House of Commons Hansard #86 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreement.

Topics

ForestryOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that a major international public relations campaign was needed to convince foreign buyers that British Columbia's forestry practices were consistent with the imperatives of sustainable development.

Yet, when they testified before the natural resources committee, Canada's ambassadors to the European Union as well as to the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the companies involved were not doing what they could to defend their own interests on the international market.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does she agree with the views expressed by these two ambassadors and does she believe that the forestry companies in question could be doing more to defend their own interests?

ForestryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Edmonton Northwest Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Let me say that my department is working very closely with provincial departments of natural resources and forestry and with industry to ensure that we clearly get our message of commitment to sustainable development out in Europe and wherever else we have markets for our forestry products.

DiscriminationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister for Canadian Heritage opposes discrimination on the basis of race. We in the Reform party agree with him. We oppose discrimination of any kind.

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women supports special interest groups that discriminate if she thinks that they are in the interest of society. It is clear the government will only fight discrimination when it favours its policy.

Will the Prime Minister explain exactly what criteria the government uses when it decides to discriminate or not to discriminate?

DiscriminationOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Laval West Québec

Liberal

Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, of course I listened carefully to the observations made yesterday by the Secretary of State Responsible for the Status of Women. I share her view that women in Canada are not an interest group. They are half the population. I would add that the other half would not exist were it not for the help given by the both halves.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Holiness Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Pavle.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, because I care about intellectual honesty and transparency, I would like to correct an error that I unwittingly made on June 8 last.

In my question that day to Minister of Canadian Heritage, I stated that the Astral communication group was from Toronto. After verifying my sources, I wish to inform the House that the principal shareholder in Astral is the Greenberg family of Montreal.

Obviously, the minister was no more aware than I was that Astral was owned by Montreal interests since he did not correct me when I put my question to him. However, I can see that he has read the copy of the letter which was sent to me as a result of the information provided in this House. Furthermore, since I was born in the Plateau Mont-Royal neighbourhood, I can say that I am just as familiar with rue Ste-Catherine as I am with rue St-Germain in Rimouski.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

That is quite a correction.

I have a point of privilege arising from Question Period from the hon. member for St. Paul's.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Barry Campbell Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with respect to certain statements made about me by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. If he had read the article in its entirety, which is always a good idea before commenting in this House, he would have found that the author of the story indicated and I quote, "Mr. Campbell refused to comment on the recommendations of the committee". I made no statement to the author of the story about my view on the question. Further, the reporter has apologized to me for the misleading headline and misleading story.

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary Centre through you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw this statement.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, it was the front lead story in the Toronto Star of Saturday. It was under a big banner. I read the story like everybody else. I was only referring to what was said in the paper. The fact that the reporter misquoted him and the fact that he has a problem with the reporter, I am sorry, but that is not my problem. I just read what was there and I presented my question based on that fact.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, from time to time we do read facts in newspapers which could be more accurate than others. I would ask hon. members to be patient and courteous with one another. I do not know that there is a point of privilege there. It surely is a point of correction.

I believe the hon. member has done that. I would hope that the newspapers would check their facts before they make any statements attributable to anyone else.

Would the hon. member for St. Paul's have anything to add to this?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Barry Campbell Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is not so much about the reporter checking his facts as it is about the hon. member opposite reading the story to completion.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I would rule that there is no point of privilege but surely the correction will have been made or the misunderstanding corrected.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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.

Sulphur Dioxide EmissionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House to advise fellow parliamentarians of the signing of the second international protocol on sulphur dioxide emissions. Canada signed this new United Nations agreement in Oslo, Norway yesterday. It is a major step forward in the ongoing battle against acid rain.

The first international agreement on sulphur dioxide was the 1985 Helsinki protocol. Under that agreement Canada pledged to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions by 30 per cent starting in 1993. Thanks to excellent co-operation by the provinces, environmental groups, consumers and industry, Canada has met its commitment. Our sulphur dioxide emissions have now fallen below the 3.2 million tonne limit set for Canada in the agreement. By the end of the year emissions in eastern Canada will have been reduced by more than 40 per cent from 1980 levels. That is a success story.

