Bob Mills

[Memorial Cup, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend the Red Deer Rebels won the Memorial Cup in Regina. Our last national cup was the Centennial Cup in 1980. The team finished first out of 55 teams. They won 79 of 105 games they played this year.

The Rebels have worked extremely hard to obtain this title and should be very proud of themselves. The Rebels' solid work ethic starts at the top with their coach Brent Sutter. Brent and his assistant, Dallas Gaume, and many others in the organization have done a fantastic job in bringing out the best in these talented players to build an aggressive and team oriented group of young men.

The Red Deer Rebels are an outstanding organization. The hockey club is very active in central Alberta and support many worthwhile causes. As the member of parliament for Red Deer constituency, I am proud of the Rebels as is all of our community.

I again congratulate the Rebels for a fantastic season and for making all of Red Deer and central Alberta proud.

[Justice, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is too late to change the law for these two little girls. They have already suffered a psychological impact. I am talking about future cases.

This is a single mother of four receiving no child support. She has received $50 since 1998 from Schneeberger. The legal bills are almost impossible for this lady.

Schneeberger is serving a federal sentence in a federal prison and the Divorce Act is a federal issue. It is the Minister of Justice's responsibility to make sure this never ever happens again. All of us know that these girls are being psychologically impacted.

[Justice, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday Lisa Dillman and two young girls aged five and six became psychological victims of the justice system of Canada. I was there as these two little girls cried and clung to their mother's leg as they entered the Bowden penitentiary to visit their pedophile father. An RCMP officer in the prison was in tears.

How can the government brag about human rights and about protecting children? Will the minister change the law now and call it Lisa's law so that no children anywhere in Canada will be forced to visit sexual predators in jail ever again?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak to the amendments in Bill C-19 as proposed by the Minister of the Environment.

As the environment critic for the official opposition I have spoken on numerous occasions in the House of my experiences and concerns relating to environmental issues. I have also learned that there is one very important thing to pay attention to when dealing with environmental issues, and that is co-operation. There has to be co-operation with all levels of government and industry as well as with people who are interested in the kind of legislation we are passing.

The federal government is in a unique position to act as a leader in the area of co-operation and to bring all stakeholders together when we talk about the environment. Environmental issues are consistently found at the top of the list when we talk with various stakeholders.

We have often heard people of all ages ask what they can do to help the environment. They then go on to describe their feeling of helplessness and of being overwhelmed by the issues. The federal government has a real lead role to play in co-operation. It should empower Canadians so that they feel active in their communities and can improve their health as well as the ecological system in their areas.

The federal government must also work to provide for the public's best interest and must provide objective knowledge concerning many of these issues. It can act as a facilitator of information and provide venues for the public to engage in the issues. The public must be consulted as often as it possibly can. An informed and empowered citizen is the best friend of the environment.

I have witnessed in the last few years amazing discussions with public groups. We have examples of environmental groups working with industry to bring their joint concerns about endangered species before the environment committee.

In my own community I was part of the parks board for about 10 years. We looked at building a trail system and how that would impact on the potential development of our river escarpment and valleys. The fact that people, industry and real estate people would get involved and work together with city council on that scale made it happen. We are very proud of a parks system which is a selling feature of our community.

No matter where we look, whether it is at endangered species, pollution or water resources, involving people is important. We must get away from the concept that big government runs everything, that it knows best and does not need to consult with people.

Canadians sometimes forget that they can work with industry. They sometimes feel alienated from government and industry. It is incumbent on us, and I believe the bill goes a long way in accomplishing that empowerment and making people feel part of the whole system. Empowerment is an important part of the fabric of a country, a province or a community. Many environmental issues demand government co-operation.

While many think this is only an issue for the federal government and the provinces, we must show people that the bill goes a long way in showing they can be involved. That co-operation is critical.

We must also work on the relationships people have with their government, and I apply that at all levels. The provinces and the federal government must work together to develop initiatives and programs which understand and address the concerns and the very health of people. Whether we talk about the water situation, which we had a lot of discussion on lately, or sewage or whatever, this involvement is so critical and affects people's health.

I believe growing co-operation at all levels is a sign of our observations of the patterns discovered in nature, which we call biodiversity. While competition and combat have an important role in our interactions with each other, humans and nature cannot be reduced to these elements alone.

