Mac Harb

[Yukon Act, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see my colleagues on both sides of the House speaking in support of this progressive, dynamic and much needed legislation.

In 1996 the government decided to embark on a project that would give the people and government of Yukon control over their destiny to a large extent in regard to natural resources, the management of water and the mining sector. One cannot help but ask why it has taken so long. Why did we not think about this in the early 1900s and late 1800s?

It has taken the boldness and vision of the government and the leadership of the Prime Minister to finally bring this legislation to a head and put it into force so that native communities in Yukon can once and for all have the final say in deciding what are the best interests of Yukon and its people.

When it was initiated in 1996 the idea was to have broad consultation on both sides. The federal government would embark on consultations with all stakeholders including native communities, those who work or live in Yukon, and those who have any kinds of dealings with Yukon.

The Yukon government embarked on a similar consultation process. At the end the Government of Canada and the Yukon government came up with what we see before the House today: a legislation that is conclusive, inclusive and pays detailed attention to all the specific and general needs of the people of Yukon.

I congratulate all those who were involved in the development of this legislation, whether they are with the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the government of Yukon. The administration on both sides has shown that when we work together we can achieve beneficial results that are in the best interest of our people.

There have been difficult times but at the end of the day the final product will be an excellent one. The bill before the House will go to second reading and make its way to committee where the community as a whole will have an opportunity to come forward and give its views on either the total bill or specific parts of it.

The devolution of certain programs or most of the programs to the Yukon government is an exceptionally progressive approach. It would to a large extent allow the government of Yukon to have the final say in the affairs of its people, industries and resources. It would at the same time bear in mind that there will always be a federal role in every part of the country on issues of national magnitude and national interest.

Two such issues that come to mind are the whole notion of water management and the environmental assessment. On those two issues specifically we will see a collective approach between the Yukon government and the federal government.

The government has shown great vision in allowing the management of land and resources to be in the hands of the government of Yukon. Because it is closer to the people the Yukon government is able to define and decide the priorities of its communities.

A number of people have been asking what would happen to the transfer payment from the federal government to the Yukon government if devolution took place, for example in mining. The bill deals specifically with this question.

The federal government has made a provision whereby the Yukon government would retain up to $3 million on an annual basis from royalties or other types of revenues without affecting the transfer payment. That is a progressive and positive element of the bill for which the government should be commended.

The bill contains certain components dealing with the overall management of the resource sector. Let us look at the devolution of powers. A lot of people in the business sector already have arrangements with Yukon which existed prior to this bill being introduced in parliament. If one is a business person with an investment in Yukon one would want to ensure the investment is protected. The Government of Canada and the Yukon government have recognized the right of such arrangements to continue under the new agreement.

To that extent both governments have recognized and made clear in the legislation that existing agreements would not be affected. The Yukon government would respect such agreements and ensure that whatever arrangements the federal government had with such individuals or entities would be respected.

There are also components that deal with the whole issue of water management. Notwithstanding that the Yukon Waters Act would be repealed after the proposed Yukon act came into force, the minister would continue to be responsible for certain elements to protect federal interests, national interests and those of Yukon. These would include the issuing of water licences within specific periods of time and/or the appropriation of land particularly for the construction of pipelines.

Another important issue that came up during the whole debate about the transfer was the notion of environmental assessment. Also of importance was the element dealing with interprovincial and international proposals, for example if a pipeline were to cross from Yukon into other Canadian provinces.

The arrangement would respect the fact that the minister and the Government of Canada would work with Yukon as well as with first nations people to ensure the environment is protected. While we want economic development to take place we also want to ensure we have a system that represents and respects the interests of the people.

My main interests concerned the issues of water and the environment. After looking through the bill I am fully satisfied that the governments of Canada and Yukon have taken good care of those two components. To that extent I am fully supportive of the bill. I hope it will go through the House quickly.

[Criminal Code, November 2nd, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill, an act to amend the criminal code and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, seconded by my colleague from Hull--Aylmer.

The objective of the bill is to eliminate the adjective "legitimate" where used with reference to a child or a descendent in the laws of Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Reuven Bulka, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Dr. Reuven Bulka recently became the first ever recipient of the Scouts Canada National Salute Award. This prestigious award was created to honour business and community leaders who exemplify scouting principles of character and leadership in their daily lives.

