John Herron

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my short answer is the concept the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is advocating is one that has an immense amount of merit. He is also very much aware that our committee was really restricted in terms of what members could review given that a major flaw in CEAA is that only the minister can essentially ordain what we are even allowed to study with respect to environmental assessment. We were limited to only the clauses that the minister deemed relevant to a study at this time.

I am more than amenable to adopting a regime of that nature. As he well knows, because of the scope of the act, we were limited from reviewing that type of section. It will be left to other parliamentarians to do that when they do the comprehensive review seven years from now.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, in 1994 the then minister of the environment and deputy prime minister moved second reading of a bill known as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. She described the legislation as “one of the most outstanding environmental acts in the world. With the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its important amendments, Canada will be a world leader in environmental thinking and practice”.

As Environmental Defence Canada, a national organization that was founded in 1984 and dedicated to helping Canadians protect the environment, noted in its submission to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, there were very high hopes for the future of environmental assessment when CEAA was proclaimed in force in 1995. It noted:

We supported its promises of increased access to information, increased public participation, and access to participant funding for citizens to become involved in panel reviews of environmental assessments.

More than five years later, Environmental Defence Canada was forced to conclude that CEAA was a staggering failure across Canada. Others who testified before the committee shared this view.

We heard from citizens about difficulties in even getting major projects reviewed under CEAA. The Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Caledon, consisting of more than 2,500 members, has been fighting to convince the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1998 to apply CEAA to a proposed rock quarry project that has a planned extraction rate of up to 2.5 million tonnes of aggregate per year.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has acknowledged that this project will in fact result in the destruction of fish habitat unless effective mitigation measures are employed. The question is whether such effective mitigation measures are even possible in the first place.

Instead of commencing a comprehensive study pursuant to the regulations, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has chosen to ignore the CEAA requirement that environmental assessment of a project be conducted as early as practicable in the planning stages of the project. Such a decision also flies in the face of the so-called CEAA coordination regulation providing that where a federal authority such as DFO receives a project description, it shall within 30 days of receipt of the information determine whether there should be an environmental assessment of the project.

Officials advised us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not in fact trigger any environmental assessment of a project until after: one, it has received complete information on possible measures to prevent or mitigate the effects on fish habitat; and two, it has concluded that prevention and mitigation will not work.

As the coalition pointed out, this Department of Fisheries and Oceans practice is duplicative and inefficient. It makes no sense to assess mitigation options internally in order to determine that mitigation will not work and then trigger an environmental assessment process to review and study those same mitigation options. The current bill does nothing to address this triggering problem under the fisheries act.

We heard a number of witnesses complain about CEAA's failure to ensure that people get timely access to information. In particular, John Lavoie, a trapper living and working northeast of Thunder Bay, took the time to tell us about his difficulties in obtaining records relating to a CEAA screening of a proposed hydroelectric project. Despite over 20 letters and telephone calls to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, he did not receive any records prior to the conclusion of the assessment, the issuance of the authorization or the start of the construction.

Mr. Lavoie made the not unreasonable suggestion that a responsible authority must give the public an opportunity, just an opportunity, to examine and comment on a screening report and related documents upon the receipt of a written request for participation. I do not think that is unreasonable. The government has ignored this recommendation and we are sure to see more people frustrated by not getting the right documents at the right time.

The most distressing testimony and the clearest signal of CEAA's failure came from Norman de la Chevrotière, president of the Inverhuron and District Ratepayers Association. He told us about the association's fight to get a CEAA panel review of the world's largest above ground, high level radioactive waste storage site at the Bruce nuclear facility. He stated that the federal Minister of the Environment approved the project without a panel review, even though the association and others raised serious concerns about the health effects caused by the existing and future radiation releases at the site.

Mr. de la Chevrotière described it this way:

So when it came time to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process, we thought this is a slam dunk. If anything deserves a panel review, this has got to be it. But we better not be complacent, we better participate in the process. We spent thousands upon thousands of dollars of our own money because we had no access to funding. We hired experts who uncovered a number of apparent inadequacies and uncertainties.

We weren't the only ones who were concerned: the local MP [the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound]; the local Medical Officer of Health; the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Chippewas of Nawash; [and others]. It was overwhelming public concern in terms of asking for what we thought was something very reasonable, an independent and expert assessment. We didn't get it.

Later, Mr. de la Chevrotière concluded with the following plea:

If the world's largest nuclear waste storage facility, housing the most toxic and deadliest of all industrial waste products does not merit a panel review, what would?

I am here imploring this committee; I am begging this committee to please make changes to the act so no other citizen's group has to go through the ordeal that we went through. Projects of this scope and magnitude should be subject to a panel review and it should be mandatory. All relevant information has to be on the public record, and it should be guaranteed. I am asking this committee to please do that.

Put bluntly, we failed Mr. de la Chevrotière. The minister failed this citizen's group.

