Lost his last election, in 2004, with 10% of the vote.
Environment April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The failure of a mining tailings pond in Spain this weekend near Doñana national park, a world heritage site, demonstrates that accidents can occur.
Canada has in place an oil spill response program funded by that industry. Can the Minister of the Environment tell Canadians what response program is in place for a tailings pond failure in Canada? Who would be responsible for the clean-up bill, industry or the Canadian taxpayers?
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998 April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the new CEPA has highlighted the citizen's right to know. In terms of opening up the dialogue and making the communities, the workers and the many industries involved aware is sometimes lacking. The report the hon. member has mentioned is a help. This was a major recommendation which was echoed by many respondents and in many submissions.
I must refer tot he whistleblower legislation as well. The new CEPA limits itself to federal agencies and federal employees. It should be open to public input as well, the union members, dock members and industry members, the workers. It should raise awareness of the environmental impacts these industries or employers are practising. This is part of the citizen's right to know. This is not in the new CEPA and we should enhance that to protect our workers.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1998 April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue debate on Bill C-32, an act respecting pollution and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.
I thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his comments on the bill last week. On behalf of my Churchill River constituents and the New Democratic Party we continue to be opposed to Bill C-32. The New Democratic Party is not opposed to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are opposed to Bill C-32 as it continues the Liberal policy of devolution and removal of federal responsibilities for environmental protection.
I will speak today on the need for a strong federal presence in protecting the environment. I will continue as my colleagues indicated at the outset last week to address the reasons for a strong Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My colleague made reference to Silent Spring by Ms. Rachel Carson as an alarm bell that man has continued along an unsustainable path. The book describes the losses we may face as a society if poor environmental practices, pollution discharges and ecological degradation were to continue unchecked.
As my colleague stated environmental protection is a requirement. Environmental protection is not an option. The original 1998 CEPA evolved because Canadians recognized something was wrong with the environment. There was growing concern about the presence of toxic substances in the environment and the adverse impact on the environment from a variety of pollution sources and industry contributing to environmental degradation.
I remind my colleagues that these concerns continue today. As mentioned by colleagues last week, the majority of Canadians believe more needs to be done to protect the environment. Science and technology have evolved to the point where environmental stewardship does not compromise profitability or contribute to job losses. As my colleagues stated and I shall repeat, going green does not cost jobs or decrease productivity, a principle that the New Democratic Party has stated time and time again in the House and across the country.
As we embark upon the review and the restructuring of CEPA we should remember that recent events demonstrate there are environmental protection problems across Canada. As stated last week Canadians are fully aware of the Plastimets in Swan Hills, the abandoned contaminated sites that dot the landscape from coast to coast to coast and the spills and accidents, some of which could have been prevented.
In the north there are contaminants in mother's milk. What is wrong with this picture when entire food chains are contaminated and where thousand of square kilometres contaminated by man can be accepted as the way things are?
We are continuing to promote environment degradation through inaction and further studies. We have placed economics before the environment. Sustainable development is a theory, not an accepted and practised principle.
My colleague made specific reference to the only comprehensive review to date on CEPA, the report tabled in 1995 by the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. It was entitled It's About our Health—Towards Pollution Prevention . This massive report contains 141 recommendations to improve then Bill C-74, the predecessor to Bill C-32.
The Liberals refused the majority of the recommendations in the 400 responses received by the government during the public review. They ignored a consensus that more effort was needed to ensure the highest standards of environmental protection for all Canadians as a favoured response from the Liberal benches. This statement does not only relate to fact.
Recent environment committee meetings demonstrate that there is something wrong with basic environmental standards, never mind the highest environmental standards. The problem is not the lack of standards. It is the reality that standards on paper or in bills are not being followed, implemented or enforced. The New Democratic Party does not support a sole command and control regulatory framework as a sole parameter or measure for environmental protection.
Co-operative measures, including sharing responsibilities between provincial and territorial governments, indeed all government levels and local governments, to ensure environmental protection at the highest standards can be achieved. However, this government appears to fully embrace the devolution of environmental protection and the abandonment of environmental responsibilities.
Canadians have been fed a line by industry and provincial authorities that overlap and duplication are serious problems. There are limited examples that this is true. This was demonstrated by recent committee hearings which describe non-enforcement and the lack of resources by any level of government to enforce entire sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
This pattern of federation devolution and no responsibility continues with Bill C-32.