Co-operation and construction are also integral to the system of nature of which we are all a part. We recognize that we must have both competition and co-operation. Our end goal is what is best for both people and for the natural world that people participate in. With a recognition of the transforming power of both competition and co-operation, the solutions to our concerns are made more apparent.

This brings me to Bill C-19 specifically, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

First, I will talk about some of the bad news, the competition side of things. Then I will talk about the good news in the bill, which is the areas of co-operation.

The current government continues to have a serious problem when it comes to environmental commitment. It has been said by a number of people that the government is very long on promises and relatively short on action, sort of chameleon-like in approach, constantly changing its colour to fit the surroundings. It betrays the trust of Canadians who once believed that Liberal means environmentally friendly.

As the environment critic for the official opposition, the Alliance Party, it will be my job to show Canadians that we have an environmental conscience and that we care about the environment and the kinds of changes it needs.

The OECD, the Organisation on Economic Co-operation and Development, reported several weeks ago that we were the second worst in the ranking of those 29 countries in terms of environmental progress. That is a rather serious indictment for a country that prides itself in our environment.

The auditor general in his final report released several months ago argued that the current government had significant problems putting words into actions.

We have toxic waste sites around this country numbering in thousands. We have someone sitting on a hunger strike outside here who is saying that something has to be done about the Sydney tar ponds, the most graphic example of where promises have been made but nothing has happened.

We have raw sewage which is being dumped into St. John's Harbour and into the Halifax and Victoria harbours by a G-8 country, an advanced industrial country. That is not an environmentally good record to have.

The far reaching implications of Kyoto promises and endangered species legislation, if implemented without the proper consideration of costs and benefits by the government, are not the way things should be done by a government. We should know what it is going to cost. We should consider the socio-economic impacts. We should look at the whole picture and work with Canadians to solve those problems.

Important detailed information on voluntary and co-operative programs, said to be the emphasis of the new endangered species act, is not there and creates an uncertainty for landowners. When someone is told that some of their land will be taken out of production, where their family is going to suffer, and compensation is not provided for in the legislation, that is a serious lack of co-operation with the people, the people who we must co-operate with if we want to save something. That is the bad news.

The good news is the co-operation. The federal government, under the PCs, developed this tool for environmental impact assessment in co-operation with government, industry and other levels of government. It was soon entrenched in law as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Its regulations were a provision for a five year review of the act. This was undertaken last year by the current government with direction from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The review was close to what a public review can be and should be. It involved the participation of thousands of Canadians from many different walks of life, those involved in non-governmental organizations, the provinces, industry and aboriginals. We called many of them to ask them what they thought about Bill C-19. Many came back and said they had looked at it and listened to us. They sounded somewhat shocked that the bill included what they had said. I compliment the government for doing that.

There were consultations and workshops across the country. There were and continue to be regular meetings with the regulatory advisory committee, a stakeholder group made up of industry, environmentalists, aboriginals and government representatives. The process began with background studies, a government discussion document and ended with a draft bill. This was good business practice and these were good consultations.

Many of the amendments in Bill C-19 addressed the various weaknesses in the original act. That is exactly what should happen when we do a review.

There were some infamous cases of environmental assessment that did not work very well, such as the Oldman River case in my province. There was duplication of effort between provincial and federal governments. There were late interventions. There was a lack of consultation and some rather foolish decisions.

In the winter I had a bridge put in to haul lumber out for Sunpine Forest Products. The bridge was put a way up on the banks so it would in in any way touch the river. Yet, through an environmental assessment called by a small group, the company had to lay off 100 people and the project did not go ahead because the bridge would shade the fish. The problem was that it was only there to be used in the winter. The fish were not swimming or breeding at that time. There was ice and snow on the river. That is the kind of foolish decisions that are sometimes made. Hopefully, these amendments will stop that sort of thing.

The amendments would increase the ability for the public, industry and government to work effectively and efficiently on environmental assessments, saving time and money for all involved, increasing public participation in many cases and aiding in protecting the environment.

I am particularly interested in the environmental assessment co-ordinator assigned to each federal assessment and the possibility of having this co-ordinator there. Often what happens is the public does not know who to talk to and are shifted from one level of government to the other. Having an environmental co-ordinator assigned to a project should end this.

