Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1998

Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words on this motion.

I want to first commend the member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing this motion forward. We take many things for granted when we continually cross the border between our two great countries. His motion would have the government designate July 2 and 3, the two days between Canada Day and Independence Day, as Canada-United States days of peace and friendship in recognition of the close and peaceful relations that exist between the two countries and the warm personal links that prevail between neighbouring communities along the length of the common border and the commitments of freedom, democracy and human rights shared by these two great nations.

I am reminded of the work that the member for Erie—Lincoln does. He is responsible for a riding that stretches from the border of Fort Erie, through Port Colborne, Lincoln, West Lincoln and many other small communities. However, he serves not only the border. He also serves two lakes and those two lakes also serve both countries. His riding holds the biggest border crossing of all the Niagara area crossings.

The announcement of the twinning of the bridges in his area is a good indication of the capacity that crosses that border every day. On the U.S. side, highway 219 is being considered for expansion because of the number of trucks and the amount of traffic, as well as the routes that it will have to the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Recently the member for Erie—Lincoln, the member from Niagara Falls and myself met with the Niagara regional council to talk about the mid-peninsula border. That is to make sure that traffic can flow from Toronto and Hamilton to the Peace Bridge area of our great neighbour to the south.

I have worked on both sides of the border. For 30 years I worked for a major automotive company, sometimes known as General Motors. I had the opportunity to work in many plant cities in the U.S. in conjunction with the plant cities in Canada. It was the co-operation of those plant cities on an ongoing basis that made the automotive business very competitive.

I am reminded that the auto pact which was struck many years ago by a member of this government was an indication of the co-operation and work that goes on between our two countries.

It is with this in mind that I wanted the opportunity to speak of the good work that the member for Erie—Lincoln does and the fact that he works with the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group on an ongoing basis to solve problems before they even get into the legislature or house of either country. That is the way we have been able to work for many years. We sit down, talk about the problem, talk about the alternatives and then get on with making a resolution.

I want members to understand that I give strong support to the motion brought forward by the member for Erie—Lincoln. By dedicating these two days, it would give all of us, on both sides of the border, a chance to sit back, relax and really appreciate the fact that we have two great countries, a very lengthy border, and the fact that we have freedom, democracy, human rights and many other things that are taken for granted.

I want to thank the member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing this motion forward to the House today.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues in the House from all parties who have spoken in favour of this motion. It is very much appreciated.

At the opening of the debate I requested unanimous consent to put an amendment to the motion to delete the year 1998. This motion was actually introduced back in 1997, in the last parliament, and the year does not make an awful lot of sense at this time. Accordingly, I would request unanimous consent to delete the year 1998.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to delete the year 1998 from the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States are broad lands: broad in mind, broad in spirit and broad in physical expanse.

My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, quoted a U.S. president and I would like to follow that initiative by quoting another president. Over 50 years ago a U.S. president stated:

Canada and the United States have reached the point where we no longer think of each other as “foreign” countries. We think of each other as friends, as peaceful and co-operative neighbours on a spacious and fruitful continent...

The example of accord provided by our two countries did not come about merely through the happy circumstances of geography. It is compounded of one part proximity and nine parts good will and common sense.

The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than of any other two nations on earth.

We seek a peaceful world, a prosperous world, a free world, a world of good neighbours, living on terms of equality and mutual respect, as Canada and the United States have lived for generations.

This was said over 50 years ago by the late President Truman as he addressed parliament in this very House. What was true then is true today.

My friend, the Parliament Secretary for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, also quoted the late John Kennedy, another U.S. president. I would like to reiterate that quote as well because it is very succinct:

Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.

However, he went on to say the following:

Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.

He then went on to say:

We do not seek the unanimity that comes to those who water down all issues to the lowest common denominator, or to those who conceal their differences behind fixed smiles, or to those who measure unity by standards of popularity and affection instead of trust and respect.

We are allies. This is a partnership, not an empire. We are bound to have differences and disappointments, and we are equally bound to bring them out into the open, to settle them when they can be settled, and to respect each other's views when they cannot be settled.

But our alliance is born not of fear but of hope. It is an alliance which advances what we are for, as well as opposing what we are against.

