Pat Martin

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-10. I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth.

I am pleased to make this speech on behalf of the environment critic for the NDP caucus, the member for Windsor--St. Clair. I would like begin my speech by paying tribute to the member for Windsor--St. Clair for the dedication that he has shown to this issue and for his the research, the commitment and the involvement over many months to this important issue. It is indicative of how seriously the NDP caucus takes this issue with the amount of time, research and capital that was invested into trying to make meaningful changes to Bill C-10.

It is worth noting that we find ourselves in a rather unique situation. Because we were so committed to the tone and the spirit of Bill C-10, we voted for it at second reading. That is how eager we were to see it go to committee so that we could invite witnesses, have honest and fruitful debate and even propose amendments.

We find ourselves now in an inverse situation. We cannot support the bill because there was such intransigence at the committee stage and such an unwillingness to recognize the legitimate points that were raised by witnesses and by opposition members. Now we have a very flawed piece of legislation.

As inadequate as it was at second reading, we were compelled to vote for it just to have the opportunity to take it one step further to improve it, to hone it, to fine tune it and to make it useful to Canadians. In the best spirit of parliament, we acted in a very responsible way rather than just oppose everything that came at us from the other side.

In this case we said that the idea had merit and although it needed fine tuning and refinement, we were willing to support it at that stage just to move it along through the steps for the well-being of Canadians. We went through an exhaustive process and dedicated a great deal of time and energy. I should point out that the member for Windsor--St. Clair brought this to our attention almost weekly at the NDP caucus.

The subject of Bill C-10, the marine conservation act, came up regularly. It was given a great deal of our attention and energy. Of all the issues that we have to deal with and all the competing interests that we have as members of parliament, the bill got a disproportionate amount of our time, energy and resources. I am trying to express how frustrated we are at this juncture to have to say that all our work was perhaps for nothing. That is why members are hearing critical speeches at this stage.

As interested as people were to take part in a meaningful debate on the bill, we find ourselves as opposition members now unable to support what we thought was a very important piece of legislation.

I know the member for Windsor--St. Clair would want me to express that we view this as a lost opportunity. We view this as a missed opportunity, not just for Canadians, but for the environment. This was one of those bills and one of those times that we as a community could deal with our environment in a way that we could actually show some stewardship and leadership, and we failed. I think we failed Canadians. I think we have failed future generations. We certainly have failed the marine ecological environment.

Some of the changes that the member for Windsor--St. Clair put forward were so elementary and so basic that it defies logic. How anybody could have found fault with some of these amendments is beyond me. I was not at the committee when these amendments were put forward, but I have read the transcript from the committee. I have seen the arguments that were put forward and they were remarkable.

It is remarkable to me that the amendments put forward were rejected. I have read some of the arguments and some of the debates in Hansard . The principles were as basic and fundamental like the way we developed oil and gas reserves. We all know we explore for oil and gas under the water by seismic explosions. These blasts are detrimental to marine mammals.

An amendment was put forward that we simply could not do that. It would be irresponsible to allow that type of seismic activity in a region where marine mammals would be affected negatively.

I am just trying to envision what the argument could be against an amendment of that nature. We all know that the big draggers that stir up the bays all across our eastern and western shores are detrimental to our marine environment. Yet we chose not to comment or deal with that compelling issue in Bill C-10.

What is remarkable to me, in researching for this speech, is just how naive we are about our marine environment. We live in a country that is surrounded on three sides by ocean. We have more ocean perimeter and shore than many island nations, yet we are so painfully naive about the environment.

I built a house one time for a marine biologist who told me that they were starting to age groundfish so they would know when it was a good time to harvest groundfish and when was not. Only in recent years, at the Nanaimo biology research station, have they finally started to age groundfish, date them and say that maybe 12 years old would be the optimum time to harvest this type of groundfish. Until then, it was just by hook or by crook, by happenstance. They just took and took and hoped that the resource survived. We cannot be that irresponsible any more. It is painful to see how naive we are in this regard.

We are only just learning about our marine environment now. Maybe it is premature to put this bill in place because there is so much discovery going on.