I would suggest several changes as well to make the bill even better. Public participation is essential to quality environmental assessment. There are three improvements that should be made to improve this even further and I will just touch on those.

First, the public and industry want to work together on this issue. Early public involvement means less long term suspicion and delays. The scoping determination must be open to public scrutiny.

Second, while the government is keen on going electronic, and I applaud this effort, it must not forget that many Canadians are still not plugged in. Rather than an immediate switch to an electronic public registry system for access to information on project assessment, this government should go a little bit slower. I have been told that there have been significant problems in the past with an electronic format. Therefore, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I suggest working on a new one while keeping the old and relatively reliable format for the time being.

Third, it is essential that there be another review of the act and the effectiveness of these amendments in the next five to ten years. This would be to everyone's benefit and I believe would interest all stakeholders. Co-operation between government departments and other levels of government is critical for the success of environmental assessment in Canada and outside Canada. We must stop the duplication between different levels of government.

It is natural for people to be suspicious of new changes, especially when these changes significantly alter the way they must think about how things have been done for so long. The environmental assessment has been around for some time now and it is time for all federal departments to act in co-operation through the leadership of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, so that environmental assessment can be done well and with a strong public input.

Crown corporations in particular have been very slow to rise to the challenge of environmental assessment. While there are provisions in these amendments for developing environmental assessment regulations for some of these corporations, the public must have input into these regulations and have an opportunity to respond to drafts. There must be assurances that Canadian standards are not different in some places or for some departments or corporations.

Co-operation with the provinces, I repeat, is critical. While the amendments to Bill C-19 reflect several suggestions made by the provinces, there is still significant discretion on the part of the responsible minister regarding key elements of decision making. Turf wars are one of the most serious problems between the two levels of government. I would like to see the provinces consulted before the minister's discretionary powers are invoked in sections 25 and 28 of the act. This would demonstrate to the provinces that the federal government is truly working with them and not against them.

I congratulate the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for their work. I also sincerely congratulate all those who have spent much precious time on developing these amendments, those in the public who gave their time in public consultations and workshops and those who have given their time to work on the regulatory advisory committee. All of them deserve many thanks for their commitment to this process and this country.

I started this speech by talking about how environmental legislation best works. It is first through co-operation with the citizens and all levels of governments. It is through empowering people with information, with venues for dialogue, with support for dialogue, involvement and action. It is through the federal government taking the lead, setting the example and co-ordinating the efforts.

Too often the government has failed in keeping its many words regarding action on the environment. It has failed many times to consult Canadians, has failed in some basic business practices and has said “just trust us”. However suspicion wins when government fails to be up front. The health of Canadians, the economy and the environment suffer if we are not up front with this information.

The five year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, while certainly not perfect, was a successful exercise in consulting with Canadians. Such success means better environmental assessment, better co-operation, better government, and the government, industry and citizens will protect the environment better. It means time saved, money saved and human health and the environment saved. Environmental assessment is a good tool to work toward sustainability. There is still much room for improvement, but I have indicated where some of that can come from.

In conclusion, I suggest that the government use the five year review as a model of what can be achieved with other environmental issues such as global warming, species at risk, space preservation and other environmental issues. Taking the lead through co-operation first with all of the citizens of Canada is the very best way to guarantee human health, environmental health and protection for now and the future for all of us.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-26, the tobacco tax amendments act, 2001.

Last year as a member of the health committee I listened to a lot of testimony from various tobacco producers and sellers. I also listened to many health experts and it became fairly obvious after several months of hearings just how damaging tobacco is to society and how it impacts on our health care system.

Whether it is the heart association or the cancer association, all of them bring solid evidence that tobacco kills. They tell us that 45,000 Canadians are killed directly by the use of tobacco every year. They also show figures representing billions of dollars taken from our health care system as a result of this habit.

Like the last member who spoke I find the most discouraging, disappointing and despicable part of the whole tobacco industry is the targeting of young people and the various ways that it operates around the world.

While in Germany recently I went past a number of schools. Adjacent to a school, sometimes on all four corners, there would be cigarette machines and advertisements targeting young people. We do not have that in Canada because we have progressed a long way from that. However that is the kind of industry we are dealing with, one that targets young people even in an advanced country like Germany.