What was true then, when said by John Kennedy in this very House on May 17, 1961, is true now. This is really an apple pie motion. Canadian apples and American apples make for a very great dessert. It is non-partisan. It is equally applicable to Quebec as it is to New York state, as equally applicable to British Columbia as it is to Washington state.

It is a good motion. My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has suggested that maybe we should see what is going on on the other side in the United States and have something come from them. I certainly agree but I think we should show the leadership in this. As a consequence I am going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion declared votable. We must take the leadership on this. Let us do it. It is the right thing to do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members able to rise for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that on November 5 the Minister of the Environment told the House that the protocol, the agreement for the reduction and elimination of mercury and other heavy metals, as signed in Aarhus, Denmark earlier this year will be ratified by Canada by the end of the year. The minister on that occasion also announced that in Canada, mercury emissions have been reduced by 64% in the last decade or so. The agreement in Aarhus, Denmark requires however only a 50% reduction based on 1990 levels.

Unlike iron and calcium, mercury serves no function in humans. It is a heavy metal and a persistent, highly toxic substance to be found in the food chain. It must be noted that while mercury occurs in nature as an element that can be found in water, air and land, human activities increase the presence of mercury in the environment to the point that human and ecosystem health are at risk.

As a result, in six provinces and the territories, health advisories have been issued warning of the dangers of consuming mercury contaminated fish. In addition, it has been found that some wildlife species with high mercury levels in their blood have reproductive problems.

A recent study by Environment Canada found that loons have problems with nesting and raising their young because of high mercury levels in their blood. The study also found that mercury levels in loons increase from west to east, presumably because of industrial activities concentrated in eastern North America. Evidently, industrial activities throughout North America increase mercury levels in the environment and in wildlife.

In the Arctic, recent samples of ringed seal and beluga whale show higher concentrations and higher rates of accumulation of mercury than the samples taken in the 1970s and 1980s.

One major source of mercury is from the burning of coal for power generation. Ontario Hydro, following the decommissioning of nuclear reactors intends to meet short term power needs by using coal-fired power plants. By burning more coal, more mercury is released in the air.

In Ontario between 2.7 tonnes and 3.4 tonnes of mercury are released to the atmosphere each year because of human activities. Up to 2.5 tonnes are released into the Great Lakes waters annually.

It is important to note that the national pollutant release inventory is of limited help in revealing how much mercury each company or operation releases because it reports only when the process, manufacture or other use involves 10 tonnes of mercury or more.

Evidently while we must applaud the protocol, a reduction of 50% or even 64% is far from adequate. As in the case of Denmark where mercury is banned or about to be banned, we must protect the public with a complete ban of mercury emissions resulting from human activity.

I therefore ask the minister whether it is the intent of the government either to ban mercury emissions or to introduce regulations that will prevent mercury pollution entirely.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for the health of Canadians. The protocol we signed last June will be ratified by Canada before the end of this year.

While 16 countries need to ratify the heavy metals protocol before the obligations come into effect, this government is not standing idly by waiting for the support of other nations.

While Canada can or has met most of its obligations, one of the most significant gains from the United Nations heavy metals protocol is that we have commitments from UN ECE countries to reduce their emissions of mercury and other atmospheric pollutants which we know are transported by air currents from various countries to Canada's Arctic and eastern regions.

Canada has already developed extremely effective programs and initiatives that have greatly reduced the atmospheric loading of mercury in Canada.

The controls on mercury emissions imposed under CEPA and the Fisheries Act have convinced the mercury cell chlor-alkali industry in Canada to alter its technology to a non-mercury based process.

While there were 16 such facilities in Canada, only 1 remains and it consistently meets the strict emission control requirements of both acts.

In concert with Environment Canada's accelerated reduction on elimination of toxics program, the mining sector has shown considerable progress in reducing mercury emissions. New technologies developed by Canadian companies have reduced 18 tonnes of mercury emissions to the atmosphere.

Environment Canada officials have calculate that our most recent data show our emissions have been reduced by 64% and similar reductions are reportable for lead and cadmium.

