Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was burlington.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Burlington (Ontario)

Lost her last election, in 2008, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply June 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the question was what will make the member opposite and his party comfortable with this deal. Perhaps a whole attitude adjustment would be appropriate. They come from a place of disrespect for the aboriginal peoples and it is very clear that they will never be comfortable with deals that ensure respect for culture, respect for people to pursue their dreams.

If the hon. member had listened to my opening comments, they were all about the systems that are in place on fiscal accountability.

Supply June 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, all but a few of us are immigrants to this land. We are talking about a very fundamental issue of rights to the people.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has articulated very correct positions about his support and belief that there is a better way to do things than what has been done in the past. His respect for human rights comes through loud and clear.

We have to learn from the people who came before us in this land, the people who started this land on its way to being as great as it is and ensured that we took the best. We must respect them and ensure that they have the same rights as other Canadians to pursue their dreams, to govern themselves, to recognize their own religious experience and their own culture.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is absolutely correct on his taxation points as well.

Supply June 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, if anyone has to answer to the people of Skeena it is the member. It is the member who has a constitutional challenge before the B.C. court. The member is using the floor of the House to pursue a court challenge. It is the member who has talked out of both sides of his mouth.

He asks what our policy is with regard to aboriginal people. I ask the member opposite what is his policy with regard to aboriginal people. Members of the Reform have never been clear. They have never articulated anything but paternalism and some might suggest some other isms that I will not be levelling at this point, but I think we all know what they are.

Supply June 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, people have asked about financial accountability. I would like to draw all members' attention to the fact that the final agreement and the related fiscal financing agreement specifically contain provisions to ensure that the Nisga'a government is accountable. The Nisga'a constitution builds in specific obligations on Nisga'a governments in terms of accountability to the citizens for funds received and expenditures made.

Under the fiscal financing agreement, the Nisga'a nation is required to prepare and provide audited accounts and financial statements to Canada and/or British Columbia. The financial statements must meet generally accepted accounting standards. These financial statements may be reviewed by the auditor general. The parties will establish a tripartite financing committee which will review the implementation of the fiscal financing arrangements. The approach taken in this agreement ensures first nations accountability for the funds they expend to both their members and to the governments from whom some of their funding is derived. Those are the facts.

I am very pleased to talk about the motion put forward by the member for Skeena. I am not surprised by this motion. The hon. member is simply sharing once again his party's well known and oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal people in Canada. The motion he puts forward shows a complete lack of understanding of the Nisga'a treaty and the fundamental principles behind it. Let us set the record straight.

With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty, Canada will chart a course for a stronger and a more just society; a Canada where the Nisga'a people finally feel at home in their native land; a Canada where aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians work together for a brighter future for our whole country. This is the Canadian way: working together to resolve our differences peacefully. There are many merits to this treaty.

I think perhaps all of us need to remember the very exceptional people whose sheer determination ensures that we are talking about these issues today. For some 10,000 years the Nisga'a have lived in the Nass Valley in northwestern British Columbia, a land of snow capped mountains, glacier fed lakes, ancient forests and volcanic rocks. The Nisga'a call the Nass Valley the common bowl from which their people draw life.

The timeless relationship between the Nisga'a and their land was interrupted with the arrival of Captain George Vancouver in 1793. At the time the Nisga'a numbered roughly 30,000, a population made up of traders and entrepreneurs. Theirs was a sophisticated society. These prosperous people lived in two storey homes in established orderly communities. They governed themselves according to a strict code of conduct passed down through centuries.

Through the millennia the arrival of the Europeans put and end to that lifestyle. What the early settlers left behind instead was a legacy of paternalism, perhaps the legacy we see in the members opposite. Over the past 200 years the Nisga'a have seen their lands, the lands they once freely used, taken over for purposes that were not theirs. They were prevented from publicly practising their religious beliefs. Their children were sent to distant residential schools. They lost their language and their culture.

Yet even though their political, economic and social systems were suppressed, deeply affecting their dignity, the Nisga'a people never gave up their struggle to reclaim their rights and their lands. Generation after generation, Nisga'a leader after leader has soldiered on assuring the Nisga'a people that one day justice would be served. Finally we have put that system in order. We have put things right for the Nisga'a first nation.

With the ratification of this treaty, finally the Nisga'a will have stewardship over their resources and their affairs. They will have a right to self-government and a land base on which to exercise it. All Canadians understand the necessity and value of including self-government arrangements as part of treaties not only with the Nisga'a but with the many other first nations waiting for their opportunity.

