Dianne Brushett

[Divorce Act, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not prepare in depth notes today because I was not aware that I would have an opportunity to speak. However, I am very pleased to stand and support this bill by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.

I have had numerous calls and responses from people in Nova Scotia. Certain things come up frequently from the parents and grandparents in particular who are for the most part over the age of 50. These people through life experiences, through living and through working, have accumulated a great deal of experience in nurturing, guidance, sharing and loving. It is that experience that quite often the child of the second generation needs.

Very often in many instances we see that the parents, whether through divorce, through emotional breakups, through living situations, arrangements that are so different and complex today, are so directly involved with the children through emotion and sometimes the direct link. It does not give them the vision to see the grandparents' needs and it does not give them the opportunity. The grandparent is at an arm's length so to speak and they can look at situations quite often more objectively than in an emotional situation in which two parents or two partners are having difficulty with children.

Although this does come under federal jurisdiction, and the hon. member from the Bloc has pointed out the complexities that might arise because of this and because of family law in some provinces, I believe that we can work on those details, that we can look at this bill in depth and bring in the changes or the amendments, whatever is required, to make it more workable, more effective.

It is imperative. I have seen, as I am sure all of my colleagues would have seen, throughout our provinces that today we have so many young people raising children in isolation quite often without access to the experience of the older population of both men and women who have lived long and have that experience of living and working and have the wisdom of nurturing and sharing without the biases and the direct emotional interference that the first generation often has to combat.

I have recommended this in my own province. Quite often the young women today having babies and being isolated in apartments on their own have no guidance. They have no connection to those older people in society who have the wisdom of common sense, love and nurturing. This is a fault in our society.

I believe this bill would bring in a closer connection to that whole realm of family and bringing love, nurturing, guidance and common sense of old wisdom that just comes from raising a family.

This bill might go a long way in not only having grandparents' rights to the children but more than anything serving the children who need to know the love and nurturing and wisdom of living.

A survey was done in one of the American schools asking the children how many of them could cite their grandparent's name. It was unbelievable the high number of children who could not even tell their grandmother's or their grandfather's name. To me, that is quite deplorable. It is a fact of society today.

I believe we are on the right track with this bill in helping society, in helping parents to get an added abundance of love and nurturing that can come from the grandparents' side.

[The Environment, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the involvement of communities in restoring our environment is essential. Governments can show leadership and set the stage but partnerships with communities are crucial to achieving success.

Two hundred and fifteen thousand dollars was recently awarded by Environment Canada's Atlantic coastal action program for projects designed to improve the environment in five communities in the Atlantic provinces. In addition $100,000 has been allocated for four regional initiatives that will benefit all thirteen of the sites and their community groups.

The Atlantic coastal action program was established in direct response to local citizens' concerns. In my coastal communities the problems are polluted waterways, haphazard development and lack of concern for the environment.

I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment on the success of her department's initiative in facilitating the Atlantic coastal action program. She is to be congratulated on recognizing the strength of communities in restoring the environment for everyone.

[Global Climate Change, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members of this House for permission to sit due to a cast on my leg.

I heartily endorse the motion introduced by the hon. member for Davenport this evening. The House has heard something of the history of climate change and what the world and Canada are doing about it.

I should like to present some thoughts on the economic aspects of this issue. Ultimately climate change could have a major impact on jobs, business and farms throughout our country. That makes it a matter of vital importance to every Canadian. We all need to understand and better know what its effects will be.

The impact could potentially be crippling. A melting polar ice cap could disrupt east coast fisheries. Rising sea levels could inundate low lying areas of the Atlantic provinces. On the Great Lakes water levels could fall sharply, stranding industries. We could see more frequent and more violent storms. Draughts could worsen on the prairies. New diseases and insect pests could infest our crops and threaten human health. Flooding could occur in the Fraser River basin. In the north the permafrost would no longer provide a solid foundation for buildings and pipelines, putting existing installations at risk.

These developments would translate into economic loss and it could be more severe because of the particular nature of Canada's economy. This is highly dependent on resource based industries such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, all of which are very sensitive to climate change.

In view of that sensitivity, Canada must act vigorously to try to mitigate possible climate change. The most direct way that we can do so is by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.

While Canadians make up only half of 1 per cent of the global population, we do account for 2 per cent of the worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases.

On a planetary scale we generate far more than our fair share of greenhouse gases. Unless Canada and other developed countries take the lead and demonstrate that we are serious about cutting our emissions the developing world will not begin to do its part to bring the problem under control.

To remedy the situation we first need to understand why it has occurred, where do Canada's greenhouse gases come from and why are they so high in proportion to our population. The answers to these questions have to do with Canada's geography, demography and economic infrastructure.

