Wendy Lill

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an issue that I think has become a red flag for members of that party. They believe that artists are out there somehow promoting child pornography. There is a sense that we have to remove any provisions for artistic merit.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the question was but I will make the point that the NDP and this particular member are just as concerned as everyone else in the House about the issue of child pornography. There is absolutely no question about that.

However what is important is that we not bring out some kind of scare tactic, some kind of red herring at this point in time about how we are going to solve the problem of child pornography. The motion today, as far as I can see, will result in not one less child being abused in this country because the courts will strike it down as unconstitutional, leaving us back at square one.

If people really care about protecting children, we need to make sure that the child pornography legislation that is now on the table is carefully looked at in committee, that it solves the problems that we all want to solve and that it is good law and protects the rights of Canadians.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, raising the issues that we are bringing to the floor is to make the point that we too believe the House of Commons is a place where issues that Canadians care about should be addressed. We are saying that we have to reassert the power of the House of Commons and we are doing that with bringing the issues of Canadians into play.

I will get back to some of the issues that are being addressed here. I think the official opposition is bringing forth in this motion somewhat of a shopping list on rights that it wants to remove from the Constitution. In the motion it complains that the courts have said that all Canadians are equal, including gays and lesbians. Because the Alliance is opposed to equality rights for gays and lesbians, it attacks the courts which are simply doing their jobs as told to them in the Constitution.

This shows that the Alliance believes in the Animal Farm approach to equality. It says that all Canadians are equal, but some should be more equal than others. The motion says that if someone is gay or lesbian, that person should not be equal and the law should sanction bigotry against those Canadians. The only problem with this narrow-minded concept of heterosexual superiority is that as soon as we say some Canadians can be legally allowed to have fewer rights, then in reality all Canadians have fewer rights.

I recall reading Animal Farm , the excellent short story by George Orwell. If anyone remembers George Orwell's Animal Farm , the farm was the attempt at the creation of a utopia represented by the animals driving humans off the farm. While the notion of self-government by the animals was great for a time, eventually some of the animals took over and decided that they were more important than all the other animals. They therefore changed their basic slogan that all animals are created equal to some animals are more equal than others.

Another premise of this motion is that judges are out of line. Judges interpret laws passed by this place. That is their job. Parliament and nine provincial legislators passed the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Judges have started interpreting this law passed by this place.

If the official opposition has problems with the equality provisions of the charter, it should say that and not hide behind attacking the judiciary. I support maintaining judicial independence. It is fundamental that judges be able to implement the laws without political interference.

I did not hear the official opposition attacking the Supreme Court when it upheld the Latimer conviction, even though there was considerable public debate over the case. The court properly, in my opinion, said that the rights of a disabled victim are equal to all other Canadians. I do not remember the Alliance standing and calling for the judges' heads on that one. It seems to pick and choose.

Another strange aspect of this is the contradiction between this motion and the opposition's obsession with becoming American. The opposition has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to say that Canadians should be American. Its cultural policy is, let the Americans do it. Its defence policy is, let us do what the Americans say. Its foreign policy is to follow the Americans in whatever adventure the Pentagon decides is best for it.

If the opposition was really pro-American it would never put forward such an anti-American bill, I would suggest, because in fact it would have understood that one of the great strengths of the American system is the protection of basic individual rights as stated by the U.S. bill of rights and protected by an independent judiciary. These things are central to the American system of law and government. Indeed, the U.S. supreme court has been more activist than Canadian courts on important issues such as segregation in the schools, abortion, due process for criminals, the use of the death penalty, cruel punishment for prisoners and have given an absolute freedom of speech blanket to even pornographers, but the official opposition seems to have forgotten that.

In conclusion, I wish the Alliance had decided it had something more useful to talk about today, such as the environment, health care, peace, or the crumbling state of our cities. Instead we see this myopia, this sense of betrayal by our courts which in fact I believe is one of the strengths of our democracy.

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make some comments on this opposition day motion today. I will be splitting my time with the member for Halifax.

First I would like to say that I wish the opposition had taken this important and rare opportunity to have a debate in the House, a public trust, to raise an issue that the public actually cares about. Frankly, my constituents do not come to my office or call to complain about judges. They are concerned about real problems for real people.

I have spoken to people this week about issues around disability and around the high costs of insurance, car insurance, and pharmaceutical drugs. They care about the fisheries; we are facing a crisis in the fisheries in the east. They care about the environment. There are many issues that they care about and I do not see why we cannot be looking at those issues here today.

Instead, opposition members have decided to debate this motion. They have decided that their political future depends on retreating into a campaign of divisiveness, of playing on misunderstanding of and bigotry against gays and lesbians and of preying on parents' fears for their children by attacking the courts, the one institution unable by law to defend itself. It is sad that the opposition has descended to this level. Let us look at the motion:

That this House call upon the government to bring in measures to protect and reassert the will of Parliament against certain court decisions that: (a) threaten the traditional definition of marriage as decided by the House as, “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”; (b) grant house arrest to child sexual predators and make it easier for child sexual predators to produce and possess child pornography; and (c) grant prisoners the right to vote.