As a model citizen, spiritual leader and humanist Rabbi Bulka is the epitome of this award. Whether it be the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, the Kidney Foundation of Canada or the United Way, no cause is too small or too great for Rabbi Bulka.

After the tragic events of September 11 when people of all faiths lost their lives in a senseless act of violence I recall Rabbi Bulka praying for tolerance, understanding and love for one another.

Peace building requires leadership at every level of society. It requires positive and constructive energy. At the heart of every nation lie people of strength and conviction, so we are truly blessed to have Rabbi Bulka in our community.

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut waters and Nunavut surface rights tribunal act.

The Nunavut land claims agreement and the creation of this new territory have resulted in more opportunities for employment, new business and social development and for protecting the ways of the past in the eastern Arctic for the Inuit community.

Frankly, however, for us to fully realize this potential the people of Nunavut as well as others who might invest there do need to have a greater level of certainty than currently exists. The bill would provide that level of certainty and in fact would go a long way toward establishing that certainty by providing an important mechanism in the legislative and regulatory framework that is very much needed in the territories.

The bill would establish in statute the powers, duties and functions of the Nunavut water board and Nunavut surface rights tribunal. These institutions of public administration arise out of the Nunavut land claims agreement, but their powers and authorities will extend across the territory to ensure uniformity and certainty throughout Nunavut on issues related to resource management.

Therefore I can say that certainty is the single most important outcome of Bill C-33. I say that because by providing the legislative underpinning for the Nunavut water board and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal, Bill C-33 would in fact provide certainty that decisions made by these institutions have a solid basis in law. This is not currently the case and has been the cause of some concern among members of these bodies and those who are subject to their decisions.

The bill would provide certainty for the industry by setting out clear ground rules for the issuing of water licences and the enforcement of licence conditions and by ensuring that resource developers have access to land for the purpose of exercising their subsurface rights.

Certainty and consistency are absolutely essential to support the economic development in Nunavut. In the case of the resource industry in particular, projects simply do not go forward unless developers are certain about their rights and obligations. This message was heard loud and clear when Bill C-33 was before the committee for review. Witnesses made it very clear that they find it unsettling to work with licensing boards whose legislative underpinnings are unstable.

By establishing the legislative framework for water management and surface rights in Nunavut, Bill C-33 would provide certainty that will pave the way for the new territory to take advantage of its resource development potential.

To that extent, I believe the bill is very much needed and it is my hope that the House will pass it as quickly as possible so the Nunavut people can get on with their lives and do the necessary things to create jobs, to respond to the needs of their communities and to live the quality of life that they so very much deserve.

[SIDS Awareness Month, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, October has been designated Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) Awareness Month. Each week three babies in Canada die for no apparent reason before the age of one. Sometimes referred to as crib death, SIDS is a leading cause of death in Canada for babies between one month and one year of age.

The Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths is dedicated to responding to the needs of families who have experienced the sudden, unexpected and unexplained infant death and to funding medical research on SIDS. The foundation works in collaboration with Health Canada, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Institute of Child Health to provide public awareness and education. The incidence of death due to SIDS has dropped by almost 50% in the past few years.

This year the foundation is launching its national awareness campaign “Every baby deserves a kiss--Let's kiss SIDS goodbye”. During this month hundreds of volunteers will be selling chocolate lips to help the fight against SIDS.

I ask members to join me in recognizing and congratulating the SIDS foundation for its effort and good work.

[Committees of the House, October 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has the honour to present its ninth report.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, your committee has considered Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and agreed on Thursday, October 25 to report it without amendment. A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings for meetings numbers 33, 35 and 36 is tabled.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the member's attention that Canada is a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants and we have one of the finest immigration policies anywhere in the world. Our policy is continuously evolving to respond to the needs of Canadians and to fulfill our commitment on the international scene in conformity with the United Nations.

If the hon. member is asking, now that we have seen the crisis of September 11, that we shut the door and say that we will no longer accept immigrants, he is mistaken. Simply put, for every immigrant who comes to this country, on average three jobs are created. Immigrants by and large are hardworking people like the hon. member. People come here to raise their families and contribute to society. If we were to stop immigration, we would be doing a great disservice to Canada and its future.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Halifax West.

