David Anderson

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I would first like to congratulate him on taking the time to travel with the committee to British Columbia. It was evident from his speech that he listened attentively to the individuals appearing before the committee.

My question is this. I cannot recall a judicial enquiry at home, in British Columbia, taking less than four years. Does the hon. member know of a judicial enquiry in Quebec, for example, that took less than four years? If it takes so long to achieve the goal, I am not convinced that this is the best method for obtaining the necessary information.

[National Arts Centre Orchestra, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Arts Centre Orchestra, led by maestro Pinchas Zukerman, on its return from a splendid tour of British Columbia which culminated in a concert in my riding of Victoria last Thursday evening.

The two week tour consisted of four evening concerts, student matinees, and over 80 educational student events involving teaching of children, with special emphasis on first nations children in communities all across British Columbia.

Thanks go out to Canadian National, Yamaha and many other sponsors who made this tour possible.

Bravo to the National Arts Centre Orchestra for taking its talent on the road and delighting audiences throughout British Columbia.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair. It is a great pleasure to be here with you.

I would also like to thank the electors of Victoria for returning me to the House of Commons or to the legislature of the Province of British Columbia for the sixth time in eight elections. The confidence of my fellow citizens of Victoria is extremely gratifying and I am very humbled by the support they have given me.

The Speech from the Throne is a general document that lists various objectives of the incoming administration. I had the advantage of listening to the speeches of the four party leaders yesterday. As one would expect their speeches were somewhat more substantive than the Speech from the Throne. With the House's indulgence, my comments today will be somewhat broader than strictly the Speech from the Throne itself.

First there was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. It was with surprise that I heard the Leader of the Opposition propose the novel theory that the throne speech should somehow be a document including all political opinions represented by the four parties of the House and of course the opinion of the party that did not get people elected, the Green Party as well.

His position would be more understandable if he had attempted to obtain a role for himself or for some of his supporters in the executive of the government, but he did not, preferring quite correctly to remain Leader of the Opposition rather than become part of the administration.

In that role, he presented an amendment which is essentially a non-confidence motion. The amendment made by the Leader of the Opposition is thus quite proper and quite traditional. What is quite contrary to tradition and to common sense is the specious argument advanced that the Speech from the Throne is a document for all parties in the House to write. It is not. It is a speech for the administration to write giving a proposal regarding what the administration would like to accomplish before the next election. It is quite appropriate that the Speech from the Throne be written and delivered by the executive. I trust that the government will reject the opposition amendment.

The second notable feature of the speech from the Leader of the Opposition is that while he spoke of the need for the opposition to be considered a government in waiting, his speech lacked the intellectual consistency which would allow anyone listening to it to take that assertion seriously. However, I commend him for that because this is the first time in 11 years in the House that the official opposition has apparently understood the importance of that role.

More specifically, the bulk of the speech consisted of pleas for greater expenditure or transfers to provinces, municipalities, industries and of course to individuals, but concluded with proposals for tax cuts which combined with those spending proposals would inevitably mean expenditures in excess of revenue or as we know it, deficits. This of course is the policy of the neo-conservative republicans in the United States whose disregard for massive deficits is, in my opinion, one of the greatest threats to global economic stability and prosperity.

I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition continue in this line. There is a long way to go before the Leader of the Opposition can be considered a prime minister in waiting. He still appears to be infatuated with the US neo-conservative ideology and lacks an appreciation of Canadian mainstream political realism.

The first item in the Speech from the Throne is the economy and I applaud that. It was similar to the first item in the Prime Minister's speech and I applaud that too. The House will forgive me for reminding the campaign handlers, the advisors and speech writers of the Prime Minister, that when I and some other experienced Liberal MPs and Senators urged the leader's campaign team to stress the economic success of the Chrétien government, and of course the Prime Minister when he was finance minister, we were given very short shrift indeed.

It was only when the possibility of defeat became strong did they realize that Canada's successful economic performance did interest the Canadian people. Only then was the economy discussed and only then did the campaign regain some possibility of success, but better late than never. If I may judge by the speech given by the Governor General and by the Prime Minister yesterday and the day before, at least the lesson appears to have been well learned.

With respect to that speech, however, I would like to mention on the economic side that there was a reference to the deficit being reduced to 25% of GDP in 10 years' time. I certainly accept that as a long term goal, but I have heard the finance minister say time after time that there had to be two year rolling targets to keep the government's feet to the fire.

I certainly hope that this target over 10 years will be fleshed out in the budget to be a target every year: a minimum $6 billion of debt reduction every year. If we do not do that, our children will face remarkable increases to expenditures for a wide variety of subjects, the so-called implicit deficit, as well as the explicit dollar deficit, and they will have great trouble handling future financial requirements. I hope we will see the return to the approach of the Minister of Finance, which was of course keeping the feet of the government to the fire and not having simply long term targets.