We could not help him because the committee was constrained from the outset to examining only those sections identified in Bill C-9. This constraint was justified on the basis that only the Minister of the Environment could dictate the scope of the review and changes to CEAA as set out in the legislative review section. Not surprisingly, the minister missed the concerns raised by people such as Mr. de la Chevrotière and declared CEAA to be fundamentally sound.

In fact, it is truly amazing that the Minister of the Environment could declare in his report that panel review is the core strength of the environmental assessment act. Yet he failed to appreciate that out of 30,000 screenings only one has been referred to a panel on the basis that significant adverse environmental effects were identified or that there was uncertainty about the significance of such effects.

If this is the core strength or the spine of the act, then we can only conclude that the environmental assessment act we have today is a spineless regime. As I will discuss in a few minutes, proposed government amendments will further erode opportunities for panel reviews. Any trace amounts of a spine in CEAA will likely vanish.

We were also prevented from seriously examining the core structures and features of CEAA to determine their effectiveness. For example, we had to ignore the issue of self-assessments, even though we were advised as a committee by some witnesses that an effective regime could not exist where departments conduct assessments and in fact grant the approvals of those very same projects.

We also had to pass on providing a definition of what a significant adverse environmental effect is in the first place. Second, we had to pass on ensuring assessment of cumulative effects, particularly on a regional basis were not taken into account. Third, we had to pass on building in powers for the agency to make enforceable decisions and impose penalties for non-compliance with CEAA. Fourth, we had to pass on providing for the strategic environmental assessment of proposed policies, programs and plans.

On that last point, members may be aware that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has already criticized federal departments for failing to implement the environmental assessment of policies and programs as required by a 1990 cabinet directive. The followup 1999 cabinet directive also has not been applied, thus highlighting the necessity of introducing a compliance mechanism into CEAA itself.

More than one witness told us that the failure to include any enforcement provisions in CEAA renders it toothless and of little effect. CEAA is like a jellyfish of environmental assessment regimes, toothless as I said earlier, in fact spineless.

Notwithstanding the restraints on review, the committee did make some improvements to Bill C-9. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight those.

Government accountability has been improved with the requirement under new section 16.3 that the responsible authority must document and make available to the public its determinations with respect to screenings and comprehensive studies.

For the purposes of facilitating public access to records and providing notice of environmental assessments, there will be an expanded registry consisting of an Internet site as well as project files. Under subsection 55.1(2)(a), a notice of commencement must be posted on the Internet site within 14 days of an assessment commencing.

The committee provided additional accountability by including a paragraph, subsection 55.1(3)(e), that information included on the Internet site would have to be posted at least 30 days before any decision could be taken by a responsible authority, the minister or the agency.

The committee also fought hard to close a very glaring loophole that permitted crown corporations to avoid the necessity of conducting environmental assessments. This is what we asked the private sector to do.

While CEAA originally contemplated bringing crowns under the act pursuant to regulation, the government had failed to act except in relation to port authorities. Now in this bill, because of an amendment done by the committee, there is a statutory requirement that regulations be passed within three years bringing crown corporations under CEAA. During this period the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has undertaken to appear before the committee to give progress reports on the development of regulations.

I am very heartened by Mr. Connelly and Ms. Thompson, who I am sure are listening very attentively to this speech and other speeches that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. I am heartened that they will be taking the time to visit us in committee to let us know how those regulations are coming along over the next three years so that we can avoid a last minute rush to put regulations in place as a result possibly of missing a deadline.

The committee also put in place a legislative review mechanism that would not repeat the mistake of letting the minister dictate the scope of the review. Within seven years after Bill C-9 receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of CEAA shall be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, as may be designated. Perhaps then, and probably only then, will we be able to adequately address the concerns that Mr. de la Chevrotiere pleaded for our committee to address.

It must also be noted that the Liberal majority on the committee did manage to block some key attempts at improving the bill itself.

Presently, under CEAA, the minister has the power to refer a project that has been subjected to a comprehensive study to a panel review. If there are further questions about a particular project after a comprehensive study has been done, the minister today has an opportunity to move it to a panel review. In fact this has happened one time before after benchmarking our 30,000 screenings. According to witnesses, this has had the effect of causing proponents and responsible authorities to better comply with the requirements of a comprehensive study in the first place.

Now under section 21.1, once the minister refers the project to a comprehensive study, it may not, even if there are other questions down the road, subsequently be referred to a panel review. The minister has intentionally tied his hands so that he will be no longer accountable for not answering further questions. He will be able to say that his hands are tied and that he is restricted by what the act is. This is a glaring mistake. There will not be any proponent or responsible authority that would willingly conclude that a comprehensive study will not suffice.

During the course of the committee review, I introduced an amendment to provide for a panel review. Our national parks are our most valuable treasures in terms of protecting our ecological integrity and we should have a higher regime when it comes to them. I know the Minister of Canadian Heritage once shared that same opinion as well.