The 1985 Helsinki protocol set the foundation for the Canada-United States air quality agreement.

The fact of the matter is that sometimes, very complex international agreements can make a difference and do make a difference. Canada wants to remain a leader in acid rain control and that is why we signed a new protocol in Oslo yesterday.

This international agreement was signed following extensive consultations with the territories and the provinces.

I am very pleased to report that the international negotiators have adopted an important concept developed by Canadian scientists from Environment Canada. This new concept which was adopted in Norway is that of critical levels.

What this means in simple terms is that beyond a certain level, sulphur dioxide emissions become harmful to the environment. This level can vary from one part of the globe to another and, within a country, from one region to the next.

It is important that we are now moving to set sulphur dioxide emission levels based on science and regional targets within countries rather than just national limits. This allows Canada and other countries to direct their efforts to where the real problems exist. We believe that the provisions of the Helsinki agreement will lead to improving the effects of reduction of acid rain in the areas of Canada where the problem lies, namely in the seven eastern provinces of our country.

However, the Helsinki protocol, good as it was, will not end acid rain in the long run in about 10 per cent of Canada.

Canada has accepted to set a ceiling on emissions in that part of the country which requires a longer term commitment. We are therefore creating within Canada a sulphur dioxide management area, with specific goals attached to it, which take us well into the 21st century. In the long term, we want to bring sulphur dioxide emissions in the southeastern part of Canada down to an environmentally benign level. We will focus on the area most affected, that is to say the area south of a line going from the St-Lawrence estuary to the bottom of James Bay and on to the northern part of Lake Superior.

This new area will include southern Ontario, the southern part of Quebec as well as all of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the latter provinces being really seriously affected.

Our target for this area is sulphur dioxide emissions below 1.75 million tonnes beginning in the year 2000. This is an important breakthrough in international negotiations. The problem was that the national levels were arbitrary, particularly for a country as large as Canada.

Our environmental problems are not the same in every part of the country and this new agreement recognizes that. The new Oslo protocol also sets tough new standards for reporting and compliance by countries. This agreement is a major step forward but it is not the total answer to the entire acid rain puzzle.

The United States has not yet agreed to sign the protocol. The Government of Canada believes and hopes that this new agreement will act as an impetus to the United States just as the previous protocol opened the way to our bilateral treaty on air quality.

Indeed, I have scheduled meetings next month in Washington with the director of the Environmental Protection Agency in which we will be discussing very specific air quality issues like carbon dioxide emissions and in particular sulphur dioxide emissions to look at what bilateral actions we can take, not at the exclusion of multilateral activity but to complement it.

We have set new long term limits for the region of our country that produces sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada and the United States. We want the United States to take reciprocal action to reduce its sulphur dioxide flowing into Canada.

If there is one thing Canadians are unanimous about, it is that our country must take a leadership role on the problem of acid rain and the problem of air quality generally. By signing the Oslo protocol, we are continuing to do so.

May I conclude by saying that Canada's representative at the signing ceremony was appropriately the hon. member for Davenport who serves as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Anyone who knows the hon. member will know that he was one of the first Canadians to wear the pin which was so strongly identified with the coalition on acid rain activity that actually led to the first international agreement.

He has pushed longer and harder than any other member of Parliament for control on sulphur dioxide emissions. By identifying our problem area and agreeing to long term emission limits for our region, Canada is accepting its responsibility to protect our lakes, maple sugar producing trees, wildlife, fish, buildings, forests and above all, its citizens from the dangers of acid rain.

We will continue to work with concerned Canadians and provincial governments in the ongoing development of the national strategy on air issues. There are no overnight solutions but there are some solutions. I think on this file we have found some real solutions that have improved the situation and will continue to do so.

Sulphur Dioxide EmissionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic on the environment, I want to salute the federal government's initiative in signing yesterday in Oslo the new UN protocol on sulphur dioxide emissions.

The new international agreement sets for the first time emission quotas for each country based on nature's resistance capacity in each of the signatory countries.

