Dick Proctor

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have two very brief, non-inflammatory questions. Back in October when he was running for the Liberal leadership, the Prime Minister met with the Canadian Beef Export Federation. According to the Red Deer Express , Mr. Thorlakson, the chair of the export federation, said:

I thought he showed a real concern for the issues. He made a commitment that he was strongly supportive of some type of program for cull cattle.

So my first question is, has he given the new minister of agriculture any direction on implementing a program for cull cattle?

My other question comes from the Moose Jaw meat plant. People who work at that plant were less than impressed upon learning that Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan were consuming American beef until the quarantine went into effect. They want to know why, at a time when 34 countries had closed the door to Canadian beef and it was difficult to move that beef, no extra effort was made to get beef for the Canadian military from this country as opposed to the United States.

[Agriculture, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same minister but on a different issue.

Last month the agriculture minister expressed concern about the commercialization of genetically modified wheat without a market impact analysis, even if the tests on Monsanto's product were deemed to be safe.

The minister knows that 82% of our current international wheat buyers have stated they will not purchase our wheat if Canada licences GM wheat.

Would the minister advise the House, and particularly grain farmers, what discussions have occurred with provinces and the industry to ensure that a full market impact analysis is completed before this product is deemed to be put on the market?

[Government of Saskatchewan, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, all members will want to congratulate the NDP and Premier Lorne Calvert on winning a fourth consecutive mandate yesterday in Saskatchewan.

Scared by skyrocketing auto insurance in other provinces and a significant power failure in Ontario, Saskatchewan voters made sure that their phone, power and auto insurance are not going be privatized but will remain in the hands of the government and the party that created them. Yesterday's victory was strongly assisted by workers and their representatives who campaigned vigorously on a progressive platform of keeping these crown matters in public hands.

The NDP and its forerunner have now governed Saskatchewan for 45 of the past 60 years.

The Saskatchewan Party, a facsimile of what the new federal entity will resemble once the Alliance has finished digesting the Progressive Conservatives, campaigned on “time for a change”, and they were right. It is time for the party to change its leader and replace Elwin Hermanson, whom the electorate has concluded is clearly not up to the task.

As for the Liberal results, there is absolutely nothing to say.

[Shipyards, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the corporate paid fishing trip for the industry minister, the $55 million contribution to Irving already fails the smell test. Add to that two more foul odours.

Before employees can receive their severance pay they must first vote to decertify their unions. Second, a diaper manufacturer is rumoured to be interested in the shipbuilding property.

Fish, diapers and offensive labour practices, it is the big stinky. Will the government table all the details of this truly odious agreement?

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for 25 years the early childhood intervention program has provided services to families of children from birth to school age who were developmentally delayed or a risk for delay.

Until now, families residing within first nation communities have had equal opportunity to access these services, either through provincial funding off reserve or federal funding on reserve.

Incredibly, as of next March, the on reserve access through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs will be cut off. Why? Because federal bureaucrats have erroneously concluded that these services duplicate the aboriginal head start programs. They certainly do not, as the professionals who work in this specialized area have attested.

Hundreds of on reserve families in Saskatchewan alone will be negatively impacted as a result of this decision. New Democrats are pleading with Health Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to relook at this program and the clientele it serves.

It would be readily apparent to them that there is no duplication and that the continuation of these programs is both urgent and imperative.

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the issue totals some $8 million. This week the Minister of Finance stood up and said that we have a surplus in this country of $7 billion. What is the problem?

[Income Tax Act, October 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words in support of the initiative of my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. I will address some of the remarks of the other members in a few moments.

The bill calls essentially for changes to the Income Tax Act to allow for the deduction of amateur sport fees. It is important to note that the emphasis of the bill is on children. The member has pointed out that with the success of Canada's Olympic bid to host the future games in Vancouver and Whistler, now is the time for the federal government to invest more in our amateur athletes.

Bill C-210 is one way to encourage more young people and families to become involved in amateur sports and to help our struggling amateur athletes. By relieving some of the financial strain on these young athletes, more Canadians will be able to participate.

As the member and others have pointed out, active healthy people help to create a healthier Canada with less pressure on our health care system.

Canadians increasingly understand the advantages of funding amateur sport activities. This bill is one aspect of an overall rethinking on how we can invest in amateur sport and promote healthier living.

There are a number of issues and I think most of them have been covered by the members who have participated in this debate. For example, members have noted the reality about obesity. This is a concern. There used to be Participaction in this country because Canadians were deemed to be so much less fit than the Swedes, than a Swedish man 68 years old or some such thing. We have to admit in all candour that we have not been totally successful in that regard.

The member who proposed the bill noted that we have a generation of couch potatoes. He said that they do nothing besides sit and play Nintendo, but they actually do something besides that. They sit and eat while they are playing Nintendo and therein lies the problem.

