Wendy Lill

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill. It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, at second reading. For the record, the New Democratic Party will be opposing the bill and will be voting against it at second reading.

Currently the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not go far enough to protect our environment. The changes proposed in Bill C-19, unfortunately, would only further weaken the legislation. The bill is an attempt to streamline and speed up the environmental assessment and review process to benefit developers and industry instead of protecting the environment.

This enactment would implement the results of the statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act conducted by the Minister of the Environment. It would establish a federal environmental assessment co-ordinator for projects that undergo screening or comprehensive study level assessments. It would modify the comprehensive study process to prevent a second environmental assessment of a project by a review panel while extending the participant funding program to comprehensive studies.

This enactment would expand existing regulations, making authority for projects on federal lands, provide the new use for class screening reports as a replacement for project specific assessments and makes follow up programs mandatory for projects after a comprehensive study or review panel. These amendments would provide Canadians with access to information about the environmental assessment of a specific project.

This enactment would create the Canadian environmental assessment registry. It would require that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency establish and lead a quality assurance program, promote and monitor compliance and assist relevant parties in building consensus and resolving disputes.

New Democrats believe that we need measures to strengthen and improve safeguards to protect the environment and this bill unfortunately does not go nearly far enough.

Canadians are increasingly concerned about the state of the environment in their communities and around the globe. They worry about the quality of the air they breathe and the safety of the water they drink. They are deeply concerned about the kind of ecological legacy they will be leaving their children.

The question is: What kind of measures are we talking about? At the present time outside the House of Commons we have a demonstrator from the Sierra Club, Elizabeth May, who is on her 14th day of a hunger strike. She is trying to force the federal government into taking action on the environmental travesty at the Sydney tar ponds. She wants to force the government to permanently relocate the many people who are living in the area directly around the tar ponds who have experienced colossal health problems for decades because of the pollution in their environment. This is a very concrete example of a measure that the government could take right now to ensure the environmental and health safety of many Canadian citizens.

Another very important measure in my mind is the Halifax harbour clean up. I come from a community that has been dumping raw sewage into the harbour for many decades. The only benefit is that we have ocean currents that continue to move the sewage around at quite a pace, but we have a huge job ahead of us.

The Halifax regional municipality has worked very hard to get both the provincial and the federal government on side to work on that essential infrastructure project. Something of that size has to be done on a three way split. Each level of government has to be involved because of the cost and the scope of the project. At this point in time the federal government is nowhere near offering the kind of money that is required from its side of the equation. That is another measure the government could take right now.

Clearly it is time that Canada implement comprehensive, enforceable and understandable standards for water and air quality and food safety. The government should be investing in services that clean up the water and the air, stimulate green investment and expand public transit. It should also take action to make work places safer. The government's record on the environment is a litany of neglect, delay and broken promises.

The NDP believes that we should protect the environment in some very specific ways. I will put forward suggestions for the government to take into account when it is doing further work on the act. We need to assert a strong federal presence in both environmental monitoring and regulatory enforcement. We need to implement comprehensive, enforceable and understandable standards for water and air quality and food safety. We need to develop and implement a national water strategy including development of national safe drinking water standards and a ban on bulk water exports.

It is time we institute agreements that give environmental protection precedence over trade agreements in transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and other environmentally dangerous goods. We need to ensure that a green screen integrates environmental criteria into all federal government decision making.

It is time we implement endangered species and habitat protection legislation developed in co-operation with other governments, affected communities and labour, making use of traditional aboriginal knowledge and vesting identification of species at risk with independent scientists.

We need to expand marine protected areas and the national parks system and protect the parks system from commercial development that threatens its integrity. We need to introduce tough punishment for polluters including criminal charges for corporate owners, directors and managers that break the law. We need to develop the environmental bill of rights to ensure the legally enforceable right of all Canadians to a safe and healthy environment.

In conclusion, I repeat that we will be opposing the bill. We will be voting against it at second reading. We believe that the environmental assessment act does not go nearly far enough. It needs to be strengthened. We need the federal government to invest and commit immediately and generously to an environmental cleanup that will protect our children for generations to come.

[Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the New Democratic Party on second reading of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

New Democrats are going to be supporting this bill. It certainly is not perfect, as many other people have said earlier in this debate but it is a start, and we need that.