That is the justice agenda of the opposition. In fact, it is an agenda of creating fear, spreading misinformation, preying on maternalistic and paternalistic fears for children, and opposing equality. Opposition members seem compelled to find a murderer behind every bush in spite of a falling crime rate. They are compelled to take away the historical rights of first nations communities and generally be opposed to individual equality rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This motion shows how they have shrunk in the polls. They have been reduced to attacking the one group that cannot talk back: the judiciary.

Frankly, I think it is a good thing the NDP is in Parliament so that Canadians have a real opposition voice here, one that talks about real and important issues like health care. The NDP is the only party raising the fact that the government has continued to underfund health care and is not implementing the Romanow report. We are the only party keeping the government accountable for the fact that it is still underfunding the health system by over $5 billion, according to Romanow. We are the party raising the alarm about endangered public health policy across the country and how this mess has shown itself in the haphazard responses to SARS and the West Nile virus. A plan could have stopped SARS, but we have to rely on the brave doctors and nurses to risk their lives in a policy vacuum.

The NDP is also spending its time talking about the smog crisis that is covering our country every spring and--

[Arts and Culture, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's last budget cut $25 million from Canadian TV production while boosting credits for American programs. This is the Canadian Alliance approach to culture and it has put the future of This Hour Has 22 Minutes , The Red Green Show and the The 11th Hour on hold.

Over 2,000 good paying jobs from coast to coast are now at risk and companies are facing bankruptcy but the finance minister is only offering duct tape for this season.

Will the minister come up with $25 million for the CTF today, or will he continue to abandon Canadian TV to the American market?

[Social Programs, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Foster is a 60 year old man from Regina who has been unable to work since having two strokes in the late nineties. Advocates working with him say he has been maliciously harassed by her department. After four years of denied applications and appeals, poverty and illness, Foster was finally advised that the review tribunal had accepted his appeal. Yet incredibly, he has been told by her department that it will overturn the appeal.

Why is the minister taking aim at the most vulnerable and impoverished people in society? Will the minister ask her officials to back off?

[Canadian Television Fund, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's last budget cut $25 million from Canadian TV programs while boosting tax credits to American productions. The Canadian TV industry is in gridlock, and facing layoffs and bankruptcies because of a fight between two leadership candidates.

Will the minister stop ducking responsibility for culture and put $25 million more new money into the Canadian TV fund?

[Persons with Disabilities, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister announced that his Liberal leadership campaign will focus on social issues, yet his record shows that he is a long way from understanding the needs of poor Canadians.

Instead of respecting a recent all party vote in the House of Commons calling for humane treatment of persons with disabilities, his recent budget brought in new restrictions on the disability tax credit and only a fraction of what is needed for child care and low cost housing.

Why does the Minister of Finance have to wait until he is prime minister to show his humane and compassionate side?

[Persons with Disabilities, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with members of the Canadian Association for Community Living, who work to make our communities inclusive for persons with disabilities. They are concerned that when the Canada health transfer replaces the Canada health and social transfer in 2004, the social side of this crucial funding will be quietly cut back, leaving important social and disability programs even more vulnerable than they already are.

This cannot be allowed to happen.

It is critical that the federal government make clear that the social transfer must remain intact and earmarked for its intended purpose. In fact, the restructuring of the transfer program is an ideal opportunity to build in a disability supports transfer that will guarantee funding and pave the way for social inclusion and equality for all Canadians.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 at report stage, the statutory review of the environmental assessment legislation.

Bill C-9 and its precursor, Bill C-19, came about as a result of the requirements of the mandatory review requirements set out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, also known as the CEAA, or Bill C-13, which was proclaimed in 1992 and came into force in January 1995.

Section 72 of the current act required that the minister undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act five years after its coming into force. It also required that within one year after the review the minister submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommended changes.

At the outset, we believe the review was fundamentally flawed. Although participants indicated some progress in improving environmental planning, there remained significant deficiencies in a variety of areas, including sustainability, regional planning and policy coordination, alternative development options, traditional land use and aboriginal participation, and perhaps most significant, the lack of practical enforcement measures.

New Democrats had reservations about the bill as it was introduced because it did not adequately address these and other severe problems associated with the act. Our initial opposition was based on the assertion that the bill failed to address three principal criteria.

The current CEAA did not go far enough to protect our environment and the changes proposed in Bill C-9 would further weaken that legislation.

Bill C-9 attempted to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process seemingly to the benefit of developers and industry instead of protecting the environment and the public.

The bill did not substantively address the measures needed to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect the environment.

During debate of the bill and throughout committee hearings we raised those and other concerns over the lack of effectiveness, transparency and efficiency in the EA process.