As parliamentarians it is our duty to ensure that Canadians receive the environmental standards they expect, deserve and call for.
My colleagues, the Liberal government has demonstrated time and time again that the environment is not important “Let the provinces handle the problem; we will wash our hands clean of this responsibility”. The New Democratic Party cannot support legislation that allows and condones further decreases in environmental protection.
The administrative duties section contains an alarm bell that we must recognize as dangerous. Clause 2(1) makes specific reference to “act in a manner of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the highest degree of environmental equality throughout Canada”.
We believe that this is a direct reference to the harmonization accord which was signed in January by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. This accord operates on a consensus basis where any province that protests against or declines participation with the environmental measures can effectively stop, delay or defer cautionary, preventative or proactive environmental efforts.
If a province that relies on a specific industry or economic sector decides to not implement environmental standards for specific toxics or limit an industry's discharge of greenhouse gas emissions for example, CEPA in essence can become null and void.
How can we ignore the calls by business and different levels of government for a level playing field when one province can decide that a lower level of specific standards is okay while a neighbouring province decides higher standards are necessary to protect the health and safety of its citizens and voters?
We are trying to limit job raiding and promote interprovincial co-operation. Why place this opportunity for squabbles on the table?
We will be embarking on a climate change program, we hope, and the country may be held hostage by one, two or three provinces, a grave environmental issue that will affect all Canadians, future generations and the entire planet.
Our concerns are shared by environmental organizations across this country. I expect we will be presented with numerous scenarios as the legislation passes through committee.
The non-protection course the Liberal government appears content to follow is included in various sections of the new act, as was the case in C-74, where specific outs and escape clauses are identified to provide the devolution authority this government cherishes. The equivalent provisions in section 10(3) states: “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the environment minister, make an order declaring that the provisions of the regulations do not apply in any area under the jurisdiction of the government”.
Members of Parliament and Canadians have been shocked by the reality that these agreements represent. Environment departments across Canada have been cut as a result of deficit battles and transfer reductions. The ability and capacity for environmental protection enforcement and monitoring has reached a critical level.
The federal government signs equivalency agreements with the provinces. The provinces do not have the resources to monitor, inspect and enforce and environmental standards continue to plummet.
The department of fisheries for example is still scrambling to provide water monitoring resources in Ontario after the province opted out of its partnering and harmonization agreement with that department. The fisheries minister has waived inspection responsibilities in several provinces and has not provided reports on enforcement although this is a regulatory responsibility. The provinces are not keeping DFO up to date. The impacts on ecosystems, such as those affected by aquaculture, are ignored by the federal government. Even though there is a memorandum of understanding, the federal government decides not to enforce fisheries regulations. These are a few of the many examples of the highest standards possible, the Liberal definition.
The environment minister heralds a partnering with Quebec pulp and paper effluent regulatory responsibilities. Lo and behold a few days after the ink is dry, it is reported that companies are being let off the hook. Over 20 offences were not being acted upon. We are paying that province to do our job.
My colleagues have mentioned improvements contained in the new Bill C-32. One colleague emphasized enhanced sharing of responsibilities for environmental protection. He obviously has not followed the committee's proceedings.
Through these committees, in the news, from corporate and provincial representation, Canadians have been fed a story of duplication and overlap, restrictive regulations, too much red tape, provincial responsibilities and jurisdictions, unfair representation as stated by my colleague.
Evidence presented over the past several months as Bill C-32 drew near is a direct contradiction. There are improvements in the proposed legislation, legislation which this government is more than happy to ignore and sign off. Regulations are not being enforced. Pollutants are being released. There are overworked staff and insufficient resources. These are the facts. Canadians should not be fooled by what the paper promises.
My colleagues, we need to proceed carefully. We must embark upon this further path of devolution and harmonization. We have the opportunity to create positive and constructive improvements in a new CEPA. We have the opportunity to stop the devolution and weaker environmental protection.
