Marlene Cowling

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to add my voice to the chorus of voices ringing from coast to coast to coast calling for a united Canada.

Yesterday three 16-year old high school students from Russell, Manitoba landed in my office en route to Montreal for the no rally, hungry and tired. They had driven all night to get to Winnipeg to catch a plane to Montreal. They were spending their hard earned money to demonstrate how important their country is to them, how their country Canada includes Quebec.

The courage and commitment of these young people is a shining example of the belief western Canada has that a strong Canada is a united Canada. They represent the sentiments of thousands of Manitobans who could not make the journey but whose hearts are in Montreal today for their love of the greatest country in the world. Vive le Canada.

[Oceans Act, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to address the House on second reading of the oceans act.

As we consider the legislation before us, we must also take into account the vastness of Canada's ocean area on all three coasts. We must also recognize the increasing stresses on our oceans environment, especially in our coastal areas.

These stresses have resulted in resource depletion, habitat degradation and marine pollution. If we do not act decisively and now, the problems will only worsen. We are becoming increasingly aware that oceans are subject to impacts and influences of both natural and human origins.

We now recognize that we must manage oceans to achieve economic opportunities while sustaining the environment, including the living resources of our oceans. That is true of the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific coast and the Arctic. Whether it be improving the safety of Atlantic shipping, restoring fish habitat in a Pacific estuary or protecting the fragile Arctic environment from marine pollution, all these require leadership by the Government of Canada.

The time has come for leadership in integrated management of Canada's oceans, a leadership that will be provided by the government through the oceans act. We know that this cannot be done by the federal government alone. Jurisdiction is divided among federal, provincial, local and aboriginal authorities. That will not change. We embrace this reality and will address it through co-operation and partnership.

What will change, however, is regulatory duplication, conflict and inadequacy that result in inefficiencies, failure to protect the environment and impediments to development. Private sector, public interest groups, non-governmental organizations, academics and federal advisory bodies have all called repeatedly for a comprehensive approach to oceans management, an approach that will foster innovative internationally competitive ocean industries and preserve and sustain our oceans.

First Nations have special concerns. Comprehensive land claims can involve important implications for protecting and developing both renewable and non-renewable ocean resources.

These challenges are obvious in the Arctic. Use of the Arctic ocean and sea ice must take account of the fragility of the Arctic ecosystems and ensure that traditional patterns of hunting and fishing can be sustained.

The recognition of the need for an oceans act is not new. The previous federal government said it would do all of this. In 1987 the government of the day announced an oceans policy and that policy was not acted on by it. It said it would submit to Parliament a Canada oceans act but it did not bring forward a proposal.

The legislation for this long awaited act is now before us and because this government is acting. Not only is it acting on a promise from the red book but acting out of the recognition of the need for a more cohesive approach to oceans management.

The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's report on Canada's oceans policy released last year condemned the federal government for neglect of its oceans responsibilities. It recommended an oceans management strategy and an oceans act to provide a firm legal basis for this strategy. These recommendations were supported by provinces, municipalities, businesses, unions, academics and others.

The government realizes we must turn away from partial, ad hoc, short term measures based on expediency. We must manage our oceans on an ecosystems basis, not on the basis of single sector resource considerations separate from, say, the regulation of shipping or separate from environmental protection. Integrated resource management requires decision making that is open, transparent and based on sound science. It must apply multi-disciplinary approaches and it must integrate economic, environmental and social considerations and the involvement of all affected stakeholders.

Stewardship of ocean and coastal resources is a responsibility that we must all share: federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments in partnership with business, unions, non-governmental organizations and academics.

As all members are aware, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans took an important step toward integration of oceans

management when it merged with the Canadian Coast Guard last April. This merger provided the department with the tools to more effectively provide cohesive oceans management. The merger brought together the key elements of oceans management: shipping, fisheries, ocean sciences and environmental protection. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard fleets became one and in the turbot dispute last winter the red vessels of the coast guard fleet and the grey vessels of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans performed admirably as a team in the service of their country.

