Debates of June 3rd, 1998

Motions For Papers

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like Motion P-24 to be called.

Motion No. P-24

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition concerning the bombing of Air-India 182 in 1995.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 97(1), I would suggest that this Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers be transferred for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

Is it agreed that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on May 1 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responded to my question on the New Brunswick forestry crisis. He said “We are working with New Brunswick”. Well, nice words but empty words it seems.

Early last month the minister said “We have always said we will assist the province and the First Nations”. The truth of the matter is that the active federal government involvement should have happened a long time ago. Just like other actions taken on aboriginal issues by this Liberal government, it is a matter of too little way too late.

Does the minister expect First Nations peoples of New Brunswick will easily leave the forest and reduce their logging ambitions? Does she expect that they will easily part with productive jobs and incomes to return to social assistance in many cases? I expect not.

Why then has the minister abjectly refused to issue a reply to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples tabled over 600 days ago? This report outlined a number of initiatives in forestry which may have helped prevent the current crisis. However, this government continues to hide its head in the sand when it comes to aboriginal forestry.

When issuing the landmark Delgamuukw decision last December, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer stated “Let us face it, we are all here to stay”. By refusing to provide leadership, this Liberal government appears to be hoping the aboriginal people will simply go away.

Early last month Elizabeth Weir was quoted as saying “The province should be using this time to actively request the federal government get involved”. She is right. But this government should have been actively involved long ago. It appears that this government is so deep in the pockets of the Irvings and the other logging mega corporations that it refuses to act on the recommendations of the aboriginal peoples commission.

Six years ago the national forestry strategy called to increase “the involvement of aboriginal peoples in forest land management”. Six years later there is precious little except maybe a real crisis in the forests of New Brunswick to show for this government's efforts.

The government has a responsibility to explain what it has done on each of the following 10 points, or why it has consistently refused to act. These 10 points are based on the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

This federal government should already have taken steps to: one, work with other governments and aboriginal communities to improve aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands; two, promote aboriginal involvement in provincial forest management; three, give continuing support to aboriginal peoples forest resource associations; four, encourage the provinces to work with their large timber licensees, like the Irvings, to promote forest management partnerships with aboriginal firms; five, encourage joint ventures between aboriginal forest operating companies and other firms with wood processing facilities; six, promote less intensive aboriginal forest management practices and traditional land use activities; seven, work to provide for special roles for aboriginal governments in reviewing forest management and operating plans within their traditional territories; eight, work toward ensuring that aboriginal land use studies are a requirement for all forest management plans; nine, ensure that forest management expertise is available to First Nations; and ten, consult with aboriginal governments to develop a joint policy statement delineating their respective responsibilities in relation to Indian forest reserves.

Each and every day that this government refuses to actively pursue these recommendations of its own royal commission it shoulders a greater part of the responsibility for the current logging crisis in New Brunswick and for other crises that might develop elsewhere.

Just this morning there was news about a potential crisis brewing in B.C. Maybe now this government—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development has the floor.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West concerning aboriginal access to forest resources on crown lands.

The key issue in this matter is the involvement of New Brunswick aboriginal people in the forestry industry in New Brunswick. The New Brunswick appeal court found that there was not sufficient evidence in the case concerning Mr. Peter Paul to support a treaty or aboriginal right to commercial use of the forests. In any event, court decisions in this case will not close the door forever on the question of aboriginal or treaty rights in the maritimes.

Including aboriginal people in economic activities throughout Canada can go a long way toward promoting economic development in aboriginal communities. This will help raise the standard of living and hope for the future among a group of people who remain the most disadvantaged in Canadian society.

The Government of Canada recognizes that this case deals with an issue that falls under provincial jurisdiction. The government is pleased to see that the Government of New Brunswick is amenable to negotiating immediately interim arrangements that would enable First Nation communities to participate more fully in the province's forestry industry.

The province's initial proposal is being reviewed by a coalition of aboriginal leadership and loggers. It is our understanding that a counterproposal will be submitted to the province shortly.

In addition, the province launched a task force led by former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Gerard La Forest. The mandate of this task force is to consider the immediate issues related to forestry, but also a broader agenda of concerns to the province's First Nations such as education and economic development.

We believe that this task force will help bring all parties together to support peaceful resolutions to this issue. While respecting the primary responsibility of First Nations leadership and the province to resolve these issues, the federal government is open to considering how it could assist the parties to facilitate a resolution. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and her departmental officials will continue to discuss this with First Nations and the province of New Brunswick.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 5 I raised a question in this House concerning foreign workers entering Canada under articles 1601 and 1701 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the NAFTA. The reason for raising this was a result of complaints I was receiving, complaints of abuse of the NAFTA provisions, complaints of blatant stretching of the rules, all of this to the detriment of Canadian workers.

