Debates of May 28th, 1998

Nunavut Act

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to make a few comments on this bill. I make my comments on behalf of the member for South Shore, our Indian affairs critic, who was unable to be here today because of pressing public business.

The creation of a new territory in the northeastern and central region of Canada on April 1, 1999 is a very historic occasion. It will create Nunavut as a separate territory from within what is currently the Northwest Territories. It is quite appropriate that I should be making a few comments today on the bill, given the fact that it will happen 50 years to the day that Newfoundland entered Confederation, quite an appropriate date for such an occurrence I might add.

I will begin with a brief history of the events leading up to this momentous occasion. The creation of the new territory in the north to be called Nunavut has been a long time coming. It has been a long time in reaching fruition. The journey has not been an easy one. It has had many hurdles along the way.

The first attempt to divide the Northwest Territories into two regions was back in 1960, as I am sure you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, and was initiated by the western region of the Northwest Territories. As we are all aware the legislation died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

The next event of significance was the release of the Carrothers report in 1966 and its recommendation that a division of the Northwest Territories would not be beneficial at that time to the Inuit living primarily in the eastern region. Instead the report made a number of recommendations including the creation of electoral constituencies in the eastern and central Arctic. As well, it suggested the appointment of a commissioner who resided in the Northwest Territories. At that time of course the commissioner of the Northwest Territories was based out of Ottawa. Finally, the report recommended the transfer of federal programs to the territorial government.

Obviously these recommendations were to set the stage for division of the Northwest Territories at a later point in time when the region would be in a better position to assume control of its administration and of its governance as well. These recommendations were acted upon in the following years.

In 1976 there was another bid for division of the territory, this time by the Inuit, or the ITC, an organization representing Inuit in Canada. A plebiscite on the issue of division followed in 1982 and it garnered a 56% rate of approval which was particularly strong among the people in the eastern Arctic.

That year also saw the formation of a constitutional alliance consisting of members of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories and representatives from aboriginal groups. Its objective of course was to develop an agreement on dividing up all of this territory.

Although an agreement was reached in 1987 it was not ratified by the Dene Nation and the Metis association who had a land claim settlement in the western area and objected to the proposed boundary. The agreement, as we are all aware, failed and the many groups who were involved with that agreement at that time of course dissolved as well.

The next step in the process was in 1990 when the PC government asked John Parker to determine the boundary between the two land claim settlement areas, one belonging to the Dene-Metis Nation in the western area and the Inuit in the eastern region. This was taken to a plebiscite in May 1992 and it received a 54% approval rating.

One very important piece of information I have not mentioned is that the Inuit land claim agreement that was finalized in April 1990 called for the creation of the new territory. The Inuit ratified the agreement with a vote in November 1992 with 85% of the people voting in favour of the settlement. The land claims settlement area will become the Nunavut territory on April 1, 1999. This was the largest aboriginal land claim settlement agreement in Canadian history.

Nunavut means “our land” in Inuktitut and represents almost two million, or 1.9 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of Canada's land mass which is quite a large piece of territory in anyone's interpretation. The capital of this new region will be Iqaluit on Baffin Island. I always have problems with that particular word, but it will be Iqaluit on Baffin Island.

There are a number of challenges that must be overcome before the creation of Nunavut in April 1999. This legislation addresses some of those concerns. It confers great powers incidentally to the interim commissioner, Jack Anawak, to enable him to enter into leases on behalf of the new territory. It ensures that employees hired for the new government positions are in permanent rather than temporary positions.

More important, this amendment to the Nunavut Act provides for an election before the date that the new territory comes into existence. This is of critical importance to ensure that a government will be in place to begin work immediately without having to go through the process of an election in what is obviously going to be a critical and a very dynamic time for the people in this new territory.

Another issue of concern to the western region was the number of elected representatives required for governing after this particular division or split occurs. Since the western region will be left with 14 members but the regulations require 15 members, the amendment to this legislation which reduces the number down to 14 is going to be welcomed by the Nunavut people. This will ensure the western region is in a position to offer a continuation of services for that area.

Also, the legislation amends the Constitution Act, 1867, to create another seat in the Senate to recognize this new territory. Currently there is only one seat for the NWT. The senator representing the NWT resides in what will become Nunavut. This amendment will eliminate any uncertainty in that area as well.