In reading about this issue, I was interested to learn that only recently we realized there was a gully off Nova Scotia that rivalled the Grand Canyon in scope. Huge underwater environments are out there. Even though we have the capability to learn about them and deal with them, we have chosen not to. We have occupied our time, some would say capably or not, on the terrestrial side of our environment and we have ignored the underwater environment. The oil and gas interest is really in that grand canyon. This underwater canyon exists with a whole environment and culture that we can only dream about.

The research is in its infancy. The science is relatively new, yet we are passing legislation that is supposed to serve us for 100 years. We find Bill C-10 hopelessly inadequate. It does not serve what we would hope a well drafted piece of legislation coming out of the House of Commons would do for Canadians, for our future and for our marine environment.

Groups have pointed out that the inadequacies range from not only the environmental community, although it is pretty much unanimous in its criticism of the shortcomings of Bill C-10, but also the cultural communities that have pointed to real serious omissions and lack of substance in Bill C-10. Even provincial governments and other levels of government are blowing the whistle and saying that this is not ready and that it has not evolved to a degree where we should be enshrining it in legislation.

We thought that some of the changes we sought to achieve were quite reasonable. I mentioned seismic blasting and trawling. The other issue we felt should have been dealt with was the burgeoning new economic development of aquaculture and fish farming. We need to address this issue.

I have been on the west coast of Canada and toured some of the fish farms where Atlantic salmon are being raised in the Pacific Ocean. They get out of their cages. These are not an easily controlled species. They are an aggressive species. They are an invasive species. This industry is in its infancy and should have been dealt with in Bill C-10. I believe that it was by deliberate omission that it was not dealt with in Bill C-10.

We are very critical that it is more notable for what is not in the bill than what is in the bill. For that reason the New Democratic Party cannot support Bill C-10, inasmuch as we would have liked to have had a piece of legislation that we could support.

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-340 on behalf of the NDP caucus. As the labour critic for our party I sat with the member for Laurentides for months as we reviewed part II of the Canada Labour Code. I can personally attest to the hard work that was done by the hon. member for Laurentides in trying to get this issue to the forefront of the national agenda or even onto the table of the national agenda. She demonstrated a great deal of compassion and was a very good advocate on behalf of working women everywhere in this country in the degree of passion she demonstrated for the issue.

The hon. member pointed out in her speech that this issue has been before the House of Commons for a decade or more. This is not new to today's debate nor was it new when we debated Bill C-12 or Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that we have dealt with recently. She points out that as long ago as 1990 there was a motion before the House of Commons where like-minded people argued aggressively that the workplace was changing and that we had a duty to accommodate those changes and certainly to accommodate the growing number of women in the workforce.

We have finally reached equality, virtually, in terms of the labour market share. We have not reached equality in the labour market conditions for women. Women might make up 50% of the workforce, but they have not achieved equality in terms of compensation or the terms and conditions of their employment or the accommodation of the special circumstances facing women in the workforce, such as perhaps one of the most obvious, the issue of pregnant and nursing mothers.

When the bill was brought before the House I expected a higher degree of sensitivity for this issue from the other members of the House of Commons. I am appalled, frankly, at the lack of sensitivity demonstrated, especially by the spokesperson for the government side.

We believe, and the point was well made by the member for Laurentides, that we have a duty and an obligation to strive to achieve the highest common denominator in this country. If the federal legislation is to be considered a national standard, we then have an obligation to seek out the best conditions in the country, not to sink to the lowest conditions in any aspect of labour legislation. In the case of the province of Quebec, it has had the foresight, the political capital, I suppose, to achieve an element of fairness that goes beyond what we enjoy in the federal jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is only fair, and in the interests and the well-being of the people living in a jurisdiction where the terms of employment provincially exceed the terms of employment enjoyed in the federal jurisdiction, that a person should have the right to avail himself or herself of the terms that are more favourable for the worker, especially in the instance of a pregnant or nursing mother.