That understanding of course begins with the recognition that the term inherent right is accurate. The constitution is the highest law of this land. It sets out what makes all of us Canadians, what makes us different from citizens of other parts of the world. Our constitution recognizes the multicultural heritage of Canadians and protects the cultural rights of our citizens. In particular, the constitution recognizes and protects the rights of aboriginal people in Canada based on their prior occupation of this land.

Aboriginal peoples lived on this continent long before explorers from other continents first came to North America. For thousands of years before this country was founded they enjoyed their own form of government. Today we are learning from them. We are bringing into our own society, into our own way of doing things, things that the aboriginal peoples taught us, a better way of dealing with justice issues, of dealing with children, of dealing with the environment. We can learn from these people.

Their special role in Canada is that government believes that aboriginal people have a right to govern themselves in a modern context. Unequivocally this treaty is clearly about rights, not race as some critics have contended.

The supreme court said in the 1973 Calder decision that aboriginal title existed as a legal right in Canada. That landmark decision led to the affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights which are now enshrined under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Our constitution and our courts affirm that aboriginal and treaty rights exist. They have made it clear that these rights have real meaning and must be upheld.

The courts have made it equally clear that these rights should be negotiated, not litigated. In one of its most recent rulings the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that aboriginal title exists. It reinforced that we should negotiate settlements to achieve the purpose of section 35. As Chief Justice Lamer rightly noted “let us face it; we are all here to stay”.

Treaty making enables us to reconcile in the modern context the pre-existent rights of aboriginal people with the establishment of a crown sovereignty. It signals all our willingness as a society to resolve major historical and cultural differences through negotiation and compromise.

Treaty making is a process, as the hon. member for Western Arctic has said. It is a give and take process, the results of which are local solutions to local problems. It establishes a shared understanding of how aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can co-exist and realize our common goals.

It leads to a fair, affordable and honourable settlement that accommodates the interests of all parties, ensuring stability and promoting opportunity for all residents living on or near claimed lands. At the most fundamental level a treaty provides a bridge from which to build a new relationship between the first peoples and those of us who followed.

This has been a long time in coming. This relationship is built on trust, on recognition, on respect and on responsibility. It is a relationship that demonstrates the mutual benefits of sharing. The key components of the treaty demonstrate these clear benefits.

The Nisga'a treaty is the first of its kind in Canada. It covers a land claim and self-government in one single package. It establishes a full and final settlement of all outstanding Nisga'a claims. The treaty sets aside approximately 2,000 square kilometres of the Nass River Valley as Nisga'a land and establishes a Nisga'a central government with jurisdiction over matters that are internal and inherent to their culture. The Nisga'a will own the surface rights and the subsurface rights on Nisga'a land and have a share of the Nass River salmon stocks as well as Nass area wildlife harvests.

The treaty provides the Nisga'a with a financial transfer of $190 million payable over 15 years. These funds will stimulate the local economy and spur economic development. Jobs will be created. The Nisga'a will be able to strengthen their community infrastructure and services to the same standards as those enjoyed by the rest of Canadians. They will break the cycle of dependency created from 100 years of living under the Indian Act.

As the Nisga'a gain control over the management and development of their land's resources, they will develop self sustaining and self supporting communities. With a resource base on which to build their economy, these proud and remarkably resilient people will be able to break the cycle of dependency and escape from the trap of poverty that has so affected their dignity. The Nisga'a will once again know the satisfaction that comes with self-reliance, something all of us have had a chance to experience. They will once again be able to contribute fully to their communities and to our country.

Perhaps most profound, after decades of attempting to negotiate their way into Canada the Nisga'a will at last have the ability to participate equally in society, to speak their language, to teach their traditions, to govern themselves once again, and just like other Canadians to pursue their hopes and dreams.

Non-aboriginal British Columbians will also see meaningful benefits flow from this settlement. The negotiation of treaties will bring certainty to the Nass Valley. Treaties will clarify who can log, who can fish, who can mine and where. It certainly means business can invest in the region with confidence and unleash billions of dollars of untapped economic potential. It means both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can pursue business opportunities unimpeded by disputes about rights to land and resources.

Both the Nisga'a and their neighbours will be direct beneficiaries of treaty settlement moneys. This infusion of new funds will provide a badly needed boost to the economies of the communities within and surrounding the Nisga'a.

For the first time in the province an aboriginal group has agreed to forgo the existing tax exemptions. The treaty will gradually phase out exemptions from sales and income taxes. After the transition period Nisga'a citizens will pay all the same taxes other Canadians pay.

Over time the Nisga'a nation will contribute a portion of the revenues it raises to offset transfers from other governments for programs and services. It is expected that the combined impact of taxes paid by Nisga'a citizens and revenues raised by Nisga'a government will represent one-quarter of the annual budget requirements of the Nisga'a nation just 15 years from now.