One of the greatest concerns expressed by the Inuit and others affected by the change was the need for continuation of services. This legislation helps to ensure that this will occur. At the same time there are still concerns for those people living in the eastern and central Arctic as well. There are concerns as to whether the infrastructure is going to be in place. Will financial assistance be provided? Will there be enough of it? Are there going to be enough people to fill the expected 600 new positions that will be created in Nunavut?

The new territory will consist of approximately 24,000 people. Eighty-five per cent or 18,000 of them will be Inuit. Inuktitut will be the working language for them. The hope is to have 85% of the staffing positions filled by Inuit in the long term, 45% in the short term.

The federal government has provided about $40 million for training and education to prepare the people living in the eastern and central Arctic for positions in this new government. With the settlement of land claims in this area however a number of new positions are available for the Inuit. It may be difficult to find people to staff all of these new positions. With Nunavut's plan to have government offices spread out over 11 different communities, it might be difficult to attract workers to the outlying areas.

The Nunavut Implementation Commission has reported that Nunavut will have to obtain 50% of the people for these new positions from outside its region. At the same time a report by the Government of the Northwest Territories suggests that only 10% to 15% of its staff will move to Nunavut. That means Nunavut will not have a large corporate knowledge base upon which to build.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether the infrastructure will be in place at that time. This is a great concern. Arctic conditions make it difficult not only to ensure adequate supplies but also decrease the amount of time available for construction. Moreover there is little or no private sector space available since everything is typically built on an as needed basis. Although the entire infrastructure is not required immediately and the timetable factors in a delay of two years for some of it, a continuation of services will not be possible without adequate infrastructure.

Nunavut will have a public government with Inuit and non-Inuit representatives. Although Nunavut was created as part of the land claim agreement, the Inuit chose a public government format.

The land claim agreement raises another interesting point however and that is what constitutional rights the Nunavut people will have. Although one would assume that its powers would be equivalent to those of the Yukon Territory and the western region, Nunavut will be created as part of a land claims settlement agreement under section 35 of the constitution. This is another area that is not clarified for the new territory and has the potential to create some uncertainty.

In summary let me say that the PC government initiated this process culminating in the creation of Nunavut in April 1999 when the Nunavut land claims settlement agreement was signed in May 1993. The creation of this territory is a positive move for the eastern region. The PC party supports self-government for aboriginal peoples as a means of improving their economic development and conditions.

While I agree in principle with this legislation as it attempts to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act, there are still a number of challenges facing a new territory as it counts down to April 1, 1999. Let us hope that these issues will be addressed quickly as the clock is ticking.

Before taking my seat, I just want to make one final comment on the amendment that the Reform Party has introduced. I believe this is an amendment the Nunavut people have not asked for. It is a feeble attempt to delay this particular piece of legislation. The issue of bringing the Senate in on this particular bill as to whether or not it should be elected is a separate issue quite apart from this bill and should not be entertained. It should be seen for what it really is which is one more attempt by the Reform Party to draw attention to its main preoccupation which is the Senate. It does nothing for the Nunavut people.

We agree in principle with this legislation. It attempts to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act. There are quite a number of challenges facing these people. We will be watching with interest because the clocking is ticking away.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the government whip, the division demanded is deferred until Monday at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.

Canada Grain Act

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, be read the third time and passed.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to third reading of Bill C-26. When I addressed this House on the occasion of the second reading of this bill, I discussed how this initiative should be viewed in the context of the government's priorities. I will do this again.

The grain industry is currently faced with significant challenges and opportunities. Global competitive and natural forces are leading to and accelerating change and challenges. The grain industry is changing rapidly in order to respond. Legislation must also evolve to assist that industry's efforts to meet those challenges and opportunities. This initiative reflects our government's willingness to meet the express needs of the grain industry and to co-operate in its efforts. The main objective of this government is to build a competitive and innovative economy that will grow to create even more jobs and improve the well-being of Canadians.

Agriculture and agri-food is a key sector of the Canadian economy. It continues to contribute very significantly to the building of our economy. This industry is growing tremendously. Producers and processors are optimistic about the future as they invest in and diversify their operations in order to benefit from new opportunities. I share their enthusiasm. I want to work with them in creating those opportunities.