The application of articles 1601 and 1701 is reasonable and straightforward. It recognizes that sometimes citizens of the U.S. and Mexico may want to enter Canada to sell products, or to service products, or to install products manufactured in one of those countries. In doing so it is quite a reasonable and simple idea.

Suppose an American company sells an automated painting machine to a Canadian company that manufactures something like wooden doors. When the equipment is delivered the American manufacturer may, pursuant to articles 1601 and 1701 of NAFTA, send a person knowledgeable in the installation and startup of that machine to supervise its installation. What is presumed and expected is that Canadian electricians and millwrights will move the machine into place and hook up the electrical service but the technical expert is simply there to direct and supervise the work.

What appears to be happening, or what is being suggested to me, is that this is being abused. It is being abused by the Americans who become more than technical supervisors, but who in fact become tradesmen. They start doing the work of people such as electricians, pipe fitters and millwrights. They pick up the tools of these trades and in doing so they put Canadians out of work. They take Canadian jobs from Canadian trades. This cannot be tolerated. The department of immigration must be vigilant.

My concern involving this arose from a series of complaints I received in my office. Quite simply, a number of tradespeople came to me and told me that there were at least 25 Americans posing as technical consultants on a job site in southwestern Ontario. The complaints were the same. These outsiders were working as tradespeople. They were doing whatever was required.

Subsequently the regional immigration office in London advised me there were 40 Americans on the site, 40 so-called technical consultants. When I asked whether immigration had investigated, I was advised no. To date it has not done so and the complaint was first laid on December 9 of last year.

This in my opinion is a sad commentary on the state of the immigration department. In fact the reason given was unbelievably weak. The department did not intervene because it did not have hard hats or safety boots for its employees to enter the worksite.

In her response to me on May 5 the minister stated “I would encourage any member who is aware of a situation to refer it to my department”. I hope that the minister today is re-evaluating the resources of her department. I hope that all of these potential abuses are being dealt with immediately.

In this case four months after the initial complaint nothing was done and to date nothing has been done. This is a tragic and sad commentary on how Immigration Canada protects Canadian jobs for Canadians.

I hope the minister will move more decisively and quickly to change this. On behalf of Canadian workers I hope that the minister will enforce the true spirit and intent of the NAFTA. Finally, I hope the minister will stand up for Canadians.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for his question. It reflects the commitment and concern he has for his constituents.

First let me state that in our increasingly global economy the need to knock down trade barriers assumes greater importance. That is why the North American Free Trade Agreement in addition to other international agreements are crucial to the government's agenda for creating jobs and growth.

NAFTA commits Canada to work together with our U.S. and Mexico partners to expand trade and investment and to facilitate the movement of legitimate business persons.

Success in the new economy increasingly relies not only on the ability to move products but also to move people across borders quickly and efficiently. This is not to say we are throwing the door open to all workers from the United States and Mexico. We are not. The categories of certain business persons permitted by the agreement from the three countries to have access to each other's countries to conduct certain types of business activities are strictly regulated.

Unfortunately, we may at times encounter those who try to bypass the regular system and attempt to abuse our programs as the member had raised. I want to make it clear that this government will not tolerate this type of behaviour.

In fact the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said on several occasions that anyone who has information regarding potential abuses of the provisions of NAFTA and/or the Immigration Act is encouraged to contact the department. Hence, on hearing the question on this issue let me assure the member that again this matter will be brought to the attention of the department so that the member may be posted as to developments to ensure that indeed the problem raised has been solved definitively.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in adjournment proceedings.

On May 12, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources why the federal government was withdrawing its financial support from the Varennes Tokamak. I denounce the inconsistency of the government's decision, and its lack of vision.

The end of this major project is a considerable loss not only for Quebec, but also for Canada, in terms of developing an expertise in the high technology sector. The Varennes Tokamak, Quebec's number one R and D project in the energy sector, will shut down for good in a few days. The precarious state of public finances when the decision was originally made was used as an excuse for rationalizing.

Today, the Minister of Finance boasts about having put the country's fiscal house in order and having managed to eliminate the deficit. However, the argument of rationalization is no longer valid, now that we have a budget surplus that was created essentially because of the efforts of the provinces and the most disadvantaged. The government can no longer invoke this fallacious argument to justify such an illogical and regressive decision.

The Liberal government now has the means to continue its modest annual contribution of $7.2 million to the Varennes Tokamak. In its last budget speech, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote “the more R and D that is done in Canada, the more jobs that will be created for Canadians”.

How can this statement be reconciled with a decision so disconnected from Canada's future needs in the energy and technology sectors, for which we must prepare right now?

The research on nuclear fusion in the Tokamak project in Varennes is part of a concerted international effort. Four of the major partners in this international project, namely, the United States, Japan, Russia and the European Union, invest nearly $2 billion in research on nuclear fusion.