This should be one thing that we can all feel generous enough in our hearts to allow. Perhaps it could then serve as an example of how we might harmonize the jurisdictional differences in the workforce on other issues as well. However, we could start here. I argue it was a missed opportunity when we reviewed part II of the Canada Labour Code. We dropped the football in this case because we had a chance to introduce an element of fairness into the Canada Labour Code and we chose not to. It was not for lack of trying because the amendments were made at both stages where amendments are possible in the development of the bill. The hon. member worked very hard.

The only argument that was put forward by the Liberal side as to why it cannot support the bill was the weak and tired old warhorse that it is somehow a unity issue. Not only is that untrue in this case, but I believe it is 180° opposite from the truth.

Let us think of the example of a worker, a pregnant or nursing mother living in the province of Quebec who availed herself of the possibility of opting out of a certain workplace because she thought it was unsafe. If that happens we will have created two classes of worker in the province of Quebec. We might have two sisters who live in houses next door to each other, one who works for the province of Quebec under Quebec jurisdiction and the other who works for the federal government under federal jurisdiction. They live in the same city, in the same community. One will now be given full compensation for the period of time she has off and the other will be penalized by getting 55% of her income just because she works for the federal government instead of the province of Quebec. That would breed hostility. That would breed disunity. That would cause animosity among the working women in the province of Quebec.

If the only argument that can be raised here is the fact that it is somehow a unity issue or a constitutional or jurisdictional issue, let me say that in fact it is unnecessarily creating an environment of hostility and resentment among the working women of Quebec. We do a lot of things differently in our dealings with the province of Quebec. Even if for the time being the only advantage to this small amendment would be for the working women of Quebec, why is that a reason not to do it, if it introduces an element of fairness for those people?

It would also have the effect of pulling up the conditions in the other provinces, those provinces that are not fortunate enough to have such good terms and conditions. Were this in place, the best terms would have primacy, or in other words we would always gravitate to the highest common denominator and it would pull the other provinces along. We would then really be using federal legislation to its highest purpose, I believe, which is to elevate the standards right across the country from coast to coast.

Anyone who speaks against the motion is speaking for the status quo, which I believe is patently unfair. The status quo penalizes pregnant and nursing women when they opt for the right to refuse dangerous work, work that is dangerous either to themselves or to the fetus. We believe this is the only example in which when workers use their right to refuse unsafe work they suffer any kind of monetary setback. Why is it we have selected pregnant and nursing women to be the only group of workers who, when they exercise the right to refuse unsafe work, suffer a monetary penalty? That is unfair. I presume that is why the province of Quebec decided many years ago to change that situation: because it is patently unfair when these women are doing something that is best for their babies.

It borders on negligence to first open up the workforce so that more women are taking part and then not accommodate or take every step to accommodate women in the workplace. Out of ten provinces and three territories one province chose to rectify that and to remedy that unfairness. We believe that should stand as the highest common denominator and it should have primacy over any lesser piece of legislation as it affects working women.

Therefore I speak strongly in favour of Bill C-340 and I thank the member for Laurentides for giving us the opportunity to have the debate. I regret that it is only a debate. It should be a vote. It could have been an important first step to introduce an element of fairness into the working conditions in the Canadian workforce which we forgot to do, we neglected to do. No, we did not forget to do it: we chose not to be fair in this case and it is to our great shame.

We are given the opportunity to fix that today. Some members of the House are speaking against remedying that. I suppose they will have to defend their stance and be judged in some higher place than this.

In closing I would say that in other areas of legislation, in other contracts and in other legal documents, there are things called non-derogation clauses. In other words, nothing in the work we are doing today should erode what the person currently enjoys. Not having an amendment like that in Bill C-340 has the same effect as derogating the terms and conditions of employment that Quebec women currently enjoy. By going into the federal civil service or any federally regulated jurisdiction, they will diminish the rights that have already been created in their home province. We have an obligation to respect, acknowledge and allow people in Quebec to have those rights that they have earned.

[Children of Divorced Parents, November 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I also am pleased to enter into this debate on Motion No. 186. As other members have done, I want to thank the member for Prince George--Peace River for his private member's business. It is a very useful and necessary debate.