The approach used in the protocol shows once again that countries, peoples and regions facing the same problem must sometimes apply different solutions taking into account their environment and social characteristics. It goes without saying that this is in line with the aspirations of Quebecers, who believe that the Quebec government should have all the powers of a sovereign state while co-operating with its neighbours on international issues.

The signatory countries have different goals to reach in the coming years. I would like to give you a few examples. Germany plans on reducing its sulphur emissions by 87 per cent compared with the 1980 levels by the year 2005, by renovating the obsolete factories and thermal power plants of the former East Germany.

Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Austria will join in this effort by reducing their emissions by 80 per cent by the end of the century.

Greece and Portugal will only have to reduce their emissions by 3 to 4 per cent because their soil is rich in limestone, which neutralizes the acidity of sulphur dioxide naturally. This approach is more interesting than that of the 1985 Helsinki

Protocol, under which the signatory countries had to cut their sulphur emissions by 30 per cent compared to the 1980 levels by this year.

Canada, for its part, must create a sulphur dioxide management zone including the Atlantic provinces, southern Quebec and Ontario.

It goes without saying that all the initiatives affecting this management zone will first have to be approved by the provincial governments concerned. With respect to the sharing of environmental responsibilities, we know that the initiatives against acid rain in Canada are put forward by the provinces, which pass regulations by negotiating voluntary agreements with polluters.

The federal government, for its part, tries to reduce the acid pollutants that make their way into Canada, from the United States for instance.

Problems such as acid rain call for the co-operation of all stakeholders. Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and very odorous gas. It comes mainly from oil and gas processing, mineral smelting, and coal and heavy oil combustion. Each day, the chimneys of our incinerators spit out tons and tons of this gas into our atmosphere.

Many reports have been made on the very harmful effects of acid rain, especially on forests and particularly Quebec's maple trees, as well as the problems for human health that can in many cases lead to increased sensitivity among those who suffer from asthma and bronchitis and make breathing more difficult for some people. We must also mention the deterioration of green spaces and the damage done to very valuable cultural artifacts.

I think that there is a very serious problem with the Oslo Protocol: the United States did not sign it. You know as well as I do that the United States is a huge consumer, and whoever consumes produces waste. As Lavoisier said so well, in nature, nothing is created and nothing is lost. And, as if by some unfortunate chance, warm winds from the United States blow regularly towards Quebec.

I seriously wonder how come the Minister of the Environment was unable to convince our powerful neighbour to sign this Oslo agreement. She just said that she will go to Washington next month, so I hope that she will return with good news for Quebec because you understand as I do that the acid rain we have does not come only from Quebec smokestacks. Most of it comes from Ontario or the United States.

Clearly, for Canada this means that the scope and effectiveness of the protocol will be less. Indeed, it is essential to co-ordinate action on both sides of the border.

According to the 1992 report of the Sub-Committee on Acid Rain of the Standing Committee on the Environment, although a unilateral Canadian program to fight emissions that cause acid rain is morally or politically defensible, any permanent solution must include the United States. That is why we support the environment minister's efforts, which coincide with Quebec's interests, in her talks with the American authorities about acid rain.

The Bloc Quebecois is proud of this Oslo convention but we also have high hopes for the environment minister's visit to Washington next month.

Sulphur Dioxide EmissionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to salute the minister on the signing of this agreement. Clearly, as she said in her statement, if there is one thing that Canadians are unanimous about it is that our country must take a leadership role in the problem of acid rain.

At the same time I would like to make special mention as she did of the hon. member for Davenport. He has been a thorn in the side of people who have been satisfied with the status quo. I would like to commend him for his efforts, particularly on this issue.

The minister stated it is important that we are now moving to set sulphur dioxide emission levels based on science and upon regional targets within countries rather than just national limits. This is particularly important.

What she is stating as I understand it in plain English is that the standards are going to be based on science. Very frequently in environmental issues we have the problem of emotion; if it looks bad it must be bad, if it smells bad it must be bad. This is very bad science and so again I commend the minister and the department on the fact that the standards are going to be based on science.

I also reflect the comments made by the member from the Bloc and underscore the fact that the United States has not signed the protocol. I underscore that fact primarily from the point of view of competitiveness. Surely as human beings, as Canadians and as Americans, we must have an awareness-we do have an awareness-a consciousness of the fact that we can no longer continue with the old ways where we end up with trees, forests, indeed streams and rivers being polluted or dying. We cannot continue with that and surely Canada is taking a leadership role.