I want to take part in this debate. This is important not only for the House but also for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It involves every individual and every family across the country in one way or another.

We should not take very lightly the fact that over 87% of our trade is done with our partner to the south, the United States, to the tune of about $1.4 billion on a daily basis. The vast majority of that trade crosses the border by truck or train. On the other side of the equation, approximately 25% of American trade around the world is done with Canada. To a large extent we need each other as trading partners as well as neighbours and allies. We are countries that share common paths and interests, and a common future.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 changed the way we live and the way we conduct our business. Since September 11 I have asked myself as a Canadian what I want my government to do.

First and foremost I want my government to have the safety of Canadians as an objective. Second, I want to see what the government plans to do about ensuring the safety of Canadians. Third, I want to see the actual implementation of its plan.

In terms of objectives, planning and implementation, the government moved swiftly immediately after the September 11 tragedy. Within minutes the Prime Minister was on the phone to the American authorities through the embassy in order to communicate our concerns, our support and our strong condemnation of what took place. As well, every single government department was mobilized. A cabinet committee was established. The hon. member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is chair of that committee. He is doing a magnificent job. The government established that committee to map out a strategy and to plan a way to make Canadians feel safe and good about themselves and feel secure when they go to their place of work.

Planning has taken place. Recently legislation was introduced in the House. It is my hope that in the next week or so implementation will take place.

Let us not fool ourselves. The best and the strongest laws in the world will not save us from the terrorists from within unless we are vigilant in our own society. Unless we have a secure society from within, we will not be able to deal with this issue effectively.

The government has established a broad range of initiatives that will deal with the security issue on the internal side of things. We also have other responsibilities which deal with the issues that confront us from the outside and that is the issue of the border. That is why the motion by the Leader of the Opposition is before the House.

I have some major problems with the motion. If in talking about the perimeter the member is talking about a cedar hedge around Canada, the United States and Mexico, the answer is no. If he is talking about a common strategy to deal with the issues that confront Canadians, Americans, Mexicans and every member of the free world, yes.

The whole issue is how we should deal with the threat to our safety and security, and our sovereignty. The government has been exceptionally open and co-operative with our friends and allies the Americans in trying to deal with every aspect of the security issue that we have been faced with since September 11.

Let us not fool ourselves by putting a motion such as this one before the House. In paragraph ( a ) of the motion the opposition wants the government to “provide both immigration officers and customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status”. Immigration officers and customs officers already have peace officer status. This part of the motion not only is out of order, it is irrelevant because we already have that. It is not relevant at all. It is redundant because we already do that.

In paragraph ( b ) the opposition wants to “move customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency”. I want to share with my colleagues the fact that our customs officers enforce the Customs Act in addition to in excess of 70 other acts from other departments of the Government of Canada. They have other responsibilities as well. They ensure precisely the flow of goods and services and the mobility of legitimate people across the border between the two countries. That is specifically what they are there for. To move them away from what they are already doing, in order to put them in another section with other authorities frankly does not further the debate.

They already have authority under the act to identify people who are inadmissible and to detain them. As well, under the act they have the authority to stop the flow of prohibited goods, in particular chemical precursors, drugs and other items. This part of the motion is redundant too.

In paragraph ( c ) the opposition wants to “detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks”. That is already done under the act. In fact in 2000-01 in excess of 8,000 refugees were detained at the border an average of 16 days until such time as we were assured they did not pose a security threat to Canada. Furthermore in 2000 in excess of 20,000 potential criminals coming from the United States into Canada were stopped at the border as opposed to 14,000 criminals who were trying to cross the border from Canada into the United States.

One would wonder about the relevancy of the motion before the House today. I close with paragraph ( d ) in which the opposition wants to “create a list of safe third countries”. Under the act we could do that now.

Based on these comments I cannot support the motion. I will be voting against it.

[Trade, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister for International Trade along with his counterpart from Singapore announced that they were going to look into the possibility of free trade between Canada and Singapore. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what happened to those discussions and where we are at this point in time on this issue?

[Canadian Tourism Commission, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in accordance with the order of reference of Tuesday, October 2, your committee has considered Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and that of the Republic of Costa Rica and agreed on Thursday, October 18 to report it without amendment.