The bill establishes a framework for harmonizing the way different provinces administer parts of the national safety code for motor carriers. The national safety code pertains to both buses and transport trucks and is administered at the provincial level. It was introduced by the Mulroney government in 1987 in response to safety concerns that arose due to the deregulation of the trucking industry. However federal government left the provinces to adopt and administer the code themselves. So far none have fully adopted it. In essence the national safety code, therefore is nothing more than a set of suggestions which is a major concern for New Democrats.

The framework established in this bill would allow provinces and territories whose safety compliance regimes are compatible with the national safety code to give extra provincial bus undertakings a safety rating and issue safety certificates. This is a nice idea but functionally useless unless all or most of the provinces adopt the code. This does not appear likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

In the words of the Canadian Truckers Alliance, the safety code harmonization framework is “putting the cart before the horse”. Regardless of what administrative framework the federal government comes up with, the national safety code will remain toothless unless the provinces adopt it.

The Liberal government has the constitutional authority to impose the national safety code on the provinces but is not doing it.

Road safety, as was mentioned several times earlier, is the central concern of everyone in the House. We can write all the bills we want, but quite frankly we all know the highways that we drive on are in many cases treacherous at this time of year. They have potholes, cracks and great divides. These are very damaging to our cars and very often cause accidents between trucks and cars on our highways. I am sure Nova Scotia is right up there with Churchill, Manitoba and with many other parts of our Trans-Canada Highway as being a national disgrace.

The question is what is the Liberal government doing about road safety? It is one thing to have this bill but the real question is one of road safety. We need safe highways. We need a real road infrastructure program that is going to at the end of the day make it safe to drive from one end of the country to the other.

For starters, I would suggest in this respect that we need to see some real investment in improving our highways. Every year over 200 Canadians are killed because of bad roads and 16,000 more are injured. These statistics are of accidents caused by bad roads, not by driver error, bad weather, drunk drivers or problems with vehicles. They are accidents caused by problems with the road. Again it has to do with improving the infrastructure and putting money into our roads. These accidents alone kill hundreds of Canadians and injure tens of thousands each year.

Studies have shown that if the government would spend $1 billion a year improving our highways for the next 20 years, the roadwork would pay for itself in the form of lower health care costs because of fewer accidents. It would pay for itself in terms of disability payments and the many additional costs involved in road accidents.

Let me repeat that because it is a remarkable fact. Fixing our highways could actually save the government more money in health care costs than it would cost to fix the highways.

In conclusion, we support the bill. It is not perfect, but it would be useful some day when we have a federal government with the conviction and the determination to make the safety of Canadian highways a priority and turn the national safety code into something relevant, instead of just a set of suggestions that none of the provinces follow. We will support the bill at this stage.

[Telecommunications, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage announced an 18 month study into the current and future system of broadcasting in Canada. The committee will be looking into Canadian content and creation for radio and TV, broadcast ownership, industry regulation, the role for public broadcasting and the Internet.

For the committee to do a credible job, the government must let all parties know that the next 18 months is not a time to restructure like crazy in order to escape any possible government action in response to the study. The government should clearly warn the industry that all major changes made from this day forward may be subject to review and reversal when the committee reports.

The government should also announce that broadcasting is explicitly off the table at international trade talks including the GATS so as not to compromise our work.

Our task is to provide a vision for the 21st century. The government's task is to show the political courage to make it happen.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this important issue because of the profound effect that equalization problems are having on my constituents in Dartmouth.

Simply put, the current transfer formula does not treat my constituents in Nova Scotia and Dartmouth the same way that citizens in other provinces have been treated. I will spend a bit of time talking about that this afternoon.

Equal opportunities need to be given to Nova Scotians under our federal transfer regime. Sadly there are a number of barriers in our equalization formula which continue to work against poorer provinces such as Nova Scotia and which are causing real hardship to ordinary hard working persons in Dartmouth.

Simply put, Bill C-18 does not meet the real constitutional obligations of the government. I will state what they are because I am not sure we all know. Subsection 36(2) of our constitution states:

Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonable comparable levels of taxation.

If we look at health care standards and the lack of availability of pharmacare, per pupil funding levels for primary, secondary and post-secondary education, and services for those living in poverty, including the thousands with disabilities in my community in Nova Scotia, it is self-evident that the lofty ideals of the constitution are not being met. Canadians know, and study after study shows, that there are significant inequities in services and taxation levels across Canada.

I concede that some of the inequities are the result of decisions made by provincial governments. Many Conservative governments, rather than using budget surpluses to rebuild social programs, have brought in large scale tax cuts which benefit the wealthy. That is not the fault of equalization.

