David Pratt

[International Co-Operation, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, recently 285 students from Knoxdale Public School in my riding joined with the United Nations Association in Canada to launch a blue ribbon campaign in an effort to promote international co-operation and peace through the education of our children.

These ribbons which are the international symbol of peace are now available at Canada Post outlets across the country. I encourage all Canadians to support this campaign by making a donation and wearing a blue ribbon. Using the proceeds from this campaign, the United Nations Association in Canada along with their partners, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Canada Post Corporation, will be reaching 2.3 million school children across the country with their message of hope.

Our thanks must go to everyone involved in this important project. There is no greater lesson to be learned than the values of peace, co-operation and tolerance.

[Health, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after six months of consultations with my constituents which included two town hall meetings and a public survey, I am pleased to inform the House that I recently submitted a community health care report to the Romanow commission.

Our community report makes 13 recommendations aimed at improving our health care system across Canada. The report is available on my website at www.davidpratt.ca.

Without the active participation of our community this report would not have been possible. I thank everyone involved for their input and insights. Among other suggested reforms our report recommends placing a greater emphasis on home care, redefining the traditional roles of our medical staff, increased training, better funding for equipment and facilities, and a greater degree of accountability.

Through this exercise in participatory democracy one message came through loud and clear: The people of my community want us to reform our public health care system, not dismantle it.

[Chris Hadfield, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the House I am very pleased today to congratulate Colonel Chris Hadfield who was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross last Wednesday.

The award was presented to him by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in recognition of his remarkable achievements as an astronaut. This award goes to outstanding military personnel who bring honour to the armed forces with their professionalism.

Last April Chris Hadfield was the first Canadian to walk in space when he helped to install the Canadarm 2 on the international space station. Chris Hadfield was also the first Canadian to operate the Canadarm in orbit in 1995 and he is the only Canadian to have visited the Mir space station.

All Canadians can be proud of Chris Hadfield's achievements. I ask the House to join me in congratulating him.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce BillC-419, an act to amend the Criminal Code (firefighters).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce into the House an act to amend the criminal code (firefighters), which would increase the severity of punishment for criminal acts, such as arson, that injure or kill a firefighter. Specifically, the bill would create two new criminal offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the line of duty.

When I think back to the bravery shown by firefighters on September 11, I believe we have a legislative duty to protect our protectors.

I wish to thank the International Association of Fire Fighters for its support of the bill and for its ongoing efforts on behalf of our firefighters.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for its thoughtful review of Bill C-27, an act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. I also take the opportunity to thank all witnesses who took the time to present their views to the committee on this important issue for all Canadians.

It is absolutely clear that along with the benefits of including the nuclear energy option in Canada's energy supply mix comes the responsibility of properly managing the resulting waste.

The waste in question is solid fuel bundles discharged from reactors built with our own Candu technology. Existing waste is currently stored safely at reactor sites while it awaits a long term management strategy. The nature of the waste requires a management approach covering the long term. Development and control of nuclear energy is a federal responsibility. It falls within federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada has a duty to assume its responsibilities in this area which include the critical matter of an oversight function.

Bill C-27 is a major step forward for Canada with respect to the management of nuclear fuel waste over the long term. The bill is the culmination of more than 25 years of research, environmental assessment and extensive consultations with stakeholders including waste owners, the province, the public and aboriginal organizations.

The majority of Canadians who voiced their views want a solution to the issue. They are looking to the Government of Canada to establish a clear, fair and comprehensive strategy to make effective progress.

Bill C-27 is entirely consistent with the Government of Canada's radioactive waste policy framework of 1996. That policy framework makes clear that the government's objective is to ensure radioactive waste is disposed of in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost effective and integrated manner.

I will be perfectly clear. Government oversight of the health, safety, environment and security aspects of long term management of nuclear fuel waste has long been provided through the 1945 Atomic Energy Control Act. This act was strengthened and replaced by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act which entered into force on May 31, 2000.