In the amendment I proposed that if a project might cause a significant adverse environmental effect on a park, or on a park reserve, or on wildlife that frequents such area or on the air affecting such an area, it should be reviewed by the panel review. The amendment was tailored on an undertaking that the minister publicly gave following the receipt of a report on the health of Canada's national parks. As a result, I expected this amendment would enjoy sufficient Liberal support to be passed. After all, it was a concept espoused by the Liberal Minister of Canadian Heritage. Stunningly, most Liberal members refused to assist the minister responsible and the amendment was not carried.

As with the Species at Risk Act and other environmental legislation, the government has been unable to respect and accept amendments made by the committee. However I will tip my hat because it was more constructive and more willing to do work at the report stage this time than it has in the past, by negotiating common language.

I would like to highlight one reversal that I think is a mistake. In particular the government felt the need to roll back the provision that documents be posted on the Internet at least 30 days before any decision was taken to 15 days. Provincial governments, including the government of Ernie Eves and Mike Harris, have say that 15 days is fine. I do not see why the federal government would have to go to a 15 day component.

Also, it is not clear what kind of information will be posted on the Internet itself other than a mere notice of commencement. In other words, the public will likely have a difficult time ascertaining what is being assessed, the scope of the assessment and other factors relating to the decision. It is hard to understand why the government will not allow citizens the opportunity to review documents on which environmental assessments are based before decisions are taken.

Given the failures of CEAA and the government imposed constraints on the review of it, the committee has been left to draft another report that addresses the major deficiencies of the current environmental assessment regime raised by witnesses and other members of the public.

It poses this question. Ten years on is the federal environmental assessment making a significant contribution to sustainable development and a healthy environment? The answer today is no. Canada is not a world leader in environmental assessment. The committee report that will be tabled in the House in the coming weeks we hope will address those inadequacies. After this report has been tabled and the minister considers what is in the report and we review CEAA with the mandatory review, maybe then and only then will we be able to address the concerns that have been espoused by Mr. de la Chevrotiere.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will make some very brief comments on the first group of amendments on the review process.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is undergoing a mandatory review. The CEA process itself is to ensure that the impact of projects under federal government decision making authority are properly assessed. The act was first passed by the Conservative government in June 1992 but only came into proclamation in 1995.

The review leading up to Bill C-9 was launched in 1999 and it was conducted by CEA. The review entailed the commissioning of background papers, consultations with interest groups, specialized work groups, a parallel consultation process with aboriginal organizations, consultations with provinces and with federal departments and agencies. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are based on the consideration of the views presented during that consultative phase.

The stark problem with that process is the fact that the Minister of the Environment, prior to reviewing this act, had the sole authority to determine which aspects of the act needed to be reviewed. The scope of what we are actually discussing is only a very small section of the act in general.

Some amendments in Group No. 1 deal with the timing of environmental assessments. A second group of amendments also are encompassed in the Group No. 1 motions which deal with minor technical changes, including amendments to ensure proper concordance between French and English. The third group of amendments deal with the machinery of government and the agency's role to ensure that we have compliance of the act itself.

I would like to speak primarily to Motions Nos. 12, 15, 17 and 21.

The standing committee passed an amendment stating that no decisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including environmental assessment decisions, could be taken until 30 days after the posting of the last document on the Internet site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.

There are those who believe this amendment would create significant delays because the 30 day period was not tied to a specific point in time. The time clock would restart with each posting of each new document. In addition, there are those who believe having a 30 day requirement for all projects does not recognize the difference between relatively small screening levels of assessments and assessments that are conducted through a comprehensive study, mediation or a panel review.

The government has proposed amendments to clause 12 so that decisions for simple screenings could occur 15 days after the notice of commencement and a description of the scope of the project has been posted on the Internet site. For more complex screenings with public participation, decisions could only occur 15 days after the scope of assessment or description of how to obtain it has been posted on the Internet site.

There are some missed opportunities here. Fifteen days is simply too short. Posted documents are only notification of commencement of an environmental assessment. We will not know what pieces of information on which the assessment itself will be based. The government will not be posting documents that are relevant to the final decision of the environmental assessment. A 30 day requirement is applied in other jurisdictions, such as the provinces, without bringing the process to a standstill.

The government of Ernie Eves, formerly that of Mike Harris, has a 30 day requirement on environmental assessment. I do not think business is coming to a standstill in that province. I think most members in the chamber would understand that the Ontario government is definitely pro-business.

I do not know why the Liberal government wants to be less environmentally friendly by having a further restriction by pulling it back to 15 days from 30 days.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are aware as a veteran of this chamber, that 99% of all environmental assessments are done under screenings. That means that 99% of all environmental assessments will only have a short 15 day window to have any public consultation or intervention and we would still not know what tool kit the government utilizes when it formulates its assessment in general.

For comprehensive studies, the government motion would create a minimum 30 day period between the public release on the Internet site of the comprehensive study report and the minister's environmental assessment decision. The text of the proposed amendment refers to other documents that must be included on the Internet site before decisions can be taken, such as a notice of commencement and the scoping information. There are some missed opportunities here. The government did not make any changes to this. However remember, going back to the screenings, that 99% of all EAs are performed through screenings, not comprehensive studies.

