Rick Laliberte

[National Parks, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, each year Canadians and international travellers visit our national parks bringing economic benefits and employment to rural communities across this great country.

The wilderness experience is shared by many generations and is the highlight in many a child's vacation.

When the Governor General stated in her throne speech that the government would continue to extend Canada's national parks system, Canadians were delighted by her commitment to our natural treasures.

Canadians knew that the Prime Minister's promise to complete the parks system by the year 2000 would not come true, but we hoped that the government would demonstrate at least some vision and direction toward this honourable goal.

There was no mention of Canada's park system in yesterday's budget, not one commitment to reverse the loss of ecological integrity, not one promise to restore interpretive and essential services, not one single word to extend our legacy of national parks.

[Training, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. How can the government ask Canadians to save and pay for job training when the primary responsibility for limited income families is food and shelter?

Will the minister pop the policy balloon today and invest strategically in high unemployment regions by direct capital investment to public institutions such as community colleges and university access colleges, an investment that Canadians can rely on for sustainable human and regional development?

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker,

The new millennium offered Canada an opportunity to start a new approach to resource development across this great country. We have a responsibility to learn from the mistakes in the last century so we do not repeat them in the next.

We have a duty to involve and respect the people's views and recommendations to resource management issues. This includes the extraction of resources and the crown's responsibility under the charter to respect traditional land use for hunting and gathering purposes.

As parliamentarians it is our duty to represent the best interests of Canadians and to ensure that our decisions today do not harm the generations that will follow.

I bring to the attention of the House that there are serious problems associated with the proposed Diavik diamond mine in the Northwest Territories. A multibillion dollar fiasco is unfolding in Canada's north.

The Diavik project is an important step toward providing jobs and self-sufficiency for northerners. Northwest Territories proponents stated in an open letter to the Prime Minister that the 20 year project could create $1 billion in federal corporate taxes, $600 million in federal royalties and $500 million in territorial corporate taxes. This $2.1 billion is in addition to the $1.3 billion construction investment. The total is $4.3 billion and most important, 400 permanent jobs will be created.

Liberal government mismanagement and a disregard for a proper environmental assessment process have placed this project and the crown's integrity at risk.

In October 1999 the environment minister was presented with serious concerns from the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. The highlights included: abandonment and restoration of the Diavik diamonds project was not considered in the comprehensive study report; the environmental impact of loss of wilderness as a social value was not assessed; the cumulative effects of nearby mine operations were not addressed, a specific promise made by the government.

The environment minister decided to ignore the first major challenge by the Mackenzie Valley board to ensure proper resource procedures were followed. His decision placed little assurance on future northern development and community concerns.

The minister also chose to make his announcement while out of the country and not subject to direct questions or accountability for his actions. Thankfully the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development showed courage and called for specific recommendations to be met before land use permits would be issued, thankfully because a dramatic demonstration in federation incompetence soon followed.

The Northwest Territories Water Board discovered during routine proceedings that the tailings liners, a plastic and cement material crucial for protecting the environment, did not work in cold conditions. How could a federal environment minister approve a project when key project components failed? More remarkable, CBC North footage which aired on February 11 showed that work had begun on the site without permits. Shame.

With taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in northern mine site cleanups, and with northern regions of Canada pleading for sustainable development that does not destroy the land and traditional land use, when will the Liberal government put competence and respect ahead of arrogance and neglect?

I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's response, although I do not expect specific details as the Diavik project is under federal investigation.

[Petitions, December 17th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, my constituents of Waskesiu, Shellbrook, Debden, Canwood, Big River, Spiritwood and throughout the north, along with park enthusiasts in Saskatchewan and throughout Canada, are alarmed by the devastating effects of Parks Canada budget cuts.

The petitioners call on the government to provide adequate resources to maintain the Narrows Camp Ground in the Prince Albert National Park.

[Parks, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks will be creating a picture on the devastating effect of program review on national parks in this country. The situation across Canada has deteriorated from a lack of research and interpretative personnel to threats of a lack of buffer zones around our cherished national parks.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage commit the support from the cabinet and support our national parks in the new millennium?

[The Late Doug Sahm, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has certainly been a very sad week for the people of Churchill River who have lost a good friend.

We found a friend way down in Texas named Doug Sahm. It was a tragedy to hear about the passing last week of such a young artist at 58 years old. He made contributions to the music industry and the sport industry and befriended Canadians, including the people of northern Canada.

On behalf of the people of Churchill River, I send our condolences to his compadres, Freddie Fender, Flaco Jimenez, Augie Meyers and Louis Ortega. We also send our condolences to Ernie Dawawa, Speedy Sparks, Rocky Morales, his two sons who have taken up careers in the music industry, and to his dear friends and family from Texas.