Some inequities stem from the ability of some provinces to generate revenue from resources. There is no doubt that Alberta has greatly benefited from the fact that it is situated on large lakes of underground oil and gas. It receives full royalty revenues from those resources. There is some accounting of this in the equalization formula. However another inequity is at play here.

That relates to the fact that offshore oil and gas revenues cannot be taxed by provinces in the same way that onshore oil and gas revenues are presently being taxed. Therefore we are leaving the have not provinces in Atlantic Canada without the same ability to provide programs as Alberta has.

While I know there are different jurisdictions for onshore and offshore resources, it is difficult to give the legal mumbo-jumbo explanation to the people of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians have made their living off the ocean since the province was founded almost 400 years ago just as much as they have made their living off the land.

Alberta's tar sands are a provincial resource, and telling Nova Scotians that Sable Island gas is not part of their province simply does not wash. They do not see the legal argument. They see that they are once again being kept poor by unequal rules set by central and western Canada, and they have a point. The government is not treating them fairly and it obviously could if it wanted to.

For example, there was a temporary exemption of royalty revenue in the calculation of equalization payments which had been granted to Newfoundland and Labrador in the past. This temporary measure helped boost the economy of that province, and Nova Scotia deserves no less.

I call on the government to give Nova Scotia the same deal which was granted to Newfoundland and Labrador. As my leader and colleague from Halifax said eloquently in today's debate, Liberal cuts to the CHST, their elimination of the Canada assistance plan and their general approach to giving a higher priority to tax cuts rather than rebuilding our social programs have hit Atlantic Canada very hard.

These are policy barriers to governments in Atlantic Canada which the government should address, but it should also be fulfilling its constitutional role to create equity in services through the equalization formula.

Bill C-18 leaves barriers in place. The biggest barrier is the cap on equalization payments. It needs to be removed. I am not alone in this regard. As has been mentioned, the provincial ministers and the premiers have brought this matter to our attention. Bill C-18 has failed to remove the artificial cap on equalization payments to poorer provinces for this fiscal year. It means that Ontario and Alberta keep more and Atlantic Canada keeps less. How can the Liberals justify this? Do they know what it means to the people in Atlantic Canada?

What it means is that Dartmouth students suffer with less funding and there is increased labour strife as school boards try to squeeze concessions from already underpaid workers. It means that post-secondary students have the highest tuitions and the most ineffective student aid program in the country. It means that fewer sick people can afford the medications they are told by their doctors they need to stay alive. That is not fair and it is not equal. That does not meet the lofty goals set out in our constitution.

Specifically on post-secondary education, I repeat my request for the federal government to increase the support for legitimate post-secondary educational needs in Nova Scotia through a bilateral agreement that would recognize the significant price that Nova Scotians are paying to support a disproportionate number of out of province students.

I hope the government of Nova Scotia would then use the funds to reduce student tuition fees, currently the highest in Canada, and increase the inadequate student aid plan. Atlantic Canadians do not want handouts. They want fairness. Sadly our party believes that Bill C-18 would not deliver this to them.

[Para Transpo, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa 10,000 people with mobility problems rely on Para Transpo to get to work, to school and to see their friends, families and doctors. These Canadians are being held captive in a labour dispute, a dispute caused by privatization.

The drivers for Para Transpo are asking to be treated the same as OC Transpo workers, but the municipality has privatized this essential service and the private company is not treating the workers fairly. It is unacceptable for essential services like Para Transpo to be hived off to the private sector as somehow less important.

Canadians with disabilities should not be at the back of the bus when it comes to transit, especially in a federally regulated transit system like the one in Ottawa.

I call for the federal Minister of Labour to bring in binding arbitration in this dispute. I also call on all MPs from Ottawa to pressure their municipal colleagues to put Para Transpo back in the public sector.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to weigh in on this very important topic tonight. I am delighted to be able to add my voice to the debate on the most anti-democratic clause of the most anti-democratic agreement Canada has ever seen, chapter 11 of NAFTA.

We are all deeply concerned with the contradictory words and actions from our government on this critical matter. We have seen the Prime Minister run in 1993 guaranteeing that NAFTA would not be adopted unless he got changes to protect Canada. He then adopted NAFTA with only a few cosmetic changes.

As the motion points out, we even had a glimmer of a reprieve from the minister before the committee a while back, saying that investor rights would not move into the WTO, into GATS or the FTAA. Once again we saw the Prime Minister crack the whip and drive dissenters back in line.