The approach it has taken on comprehensive studies would be a more prudent one if it were adopted for the screening process. I do not believe it would bring the process to a complete standstill in terms of environmental assessment. If the provinces want to provide more flexibility in 30 days, I do not see why the federal government would want to have such a restrictive and less permissive system for public input. We should have a bit more transparency.

Those are the amendments we are reviewing. To be fair to the government, this is an improvement over the current act but it is a pull back from what the committee did. It has not gut it to the same degree as we have seen in other approaches, such as amendments that were reversed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, or the species at risk legislation.

There was a bit of moderation in this reversal by the government. I give the officials and the minister some credit for at least having some flexibility. However there is a missed opportunity which the Government of Canada could have had by providing more flexibility. If the provinces can provide 30 days for public input, why can the federal government not provide 30 days as opposed to 15?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate concerning Bill C-13 and its previous nomenclature, Bill C-56.

This is a complex piece of legislation from a scientific and ethics perspective. This is pioneering legislation that we have not seen in a Canadian context in our history. The science has been evolving at a rapid pace and thus the reason for this legislation. About 10 to 20 years ago legislation of this sort was not required, but it is our duty as legislators to ensure that legislation is in place that will keep up with the ethical issues surrounding the scientific developments that we have had in this time period.

I approached the parliamentary research branch and had the Library of Parliament prepare a comparison for me of the legislative framework that exists in the United States and the United Kingdom, and benchmark it with Bill C-56 and Bill C-13, the legislation we have before us today.

I would like to compare those three approaches, but before doing so I would like to talk a little more generically about the bill itself.

Bill C-13 would give Canada its first comprehensive and integrated legislation dealing with assisted human reproduction.

There are three components to the bill: first, it would ban human cloning; second, it would give the government authority to regulate activities such as embryonic stem cell research; and finally, it would create an agency, the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada, to oversee the regulations set out in the act. In the absence of this legislation, no rules would exist to govern assisted human reproduction.

The first component of the bill would ban human cloning. It would prohibit unacceptable practices such as creating a human clone for any purpose, reproductive or therapeutic. Currently in Canada, human cloning is legal in the absence of legislation. If Bill C-13 were passed, human cloning would be banned.

The second component of the bill would give the government authority to regulate activities such as embryonic stem cell research. A main challenge in the matter of research on human subjects, including human embryos, is the necessity to strike the necessary balance between the need to seek the causes and cures of disease and disability, and the responsibility to ensure that our public policy framework can keep up with the science. Research has moved ahead faster than anticipated, and other governments have ensured through legislation that these discoveries truly advance the public interest.

The third component of the bill addresses the creation of an agency to oversee the regulations set out in the act. This agency would be called the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada. It would licence, monitor, and enforce the assisted human reproduction act and its regulations.

The Progressive Conservative Party was concerned with this issue, and that is why we encouraged the government to proceed with legislation as quickly as possible. The House may recall that over a decade ago our party commenced the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. That was the predecessor to ensuring that we had a legislative framework that could keep up with the science and the ethical issues that were developing during that period.

Bill C-13 is an extremely important piece of legislation that could have been managed better by the government. For example, of the three components of the bill, there was broad support among Canadians to ban human cloning. The government should have moved faster on introducing legislation that would ensure that end. A more effective manner of dealing with this wide-ranging bill would have been to divide the bill into two sections. One section would deal with banning human cloning and the second section of the bill would address assisted human reproduction procedures in a thorough and considered manner. By dividing the bill, each component would have been addressed individually.

The fact remains that Bill C-13 is a complicated piece of legislation. Even though the government could have done a better job managing the bill, it is a step in the right direction. After all, it is the first comprehensive and integrated piece of legislation dealing with assisted human reproduction in this country. Modern technologies and research in the field of science and health are quickly advancing. Rules, laws and regulations must be established to ensure that science does not move beyond human ethics. Clearly, research should not continue in a vacuum, regardless of one's position on the issues at hand. Many members in the chamber would agree that regardless of political, religious or social standpoints, we cannot continue without a legislative framework on this issue.

As I stated earlier, at my request the Library of Parliament prepared a brief synopsis comparing similar legislation in both the U.S. and the U.K. While this document provides only a peripheral view, it does highlight some important issues we may wish to consider. The proposed law in Canada is more conservative than the legislation in the United States and United Kingdom. I have the document comparing the legislative approaches of those two countries which I would gladly share with any member in the House.

As I have said, the legislation is complex because it deals with detailed issues that must be stewarded by strong legislation. Without any regulation or legislation on the issue of assisted human reproduction, the doors would be left wide open for scientific experimentation and interpretation.

I believe that the bill is a step in the right direction. I am not amenable to letting the ethics of these issues be left purely in the hands of scientists. We have a duty as legislators to ensure that there is a framework and that there are boundaries which are acceptable. Having no legislation is actually a policy. That policy would mean that the free enterprise market would dictate what ethics would govern these issues.