As a person who came from down south, he admired Canada.

At this time of thanksgiving, we would like to give thanks to Doug Sahm. We are truly proud of what he has done and we are truly soulful for what his music will do for us in the future.

[Louis Riel, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to commemorate one of our colleagues who has fallen. He served in the second and third parliament and his name was Louis Riel. He was a duly elected member of parliament.

I challenge the government of the day to look into the future, to share what this person would have contributed to this parliament if he had been able to deliver a speech in this House of Commons, which he was denied. I challenge this government to open its doors, to open its mind, to open its heart and its spirit to unite this country among the aboriginal people who held this land in trust for the generations to come.

I welcome the possibility that Louis Riel can be honoured in the Library of Parliament. Maybe the circle building of the Library of Parliament could be a symbol of unity of this country in the future.

[International Circumpolar Community, November 15th, 1999]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to stand on behalf of my constituents of Churchill River. I am also exceptionally proud to stand as a Metis member of parliament, as this week recognizes the Metis peoples of this country.

The pride in representing one's people and the pride in being able to speak in the House of Commons to bring forth the issues and perspectives of this country is certainly paramount in this private member's motion that I bring forward.

The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.

The message I bring from people who live in the northern half of the provinces that touch on the 55th parallel is that we have been overlooked. The federal government by convenience has been sending delegations and representations to the Arctic Council of Circumpolar Nations and circumpolar conferences from north of 60.

The definition of the north seems to be a major problem in this country. We find that the definition of the north which exists on the website of our Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is that Canada's north is any land north of 60. I bring the message to Canadians that this is wrong. North is not only north of the 60th parallel. In this country north varies within political, cultural, territorial and geographic areas.

A major part of this discussion has taken place in the last 30 years, since in 1970 a man named Louis Hamelin wrote a book about nordicity. He brought out 10 factors to define the north, which created the Hamelin line. Different government departments have recognized the Hamelin line as being the definition of Canada's north.

A few years ago the Arctic Council was created and, symbolically, it was created here in Canada. Its eight member states are Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. These member states sit as the Arctic Council. Our ambassador to the Arctic Council is Mary Simon.

I challenge the federal government to identify the Canadian north. Since it is recognized internationally that the circumpolar north is the 55th parallel, let us give the privilege of participation to any people or province that falls within the 55th parallel in the international circumpolar community. Opportunity should be given to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I have excepted Quebec because Quebec has been involved. A portion of Quebec falls within the 60th parallel and it has been involved in the dialogue in the circumpolar community. However, I ask that the other provinces be given that opportunity.

The development of the north is truly a challenge for this country. It has vast tracts of land, vast resources, but very few people. The population of the north is not democratically represented in the House of Commons. There are very few northern members of parliament and very few senators who sit in the other house who specifically represent the north. This is a wake up call for the government. Even though there are small populations, let us represent these regions.

I have been involved with the northern regions in the dialogue and discussions of the circumpolar community as an observer, most recently in Whitehorse where the concern was sustainable development. The discussions of course, first and foremost, concern the connection of our people to the land, the interconnectedness between sustainable development and the future development of resources to sustain life.

The cycle of life is paramount in Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark, which are smaller countries with smaller resources. The long term use and sustainability of their resources is paramount. Just because Canada has more vast tracts of land, we cannot overlook the lessons we can learn from our neighbouring countries in the north. The design of our houses, the design of our roads, the design of our infrastructure all come into play. We can learn from the member states, from our neighbours.

The issue of pollution is a subject of major dialogue because of transboundary pollution. My riding is called Churchill River, which obviously has within it the Churchill River. However, the river flows into Hudson Bay, so all pollution in the water of Churchill River affects Hudson Bay and the Arctic region.

The McKenzie River system, which flows into the Arctic, starts on the southern side of the 60th parallel. It does not start north of the 60th parallel, so anything that happens in the river system, in the watershed area, affects the northern regions and the circumpolar regions.

I wanted to raise that because the jurisdiction, through the Natural Resources Transfer Act, belongs to the provinces. The provinces are responsible for water and land resources. Recently some federal responsibilities for the environment have been transferred to the provinces. However, this further transfer is not taking place with further resources.

The federal government has to take responsibility, define the north, involve these provinces and the northern peoples to represent the issues and their grievances among each other and to find solutions to the problems and ways of transferring this knowledge to further generations.

