Réginald Bélair

[Petitions, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition has to do with rural route mail couriers.

These couriers often earn less than the minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another era. Rural route couriers have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions.

Therefore the petitioners are asking parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act in order to allow these Canadian workers to earn descent wages and to collectively bargain their rights as workers.

[Petitions, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one deals with breast cancer.

Canada has the second highest incidence rate of breast cancer in the world, second only to the United States. The United States has had a mandatory mammography quality assurance standard since 1994. Canada has no legislation for mandatory mammography quality assurance standards.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, residents of Timmins, Kapuskasing and Val Rita wish to draw to the attention of the House that one in five Canadian children live in poverty. On November 24, 1989 the House of Commons unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Since 1989 the number of poor children in Canada has increased by 60%. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children. They urge parliament to fulfil the promise of the 1989 House of Commons resolution to end child poverty in Canada.

[Canadian Economy, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Statistics Canada released an interesting snapshot of the Canadian economy.

It showed that Canada's annual balance of trade with other countries had reached $34 billion in 1999, the highest level since 1996, and that exports had grown almost twice as fast as imports.

In 1999, Canada exported goods worth $360 billion, an 11.9% increase over 1998. The results are encouraging, in part because conditions conducive to investment have been put in place.

The public has given us a clear mandate to improve its quality of life. We are sparing no effort to attain that objective.

[Mining Industry, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

In the last century, mining has been the backbone of many rural communities throughout the country. Some of the largest and most productive mines are in these communities and specifically in northern Ontario. However mining exploration has seen a setback in the last 10 years.

Is the Minister of Finance continuing to work in partnership with the mining industry to ensure that Canada remains one of the world's leading mineral explorers?

[Francophone Communities, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification and for the Francophonie.

Quite recently, Senator Jean-Maurice Simard tabled a report on the development of francophone communities as a basic responsibility of the Government of Canada. In economic matters, Mr. Simard cites the department of the secretary of state as a model of exemplary leadership. Could he explain how he achieved such results?

[Petitions, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition this morning on behalf of the rural mail couriers who work for Canada Post. Most of the time they earn less than minimum wage and have working conditions reminiscent of another era.

Furthermore, these Canada Post employees have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions like other workers.

They are therefore petitioning parliament to summon Canada Post to give them the same level of consideration as regular and permanent employees.

[Division No. 455, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, in 1995, when it reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development wrote “The government cannot protect the environment on its own, and it should not be expected to do so. Everybody has an interest in a healthy, clean and safe environment, and has a role to play in the protection of our environment”.

Bill C-32 reflects the philosophy that protecting the environment is everybody's responsibility. It puts the emphasis on partnership with other governments in Canada and abroad in other to address common issues.

But governments cannot act alone, and the duties of the federal government as set out in Bill C-32 provide that it should encourage the participation of the people of Canada in the making of decisions that affect the environment, and facilitate the protection of the environment by the people of Canada.

Let me describe briefly how Bill C-32 translates these general duties in specific opportunities for public participation.

We want Canadians to know how their environment is faring.

Under Bill C-32, the minister may continue to publish reports on the state of the environment and is legally bound to publish the national inventory of releases of pollutants. This is how Canadians will know exactly what quantities of pollutants have been released in their own community.

However, the information is of no use if people cannot use it and have ready access to it. This provision requires the establishment of an environmental registry to facilitate access to these documents and to all other documents relating to the present bill, including notices of the periods set for the public to gather observations and to obtain a permit; intergovernmental agreements; objectives, directives and codes of practice; and, finally, the regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government also intends to add the Registry to the Internet to make it even more accessible.

Access to information on the environment does not simply just encourage public dialogue on environmental issues, it is vital as well to ensure enlightened participation in decision-making.

This bill also makes participation in decision-making easier by ensuring individuals always have the right to present a notice of opposition to a proposed regulation and by increasing avenues of intervention to include the right to make observations on the scientific merit of evaluations done to determine whether a substance is toxic and to make observations on proposed equivalence agreements and on agreements regarding the creation of legislation between the federal government and other governments in Canada.

The public must know the government takes their observations into account. This then is why Bill C-32 sets out clearly the minister's obligation to report on measures taken in response to such observations.

Bill C-32 also recognises that there are circumstances in which the public should be able to demand direct actions. It gives individuals the right to call for an investigation when, in their opinion, the CEPA has been infringed. This legislation will require the minister to be more accountable, because he will be obliged to periodically report the progress of the study.

Measures have also been taken in this bill to ensure that individuals reporting violations of the CEPA may do so without appear of reprisal. These individuals may ask that their identity be protected, and anyone revealing the identity of a whistleblower is committing an offence. This bill as well provides protection to people providing information at the work place: anyone found harassing, disciplining or dismissing an employee who has reported a violation of the CEPA is committing an offence.