The proposed nuclear fuel waste act is needed to implement the Government of Canada's radioactive waste policy framework and ensure waste management operations are carried out in a comprehensive, cost effective and integrated manner which includes financial, social, ethical, socioeconomic and other broader considerations.

Should parliament assent to Bill C-27 it would be complementary to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Together both acts would ensure waste management activities are carried out in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive and integrated manner.

From the general principles established in the policy framework arose the specific requirements that are the backbone of the legislation before us. At the outset we wanted to ensure we heard the views and interests of stakeholders and strove to achieve an appropriate balance among competing priorities.

This was a challenging task and not one reached rapidly or in haste, however, an acceptable balance was achieved. I am confident this legislative framework would assist in making effective progress toward the implementation of a solution in the best interest of Canadians.

Bill C-27 would build on the good work of the nuclear fuel waste and disposal concept environmental assessment panel, or the Seaborn panel, and the government's response to it. The Seaborn panel carried out a comprehensive decade long review and Canada-wide public consultations. The panel made recommendations to the government, most of which were adopted as outlined in the government's response to the Seaborn report.

I reiterate our appreciation for the work carried out by panel members and the chair. We are thankful for their dedication in listening to all the views Canadians wished to convey. The government took seriously the work of the panel whose recommendations impacted significantly on the formation of government policy.

How has the public reacted to Bill C-27? There has been overwhelming support for legislation to deal with the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. Nonetheless concerns have been raised with respect to some of the details of Bill C-27. Members of the public have expressed concern that the government did not adopt the Seaborn recommendation to create a crown corporation to carry out the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

The Seaborn panel stated that various plausible organizational scenarios existed, each with advantages and disadvantages. It concluded that:

Whatever structure is chosen, however, the agency’s purposes, responsibilities and accountability must be spelled out as clearly and explicitly as possible, whether by legislation or in a charter of incorporation.

Consistent with past and current Canadian practices Bill C-27 would place primary onus for operations on the industry. This would be accompanied by appropriate government oversight. The government would exercise general oversight over the waste management organization established by the nuclear industry.

This approach has been chosen to allow us to move forward effectively. It would provide for a clear separation between those who carry out operations and those who regulate them, thus avoiding conflicts of interest. Similarly the waste management organization would be responsible for establishing and financing a credible and effective advisory council. Oversight would be exercised through the bill's transparency requirements.

In developing the oversight provisions of Bill C-27, care was taken to harmonize them with the federal oversight powers of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which would be exercised over the long term in managing nuclear fuel waste. Not only did we ensure there would be multiple government oversight mechanisms at play as recommended by the Seaborn pane, we assured ourselves that no undue overlap or duplication would occur among the mechanisms.

We have heard the public's call for transparency. Members of the public want to participate in important decisions that affect their lives and those of their children. Bill C-27 would provide for mandatory transparency. This was recommended by the Seaborn panel and agreed to by the Government of Canada as an essential condition for increasing public confidence.

For example, all waste management organization reports submitted to the minister, including the initial study of options, would be made public. The waste management organization would need to carry out public consultations at every stage of the process. All the advisory council's comments regarding the waste management organization's reports would need to be made public. The government would have additional consultation requirements under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

How have the affected utilities and provinces received Bill C-27? The main owners of nuclear fuel waste have conveyed to the government and the House committee that they welcome the increased regulatory certainty the legislation would provide. Bill C-27 would provide them with a clear framework to fulfill their responsibilities. The bill would not create an unmanageable financial burden. Small waste owners noted that the waste management organization would be required to provide them with services at a reasonable cost.

In developing the legislation the government consulted Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, which are the affected provinces. We addressed many of their concerns. We showed as much flexibility as possible without compromising the Government of Canada's policy objectives for federal oversight. The provinces recognized that development and control of nuclear energy falls under federal jurisdiction. They were all supportive of the bill's principles.

How have aboriginal peoples engaged in the process? Aboriginal peoples have shown considerable interest in this federal initiative. The Minister of Natural Resources has sought their active participation in future steps regarding the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. They participated extensively in the Seaborn public hearings. The Minister of Natural Resources has met with a number of aboriginal leaders to discuss how they wish to be consulted on the next steps. The active involvement of aboriginal peoples would be recognized and ensured by Bill C-27.