The government should be commended for moving forward with this legislation although the issues could have been managed in a better way.

I would like to illustrate my point. When I referred to the differences between the legislative approaches, I was referring to the document prepared by the Library of Parliament comparing the legislative frameworks of the U.K. and the U.S. with Bill C-56 and Bill C-13. There is even a chart at the end of the document.

Would embryonic stem cell research be permitted under this act? Yes, it would. It is also permitted in the U.K. and the U.S. Would a licence be required for such research? Under this act, yes. Under the U.K. act, it is; in the United States, it is not. Is the creation of embryos for stem cell research permitted? Under this act, it is not. In the U.K., it is, if properly licensed. In the United States, it is, if it is privately funded, and there are the bucks to do it.

Going through the document even further, it comes down to the fact that one could read the bill in terms of the act that was prepared by the U.K. in 1990. The British legislation may be perceived to be permissible in terms of the framework, but it is guided by finite regulation. The United States has had a protracted debate among its populace on this particular issue. In essence, even though it has had a stronger debate, it does not have legislation on these particular issues at the moment. The Canadian legislation is then a compromise between the two.

Ironically, the U.K. may appear to have the most permissive approach on embryonic stem cell research but in reality, its legislation imposes tight regulatory controls and compels the research community to proceed cautiously.

In the United States on the other hand, while there have been debates on embryonic stem cell activities and the appearance of related funding restriction, the reality is that the research community faces no legislative prohibitions or controls.

Canada has combined much of the cautionary approach evident in the U.S. debate over embryonic stem cell research with the U.K. example of placing more emphasis on the legislated controls with publicly funded research. The Canadian legislation has actually tried to adopt the best of the provisions that the United States has and that the U.K. has. I do not think we should have these issues in a legislative vacuum. We need to have legislation in place.

[Petitions, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition that has been duly certified by the clerk on behalf of one of my constituents, principally Phillip Crossman from Minto, New Brunswick, and other residents of the Minto, Chipman and Fredericton region.

Their concern stems from potential additions to sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code that could potentially infringe on their right to have freedom of speech and to share their religious beliefs without any fear of prosecution.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there was a miscommunication with my deputy whip and I will in fact be voting no on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 72, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canada Student Loans Program, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on the motion itself and say why we are going down this particular track. The motion calls on the government to consider eliminating the provincial contribution component under the Canada student loans program. The operative word is “consider”, not “must” or “immediately”. This issue requires debate. If this motion passed, it would be incumbent on the Minister of Human Resources Development to suggest to the committee that it review the issue.

Currently the program demands that parents provide financial support to students for the first four years after high school. The amount of support expected is based on what is deemed, as I said, to be a moderate standard of living. Many families find the current amount to be too high. In my remarks I used as an illustration a family in Ontario that has an annual gross income of just $55,000 and which is expected to contribute nearly $8,700 toward their children's studies.

I recommend that the level of expected contribution be reconsidered, or moreover, eliminated, and that an appeal mechanism be implemented for students with non-supportive parents.

I thank the member for Peterborough, the Liberal chair of the post-secondary education caucus who listened to my remarks. I was heartened by his visual support of the motion itself. I want to congratulate the member for Fredericton who has been a strong advocate on accessibility of post-secondary education issues. I thank my colleague from the province of New Brunswick, the member for Acadie—Bathurst for his remarks, and as well, the support that I received from the Canadian Alliance by the member for Medicine Hat.

Clearly there is a consensus. Every member of Parliament knows that the Canada student loans program expectations and the parental contribution component does not work. This is a core pillar of any kind of program with respect to accessibility to post-secondary education.

First, we need to make sure that the core funding is in place. Second, there has to be a student aimed program to have those students pay their fair share through the student loans program. That component is actually broken. The third pillar is to have a debt repayment program.

We know the system is broken. It has been clear from the get go that the Canada student loans program is virtually broken. Tuition fees have skyrocketed 130% over the last decade. Debt levels have essentially quadrupled over the same time period. This litany of issues, as I said before, to students is a tragedy and it is taking away their capacity to seek higher learning. Some have described it as a black comedy in that regard.

A cornerstone element for us to develop a common vision and clearing house so that we can maintain and coordinate the existing framework that we have in post-secondary education would come through creating a ministerial position. We need to ensure that we manage all the initiatives on post-secondary education that we have under the federal government with respect to research and core funding for PSE itself.

There is a newspaper article on the issue which appeared on March 17. The member for Medicine Hat spoke about it. In the article, Angela Sherman, who attends the University of New Brunswick at Saint John, is hoping that the Government of Canada is listening.

I am heartened that the member for Fredericton is listening. I was less heartened by the comments of the parliamentary secretary. This motion was deemed to be non-votable. There is clearly a split on that issue among the Liberals. I would request unanimous consent at this time that this motion be made votable so that all members of Parliament can make that consideration.