A second issue on the economy is the reference to in-house science and technology activity, which is in the seventh paragraph on page 4 of the Speech from the Throne. This is described as substantial and that word troubles me. At least in part, the part with which I am familiar, it is simply incorrect. The Canadian government's in-house science capacity in the areas with which I am familiar has substantially declined over the past 20 years. That is particularly true of ocean science and of Arctic science.

It is true that more is being done at Canadian universities through the foundation for innovation, one of Prime Minister Chrétien's most successful initiatives. However in-house government science, which was referred to, has declined and, in my mind, it has declined to disastrous levels. There are many things that university scientists will not do and which, therefore, must be done by the government. We simply will not be able to recruit and keep good scientific people if we continue to pare away at their budgets and, thus, at the work they are able to do.

Mr. Speaker, I follow the member for Yukon and would remind you that 2007-08 is the International Polar Year. Other nations will be expecting Canada, a leading member of the Arctic council and a leading polar nation, to be there and to be ready to do a large number of scientific tasks. If we do not now restore funding and dynamism to the excellent people we have working for us in this area, this country will simply be greatly embarrassed.

The western Pacific countries, the Koreans, the Chinese and the Japanese, are all expanding their activity dramatically. The European northern countries are doing the same and the European Union is following suit. They are all doing excellent work. I certainly discovered that when I visited Svalbard in the European Arctic last summer. The US also has a very extensive scientific activity, both in Antarctica and in the Arctic. The laggard on the scientific activity is Canada.

This is not just a science issue. While I applaud the Prime Minister for visiting the Arctic this past summer, I was concerned that his strong statements on sovereignty in that part of Canada was not followed up by a commitment for Canadian scientific research in the Arctic. Strong statements from the Prime Minister are of course important and welcome but they are no substitute for coherent policy approaches.

I am sure that Mr. Putin, the leader of another important Arctic power, will be listening with interest to what the Prime Minister will say in the next few days in Moscow. I believe he would pay even more attention if we were doing more and talking less.

On this last point I will add another concern, namely, the lack of coherence in our Coast Guard icebreaker fleet maintenance and procurement policy. As part of successive cost cutting programs, maintenance on our northern icebreakers is not optimal. They do not have the level of dry docking and refitting that is required to give them maximum reliability.

Surely, speaking as I do on the day after the tragic loss of life of a Canadian naval officer in a fire aboard a Canadian naval vessel, I do not have to stress the importance of keeping ships in first class condition. Even with the best of ships, in the best of conditions, accidents happen.

However they happen more frequently and the possibility of serious accident is greater when maintenance, which means dry docking on appropriate schedules and refitting, is not the best possible. Further, when ships are older other problems multiply. Over the last 35 years I have studied tanker traffic quite extensively and know the tanker area better than submarines or icebreakers. That said, the principle is the same. Ships are ships.

As icebreakers are used in the north in summer, and as they and not the military are the appropriate uniformed service of the Canadian government to show our determination to maintain sovereignty against whatever threats--

[The Environment, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Teacam Sea event which occurred in November 2002 was dealt with last year. The problem of course was using new technology, that is radar satellite technology, and the general reluctance of the courts to accept new technology without corroboration.

What we are doing now, however, is using the increased surveillance that is coming with the new security measures to improve surveillance, not just for fishing, but also for oil spills at sea on the east and the west coasts. In addition, we have before the House Bill C-34 which will change some of the penalties.

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. In fact it is exactly the opposite. If we are to have success internationally in making sure that we get the Portuguese ships on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks which are in international waters to obey the North Atlantic fisheries agreement, we have to show that in Canada we also enforce the law.

These gentlemen of the Southwest Fishermen's Rights Association admitted that they deliberately went out and fished in the closed season for cod, haddock and pollock, which was in fact illegal--

[Gasoline Prices, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is once more, as were all his colleagues in the last two days, quite wrong about the report he quoted and which he tabled in the House yesterday.

The report in question was a joint federal-provincial-territorial private sector report. It was an analysis of various scenarios, none of which were policy proposals, and Environment Canada did not have a member on the drafting committee.

Furthermore, as pointed out, 93% of all the spike in gasoline increase in prices goes to the oil companies. Only 7% goes for health, education and other things like that.

[Points of Order, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period the member for Medicine Hat made reference to a document which he claims gives my views on a subject on which a large number of alliance Conservative members have given erroneous information over the last two days.

Given the fact that he stated such a document exists, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to table it.

[Gasoline Prices, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of assertions, most of which are false, with respect to the connection between gasoline prices and the environment. May I point out to the hon. members opposite that the break-even price is about 40¢ per litre? Everything after that is profit for the oil companies headquartered in Calgary, and they are the people who are paying off the bills of the two leadership candidates sitting facing us. That is where the money goes. It has nothing to do with the environment.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-34, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I rise today to discuss one of the ways in which human activity is affecting the future of nature, a problem that the bill before us is designed to address.

There are probably none among us here who do not remember the Exxon Valdez disaster in the northeast Pacific and the horrifying pictures of dead fish, birds, seals and other marine life that had no chance against this thick oil on top of the water.

