Lynn Myers

[Police Week, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week in Canada. It is an opportunity for all Canadians to show our gratitude and appreciation for the outstanding work performed day in and day out by our police and peace officers across the country.

This year in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington Police Week will be celebrated as follows:

there will be police displays in malls;

there will be seminars on various crime prevention tips and on personal safety;

there will be media announcements saluting individual officers;

there will be tours of police facilities; and

finally, there will be an awards night to recognize members of the community who assisted police in some very significant way.

On behalf of all residents of Waterloo-Wellington and on behalf of all Canadians, I thank all police for working so hard to make our communities the great places they are. Canadians respect them and Canadians salute them.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak regarding Bill C-19. I know that this is a complex bill, but having listened to the comments made by members of the opposition on the motions in Group No. 3 I can only conclude that the members do not understand the successive contractor provisions in Bill C-19. Either they do not understand or they are intentionally spreading misinformation.

They say they agree with part of proposed section 47.3 which would protect the pay levels of employees providing pre-board security screening services in the event of a change of contractor. Then they put forward Motion No. 28 which would remove the right of these employees to seek a remedy before the board if a successive contractor were in fact to reduce their wages.

In other words, the official opposition wants compliance with section 47.3 to be completely voluntary. If a successive contractor does not respect the provision, too bad for the employees. They would have no recourse and that is unacceptable.

Members of the official opposition have also talked at length about how the provision, if extended, could impact on railway short lines and the transfer of government services to the private sector.

This provision has nothing to do with either sales of business or the privatization of government services. It would not even apply to such situations and to suggest otherwise is completely false.

Proposed section 47.3 would not grant successor rights where the federal government or an employer subject to the Canada Labour Code contracts out services. Proposed section 47.3 would not even grant successor rights when there is a change of contractor. The successive contractor would not be bound by that collective agreement. The bargaining agent would not retain bargaining rights.

All the provision does is require a successive contractor to maintain wage levels, that is to compete on the basis of sufficiencies other than wage reductions.

This provision will protect low wage employees who might otherwise lose their employment or be forced to accept pay reductions when there is a change of contractor.

Pre-board security screening services are important to the safety of the Canadian public. Employees providing such services deserve this minimal protection as would other groups of vulnerable employees providing such key services. These are the kinds of employees who would benefit from protection under proposed section 47.3.

I thought it was important to set the record straight on these issues. I think it is important that we do so as a government.

I would also like to comment that I was at the committee when the Reform Party was filibustering. Talk about wasting time and resources. Talk about the abuse of parliament. Talk about being childish. All of this is from the party that claims there is a fresh start to be had in parliament and a new way of doing business. That is rubbish. I saw it firsthand and I was disgusted by it.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely crucial for the federal government to focus on children in the months and years ahead.

It is well known that well-developed children become successful productive adults who are better able to contribute to society's economy and to instigate a cycle of positive effects as they become parents and grandparents of the generations that follow.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to help people carry out the most important job they will ever have and that is of a parent. As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can in the first three or four years of a child's life, noting that they are essential to the child's long term development.

We know now just how valuable it is to get these first years right, but how damaging it can be for children when they do not get the help they need at an early age.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child abuse which is a crime with potential lifetime effects for the young victims. One abused child is too many.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child poverty. Poverty affects not only a child's body but also their emotional and mental state. Poor children are more than twice as likely to suffer long term disabilities and other physical and mental health problems.

We at the federal level and indeed all levels of government need to work very hard to advance the cause of Canada's children. We must do so knowing that there is growing recognition worldwide of the importance of early childhood development. This is something we all have a stake in because it is all about the future of Canada. Early child development is a powerful investment in the future both socially and economically.

I ask the secretary of state responsible for children and youth what the government is doing to support our children. What is the government doing to advance the national children's agenda?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from Vancouver Quadra, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He made some very thoughtful and insightful comments and observations.

I wonder if he could answer this question. I was particularly interested in his comment that the solution is in the existing social security network. I wonder if he could go on and elaborate more about that in terms of what we as a government and indeed all Canadians should be looking for with respect to the solution being, in part, in the social security network.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in favour of the motion presented.

On March 27, 1998 the federal government, the provincial governments and the territorial governments announced financial acceptance and assistance to people infected with hepatitis C during the 1986 to 1990 period. Yesterday the Government of Ontario offered compensation for pre-1986 individuals and is exploring possible legal avenues to require the federal government to meet the responsibility for its share of the total hepatitis C costs.

The provinces, territories and the Red Cross were the operators of the blood system in the 1980s. The provinces and territories are also responsible for the operation of their health insurance plans and the delivery of health care services. The federal government is the regulator of the blood system. This role has recently been confirmed and clarified by Justice Krever in his final report. In addition, the federal government has taken a leadership role in rebuilding what was clearly a flawed system by acting to ensure the emergence of new forms of governance in this area and new forms of risk management.

In addition, far from abandoning its responsibilities in the area of blood and blood system management, the federal government has taken a leadership role in negotiating the emergence of a new blood system with a new governance structure. As part of this effort, the federal government felt a responsibility to turn its attention to the issues of the past. Following the release of the final report of the Krever commission, it took upon itself the role of leading the settlement of hepatitis C claims in the 1986 to 1990 period.