We live in a huge thinly settled country of cold climate and long winters. We must make heavy use of transportation, heating and artificial lighting. Our population is growing faster than that of most developed nations. Our economy relies to a disproportionate degree on resource extraction and agriculture. These activities are generally more energy intensive than manufacturing.

We also rely on abundant reasonably priced domestic energy sources such as coal, hydro, natural gas, uranium and oil. We sell to other countries mainly forestry products, minerals, agricultural goods and various energy products.

When the time comes for drawing up international accounts the emissions associated with the activities producing these exports are attributed to Canada, not to the countries that consume the exports. In contrast, Canadian imports are generally less energy intensive but we receive no credit for that.

However, the last factor affecting greenhouse gas emissions cannot be blamed on anyone else and that is the relatively affluent lifestyle of Canadians. We regard as necessities what would be unimaginable luxuries to most inhabitants of third world countries, but those necessities come at a price, our disproportionately high release of greenhouse gases. With many factors conspiring to drive up our use of energy and our greenhouse gas releases it might seem a daunting task to try to hold them to acceptable levels.

Though the picture I have painted may be grim, there are grounds for optimism and the source is the concept that has become a rallying cry for our times, sustainable development. The idea of sustainability entered the public awareness about the same time as the threat of climate change in the mid-1980s. For radical problems it proposes a radical dynamic solution; re-establishing a balance between human activities and natural systems, integrating economic and environmental goals, working not for short term profits but for long term benefits and enhancing the quality of life.

Earlier it had seemed that advocates of the environment had to be adversaries of human progress and vice versa. Sustainable development taught us that this is not the way things have to be. Countless times in the past humanity has turned seeming obstacles into challenges and barriers into opportunities for advancement. That is what the environmental challenge of our time is.

That is what the threat of planet change is, a looming danger certainly but at the same time a spur to find new and better ways of doing business and living our lives. It is an opportunity to do things more efficiently, more effectively, more competitively and, above all, more sustainably. The problem has been clearly identified: rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere at record levels, altering climate in ways that may not be completely predictable but are quite possibly very severe. The solution surely is obvious, bringing the emissions under control to keep the changes of climate within acceptable parameters.

The question then becomes how can we control or reduce emissions. We need to reduce the energy needed to power our economy. We need to continue building a less energy intensive economy and choosing a less energy intensive lifestyle. That is by no means a fantasy. After all, over the last two decades we have seen the automobile industry wrestle successfully with this problem. Today it manufactures cars that go much farther on a litre of gasoline and that burn their fuel much cleaner than in the 1960s. That is only an indication of what is possible but it shows us the direction we should take.

We need to work toward energy conservation, energy efficiency and the use of non-polluting renewable energy sources. As representatives of the Canadian public there are many ways in which we can further this effort. One of the most important is by fostering science and appropriate technology development in pursuit of our climate change goals. We must support the people who are looking for new knowledge and new solutions. We must encourage research and development and we must smooth the path from thinking up bright ideas to successfully marketing them on a large scale. New ideas are central to Canada's environmental industries which make up one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy today.

A few weeks ago the government announced a Canadian environmental industry strategy, a co-ordinated approach to promoting this sunrise sector. The potential is for this to become one of Canada's export leaders, developing new energy saving techniques and marketing them domestically and abroad.

Infrastructure renewal is still another opportunity for promoting resource conservation. The old deteriorating installations squander energy and release pollutants. The government's municipal infrastructure program is helping replace these relics of the past with clean and efficient facilities.

I mention as well the high cost of transportation in Canada. Now a new expressway beckons us, one that will not become snowbound in winter or develop potholes in the first spring thaw.

I am referring of course to the information superhighway, the electronic network with possibilities that organizations and individuals are only starting to explore. It is the kind of business that Canada should be involved in where distances and weather are immaterial and energy expenditures are minimal.

These are all measures that promote energy conservation and efficiency and do the right thing for climate change. At the same time, however, they and other initiatives are creating business opportunities and jobs. Another example is the growing technology not only of government installations but also of private homes, offices and industrial plants.

The measures are transforming our country's economy, making our companies more efficient, more productive and more competitive. After all, the firm that can get more for its energy dollar is the firm that can sell at a lower price. In today's cost

conscious, competitive markets, that is the firm that is going to get its customers back.

I have heard claims that we cannot afford action to avert climate changes, that it comes at too high a cost and will price us out of the global marketplace. The very reverse is true. We cannot afford not to act.

Our major trading partners have plans for stabilizing their greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. They include Britain, the United States and Germany. Denmark is a northern country with cold temperatures like Canada. Despite that, it has a plan to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by the year 2005. There may be some doubt about whether all these countries will actually achieve stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels as they are setting out to do but at least they have made the commitment and have started along the path toward that goal.