Over the many years that I have travelled to developing countries I have seen little 10 packs of cigarettes being given to children outside schools. These children are only 8 and 9 years old. Many reports indicate that these cigarettes contain many times the nicotine level contained in normal cigarettes. In this fashion, tobacco companies hook them young.

The tobacco industry does not want the bill to pass. It is hard for me to agree with the tax increase, but in this case if the money is put toward stopping people from using this very dangerous product then this tax is reasonable and legitimate, and my party will support it.

It is hoped, however, that the dollars collected would not be like the dollars collected on the gasoline tax. That money is collected but is not put into roads. I hope this extra money would go to the health system and toward stopping our kids from smoking. In supporting the bill I have to say that this provision must be included. The dedication by the government must also be there.

Our country's health system is deteriorating. Many experts would say that we are 23rd out of the 29 OECD members, the most industrialized countries. That is not something to be proud of. Obviously one of the problems, and there are many others, is the lack of funding. Hopefully this funding would help that.

It is also hoped that the tax increase would allow some other tax decreases to occur. The thing that is probably hurting us the most and the reason that many of us came to the House was the debt of $550 billion of which $43 billion is paid out in interest every year. I imagine what we could do with the $43 billion to help our health system, to help kids stop smoking and many other things.

It has to be remembered that today we are spending $15 billion on health. We spend $12 billion on advanced education and $22 billion on various other social programs. If we had $43 billion we could probably stamp out the problem that the bill is addressing.

I believe that the bill is good for Canada as long as the money from it is used in the right way. It is hoped that it would go a long way to stopping young people from wanting to smoke.

[Keith Mann, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to give one of the hardest tributes I will ever have to make in the House.

Last Friday evening, Red Deer, Alberta and Canada lost one of the most dedicated volunteers any city, province or country could have. Keith Mann was killed in a tragic traffic accident in Red Deer. He was the head of the music program at Red Deer College, leader of the Red Deer Royals Band, proud member of the Rotary Club and, when it came to music, the number one promoter of Red Deer, Alberta and Canada.

Keith taught music in Hawaii, across Canada, the United States and Europe.

He was loved by our community and all the families whose lives were literally moulded by this great Canadian.

Keith's motto was leave Canada a better place than he found it. Keith was a true Canadian hero. I ask all members to remember their volunteers. We have just lost one of our very best.

I send our condolences and prayers to his wife Marilyn, to his family and to the community who have lost the very best.

[St. John's Harbour, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is another environmental issue. There have been many during the last eight years I have been here. Again we look at promises and at the politics being played with the issue of the environment.

I had the privilege of going to St. John's during a byelection. I saw the harbour and the history of the place. It is a beautiful spot. One of the things that I was shown in the harbour was the emission of raw sewage into the ocean. At first I did not understand. I could not imagine that in a G-8 country, in an advanced country called Canada, we would be dumping raw sewage into the ocean. I would expect that in developing countries. They have little choice. They have no resources to take care of sewage, but I did not expect that in Canada.

Then I found out that it is not the only place where we are dumping raw sewage. We are dumping raw sewage into the ocean in the beautiful city of Victoria. When we say we have a problem and there is too much sewage lying around on our beaches, the answer is that we put the pipe out a little farther into the ocean.

That is hardly sewage treatment. That is hardly something hon. members would expect in a country like Canada. As I mentioned earlier today in the debate about water, we sell our technology. We sell water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants to developing countries. In Canada we have at least two cities where we are putting raw sewage directly into the ocean. That is a disgrace.

In St. John's harbour, 120 million litres per day of raw sewage are dumped directly into the ocean, letting the tides carry it away and becoming someone else's problem. All members should be shocked by that kind of information. We should be reacting to it immediately. There are bacteria, pathogens, phosphorous, nitrogen, heavy metals, visible pollutants lying everywhere, and baby diapers, condoms and needles lying on the beaches.

The hon. member who raised the issue talked about the numerous cruise ships going by. What do they think about Canada when they see and hear about that sort of thing? There is not only the health hazard the hon. member has mentioned, but the shame and the embarrassment that we as Canadians have to live with.