What many here may not know is that more marine birds are killed every year by the oil discharged from ships on our east and west coasts than were killed by the entire Exxon Valdez disaster. These seabirds are killed by the chronic oil pollution in the ocean that comes from the discharge of oily waste from the bilges or ballast tanks of ships. And no, these ships are not supposed to dump this waste into the oceans. It is already against the law. But they do it and the impact is huge.

Some may think that in an ocean environment with millions of gallons of water perhaps a bit of oily waste would quickly disperse and be of little concern, but the opposite is true. It takes only a spot of oil or only a drop perhaps the size of a dime on the feathers of a seabird to kill that bird in the cold waters of the north Atlantic.

Like a pinhole leak in a diver's suit, the oil allows ocean waters to penetrate the natural protection of the seabirds. In the north Atlantic, where waters are frequently just above zero degrees, this means that the bird is soaked with cold water and, over a few hours or at the most a few days, all the reserves of its body fat and muscle are depleted and the bird simply dies.

The birds do not survive, and while we see a few struggling here and there on the beaches, we know for certain that the problem at sea is much, much larger.

It is not a matter of a few birds dying every year, nor even a few dozen or a few hundred. There are at least 300,000 bird deaths every year. Anyone who has seen birds washed up on the shore and struggling for survival can tell you what a sad sight this is. These birds are the ones for which Atlantic Canada is renowned. Some of them are specific to the waters of the North Atlantic: guillemots, puffins, dovekies, and gulls. Anyone who has seen just one of these birds gasping for life on a beach knows what a terrible sight this is, but what we have to realize is that we are not just talking of one specimen, but a bird population the equivalent of the human population of a suburb of a city the size of Toronto.

One reason we have this problem is that the level of penalties does not act as a sufficient deterrent for this kind of activity by shipowners and ship captains. Rather than pay the cost of legally disposing of wastes at port facilities, they simply dump at sea. If caught, some pay the penalty and just consider the cost as a cost of doing business. Fines have been quite inadequate in Canada in past years, even when the shipowner or ship captain is brought to justice.

I draw members' attention to the United States, where there have been some recent high profile prosecutions. Let me tell members about just one. In March, a Norwegian shipping company was fined $3.5 million after one of its ships discharged oil off the United States west coast. It is the largest fine ever levelled for this type of environmental violation. Not only will the company pay the fine, it will also launch a comprehensive anti-pollution program on board all its ships.

We need to be consistent with the United States. We share these coastlines and we share these oceans, and we certainly do not want to be viewed as an area where it is somehow easier to dump oil.

We have an opportunity now with this bill to make amendments to two key environmental laws that will address the tragedy that is birds oiled at sea, and I speak today in favour of these two amendments.

To complement provisions already found in the Canada Shipping Act, the government is proposing amendments to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. These amendments will strengthen their enforcement powers and our ability to deal with this serious offence. With these changes, we can make early and decisive government moves that will provide immediate results and ensure that enforcement and judicial powers have what they need for proper deterrence.

What we are proposing here is not a new strategy nor anything that will be hard to do. It is a fairly simple solution and one that will help us beef up certain existing laws and take prompt action.

During the winter of 2005, it would be good to be able to report lower seabird mortality rates from oil spills, and to know that we made the right choice by putting together the right legislative tools. It would be good to know that, with a simple approach, we have been able to make a difference for the preservation of biodiversity today and in the future.

These amendments place no burden on those who already take their environmental responsibilities seriously, and I will add that most shipowners and ship captains do. There will be no additional responsibilities or obligations for the good citizens in the shipping industry, but what these amendments will do is ensure that those who feel free to pollute Canadian waters now, without thought or care to those 300,000 birds or more that die annually on the east coast, will no longer be able to do so with impunity. These amendments will help establish their environmental conscience.

None of this comes without cost, and the Government of Canada will increase its investment by some $2 million to $3 million a year to meet the additional requirements of this bill. The money will give us the surveillance and enforcement tools and people that we need, it will allow us to communicate more with the shipping industry, and it will help us pay for the science we need.

This is not a controversial proposal for the provinces. Indeed, we have moved forward with this initiative with the support of provincial governments on the east coast. I would in particular like to congratulate my colleague, the minister of the environment in Newfoundland and Labrador, for his support. We also expect that those in the shipping industry who understand the importance of environmental protection support the approach outlined here today.

With the support of this bill, we will have more of the tools needed to do the right thing and to urge those shipping interests who feel free to dump their waste in our waters to do the right thing. I urge support for this bill, and I know that all members look forward with me to the day when we can count more birds bobbing in the waves and not those struggling for life because of a thoughtless act.

If I may, I would like to add my appreciation for the members of the opposition on the environment committee who indicated the importance of this bill to them and indicated that they would be favourable to speedy passage of this legislation through the House. I think this type of cooperation will be very helpful in making sure this legislation comes into effect just as soon as it possibly can.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 6th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

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