Svend Robinson

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance. Before putting a question to him, I want to put on the record a couple of statements that have been made by people working on the front line against violence.

For example, I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. Steve Sullivan, who is the president of the resource centre, said:

I am alarmed that the voices of the victims of gun violence are being drowned out by the controversy over costs. We know from the polls that the majority of Canadians continue to support this law in spite of the costs, but the vocal opponents seem to be dominating the media and the political agenda. We are here to say we have fought for this law and will not waver in our support.

That is a group representing victims of crime. The hon. member knows as well that the Canadian Police Association, which is on the Hill today, has strongly supported the bill.

Chief Vince Bevan, the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has said “Six inquests over the past decade, three of them here in Ottawa, recommended licensing firearms owners and registering firearms. If this legislation saves even one life it will have proven its worth”.

The Canadian Public Health Association and groups like the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence have said that this is critically important legislation.

If the Canadian Alliance gets its way this afternoon, every penny that is allocated toward gun control in Canada under the provisions of the supplementary estimates will be wiped out. In fact, most of that money is going toward licensing firearms owners, not toward the registry but toward licensing.

Therefore, what the member and the Canadian Alliance seem to be saying is that they do not believe in the licensing of firearms owners or that people should have a background check before they apply for a firearm in case they have a record of violent crime or domestic violence. The Canadian Alliance is trying to wipe out every penny of money for gun control, including that for licensing.

How can the member justify that attack on public health and public safety?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, our House leader, for her comments on this important motion.

Once again to be very clear, I oppose the motion. Were there an opportunity to vote on this opposition day motion, I would vote against the Canadian Alliance motion. I would be in support of strong and effective gun control legislation, both licensing and the registry. It is not a votable motion.

However, as we all know, there will be the vote later in the day which the Prime Minister has declared as a vote of confidence in the government. That is, as I indicated earlier, the dilemma in which those of us who do not have any confidence in the government on the one hand but support the principles of strong and effective gun control, as set out in Bill C-68, are placed.

As well, I want to note a couple of other points with respect to the substance of this issue.

There has been a lot of reference to the report of the Auditor General and certainly a lot of, I think, well-founded criticism of the Liberals' incompetence in implementing this very important program. However I want to underscore the fact that the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, said that it was too soon to judge the actual impact of the legislation itself. She said, “We did not audit Program efficiency or whether it is meeting its objectives”.

It is important to note that this was not an indictment of the objectives of the program. It was an indictment of the Liberal administration of a program which many of us believe is very important.

I want to point out as well that prevention of gun injuries and death is not cheap. Even operating at $70 million per year, this is obviously not cheap. However I would point out that there are other safety and prevention programs in place as well on which we recognize we have to spend money.

The meningitis inoculation program that was initiated in Quebec last fall, which came in response to 85 cases being reported in 2001, cost the one province $125 million to save lives. However the fact of the matter is that more than 1,000 people die every year in Canada as a result of guns compared to 3,000 who are killed in automobile crashes. For example, in New Brunswick the federal government is investing $400 million to widen a stretch of highway known as suicide alley, where 43 lives were lost between 1996 and 2000.

The point I am making here, and my colleague might want to comment, is that we cannot put a price on human life. If this program will help to reduce the number of injuries and deaths, whether it is from suicide or weapons that are not stored safely, and if it will help the police to track perpetrators of these crimes, it is money well spent. Our challenge now is to try to get the government to ensure that it is also money which is spent wisely and effectively.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to say that I was one of the members who voted in favour of Bill C-68 in 1995. I continue to support the principle of this bill.

I strongly support the principles of strong, tough and effective gun control. I want to make it very clear as well how disappointed I am in the incompetent administration by the Liberal government of the program. It has made our challenge a lot more difficult, frankly, those of us who strongly support effective gun control, to take the message out to the Canadian people. It has given ammunition to the Canadian Alliance which from the beginning has done everything in its power to destroy the program, to kill the gun registry and to in effect suggest that we not fund this important program.

I want to pay tribute to the Coalition for Gun Control and to other groups including the Canadian Police Association, which is on Parliament Hill today, to the Canadian Public Health Association and to others who have made a strong and powerful case for the need for strong and effective gun control legislation, and that means both licensing and registration. There are many examples of the need for that.

