Debates of Nov. 6th, 1997

Drinking Water

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, Bill C-76 was never debated in this House.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to rise in his place and tell this House that he does have a letter from a Quebec minister or the Quebec government supporting Bill C-76 or Bill C-14.

Does he have a letter of support from the Quebec government, yes or no? If he does, let him confirm it, and if he does not, then he should stop talking nonsense.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty understanding feigned outrage.

We have already admitted there was correspondence with the minister of health in Quebec. The Minister of Health of Canada has done what he is required to do, consult with his counterparts.

The letter from the ministry of health in Quebec indicated there was no problem with the legislation then before the House, legislation which the Bloc chose to ignore in the last parliament and which is substantially the same as Bill C-14 in this Parliament.

We are operating in the jurisdiction over which we have authority and that is all the legislation represents.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no minister of the Quebec government has given his support.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Whatever this government may say, it remains that things are off to a very bad start with this bill from the Department of Health.

Will the minister admit that the way this government is dealing with the issue of drinking water has sown the seeds of a new federal-provincial dispute, since it takes Quebec's agreement for granted without having held real consultations with Quebec's political leaders?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we can keep going on this, but it is the practice of the Department of Health like all other federal departments to consult with their provincial counterparts when there is legislation before the House.

Both the federal Department of Health and the department of health in Quebec were in communication. There was consultation which indicated there was no problem with the legislation.

The Minister of Health for Canada is responsible for the health of Canadians, and that is the ministry or the department which consulted to ensure that the legislation received the appropriate—

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government never consulted the Government of Quebec about Bill C-14, which has now been introduced in the House.

Since the Government of Quebec is presently holding consultations on its water management policy as part of its forum, and in light of the apparent mess which is about to emerge, can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs ask his colleague to withdraw his bill?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, why would the Minister of Health remove a piece of legislation which addresses the health of Canadians and for which he and his department have sought and received positive responses, I might say, also from the—

[An hon. member]

You are lying, you are lying.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It is not a lie. It is the deputy minister of Health in Quebec who is responsible for maintaining communications with the federal Department of Health.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I thought I heard a word. I am going to let it pass. I do not know that I heard it correctly. I want to make sure that all the words we use today are parliamentary.

Canada Pension Plan

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last week the finance minister told the House that all provincial governments had agreed to the consultation document on gender analysis of changes to the Canada pension plan. That information is not correct. In fact the minister will know by now that federal and provincial status of women ministers have agreed that the gender impact analysis done on CPP changes was inadequate.

Now that the minister knows this, will he conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact on women of all pension reform options being considered?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is mistaken. Having been at the federal, provincial and territorial ministers' meeting in Halifax I can say that the federal, provincial and territorial ministers for the status of women did not say anything about gender analysis in the CPP phase 1; but they did request unanimously that in phase 2, which is coming up, there be comprehensive gender analysis done in light of new information that has come about with an economic indicators project launched at that meeting.

I know our finance minister is very interested in looking at those indicators and doing the appropriate thing.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister will not listen to concerns about gender analysis in this round of CPP, why would we trust them to say they will listen to gender concerns in the next round?

Will the finance minister and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women also deny testimony before the finance committee that documents precisely how CPP changes penalize women for living longer?

Does the minister deny that women are hurt most by freezing the basic exemption? Does the minister deny that women are hurt most by cutting the death benefit? Does the minister deny that—

[The Speaker]

The hon. minister of multiculturalism.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Because of gender analysis it was done in part 1 of the CPP. All the things that affect women positively were retained in the CPP: all of the dropout conditions in the CPP, the time off for maternity leave and the issue of spousal benefits, survivor benefits. All these were maintained and will be dealt with further in part 2.

The Environment

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter signed by the federal Minister of the Environment dated October 28, written to her provincial colleagues that says this:

We can assume that there will be two or three provincial or territorial representatives included in the Kyoto delegation. This would include one representative of a provincial or territorial energy department and one representative of an environment department.

How does the government square this statement, written in a letter dated October 28, with what it said in the House of Commons about including the provinces in the Canadian delegation at Kyoto?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I and my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, have had extensive discussions with our counterparts. Those discussions are ongoing.

I am told that the tradition with respect to provincial involvement in international delegations is one or two representatives of the provinces who then report back to the full group collectively. We have decided that in this case it would be useful to expand that to three. The provinces may make additional requests. We will consider that matter when we meet with all of them next week in Regina.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister is showing himself badly informed. In Rio, he will know because his colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the minister of the environment of the day were there, there were 7 governments out of the 12 possible governments that were represented in Rio.

I want to ask another question about an addendum to this letter that explains to the provinces the Japanese position but does not explain to the provinces the Canadian position.

I would like to know how the government expects provincial governments to buy in and implement a position that it will explain to them on November 12, only 19 days away from the summit. Does it realistically think the Canadian provinces can accept, comprehend and implement such a position only 19 days away from the summit?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the attachment to the letter was the fulfilment of a commitment that the Minister of the Environment made to keep all her counterparts fully apprised of the various positions or potential positions being taken by various countries around the world.

She also made the commitment, as have I, that we would work very hard with the provinces in the development of the Canadian position. We are trying to be inclusive rather than unilateral. Perhaps that approach will have more success in Kyoto than the approach taken by the hon. gentleman—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian law is supposed to apply to everyone. Reformers are so idealistic to believe that it should even apply to the Canadian government. What a radical notion.

Now that the government has shown it is willing to break its own environmental laws to cut a business deal, why in the world would it expect any would-be polluters in Canada to obey the laws of this country?

Why is the government saying do as it says, not as it does?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, given the unctuous admonitions of the Reform Party, I really must point out that the very law it is holding up waving with great fanfare today is the very law that it voted against in the House of Commons when it had the opportunity.

The government of Canada is following all applicable rules and regulations. We are confident of our position. Some others have proceeded with a court proceeding. We will see the results of that court proceeding in due course.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the highest price is the law for the government.

What we have here is a double standard; one set of laws for most Canadians who follow them every day and then there are the Liberals who are guided by the law that if you do not get caught then it is okay.

How can we say to a pulp mill or a mining operation that if it pollutes we will prosecute it to the full extent of the law but when a government blatantly and knowingly ignores its own laws, that is just the way we do business in Canada?

How can the government say “if you don't like it, lump it because were are government and we are beyond the law”? How can it say that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government of Canada is not taking the position the hon. gentleman alleges.

In all these transactions we have followed the rules that we believe to be applicable. If others have a different point of view they are free to challenge that procedure in the courts, as some have, and the courts will rule in due course.

We are satisfied with our legal position and are confident that position is the correct one.

Candu Reactors

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The secret cabinet decision report dated April 24, 1997 reveals that the government proposes to get around the Environmental Assessment Act by conducting shadow assessments of foreign projects.

Will the government make a commitment to fully comply with the law by making public any information necessary for conducting an environmental assessment before giving final approval to funding the sale of CANDU reactors to Turkey?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have said this before and I will repeat it. A Candu plant, in order to be built either in Canada or anywhere in the world, must be licensable according to Canadian standards which are established by the Atomic Energy Control Board. As the hon. member will know, those standards are very stringent.

In addition to that, every Candu facility must comply with all the safety regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Candu has an exceptional record in complying with those rules and regulations everywhere in the world.

In addition to that, AECL ensures nuclear safety in all technical aspects of reactor siting, design, construction, commissioning—