As has been pointed out, it is an area of broad public interest. In fact as the hon. member from Prince George said, many of us, as members of parliament, receive representation from constituents in our offices on this very issue. These often are some of the most difficult issues with which we have to deal and are often heart-rending stories from people wrestling with the agony associated with a difficult marriage and divorce and the subsequent custody and access issues.

It is a reflection of the broad interest in the subject that the House of Commons, in the last parliament through a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, undertook what had to be the most comprehensive policy review on this subject in Canadian legal history. I know you, Madam Speaker, were part of this committee.

I do not know a great deal about the nature or structure of the special joint committee, but it seemed to me that an overwhelming number of MPs and senators took an active role in this particular study. Although the standing committee was only seven senators and 16 MPs, as many as 40 or 50 other members of parliament sat on the committee at various times as it toured the country. A huge contribution of time, energy and resources went into this, as was only fitting given the broad level of interest and the very necessary debate that must take place.

As I did not have a chance to take part in that standing joint committee, I am glad to have the chance to share some of my views now. I appreciate the motion that the hon. member chose. As an indication of his level of interest in the subject, he chose to submit all 48 recommendations of the special joint committee on custody and access as private members' motions. That is one way we can keep the debate alive in the House of Commons.

There has been very little action on the 48 recommendations. In spite of the huge national interest in the subject, the federal government has been very slow to react to any of the many worthwhile recommendations that were made.

I note the hon. member chose the following motion for debate today. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should draft legislation that recognizes that it is in the best interests of children that: (a) they have the opportunity to be heard when parenting decisions affecting them are being made; (b) those whose parents divorce have the opportunity to express their views to a skilled professional, whose duty it would be to make those views known to any judge, assessor or mediator making or facilitating a shared parenting determination; and (c) a court should have the authority to appoint an interested third party, such as a member of the child's extended family, to support and represent a child experiencing difficulty during parental separation or divorce.

This is an eminently reasonable recommendation. It is worthy and has merit in every aspect of it. I am disappointed that some members could find fault with this very principled position. The operative words, as has been cited by other members, are “in the best interests of the child”. Surely that must be the primary guiding directive of any family law policy development review of any kind. It is in keeping with the United Nations convention on the well-being of the child.

Interestingly enough, the report title is not divorce. It is not about child support or alimony. It is called “For the Sake of the Children”. We are on the right track. No matter where the debate began when the committee started meeting, it evolved and matured in a way with which most Canadians should feel very comfortable and gratified.

The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River pointed out that he appreciated the input from people like the member from Sarnia. I am aware of his activism on this issue as well. People like Senator Landon Pearson, who co-chaired the committee, should be recognized in any debate on this subject.

I tried to understand the speaker from the government side on this subject, I still do not fully understand the objection to such a straightforward development, to what would be a shift in policy regarding family law. We are not talking about any fundamental change here. We are talking about better representation. That is one of the basic tenets of fairness. All sides in a misunderstanding or a disagreement should be given the tools necessary to make their points of view known in debate.

In other words, in this case it would be the children, those least able to make their views known, who should be given support or given an advocate, someone to advocate on their behalf to make their views and wishes known. This would be in keeping with the basic elements of fairness. That is why we give legal aid to someone who is charged with an offence and cannot afford a lawyer. It is based on the same principle that a person has a right to a real defence in a tribunal, a meeting or a hearing.

The motion deals with the rights of children in the event of a divorce and it is worth noting some of the changing attitudes toward divorce in general as background information as we go into this debate. Again I will read from the report, which I found very instructive and useful. Under the category of attitudes toward divorce it states:

Most Canadians consider divorce to be a right. Adults are free to marry whom they wish, and if one of the partners finds the relationship unsatisfactory, unhealthy, or unsafe, he or she is free to end the relationship through divorce.

People's attitudes toward divorce changed with the Divorce Act in 1985. It gave Canada no fault divorce. Under that act people do not have to prove or justify why they choose to end a relationship. They can simply announce their unhappiness with the relationship.