When I was growing up many decades ago, we did not have the degree of organized sport that there is today. Kids went out to play and they made up their own games. There was a lack of organization. I do not recall anyone of my generation who really got into organized baseball, soccer or hockey until they were 12 or 13 years old. As young people we shovelled off our own ice or played road hockey. Whatever it was that we did, we did it on our own and consequently there were no costs involved.

We have a much different hands on situation now where children are organized at the tender ages of four and five years old. They are organized to play hockey on Saturday well before daylight in rinks and so on. With those realities come expenses. It is much more expensive than it was in my day when my parents kind of turfed my brother and me out the door and on to the street to play sports.

One of the realities is it is much more expensive. The member's bill would allow some of the money that a family pays in income tax to be used to make it more accessible for their youngsters to participate in sports.

The member for Hillsborough chose to focus on the adult part, that this would allow people who wanted to play at exclusive golf courses to have a tax benefit. I want to reiterate, having spoken to the member who has proposed the bill, that the emphasis is very much on youth and trying to get youth involved at an early age, as he said, to encourage a lifelong participation in amateur sport.

The member for Medicine Hat who also spoke eloquently on this topic assumed that the bill could only be for children of the taxpayer. I am not sure why that would need to be the case. Surely an empty nester or someone who has never had children and sees a child in need who would benefit from playing sports could elect to assist that young person by providing some funding for equipment or for an entry fee so that the child could participate in a sports league and develop.

I must say that while watching our own children participate in athletics in Regina where there is a large inner city aboriginal population, my wife and I are constantly struck by the relatively few members of the aboriginal community who actually participate in those group organized sporting activities. One can only assume that the major reason for that is money. Perhaps they come from single family homes or whatever the case may be but there simply is not enough money left over at the end of the month for many of those families to permit their children to go into an athletic event or participate in a team sport.

If this bill were to go through, there would be nothing to prohibit somebody who does not have children who would not benefit otherwise from saying, “This is an important social achievement and I want to help” and to do so in that way. As the member has pointed out, we do allow for donations. We encourage people to participate in the political process by offering generous tax rebates if they pay income tax. We have tax rebates for donations to charitable organizations, for the United Way, Doctors Without Borders and any other number of worthwhile organizations.

The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is saying that there should be consideration given to providing this kind of encouragement so that more children will participate in sporting activities. It would get them off their couches and out into organized activities. The end result would be a healthier society for all of us.

In conclusion, I want to commend the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for putting forward a very thoughtful presentation. It is something I will be happy to support when it comes to a vote in this House.

[Employment Insurance, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that only one-third of women are eligible for employment insurance benefits is made worse because airline attendants are no longer considered flight crew. Although the airlines want this ridiculous ruling reversed, and employees were assured by the transport committee last May that relief was imminent, nothing has changed. Seventy-five per cent of flight attendants are women and hundreds pay full EI premiums despite being ineligible for full time benefits.

When will the government stop discriminating against the predominantly female workforce by treating them the same way they treat predominantly male pilots?

[Agriculture, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this year's initial prices for wheat, durum and barley have been set by cabinet and are well below last year's. In fact, they are well below the prices that were recommended by the Canadian Wheat Board directors.

Farmers are already suffering from the mad cow fallout, including an inadequate and inequitable recovery program. Why does the government add insult to injury by offering initial prices on board grains that are well below farmers' production costs?

[The Environment, October 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate both the Conservative member for Richmond—Arthabaska and the Bloc member for Champlain for their remarks on this motion that has been moved by my colleague from Windsor West.

The motion states:

That this House call upon the government to take the necessary measures, including the drafting of legislation, to prevent medical conditions and illnesses caused by exposure to identifiable environmental contaminants.

To place this in historical context, it was not until recently that western societies became aware of the great damage that industrialization had been causing to the environment during the last century. It was in the 1970s when we witnessed the emergence of a new concept called sustainable development. The protection of the environment and health quickly became a big concern in the developed world.

These concerns were translated into new policies and regulations in order to minimize the negative effects on health and ecosystems that arise from human activities. Progress has been made over the last 30-odd years, but there is still a long way to go.

As new environmental problems are identified and as the quality of the environment continues to decline, it is clear that the law, as it stands now, has many shortcomings. The introduction of new legal instruments to improve the current legislation, as well as better enforcement measures, are obviously overdue.

Exposure to environmental contaminants, and their adverse effects on air, water, soil and living organisms is an issue on which scientific research has concentrated significantly in recent years. Evidence suggests that exposure to a variety of environmental contaminants can alter the normal biological functions of the endocrine, reproductive and immune systems. Environmental contaminants are not only a source of air and water pollution, but also an important threat to our health and that of our children.

International institutions such as the World Health Organization understand that as well. In this way, they have contributed to the discussion with a number of analysis, statistics and reports calling for action and warning us about the risks assumed by those who are exposed to environmental contaminants.