[Canada Student Loans Program, March 18th, 2003]

moved:

Motion No. 205

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider eliminating the parental contribution standard from the Canada Student Loan program.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to a private member's motion that I tabled on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. It calls upon the government to take a leadership role in dealing with a national crisis in Canada, that of the accessibility of post-secondary education.

The motion reads, “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider”, consider being the operative word, “eliminating the parental contribution standard from the Canada Student Loan program”.

The Canada student loan program is flawed and is in desperate need for renewal. In fact, the program has not been updated or adjusted in the last eight years. Its design flaws are numerous. Its need for renewal is clear. Its inadequacies are affecting students, when this program is supposed to be the pillar of student aid. It is a tragedy. Unfortunately it is more like a black comedy. I believe the inadequacy of this program illustrates the lack of vision for post-secondary education within the Liberal government.

Tuition rates have increased 130% over the last decade. Debt loads have quadrupled. The average debt load, after a four year undergraduate degree, is about $25,000. We essentially have indentured an entire generation of young people, our best and brightest. All these factors lead to difficulties in the accessibility of post-secondary education.

I was very careful with the wording of this motion. I am asking the government to consider the elimination of the parental contribution standard. Of course we are looking for improvements. Clearly I am amenable to adjusting, renewing or reviewing the standard in the first place.

Here is the problem with the parental contribution standard in the Canada student loan program. According to Statistics Canada, 50% of parents expect that their children will require additional financial resources, such as loans, to pay for post-secondary education, regardless of whether they have education savings set aside. For 94% of those children, these loans were, and were is the operative word, expected to take the form of government student loans, not bank loans or loans from family members.

Currently the Canada student loan program demands that parents provide financial support to students for their first four years after school. The amount of support expected is based upon what is deemed a moderate standard of living. The money parents are expected to contribute is then deducted from the student's assessed need.

Just to illustrate how out of touch this expectation is that we have today, a family of four in Ontario, with a gross annual income of $55,000, is expected to contribute up to $9,000 toward their children's studies. This leaves in the end many students short on the funds they need to go to school, to finish the year and to fulfill their studies.

A recent study by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation released last week entitled, “Making Ends Meet”, found that 60% of parental contributions to students under the age of 22 was less than $2,000. In other words, if the student's parents cannot or will not contribute the money the government expects, there is no recourse for that student. If students are lucky, maybe one recourse might be that they spread out their undergraduate degree from a four year process to a five year process. However the result of that is actually more punitive because more often than not students incur more overall debt. Another recourse is that many students do not finish their year and do not finish their degrees.

The expected amount of parental contribution is based upon a government standard of a moderate standard of living. The standard examines only two factors: family size and the province of residence. The Canada student loan program does not recognize that parents have other obligations in addition to contributing to their children's education. In a study by Ekos, commissioned by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the results showed that one-third to half of all students under the age of 22 received no financial support from their parents.

We need to address this clear and unmet need with respect to the Canada student loan program itself. Addressing the unmet need is critical. Recent research by the millennium scholarship foundation has found that an inability to access necessary funds may in fact be a bigger barrier to accessing post-secondary education than student debt itself. Clearly the government's assumption that parents can or will contribute to the degree that the Canada student loan program expects does not ring true for many students. Economic realities that are not part of the eligibility formula are ultimately denying funding to many students in need.

It is clear, and in fact well known by a myriad of bureaucrats within the government machinery, that the Canada student loan program is not filling the objectives that we and, in particular, the students, those who are our best and brightest, are seeking. This program's inadequacy is a glaring illustration that there is no political accountability for post-secondary education from the current government.

That is why earlier today, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I called on the government to establish a minister of state responsible for post-secondary education to coordinate all programs on post-secondary education.

I know that the member for Peterborough is an advocate for that particular issue. It is advocated by the Graduate Students' Association of Canada, and I have reason to believe that the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations is amenable to the concept. I do hope that we hear comments from the alliance in the coming days and weeks as well.

A common vision and clearing house is required to maintain and coordinate the existing framework. With the creation of a ministerial position, post-secondary education in Canada would be better supported, funded and managed. The minister of post-secondary education would be responsible for the coordination of post-secondary education initiatives and innovation agendas as well as communicating those goals with our provincial partners.

The Canada student loan program is virtually broken. Tuition rates, as I said earlier, have sky-rocketed by 130%. Debt levels have quadrupled. There is no mechanism to assist students who are paying back their student loans. The Canada student loan program has not been reviewed since 1995. That would be the minister's responsibility. Clearly we would not have these runaway problems if we had a minister responsible for post-secondary education initiatives.

Given the fact that the Prime Minister, human resources, industry and science, research and development, finance, the Department of Foreign Affairs, CIDA, citizenship and immigration, and intergovernmental affairs all play a role in post-secondary education, that is why we are calling on a coordinator to develop a vision and manage these already existing issues that we have.

As Progressive Conservatives, we are very respectful of provincial jurisdiction. Our approach is to coordinate the existing programs to have a common vision and be a facilitator to our provincial partners.