It is a long journey we are undertaking as we go into the new millennium. I believe the challenges that face us are now at the forefront. The Kyoto protocol, which identified major changes in our climate, will affect the north in a very unique and specific way. I say again that Canada needs to define the north. I welcome members from all corners of this country taking part in this dialogue.

An issue raised by people representing Quebec concerned the French translation of Canadian boundary being a bit different than our intention. I do not want to pretend that I can master French but frontiere is the term recommended to us. I believe members of the Bloc raised this issue to clarify the definition they would like to see.

We did not purposely bring an international boundary issue to Canada, but the northern half of our provinces, the 55th parallel, are not being involved in dialogue on northern issues. They have to be involved in this dialogue so they can bring home the issues from the major conferences which are taking place. I am talking about such conferences as the Arctic Council which talks about foreign issues, defence issues, pollution issues, resource depletion issues and social and health issues. All these issues are specific to the north. This dialogue should remain in the north and northerners should not be excluded from it. The 55th parallel represents a huge community within our country and it is up to us as a country to involve these people.

In addition, the boundary of convenience is the term we would like to use. The 60th parallel has been a convenient boundary for the federal government in its definition of the north. It is time for the federal government to redefine the north and open the books on the definition of the north. We should first strike the web page definition from the Indian affairs definition of the 60th parallel and begin dialogue in the House of Commons.

We should discuss where the issues take place. As I mentioned, there are international forums such as the Arctic Council. However, if we have issues in the north I believe the wealth of the north will sustain the economic future of the country. If we do not involve the people who live in those regions, we will be making a big mistake.

We have to put ourselves at an international level so we can compete and share our wisdom. This wisdom is sometimes locked into what we call aboriginal traditional knowledge. Just because a birch tree is called a birch tree in English it may have a French definition. The scientific community might have a Latin definition. The Cree have a Cree definition.

The Dene have a Dene definition of that same birch tree. Our universities and our knowledge based institutions do not recognize the aboriginal language definition of these trees. They test us in the Latin, English or French definition but do not give credit for our aboriginal knowledge.

We know the moss, the Maskêk, the muskegs of the world, through the boreal forests or the taiga of northern Europe and Russia, breathe oxygen to us. However, we are taking forestry, which is a huge industry in the country, to a point where ranch lands take over the deforested areas and then agriculture kicks in. We are losing the natural abundance of oxygen producing forest land, the boreal forest.

I am told that we are losing the boreal forest faster than the Amazon forest because of the huge machinery being used today. This is all for an immediate economic gain. That is the sustainable future that I am talking about. If that dialogue is to take place we have to talk to the people who live in the forests so they can understand the impact those industries are having within their area. They will then be able to make sound decisions on economic, social or environmental impacts. Their knowledge of either Cree, Dene, Ojibway and all these languages will be recognized and credited as part of future developments.

The reason I raise this is that I applaud the efforts of the Arctic Council. I applaud the efforts of the Northern Forum. I applaud the efforts of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. These conferences are a guide and a good future for us. It is like these people have worn the snowshoes for us and are making the trail. They are making a trail which recognizes each other. They are dialoguing with foreign and international neighbours. They are recognizing and respecting each other for who they are and where they are from.

As a country we can do that, but allowing only a certain portion of the north to be a part of this dialogue is a major oversight by the federal government. That line should be brought down to the 55th parallel which is internationally recognized as a northern community. Let us start the dialogue within our own country. Let us involve the people north of 55 to be part of the northern definition and the dialogue in the international community as we deem it as a circumpolar community.

I am proud to be a northerner, but Canada, give us a chance. There are a lot of examples the north can give to the rest of the country and to the rest of the world. Give us an opportunity and we will shine, as does the northern star.

[The Environment, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In approving the Diavik Mine, prematurely of course, the new environment minister believes that digging up an Arctic lake is not significant. He has decided to ignore the constitutionally entrenched Mackenzie review panel which has concerns about loss of wilderness and abandonment.

This utter contempt for northerners is only matched by the arrogance of making a decision while he is out of the country.

Is the Prime Minister concerned that his government is abandoning the throne speech promise that would set and enforce tough environmental standards, particularly in the north?

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on our opposition day. I will also be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

The subject of the debate today is the World Trade Organization. I will present my views on how it affects the environment. The environment and the economy are very much tied together because without the environment there is no economy. We cannot provide all our trade on the ships of the ocean. We have to find land sometime and find our goods and services. When we come upon these goods and services we find the land has a jurisdiction. The jurisdiction that we speak of today is this country, the sovereign state of Canada.

Protecting Canadians is the driving force of being a member of parliament in the House of Commons: protecting Canadians, protecting our interests, protecting our future.