It is easy to enter into a divorce but let us take a look at other people who are affected by that choice. An assumption is made in the 1985 divorce law that children are better off living in a divorced situation than they are living in an unhappy marriage situation. This is a presumption. I am not sure if there is any empirical evidence or market research to back it up. It was a belief held by Canadians as they moved into the 1985 view of divorce. They feel that we are better off making it easier for parents to split up because there could be damage to children's development or well-being from living in an unhappy household.

That has only recently been challenged. That has been the prevailing thought in Canada for the last 15 years. There is a growing movement now in which people are not so sure about that any more. I am not talking about abusive relationships or violent situations where there is risk to a child's health, well-being or mental stability et cetera. I note that this book points out that in some states in the United States there are mandatory steps that couples must take prior to applying for a divorce. A comprehensive effort is made to do everything that can be done to keep families together.

I am not saying that it is a panacea. I am not even recommending it for this country as we move forward on this thorny issue. I am saying that what we once accepted as conventional wisdom is not carved in stone. There is nothing static about our points of view. Our thinking on family law should be dynamic and should evolve as the debate matures.

I am glad that this issue is being debated in the House of Commons today. It is appropriate and timely. We owe it to many thousands of people who are embroiled in often heart-rending situations of custody and access disagreements to have this debate in the House of Commons and bring this issue forward so they can take some comfort and solace in the fact that somebody cares. It is obvious that the member for Prince George--Peace River cares very deeply.

[Employment Insurance, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is on the rise. Yet two out of three unemployed workers will fail to qualify for any EI benefits at all. The rules are so strict that hardly anybody qualifies any more. This is in spite of a $750 million a month surplus.

The U.S. has relaxed its EI rules in the aftermath of September 11. Why will the government not use the EI surplus for what it was intended: to provide income maintenance for unemployed workers? Why will the government not relax the eligibility rules from 920 hours to 700 hours so that thousands more Canadians will qualify for some income maintenance as we go into this long winter?

[The Economy, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the 1990s will surely go down in history as the decade of corporate greed. Executive pay jumped 570% between 1990 and 2000 for the CEOs of Standard & Poor's top 500 companies. The explosion of CEO pay over the decade dwarfed the 37% growth in workers' pay.

According to Business Week CEO pay now stands at 531 times the pay of the average worker. If the average annual pay for production workers had grown at the same rate since 1990 their average salary would be $170,000 a year. The minimum wage would be $35 an hour.

When productivity goes up and profits go up, workers' wages are supposed to go up. That was the deal. That was the post-war labour accord. Capital has broken that compact and in their frenzy of wretched excess corporate executives have left any semblance of compensation fairness behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for South Shore. He did not have the opportunity to be the representative for his coalition at the committee when it dealt with the clause by clause amendments, but he did hear the speech I made in which I pointed out some of the amendments that the NDP sought to achieve.

The hockey analogy that I used in my speech was the fact that under Bill C-33 the federal government still would retain the ability to charge a fee, a user fee, a licence fee or a permit fee, to any user of water in the territory of Nunavut. We sought to have an exemption to that rule which would state that the federal government could charge a user fee or licence fee to any user of water except in regard to waters that flow through Inuit owned land. In other words, the actual indigenous people of the territory should not be charged a fee for using their own water.

The witness who appeared before the committee used the example of wanting to pump water out of the river to flood the ice rink so his kids could play hockey. Under the bill, the government could charge him a fee for using his own water. We did not feel that was right.

Does the hon. member agree that is an amendment that should have been allowed at committee to give them true self-determination over their own water resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate at third reading on Bill C-33. The NDP caucus has been quite supportive of the bill from its onset. We welcome the opportunity to lend our support to the very important issue of helping the newly formed territory of Nunavut take its independence and control over water management, land use and other associated issues.