By listening to my own constituents in Dartmouth, I am very aware of what the community wants and, I believe, has the right to expect from federal environmental assessments.

I would like to provide an example of the lack of transparency which this process now has in place.

The reasonable expectations of environmentally aware and community-minded people are often dashed due to the deficiencies of the environmental assessment process, deficiencies which are not corrected in the statutory review of Bill C-9.

In Dartmouth, for example, we currently have a coast guard base on a large wharf on the Halifax harbour near Dartmouth Cove. I dare say that the red and white coast guard icebreakers, such as the Louis St. Laurent and the John A. Macdonald , are almost as much of a local landmark as the naval yards are on the Halifax side of the harbour. In my mind the base is another part of the bustling activity of one of the world's great working harbours set in a magnificent natural beauty.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided that it eventually will be moving the coast guard base down the harbour to the site of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. I have no reason to believe that such a move would impair the important functions of the coast guard. If it can save money and allow for better search and rescue then all the better. However, one issue that is outstanding is what will happen to the current coast guard base. That is where the environmental assessment issue comes in.

The local municipality, the HRM, has for decades wanted to build sewage treatment plants throughout the municipality, including one near Dartmouth. I have supported these general plans because I am opposed to the dumping of raw sewage in the harbour, as is everyone in our community.

About 10 years ago the then municipalities of Halifax and Dartmouth proposed a number of cites for sewage plants, including one on the island in the middle of the harbour to take the Dartmouth sewage. An assessment was done that looked at the impact of the possible island sewage treatment plant. It is no real surprise that the result of that environmental study showed that building the plant would result in better water quality. The plant, however, was never built. It is now 10 years later and the municipality wants to put another plant on the current site of the coast guard base.

The Halifax regional municipality believes that this site is accessible to both the main sewage pipes from Dartmouth and it can also take the sewage from the cruise ships that are starting to frequent our harbour, and it will be available on the right time line in terms of when the base is moved by the coast guard.

The coast guard base is nestled right beside a residential community. There is a very limited amount of traffic going up and down the steep and narrow road to the base and the current base generates very little noise or odour.

Understandably, the neighbours around the coast guard base are not convinced that this would be the case with the sewage treatment plant. They have concerns about it. They worry that the plant will smell because it will only be about 100 yards from their homes. They worry about the noise and danger of heavy vehicles during the construction, and the noise and danger of the sludge trucks which will go up and down pass the area when the plant is operating. They worry about what this will do to the quality of their lives and their property values.

They have a right to worry about these things, and because the land is owned by the federal government, they have a right to look to the environment assessment process to make sure their concerns are dealt with.

I, as the MP, thought this would happen, that there would be an assessment because this project would involve the disposal of federal lands and that of course would automatically trigger an assessment.

I thought the environmental assessment would deal with the local concerns, which would have been communicated to both the municipality and to the federal department responsible. I expected that the assessment would look at the condition of the base, the concerns of the neighbours and would suggest ways for the plant to deal with concerns raised. I guess I was naive to believe that the system would be accessible and transparent for my constituents.

The environmental assessment screening that was done was released in January and it did not discuss many of the issues raised. It set limits on noise and odour for a plant. It was vague on how compliance would be enforced. It did not look at the condition of the base. It did not deal with the specific concerns raised by the community, or by me, to the department. It had not left anyone feeling that the environment was better served.

The basic problem is that it was not a transparent process. It did not even deal with the actual proposed site in Dartmouth but discussed guidelines for three sites around the HRM. It did confirm that having sewage treatment was better than not having sewage treatment, but there is no surprise in that. It took comments from the consortium trying to build the plants pretty much at face value. It did not seek or obtain community input. My office, which had written to the minister on the site and the assessment, was not even made aware of the assessment's release.

The municipalities public relations meetings have not been satisfactory to the community. As a matter of fact the report says that 19 submissions were received of which 5 were supportive. The report says that the local concerns have been dealt with but many of them were not.

I say these things to highlight how unsatisfactory the assessment process was for these local Dartmouth residents. They feel that the environmental assessments are something that exists for high price consultants and for developers and not for public input.

I have since learned that getting an assessment to a public panel stage, where members of the community can actually get a formal hearing, are so rare that it is virtually impossible.

After reviewing the legislation and in consultation with a variety of environmental, aboriginal and legal experts, the NDP submitted more than 50 amendments to Bill C-9. These amendments attempted to address some of the identified shortcomings of the act. While there was some success in getting several amendments, many more were defeated, as the House knows.

In conclusion, we cannot support Bill C-9 in its present form or the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. It must be made clear that the NDP supports the goals of improving the environmental assessment process to make it more accountable, more transparent and to strengthen the protection of our environment.

Therefore it is with regret that because of the inadequacies of CEAA that we were not able to bring about meaningful amendments, we will have to give our dissent on the bill at this time.