They are taking steps that all can see and measure. Canada must do the same and members can begin by giving their support to this motion now before the House. It is only sensible to adopt a precautionary approach in addressing the issues of climate change. We must take steps now, not wait until later when more painful or more costly solutions may and will be required.

Granted, climate change poses a great threat to Canada but the effort to counter climate change is an undertaking that summons all the best qualities of Canadians, imagination, drive, a willingness to innovate, an entrepreneurial spirit and a taste for hard work. These are the qualities that built our country and have repeatedly won for it the number one ranking by the United Nations human development index.

Those qualities will help us face the challenge of climate change and in doing so we will ensure a bright, sustainable future for Canada. It is a fine line between a healthy environment, a sustainable environment-

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, in your comments you indicated that age was certainly a criteria that should be looked at. The member also indicated double dipping in terms of future employment.

Would the hon. member also consider previous government pensions as a deterrent in addition to an MP pension as we look at double dipping?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, in the comments you had addressed the fact that you believed that age should be-

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, particularly on the opponent he defeated to come to this House and his view of the great waste of taxpayers' money on MP pensions.

I remind the hon. member that we ran an election in 1993 on a thing called the red book with promises to the Canadian people. In that red book one promise was to reform the MP pension package. At the present time the Prime Minister insists this is being done.

Has the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia given his thoughts and input to the committee working on the reform of MPs pensions? We on this side of the House are making input daily. We are making recommendations on what we feel is appropriate, not to satisfy the Reform Party of Canada but to satisfy taxpayers and constituents and to bring the pensions into line with those in the private sector. We are working on a promise we made in the red book and responding to our constituents and taxpayers.

Has the hon. member put his comments forward to the President of the Treasury Board as he looks to reforming these pensions so that we do compare favourably with the private sector?

[Governor General Scholarship, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the great honour of presenting

three Governor General scholarships in environmental sciences to three Nova Scotia women studying at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College.

Tracy Shinners, Charlotte Stratton and Danielle Vienneau were the only three university students in eastern Canada out of a total of 25 in Canada to receive this high scholastic award in environmental sciences. All three students attend the Nova Scotia Agricultural College and all three plan to seek post-graduate degrees in environmental science and medicine.

This high academic achievement speaks very well and very highly not only of our students but of the professional staff at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. I congratulate them in this prestigious House for their very good work.

[Marine Transportation Security Act, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to add my voice to those who have addressed this House today in support of the Marine Transportation Security Act, Bill C-38.

The primary purpose of the Marine Transportation Security Act is the prevention of violent acts which could result in the loss of lives or impairment of the national transportation system. It is necessary however to also consider the financial implications of the bill before us now.

This government has a responsibility but even more this government has an obligation to ensure the security in marine transport, not only for Canadians but for our guests and visitors to this great country.

The Government of Canada has promised that regulations subsequent to this act will be made in full consultation with interested parties, consultation which is beyond that normally required for regulation. These consultations will include parties which have already contributed a great deal to the development and promotion of good security practices in Canada such as

Canada Ports Corporation and the North West CruiseShip Association.

I know that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, will ensure that such consultations are pursued with full vigour in order to ensure achievement of the optimum method of protecting the system while at the same time enhancing its competitiveness.

This legislation has been specifically designed with the flexibility to require enhanced security measures when threats are increased thereby requiring minimum expenditures in time and dollars when there is no apparent danger. This approach is in keeping with the current lack of threat to Canadian marine interests. The government has also promised to utilize to the fullest extent possible best industry practices and performance standards instead of detailed technical specifications. These commitments by the government will result in the most appropriate regime at the very lowest cost.

Very little in this world is free. The financial resources that a regulatory regime pursuant to this act will require the marine industry to expend are truly very minimal. We know that most passenger vessels have the technical and human resources to comply with very little effort should they choose to do so.

Unfortunately because Canada has such a good reputation as a safe destination, a safe haven, some operators tend to be less than diligent here in their observation of security precautions. This legislation will help ensure that passenger vessels do the things that are necessary and not only the things that are minimal to avoid becoming victims of unlawful acts while in Canada.

Other elements of the industry such as major cargo vessels, major ferries and the ports which serve them will have to expend a small amount of time to develop and practise contingency plans and conduct security surveys. Employees of major Canadian ports will also have to take basic preventive security training in line with regulatory requirements. Many of the ports implicated already have security plans and surveys. Some go well beyond the requirements envisaged.