Bill C-32 contains a new right allowing an individual who did not personally suffer a prejudice to bring an action against someone who is alleged to have violated the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The provisions granting this new right were drafted with great care to avoid frivolous actions. For example, the claimant can only bring an action after having asked the minister to launch an investigation on the alleged offence, and only if the measures contemplated by the minister following the investigation to ensure compliance with CEPA or its regulations are unreasonable and the offence caused material injury to the environment.

To avoid having such actions being brought by “bounty hunters” trying to get rich, Bill C-32 explicitly limits the payment of damages. These provisions thus have the effect of preventing someone from bringing an action for the purpose of making money. However, the claimant may recover costs incurred for any investigation into the case and for the action.

Bill C-32 is a sincere effort to meet the expectations of the public, which wants to play a greater role in the protection of its environment. It is groundbreaking legislation on the rights of citizens, and we expect this House to give it the consideration that it deserves and to pass it as quickly as possible.

[Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I have accomplished a lot here today in the sense that four parties out of five recognize that indeed this is a very good initiative. There have been comments both positive and negative. I recognize also that in some instances the bill may be too vague and too open to interpretation.

Nothing says that in the future I will not bring it back. I repeat that this is a non-partisan bill. It is apolitical. Next time around I will ensure that individual members of parliament are given a second chance to reflect upon the value of the bill in order to recognize once and for all those from near or far who participated in world armed conflicts.

It should be a votable item. As all the members have mentioned one after another, it is not often enough that in this country we recognize the merits of those who went overseas to participate in war on our behalf, to preserve our liberties and our democracy, and not those who participated in a support manner and, as the parliamentary secretary has said, in many different ways. These people feel extremely important. They are proud of what they have done for this country and somehow they need to be recognized.

It is in this sense that some time in the future, maybe next parliament if there is a prorogation, I will bring the bill back. I am deeply convinced that good sense will prevail and that individual members of parliament will recognize its merits and will vote for it.

[Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act, April 22nd, 1999]

moved that Bill C-453, an act to regulate the issue of ceremonial statements of service and recognition of duty, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for seconding my bill and for believing in what I am about to say.

This bill proposes that a certificate of service and duty be issued to all war veterans who, for one reason or another, do not carry tangible evidence of their service in war time for their country. This is a bit of an aberration.

The reason I am saying this is that for the 20 years I have been actively involved in federal politics, I have, on many occasions, encountered veterans who were frustrated to see that those who fought on the front or took a direct part in a conflict are carrying a health card that they cherish.

The reason they do is because they have something tangible that they can show, that they can leave to their descendants, proving that they risked their life so that we, their juniors, would always have our freedom and all our democratic rights.

The purpose of this certificate, which would take the form of a laminated card, like a credit card, would simply be to acknowledge that the bearer participated in a conflict.

Who would be eligible? First of all, veterans who went to the front, obviously; then, members of civilian groups that supported the Canadian armed forces, such as the Red Cross. Also eligible would be members of the merchant marine, who were recognized last year for their military participation during World War II. Other candidates would include members of UN peacekeeping missions and any other civilians who participated directly in a war or armed conflict.

I introduced this bill for the specific purpose of letting our veterans know that we greatly appreciate what they did during these extremely difficult times. Just like those with health cards, these persons were thirsty, afraid, hungry, cold, and just as courageous as those who were wounded, except that they were not fortunate enough, as it were, to earn that distinction and be able to carry this small card.

This is a non-partisan and apolitical private member's bill. I appeal to the common sense of all members of the House to pass this bill.

In my discussions with them, I made it clear that there was no question of any compensation. This was a concern for the great majority of them. There is no compensation involved; this is simply a certificate recognizing participation.

It is not the policy of the federal government, the Department of Veteran Affairs or the Department of National Defence to give compensation to those who were not injured during these conflicts.

How many people are we talking about? All in all, we are talking about approximately 600,000 people who had some form of involvement in these conflicts, including 450,000 veterans, between 120,000 and 130,000 peacekeepers who served with units dispatched to maintain peace in various countries, and about 5,000 others, including nurses and Red Cross staff, who would be eligible for this card.

Who would issue these certificates? The Department of Veteran Affairs, obviously. It would approve the application made by the person who took part in the conflict or by a descendant in cases where the person is deceased. That is how the certificates would be issued.

In conclusion, Bill C-453 is relatively simple, non-partisan and apolitical. I am proud to introduce this bill in the House today so that I can promote it and ensure that all those who took part in a conflict on behalf of Canada are recognized, and not just a chosen few.

Such recognition is long overdue, and I sincerely hope the opposition parties will support this bill at second reading stage.