One of the ways to accomplish the objective of continuing vigorous growth is to work closely with stakeholders. Our government intends to be the catalyst for partnerships with industry stakeholders. Our government is committed to a policy of full consultation with both the agri-food industry and the provinces. I believe we are succeeding in our goal. We recently announced the rural impact test and we want to build stronger rural communities by doing our share in supporting community development. We recognize the tremendous value of rural citizens and communities in Canada.

Bill C-26 is proof of our commitment to rural Canada. It would allow easier access into the special crops processing industry and it would have a very positive impact on rural employment opportunities.

In our federal rural policy we want to increase the participation of rural Canadians in the development of federal programs and services. The main elements of the bill satisfy this goal, especially those provisions that relate to special crops. Special crops producers and processors were involved in every stage of the process leading up to consideration of the bill by this House. They would continue to play a role during and after the implementation of its provisions.

The special crops industry has undergone impressive growth over the last 10 years. Crops that were once considered marginal to western Canada's agri-food economy are now being produced in significant volumes. More producers are planting special crops and a greater number of people want to become special crops dealers. There has been a call by stakeholders for more current legislation to establish a fair and effective licensing system for dealers and an efficient voluntary insurance plan for producers, legislation that recognizes the unique requirements of the special crops industry. With the growth of the industry a need was identified for changes to the regulatory system as well. Current regulations are seen to be unnecessarily punitive, offering minimal deterrent value. The Agriculture and Agri-food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act is proven legislation that provides a broad range of enforcement options.

The grains futures industry has also undergone significant changes recently. The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange plans to develop non-grain contracts. When this happens the Grain Futures Act, legislation used since 1939 to regulate grain futures and options trading, will become obsolete. Repealing the act would allow the Manitoba government to regulate all aspects of a modern commodity futures and options trading industry.

Bill C-26 was developed by the Canadian Grain Commission in co-operation with stakeholders representing special crops producers and dealers, and stakeholders representing the grain futures industry. The proposed amendments contained in the bill would accomplish five main objectives.

They would establish an affordable licensing plan for special crops dealers in western Canada. They would introduce a producer funded insurance plan. They would create a special crops advisory committee that would report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. They would provide a fair and effective mechanism for enforcing the Canada Grain Act and regulations. They would transfer regulatory responsibility for grain futures to the province of Manitoba.

I will focus my comments on the first three objectives proposed in Bill C-26, the licensing and insurance plans and the advisory committee.

A new special crops licence for dealers in western Canada would be created under the proposed legislation. The licence would give companies the right to buy and sell special crops and to use official grade names when doing so. The plan would eliminate the security requirement for processors which has been identified as a major financial barrier to becoming licensed to deal in special crops. Instead of providing security the dealers would collect levies from producers from whom they buy special crops.

The levies would be remitted to the administrator of the program initially proposed to be the Canadian Grain Commission. After deducting an administration fee the commission would forward the premiums to the insurer. The Canadian Export Development Corporation has agreed to act as the initial insurer for the plan. The insurer and the agent can be changed in the future if the special crops advisory committee recommends it.

The cost of the levy is proposed to be 38 cents per $100 of sales. The levy would be the sum of the insurance premium and administrative charges. Initially it is proposed that the insurance premium would be 20 cents per $100 of sales and the commission's administrative fee would be 18 cents per $100 of sales.

Currently security requirements are designed for high volume standard crops handled by large grain companies. The requirements were not designed for the much lower volume specials crops which are mainly handled by small seed cleaning plants, special crops dealers and processors. The result is that companies that could otherwise be licensed stay on the sidelines. Unfortunately some others buy grain without a licence, exposing producers to the risk of loss. The special crops industry currently operates under a system that was established for the standard crops, wheat, barley, oats, flax, rye and canola. The government through Bill C-26 is responding to the special crop industry's expressed concerns and recommendations.

Removal of the security requirement which is a financial barrier to small dealers and processors would allow companies that had previously been on the sidelines to become involved. It would also encourage companies currently operating without a licence to apply for one.

While licensing would be easier, this does not mean that everyone would be granted a licence. Prospective licencees would be required to demonstrate that they are financially able to deal in special crops before a licence was issued.

A consulting firm retained by the Canadian Grain Commission, Kelly and Associates, estimated an additional 125 firms in western Canada could become licensed under the proposed legislation. The changes could significantly expand the number of marketing outlets available to producers and promote healthy competition.

I would like to talk about the proposed voluntary producer funded insurance plan. Protection would still be available for special crop producers despite the elimination of the current security requirements for licencees.