We must ensure that the loopholes for federalist escapes are closed. We must ensure that the checks and balance approach, the precautionary approach is maintained and not lost. We must revisit the outstanding issues and committee recommendations the Liberal government chose to ignore in 1995. We must consider the expansion of whistleblower protection to beyond the public sector and who we are trying to protect otherwise. We must acknowledge the need for improved toxic substance identification and phase-out, not limited by the Liberal example and points on paper, but by action. We must recall the promises made from the fanfare the previous environment minister made in reference to toxic substances, fast track one and two.
The bureaucracy needs five years to study less than three dozen carcinogens. This record must be improved to protect the environment and all Canadians. Sunsets must be included to stop these toxic substances. We must improve the capacity for identification and really fast track the carcinogens issues and toxicity of thousands of chemicals we face in today's environment.
We must expand the environmental registry to include real time access for community right to know, to avoid the Plastimets and the Swan Hills. We must ensure that the readily available information on pesticide use on Canadian lawns and in agriculture is provided and is not only industry based. We must revisit the ability for the environment minister to act swiftly and conservatively when confronted by environmental hazards, not to tie the minister's hands as presented in the new CEPA.
We must ensure that the recognition and inclusion of aboriginal participation in the proposed advisory committee includes opportunities for results, not just lip service. We must seriously consider an environmental bill of rights for all Canadians to provide equal footing for the polluters. We must debate the inclusion of such rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. This was the dream of author Rachel Carson.
The original CEPA followed a command and control regulatory framework. We acknowledge that this can be improved and should include voluntary measures but not as a mandate to pollute. Studies identified that compliance occurs when there is a strong regulatory process and the political will to enforce the said legislation. We must not follow the voluntary path. We must strike a balance between regulatory efforts, enforced efforts and voluntary measures.
There are differences between the original 1988 CEPA and the 1998 CEPA. The different sciences, technologies, chemicals and dangers must also be acknowledged. At the same time effective environmental protection and a truly sustainable path are possible today. In many instances, such as industrial discharges, corrective measures and controls were not readily available previously.
We must ensure that a flexible yet strong continued federal presence in environmental protection is maintained to ensure the protection of the environment as it supports all species. Before the original CEPA the polluters polluted and the victims suffered and died. By victims we cannot consider man alone as the sole reason for our action. All species suffered, the wildlife, the flora and the fauna.
The original CEPA provided an ability to act to protect the environment, to levy fines, to expose the polluters and support sustainable development beyond this generation. Bill C-32 has strayed from the original principles to protect and to provide recourse. As parliamentarians we must ensure we return to the path which protects the environment first and foremost, a path which includes socioeconomic factors, but not at the expense of our future.
We have an opportunity to enter the next century as responsible citizens, as a society that recognizes the importance of our environment and as a country that enforces the protection of our environment.
The Environment April 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, NASA scientists predict the Arctic ozone hole will get worse. With greenhouse gas impacts contributing to potential disaster, the environmental integrity of this government is being questioned while the government signs more agreements and tells Canada it is doing a great job.
When will the Prime Minister show environmental leadership and commit adequate resources to environmental science and protection for the sake of our sustainable development?
The Environment April 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, ozone recovery is an important issue to our environment and our health.
Last week Environment Canada provided remarkable ozone statistics, a 98% recovery, a statement carried by news organizations across this country. The following day, NASA and Columbia University studies stated that Arctic ozone losses were the highest observed in any previous year.
Will the Minister of the Environment explain to Canadians which numbers are correct, the Liberal numbers or the NASA scientific data?
Nunavut Act April 20th, 1998
I may be missing part of the dialogue that is taking place in the House.
This legislation introduces the preliminary requirements for the preparations leading up to 1999. It is very much needed. I can understand the reason for these acts, bills and the points which are being raised.
I am honoured to speak on this bill which plays a part in the history of the development of our country.
The hon. member from the official opposition stated that the design of this House is like a vessel. I still view it that way. This is a vessel that was created by the British North America Act which colonized this region of North America. In attaining our sovereignty and in living with and learning from the aboriginal people we have not redesigned or re-envisioned our country in our symbolisms to adopt the original people of this land.
Members will see that the Northwest Territories has been governing itself with a legislature designed not according to party structure but one which is designed to govern by consensus. I will be intrigued to see what symbolism and designs will be adopted in the Nunavut legislature.