However, the fact that the United States has not signed the protocol I believe is a major problem from the point of view of Canadian competitiveness. We have to be very conscious and I would encourage the minister in her discussions with the United States envoys and the negotiators to make sure that Canadian business interests are protected because if not these are our jobs.

At the conclusion of the minister's statement she said we will continue to work with concerned Canadians and provincial governments in the ongoing development of a national strategy on acid rain.

Two items continuing with the thought that we will continue to work with concerned Canadians, we have to make sure that among the stakeholders whose point of view is being considered that businesses are deeply and heavily involved in the process, they are fully consulted and that the impact this has the potential of having on our competitive Canadian position, business wise, is fully taken into account.

She mentioned the fact that there will be further consultation and an involvement of the provincial governments.

For exactly the same reason we can have within Canada duplication of standards based on very well-meaning laws and rules and regulations and legislation that may be brought before this House or provincial legislatures and by the very fact that there is duplication, again we end up putting an extra burden on the businesses in Canada.

I do not stand here speaking for business for the sake of business. I stand here speaking for business because it is business that employs Canadians. It is business that generates real wealth, that can be taxed. It is business that drives the finances of our nation and when we forget that we stray an awful long way from the reality that we must be careful that we are not killing the goose that is laying the golden egg with a very benevolent attitude toward these concerns.

The minister concludes there are no overnight solutions but there are solutions and again I commend the minister, the department, on the signing of this accord and I do believe it is a major step in the direction of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions to a reasonable and responsible level.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Centre Manitoba

Liberal

David Walker LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance dealing with Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees.

By leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the 29th report later today.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—Woodbine, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development regarding Bill C-30. The committee has examined the bill and has agreed to report it with an amendment.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994Routine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Grandparent's Day ActRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-259, an act respecting a national grandparent's day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for seconding my motion.

I am pleased to table a bill whose purpose is to recognize Canadian grandparents by establishing a national grandparent's day.

It is appropriate in this Year of the Family, 1994, to pay tribute to our grandparents who have laid the foundation of our family structure and future well-being, to encourage all Canadians, particularly children and grandchildren, to remember and appreciate their grandparents and to honour all grandparents in acknowledgement of their contribution to Canadian society.

I recommend the second Sunday in September to be declared national grandparent's day.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

June 15th, 1994 / 3:30 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-260, an act to amend the Criminal Code (replica firearms, theft, import or unlawful sale of firearms).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Yorkton-Melville for seconding my private member's bill.

There has been a great deal of concern expressed in the House, in the media and by ordinary Canadians about the criminal use of firearms. There is only one effective way to combat the criminal use of firearms and that is to go after the criminals who use them.

I was pleased to hear in the House today that the Minister of Justice is considering changes to the Criminal Code to deal with this issue. I would suggest that this private member's bill gives the government the option of dealing with the matter immediately.

The purpose of this bill is to amend section 85 of the Criminal Code. The bill would remove the difficult onus on the crown of having to prove that the object used in the commission of a criminal offence meets the legal definition of a firearm. This is accomplished by adding replica firearms to the section. In addition, the minimum sentence for a first offence is increased from one year to five years and for subsequent offences the minimum is increased from three years to ten years.

This bill also creates two new offences. The first is theft of a firearm, which will carry a minimum sentence of three years. The second new offence is the unlawful importation of a firearm for the purpose of using it in the commission of a criminal offence or to be illegally sold. This offence will also carry a minimum sentence of three years.

The last part of this bill would go after those individuals who sell firearms illegally. They will now be deemed to be a party to any offence that the buyer commits with that illegally purchased firearm.

The bill sends a clear message to criminals. If they use a firearm in their criminal activity they are going to go to jail for a long time.

If the House is serious about going after the criminal use of firearms, let us put the right target in our sight; the criminal who uses firearms.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. this day no dilatory motion or quorum call shall be receivable by the Speaker.

(Motion agreed to.)