Karen Kraft Sloan

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this question. I am going to give a response which might surprise the hon. member, but my answer is indicative of a healthy democracy and the ability of members in the House to speak their minds and speak on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada.

I do not agree with that decision.

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

As the Prime Minister said in his response to the throne speech:

We Canadians have proven to be a very determined people. We have established a distinct Canadian model. Accommodation of cultures....a partnership between citizens and state. A balance that promotes individual freedom and economic prosperity while, at the same time, sharing risks and benefits. An understanding that government can be an instrument of collective action—a means of serving the broader public interest.

As an instrument of collective action government has a crucial role in the lives of the people of our nation. As members of this place we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that we make decisions and laws that serve the public interest. As Liberals we take a balanced, sensible approach, one that understands that not only must risk be shared, but benefits as well.

There are some in this House who do not believe that government can be a positive force in society. They cling to a dogma of less government, not good government, a dogma which ignores the public interest in favour of narrow self-interest.

We can never forget our role. We must continue to work diligently to advance the health and well-being of Canadians, particularly our children and youth, to preserve and restore the health of our natural heritage, to build stronger communities, to foster a sustainable and viable economy, to continue as prudent fiscal managers of the nation's financial assets and to advance our outward looking vision as a country by continuing our contributions to world security.

A society that respects and honours its children has its fundamentals right. These fundamentals are a society with strong environmental laws and regulations that are enforced; a society with strong progressive social and economic values that allow for such things as income support measures to ensure that all of its citizens have access to nutritious food, safe shelter and human dignity; a society that respects human rights and opportunities for education for all Canadians. This is the kind of society that Canadians want.

As an active member of the Liberal children's caucus since its inception in 1995, I am very pleased to see such a child centred throne speech. Extending parental benefits from six months to one year is crucial in providing support for young families. No more will new families have to make a choice between a job and the personal care of their young baby. I am also pleased to see the federal government take leadership in making federal and federally regulated workplaces family friendly.

I am also hopeful that the government's plan to negotiate early childhood development programs with the provinces will be fruitful. I think that as a first step in these negotiations this must be reflected in a commitment for funding in the federal budget to be delivered next February.

A focus on the zero to six years is crucial for the healthy development of our children. A fund to provide for early childhood development programs is an initiative proposed by the national Liberal children's caucus.

Our commitment to children clearly includes initiatives to protect and restore the natural environment. The throne speech points out that a clean and healthy environment is important to our long term economic and social well-being. It is central to our quality of life. Our ability to adopt innovative environmental practices and technologies will increasingly be part of Canada's strength in the 21st century. I could not agree more.

Colin Isaac in the Gallon Environment Letter found that the 1999 throne speech contained more mention of the environment than almost any previous throne speech. Sixteen per cent of the speech referenced the environment and it also identified 21 environment related commitments, such as cleaning up contaminated sites on federal lands, strengthening the government's science capacity for environmental research, extending Canada's national parks system, addressing the structural weaknesses that have been identified in the management of toxic substances, and protecting species at risk and the critical habitat. These commitments make up some of the more significant ones. The government has also restated its commitment under the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The throne speech also goes on to emphasize the need for tough pollution standards to better protect the health of children, seniors and residents of the north. These initiatives are necessary to address the nation's fundamental environmental problems. Our desire to act on these commitments and our ability to successfully implement them will be the yardstick against which future generations will measure us.

My riding of York North is historically important in the development of democratic government in Canada. It is the riding of Baldwin and Lafontaine, fathers of responsible government for Upper and Lower Canada and the unification of the two Canadas. The rebellion of 1837 began in York North, in Holland Landing, not far from my home village of Mount Albert. Small business owners and farmers marched down Younge Street, rejecting the tyranny and elitist exclusive policies of the Tory government in Toronto.

York North is a vibrant, diverse riding with many small business owners. The agri-food sector is still very important to the economic health of the area. We have a first nations community, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, which is working very successfully on achieving self-government.

The people of York North have told me that they want a balanced, sensible approach to government. They also understand that both risks and benefits of nation building must be shared. They want tax cuts and they want us to pay down the country's debt. More than anything, they want to ensure that their children and grandchildren are safe, secure and healthy, that opportunities for our nation's children are many and that our children achieve their full potential.

The people of York North want to strengthen health care for Canadians and ensure that the health of our natural environment is restored. They want us to foster a dynamic economy and to help build stronger communities. They want Canada to advance world security. They want the government to continue its prudent fiscal management.

Most of all, the people of York North believe, as I do, that Canada is the place to be in the 21st century.

[Community Economic Development, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the York Region and the municipalities of East Gwillimbury and Georgina, in partnership with Human Resources Development Canada, have established the East Gwillimbury-Georgina Community Investment Council.

The investment council has been established to foster local economic growth by providing financial assistance to community groups and local businesses. Many businesses in these communities in my riding of York North have benefited from financial support and are starting or growing their businesses.