While Canada has taken many steps in the past year to protect and conserve all of our oceans resources, environmental organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee and the Canadian Nature Federation have long called for the creation of marine protected areas under the oceans act. The government has listened to their concerns.

The oceans act will provide for the creation of marine protected areas to protect biodiversity and endangered species. There will be two types of areas. One will be developed in consultation with the stakeholders, the other will be designated by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans on an urgent temporary basis in response to the resource crisis.

The ocean act signals a renewal of Canada's leadership in oceans management, a renewal that is long overdue. From the mid-1960s until the early 1980s Canada led the world. In the intervening years our initiative faltered. The federal government in the late 1980s and the early 1990s no longer led Canada in the forefront of global oceans policy. Now this government is reclaiming Canada's role as a world leader.

While Canada has a major domestic interest in its oceans, it has the responsibility to manage them as a shared global resource and we must lead by example. The government is well aware that if Canada is to once again be a world leader in the oceans it will require that the oceans act establish a clear federal lead for the implementation of the oceans management strategy. That is the goal of the government and the legislation. It is to ensure there is a place under the federal leadership of the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans in close co-operation with other federal and provincial ministers and stakeholders, mechanisms to manage all of Canada's ocean resources. The goal is for our oceans to be clean, safe, productive and accessible.

The oceans act is a key part of the government's commitment to a new oceans management strategy. Developing and implementing that strategy will take the work of many people across Canada. It will be an ongoing process. The government is committed and ready to act on then development of an oceans management strategy. The oceans act signifies a commitment to all Canadians, a commitment to the world.

I ask that other members in the House join with me in voting in favour of this very important legislation.

[Community Of Russell, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government is creating a climate of opportunity for rural Canadians and the people of Dauphin-Swan River are seizing these opportunities to diversify their economies and create jobs at home.

In particular I commend the people of Russell who are forging ahead with an ethanol plant that includes a gluten extracting component and a feedlot operation. Within the same community another group is working to develop a ski hill. The belief the community has in itself and in its future is clear.

I am pleased to be working with both these groups to help them achieve their goals.

I commend the people of Russell and area for the leadership role they are playing in diversifying their local economy and their enduring commitment to their community. It is this community spirit, this commitment to the future, that will ensure Canada remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

[Finance, September 22nd, 1995]

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

Canadians are concerned about the increasing amount of government debt held by foreign investors. In the 1995 budget the Minister of Finance indicated he would explore options to make Canada savings bonds more attractive. Can the minister tell us what he is doing to allow Canadians to get control of our foreign debt and what are those options?

[Alternative Fuels Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill S-7, an act to accelerate the use of alternative fuels for internal combustion engines. With the passage of this forward looking legislation, the federal government will assume a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by requiring by the year 2004 the conversion of 75 per cent of its fleet vehicles to cleaner burning fuel.

The federal fleet consists of 39,000 vehicles that release 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and over 4,000 tonnes of other pollutants into the environment each year. These pollutants collect in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. As a result of Bill S-7 we will reduce CO2 emissions by 20,000 tonnes annually and will take positive steps to address the greenhouse effect. We will lead by example.

It is anticipated that the conversion of government vehicles will encourage automobile companies to market vehicles that burn renewable fuels and will also increase the number of service stations providing alternative fuels. Not that many years ago gas stations offering ethanol were few and far between. Now they are everywhere. This too will happen with other cleaner burning fuels.

We have all contributed to the environmental problems we now face and it is time to be part of the solution. Bill S-7 will allow us as parliamentarians to take positive action to ensure that our children and our children's children enjoy cleaner air and a healthier environment. We owe this to them.

By requiring government vehicles to be converted to cleaner burning fuels, Canada will be making a significant step toward fulfilling our international commitments to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Liberal government is committed to ensuring that these obligations are met for the good of Canada and for the good of the world.

In addition to greening our country, this legislation will result in long term savings to Canadian taxpayers. During the five years it will take to convert 75 per cent of our government fleet vehicles, we will save $7 million. Once conversion is complete we will save $7 million every year. This represents direct savings to government and direct savings to taxpayers.