The new insurance program proposed for special crops producers would replace the current security system which makes the real cost of security transparent to producers. Membership in the new plan would be voluntary and available to those producers who choose to participate.

If a licensed company defaults on payment obligations for special crops that it has bought or if that company becomes insolvent, participating producers would be able to make a claim to the insurance plan.

Producers could choose to opt out of the insurance program. In that case, they would not be eligible for security in case of default by licensed grain dealers.

Producers who choose not to participate would still be required to pay the levy but would then receive a refund from the administrator of the program.

The proposed plan originally required producers who opted out to apply for a refund. Witnesses before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food expressed concern about this aspect of the plan, placing an administrative burden on producers.

The committee agreed and, taking a proactive approach, approved an amendment to make the refund process automatic. A proactive approach was also taken with regard to the clause that provides for special crops to be added or removed from the plan.

There was concern that standard crops such as wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and canola might also be included. Although this was never the intent of the legislation, the committee approved changes that specifically exclude the six standard crops from the plan.

The mandatory deduction from all producers, whether they are in or out of the plan, was an issue studied at some length by the interim special crops advisory committee.

The committee, which included representatives from a number of stakeholder groups, decided a mandatory refundable model was needed to ensure the viability of the program.

The main factors which led to this decision were as follows. The plan has to be administratively efficient to keep costs down for producers. It is far more efficient and cost effective to deduct the levy from all producers and later reimburse those who have opted out. This is a significant benefit to the industry as it keeps paperwork to a minimum.

Members of the interim special crops advisory committee were concerned that a plan that required producers to opt in might leave some producers, unknowingly, without coverage and open to risk.

The mandatory refundable model has already successfully been used by other plans. It is similar to some provincial pulse crop levies and the Saskatchewan canola levy. For these reasons, the advisory committee felt it should be applied to the insurance plan.

Operating costs of the program are expected to be recovered through fees collected for services provided. The proposed fees are based on estimates of variables such as participation levels and deliveries.

Once the plan is operational the program administrator would be in a position to better evaluate the true costs that would be incurred and make the necessary adjustments. If the administrative portion of the levy is found to be too high, adjustments would be made to reflect actual costs.

During the consultation stage stakeholders called for the establishment of a formal mechanism to ensure continued input into the program. They wanted to ensure that concerns regarding licensing and security would be heard by the minister.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act address this issue by creating a special crops advisory committee. The nine member committee will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Special crops producers and dealers from each of the western provinces would be identified to sit on the committee.

The committee will advise the minister on the licensing and security operations of the special crops program. They can recommend to the minister that the administrator of the insurance plan or the insurer be replaced. The committee would also be able to make recommendations on the designation of new crops or removal of crops and on other issues related to special crops referred to the committee by the minister.

A majority of the members of the committee would be producers rather than dealers. This reflects the fact that the cost of the insurance plan would be borne by producers.

I close my speech by talking about the potential impact the bill would have. Special crops processors are important employers in the towns where they are located. For example, Sedley, Saskatchewan, with a population of only 342 people, is bordered by the rural municipalities of Francis and Lajord. Sedley Seeds, located seven miles out of town, employs eight people on a permanent basis, four of whom are town residents. It employs approximately fifteen people during the pre-seeding and post-harvesting rush. Vigro Seed & Supply, located right in Sedley, permanently employs twelve people, seven of whom are town residents. It employs approximately thirty people during peak periods.

Although the two companies do not seem big by Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa standards, they are important local employers. They provide valuable services to the local rural community. As the regular elevator system is rationalizing and closing facilities, special crops processors like Sedley Seeds or Vigro Seed & Supply located throughout western Canada would be in a position to provide alternative delivery options and services to producers.

The bill is good for the special crops industry and for rural Canada. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak to Bill C-26, the legislation to amend the Canadian Grain Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administration Monetary Penalties Act, and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food noted, the bill applies to special crops including peas, lentils, corn, fava beans, soybeans, sunflowers and others.

Bill C-26 would allow for the creation of an insurance plan for western Canadian special crops producers to protect them against losses if dealers or buyers go bankrupt with unpaid bills. The bill would also make provision for the minister of agriculture to establish a special crops advisory committee.

The bill, if enacted, would repeal the Grain Futures Act allowing responsibility for regulating the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange to revert to the Manitoba Securities Commission. The exchange is now regulated by the Canadian Grains Commission but it would be more appropriate to have it regulated by a provincial government agency.