I was recently in Quebec City where 50,000 people marched in the streets to protest the undemocratic process being used to make decisions which will affect human beings the world over. The most common complaint of the hundreds I spoke with was that the inclusion and the existence of the investor rights outlined in chapter 11 which, according to a leak on the eve of the summit, were to be included and strengthened in the FTAA.

I went to Quebec City as a member of parliament, along with all my NDP colleagues. We clearly felt that was the place to be if we wanted to know what was going on in the hearts and minds of citizens of the country. A recent poll showed that 4.4 million Canadians would have been in Quebec City if they had the time and the resources to be there to protest against trade deals and the effects they are having on our democracy, our environment and our culture.

The obvious place for us as elected representatives would have been to be inside the summit. The obvious place for the text of the FTAA to be discussed would be right in the House of Commons and in public forums across the country. As we know that is not the case.

The scene that I saw behind the fence where I was with the 50,000 people was a real forum of participatory democracy. There were thousands of caring, concerned people there because they wanted to have a say in the kinds of deals being made for the future of our globe and our country.

Events in Quebec City were as much about culture as about trade. I am talking about culture in as broad sense: what kind of world we want to live in and how we could continue to express our vision of that world.

Critics of mine and the critics of other protesters have tried to say that we are anti-trade. We have heard that today in this room. We are not anti-trade. We are pro-trade. We are pro-community. We want our voices to count through our democratically elected government.

We understand that we are inextricably linked globally by our telecommunications, by our labour and by our environment. We have global problems that we all have to work on together, but we do not believe that business, that money and that the wealthy should have special legal rights.

Under chapter 11 a foreign company can sue a democratically elected government because the government chooses to operate state enterprises or allows for monopolies which it deems desirable for the public good.

Under chapter 11 a company can sue a democratically elected government because through its actions on behalf of its citizens it has denied the company the opportunity to profit in a specific sector of the economy.

Let us imagine how our history would have evolved if this had been true in the past: no railways, no Canadian broadcaster, no Petro-Canada, no national airline, no post office. That is not to mention another real threat, which is to our public hospitals, our schools, our environmental controls and eventually our democracy.

I recognize that there are phrases in NAFTA which give lip service to protecting some of these things. However, in the details, in the incomprehensible language of these agreements, none are protected. If a service were to modernize, it is no longer protected. If we protect our culture, we get zapped in another sector. If a single province chooses to export bulk water, all taps are open. If a single private school can get public funding, we will have to compensate all comers.

My time is running out, but I would like to use a current case before the NAFTA tribunal to illustrate my point. UPS is suing Canada because it opposes Canada Post couriering mail. UPS is saying that because Canada Post is a crown corporation, which it is, it accepts parcels for delivery by the equivalent of a courier service, which it does. UPS is losing potential profit and it feels our taxpayers should cough up a chunk of tax money and give it to UPS, which we may have to do.

It could win this one. Under NAFTA we no longer have the right to have crown corporations that are efficient, that use new technologies and that update their business plans to deliver a service which we as parliamentarians say Canadians want and need.

We have never debated this issue in the House that I know of, but it is not rocket science to realize that we are a big country which has a small population that is very spread out. Having efficient, reliable and affordable service to send each other mail, parcels and goods makes a lot of sense to me. Apparently we can only do this if we first compensate UPS. This case shows how we are stuck to agreements with ineffective exemptions that never allow public enterprises to change, to modernize or to survive.

Our democracy is our most special public right. Under our charter, four of the five sections deal with guaranteeing these rights. I am frightened, along with my colleagues, that unless we change our tune on chapter 11 these rights will be traded away for the sake of guaranteed profits for transnational corporations.

I am very honoured to finish the debate tonight on chapter 11 and to have expressed concerns on behalf of the New Democratic Party respecting the protection of our democratic rights under trade deals.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we have room to further increase the cost of cigarettes without bringing about a massive smuggling effort. As I said, the cost of a carton of cigarettes in Maine is $60.31 Canadian. With the addition in Bill C-26, we would still not see our cigarettes go up that high. We would see a range anywhere from $54.38 to $37.00 in Ontario. Quite frankly, we need to put the prices a lot higher, then I think we would see a decrease in availability and a decrease of young people starting the habit.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today and support the steps being taken in Bill C-26, an act to amend the various acts including the Customs Act and the Income Tax Act in respect to tobacco.

Everyone in this Chamber knows that smoking kills. Everyone knows that more needs to be done to help those Canadians addicted to nicotine to quit smoking. More needs to be done especially to stop our kids from starting to smoke. Our goal in this place should be a smoke free generation.