Bill S-7 is fuel neutral. It promotes the use of ethanol, methanol, propane gas, natural gas, hydrogen or electricity. The choice of fuels to an extent will be regionally determined based on economic factors and availability.

The expansion of the use of ethanol is of particular importance to me given the benefit it is for the environment and as a growing market for prairie grain. Not only is prairie grain feeding the world, it is getting the world where it wants to go and in a more environmentally friendly way than traditional fossil fuel.

Ethanol provides an excellent opportunity for economic growth and diversification. It greatly expands the market for agricultural products thereby increasing farmers' incomes. It also provides opportunities for value added development and jobs in rural Canada.

The people in my Dauphin-Swan River riding are excited about the prospects of ethanol production. Groups from the towns of Russell and Swan River have approached me about possibilities of establishing ethanol plants in their communities. They are excited about contributing to the greening of our environment and the economic spinoffs for their communities. The construction of ethanol plants in rural communities will not only boost our self-sufficiency in ethanol supply but will also diversify our communities, provide needed jobs and greatly contribute to the long term viability of rural Canada.

To help our rural communities build innovative economies, the minister of agriculture and the environment minister announced the biomass ethanol program which will encourage investment in the ethanol industry, thereby expanding domestic demands for corn, wheat and barley produced on the prairies. The biomass ethanol program shows this government's commitment to encourage the production and use of renewable fuels where it is environmentally sound and economically viable.

I am pleased with the support that companies like Centra Gas in Winnipeg and Ford Canada have given to this initiative. Propane and natural gas suppliers have indicated that they are prepared to convert suitable vehicles in the government fleet at their own expense. These are the types of partnerships we need to encourage to work toward environmental sustainability.

I am very pleased to offer my wholehearted support to this forward looking initiative. It is not often that an idea comes about that is good for the environment, good for agriculture and good for the taxpayers. In short, this is a win-win proposal.

I commend Senator Colin Kenny for his foresight and his commitment to the environment. I urge all members of this House to support this important legislation.

[Transportation, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, farmers in my Dauphin-Swan River riding rely on the ribbon of steel that unites our country from east to west to move their high quality commodities to market. Therefore it is crucial that shippers from Dauphin-Swan River and across the prairies have access to a rail system that moves their commodity quickly and at competitive rates.

It is fitting that National Transportation Week comes at a time when the Liberal government is making massive improvements to our national rail system. These measures will increase competition and lead to greater efficiency. It is crucial that these efficiencies are passed along to prairie farmers, the highest volume shippers in Canada.

I strongly encourage the Minister of Transport to ensure that the interests of prairie farmers are at the forefront of all decisions made regarding the future of our rail system.

[Forest Fires, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Recognizing that forest fires fall under provincial jurisdiction we nevertheless find ourselves faced with one of the worst outbreaks of fires in recent history. What are we doing federally to help thousands of Canadians affected by this horrible situation, not to

mention the preservation of the vast forest so important to rural communities?

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member moved that the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

By legal recognition of same sex spouses I am unclear as to whether the hon. member means same sex partners should be able to register, as I understand they can in Denmark, or that benefits currently given to married and common law spouses should be extended to same sex partners.

Neither option is viable, given the current state of the law. Perhaps it would be a better motion had it been made in a provincial legislature rather than in the House of Commons.

The federal government has very limited jurisdiction in this area of the legal recognition of personal relationships. The Constitution divides jurisdiction in the area of family law between the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament. The jurisdiction for marriage is divided with the provinces being responsible for the solemnization of marriage, including licensing requirements, and the federal government being responsible for the legal capacity to marry. However, as the definition of marriage clearly makes it an opposite sex concept, this constitutional power is irrelevant for the current discussion.

The Constitution also gives Parliament the power over divorce, although the province retains the power to administer the application of the Divorce Act, including division of property and support obligations. However, as marriage is irrelevant here, I am assuming the divorce power is as well, as divorce cannot apply without marriage, although I understand that

Denmark requires same sex couples who have registered to go through the divorce legislation to deregister.