Non-aboriginal people can also rest assured that their rights and freedoms will also be respected and upheld. The treaty stipulates that the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as other federal and provincial laws of general application, will continue to apply safeguarding the constitutional rights of all Canadians.

The treaty specifies that Nisga'a governments will take into account the rights and needs of all residents including other Canadians who reside on Nisga'a lands. Non-aboriginal people living there will be able to stand for election and vote for Nisga'a public institutions like education and health boards.

The Nisga'a treaty's significance extends well beyond British Columbia. It represents a small but important step along the path to a better Canada, a better Canada for the Nisga'a, a better Canada for aboriginal peoples and a better Canada for me and for all my constituents.

The ratification of the Nisga'a treaty will serve as a marker in our passage to the next millennium. It will act as a nexus, a bridge connecting our past with our present and our collective future. It will take care of unfinished business, establish a new relationship and create a continuum of hope and possibility for generations to come.

For all the right reasons we will finally do the right thing. Members of the House should never let a motion like this get in the way of that noble pursuit.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, did the member opposite get his information or a copy of the bill on the government green lane at www.ec.gc.ca/cepa?

Was the member opposite at our committee hearing the other day when the auditor for the environment, the person we put in place, Mr. Brian Emmett, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, made his report? He audited the government and made recommendations, some of which we have already followed through on and many of which are in the bill.

Was he thinking about the red book commitment which we fulfilled when he was talking about that auditor position?

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, one of the many good things that could be said about the government is that when a need has been identified we have made the resources available.

The committee recommended enhanced powers. They are in the bill, so I urge him to stand tonight and vote for stricter enforcement, for giving peace officer status to enforcement officers to make sure they can continue to protect the environment for all Canadians.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 places some strict timelines on the evaluation of the 23,000 substances in existence in Canada. It ensures they are evaluated against the potential health and environment risks.

With regard to general government policy, the member should know that the last two budgets included some $40 million for this evaluation. We recently announced a project the other day. I am glad the member will be heralding that in news releases in his riding. It ensures the government is doing research on some of these very important substances. Health Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are involved because we all know this environment is the only environment we have. We must protect the environment and the human health of Canadians.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting preamble and an interesting question. I think somewhere I was called unthoughtful but I am not sure. I will try to ignore that part.

Clearly this is yet again the Bloc's interpretation of federal and provincial responsibilities. The bill is not about duplication. The bill acknowledges that the federal and provincial governments have some responsibilities. In some cases they overlap. We are working to have a seamless across the country of laws which will create, ensure and improve the environment and the human health of Canadians. I urge the hon. member to support it.

The supreme court said that the protection of the environment was an international problem that required action by governments at all levels. The legitimate use of the criminal law in—

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to talk about Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

Before I begin my formal comments I would like to thank the very many officials who have dedicated their energy, time and enthusiasm to this process. Without them we would not be here today voting on this bill. The minister and her staff and my own staff have made sure that this process has gone smoothly and that we have the best bill possible to vote on tonight.

During the last 11 months Bill C-32 has been debated by all sides in the House. After thoughtful consideration and often lively debate both in committee and in this chamber, Bill C-32 I believe gives Canadians environmental legislation that protects the health of Canadians today and for the future.

Some seven federal departments are touched by this bill: environment, health, agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and oceans, natural resources, industry, and intergovernmental affairs.

Canadians need and deserve legislation that deals with the challenges of today and prepares for the challenges of the future.

In the clause by clause process we spent some 93 hours, a Canadian record, examining the clauses of this bill. We considered some 560 different amendments, some of which overlapped and 157 of which were passed. The government proposed 90 amendments. It supported 60 amendments from members on all sides. As the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said “Let us look at this bill and see how it is an improvement on the current legislation and something that all of us as Canadians can build upon”.

Bill C-32 is founded on the concept that preventing pollution is better both for the environment and for the economy than trying to clean up after the damage has been done.

CEPA, the current legislation that is enacted in Canada, came into place in 1988. Our thinking about the environment has evolved since then. Science and technology have evolved since then. Environmental law has advanced. Concepts like sustainable development and pollution prevention have become widely accepted. The environmental challenges are increasing rather than decreasing.

Bill C-32 is a significant and positive step in renewing the current legislation. It is on the leading edge of environmental protection legislation worldwide.

Contrary to their dire predictions and doomsday scenarios, at the end of the day this bill will ensure that industries in Canada will be more competitive and their employees will live in a healthier environment. After years of debate, a clear framework will exist once this bill is passed. Canadian businesses will meet the challenges. There are environmental businesses in my riding that depend on strong regulatory frameworks. That is what this bill will ensure.