Intellectual capital is the basis of today's knowledge economy. In fact, Human Resources Development estimates that 73% of all new jobs in a knowledge based economy will require some form of post-secondary education. An educated and innovative society is today's instrument of growth. Federal leadership is desperately required for post-secondary education that is visionary and activist.

According to polling done prior to the last federal election by Earnscliffe for the former minister of finance, 85% of respondents placed making education more affordable as either a high priority or a priority, and 77% of respondents believed that funding access to education would help stimulate the economy. This was the most popular response and was scored above a balanced budget, lower taxes or even infrastructure spending.

Intellectual capital is the driving force in a knowledge based economy. I believe as the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations believes: that education can in fact build a nation. Current government policies across the board, I believe, are out of touch with Canadian realities. Government policies on post-secondary education need to be modernized in order to coincide with government expectations of the Canadian public. I believe that above all we need to have accessibility to post-secondary education and a visionary approach to publicly funded research, which has to be a national project and a pan-Canadian agenda.

There are some other problems within the Canada student loan program itself. There is the fact that the loan limits have not been adjusted since 1995 and 42% of students are now already at their loan limit maximum. That is a point of fact. The loan limits have not been addressed since 1995, but over the same period tuition rates have gone up 100%. That does not reflect the reality that students are facing right now. We also need to ensure that the factor in place to increase these loan limits is actually benchmarked against a student price index, to factor in the cost to students and to ensure that the loan limits are increased based on the student cost of living. I think those are approaches that we need to take.

I would like to highlight a very stark fact. In the next 10 years, there will be a 30% increase in demand for post-secondary education. Hon. members should think about that number: a 30% increase. That equals one new major university in every province of Canada: a new University of British Columbia, a new University of Alberta, a new University of Saskatchewan, a new University of Manitoba, a new University of Toronto, a new McGill, a new UPEI, a new UNB, a new Memorial and a new Dalhousie. A 30% increase in demand will take place over the next 10 years and the government we have in place right now is not making those investments that we will categorically need to have.

There are solutions that will come into play, such as a more integrated approach with respect to the very progressive college program that we have right now so that students can actually do their first year or perhaps two years at a community college. Those college credits could be transferred to university. The colleges could actually play a role in fulfilling some of these infrastructure needs.

If I may, at this time I would like to highlight a couple of other issues pertaining to post-secondary education. Principally, core funding that is long term, stable and predictable has to be put in place so that our provincial partners can do their jobs and our universities can make the investments where needed in the first place. Student aid has to take place in terms of having a modern Canadian student loan program. We believe that the third pillar of the equation is the fact that we need to have a debt repayment program that actually rewards students for taking on these risks and these debts.

Just over a calendar year ago, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada proposed an amendment that was six votes short of actually passing in the Chamber. It would have empowered students to deduct up to 10% of the value of their student debt and interest off their income tax each year for a period of 10 years after graduation. What would that have done? First, it would have helped to mitigate the impact of student debt incurred through the years at university. Moreover, those students would have been able to take advantage of that program only if they were paying taxes in Canada. It would have had an immense benefit in terms of reversing the problem of brain drain as well.

Another issue the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would like to bring forth at this time is in regard the need to invest in the indirect cost of research. We are one of the few countries that did not even have a program in this regard, until last year, and we still only fund 20% of the indirect costs of research when the western norm is 40%.

The motion calls for the elimination of the parental contribution component under the Canada student loan program. We need to ensure that students have access to capital so that if they want to seek higher learning they can access those funds for school. We have to recognize the fact that certain families cannot or will not contribute. There has to be an appeal mechanism in place to address that particular issue. We need to eliminate the parental contribution component or at least adjust it and have an appeals mechanism.

[Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on the motion before the House at this time which has been brought forth by the young and articulate environment critic of the Bloc Québécois, my friend from the riding of Rosemont.

The motion states that in the opinion of the House the government should take the necessary steps to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.

The language that the member has used with respect to the necessary steps is very measured. It is language that indeed can be supported. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has pointed out, there is a fair amount of work that needs to be done from a domestic perspective for us to be in a position to ratify the accord. However, having a motion that engages the public policy makers is a constructive initiative.

This relates very much to the debate on the mandatory labelling of GMO foods in a Canadian context. We are all aware that the future success of biotechnology depends upon an informed and supportive public. Measures are urgently required to build public trust and gain the public's confidence in the safety of food made using genetically modified plants and animals.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has made a commitment to helping further the much needed public debate about the labelling of genetically modified foods in a Canadian context. We stated in the 2000 election platform that:

A Progressive Conservative government would initiate broader public discussion of the ethical issues of biotechnology and ensure greater public consultation in the setting of biotechnology policy and regulations.

A Progressive Conservative government would work toward a law requiring the labelling of all genetically modified foodstuffs and products for human consumption.

A Progressive Conservative government would continue its tradition of working closely with provincial partners, industry and the large number of consumer stakeholders interested in the question of biotechnology generally, and genetically modified organisms in particular, to find ways to reconcile and address the industry's needs and the public's real concerns about the health and environmental safety of genetically modified foods.