People have been bantering about the issue of the Senate today. They should take the time to listen to the aboriginal peoples' view of governance in this country. If they want to be radical there are issues which we could debate, but this is not the time. Debating the Senate has no place in this act. Let Nunavut prepare itself with as much time as it has. It has less than 12 months to prepare itself to govern a gigantic region. Nunavut's communities and peoples have diverse needs. Give Nunavut the time to prepare. Let it take on the Senate debate with the rest of Canada when it is prepared. Now is not the time. We wasted many hours of debate today, hours that could have been fruitful. Dialogue could have taken place for the people of Nunavut. Congratulations could have been extended to the new Northwest Territories in governing itself and its regions.
I raise the example of governance by consensus. Today the Leader of the Opposition asked why not adopt an American style of representation. Look at the history of American governance. The Iroquois confederacy is here in our neighbourhoods. The democratic system was designed from that. Those concepts and perceptions were adopted. That is what Canada has to do today. If we are going to debate we have to open up these walls. This vessel has to be re-envisioned. The legislative structures of our provinces should also be re-envisioned.
The design of this House involves us arguing against the other side, arguing with fellow Canadians about the future of our country and our children. We should be supporting each other for the benefit of our future and our children. We should find better means and better ways. We could create a circle.
I envision the Library of Parliament. The parliamentary library is a round building. That building survived a fire. It persevered a test. It is a symbol of the strength of this country. It was the only circular building of the parliament buildings and it survived the fire. Why could we not use that as a symbol of the unity of this country? If there were times of war when we had to make a decision to send our young men and women to war, why could we not decide in the round room in a symbol of unity?
Even the symbol of our flags and governance structure could be decided that way. I do not think a partisan setting is the right place.
I think those symbols will be adopted by the new territories that are being created in the north. Nunavut will certainly search their aboriginal ancestry, the symbolism of their peoples of the past and their history of governance.
Referring to aboriginal people as being uncivilized is untrue. Look at the future of our sustainable development and figure out who was uncivilized. The industrial age is poisoning and polluting our world. Find out where the future of our country and our world is going. Question who really was uncivilized. Give credence to the aboriginal people of this country and empower them to share their views and adopt this form of governance on this land for their future and for the future of everyone.
I congratulate the people of Nunavut for creating the dialogue, for lobbying the powers that be to recognize their need in a self-government public style model of governance. In future years we will see them debating national issues. They will have seats recognizing their territories in this place and in the other place. They will truly share their view and their dialogue which is rightfully theirs.
One of our ancestors, a great leader of the Metis people, Louis Riel, envisioned the future as being part of this great country by building on and allowing the people of those regions that were joining this country to be given the same privileges, rights and opportunities to reflect their views and their ways of life in the laws and in the Constitution of this country. You cannot stifle those people.
It came to pass in 1998. The issue of Louis Riel returned along with the struggle which he and the Metis people had for recognition in this country. They never did anything wrong. They wanted to represent themselves the same way the Nunavut people want to. It is the same way with the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other regions of this country. The people of Quebec want to represent and reflect the needs of their people and their future. That is a right we have in the democratic structure of this country.
For us to debate other issues aside from Nunavut is wasting their time. They need time to prepare. Let us pass this bill as fast as we can and allow the other place to give it sober second thought. Hopefully, in passing this legislation Nunavut can prepare itself.
Nunavut Act April 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on behalf of our caucus on Bill C-39. The Nunavut Act has made a major change in the perception of our country. The design of the northern territories—
National Head Start Program April 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Motion No. 261. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has raised a very important challenge for this country.
I am speaking from experience in terms of my being in the educational system and in the administration of a school district for the last 12 years. I have also seen the beginning of the aboriginal head start program in my community.
The member proposes that the first eight years of life are crucial for child development. I remind the House and fellow citizens of Canada that children in aboriginal communities were affected by the residential school system policy, much to the detriment of the parenting process in those communities. I must caution that we do not try to institutionalize our children at a very young age. We must not abandon the family structure of our people. All Canadians want to live in a family environment.
Head start is crucial if the family environment is not intact. If the parents are not able to provide the academic, social, economic and emotional support, then the head start program plays an important role. The head start program is the community taking the leadership in an extended family role.
The community base is crucial. The aboriginal head start program made that a major priority. Community groups had to be involved in the development of head start. The other aspect is the educational systems in Canada.
