Rick Laliberte

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, received the lengthiest clause by clause review in recent parliamentary history. The committee responded when health and environment groups said the bill was weak. The standing committee strengthened Bill C-32.

What happens then? The unite the right to pollute reaches a new low. We witnessed the Liberal, Reform and PC Parties fighting to impress their chemical lobby friends.

Can the environment minister explain why the industry wish list for Bill C-32 comes first and children's health comes last?

[Freshwater Exports, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has been reassuring the House that the government will be protecting our freshwater resources from becoming a tradable good.

The proposed voluntary ban of bulk exports has been denied by some provinces. Newfoundland and other jurisdictions do not fall under the IJC mandate. Canadians demand that the government protect, preserve and conserve our waters.

Will the minister commit today to a national water act that will ban the wholesale export of our freshwater in this country?

[National Housing Act, May 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on the issue of housing.

It certainly is a wake-up call for a lot of Canadians, especially a lot of people in my constituency, to see the effects of Bill C-66 on our communities. It will mean wholesale changes in the structure of housing in my communities.

A lot of the responsibilities have already devolved from federal to provincial authority. There is also concern about on reserve housing in aboriginal communities and contributions that the federal government has made for the development of communities and their infrastructures.

When one sees social housing coming to an end as a national program, Bill C-66 seems to punctuate it. In Canada we have such pristine land that gives us natural resources of timber, rock, minerals and properties that can provide for meaningful homes, that can be designed for a new generation of children to come, that can meet the environmental needs, the non-polluting needs and sustainable development housing needs of the future. For the federal government to abdicate and abandon its responsibility now is very untimely.

As a national vision we should be empowering our youth. When they leave high school are they trained to understand how to build a home, the basic need of a shelter? Can they renovate the property they will eventually own as students, workers or parents? What about the maintenance of the heating, cooling and electrical systems or the plumbing? All these are housing needs and basic skills that people need to take care of their homes and to make them sustainable.

In a high tech world everything has become a case of calling 911 when people are in trouble. People call the plumber when there is a leak, the electrician when there is a power outage, the computer specialist when viruses are coming down from the online system. We are making people dependent.

The social housing program has been utilized by many generations of families and individuals. In future they will have to try to find their way through the provincial and local community administrations.

As well, this bill will abdicate the corporate for profit social housing programs. That is a very dangerous venture for this country to go on.

I believe that our young people, our homeless people, our disadvantaged people require the state to look at these interests and to find the means to create opportunities to put before us. The state should make the challenges. It should make them local challenges.

My first career, coming out of high school, was as a carpenter. In 1976 there was a major infrastructure development in northern Saskatchewan which included housing. I learned to build a house. Today I am proud to be a carpenter who can still build a house, but if it was not for the social housing program that was in place in my community I would have not attained that skill or that trade.

Today, if for profit corporations build social housing in our communities, they hire local people at minimum wage for a very specific, short period and then they leave with the profits they have made. There is no advantages for trade development or skill development. I guess the bottom line is one of self-awareness and self-pride, self-esteem in housing.

If families can provide homes, if communities can provide for the well-being of their citizens and if the country can provide for the well-being of its citizens, then we will have self-esteem in the country. With Bill C-66 we seem to be going to the common marketplace to look at social housing delivery in the country.

In Canada we have a housing shortage in the middle of the boreal forest. That is a mindless situation. It is not a housing problem, it is a social problem. It is a sick society when we have a wealth of resources in the backwoods of our communities and we have a housing shortage. Young families are starting up. Some families have 15 to 20 members living in one dwelling. They have issues of health, discipline and economic plight.

Housing is also an industry. We have to create industries in our communities in all necks of the woods, so to speak.

We recently had the birth of Nunavut. We watched the celebrations take place in the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit. This is a growing, young population, the majority of which is under 25 years old. They are going to need housing in the future, but there are no trees in Nunavut. There is an abundance of trees in northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. We have to create an economic cycle within our own country. We have to trade among ourselves. We have to prepare ourselves, but we have to take care of our people first, before we trade worldwide.

Let us take care of Canadians in a responsible way. I call on the government to reconsider its support of Bill C-66 at this time. I call on the government to reconsider in the new millennium renovating and rejuvenating our pride, as well as renovating this House. Why not? This House has a housing problem of its own. We should reassess how we populate it, and redesign the House which came from the British form of government. Let us redesign something collectively for the new millennium.