When it comes down to mandatory labelling, it could only occur if it is done in a cost effective way in concert with food labelling policies of other major producing and trading countries. That is where the protocol comes into play.

We believe biotechnology, or mandatory labelling of foodstuffs, is not a matter of concern from a human health perspective but is a right for consumer choice. If we have confidence in the product from a biotechnology perspective, that it is safe for human health, which we believe is the case, then we should have the courage to actually label it. There is nothing wrong with taking that very measured approach in that regard.

The member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke a few moments ago pointed out that we, as an exporting nation, one that has fostered a very vibrant biotechnology industry, have an obligation to protect our farming community that utilizes these crops. In order to do that we must ensure that before we ratify the Cartagena protocol itself we build an alliance, a coalition. We note that no major exporting countries are expected to ratify the protocol at this time. Canada must form an alliance with these countries to resolve the outstanding issues in the protocol before we proceed with ratification.

There are some issues that we need to approach. One theme that we need to deal with with respect to genetically modified foods is segregation.

We have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain and preserve biodiversity from a crop perspective by adding a capacity to only use grains and oilseeds that would not jeopardize the biotechnology or the biological integrity of other crops. We must have a process to ensure that, in fact, that segregation and separation occurs.

Also on that theme, we must ensure that we have the physical infrastructure in Canada to separate GMO grains and oilseeds from non-GMO grains and oilseeds. Until that infrastructure is put in place, it is very difficult for us to go down the track that would follow the exact approach that the biosafety protocol provides. It contains rules that apply to the transboundary movement, transit and handling, and the use of all living GMO foods that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account the risk to human health.

In short, we know this is where Canadians are at. There is a clear consensus that Canadians want to have confidence in their food products. They want to have that choice. Most polls indicate that 90% of Canadians want to have mandatory labelling of GMO foods. The labelling aspect is a component of the protocol itself. It is our responsibility to move fast and develop that law, work with industry partners, and develop the infrastructure and the Canadian context to do that. It reflects to an item our party had in our platform in November of 2000.

Mandatory labelling is the track that we must follow. We must build more public and broader support for the biotech industry itself, which is done by having the courage to label. If the product is safe, label it. We must ensure that we do that in the context of an international standard, which the European Union is developing and which is a component of the protocol itself.

Given that the motion at the moment is not votable the measured language the member used when he stated that the government should take the necessary steps to ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety is a reasonable approach, but there is much work to be done before we can actually ratify. That means investments in infrastructure for our farming and industry individuals. We must ensure that we have an international regime in place so that we can have mandatory labelling as well.

I would encourage the Government of Canada to move fast on fulfilling the obligations of the protocol, but above all, the message I would like to send to the government is that before we ratify the accord, we must ensure we do not put any more arduous or regulatory burdens on our farming community who have been battered and bruised by a myriad of factors, whether it is mother nature with the unprecedented drought in our western provinces, or that many of our trading partners have an obscene level of subsidy with respect to their agricultural products which jeopardizes our capacity to be competitive from an agricultural perspective.

The last thing we want to do is inflict an arduous process on our farming community. From a domestic perspective, the first thing we should do is have the courage to have mandatory labelling of GMO foods done in concert with the industry. A lot of work must be done in order to do that. It should not be a made in Ottawa solution. It should be done in concert with our industry partners, but it also has to be an international regime which speaks to the spirit of the protocol itself.

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to start that is quite a sanctimonious question. The member is essentially on the attack on fiscal management, when his government has currently turned a $2 million program into a billion dollar expenditure. There is not a lot of currency there to put forth an articulate debate.

From an historical perspective, the hon. member may be aware that a worldwide recession took place at the front end of the 1990s. The fiscal health of Canada was stronger even in that very tough economic time than it was among most G-8 nations. Our fiscal deficit, on a proportional basis, was stronger than most G-8 nations, including the U.K. and our neighbours to the south.

I am very concerned that the member for Hillsborough would not want us to have initiatives such as the free trade agreement, which moved our trade from $90 billion to over $760 billion in two way trade. I know there are a number of island exporters. One company, Diversified Metal Engineering, which I had a relationship with in my previous work, exports en masse. It created numerous jobs in the West Royalty Industrial Park, compliments of the free trade agreements. I do not think the hon. member wants to walk onto that shop floor and say that he would tear up the free trade agreement in a heartbeat, if that is what the hon. member is saying.

I am proud of the structural initiatives that took place in terms of tax reform, deregulation, privatization, winning the war on inflation, the monetary program and free trade agreement as well. It was that kind of leadership which brought forward other initiatives, such as our influence with the Americans wherein we were able to develop an acid rain protocol that reduced SO

2

emissions in power generating plants by over 50%. Those are programs of which to be proud.

Instead, we have a government that really has not had an initiative of any nature over the 10 years it has been in power. That is why the Prime Minister is desperately seeking a legacy.