The Canadian Public Health Association said just last month:

The public health communities are on the record saying that strengthening the laws has contributed to a decline [in firearms-related deaths]. The research is abundant... The areas where we have seen the greatest progress are in the deaths associated with rifles and shotguns. The rate of homicides involving firearms has declined by over 35 per cent since 1991 and the rate of homicides with rifles and shotguns, the focus of the legislation, is at its lowest in 25 years.

I would note as well that this is a very grave problem. Guns kill more youth in the age group between 15 and 24 than cancer, drowning and falls combined.

I stand here today to thank the hon. member for his comments and to make it clear that I strongly support the principles of the legislation. I believe it must be funded properly to enable us to carry forward the essential program, both in terms of licensing and registration. Yes, we have to take tough steps to ensure that it is an efficient program and that there is no waste and incompetence as the Liberals have implemented it so far.

Finally, I want to note as well that in the vote this afternoon many of us are in a very difficult position because the Prime Minister has said that this is a vote of confidence in the government. Do we have confidence in the government? He has put the whips on.

I certainly do not have confidence in this government but on the other hand I am not prepared to stand and vote with the Canadian Alliance to destroy gun control in the country. That is the dilemma we are in. I expect that I will abstain on the vote because on the one hand while I cannot vote confidence in the government, on the other hand I will not stand and vote with the Alliance that wants to destroy the gun control program in Canada.

[Committees of the House, March 24th, 2003]

moved:

That the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has commenced its study of Bill C-250, a bill to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda provisions), to include sexual orientation. The committee has unanimously adopted a motion asking the House to give it an additional 30 sitting days within which to consider evidence on the bill.

The purpose of the concurrence motion today is simply to implement that all party recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to give us the additional 30 sitting days in order to hear evidence on this important legislation.

[World Tuberculosis Day, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Tuberculosis Day. On this important day the World Health Organization has announced the achievement of a major milestone in global efforts to fight the resurgent epidemic of tuberculosis.

Over 10 million TB patients have now been successfully treated under DOTS, the internationally recommended TB control strategy. Of these, more than 90% live in developing countries where the disease causes the most suffering, economic loss and death.

I would note as well that the TB epidemic is growing unabated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is closely linked to HIV-AIDS and poverty, and in many of the newly independent states arising after the breakup of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where it is exacerbated by poverty and social disruption. In some high HIV countries of sub-Saharan Africa, TB rates have quadrupled since the mid-1980s and threaten to overwhelm well established control programs.

Today I am calling on the Canadian government to put more resources into the global fight against tuberculosis and also to recognize that aboriginal communities in Canada and northern communities have rates of tuberculosis that are in many cases devastatingly high.

[Iraq, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who has said that he respects the decision of George Bush to launch this illegal and immoral war on the people of Iraq, a war that is criminal under international law.

If the Prime Minister will not condemn the war, will he at least agree that the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs would be inhumane and illegal? Will he call on both Bush and Blair not to use those weapons that have already taken such a terrible toll on innocent human lives in Iraq and elsewhere?

[Supply, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for two reasons. First, for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important issue today and also for his very clear stand against this illegal and immoral war.

I want to ask him a very specific question. So far, we do not know exactly what kinds of weapons have been used by the Americans and the British. We know, for example, that depleted uranium could be used, as well as fragmentation bombs. All these weapons are extremely dangerous. I would even say that they are illegal and violate the Geneva convention.

I would like to ask the leader of the Bloc Quebecois whether he agrees that the use of these weapons is totally illegal and that, even though we are not taking part in this war, Canada should ask those who are, including the Americans and the British, never to use such illegal and immoral weapons.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, that answer will be a huge disappointment to the people of North Burnaby because what it demonstrates once again is that while there is an awful lot of words there is still no concrete action and no real federal leadership in this important area.

The member talked about the provinces and municipalities providing regulations. I want to ask him a specific question with respect to the issue of above ground storage tanks.

He said that the Chevron refinery has voluntarily agreed to upgrade its storage tanks so that there would not be as much risk of spills, but the fact of the matter is there is no federal leadership and no mandatory rules in place. According to a document I have from Environment Canada, the voluntary approach has not achieved the desired environmental results and there are still leaks and spills from underground and above ground storage tank systems.