The bill establishes a clear framework for managing toxic substances. It operationalizes pollution prevention, especially after amendments were requested by the environmental lobbyists who appeared before the committee. It ensures cleaner air and water. It deals with fuels, engine emissions, sources of international air and water pollution. It establishes a clear regime for environmental matters related to emergencies. It deals with emerging biotechnology issues guarding against the adverse effects of biotechnology. It deals with federal government lands and operations and aboriginal lands. It introduces strict enforcement regimes and new peace officer status and powers for stricter enforcement. It encourages public participation. There is a new environmental register that is fully accessible on the Internet. These are good things. It will lead to good change in our country.

One of the most important things is getting the worst toxic substances out of our environment. This bill establishes a more efficient process to identify, screen, assess and manage toxic substances. It virtually eliminates the most dangerous of those toxic substances. It puts in a fixed timeframe to put in place controls and obligates the Minister of the Environment and this government to do research on emerging issues like gender bending or hormone disrupting substances.

Might I remind all members that we have encouraged and left in place the amendments the committee brought forward, contrary to what members of the House are saying. That the amendments last night somehow brought the bill back to before the committee process I say is hogwash. This bill is a good bill. It was improved in the process and we have maintained that.

The new authority will improve control of pollutants and waste. It will monitor motor vehicles and other engine emissions to develop a new national emissions mark for engines meeting emission requirements. It will provide a national fuels mark to show that fuels meet environmental standards. It will provide better protection of the marine environment from land based sources of pollution and will increase the power to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclables. It will provide the power to control the import and export of non-hazardous waste and the authority to require reduction plans from exporters.

There is an increased role for aboriginal peoples. It improves the opportunities for public involvement. There is comprehensive whistleblower protection provisions that will encourage more Canadians to report CEPA violations.

I would now like to talk a bit about virtual elimination. Virtual elimination means reducing releases to the environment of a small number of the most dangerous toxic substances to levels where these releases cannot be measured. It relates to the most toxic substances. It is a leading edge process and it puts in place Canada's toxic substances management policy.

Extremely small releases of certain substances to the environment create problems that are extremely costly or impossible to correct. It is particularly true for substances that are toxic as defined under CEPA and are primarily the result of human activity. They are persistent, meaning that they take a long time if ever to break down and they bioaccumulate. They collect in living organisms and end up in the food chain.

Let us talk about DDT, an insecticide introduced in the 1940s into Canada. It was responsible for causing drastic reductions in many bird populations, especially those in the higher levels of the food chain. We banned DDT in 1970 in Canada and still it is being detected in the breast milk of people in our northern regions. It is still causing havoc for the birds and the bald eagles which like to nest in the Great Lakes area.

We cannot always accurately predict at precisely what level these very dangerous substances pose a significant risk, but we have put in place the precautionary principle. We base the decisions on science but we do not require full scientific certainly. That is what the legislation ensures.

The virtual elimination provisions of Bill C-32 are entirely consistent with the government's toxic substances management policy in 1995.

Let us talk about gender benders or hormone disrupting substances. Some chemicals disrupt the hormones in our bodies. Some of them have a long term effect and some of them have a short term effect. Beer would have a short term effect. Other things might have a longer term effect.

We are doing research. We are making sure our researchers are doing the best job. They are part of international panels. They are doing the research in my riding of Burlington. They will better understand this emerging threat and other threats that we do not even know about. They will evaluate toxics against this new emerging information. They will protect the health of Canadians and the environment.

Unlike the existing CEPA, Bill C-32 places strict deadlines on the government to act to protect the environment and human health. The bill is consistent with the government's commitment to sustainable development when making decisions. The new CEPA requires consideration of environment and health effects. Unlike the existing laws, CEPA provides several opportunities for consultation and to develop more effective measures to protect the environment.

When members stand in the House tonight, they can stand and vote for the bill with confidence because it gives the government new tools and powers. The bill is about pollution prevention. The bill has public input and as a final bill it protects human health. It focuses on pollution prevention and it introduces and ensures a strict toxic management regime.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 June 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, we certainly heard a lot of rhetoric from the member opposite. That is a very gentle way to describe it.

Is he aware that the bill explicitly recognizes the right of aboriginal governments to participate directly in advising the minister on the operation and implementation of the act? Does he recognize that this bill, unlike any other bill or anything we do, obligates the minister to conduct science on emerging issues like gender benders or endocrine disrupters?

Is he aware that the government provided money toward remediation for the community action group in Sydney to clean up the tar ponds, almost $40 million after lots of investment in terms of science?

The bill is predicated on the principle of pollution prevention so we never have to get into these circumstances. How could the member opposite say that he would vote against implementing and operationalizing pollution prevention? How could he stand here today and say he will do that?