Members of the New Democratic Party have followed the debate with great interest. We have followed it much farther back than when it was introduced in the House as Bill C-33. We note with interest that as long ago as 1996, in the 35th parliament, a similar bill was introduced, Bill C-51, which, unfortunately, died on the order paper. In the 36th parliament, Bill C-62 was introduced, which was largely the same in scope and content and sought to achieve the same goals, but it too died on the order paper. In other words, the people of Nunavut have been waiting patiently for a long time to see this bill finally come through all the stages of the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that the Nunavut land claims agreement called for land use, water and environmental assessment boards to be established as institutions of public government within two years of the ratification of the agreement. That was in June 1993. It is scandalous that nothing has happened.

The surface rights issues were to have a similar institution within six months of the June 1993 ratification. We are almost a decade late in implementing this important enabling legislation which essentially hands over to the Nunavut water board the jurisdiction to make important determinations as to the use of water and putting waste into water in the territory of Nunavut.

This is an issue that most people are able to relate to. In fact, ever since we have been putting codes of conduct on paper or codes of practice into writing, we have dealt with water rights. The Magna Carta in 1215 referred specifically to water rights and water use issues. It is something that every democracy and every free society has to wrestle with and has to establish because it is so critical. People downstream deserve the courtesy of fair treatment from those living upstream, and water being an essential commodity.

After working with the people of Nunavut, members of the NDP did try to move amendments at the committee stage. The people of Nunavut actually came to the committee and made compelling arguments for things they sought to achieve in the bill. The one improvement in the bill that I will point out, and which I readily concede is actually an improvement over Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, is that at least Bill C-33 contains a non-derogation clause. This is important. In anything dealing with aboriginal rights, a non-derogation clause has become standard practice, in that nothing in this newly signed agreement will derogate or in any way diminish rights that are inherent within the charter of rights and freedoms or the constitution. The inherent rights that aboriginal people enjoy cannot be signed away by any document.

However, we were critical, and it was one of our amendments, that the non-derogation clause that was chosen for Bill C-33 differs from other non-derogation clauses in recent aboriginal legislation. We were suspect, as were the people of Nunavut, as to why it varied. It was only natural for the Nunavut people to assume that this clause was deliberately changed for a specific purpose.

A person can be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his or her actions but, by the same token, the government can be presumed to have intended something of the literal meaning of what they have put forward and chose to deviate.

We recommended that the non-derogation clause in Bill C-33 should state as follows:

Nothing in the bill should derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The amendment was simple and straightforward but unfortunately it did not succeed at committee.

We went further than a non-derogation clause. At committee stage, members of the NDP recommended that we go farther and put in a positive interpretation clause, not just a non-derogation clause but a positive interpretation clause so in the event of some ambiguity in the bill it would always be interpreted in the best possible light for aboriginal people. We felt that was important. It was a safety fallback position that would give some comfort to the people of Nunavut in the event the bill was challenged in the courts or in the event there were two points of view over a particular clause. The interpretation clause would give some guidance to arbitrators down the road to view the people of Nunavut in a more positive light. That too failed at committee stage and we were disappointed and critical of that.

We also point out that Bill C-33 is essentially a step toward self-government for Nunavut, for control and jurisdiction over its own land and water use. However, within the bill, the minister still has the right or the ultimate sign-off to any licences or permits that are granted within Nunavut. In other words, the Nunavut water board can issue a licence to Echo Bay Mines, or whatever the institution is that seeks a water licence, but it has to be signed off by the minister. In other words, Ottawa, the central federal government, still has the ultimate control, the right to veto anything the people of Nunavut do.

We suggested in an amendment that the powers of the minister under that section should sunset on the 10 year anniversary of the signing of the agreement, not the signing of this bill but the signing of the Nunavut land use agreement in June 1993. In other words, in June 2003 the powers of the minister would no longer exist and the people of Nunavut would make their own determination about their own land and water use in that territory. I thought that was a very reasonable amendment and I expected the support of my colleagues even on the other side, especially the member from Nunavut who sits on that committee. I thought she would have had a very real interest in seeing that step toward true self-government and true self-determination take place. That also failed as an amendment. We were trying to be reasonable and we did not succeed in any of these.