I see the money that is wasted in planet Ottawa and some of the programs that are funded. It is shocking that we would even need a private member's motion on an issue as basic as water and sewage.

I see how politics are played. I do not say I understand politics in Atlantic Canada all that well. I hear how people are told at public meetings that if they vote a certain way the money will be made available for a sewage treatment plant. That is not the way the government should play with environmental issues. It is not a partisan political issue. Taking care of sewage is a basic thing that a country does. Whether Canadians vote Liberal, NDP, Conservative or Alliance should not matter when it comes to putting raw sewage into the ocean.

I also looked at the Sydney tar ponds, which our party has been looking at for eight years now. Again we see how little is being done and how much politics is being played. There is a face-off between the industry minister and the environment minister for who can have the dirtiest harbour. That is not something I would like to say I represented if I were either the industry minister or the environment minister. I certainly would not want to list on my credentials that my city's raw sewage is going into the ocean. It is certainly not something we would want to talk about.

How do we deal with environmental issues? Obviously the list could be very long. What we do or what we expect from our federal government is leadership. It should not pass the buck. It should not say that it is this level of government or that level of government. It must recognize that environment is a provincial issue and in many cases is a municipal issue.

What should be the role of the federal government? Its role should be one of leadership, of providing research money and expertise to the provinces and territories to help them help the municipalities.

We do not even know what our aquifers are and whether or not we are polluting them. We do not have nor do we use the technology to look at our water supply.

Sewage is another matter. We really do not use the most modern technologies in many cases. We do not have a set of standards for testing. Some have primary treatment, some have secondary, some have tertiary and some have none. Obviously, that is not the sort of Canada that most of us want environmentally. The federal government should provide leadership and initiative to deal with these kinds of basic problems.

The matter of garbage is a favourite of mine. I have been visiting garbage landfill sites in different countries to see how they deal with garbage for probably 35 years. I remember sitting next to the mayor of Vienna. I asked him casually over dinner what his city did with its garbage. I told him that I had looked at the garbage facilities in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London, Miami, New York and a lot of Canadian cities as well.

He told me that he would show me what they did. At 11 o'clock at night we drove downtown and came to a building that looked like an apartment building. Inside was a recycling facility and an incinerator.

Vienna's biggest problem is that it cannot get enough garbage. It is now purchasing garbage from surrounding communities and bringing it in train loads so that the plant is kept fully functional.

That is the kind of thing that Canadians should be promoting and utilizing whether for recycling, composting or incineration. The technology is there. The technology to handle the sewage problem in St. John's harbour is not rocket science. It is just a matter of getting the job done and being committed to doing it.

We should also look at our air situation. I will give an example that is similar to St. John's harbour or Victoria. There is an area in the Fraser Valley that is the second most polluted air shed in Canada. Southern Ontario is the most polluted and this area is the second.

California is short of energy. It cannot build power plants there because they pollute. Washington does not allow high tensile lines to go over the top of populated areas. Guess what they are going to do? They have decided to build power plants along the border on the Washington side. California gets its power and Washington gets the profit. Canada gets the pollution and the high tensile lines.

That is the sort of thing that Canadians cannot allow. We cannot allow raw sewage into the oceans. We cannot allow pollution to come across our border without raising a fuss about it. We have to deal with our sewage problem and modernize our garbage disposal.

Canada's environmental record needs to be improved. At the present time it is dismal. We need to stop playing politics with the environment and get on with the job of creating a cleaner environment for all Canadians.

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that party is good at passing the buck, blaming someone else and blaming the provinces.

We are talking about leadership. We are talking about taking a plan and putting the plan into effect.

We hear about the dollars are being sent to the provinces and the municipalities, $4 billion dollars. They say it is not getting to them. The municipalities say they need over $16 billion just to handle the problems they have now. When will the government live up to its commitment?

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it has finally happened: Beware of drinking water. More and more Canadians are under a boil water order and are being told not to drink water from the tap. As usual, it seems as though the government has no plans.

Will the government take a leadership role and together with the provinces and territories develop a comprehensive plan on safe water?

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, environment is linked to everything. It is linked to agriculture, it is linked to health and it is linked to trade. It is linked to everything we do because we must have a pure environment in which to function. Let us put as paramount importance the health, welfare and safety of Canadians. We have to do that.