Human Resources Development Canada, York Region, East Gwillimbury and Georgina should be congratulated for their innovative and creative approach to supporting community economic development.

[Great Lakes Basin, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 31 concerned citizens from Quebec, Ontario and United States are in Ottawa today to meet with parliamentarians to raise issues about the Great Lakes basin.

Some 321 million pounds of toxins were released by legal permit in 1996 into the Great Lakes. Research and monitoring budgets have been substantially reduced and regulations weakened.

These concerned citizens are calling on parliamentarians to protect human health and restore the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes basin.

This is a call to action we ignore at our peril.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member opposite has raised the issue of the Tory tax increases that we all had to suffer through in the 1980s. However, there was a group of Canadians who enjoyed some tax reductions. Those are some of the wealthiest Canadians in this country.

As someone who lives in the province of Ontario, I hear all this talk about the united alternative, uniting options on the right and tax cutters for the rich. The only thing they are interested in doing is cutting taxes for the rich. They do not care about the health and the well-being of families in this country. They do not care about the struggles of the lower income classes. It is a farce when they talk about cutting taxes. What they are really talking about is making more money available for their rich friends, whether their rich friends are in Calgary or in Fundy—Royal.

I ask the member opposite if indeed he was willing to join in the hands of friendship and ideology with members of the Conservative Party as it slashed the taxes of the rich and made the poor continue to pay?

[The Persechini Run, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a prominent resident in my riding of York North, Mr. Joe Persechini, has raised over $2 million in the past 23 years to aid children with physical disabilities and their families.

The Persechini Run is a fundraising event for Easter Seals. It has grown from an event that raised $2,700 in its first year to raising over $190,000 this year, with more than 3,000 people involved as participants and volunteers.

I congratulate all of the people who took part in the Persechini Run, especially the hundreds of schoolchildren. To Joe Persechini, his team of volunteers and the community and business sponsors I extend my greatest thanks.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have about the legislation is that Canada is currently heading up a process to negotiate protocol on persistent organic pollutants in international protocol. My concern is that some of the elements that parliament fixes in the legislation may find its way into that international process.

As someone who has been involved with some of the Inuit organizations in the north, I have had the opportunity to travel in the north and to meet with some of these people. I share a lot of their concerns around contaminants leaking their way into the north.

What concerns does the member opposite have around persistent organic pollutants, how do some of the people in her riding deal with these issues and what would they like to see coming out of the international process?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the member opposite sat through many hearings and was involved with the environment committee and part of the CEPA review. I know how much he cares about the environment because of the contribution he made.

He asked why there are members on this side of the House who have decided to vote against this legislation. This is a democracy. I am very proud of my government because I have the opportunity, as someone who has worked diligently on this file, who understands it and who knows the legislation inside and out, to say that this bill is not good enough. I have decided that in my own conscience, because of my own feelings and my own understandings. It is not good enough for the people of York North. It is not good enough for the people of Canada. This is a democracy and I have the right to express my opinion in the House.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that $1 billion to change technology to deal with an environmental issue is absurd. Certainly that is the kind of absurd sort of scaremongering that we were subjected to by the industrial lobby assault against this bill.

I would like to point out to my colleague that the issue of virtual elimination, the definition itself, as originally posed in Bill C-32, was so incomprehensible that it could have led to three different kinds of interpretation. Uncertainty for industry is a big issue. However, it was the deputy minister of Environment Canada who put forward an amendment through the government which changed the definition at committee. The definition is exactly the same as it is in the toxic substance management policy. In 1995 stakeholder groups, including industry stakeholder groups, signed on to the toxic substance management policy, which has exactly the same definition as Bill C-32. They agreed with it. I have not seen industry pouring out of the country in the last five years.

My colleague says that we should not be chasing the last molecule, which is true. That is what it says in the toxic substance management policy. However, what industry lobbyists tend to forget is what happens on the second page of the toxic substance management policy, which is to say that the ultimate objective is to go toward virtual elimination without consideration for sociological and economic factors. That has often been missed.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago 28 experts, scientists, medical doctors, researchers, environmental lawyers and public policy experts gathered on Parliament Hill and met with members of parliament and senators at EcoSummit '99. The summit examined air pollution, the link to human health and what is required for healthy public policy development.

Two very important messages emerged. First, the health and scientific experts unanimously agreed that medical and ecological information clearly indicates that we face pressing health problems as a result of airborne contaminants. Second, we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to act and we must act now in the public interest.

EcoSummit participants, eminent leaders in their fields including a former Royal Society president, felt it was crucial to bring their research to the attention of parliamentarians. There is a fundamental need to develop a relationship of collaboration between scientists and parliamentarians to promote healthy public policy.