Perhaps the only relevant example I can think of is the treatment of common law spouses under provincial family law. This is a personal relationship widely recognized by law, even though it is not specifically mentioned by the Constitution, unlike marriage.

Until fairly recently historically common law spouses were not recognized by our law. The term is a misnomer in any event, as common law spouses do not actually exist in the common law or judge made law. They actually are created by statute law, not by one statute but by a very large number of statutes at both the federal and provincial levels.

In other words, unless a particular statute specifically provides that a reference to spouse will include common law relationships, they are not included for the purpose of the benefit in issue. The major statute law that recognizes common law spouses is the provincial family law statutes.

These statutes create the major legal obligations imposed on common law spouses should the relationship break down. They deal with division of property, support obligations between the former spouses and for any children. Even here the provincial law is not consistent across the country. Common law spouses are subject to different legal obligations under different provincial family law statutes across the provinces. They are not even recognized in two provinces including Quebec, the province of residence of the hon. member proposing this measure.

Common law marriage is a different concept from that of common law spouses. Common law marriage existed only in the early settlement days of Canada where a minister or a priest was often difficult to find. Although there is some speculation that the concept may still exist in the common law in Canada it would only apply in an opposite sex context.

Therefore, if provincial family law is the main source of legal obligations between spouses, it would seem more appropriate that any legal recognition of same sex partners would come first under provincial family law. As I understand it, this was primarily the way which common law relationships first gained legal recognition.

As a result of several high profile cases before the Supreme Court of Canada the courts recognized through the doctrines of unjust enrichment and constructive trust the contribution of a woman who had lived for a long period of time with a man as married, even though they had not married.

Legislative changes followed shortly thereafter, starting primarily with provincial family law and then slowly moving into the benefits field.

This legal recognition is recent in Canadian law. The changes to the Income Tax Act to recognize common law spouses have come about in the last year or two after the majority of provincial family law statutes recognized the status. The question of whether common law spouses must be treated in the same way as married spouses in some or all circumstances is still before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Miron case was argued last fall and a decision is pending.

The only references in federal law to personal relationships either follow blood or marriage relationships, which are relatively easy to prove, or copy provincial family law definitions of common law relationships. At the federal level spouses are mostly included in legislation for the purposes of employment benefits, the government pension plans and income tax.

The concern is that if we were to extend these benefits to same sex partners at the federal level first before provincial family law extends any legal obligations it could create a situation of unfairness. Spouses, both married and common law, are currently subject to a package of legal rights and responsibilities created by a combination of federal and provincial laws.

It is because spouses are subject to legal obligations such as support obligations upon the breakdown of the relationship that they are also eligible for benefits such as survivor benefits under pension plans. It is for the provinces to extend first the obligations before we should extend benefits under federal jurisdiction.

How would we accomplish what the hon. member is asking? How would we take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses, even were we to agree this should be done? It is clear from the history of the recognition of common law relationships that this was not accomplished by passing a statute called the common law spouses act. Nor was this legal recognition even accomplished by the government at any level.

The fact of social change was first acknowledged by the courts in looking at unfairness and unjust enrichment between two partners who had not married. The courts felt strongly that individuals who were living together as if married and so were getting all of the advantages of being married, such as working together to afford a better lifestyle than either would have been able to live alone, should not be able to avoid taking on the obligations of married persons simply by choosing not to marry. Particularly in a situation such as that represented in the first few high profile cases, the common life wife needed the protection of the law.

However, this is a controversial enough subject with regard to opposite sex common law couples. Many common law couples continue to disagree and feel frustrated the law deems their relationship to be akin to marriage after a certain time has

passed. Many still feel their choice not to marry should be respected by the law.

How much more of a problem will this be with same sex couples who may not be public about their relationships? Conversely, is it fair to recognize only those same sex couples who do wish to be open about their relationships? For a number of reasons this motion is premature and not feasible for the federal government to adopt without the full co-operation of the provincial legislatures.

[Agriculture, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 314.

When we debated the motion last month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food told the House that the federal government had been taking steps for some time to reduce overlap and duplication and that we had been doing so in close co-operation with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector.

