is to offer
consumers an informal, last stop forum for resolving complaints
about the business practices of insurance companies in Ontario.
I bring this up while debating the member's motion because I
think it is important that before we create yet another
government agency we are satisfied it will not play a duplicate
role in regard to what is already occurring in the industry and
also, I might add, in the provinces.
Instead of imposing government on everyone and everything, we
should allow the private sector to take the lead on these issues
and have parliamentarians here to ensure that the sector acts in
a way that is ethical, lawful and in the best interests of
consumers.
I again want to focus specifically on the member's motion. As I
said before, the intent comes from a desire to ensure that
consumers are protected, and it is a great intent. The problem
is that the current industry is full of provincial and federal
overlap and private and public overlap and the last thing we need
to do is add to that congestion and overlap.
The bill deals with a very specific type of insurance and calls
for an ombudsman with a very limited role in this large industry.
If we were to create this agency which is very narrow in scope,
the logical next step would be to create a similar ombudsman for
each specific type of insurance. Would we create one
specifically for car insurance, one for homeowners' insurance and
so on? I think my point is made.
It should be noted that as we speak provincial and federal
officials are engaged in discussions over the creation of a
national organization to deal with consumer complaints. This
ombudsman's office would be different from a federal office in
that it would be created by the provinces and so would deal with
the jurisdictional issues that often arise when a federal agency
is imposed on the provinces. This ombudsman would be one of
national scope, but would not be limited by the constitutional
restrictions that arise when the agency is a federal initiative.
This may surprise members, but it is another example of how we in
Ottawa do not always need to impose on the private sector or, in
this case, the provinces.
The financial services sector is evolving and changing rapidly.
In response to that, the private sector has adapted and will
continue to do so. The private sector has the skills, knowledge
and desire to keep its consumers happy and recognizes the benefit
of doing so.
The provinces are also taking a step in conjunction with the
federal government to address consumer protection in this
industry. As a federal government we should allow this to occur,
not muddy the waters any more and only interject when and as
needed.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I noted with interest the comments of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I
understand that there are efforts currently under way to address
this issue.
1600
The difficulty I am having on behalf of my constituents is that
it is grinding. People are losing their homes. I am sure my
constituency is no different than that of any other member.
People in our constituencies are losing their homes after
entering into contracts in good faith at a financial institution.
In many instances, they enter into large borrowing contracts on
their residence. A mortgage is likely the largest contract in
which they will ever be involved in their lifetime. They sign
the documents at an institution that, by the way, also happens to
have a majority share or sole ownership of the insurance company
with which they are also contracting.
Then, upon a cataclysmic event in their lifetime, they no longer
are able to make mortgage payments because they are truly
disabled. We then have one of the twins turning around and
saying that they did not sign the right paper. My office does
not have the ability to help these people. It is from this sense
of frustration that I have brought the motion forward.
The parliamentary secretary knows that I have a great deal of
respect for him as an individual. This is not at all a partisan
issue. I do recognize that there is duplication and overlap, and
that Ontario has an ombudsman. I do recognize that there are
financial services provided for the people in my province of
British Columbia. However, when we talk about the marketplace,
about convergence and about task forces, we are not talking about
the people who are currently being removed from their homes
through no fault of their own. I find that frustrating beyond
belief. It is a human tragedy that is happening far too often in
our country.
I am having a lot of difficulty with the comment made by my
respected friend from the Progressive Conservative Party who said
that the private sector would take care of it. Perhaps the
parliamentary secretary might find it a tad amusing, not
laughable but amusing, that a member of a party who believes so
strongly that the government should get out of the faces of
Canadians would be a minimalist and would be advocating the role
of an ombudsman. Well I am and I am doing it without any shame
because there are people in Canada who are presently not being
treated fairly or equitably. It is from that sense of
frustration that I have brought the motion before the House.
I respect the fact that the committee which selects these
private members' motions and bills has determined that this will
not be a votable bill. I will not go through the charade of
asking for unanimous consent to make it votable but I do hope the
government will see the sense of urgency that I have attempted to
bring to the debate. It is my hope that the government will
indeed put some fire and energy behind the task force.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the
order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise today as a result of a question that I
asked the transport minister a number of weeks ago with respect
to the Trans-Canada Highway.
I am concerned primarily about the stretch of road that goes
through my constituency from Revelstoke to Field. For the most
part the highway is not a divided highway.