For those areas that will have to expend limited resources, it is certainly not more than would be required to conform with good business practice and management. The government will add from its existing base of expertise in the Department of Transport, administration, training, monitoring and co-ordination resources that will make the sum of the security efforts greater than the individual parts.

The international cruise trade is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Canada annually. This trade over the last 10 years has grown at an average of 10 per cent a year. It shows no sign of abating. One incident of violence against a cruise vessel in the Mediterranean, the Achille Lauro , resulted in major losses, direct losses to the Greek economy of more than $300 million U.S. This does not account for losses in subsequent years of recovery. The preventive insurance this bill proposes is insignificant in comparison to such potential losses.

My colleagues have pointed out that other nations have increased their marine security. In particular, we know that the U.S. has security legislation already in place and that it will likely implement a marine security regime this year. The U.S. already has the authority to issue travel warnings regarding destinations it considers not to provide adequate security. I would remind members of this House that approximately 85 per cent of Canada's cruise ship trade is made up of American citizens. They come to Canada because they feel safe in Canada.

It would be folly to treat visitors to our land or indeed to treat Canadians themselves moving within each jurisdiction within this land with less concern and less respect than our American neighbours do. Will we not be good hosts as many nations already are, requiring security which adds to the ultimate enjoyment of travel? I would suggest that considering the cost of the security proposal before us, failing to offer it to our guests and to Canadians alike would be like buying friends a meal in a fine restaurant but refusing them a dinner mint after because of the cost. Failing to provide adequate protection certainly runs the risk of discouraging tourism and losing important revenue.

It was only last week that our Prime Minister was speaking on tourism for Canada, admitting that we will put money, billions of dollars, into the industry luring international conventions and trade to come here. They will come here because they feel good about Canada and they feel safe about Canada. Their interests will be better protected with this legislation.

I do not think I am far out on a limb when I suggest that safety in travel is a primary concern of all travellers, for all citizens. All responsible nations, including Canada, have a range of laws to ensure that our planes, trains, ships and cars travel with security. Now it is time that we ensure that marine travel is also guaranteed that same security. We offer to our people less safety and perhaps a threat of death if we do not engage in this legislation in this House. We have still more laws governing operation of the transportation system such as capacity to drive rights of way, waterways, roads, et cetera. People simply would not travel if they were in fear of tragedy of death en route.

None here can have forgotten the tragedy of the Air India disaster. Security in mass transportation is as critical as a failed engine or as an impaired driver. It is an important element that travellers and tourists need and want and that we must ensure.

The Saint John Evening Times Globe in a March 4 article about cruise lines stated: ``For passengers from Miami, New York and Los Angeles security is a huge consideration. Cruise lines like to go places where they know their passengers are safe, and not just from pickpockets but safe from terrorism and the whole works''. They want safety first. There can be little doubt that security is critical to life, but it is important to competition and to the economy and cannot be overlooked.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill to ensure that Canada has this important competitive advantage. In so doing it will ensure that visitors to Canada enjoy the beauty of the country, the serenity of the landscape, and arrive and depart with memories of Canadians that will live on forever and, above all, will ensure their immediate and quick return to Canada.

I live in Nova Scotia. I live on the water. Cruise ship lines come into our ports annually. Their great desire to come to these small ports, to these unique and scenic landscapes, is growing immensely. It increases more than 10 per cent a year in the east. We look forward to promoting it even more. The potential is tremendous not only for the pleasure of it but for the economic value. Those people tell us in the follow up reports that they love Canadians and want to come back.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. It is imperative and obligatory that we serve Canadians and our visitors with dignity and security of safety.

[Entrepreneur Of The Year Award, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the great honour of visiting Rideau Hall for the presentation of the first ever National Entrepreneur of the Year Award by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.

In particular I wish to single out one of the nine recipients, Mr. John Bragg, president of Oxford Frozen Foods Ltd., Oxford, Nova Scotia. John Bragg founded his company in rural Nova Scotia processing wild blueberries in a single plant. Today he has four processing plants and has capacity to process 1.9 million pounds of blueberries per day as well as other frozen foods. In peak season John Bragg employs 3,000 people throughout his diversified companies.

I salute John Bragg and the other eight national award recipients whose gross sales total more than $2 billion annually. The government is very proud of our entrepreneurs, the role models for all Canadians.

[Justice, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on September 30 the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the logic of the defence of drunkenness when one Henri Daviault said he did not know what he was doing when he dragged a 65-year old women from her wheelchair and raped her.

When the highest court in Canada grants acquittal for rape based on drunkenness, women are set back 100 years to non-person status. This is insensitive and offensive. Drunkenness must not be an excuse to commit crimes against women.

On behalf of all women, I urge the justice minister to act swiftly to accept the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that dangerous intoxication be made a criminal offence.