When will the government act to bring into force enforceable, mandatory and national standards for oil refinery storage tanks?

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it was on November 22 of last year that I rose in the House to put a question to my colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of the Environment, concerning the issue of threats to the health and environment from the Chevron oil refinery in North Burnaby, particularly after a major spill of MTBE. At that time I asked the Minister of the Environment what steps the federal government would be taking to ensure tough, enforceable standards for air emissions like sulphur dioxide and VOCs and for above-ground storage tanks at oil refineries in Canada.

I want to note that I have the opportunity of representing the community of Burnaby, and in particular in this case North Burnaby, which has been the home for several decades of a number of oil refineries, including the Chevron oil refinery. Over the years, the residents of North Burnaby frankly have had to put up with a fair amount of environmental contamination as a result of the presence of these refineries. Obviously there are also significant benefits from the refineries in terms of jobs and in other areas, but this comes at a cost.

For example: in December 1999 there was an excess emission of sulphur dioxide; in March 2000 there was a spill of jet fuel that gave the community six days of noxious fumes; in April 2000 two tonnes of catalyst was spread over the neighbourhood; in May 2000 there was a spill of 80,000 litres of MTBE; and then every so often there are noxious odours arising from Chevron's daily emissions.

Once again I am calling on the federal government to show leadership in this area, to establish rigorous, enforceable national emissions standards under the Canada Environmental Protection Act for sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compound emissions from oil refineries, with the power to regulate point sources such as the North Burnaby Chevron oil refinery. As well, I am calling on the federal government to establish water quality discharge standards for MTBE and, finally, to establish enforceable national standards for above-ground storage tanks based on the equivalent CCME guidelines in this area.

It is incredible that today there are still no enforceable standards in place for above-ground storage tanks of petroleum on federal lands. There are guidelines in place, but still no standards whatsoever. It is essential that the federal government show the kind of leadership that should be in place to protect citizens of communities like Bathurst and Burnaby and other communities across Canada in this very important environmental area.

Here I want to pay tribute to the local community organization in Burnaby, BRACE, Burnaby Residents Against Chevron Expansion. It really has played a key role in highlighting concerns about health and environment. Its hard work and dedication led to a number of studies being undertaken: an environmental compliance study, a public safety risk assessment, a subsurface groundwater study and, finally, a health impact risk assessment.

All of these studies point to the tremendous importance of federal leadership. That is what I am calling for today in the House: federal leadership. Where is the federal Liberal government in standing up for the health and safety of Canadians in communities which do host oil refineries? We need tough, enforceable standards, not voluntary guidelines but tough, enforceable standards. I call on the government and its representative to make a commitment that it will bring forward these standards.

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few very brief comments, in support of the bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. I want to congratulate him on this.

I had formally supported this bill. This legislation highlights the importance of respecting Canada's linguistic duality. This fundamental principle must be respected in all sectors of our society. Of course, one of the most important sectors is health care. Access to hospital services and health care is essential.

I know that the committee will consider how to implement this fundamental principle. I would simply like to say that I will be voting in favour of this bill. I know that my colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, already spoke on behalf of our caucus. He has fought his entire life to ensure that minority language rights in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada are respected.

I am very proud to share with the hon. members of this House the news that my hon. colleague will become a member of the Ordre de la Pléiade in a few weeks. I can also see my colleague, the hon. member for Repentigny, who is being awarded the same honour. So, on behalf of all my colleagues, we congratulate these members for their commitment to minority language rights in Canada.

I would like to make one final point on the general subject. I strongly support the principle of the bill and I am pleased it is going to committee. However I want to highlight one other issue and that is in the context of access to health services. I want to acknowledge and underscore the fact that there are huge demographic changes which are taking place in Canada.

I represent the community of Burnaby on the west coast of Canada and there is a major linguistic minority there who speak Cantonese and Mandarin and who still too often do not have access to hospital services. I want to take the opportunity of this debate not only to reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental principle of linguistic duality, anglais et français, but also to appeal to my colleagues in the government to recognize that it is essential that the federal government show leadership in places like Toronto, Vancouver and other centres and ensure that where there are significant linguistic minorities who speak languages such as Cantonese, Mandarin, or other languages in which they need access to health services, that they too will have access to those services.

I support this bill.