Special crops are of growing importance in western Canada. Mr. Garry Meier, chair of the board of Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association, appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food last month and told us that Canada is the world's leading exporter of lentils and peas. Mr. Meier reported that Saskatchewan actually produces 96% of the Canadian lentil crop and 66% of dried peas.

We in this caucus support any measures that will improve the ability of farmers to prosper from growing and marketing special crops like peas and lentils. We also support measures that would put the entire special crops industry on a firmer financial footing. For this reason we are generally in favour of Bill C-26.

Having said that we are generally in favour, however, we feel that the bill could have been improved if only the government had accepted some suggestions made by the representatives of producer organizations such as Mr. Meier.

As I mentioned, Bill C-26 will allow for the creation of an insurance plan for western Canadian special crops producers. Producers would pay a levy of 38 cents on each $100 worth of crops delivered to buyers and dealers. In other words, producers themselves without a contribution from any level of government will finance the insurance program. It is here that there could have been an improvement to the piece of legislation.

The standing committee on agriculture heard from organizations that represent special crops growers. The Saskatchewan and Manitoba pulse growers associations both recommended a full-fledged board of directors instead of an advisory committee. A motion later proposed by the opposition parties also recommended that the directors of the board be chosen by the minister from a list of officially registered special crops commodity groups.

Both these recommendations make good sense to our caucus. After all, farmers will pay for this insurance program without any contribution whatsoever from government. It only makes sense that they should call the shots. For example, it is they who should decide who should act as the agent for their insurance program.

Had these suggestions been incorporated, it would have improved the legislation and overall its acceptance by western Canadian special crops producers and farmers.

The special crops insurance program will be financed by producers from a levy or check off on all crops delivered to the buyers and the dealers. The nature of these check offs has been a controversial aspect of the bill. The government prefers to say that the insurance program is “voluntarily”, but that is not really true. Farmers have to pay a levy up front and then at the end of the crop year they can apply for a refund.

The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association does not refer to it as voluntary but as a mandatory recoverable, which I think is a far better description. Another way of describing it is a form of negative option billing where they get a service unless they indicate in writing that they do not want said service, and if they do not want it they ask to have themselves removed. Cable television companies tried this a couple of years ago and experienced a considerable consumer revolt as a result.

We in the New Democratic Party caucus criticized this mandatory insurance provision of Bill C-26 in the debate at second reading and argued that the insurance plan should be voluntary. Later when Bill C-26 was discussed at the agriculture committee, producer groups also asked that the insurance plan be made voluntary. They said that farmers would not appreciate another check off and would not appreciate the paperwork necessary to get their money back at the end of the crop year.

Following this recommendation by producer groups there was a motion at the standing committee on agriculture that the plan be voluntary, but again unwisely in our opinion government members voted it down. Government members had no solid explanation as to why the plan required mandatory features. I am disappointed they did not see fit to do what commodity organizations had requested.

Commodity organizations do not like the mandatory aspect of the insurance plan any more than we in this caucus do, but the Manitoba and Saskatchewan pulse growers associations consulted their members who told them to support the legislation despite the apparent flaws. Our caucus took this message to heart and despite its shortcomings we have decided to support Bill C-26.

Some have expressed the fear that the insurance program might one day be made to apply to other crops including wheat, oats and barley. That concern now has been laid to rest by an amendment proposed on the government side in the agriculture committee.

As a result of this amendment the legislation applies only to special crops and clearly not to standard grains such as wheat and barley.

Bill C-26, despite its shortcomings, is by and large a good piece of legislation. Both the Saskatchewan and Manitoba pulse growers associations support the bill although they have made some suggestions for improvements which unfortunately the government has chosen to ignore.

On balance, it is worthwhile legislation. The major commodity groups support it and our caucus will be supporting it as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In light of the time do members want to call it 2 o'clock and start Statements by Members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Justice

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unelected judges are changing the law and defying a rational decision made by parliament. They are not interpreting and applying the law as the justice minister claimed yesterday.

The Rosenberg decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal will change the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act to include same sex couples. During the debate of Bill C-33 in the last parliament the government promised that this would never happen.

The Minister of Justice had a decision to make and doing nothing is not a decision. Will the minister appeal the Rosenberg decision and ask the supreme court to respect the current definition of the term spouse in the many statutes passed by parliament, or will the minister let MPs decide this important issue as the previous minister of justice promised?