The whole structure and foundation of the government, the foundation of the country, is compassion for everyone. We must have compassion for each other.

Those people who have been using the social housing program for years should be the people sitting on the CMHC board of directors. They should be the ones administering the bureaucratic structure of social housing. Why not consider these people for positions on the board of directors? Instead, the government, the minister or the prime minister will appoint whomever they want.

The government should look at the standards of housing in this country and consider our northern climate. The government should consider climate change and the effect that will have on our environment. It should consider the use of energy.

It is a major challenge for us to empower and to teach our children that in the future we should build our homes in a respectful and honourable way, but by no means should the federal government abandon its responsibilities to the citizens of this country.

I believe that a further review of the CMHC is needed for the new millennium, but consultations should take place at the community level, not at the federal level. I call on the Liberal government not to adopt any past government's ideas of making for profit corporations' interests a priority. The government should support the non-profit and co-operative movement that has taken place in social housing. These organizations should be financially and politically supported to make it possible for people in the future to have houses.

[Fisheries, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, northern fishers and producers are facing an economic crisis in their communities. This message was heard 30 years ago in 1969 when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was created with a northern transportation program.

Will the government now listen to northern fishers who are facing an economic crisis in 1999? Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans review the FFMC monopoly on processing and marketing, and will he reinstate a fair transportation program?

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-441, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.

I would like to thank the member for Davenport for an excellent bill. His wisdom, vision and leadership are appreciated. His efforts to improve the protection of the environment for this and future generations are evident in his position as chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The bill before us reflects the hon. member's vision. Canadians can only hope that the environment minister's proposed species at risk legislation will be as well written to ensure the protection and recovery of species at risk in this country.

Canadians have told the government to act. The Prime Minister received a letter signed by 638 Canadian scientists, calling for specific action to be taken on the scientific listings of endangered species and the explicit need for national habitat protection for transboundary species.

Two letters from the scientific community, dated February 1997 and October 1995, stated explicitly that one cannot protect species at risk without protecting their habitats, the places where species feed, breed, rear their young, and so on, which are critical to their survival and recovery. The letters stated that habitats can be geographically dispersed and are not confined within political boundaries, but must each be effectively protected to ensure a species' well-being.

Regarding the scientific listing of endangered species, the letter to the Prime Minister is quite pointed. It reads:

Identifying and listing species at risk is the foundation of endangered species protection. Your government recognized this in its 1995 legislative proposal, and agreed that species at risk should be identified and listed by COSEWIC—an independent committee of scientists drawn mainly from government and academia—and that mandatory listing should follow COSEWIC's determinations.

Since then, your government has abandoned this principle in two ways. First, the federal environment minister recently decided to strip most of COSEWIC's non-governmental scientists of their voting rights. This change (which was made without public notice) weakens COSEWIC's independence by opening the door to political interference in species listings.

The Prime Minister's letter also refers to this government's effort to give cabinet the power to override the scientifically based list of species at risk. As I mentioned at the outset, we Canadians can only hope that the environment minister's proposed legislation will be on par with Bill C-441.

I encourage all members to read the summary of this very sound legislation. It states:

The purpose of this enactment is to prevent Canadian wildlife species from becoming extirpated or extinct and to provide for the recovery of those that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.

This is a vision which has protection and recovery as its purpose. We need a sincere, non-partisan approach to address the crisis that faces Canada's biodiversity today.

The bill's preamble presents an outline for a working framework between all jurisdictions. There is a specific reference to the conservation efforts of individual Canadians and communities that should be encouraged and supported and their interests should be considered in developing and implementing recovery measures. This is a specific reference to the role of citizens and communities.

There is also a specific reference to the role of aboriginal people and of the wildlife management boards established under aboriginal land claims. I thank the hon. member for his continued diligence in traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge and the important role that this presents for Canada and future generations.

Throughout the interpretation section the definitions are good. The definition for residence is especially important, as it notes the basic facts that wildlife is mobile and is affected by seasons. A bird does not spend its entire life in a nest and the caribou feed and calve in different areas.

Prevention of species loss and species recovery provides the basis for this bill. I do not believe the minister will be able to match this principle due to politics.

I have not seen the Prime Minister's leadership and vision for proactive environmental initiatives, so I fear there is a strong probability that these basic principles will be missing from the current government's legislation.