Why could the schools not administer the head start program so that an additional administrative structure is not created? We do not need to duplicate administration. We want to create programs and services for children and their families, not to spend money on administration. We should allow the school systems to administer the program as is done in the province of Quebec.
The head start program will require curriculum development. An integral part of the aboriginal head start program is language development. Neheyo-watsin, in my language, we cannot lose the aboriginal languages of this country's aboriginal peoples. This is the homeland of that language. If head start imposes English or French as opposed to the community's first language, it is a detriment and takes us back to institutionalization and residential school policies. That is not the intention of the community aboriginal head start programs.
The communities want to keep their languages first. If children can keep the first language intact until the age of eight years, then they can pick up a second, third or fourth language with greater ease. However, their first language must be developed first.
While the motion mentions provincial and federal partnership, it begs to include community partnership in this development. It mentions hospitals and schools. In educational and community development, schools play a more integral part than do hospitals. There is more readiness of schools than hospitals in our communities.
Transporting a child of three, four or five years of age across the community to another city or town to attend head start programs or receive services is a little out of vision. Many of the head start outreach programs are at the home base. This allows the development of children at home by the parents with support services from the head start program. Keeping a family together is very important.
I have another example concerning crime. Reform members have taken this as the flagship of reducing crime. There is a statistic which astounded me. On a tour of the Saskatchewan penitentiary during the royal commission hearings the commissioners heard many briefs given by inmates. At the end of the day the co-chair, Mr. Erasmus, asked the attending inmates how many of them had come through the foster home program. Eighty per cent of the inmates in that room had come through the foster home program. This points to the family structure.
If immediate families cannot carry the burden of raising a child, the extended families must immediately be put into place. The community must be given the authority and the means to provide that child support in the child's immediate surroundings. By displacing children elsewhere in the province or in the country is not to their betterment. We must keep the families as close as possible within their immediate areas. This is a concern I have with the head start program as well.
In my community I have seen the evolution of urbanization. Because of low incomes and social housing, families are forced to stay in a community with water and sewer systems. Traditionally however, they lived along the rivers and lakes which is where the clans raised and supported each other. Now, because of the way neighbourhoods are designed, a sister could be living across town and an uncle could be living on the other side of town, leaving no family support system in the community structure.
There is also an evolution on the family farms. They have been hit hard by declining incomes. The spouses must rely on a second source of income which will take members away from the family. The federal and provincial governments should support the family as much as possible. Farmers provide for the wealth of the agricultural community. They provide food for this nation and for the world. The fishermen who provide the food do not diminish their responsibility or their role in this country. Keep their families intact. Do not compromise them by creating programs that keep parenting away from their responsibilities. My message is to keep the families intact.
Canadian Parks Agency Act March 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at the beginning of his debate about hope, and at the end he also spoke of hope. How much hope do we have in the government?
I listen to this party every day which talks about the obligations of the government and the patronage appointments. Now we are allowing another agency with a chief executive office to be created by this government for another plum patronage appointment. We are allowing the government to do that.
The other side will be going to question period raising an issue about appointments in the other place. How can people trust your point of view over what the Liberal government is proposing?
This is a capitalist form of commercialization of our national parks and eventually privatization when hon. members take their children, pay at the toll gate to lift the Stornoway gate up, enter Walt Disney national park and come out and negotiate the fee with the minister if she deems them to be of interest.
The agency does not create any assurances of your hopes of the ecological integrity of the national parks of increasing the amount of national parks that we have in Canada.
Canadian Parks Agency Act March 19th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canadian parks agency, the term Canadian parks is a change. It is now known as Parks Canada. How much money is going to be spent to advertise Canadian parks? Will the the letterhead, logos and signs be changed? Some people went into a flap about the beaver as our national parks logo. Is that going to be changed?
The chief executive officer has exclusive rights. In terms of user fees the minister only has to consult someone she thinks is interested in user fees. It could be the chief executive officer. He would be interested. That is all that is required in the act, whoever is interested, deemed by the minister.
I am interested. I live in Beauval, Saskatchewan. My children are also interested about what happens in Banff and Waterton. These are wonderful Canadian parks for Canadians. We are interested but we will not be consulted.
I think we should take a second look at this agency, the powers we are giving to it and the future of the legacy of our national parks.