A full member of the select club working to develop a renewable, clean and safe form of energy, the federal government spent only $7.2 million annually on research, while enjoying all the benefits of the knowledge and technical and scientific expertise in the field of nuclear fusion.

With the closure of the Tokamak project in Varennes, Canada will now be deprived of the scientific and technological benefits. Not only will it lose its internationally recognized expertise in microwaves to achieve a modest saving of $7.2 million, but it will destroy the links it had with an international network of contacts in cutting edge scientific research.

In an article in La Presse on May 11, Tom Dolan, the co-ordinator of the world fusion research program with the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said he was very disappointed to see Canada drop its nuclear fusion research program.

How can such a project be shut down, when the minister was recently claiming to be concerned about the development of clean and renewable energies, and when this objective is part of his strategy for managing climate change?

But since the phenomenon of climate change will have very long-term effects, something the Minister of Natural Resources has just begun to admit, furthermore, research and development of forms of energy such as the one the Tokamak team was working on helps prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and avoid the risk of nuclear accidents presented by the Candu reactors, for instance.

Why would Canada no longer participate in the development of a source of energy such as nuclear fusion? We are told it is a question of priorities. Is it not a priority for Canada to be among world leaders in the research and development of clean and safe renewable energies, rather than limiting its role to that of a passive spectator?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development has the floor.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this important issue and I welcome the opportunity to speak to the matter.

The federal government has provided $90 million to Tokamak de Varennes from 1981 to 1997. The government chose, however, not to terminate funding abruptly. This would have been unfair to the scientists and researchers.

When the government decided to terminate its support for fusion at the end of March 1997 it provided a lump sum payment of $19 million to Hydro Quebec thereby absolving the government of any future liabilities for this project. Hydro Quebec agreed to operate the facility for an additional three years, complete the experiments in progress and allow for an orderly shutdown of the facilities.

Hydro Quebec announced in May that it would be shutting down this facility earlier than anticipated because of budgetary pressures. It seems that Hydro Quebec has decided, like the federal government, that fusion cannot be a priority at this time.

Federal funding of fusion research has been a difficult issue over the years as the funding requirements kept escalating. Fusion research is expensive and equipment had to be kept up to date with advances in fusion science to be able to make meaningful contributions to the knowledge base. Although the science was very good the technology was very expensive and has a payback that is at least 30 to 40 years in the future. It is not certain the technology could be successfully developed.

Natural Resources Canada decided that fusion could not be a priority given the spending cuts that had to be made and the limited resources at our disposal. In energy R and D the government is focusing on those areas that have the greatest promise for reducing greenhouse gases and for helping to meet our commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

Many accomplished dedicated scientists were associated with this project. They are to be commended for their contribution to this field of research. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to Canadians, however, to manage public investments prudently and to establish strategic priorities in energy research. It simply does not have the means to fund all research, as worthy as it may be.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have an opportunity to put some more comments on the record with regard to hepatitis C. There have been numerous questions to the minister over the past few weeks.

The parliamentary secretary is here tonight. I guess maybe in an unusual sense we will have a little debate here if it is allowed. I will put a question or two to the parliamentary secretary which perhaps he could answer. I do not think that is breaching the rules too much.

My last question to the minister on this issue had to do with the working group established after the breakdown in talks between the federal health minister and the provinces regarding compensation for all victims outside the 1986 to 1990 package. No one would argue with that package in and of itself, but obviously the problem is that we have many victims prior to 1986 who were not compensated. Therein lies the problem.

We want to see this issue resolved. We want to see all pre-1986 innocent victims of the tainted blood supply compensated. It is as simple as that. Some provinces have indicated since the breakdown of the federal-provincial negotiations that they would compensate. They are on record and have obviously dedicated some funding to it.

I am hoping to get tonight basically a sense of what is happening at the meetings in Edmonton which are presently ongoing. We have heard everything from a complete breakdown in the negotiations to things are moving on, they are still talking and meeting and so on. We are hoping the latter is the case and that negotiations are continuing. I have to refrain from using the word negotiations because the minister says they are meeting and discussing. At the end of the day we are hoping that something will happen.

I hope the parliamentary secretary can bring us up to date on this issue because it is an issue that will not go away. I do not think Canadians will be satisfied until there is a compensation package that includes all the victims prior to 1986, some of whom contracted hepatitis C since 1990. Possibly the parliamentary secretary could bring us up to date.

In a country as generous as Canada and in a country which as I told the Canadian public time and time again in the House is rated No. 1 in the world we are seeking fairness for all victims.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could deviate from the script a bit tonight and bring us up to date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my colleague opposite has at least recognized the compensation package that was fashioned thanks to the leadership of the Minister of Health for Canada together with his colleagues at the provincial and territorial level. It has finally been acknowledged as something that in and of itself is very good. In fact I think he said unquestionably acceptable.