Bill C-441 sets a standard for the responsibilities of ministers and the delegation of responsibilities between departments and jurisdictions to ensure this legislation works. Consultations with stakeholders are ensured. Funding requirements are outlined in section 9. These references include specific management and fiscal responsibilities. It is refreshing to see legislation where accountability for a minister's action is defined.

The hon. member for Davenport includes an excellent proposal for a specific Canadian endangered species conservation council. With specific reference to the Prime Minister, I hope the wildlife species listing process described in Bill C-441 will be included in whatever legislation the government assembles for this crucial issue.

The basis for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, would address the scientific, academic, non-governmental organizations and overall concerns for effective legislation. This means effective protection, prevention and recovery. Otherwise, why waste the trees to print a meaningless and toothless biased law?

It is unfortunate that the government is setting a dangerous precedent in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which is about to enter the House. We can expect the government to throw out the democratic committee process once again with CEPA next week. We fully expect industry bias and that the industry and natural resources ministers will overrule the environment and health ministers. Canadians can only hope that this government will attempt to reverse the current trend toward environmental devolution and degradation with a well written endangered species act.

The proposed recovery and management plans are based on realistic terms. They represent a conscientious approach that includes the necessity for public buy-in. There is a requirement for landowners' needs and concerns to be addressed and considered.

On the international stage Canada is falling behind. It is well reported that our North American neighbours have effective endangered species legislation. The United States has had this legislation for 25 years. As signatories to the Rio biodiversity accord, Canadians can only expect that this government will finally act.

I will read some comments from a publication I received while I was at the United Nations in New York recently:

Currently, a grizzly bear can lumber across the border from the American state of Montana, where it is protected by law, and die quite legally in a hail of hunters' bullets in the Canadian province of Alberta. Similarly, wetlands and forests critical to creatures like the whooping crane and the spotted owl enjoy virtually no protection in Canada, though they are rigorously policed by the U.S....which is why the American conservation groups...have gotten in on the issue...they are attempting to use a 30-year-old American fishing law to pressure Canada to conform to a 55-year-old convention on wildlife by passing a species law.

The mechanism they plan to use is the Pelly amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act of 1967. Their filing of a petition under this amendment would require the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to evaluate Canada's efforts to comply with international programs to protect endangered species.

Not only are Canadians knocking on this government's door, international neighbours and the world community is also looking at Canada to take leadership and to make a move on protecting our species.

The publication sums up our current status, which is why Bill C-441 is necessary for the protection and recovery of species at risk.

I thank the hon. member for bringing a worthwhile bill into this House and I ask all members to vote in favour of it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1953 the Primrose bombing range that straddles both Alberta and Saskatchewan was established.

This huge tract of land that was reserved for the DND displaced the aboriginal people from their basic hunting and fishing rights.

The promised economic opportunities have not been beneficial for the people of northwestern Saskatchewan. The issues for the Metis elders and their communities, which have been directly affected by this loss, have not been resolved.

Will the minister responsible for Canada's Metis commit today to expedite a meeting with the Primrose negotiating committee to resolve these injustices?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member may have received unanimous consent had he said “until the cows come home” instead of “until the fish come back”.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I am honoured to speak on the bill. In speaking to the hon. member, the spokesperson for our caucus on fisheries and known as a great supporter and defender of the fishing industry and the preservation of the fish stock, we would like to extend our support, but with some reservations.

As members of the committee are very well aware, amendments were put forward to address the specific issues. I will highlight once again the main point of concern that we would like to raise during debate on Bill C-27.

The bill amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. It is Canada's implementation of the United Nations fisheries agreement, a very crucial agreement as it deals with the protection of our fish stocks based on sustainability and co-operation. Also the jurisdiction over waters and the supply of fish is enhanced. It ensures that Canadian fish caught by Canadian fishermen are processed in Canadian plants. That is a major issue.

I would like to raise a point of contention about a specific and crucial point in the bill. It is also an issue of interpretation. The bill is a new tool for enforcing international conservation measures on the high seas. It will allow Canada to operate outside Canadian waters under the auspices of the UNFA, the United Nations Fisheries Agreement.

We certainly are aware that enforcing illegal or unwarranted activities can escalate to international misunderstandings. In dealing with foreign nations let us be very specific and very clear in our communications so as not to jeopardize the integrity, the powers and the safety of our enforcement officers.