I will not go into detail about the initiatives we discussed in the House at that time, initiatives that clearly demonstrate the ongoing efforts of the federal government to reduce both overlap and duplication among the various governments.

However I should like to remind members of some of them. They include in depth discussions among the federal government, the provinces and the private sector regarding the implementation of a Canadian inspection plan, a federal-provincial protocol for the development of trade and the promotion of new markets, and talks we are holding with the provinces aimed at increasing the efficiency of the delivery of financial services to the agri-food sector.

As far as the last point is concerned, the Farm Credit Corporation and interested provinces are discussing strategies to reduce duplication of government services in the sector. As part of the process the FCC has acquired the $37.4 million portfolio of the New Brunswick Agricultural Development Board. We are also attempting to combine the lending services of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Alberta Financial Services Corporation into a single delivery point. Needless to say the initiative is exactly what is needed.

I could go on at length about the federal government's initiative to reduce overlap and duplication but I am limited by time constraints. Today I will focus on the content of Motion No. 314 and certain key aspects of the discussion on the motion, the basis of which I find puzzling.

The motion attempts to provide a starting point for negotiations based on the following three questions. First, what does it mean to reconfederate agriculture and why do we need to do it now? Second, what role should government play in agriculture? Third, what role should the agri-food industry play?

If the motion were adopted, the federal government would have jurisdiction over trade policy, trade distortion adjustment support, whole farm income stabilization programs, health and safety standards, and macrophysical monetary and taxation policy.

The provinces would be responsible for human and material resources, while the private sector would be responsible for all aspects of the business plan, from design to the sale of goods and services.

While all the reforms put forward in the motion may at first glance seem clear cut, a number of points are far from clear. Let us begin with the transfer of responsibility for all income stabilization programs to the federal government.

Such a measure is inconsistent with the significant progress recently made by the federal government and the provinces together, in the interest of Canadian producers. As a result of their concerted efforts, much progress has been made in this area.

We can think back to the situation that existed in Canada in the area of the income stabilization programs in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The federal and provincial governments had their own completely independent rival income stabilization programs which distorted market signals to some extent.

In December 1994 after extensive discussions with the provinces we reached a federal-provincial consensus aimed at developing a renewed national whole farm income stabilization program. The program is an example of close co-operation between the government and is more in line with the interests of the sector.

In addition, as announced in the federal budget brought down on February 27, the $600 million allocated to the annual costs of the new whole farm safety net program will be increased by a contribution from the provinces and from the federal government, bringing total annual government support to producers to $1 billion.

A rational and effective national delivery system is what Canadian producers including the producers of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River wanted. That is what we are attempting to give them.

It is in the interests of both federal and provincial governments as partners to play an active part in becoming financially responsible because their common goal is to contribute to a stable economy that will benefit all producers, in fact all Canadians.

A second point in Motion No. 314 that puzzles me concerns the proposed trade adjustment assistance program designed to counter the export subsidies imposed by the United States and the European Union. It seems clear to me that the cost of the proposal would be exorbitant and that it is largely inconsistent with our commitments under GATT and the World Trade Organization.

Adopting Motion No. 314 would be a large step backward. Given the current trade regime, no producer, processor or government can afford to lose 15 or 20 years of partnership, close co-operation and dialogue.

We owe it to Canadians including the people of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River to move forward with the current policies and to build, to be innovative and to demonstrate ingenuity. The government has already initiated serious discussions on the issue with the provinces and the private sector. It has also launched many initiatives that have allowed it to transform itself into an innovative, flexible organization that is ready to face today's market and the market of tomorrow.

Therefore I feel I must defend the interests of a sector that is so important to me. Consequently I urge the members of the House to reject Motion No. 314.

[Rail Strike, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the farmers in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River and across Canada are increasingly frustrated that it is taking so long to settle the rail strike. Bloc members say they are representing

unions and the right to strike. What about farmers? Without rail transportation farmers cannot get their grain to market.

Would the minister of agriculture explain to the House what the stalling tactics of the Bloc are costing Canadian farmers?