In addition to requiring the input of traditional knowledge from affected aboriginal communities during future siting phases, the bill would require the government to continue to carry out parallel consultations pursuant to its fiduciary responsibility. The Government of Canada recognizes the valuable perspectives and insights of aboriginal peoples.

Matthew Coon Come appeared before the House committee to speak for the Assembly of First Nations. Amendments were proposed and the committee recommended Bill C-27 be amended to include traditional aboriginal knowledge and expertise on the advisory council before the governor in council selects an approach for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

What would be the immediate impact after entry into force of the nuclear fuel waste act? The trust fund would be kick-started and the waste management organization would begin preparing its study. This report must be submitted to the government within three years. The study would include a comparison of risks and benefits of each option. The waste management organization must examine those options explicitly outlined in Bill C-27 but would not be limited to those options and may propose others.

Several stakeholders and some members of the House committee doubted whether three years would be enough time for the waste management organization to carry out the required work for the study. In this regard it should be noted that the Seaborn panel suggested that two years would be sufficient. Like Seaborn, the Government of Canada requires the study to contain sufficient information to compare options and decide on the most acceptable long term management approach for Canada.

After consultations, it was concluded that a three year period was appropriate in view of all the work that has already been done in Canada and elsewhere. It is now time to move forward. Utilities have been made aware of potential legislation for several years and have already started work.

What about the administration of the act? The bill indicates that the Minister of Natural Resources would be responsible for the administration of the nuclear fuel waste act. The department would be the focal point for interdepartmental consideration of technical, financial, social and ethical reviews and for any independent reviews that might be necessary. The department would provide the government's direct and indirect liaison with the waste management organization, the public, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other interested parties. The department would ensure compliance with the nuclear fuel waste act. It would manage all auditing, verification, inspection and enforcement measures.

A key aspect of Bill C-27 is its focus on a transparent process. Modern regulation seeks to involve the active participation of the public and to make clear the decision making role of the elected government. The activities of the nuclear utilities, the waste management organization and the minister are to be made transparent. The information should be made easily and promptly available to the public. Operations would be audited effectively.

In this regard the oversight approach taken in the bill is based on strong transparency requirements while leaving the organizing and implementation of the operations with the nuclear industry, combined with effective government oversight.

Does Bill C-27 address the broader nuclear energy policy issues? The nuclear energy option attracts interest on broad matters, for example, the appropriate mix and supply of available energy resources, sustainable development of energy projects, the social impact of high technology and globalization, the export or import of waste, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and, more recently, acts of terrorism. These are serious issues but all fall outside of the scope of this bill.

Of the issues I just mentioned, I will highlight one that commanded a lot of attention during the House standing committee review, namely the export and import of nuclear fuel waste.

There has been some talk about Canada becoming the dumping ground of the world for nuclear fuel waste. Let me assure the House that the government's first concern is to deal with nuclear fuel waste generated in Canada. There are no plans either to import or to export nuclear fuel waste. Bill C-27 was not designed to address these practices. Should they ever be considered in the future, there are existing federal mechanisms which would allow full public consultation and would guarantee that any application would not pose any unreasonable risk to health, safety, security and the environment of Canada. The two main mechanisms are the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Addressing broader public policy matters must not serve as an excuse for delaying our current responsibilities for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste. Ensuring appropriate waste management is a laudable objective in its own right. We already have nuclear fuel waste currently in storage at nuclear reactor sites. Storage activities are safe but are not designed to be permanent solutions. No longer are there any good excuses for delaying what our generation, which benefits from nuclear power, must do to deal with the waste.

What can we conclude at this time on Bill C-27? This legislation is the culmination of years of work and was not established in a contextual vacuum. Policy development was guided by extensive consultations with all stakeholders by modern regulatory practices, social justice concepts and by experience gained in other countries. Policy development was influenced by the invaluable work of the Seaborn panel, including contributions of all those Canadians who actively and conscientiously participated in the public hearings.