The last thing we sought to achieve in Bill C-33 we again failed to achieve. The Government of Canada can still levy a fee or a charge to any user of water in Nunavut. There are no exemptions to this. We moved an amendment that would have allowed the government to charge a permit or licence fee to Echo Bay Mines or any other user group, but we wanted to make sure it did not intend to charge the people of Nunavut for using water that flows through their own land. That is exactly what is contemplated in this agreement. If the people of Nunavut wanted to start a water bottling company as an economic development agency, they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to use their own water. Is that self-government? Is that self-determination? Is that control over one's own resources and territory? That struck me as absurd.

You, Mr. Speaker, with a hockey background, would understand the analogy that was used at the committee. The people who came to the committee said that if they wanted to flood the hockey rink in their community they would have to pay a fee to Ottawa to pump the water out of their river to flood the ice so their kids could play hockey in a place where there is a great deal of ice and water. It struck us as absurd. On their behalf we moved what we thought was a very reasonable amendment to say that the Government of Canada could charge user fees, service fees or licence fees, except in water on, in, or flowing through Inuit owned land.

In other words, on crown property the government could absolutely charge whomever it wanted whatever it wanted. It could charge whatever the market would bear and ding people for all it could. However it should not charge the people who live there for the right to make a tray of ice cubes in their own fridge. That struck us as ridiculous. It did not succeed either.

We were frustrated at committee. As much as we wanted to support Bill C-33 and agreed with the tone, content and sentiments inherent in the bill, we were terribly frustrated that reason could not have prevailed in those few areas.

Having said that, we must now either move forward with a bill that is not everything the people wanted or delay and deny the people of Nunavut what they have been seeking for many years. Given that choice the NDP caucus will be voting in favour of Bill C-33 at this stage.

[Climate Change, November 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to enter into this important debate. On behalf of the NDP caucus I must speak against the motion although I understand that it is private member's business. The member for Red Deer has every right to put forward issues whether or not they are in keeping with his party's policy.

We find fault with the motion on a number of levels. First, it implies there is a need to revisit the issue based on sound science, as if the science by which we arrived at our current point of view or the existing international point of view is unsound.

We challenge that. The issue has been wrestled with by some of the finest minds of the world as long ago as 1993 when the government commissioned the climate change task forces and toured the country extensively.

I took part in those task forces in five major cities in Canada. Leading scientists on the issue from all over Canada were brought together for the task forces as well as a number of international guests. I was there to make a presentation on energy retrofitting of buildings. We were very well received.

Surely the hon. member cannot say there was not adequate consultation. The motion calls for a consultation process that is transparent, et cetera, and based on sound science. We believe the science was sound. Denying the effects of climate change at this juncture knowing what we know today is tantamount to believing the earth is flat. It is almost that drastic.

As was pointed out by my hon. colleague from the Bloc, the rest of the world is engaged in the issue. To stand in the House of Commons and table such a bill, even though during private members' business members have every right to debate any issue they see fit, is to show wilful blindness and a bias toward a point of view not backed up or substantiated by any sound science other than the economics of a certain geographical region.

I understand that quite well. I do not criticize the hon. member's wish to represent the region he comes from. I have worked on oil rigs all over Alberta and I know how important the industry is to the area the hon. member comes from.

We in the NDP speak against the motion for those reasons, but also because it fails to say anything positive about what could be done in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global warming or climate change.

What the hon. member fails to mention and deal with is that there are huge economic benefits in demand side management. There is more economic opportunity for the country in demand side management of our precious energy resources than in the production of energy resources.

I will point out one example in the area of energy retrofitting of buildings. I gave lectures on this subject to the climate change task forces. We received the industrial energy innovator award that year for the idea. I will work hon. members through the concept. I hope the member for Red Deer is listening.

A unit of energy harvested from the existing system by demand side measures, whether insulation, energy retrofitting, putting in smart thermostats or whatever the technical side of it may be, is almost indistinguishable from a unit of energy generated at a generating station. It is indistinguishable except for three things.

First, it is available at approximately one-quarter of the cost. In other words, it costs about one-quarter as much to take a unit of energy out of the existing system as it does to generate a new one.