Canada will not rest there. Our goal is to report further substantial national reductions by the year 2000.

As a fully participating member of the North American agreement on environmental co-operation, Canada is leading the development of a North American regional action plan for mercury, scheduled for submission to ministers by June 1999. Canadian, American and Mexican citizens will have an opportunity to provide input to this important initiative before the plan is adopted by the three countries.

Other mercury reduction programs important to Canada include the New England governors-eastern Canadian premiers mercury reduction plan and the ongoing work to further develop a mercury reduction program under the Great Lakes binational toxics—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, are the Sea King and Labrador helicopters safe? Was the tragic crash on October 2 avoidable? Are any enlisted personnel or civilians currently at risk because of the state of the Sea King and Labrador helicopters?

These are some of the questions the Liberal government owes it to Canadians to answer completely and publicly.

On October 2, 1998 a Labrador helicopter crashed near Marsoui in Gaspé, Quebec killing all six of its crew. Apparently this helicopter burst into flames and broke into three pieces.

In 1992 another helicopter crashed near Bella Coola, B.C., killing Corporal Phil Young from my home province of Nova Scotia.

On April 28, 1994 Major Wally Sweetman and co-pilot Major Bob Henderson were killed when the fuel line of a Sea King helicopter failed. In May 1995 another Labrador crashed at Margaretsville, Nova Scotia. In all, 12 Sea King helicopters have crashed, killing seven Canadians.

Both the Sea King and the Labrador helicopters were first put into service over a third of a century ago, in 1963. At the beginning of the year these helicopters went into service, John Diefenbaker was prime minister, 19 current members of parliament had yet to be born, Medgar Evers was still alive and Martin Luther King had yet to give his famous speech.

The newly ordered Cormorant search and rescue helicopters will not be delivered and put into service until the next millennium.

In the meantime, the Liberal government, largely due to its own decisions, may now be in the position of deciding between the health and safety of military personnel and the search and rescue need of civilians at risk.

The Liberal government assured Canadians there would be no cost to cancelling Mulroney's helicopter deal. That no cost turned into $484 million of Canadian taxpayer money.

In 1994 the government issued a defence white paper with its strategy for the military. Instead of moving ahead and issuing tenders immediately for a new helicopter, it waited three years until 1997. To top it off, the government then ordered basically the same helicopter it had just wasted nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to cancel. Here are a few questions the government owes it to Canadians to answer. Why did the government cancel the original contract when there was a demonstrated need for new helicopters? Why, after assuming office, did it wait a further four years to order the new helicopters? Why, having derided the Mulroney government's original choice, did it opt for the same craft?

The government has said that crews would not be disciplined for refusing to fly the Labradors. By making this offer it seems to me as if the government may be trying to protect itself in the case of a future crash. Clearly there must be concern about the safety of the craft to make that pronouncement.

Former Labrador pilot Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Hopping stated:

It is very difficult as a member of an air crew team to say “No, I won't launch an operational mission to save someone's life”. What a terrible position to put a professional pilot in.

Major Marvin Haagsma, retired, stated:

I have personally experienced engine failure rates that are 500 times higher than those accepted as `normal' by the current generation of helicopters. It is time for people to hear the truth: The Sea King and Labrador fleets are extremely dangerous and ought to be grounded.

I would like to finish with two final questions for the government to answer. Why is the government secure enough about the safety of these helicopters to put them in active service with so many indications to the contrary? What other options have been pursued such as short term leases?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, our highest priority is the safety of our crews and our aircraft.

The Chief of Air defence Staff has assured the Minister of National Defence that the Labradors can fly in complete safety. The fact that problems have been detected and immediate remedial action taken speaks to the stringency of our maintenance and inspection program. The Canadian forces have high airworthiness standards, not only for the Labradors, but for all the rest of its equipment.

Since the Labrador crash in early October, it is not hard to understand why Labrador flight and maintenance crews are taking additional precautions to ensure that these aircraft are safe. They are merely showing a great deal of caution.

As the hon. member is aware, an investigation is currently under way to determine the circumstances of this crash, and it would be ill-advised to speculate at this time about the cause. It is important to allow the investigation to proceed in order to find out what caused the crash and what steps should be taken to prevent a recurrence.