Health care, at a minimum, is medical service offered by front line nurses, physicians and hospitals. But in this day and age, a good case can be made to broaden the concept of health care in Canada to include specific federally mandated legislation and regulations to include other so-called peripheral issues, such as environmental contaminants.

After years of offloading responsibility in the area of health care to the provinces, it is clear that the federal government has a responsibility in this area.

Although there is plenty of competition for the prize, environmental contaminants and their negative impact on human health is perhaps one of the bigger issues that the government appears to have swept beneath the carpet.

Three years ago the government and its provincial counterparts made a commitment to promote programs and policies “which extend beyond care and treatment and which make a critical contribution to the health and wellness of Canadians”. As a part of that commitment, they identified many different determinants of health, including physical environment.

A recent estimate by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research suggested that only one-quarter of the health of our population is attributable to the health care system, while fully three-quarters is dependent on factors such as the physical environment and socio-economic conditions.

A truly comprehensive approach, therefore, to health care in this country would focus on all the determinants of health, not just a quarter or a half of them.

This kind of approach, called a population health approach, would address the range of factors that determine health. It would devise strategies that affect and aid whole groups or populations of people and would involve not just the health care sector but organizations, groups and individuals who work or are affected in health relevant fields, such as economics, education, the environment and employment strategies.

I ask my colleagues in the House to focus on the health relevant fields of the environment, and toxic and environmental contaminants.

In spite of years of research to identify what has been creating illness and death related to environmental pollution, little has been done in Canada to provide solutions or precautionary procedures for these issues.

We need to recognize the repercussions and negative impacts from exposure to environmental contaminants and be in a position to react accordingly.

A framework to address these problems needs to be there so that there is some triggering mechanisms within the legislation with which to respond when dealing with contaminants in the environment.

On that point of triggering, members will recall that the member for Elk Island said he was inclined to like this legislation but thought it already existed. He thought the motion to be therefore redundant.

Let me remind the member that last month on September 23, the parliamentary secretary, in a response to the question about the incinerator at Belledune, said that there was no trigger under section 46.

That was confirmed as well by the Minister of the Environment who had said six days earlier:

For the federal government to intervene under the environmental assessment legislation there has to be federal involvement, which is called a trigger, for the legislation to take effect.

So, this is not redundant legislation by any measure and I would urge the member for Elk Island to reconsider his position with regard to that.

Although current legislation does provide emergency mechanisms, they do not get triggered when it comes to environmental contaminants that damage human health. Scientific standards for demonstrating cause and effect for declaring a substance toxic in the sense of the law are high.

The use of potentially harmful substances and technology would be justified under the current legislation. The risk assessment process is limited. It cannot be interpreted as an absolute tool. Ecological and health effects are difficult to quantify. Risk assessment often takes into consideration narrow risks such as death, mostly caused by cancers.

Furthermore, the so-called acceptable level of risk is highly debatable, especially since most of the time people who must assume that risk are actually not aware of it, as the member for Richmond--Arthabaska so eloquently pointed out a few minutes ago.

In addition, the cumulative effects of all different chemicals are seldom evaluated, which means emissions could be damaging health even if each substance alone does not trespass the threshold of tolerance.

Important damage to health and the environment can be done before we achieve scientific certainty and thus take action.

Tobacco is an excellent example. Smoking was strongly suspected to cause lung cancer long before we were able to prove that conclusively. The number of diseases suspected to be linked to environmental pollution is increasing, as shown by multiple research studies that have been undertaken in recent years. These diseases are also the result of the interaction of other social and genetic factors, but the environmental links cannot be ignored.

The Sydney Tar Ponds, so eloquently discussed in the last Parliament by MPs like Michelle Dockrill and Peter Mancini, and the current problems that we have experienced in Windsor, as discussed by the members for Windsor West and Windsor--St. Clair, of high rates of mortality and diseases that are impacted locally have inspired this motion.

In both cases, the government failed to address the higher than normal death, cancer and birth defect rates that were found to be linked to environmental contaminants. Action was not taken quickly enough and it lacked transparency which undermined the confidence of Canadians in health officials as well as government institutions.

As I said before, the current framework does not trigger action and that is what this motion is all about today.

We know that environmental contaminants affecting one community do not result from only local emissions. Given that air pollution has no borders, it becomes an issue that requires international standards as well.

Transboundary air and water pollution are common and that is why federal participation is not only justified but absolutely necessary. Government participation and a strong commitment at all levels is required to ensure long term monitoring programs in the first place, investigation and control of sources of pollution in the second place, and finally, adequate funding to implement remedial action plans.

In conclusion, environmental degradation translates into high costs for cleanup and expensive remediation programs, and thus it cannot be ignored. Prevention measures and corrective procedures will make it helpful to reduce harmful substances.

My colleague's motion today asks for the ability to undertake specific action when a correlation between environmental contaminants and people's health is found. It is about investing in our health and that of our children. It is about admitting responsibilities and meeting government's liabilities. That is why I hope this motion will gain support from all members in the House.