Along with the representation that we have in the House of Commons, Canadians en masse are aware that the environment has direct links to our health: the cross border air pollution that pollutes our air, our rain and inevitably contaminates our water. The international toxic fallout throughout Canada's north is destroying the traditional culture and value of hunting and gathering. The country foods, as they are termed, are all affected by this toxic fallout that is happening in the north.

People around the globe realize that our environment and the ecosystem, our biosphere that supports our lives, is under tremendous stress. Climate change and the increased storm severity and the damage that causes worldwide are a direct result of our economic activities in the world. The invisible chemicals that are throughout the entire food chain, including the human species, are changing our hormones, our basic genetic structure and threatening our children's future.

The free trade and borderless profit, this fad of making money regardless—and I want to stress regardless—is losing strength in the world.

We saw that with the whole issue of the MAI where all peoples of the world had major objections to trade negotiations being done behind closed doors. Once the negotiations were brought out to public forums the MAI was flushed down the toilet. There goes the pollution cycle once again, so be careful where it lands.

Citizens around the globe realize that there is a cost to making trade the first and foremost consideration over the protection of the environment that supports us. This cost has to be tallied in the houses of government by the democratically elected people who make these decisions. Trade is a major part of the governance of this country, but environmental responsibility and the health of our citizens are also major responsibilities. These cannot be compromised for trade reasons.

The WTO process wishes to ensure free and unfettered trade happens worldwide. This is backed up by a cesspool of rules and regulations. The cesspool has reared its head when MMT and the water issue has come up. These rules and regulations were blueprinted to support these interests of the world.

Citizens of Canada and other states of the world are naive to the small print. When these regulations are enforced through the justice system and the international trade bodies, we find out that reality has hit the ground when we start seeing decisions being made against the will of duly elected governments. The essence of our opposition day motion is that we must not sacrifice ourselves for the sake of world trade.

Canadians want a different vision of the future. The legacy for our children in the next century and future generations is foremost. Canadians can find danger where there is a lack of environmental protection in trade agreements with multinational interests.

In the recent round of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, where a duly elected House of Commons selected a committee on the environment, a bill was passed to strengthen environmental protections but was then thrown into cabinet behind closed doors and the industry lobby tore it to shreds. That is a very undemocratic process but that is a reality.

Since free trade hit the country, lobbyists have made millions of dollars carrying legislation and advising on policy behind closed doors. That is our job as members of parliament who represent Canadians. This is where we must have an open public debate on where the country and the future of our children are going.

MMT is a major issue. I call on the Liberal government to be cautious. The year 2000 is coming very quickly. The whole issue of manganese and the effects it has on our health should be foremost in the review. The health department and the health minister should look directly at this issue as a number one priority because of the inhalation of fuel additives.

Manganese was basically used to replace lead as an anti-knocking agent in fuel for automobile engines. However, we have to face up to the fact that manganese does strange things. The United States has banned MMT en masse but in Canada, not only do we endorse MMT, so to speak, but we also pay and apologize to the Ethyl Corporation for stopping the interprovincial transportation of MMT. Groups all over Canada are raising this issue but the Liberals, in making its $20 million cheque, has basically endorsed this product and went against public safety and public health.

We have also heard about the issue of the precautionary principle from cabinet ministers and especially the environment minister. The precautionary principle is a major principle of environmental and health protection in the country but it was thrown right out the door just to accommodate international trade.

The wish of Canadians is not to see third world conditions exist here where corporations make decisions which challenge us at every turn to protect ourselves and have our sovereign and democratic rights bent for the sake of profit. The destruction of resources is happening on the planet as we know it. A case in point is the Amazon forests which have been experiencing deforestation for the last few decades.

I now raise in the House that the boreal forests in our own backyards are disappearing at a faster rate than the Brazilian forests. Why is this happening? It is to make more profit and to make more paper. The whole issue of recycling and the issue of another round of WTO talks are also opening the door for further deforestation in the trading states.

I want to tell all Canadians that we must protect our environment. Let us protect the things that create the air that we breath: the muskeg; the different trees such as the spruce, the jack pine and the poplar; these gifts that we have from our Creator that give us life. If we are conscious of the cycle of life, let us not disrupt that for the sake of profit. Let us put our health and our democracy ahead of world trade organizations that want profit, international trade and a borderless society.

I also want to say that there is a Canadian border and I am proud of the Canadian border. I think the hon. member from the Conservative Party said that we were trying to raise this border to higher standards. I welcome that view. I think Canadians should stand proud of who we are are, protect our jurisdiction, protect the resources and the gifts that we have, but let us not give it away for the sake of profit.