In doing so it moved to accelerate the settlement of claims from victims for this period and to smooth the transition for the new blood system. This government has been consistent, forward thinking and diligent in its efforts both to help victims and to reassure Canadians about the future of the blood system.

In redesigning the system and in dealing with the issue of hepatitis C, the government has had the benefit of many conversations with consumer groups and others. There has been extensive consumer involvement in both processes. The Minister of Health has met on many occasions with representatives of groups such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. These consultations have been a source of many new ideas. Their importance has been recognized in the decision to involve consumer groups in the negotiated court approved settlement process announced on March 27. As a government we will continue to do so in the interests of all Canadians.

I want to speak about the New Zealand experience. New Zealand has a no fault accident compensation scheme. It came into force in April 1994 and the relevant act was amended in 1982 and again in 1992. Originally the scheme compensated for all injuries resulting from any accident without any regard to fault, including medical misadventure. While original the no fault scheme was relatively generous, in 1992 it was changed. Amendments were introduced to exclude hepatitis C infections from the list of compensation events because it did not meet the standards established for medical accident or something that was severe within a period of mishap and therefore rare.

In the same year changes in program administration led to lump sum awards being replaced by an independence allowance for non-financial losses of up to $38 Canadian per week tax free.

The New Zealand Hemophilia Society obtained an extension for hepatitis C claims until June 1995 but as of that date New Zealand's no fault scheme no longer covers hepatitis C infections.

I draw the attention of the House to the independence allowance cited above, in particular the $38 per week. This is not a large amount of money. No fault schemes like this one strike a balance between the range of conditions that can be factored into the scheme and the affordability of it. In the evolution of New Zealand's scheme awards, though they cover a range of conditions they became small and common types of mishaps with gradual onset and chronic impacts like hepatitis C and have therefore as a result disappeared from that scheme. We should perhaps take this history of New Zealand into account.

Equity requires inclusiveness and inclusiveness limits affordability unless benefit levels are driven down to very low levels as in New Zealand's case.

When equity is put aside and the focus is only on the specifics of a particular diagnosis, there is capacity to contemplate higher level awards as in the case of Ireland. Sooner or later a scheme that runs on these grounds will face the challenge of its own internal inconsistencies, and there will be a tendency to drive out certain specific high cost conditions by redefining the basis on which the no fault scheme applies.

At the end of the day, unless policy and program are carefully designed, one is left with a no fault scheme that applies to severe and rare conditions and is characterized by benefit levels that are small marginal add-ons to income. We need to note that is certainly most important.

While Justice Krever documented these various scenarios in some detail, his report contains little analysis of the incentive structures around the world with both for cause and no fault schemes.

Canada like most other countries has much more experience with for cause schemes than with no fault schemes. While there are many calls to reform the justice system, the details of tort law are sufficiently worked out that courts can render justice when cause and effect are well defined.

The federal government and its partners in the March 27 announcement placed relevance on just these processes to render justice in a very sensitive area. As to no fault, there are serious and important issues of equity that will have to be addressed in this area before a sustainable scheme can even be possible. Doing no fault on the fly is a recipe for disaster, I would suggest, especially in the medical area.

Even in New Zealand where it gave no fault a sustained effort, the problems have been numerous and the administrative difficulties immense over the years.

If Canada is to proceed down the no fault route it must be on the basis of a sustained debate about the merits of no fault in many areas and a careful analysis of the many implications that no fault carries. We will not head up the blind alley New Zealand has travelled, at least I would hope not.

Today in New Zealand commentators are pointing ironically to Canada as an example of how things could have been done differently on hepatitis C. Canada's leadership has been recognized abroad.

One of the most important parts of the national debate about blood has been the involvement of consumers in the process. Their input remains critical to the refinement of our policy. Ministers in this government, especially the Minister of Health, had extensive consultations with representatives of groups affected by the blood crisis, as did ministers in other jurisdictions.

The consumer perspective was an integral part of the process of negotiation and consumer representatives were apprised of developments throughout the process. Representatives of groups such as the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Society of Canada met regularly with a variety of politicians and their views were fed into the process at various points. This will continue. It will be an integral part of the process and I support that.

The blood system is ultimately about people, altruism and equity, not federal-provincial relations, not partisan politics, not political advantage. As soon as we come to realize this we will all be better off.

[Nuclear Waste, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

A Canadian environmental assessment agency panel recently decided against allowing enormous vaults inside the granite of the Canadian Shield as the best and safest method of disposing of nuclear waste.

In light of this decision, what does the government plan to do to dispose of nuclear waste in Canada?

[Children, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

Well-developed children become successful productive adults who are better able to contribute to society's economy. Would the minister clearly outline what the government is doing socially and economically to promote early childhood development as a powerful investment in the future?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listen in amazement to members of the Bloc speak to jurisdictional issues. It seems to me that the environment is of such grave concern and of such great importance to all Canadians that there is a role for all of us to play. There is a role for provincial people, there is a role for municipal people, there is a role for conservation authorities and there is a role for the federal government, and that is a very important role.