1605
Recognizing that this is a national issue, I have an immediate
local perspective. Of the 15 million vehicle movements on the
Trans-Canada Highway in the area of which I am speaking of, there
were 150 fatalities. By comparison, on the Coquihalla Highway,
which was constructed in 1986, 25 million vehicle movements had
unfortunately 66 fatalities. One fatality is too many, but the
point is that 15 million movements have 150 fatalities for a two
lane road while 25 million movements have only 66 fatalities for
a divided highway.
The federal government has a responsibility here because it
enacted a policy over a period of time that had a direct impact
on the number of vehicles on the road. When the highway was
first built in the sixties there were only 1,500 vehicle
movements a day. Today, on an average day, there are up to
10,000 vehicle movements per day.
Under this government, much of the freight that used to be on
rails is now on trucks. As a consequence, the number of
18-wheelers using that road has multiplied tenfold. This has
equaled a ramp up in revenue to the government. The government
presently takes $700 million a year from the province of British
Columbia in federal excise tax.
The government tells us that it does not believe in designated
spending but it seems to me that the finance minister believes in
designated collection. When he increased the federal excise tax
by 1.5 cents he said that he needed to collect more money to help
do away with the deficit. There is a little bit of a dichotomy
here where he says on one hand that he does not believe in
designated spending but that he does believe in designated
collection. I wonder about the sincerity of that statement
because now that the deficit has gone why has the extra 1.5 cents
per litre not gone?
Indeed, the excise tax is simply a cash cow that is collected
from the trucking companies, automobile companies and,
ironically, also from the rail companies for the freight going
back and forth through the province of British Columbia.
I would like to do a reality check on what we are looking at in
my constituency. In the Kicking Horse Canyon, which is just east
of the town of Golden, it would cost $5 million to straighten out
a 200 metre stretch of road. One million rock bolts would need
to be put into Heather Hill, which is west of Golden, because
there is an unstable mountain. There is already an ongoing slide
occurring on that mountain. In spite of the fact that the slides
have already started to come down this year, there is still no
medium or long term plan.
There is a federal responsibility here that was recognized back
in the 1960s when the Trans-Canada Highway was initially
constructed. The average cost of constructing the highway across
Canada in 1960 was $100,000. The cost was $1 million through
British Columbia, ten times as much money. As a consequence, the
funding arrangements were taken into account at that time.
The people of Revelstoke, the people of my constituency and the
people of Canada are demanding that the federal government come
to talk about this issue with a big fat wallet.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate
in the late show. I appreciate the comments made by the member
for Kootenay—Columbia. While his B.C. riding is a long way from
my own northern Ontario riding, it is not unlike mine in a lot of
respects.
I probably have the longest stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway
of any riding in the country, which would be about eight or nine
hours driving at 100 kilometres an hour, so I appreciate the
importance of the Trans-Canada Highway. Some of the rocky
terrain north of the Soo up toward Wawa would be reminiscent of
some of the smaller hills in his riding.
1610
I remind the member that highways are the responsibility of
provincial and territorial governments. Nevertheless the federal
government is concerned with the condition of Canada's highways.
That is why Transport Canada has provided funding for provincial
highways over the years through a series of cost shared
contribution agreements. For example, the strategic highway
improvement program, in effect from 1993-94 to 1999-2000,
provided $30 million for highway projects in British Columbia
alone.
At this point I would like to clarify the funding allocated for
highway infrastructure. Of the $2.65 billion announced in budget
2000, over $2 billion was earmarked for municipal infrastructure
and $600 million for strategic highway infrastructure. Agreements
for the municipal component called Infrastructure Canada have
been signed with all the provinces and funds would be available
over a six year period starting from last year.
Although the primary focus of Infrastructure Canada is on
so-called green infrastructure, funds would also be available for
local transportation needs. Funding for the highway component
would be available beginning in fiscal year 2001-02.
Transport Canada initiated negotiations last month with its
provincial and territorial counterparts to identify those
segments of the national highway system where a need for highway
infrastructure improvement is the greatest. Given their
jurisdiction over highways it is within the purview of the
provinces and territories to propose highway projects for
funding. I hope the member would encourage the government in
B.C. to priorize the stretch of highway through his riding.
The minister is well aware that B.C. has made a priority
improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway and I am sure he would
make that case with the province. Every attempt will be made to
expedite the establishment of a list of eligible projects and the
signing of the federal-provincial cost sharing agreement. The
first negotiation session on the establishment of a list was on
May 3, 2001.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 4.12 p.m.)