Under Bill C-27 a ship suspected of illegally fishing on the high seas could be boarded and searched if the flag state is informed. The protections officer can then exercise additional powers under the UNFA if the flag state has not responded within three days or does not investigate the alleged offence.

The three day period is the contention. It is not defined in the bill itself. Article 21 of the actual United Nations fisheries agreement says that the time period will be prescribed by regulation. During report stage debate the government said that it would implement a three day period in the UNFA through regulations at a future date.

My colleague brought forward a motion that would change the three day notification period to 48 hours. Nobody understands what three days mean. They could mean working days. When our hon. colleague brought forth an amendment, 48 hours was a specific time period which nobody could dispute internationally. It would have permitted Canadian fisheries officers to wait only 48 hours to act instead of three working days.

Unfortunately the amendment was defeated. We would like to bring it to the government's attention. Before the bill receives final royal assent we hope this ratification and clarification could take place.

What do three working days mean? That is our question to the government. There is no definition in any of the agreements or the bill of three working days. Does it mean 72 hours? Does it include weekends and national holidays? If so, if national holidays are recognized in Canada, are they also recognized in the vessel's country of origin? What happens if the boat is boarded on Christmas Eve? When does that three day period actually begin? Is it after Boxing Day or New Years? It is a very contentious issue even under Canadian interpretation.

We do not want to waste the time of fisheries officers who are trying to work out the details on the high seas. We do not want to wait too long before they are allowed further action against a vessel that is fishing illegally. That is why the three working day period should be reduced to two days and defined as 48 hours. This was a major issue raised in the committee process and brought forward in an amendment. We want to raise it with the government today and ask it to take it under advisement.

We also want to draw attention to the environmental status of our ecosystem. We talked about declining fish stocks in the Canadian fisheries industry and the impact it has on our coastal communities and our economy as a whole.

Internationally fish stocks are declining as our population and demand for fish are increasing. As one hon. colleague mentioned, the silent tragedy of human deterioration as a result of agents in our food cycles is also a major concern. Pollutants that affect the ecosystem go into our food cycle including the fish throughout the regions.

I challenge the members who spoke to this issue to look at the Environmental Protection Act. One party spoke about the need to look at the health deteriorating agents in food cycles. Another party diminished the pollution related powers we wanted to protect in terms of fighting polluters, the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle. All these principles were encompassed by CEPA and were debated. Many members declined strengthening the bill.

I raise the issue of climate change which affects the migratory patterns of world fish stocks and the depths at which schools of fish can be found. The major issues are ecosystem and environmental protection, pollution prevention for our planet and climate change. Let us take these issues to heart and challenge members of the House and the provincial legislators to make sure we have a viable future for our children and a food supply for the world, especially our nation. Let us protect our Canadian waters and our Canadian law enforcement officers.

We would hate to see a situation where we were forced to shoot across somebody's bow to get somebody's attention in terms of the legalities of the jurisdiction over fish off our shores. Let us look at the speedy passage of Bill C-27 as weak as it is. We would like to strengthen it further, and I think there are processes that will allow for that.

[Transit Passes, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, various Liberal members like to claim that they are friends of the farmers. This is interesting because in each of the last two budgets the finance minister never allowed the word farmer to pass his lips during his speeches.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should tell his Liberal colleagues that many Canadian farmers are facing a full-blown income crisis which is getting worse day by day. Predications are that realized net farm income for Canadian farmers will drop as much as 40% in the year just ended.

Grain prices last year were at the worst level since the Great Depression and hog prices were not much better. We saw some farmers giving their hogs away to food banks because they were being paid next to nothing for them.

In December the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised a contribution of $900 million from Ottawa to be supplemented by $600 million from the provinces. Now there is a clear indication that the bureaucrats are fiddling around with the program design to ensure that Ottawa will pay less than it promised.

The minister says that the program will not cover losses or negative margins. It means if farmers actually lost money as they did in northwestern Saskatchewan because of the drought, those losses are not covered. These farmers say that this program will do nothing for them.

The minister is also going to deduct from his payments to farmers any contributions the government has made to the net income stabilization account, NISA. By setting up this program the minister will pay about $600 million or even less, not the $900 million he promised as recently as December.

I should mention that the forms the government is sending out to farmers, as another hon. member has stated, are long and complicated. A lot of farmers are throwing their hands up in the air and saying to heck with it.