I heard earlier the hon. member opposite talk about a lack of good faith, when in reality the federal government, in good faith, is doing the kinds of things that are required for the betterment of our environment and is doing so in a way that benefits he and I and all Canadians, no matter where they live.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I come from a municipality and a riding where in fact we take the environment very seriously, as do all Canadians. I was thinking about how important it is for the municipalities to have a role, for a watershed, often a conservation authority, to have a role, for the provinces to have a role and for the federal government to have a role.

Certainly in terms of education that is a key component. We as legislators need to ensure that people are aware, especially our young people, of the importance of the environment and what we as Canadians can do to secure it and ensure that we pass on to the next generation the kind of environment they should have, and rightfully so.

I encourage whatever efforts we can make to ensure that all Canadians, especially our young people, know precisely the kinds of efforts we need to make to ensure that our environment remains the best in the world.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I am pleased to address the House on this very important piece of environmental legislation, Bill C-32, a bill to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as CEPA.

CEPA is a comprehensive environmental protection and pollution prevention statute. Since 1988 it has been the cornerstone of federal environmental and health protection legislation. One of the most crucial components of the act allows for the control of toxic substances.

Many toxic substances do not stay put once they are released into the environment. Toxic substances such as mercury and PCBs have been found in the blood of aboriginal people in communities in the high Arctic located far from industrial developments. These substances are transported to remote and otherwise pristine environments by air currents and they can have long term adverse health effects on the people and the wildlife that breathe air, drink water or consume food that contain these substances.

Canadians are very concerned about the risks toxic substances pose to their health, their children's health and the long term sustainability of their environment. Certainly the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington are concerned about these issues and I know that is true for all Canadians.

Bill C-32 helps to reduce or eliminate this threat. It is important to know exactly what that is. The good work already under way to identify and manage toxic substances will continue and the bill introduces innovations to allow more efficient and effective government action in carrying out these activities.

It also incorporates in the legislation key features of the federal toxic substances management policy which sets out precautionary proactive and accountable rules for dealing with toxic substances. Bill C-32 will ensure that decisions are based on sound science and will provide a management framework for dealing with toxic substances that is preventive and precautionary. Our aim is to take all reasonable precautions to reduce or eliminate the exposure of Canadians to these toxic substances.

Bill C-32 will impose new deadlines for the development of preventative or control actions. It will require that the ministers of the environment and health propose concrete actions to prevent or control the release of substances within two years of declaring a substance to be toxic. These preventative or control actions must be finalized within the following 18 months.

The goal of virtual elimination is new to CEPA. The Government of Canada recognized in its 1995 toxic substances management policy that our traditional approach of managing the release of toxic substances into the environment throughout their life cycle is not sufficient for certain toxic substances. These substances that require stricter management actions result primarily from human activity. They persist in the environment for long periods of time and they bioaccumulate, that is, the toxins are stored in the tissues of living creatures.

Every minute quantity of these substances may build up over time to levels that cause serious long term adverse effects to the environment or to human health. Once in the environment these substances will continue to damage our health and the health of our ecosystem over many generations, often through subtle effects on the endocrine, immune, reproductive and other sensitive biological systems. Virtual elimination is necessary to protect our health and that of the environment.

Bill C-32 allows for creative approaches in controlling toxic substances. This will achieve results faster and will provide greater flexibility. A reactive and control management approach is often costly and time consuming. In some circumstances traditional regulations remain the best solution. However, they are only one of several tools which Bill C-32 places at our disposal. These tools include pollution prevention plans, voluntary initiatives and economic instruments such as tradable permits to control toxic substances.

These new tools focus on environmental results rather than on the means by which the results are achieved. They give operators the flexibility to incorporate cost effective measures that suit their needs without the direct intervention of government, as long as the required environmental protection objectives are met. The result is oftentimes a greater reduction in toxic emissions than would otherwise be achieved through traditional regulatory approaches. Examples of such programs include the accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics challenge program that was launched in 1994 and a number of voluntary initiatives such as the Canadian automotive manufacturing pollution prevention project. The recent ARET report noted that in 1996 reductions in releases amounted to 5,064 tonnes, a decrease of 27% from 1995 emission levels. Participants have reduced their emissions by almost 21,500 tonnes, a 61% overall reduction from base year levels.

Canada can learn from the actions of other countries. Bill C-32 requires the federal government to review decisions and control actions on toxic substances taken by other countries to determine if they are relevant and applicable to the Canadian situation. The government will regularly review decisions taken by provinces in Canada or by member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to ban, schedule for elimination or severely restrict toxic substances.

We have listened to the concerns of Canadians about toxic substances. This environmental legislation addresses these concerns. A strengthened CEPA along with other relevant federal legislation and our international environmental commitments provide the Government of Canada with the tools and measures needed to protect the Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. It will lead us into the next millennium with vision and foresight.

I urge this House to support this legislation and to give it speedy passage in order to usher Canada into the 21st century.