The result is a phased, step-wise, decision making process allowing for all planned and executed waste management operations to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and for the public to participate effectively at every step along the way.

Implementing a solution will take many years and will possibly affect future generations. The focus of legislation is on the responsibility of today's generation while at the same time allowing sufficient flexibility to allow decision making by future generations. Much progress has been made internationally on implementing a solution for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste.

The challenge for the government in developing legislation was to be fair to all stakeholders and to strike an effective balance in the public interest. I firmly believe that the proposed legislation fully meets the challenge.

With this legislative framework, Canada will be able to move ahead effectively in a reasoned fashion toward the implementation of an appropriate solution for the long term management of nuclear fuel waste and take into account not only the technical matters but incorporate in a central and integral way the social and ethical values of Canadians.

I look forward very much to parliament's approval of this very important bill.

[Business of Supply, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak on the motion by the hon. member for St. Albert on the implementation of the recommendations of the business of supply report, made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the last parliament.

The subcommittee's report was first presented to the House in 1997 and then re-tabled following the 1997 election in the last parliament in 1998.

I share the report's emphasis on the fundamental role of parliament in the business of supply. Indeed, Marleau and Montpetit quote from the report in their book on the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , on page 697. They say:

If committees are going to do a better job of examining the Estimates, they need more opportunities to influence expenditure, more authority, and better information. Once improvements have been made, committees should be able to bring new attitudes and approaches to their study of the Estimates.

This is why the government has been working with the procedure committee on a project to improve reporting to parliament. That project has led to a series of improvements to the provision of financial information to parliament and to the timeliness of getting this information to parliamentarians.

The government has also worked with parliament to adjust the estimates documents so that more timely information on departmental spending is provided for study by committees.

In addition, the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, which was tabled in June and adopted earlier this fall by the House, contained further improvements to the estimates process.

Under our new rules, the House will have a greater role in the review of estimates and in debating the government's spending plans on the floor of the House. In particular, two sets of estimates per year will be considered by the whole House. This will strengthen the consideration and scrutiny by parliamentarians of public spending. It will also reinforce the importance of parliament in the supply process. Of course, it will give all members of the House an opportunity to participate in this debate and to demonstrate to their constituents their interest in ensuring effective scrutiny of public expenditures.

It seems to me that the modernization committee's changes, which were supported by all parties earlier this year, build on the procedure committee report from the last parliament, and, indeed, go further than the procedure committee report in important respects.

I would not want to support any initiative that had the effect, even the unintended effect, of undoing the work of the modernization committee.

As other members have noted, the subcommittee recommended the creation of a new estimates committee to examine estimates issues. I have long believed that our current committee system has the strength and flexibility to handle a broad range of issues, and that each committee builds up a level of expertise on subjects that enables the committee to scrutinize expenditures.

I can tell hon. members that in my experience as chair of the defence committee over the last 10 months or so that has most certainly been the case. At the defence committee we have taken a leadership role in that respect.

It seems to me that the establishment of yet another committee would put a burden on the members of the House, while undermining the work and effectiveness of our current committees. This would have the unintended effect of reducing the effectiveness of the work of the House on the business of supply.

I am also sure that the subcommittee's suggestion that committees be empowered to increase or reallocate funds was made in the interest of providing members with a role in the scrutiny of public spending. However, the Constitution Act, 1867, is clear that there must be a royal recommendation for any vote, bill or resolution containing financial provisions.

Giving standing committees this power would raise constitutional problems because, as all members know, only the government may introduce or recommend the appropriation of public money.

I share what is I believe the view of all members, that improving reporting to parliament, review and accountability, deserves our attention and effort, and that there is more to be done in this area.

I am proud that when the government was first elected in 1993 it took early action to improve reporting on the business of supply.

The improved reporting to parliament project was initiated by the government in consultation with parliamentarians in 1994. Since then standing committees were enabled to examine and report on future fiscal year departmental plans and priorities as part of the main estimates process.