Canadians are demanding that elected MPs should make our laws, not unelected judges. This decision will have far reaching implications for spousal and family benefits, will lead to the term spouse being redefined in more than 40 federal statutes and further undermine the institution of marriage and the traditional family in Canada.

Education

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago a new Internet service was launched to help Canadian principals and school boards to recruit teachers.

The Apply to Teach Network is the first central registry of its kind for teachers, and it saves Canadian school boards a lot of time and money by simplifying the recruiting process.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate both Industry Canada and the Centre for Education and Training, a division of the Peel District School Board, for jointly developing this project.

Once again the federal government has shown that it can play a key role by working with members of the education and business community.

Housing

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, B.C. has a $1 billion disaster in the making, the so-called leaky condo crisis.

A renowned Canadian building scientist, Joe Lstiburek, blames the federal government's national building code and its R-2000 program. Despite loads of research that warned of the problem and of serious design flaws in R-2000 homes, the government did nothing.

It is no coincidence that most of greater Vancouver's failing buildings were constructed after the advent of the Department of Natural Resources R-2000 program.

Instead of addressing the problems found in British Columbia, CMHC spent its energy trying to see what effect poly vapour barriers had in the dry prairie climate. National standards and programs were never adapted to B.C. and we now have a billion dollars disaster.

I call on the government to acknowledge that it promoted and continue to promote a method of home construction that is guaranteed to create wet rotting walls for decades to come.

African Canadian Community

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the African Canadian community lost four of its members in the last two weeks: Mr. Al Mercury, Mr. Leonard Johnston, Mr. Ed Clarke and Ms. Carol Cayonne. These individuals made significant contributions to the African Canadian community and indeed to all of Canada.

Mr. Mercury was instrumental in establishing several Lions clubs which provided various services to many in the greater Toronto area.

Mr. Leonard Johnston was founder of Third World Books and Craft store which became a major conduit for African Canadian literature.

Mr. Ed Clarke was a humanitarian who worked tirelessly with African Canadian organizations to address human rights issues.

Ms. Carol Cayonne was dedicated to supporting women and individuals living in public housing.

They were trail blazers. They charted new courses for the African Canadian community in Canada and their selfless devotion to community service will not be forgotten.

I thank Al, Leonard, Ed and Carol for their many years of service.

Canadian Armenian Community

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to day to raise in this House to draw attention to the 80th anniversary of the first republic of Armenia on May 28, 1918.

Although the first republic was short lived, it achieved a first election in 1919 that was universal and by secret ballot and granted the right to vote to adults of both sexes, including minorities, it established a university and schools were subsidized by the state.

I invite all members of this House to join with me in celebrating this anniversary with the Canadians of Armenian origin in my riding of Laval West and everywhere else in Canada.

Let me take this opportunity also to express my hope that the ties between Canada and Armenia will continue to grow and prosper in the years and decades to come.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to farmers' concerns about secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board, the Senate has recommended that the board be audited by the auditor general.

This is very timely because during the testimony at the Senate hearings on Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board officials admitted that they are one of the largest players on the Minneapolis grain exchange.

Mr. Earl Geddus, program manager for market development, said “We will play about as much as they let us, always being long with wheat stocks”.

The board fails to report these activities in its annual report to farmers. If the wheat board minister had any desire to make the board more accountable and transparent to farmers he would fulfil his duty and table a report on these trading activities before this House and he would allow the auditor general to do an annual audit on the wheat board books.

The Environment

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week two reports have drawn our attention to the environment, one from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development and one from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The two reports emphasized the efforts made, sometimes leading to progress in certain areas, but they also drew attention to major problems, whether in implementing legislation or in managing certain of our commitments.

Any system which allows such vigorous and objective criticism is a healthy one, and offers the hope that we will be able to do more and to do better in the future.

As for those who, like the Bloc Quebecois, take advantage of this to say that the federal government has no right to be involved with the environment, I have two things to say to them. First, let them ask the Government of Quebec to take the time to hold an independent public examination of its environmental management as rigorous as this one, and the population will see how Quebec is sliding backward as far as the environment is concerned. The same applies to Ontario.

Second, the federal and provincial governments must work together, instead of trying to eliminate each other, if we want to be able to face up to our responsibilities as far as sustainable development is concerned.