Another problem is that the provinces are being forced to pay 40% of this program. That is not fair. North Dakota or Minnesota are not paying disaster relief to American farmers; it is Washington. And it should be Ottawa, not small provinces like Saskatchewan, that foots the bill to help our farmers through trade wars. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the treasuries of the United States or Europe.

Until the late 1980s Ottawa took major responsibility for safety net and disaster programs. This Liberal government has walked away from its responsibility. The Liberals have slashed spending on agriculture by 60% since 1993. The money they plan to spend on the disaster relief program is just a brief two year blip. By the year 2000 the Liberals will again be spending less than they did last year. In turn, it is much less than what they had spent in 1993.

In addition, our farmers have been impacted by the falling commodity prices, as everybody is well aware, but their increased input costs have compounded the financial squeeze that is driving our families away from their farms. This government should immediately investigate the input costs in agriculture, the unrealistic fuel costs, the whole issue of concentrated control of our food supply, as referenced by the Western Producer recently, and claim it as food clusters.

Farmers have played a key role in the deficit reduction of this country and the restoration of the balanced budget this government is so proud of. It is time for Ottawa to put back money into agriculture. We in the NDP believe that Canadian farmers need stable incomes. Our federal caucus intends to keep the pressure on the agriculture minister so that a solid sustainable farm income disaster plan will be there not just for one or two years, but for the long haul.

[Competition Act, 1998, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5, I asked the health minister a question relating to MMT and Ethyl Corporation.

I asked the minister a specific question on when a comprehensive study would begin to determine the health effects on Canadian children. He responded: “As more is known about the health effects of MMT, government policy will reflect those research results”. Four months have passed and the health minister has not announced any effort to determine the possible health effects MMT poses on Canadian children.

In November I was honoured to host a parliamentary breakfast sponsored by the Council of Canadians and the Sierra Club of Canada. Members from all political parties attended this important event. The guest speakers were Dr. Donna Mergler, a nervous system disorder specialist at the University of Quebec in Montreal, and Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of child psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh's school of medicine.

Dr. Mergler is an expert on the effects of manganese on the human population. Dr. Needleman is recognized internationally as a key figure behind the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1970s to protect the world's children.

These distinguished speakers drew upon their respective histories and expertise to call on this country to act with precaution and to conduct intensive studies in relation to MMT fuel additives. They outlined the potential similarities of lead's adverse health effects on humans that MMT may pose. They urged Canada's leaders not to repeat the mistakes that the repeated delays with lead fuel additives created. Millions of children were unnecessarily exposed and suffered a variety of neurological and physical effects.

The health minister has demonstrated this government's refusal to act proactively or to in any way show leadership, political will or vision. When the need to protect Canada's children requires a precautionary approach this government disappears. For example, the issue of metals and chemicals in children's toys was ignored for a year by the minister until independent lab tests proved the danger and the government was forced to act.

The government has also resumed toxic PCB shipments to Swan Hills contrary to a company official confirming that there will always be fugitive emissions, dioxins and furans spewing throughout the countryside.

The government continues to ignore reality. Sick children are not relocated from beside this country's infamous toxic waste site, the coke ovens and Sydney tar ponds. At a time when the government tells the Canadian public that precautionary principle is policy, we know by its inaction and delay that this is not correct.

Several weeks ago the EPA in the United States initiated a new series of studies into MMT. The majority of European countries and the United States do not use this product. We are guinea pigs for a corporation and a government that have lost direction in the face of trade and profit.

After four months of further government delay to protect Canadian children, what studies have been reviewed by Health Canada, if any? Has the health minister drawn any conclusions from the recent reports from Denmark on the potential health effects to workers from manganese operations? Has the minister looked at the study from British Columbia that may show a marked increase in manganese concentrations in soil collected along thoroughfares since MMT became a fuel additive replacement for lead?

Did the minister bother to read the peer review in the infamous Toronto study relating to MMT that raised serious questions about the report's validity? Will the minister or any other minister in the government today take precautions on MMT for the sake of Canada's children? The government's track record states no.

[Nuclear Waste, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The minister has two major responsibilities in this country, the AECB and the AECL. We are all very aware that the AECB has regulatory responsibilities that are in direct conflict with the industry proponent, AECL, a major stakeholder in the future development of nuclear waste. But Canadians are confused. Who does what?

Will the Prime Minister relieve the obvious conflict within the Ministry of Natural Resources and transfer the regulatory mandates of all nuclear waste to the Department of the Environment?