Second, it is available and online immediately. At the same instant one conserves a unit of energy one owns it and can sell it to another customer or whatever.

Third, harvesting units of energy precludes the need for building more generating stations and borrowing the money to build multibillion dollar generating stations.

The fourth and most poignant point, given the subject of the debate today, is that harmful greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

If we did embrace the idea of demand side management as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save operating costs, let us look at the federal government as an example. The federal government owns 68,000 buildings in the country, many that waste energy because they were built in a period when, frankly, energy was not a real issue.

We could reduce our operating costs by as much as 40%, create a gazillion jobs, and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions by enormous amounts, again, as much as 40% in actual carbonate emissions, if we embrace this idea. It seems like an absolute natural.

It borders on the irresponsible in a motion dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to not at least recommend or put forward ideas that may bring Canada closer to that goal, unless one is in absolute denial, unless one completely denies that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are problems.

As was pointed out, the rest of the world is engaged in the issue as we speak. Experts are in Marrakesh trying to move the world one step ahead from the meetings in Bonn in July 2000.

We are optimistic. We are hopeful that the world is finally reaching a consensus where it will start to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and try to reverse the climate change that has been identified by world scientists as a legitimate hazard.

Today we heard today both sides of the argument, which is very healthy. I wish the member for Red Deer would give us the address of the 12 year old girl he wrote to giving one side of the opinion. Perhaps she is tuning into CPAC and will hear the contrary point of view as all of the other parties raise objections to the motion.

On the issue of science, the science is clear. Report after report has clearly identified a growing threat due to global warming. It poses a threat to life on the planet in regard to issues as varied as melting polar ice caps to flooding and increased forest fires. We know that over 2,800 economic experts, 8 of them Nobel prize laureates, signed statements in Canada and the U.S. pointing out the economic risks that will accompany climate change.

If the hon. member is worried about the economic side of the issue and if he is saying that meeting the Kyoto protocol is simply too costly, 2,800 economists would differ with him. They point out that in regard to the economic downside of not taking action, the risks associated with climate change, the cleanup of the devastation that would follow, the possibility of the whole prairie region changing from farmland to desert land with a change of a couple of more degrees on the planet, the costs far exceed any out of pocket costs in trying to meet conditions of the Kyoto protocol.

I am glad I have had this opportunity to put forward some proactive ideas instead of denying that climate change and global warming is an emergency for the planet. We believe there are proactive, creative steps that we, as a country that uses more energy per capita than any country in the world, could take to develop the technologies, reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions and then export those technologies to the rest of the world, to lead by example.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for London West for using her time to raise some very important issues, not the least of which is the budget line dealing with aboriginal issues. She is as aware, as are all of us, that a key factor in the Speech from the Throne dealt with the idea that it was finally time to address some of the backlog of social needs which existed in aboriginal communities.

Some of us are apprehensive now that first, there is less of a surplus or no surplus at all and, second, there is an increased spending line which will be necessary for this military intervention.

We have reason to believe that those who will be to be asked to tighten their belts to pay for the military intervention are the very people who need support and have been promised it in this Speech from the Throne.

Will she give us her commitment or at least her point of view, as a member of the finance committee and a member of the Liberal caucus, that she will push to make sure that the spending for the military intervention does not come out of the budget line of aboriginal affairs; current spending or future programs?

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway says that some programs may need to be put on hold and that maybe we will have to wait until the government introduces some of the things that were advertised in the Speech from the Throne, some of these things Canadians have been looking forward to after eight or nine long years of cutbacks and lack of social spending.

When she says that some things may have to be put on the back burner, I wonder what she means and what issues her government is contemplating. The information we have gives us reason to believe that some spending will go toward aboriginal issues which was much vaunted in the Speech from the Throne. People welcomed the fact that the government was finally going to deal with some of the terrible backlog of need in aboriginal communities.

Does the member think that perhaps aboriginal affairs will be one of the things that might have to be put on the back burner? In other words, will someone be dipping into the budget or future budgets or the future spending plans of aboriginal affairs to fund the military intervention?