We all know what has transpired since the package which deserves all those adjectives was placed before the House and before the Canadian public. To be more specific, to get to a resolution of some of the things that have transpired in the last couple of months, as the member has indicated the federal authorities together with the provincial and territorial counterparts met in Edmonton for two days.

I remind members in the House and those watching the proceedings that the victims were also present through their representatives. Some positions have been floated through the press. Some have come before the House and others have been addressed by interested parties with respect to how to deal with those who fall outside the package that we placed before the House and the Canadian public some two months ago.

Those positions were discussed. They were evaluated. I dare say they were probably placed in some kind of balance so the working group could consider substantive issues and deal with short term and long term implications, cost implications, health delivery system implications and jurisdictional implications.

That is where the working group is now. We hope it will conclude its study in short order.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, I asked the Minister of the Environment if Environment Canada had sufficient resources to fulfil legal responsibilities and to enforce regulations contained in the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The minister replied that his department had sufficient resources to deal with every element of environmental protection under the current act. The standing committee was contrary in its findings. On February 26 Environment Canada's deputy minister responded to committee questions by indicating that the environment enforcement program lacked adequate human and financial resources.

The standing committee report entitled “Enforcing Canada's Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First” raises concern that crown liability for failure to enforce environmental legislation may lead to actions against Environment Canada for regulatory negligence. It also highlights the need for more human and financial resources.

The environment minister stated on national television that there had not been recent cuts to the environment enforcement program. Following the interview Canadians could read the figures for themselves.

In 1995 there were 28 investigators to protect Canada's environment from pollution and assorted environmental impacts and infractions. Today there are 17 investigators or a loss of 11 investigators.

The environment minister stated time and time again that the Liberal government provided the highest environmental standards for Canadians. It is a convenient answer when opposition members call the government to account for the deterioration of environmental standards across the country.

The Canadian public does not know the critical state of Canada's environment. Most Canadians would be shocked to learn that entire sections of CEPA are not enforced in some provinces.

The minister re-signed an agreement with Quebec to monitor pulp and paper effluents. The next day it was reported that at least 20 infractions were not being enforced in that province.

Most Canadians would be shocked to know that the entire CEPA budget for Atlantic Canada above salaries and operating expenses is $150,000 for the region.

The Pacific-Yukon region where 16 people are expected by the government to cover an approximate 17,200 possible sites where federal regulations may apply will lose a third of its budget this year.

The government has more parking enforcement officers on Parliament Hill than there are six field inspectors for the entire prairie and northern region, an area larger than Europe.

Before the program reviews which slashed an estimated 40% from Environment Canada's budgets since the Liberal took office, an internal Environment Canada report recommended 300 enforcement personnel would be needed to protect our environment. In reality today there are fewer than 70 people.

The environment minister stated the benefits of voluntary compliance and reporting programs. Canadians should know that report after report has stated otherwise. Voluntary alone does not work. Industry complies when federal regulations are applied.

We are not saying there is a lot of bad apples but there are a few that require monitoring. For instance in this wonderful land we call home, Canada, the harsh climate does not allow us to leave any window or door open without compromising everybody's comfort or safety.

The standing committee received numerous presentations from Canada's environment community which concur that voluntary programs are insufficient for environmental protection. Why would the minister continue to pursue a policy that people in her own department stated does not work? Who is the government trying to protect?

A lack of leadership and political will was highlighted—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has the floor.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are committed to a clean environment in its many dimensions, knowing that a clean environment is one determinant of good health of the citizenry. That is why Canadians want strong and effective environmental laws to ensure a clean environment for Canada. That is why on March 12 the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-32 to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill represents a shift from expensive efforts to try to clean up pollution after the fact to preventing it from occurring in the first place.

In the bill all substances used in Canada will be screened for their effects on the environment and therefore human health. Strict deadlines for action will be in place. The government is committed to putting the most dangerous toxic substances on the path to virtual elimination. One of the innovative features of this bill is the authority to require pollution prevention plans for toxic substances, a first for Canada.

Pollution prevention is good for both environment and business. Companies that have voluntarily adopted a pollution prevention approach have found it improves the bottom line. At the same time, sound enforcement of the law is essential to creating a level playing field that supports environmental leaders while penalizing polluters.

The renewed act will improve enforcement by expanding inspector powers, including the authority to issue on the spot orders and ensuring that the financial and human resources needed are in place.

The new act is founded on the principle of partnership, not on devolution of federal powers to the provinces and territories but on close co-operative work with them. The federal government remains firmly committed to safeguarding the health of Canadians from the threat of pollution by strengthening environmental protection in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is 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 7.00 p.m.)