Sheila Copps

[Environment, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that in the 100 days that we have been in office we have begun a process to abolish a number of toxins. I think it is important to point out that this is not the first report of the IJC. In fact, I personally made a presentation to the IJC several years ago dealing with the issues specifically of prenatal problems and the problems of breast cancer.

I think it is significant that this particular report is receiving a tremendous amount of attention because it is the first time that there is a relationship between the toxins and the problem of spermatozoa. We have known for many years that there are some serious problems.

The report also points out that the level of toxicity took 50 years to achieve. The report further underlines that there is no immediate call by the IJC for a ban on chlorine. In fact, the IJC report is very specific that any eventual chlorine ban should only be precipitated by a serious study of the effect on the basin of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.

We are prepared to table within the next four to six months a list of timetables and schedules for the sunsetting of all problem chemicals including the possibility of sunsetting organo-chlorines.

[Environment, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my hon. colleague had a chance to read the report which says, on page seven I think, that the use of chlorine should not be banned until the economic impact of such a decision is examined. If he wants, I can send him a copy.

[Canada Labour Code, February 18th, 1994]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. member of the Bloc should also realize that the Canada Labour Code affects the employees of about 10 per cent of the companies across this country.

I suggest that before the Bloc Quebecois goes ahead with this bill, it would be a good idea to check with the Quebec government and make sure there is no conflict between federal and provincial legislation. I assume he will do so before tabling his bill. Once that is done, his bill will be considered.

[Canada Labour Code, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's suggestion, and if he wishes to table a Private Member's bill, we are prepared to discuss it. As for making a single change that would involve the Canada Labour Code, when we realize that the province has the lowest minimum wage in the country, I think there are many other priorities to consider.

[Standing Committees, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of the member's question is false. In fact the government does not change the standing orders. They are changed by the House of Commons.

[Members Of Parliament, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear it is the view of the Liberal Party and of Liberal members of Parliament that they are sent to Parliament to exercise their judgment; they are not voting machines.

If we are to be reduced to mere voting machines in this age of technology, it seems to me we might as well abolish the House of Commons and just put the buttons in everybody's homes so they can vote immediately.

The reason we have members of Parliament is so that we can come to this place, engage in a vigorous and informed debate, and ultimately exercise our judgment in our votes as members of the House of Commons.

[Members Of Parliament, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to refer to the comments made by the Prime Minister, the point the Prime Minister was trying to make was that in any decision of government we reflect on the views of our constituents, on the position of our party, on the knowledge we have garnered from listening to input, and ultimately we have to make our own decision.

I think the member is treading on very dangerous ground when she is suggesting that we should be mere voting machines. The member will remember that the leader of her own party who took a very strong position against the Charlottetown accord was not supported by his constituents. They in fact voted in favour of the Charlottetown accord, yet he continued to campaign against it.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government believe that any government policy on finance has to be two track. It has to relate to taxes and jobs.

We did not make the kinds of promises that were made by the leader of the third party in the last election and that may be why he is the leader of the third party.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many provinces have more than three levels of government. There are four levels of government and obviously this government is very cognizant that there is only one taxpayer.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party will have his answer in four days and I know he will be very happy with it.