It must be kept in mind that the armed forces have other aircraft besides the Labrador helicopters, among them the Hercules and the Buffalo, whose primary purpose is search and rescue.

In January 1998, the government announced hat it would buy 15 Cormorant helicopters to replace the Labradors. The first of them will be in service by 2001.

The supply strategy for replacing the old Sea Kings is under study. Leasing is one of the options we are considering as a supply strategy. As the Minister of National Defence said, he hopes to make an announcement within the year.

We still intend to provide Canadian forces with the equipment they need to carry out their missions at home and abroad.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is an issue that concerns all Canadians. A phenomenon that is called the growing gap, the inequality between the country's rich and poor, continues to be pronounced. Although programs already exist to combat the growing gap, the effects continue to be felt by many.

As more Canadians fall below the poverty line we must ask ourselves what we might be able to do to counter this process. The government needs to look at this issue and make changes to rectify the situation.

As members know, a social report released this fall indicated that a growing gap does exist between the rich and the poor. It seems that the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor are getting poorer. Many factors contribute to this phenomenon and they must be examined and countered.

For example, top executives in Canada consistently receive enormous raises while the average worker faces a wage freeze or a layoff or other effects of all too common cutbacks.

The already rich owners, managers, chairs and CEOs of the country continue to get richer. The average worker meanwhile is not getting large increases and in some cases is actually getting poorer.

While in the 1950s and 1960s the average family income more than doubled, this is certainly not the case today.

The average CEO in Canada now makes $862,000 a year, which jumps to $1.5 million if we include stock options. This amount has increased at a rate of approximately 13% over the last few years. They continue to make more money and to gain power and prestige. Meanwhile in the same amount of years the wage of the average Canadian worker has risen no more than 2%, which is less than the rate of inflation. Furthermore, many Canadians are laid off and must settle for lower paying jobs or depend on government support.

In 1971 the average income for the richest 10% of families, being $107,000, was 21 times that of the poorest 10%. The gap was already present but to a smaller extent. By 1996 Canada's richest families were earning on average 314 times the amount of Canada's poorest. These figures are self-explanatory. The gap has widened.

This growing gap between the nation's poorest and richest plays a big role in the lives of most Canadians whether it be for the better or for the worst. Poverty is a problem in Canada. It is our duty as parliamentarians to implement legislation to try to correct this problem.

In a country like Canada poverty is simply unacceptable. Canada is a rich country both in natural and human resources. We are proud to be one of the world's richest and most developed countries and therefore cannot let the issue of poverty change this status. We have always prided ourselves in being a strong country economically, which is one reason why we will not accept that this gap continues to grow. Something needs to be done. It is important that as parliamentarians we try to rectify the problem.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development to outline exactly what we as a government should do to correct this situation.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government has introduced a number of measures specifically to help lift people out of poverty.

Last July we began to put $850 million per year into the national child benefit. An additional $850 million will be added. By the year 2000 the total will be $1.7 billion per year going into the hands of low income families with children. This money is on top of the $5.1 billion we currently provide families with children that need financial assistance.

The long term solution to poverty lies in helping Canadians find jobs. Our Canadian opportunities strategy gives Canadians greater access to the knowledge and skills they need for the better jobs of the new economy. This strategy includes the $2.5 billion investment in millennium scholarships which will give 100,000 low and middle income students per year access to scholarships averaging $3,000. Up to 25,000 other students in financial need with children will benefit from the new Canada study grants.

Our youth employment strategy is there to help young people. We know that about 86% of participants are either employed or have returned to school six to twelve months after completing their program.

The employment insurance system is a vital part of our safety net. It gives workers the temporary support they need and the tools they need to get back to work.

Over 31,000 jobs have been created through the transitional jobs fund; $2.7 billion has been put into active employment measures to help people get back to work; and the family supplement also helped 350,000 low income families with children. A new federal-provincial program will provide $190 million to help disabled persons to gain better access to the workforce.

These efforts demonstrate clearly that we are committed to do as much as we possibly can to reduce poverty and create equality of opportunity for Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)