Ways in which this can be done are to make this dangerous substance cost more, take away the incentives of tobacco companies and often less savoury organizations from making huge profits through smuggling, increase the taxes on what profits tobacco companies make and hopefully to divert the funds allocated to fight tobacco use in our population.

Bill C-26 is a step in this direction and I commend the government for that but, and yes there is a but, there is much more to do.

The tax increase on tobacco could and should have been higher. I believe higher prices are a major deterrent to smoking, especially for young people. The tax increase has been far too timid. We need just look across the border at the United States.

The price for a carton of cigarettes in Maine is $60.31 in Canadian dollars. In New York state a carton in Canadian dollars costs $65.21. In Michigan a carton costs $59.00 in Canadian dollars and so on. What would the price of a carton of cigarettes be in Canada once this bill is in effect? Our prices would range from a high of $54.38 in Newfoundland and Labrador to a low of $37.00 in Ontario. There is more room to tax smokers without the terrible fear of smuggling, which dominated the headlines in the early 1990s.

The government's use of an export tax, once again a bit timidly, is a welcome step in allaying the fears of the development of new booming cigarette smuggling operations. The financial measures contained in Bill C-26, including the clauses on taxing duty free cigarettes and eliminating the traveller's exemptions, are only the first steps to protecting ourselves, our neighbours and especially our children.

I commend the excellent work which has been done by organizations, such as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Council for Tobacco Control, the Canadian Lung Association, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, in developing an implementable plan of action which the government can use to further reduce tobacco consumption in our population.

I also feel compelled to congratulate Senator Kenny and my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre for their outstanding individual contributions in the fight against tobacco.

One of the most constant and recurring themes that these organizations and individuals have recognized as a priority is the need for adequate and sustained funding for tobacco control. The government currently takes in billions of dollars in taxes on cigarettes but does not spend anywhere near as much to directly discourage smoking. These organizations say that at least $360 million is needed to fight against smoking but the government has refused to commit those funds.

While I reluctantly support Bill C-26, I wholeheartedly support Bill S-15, a bill that has the seeds of a comprehensive anti-smoking plan and a funding mechanism through an arm's length agency. Bill S-15 would create a $360 million funding stream through a dedicated levy taken from tobacco manufacturers to an arm's length agency which would be committed to implementing real tobacco control programs aimed specifically at young people.

Frankly, I would love to stand in this place and say we do not need any arm's length agency to deliver unnecessary health policy, but the government has shown itself to be playing both sides of the tobacco fence in the past. Too many lives are at stake to trust this initiative to politicians. We need these things.

I do not wish to leave the impression however that nothing has been done up until now. I commend the government for the new bigger warning labels on cigarettes, and I look forward to them bringing in labels on alcohol bottles.

I commend the government for ending tobacco advertising even though I know the real pain that this initiative caused for many arts organizations across the country. I also know that most arts organizations never liked accepting tobacco money but they were given no alternatives after years of Liberal cuts to the arts.

The steps in Bill C-26 are not enough to move us toward a smoke-free generation. We need to support community initiatives aimed at making smoking uncool to young people. We need to work with all jurisdictions to make public places and all work places smoke-free. We need fund multitudes of community initiatives to help those addicted to tobacco quit. We need to eliminate the opportunities for our children to start smoking.

In short, we have to get a lot more radical on this front. I am not going to quote the horrific financial costs, both personal in health terms and as a country, that Canadians suffer due to tobacco. I am sure we all know them here, even the smokers. I will continue to urge the government to see Bill C-26 as only a small step towards this effort. Furthermore, New Democrats will continue to push for Bill S-15 hopefully with improvements.

It is going to take real sustained funding programs, creativity and tenacity through many anti-smoking initiatives to lead us to our first smoke-free generation. Let us get to work on it.

I will be splitting my time, Madam Speaker, with the hon. member for Churchill.

[Post-Secondary Education, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government says education is our economic and social future, but its record is larger classes, fewer resources, crumbling buildings, higher fees and less student aid. The system is in shreds.

Will the Minister of Finance start to fix the problems his government created through underfunding and inadequate boutique programs by bringing in legislation modelled on the Canada Health Act to rebuild accessibility, quality and national standards in our post-secondary education system?

[Petitions, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present is a petition from 3,000 Canadians who are concerned about the 1993 death of Tracey Latimer.

They are petitioning the Government of Canada to protect the rights of Canadian citizens, especially those with disabilities, by refusing to pardon Mr. Latimer from his conviction for second degree murder or from his sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for at least 10 years, the minimum for that crime.