Dr. David Bates, a pioneer in and an internationally renowned expert on the study of air pollution in human health for over 50 years asked tough questions about Canada's readiness to take up the challenge of effectively dealing with the problem of airborne contaminants and human health. In his important book Environmental Health Risks and Public Policy: Decision Making in Free Societies , Dr. Bates provides an approach for better integrating medical and health public policy making. Dr. Bates clearly takes a stand on the side of public health.

In his book he quotes American Senator Edward Muskie and principal author of the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments. Senator Muskie said:

Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems impossible at the present time. But if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met. I am convinced they can be met.

And so am I. Unfortunately, Bill C-32 will not do this. Throughout this debate I have implored my colleagues on both sides of the House to consider very carefully the impact of the amendments that we had before us at report stage. Now I ask my colleagues to very carefully consider the effect of this legislation in its final form.

Let us not forget our duties and obligations as parliamentarians. We must first establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This is our challenge.

The fundamental question before us now is, is Bill C-32 written as if the health of Canadians mattered? How each of us in the House responds to this question as our words are recorded in the Hansard of this debate or in the way we vote tonight on third reading will define us.

I have heard members in the House say that we must balance the environmental concerns with economic concerns, that without economic growth and profit we will not have the resources we need to protect the environment. This is absurd. They forget that without a healthy environment the economy will suffer. Have any of the members opposite heard anything about the Atlantic and the Pacific fishing industries?

Trickle down economic policies have not worked for the poor. To the contrary, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Trickle down environmental protection will not work either. The connections among economic, equity and ecological factors are inextricably woven. It is in fact a seamless web of interdependency. It is irrational, foolhardy and dangerous to overlook this.

The aggressive industrial assault against any positive environmental measures in Bill C-32 is precedent setting. The fact that parliament has so fully incorporated their concerns is shameful.

As one of three Liberal members who has worked on this bill from before its inception during the original CEPA review in 1994, through the government response in Bill C-74, CEPA 1996 and the committee process reviewing Bill C-32, CEPA 1998, I would have to say that the bill currently before the House is a pale reflection of the piece of legislation it could be, a bill that has been fought over by this unprecedented industrial lobbyist assault, by the machinations of other government departments and by pressure from the provinces.

What has finally emerged is a bill weakened by a thousand cuts, a bill so anemic it cannot be supported. My decision not to support Bill C-32 has been made after much thought and deliberation.

For the past five years I have spoken with leading experts from the fields of health, ecology, law and economics, and it is very clear that most recommendations that would make this bill a good bill were ignored.

For months during committee hearings and now during the days of debate in the House some of my colleagues and I have continued to raise issues of concern. Unfortunately there are many. I would like to reiterate only some of the most problematic ones.

There has been a weakening of the virtual elimination provisions. The residual nature of CEPA has been emphasized by restricting the authority of the Minister of the Environment to act in relation to other departments.

Additional barriers to action by the federal government have been created by lining the bill with the harmonization agreement with the provinces. Overall new hurdles have been created on acting in a precautionary way. There has been a shift away from pollution prevention.

While there are elements in Bill C-32 that would improve the existing CEPA, for example the electronic environmental registry, legislation of the National Pollutants Release Inventory and new powers for enforcement, these do little to overcome the cumulative damage made by all the other changes that weaken Bill C-32.

If I were to rewrite Bill C-32 I would ensure that it was real pollution prevention legislation, that there was a focus on generation and use, not just releases. I would ensure that pollution prevention plans were mandatory and automatic once toxic substances have been identified and not have to wait for a listing of toxics.

Pollution prevention planning leads to eco-efficiency for firms, which means better toxics management, reducing costs for industry and government. As well, the Ministers of the Environment and Health should be the ones making environmental and health decisions, not economic ministries.

More than anything, if I were to rewrite this bill I would make sure that CEPA respected subpopulations such as children. Children are not small adults. If we set environmental standards which created healthy public policy, as if the health of our children mattered, then everyone would gain.

There are other groups of Canadians who require special attention. Canada's northern people live with the consequences of toxic chemicals that are created outside of their homelands. They catch food that is contaminated and mothers' breast milk has unacceptable high levels of PCBs. If we respect these Canadians we must write environmental legislation as if their health mattered.

If I were to rewrite this bill I would listen to the hundreds of witnesses, from aboriginal people to scientists, to medical doctors and researchers, to lawyers and labour groups, to health child specialists, experts on learning disabilities, environmental groups, enlightened industry representatives, who gave us a wonderful and rich set of recommendations to choose from when the committee wrote the review and put forward very clear and damning criticism when the legislation was before committee.

I want to thank all of these incredibly hard-working individuals who, with few resources but with much wisdom and foresight, provided the committee with the evidence to make this a better bill.

Even though some say we have failed because this bill is a mere shadow of what it could be, I say that we have succeeded in creating a benchmark against which all of us in the House will be measured. It is a legacy that some day we will return to.

Some say that politics is the art of the possible, but I say that the art of possible is doing the seemingly impossible.