Departments now produce performance reports in the fall, detailing how well they have fulfilled their mandate during the year.

These reports allow parliamentary committees to evaluate subsequent departmental estimates on the basis of immediate past performance. After the 1997 election, the government took further action in long term legislative planning among House leaders. This has provided all parties with more predictability on government legislation, including the estimates documents.

In the past several years there has also been more use of new information technologies, specialized reports for standing committees and streamlined reporting. All this helps to ensure that the best information goes to parliamentarians and committees for their work on public expenditure scrutiny. Of course there is always more that can be done, so I am very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board has committed to continue her work with the procedure committee on improved reporting to parliament.

To conclude I want to say that I share the member's view that parliament has a crucial role in the business of supply and I applaud the work the member and others on the procedure committee have done to strengthen the financial reporting to parliament. I am also pleased that the President of the Treasury Board will continue her work with parliament in this area.

It seems to me that today's motion may have been overtaken by the work of the modernization committee and its adoption could inadvertently undermine the work of the modernization committee, which was supported by all parties earlier this fall.

As I indicated, there seems to be both constitutional and operational problems with some of the recommendations in the report of the subcommittee. While I agree with some of the principles behind today's motion, I believe the motion would actually reduce the effectiveness of parliament's work on the business of supply. That is why I will not be supporting this motion.

[National Defence, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I nearly spilled my coffee this morning when I read a headline in the Ottawa Citizen that said “Bring back Airborne MPs say”.

Yesterday the defence committee issued an almost unanimous interim report on the operational readiness of the Canadian forces. We made 19 recommendations covering many areas of concern. One such recommendation was for an enlarged special forces capability. The committee suggested expanding the JTF2 to a battalion size special forces unit.

We have not suggested we bring back the airborne. The airborne was never considered a special forces unit and was disbanded because it lacked discipline, contained rogue and extremist elements, and had become dysfunctional. The problems with the airborne were dragging the rest of the Canadian forces down. The airborne had to go.

Expanding the JTF2 will provide the Canadian forces with a special forces capability on par with that of our allies in the critical fight against terrorism.

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on the state of readiness of the Canadian forces response to the terrorist threat. Notwithstanding Standing Order 109, the committee requests a government response in 90 days.

This interim report contains 19 recommendations related to the budget, personnel levels of the Canadian forces, equipment requirements, the need for review of foreign and defence policies, our emergency preparedness agencies, as well as the role of the reserves and special forces.

[National Defence, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to soldiers the comfort and functionality of the kit they wear are absolutely critical to the performance of their duties.

A great deal of time, effort and research has been devoted to providing our soldiers with the very best in clothing and personal kits through the clothe the soldier program. This important program consists of 24 compatible items of protective clothing and personal equipment. Designed with leading edge technology, the clothing will greatly enhance the operational effectiveness and protection for the men and women of the Canadian forces.

As chair of the defence committee I am pleased to invite all members of the House to join our committee in room 253-D, Centre Block, this afternoon immediately following the three o'clock votes to see the new uniforms of our Canadian forces. Between 3 and 3.30 p.m. four members of our Canadian forces will be present to demonstrate the new kit and answer any questions members may have.

[Diamond Industry, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced Bill C-402, an act to prohibit the importation of conflict diamonds into Canada.

We know the marketing lines that “diamonds are a girl's best friend” or that “diamonds are forever”, but to many people on the African continent, diamonds mean something completely different.

The illegal diamond trade has been used to finance the activities of rebel groups in places like Sierra Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. To many Africans, diamonds do not mean eternal love, they mean death, destruction and suffering.

This illegal trade must be stopped. It not only threatens human rights, political stability, economic development and peace and security in a number of areas, it also threatens the legitimate diamond trade in countries like Botswana, South Africa and indeed Canada.

We have been a leader in the Kimberley process which involves an international system for the certification of rough diamonds. We must work to ensure the Kimberley process is successful if we are to finally eliminate the trade in conflict diamonds.