1998-12-04

Government Orders
National Defence ActHon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): 
moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep this very brief. Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, has returned to the House with an amendment from the other place.
Bill C-25 was first introduced in the House a year ago today. On behalf of the government and the men and women of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, I would like to commend the Senators for their thorough review of the issues in Bill C-25.
The bill is a key element in the program of comprehensive change for both the department and the forces and is much anticipated by the men and women in those organizations.
The Senate has proposed one change to clause 96 of Bill C-25. Clause 96 provides for a review of the provisions and operation of the bill within five years, and the tabling of a report of the review before each House of Parliament.
The amendment made by the Senate changes the requirement for a report of the review of the bill to be made within five years to a requirement for an independent review and report to be tabled before both Houses every five years.
The government is prepared to support the amendment.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it an opportune time to rise to address Bill C-25 and the amendment proposed by the Senate.
As hon. members know, this is the first time the National Defence Act has been amended since 1950.
It is an opportunity for the government to put forward important changes which would allow the Department of National Defence to shore up its solid foundation as one of Canada's most important institutions. The Canadian forces, after all, when all is said and done, are charged with protecting Canada's sovereignty and, by extension, Canadians' freedom. Unfortunately, the government is about to squander yet another opportunity to do good by the Department of National Defence.
Bill C-25 is largely a housekeeping bill. It does nothing to address the systemic problems in the military justice system. It does nothing to address the larger concerns of the Somalia inquiry. There will be no inspector general. There will be little independent oversight of the operations of the Canadian forces.
The Canadian forces have been subjected to decades of neglect at the hands of this Liberal government and former Liberal governments. Chronic underfunding, equipment shortages, excessive bureaucratization, political correctness and a decaying military justice system have all played a role in undermining this proud institution.
I will not go into detail on these matters today, but I would like to urge the members of the House or anyone listening to this debate to read the official opposition's minority report in response to the SCONDVA report on the quality of life in the military. Our position on these matters is outlined there.
The official opposition is opposed to Bill C-25 because it does not deal with any substantive problems that the Canadian forces face.
Bill C-25 is an unfortunate waste of opportunity to set an agenda for renewal for the Canadian forces. The amendment sent from the other place is fine. The trouble is that the bill as a whole is flawed.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced, the Bloc Quebecois opposed it for a number of reasons.
The main reason was that the bill did not seem to improve the situation sufficiently to ensure the rights of the military would be protected before the courts, especially as regards summary proceedings before military tribunals and court martials. For example, a member of the armed forces had only 24 hours to decide between a summary proceeding or a court martial. He could only consult a lawyer. He could not have one present at his trial.
These things remain in the bill and are unchanged by the amendment. Human rights in the military are, in our opinion, largely ignored.
There was another example this week. I read in the paper that a serviceman was taken to military court for refusing an anthrax vaccination. It that is what it means to respect human rights, we do not agree.
We can understand that more expeditious summary proceedings would be more commonly used in wartime. We are not in wartime, however, and the military deserves better treatment when their rights are at issue. This is particularly true in summary proceedings, when a serviceman is judged by a commanding officer, who is necessarily in a conflict of interest situation, because he has to judge one of his subordinates. He must discipline him, he must often pass judgment on his own decision concerning a soldier. The situation may be one in which he himself was involved.
The amendment does not resolve these situations. All that today's amendment, which the government is prepared to pass, accomplishes is to increase the number of reports tabled in the House. There will be more reports, which is admittedly already an improvement.
There is talk of an independent report, but what that means is not defined. Who will produce this independent report? By whom would the authors be appointed? By the department or by the government? Here again, it might be produced by the government and not really be independent. Will there be any soldiers on the committee responsible for producing the report?
We have no guarantee that the term independent will mean that there will be greater respect for the rights of the military when there occurs a contentious situation.
Unfortunately, therefore, we are unable to support the amendment. It does not correct the flaws we pointed out when the bill was introduced. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting against this amendment.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the Senate amendment to Bill C-25. Our party supports the amendment, which is a very minor amendment to the bill. However, even though we support the amendment, I want to say a few words about the Senate itself.
In principle I object to a bill originating in the Senate or to the Senate amending a bill because people in the other place are not elected. The time has come for parliamentary reform in terms of doing something about the Senate. The Minister of National Defence is nodding his head and I agree with him.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: No, he is smiling.
Lorne Nystrom: I heard him nodding his head from this distance. I heard the rattle.
As we are about to enter a new millennium we should have a more mature parliamentary system. The Senate has been with us for a long time. It was created many years ago as a very elitist institution to keep an eye on the commoners, the people in the House of Commons. It comes from the House of Lords in the British parliamentary system.
The latest Angus Reid poll shows that 11% of Canadians support the existing Senate. That is a very small number. One reason people are cynical about the political process is because of the parliamentarians in this House. As well, there are not many people who support the Liberals in the west. I know that the government House leader is a big fan of the Senate. He wants to be appointed to the Senate someday, the happy hunting ground for retiring politicians. This House has to take some leadership along with provincial legislatures and do something about getting rid of the other place. Of course there is a debate in the country as to whether it should be abolished altogether or whether it should be reformed, elected or whatever.
Over the last decade I have been involved in this issue for some time in terms of constitutional change. We have seen a growing movement in the country of the number of people who actually want to abolish the Senate. About 10 years ago it about 20% to 21%. In the last polls I have seen it is about 41%, and about 43% want to reform the Senate, elect it or change it in some way. There is no consensus in how it should be changed.
The Liberal member from Sarnia and I have started a national petition working together in a non-partisan way to try to mobilize the idea of straight abolition of the other place. I think the time has come for that. It is undemocratic, it is unelected, it is unaccountable, it costs almost $50 million a year and yet we sit here and tolerate the other place as an institution.
A lot of ministers, and I do not want to quote names, said publicly in the past or privately that the Senate has to go. The time has come to show some leadership as we enter the last year of this century in terms of a motion on that. I wanted to make that point. Often over the years when we debated a bill that originated in the Senate or was amended by the Senate had comments about the Senate itself, going back to the days of Stanley Knowles and even before that. These comments are very relevant today. The government leader nods and I hope we will have some leadership in terms of democracy for the new millennium across the way, a millennium project for democracy and get rid of the Senate. If the government House leader wants to put the motion right now I will certainly second it.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this amendment.
My party is in favour of the amendment. However, my party remains opposed to the bill. The bill addresses military justice and my party agrees with re-examining the issue that is long overdue. Like everything this government does, no matter how noble it appears to be, all we have to do is scratch the surface and we will find there are always ulterior motives. Those motives are generally to look good rather than to be good. Again today is one of those days.
Addressing the issue of justice in the military is both important and urgent. My party understands that if we are to do something at all it is worth doing right. Unfortunately while there are some interesting points in the bill it leaves far too much out and it does not address the real problems Canadian forces face today.
What events brought us to this point? I think all members are aware of the events that transpired as a result of other events in Somalia. However, they are worth repeating. The Somalia inquiry was shut down for political and personal reasons early last year. That is what brings us here today.
Inquiry commissions are created because there is a public concern that needs to be addressed. As elected officials to the House it is incumbent on all of us to take such matters very seriously. It seems to me that if there a good enough reason to begin an inquiry commission then there is probably a good reason to complete an inquiry commission.
Canada's fine military is dragged through the mud and still there is no resolution. The government did not learn from these actions. Last week the public complaints commission looking into RCMP behaviour at APEC was shut down because there is a question of whether it was biased. The government should appoint an independent judicial inquiry that will get to the truth on that matter.
The government does not want the truth. It is not interested in the truth. Why? Because the truth hurts. We are not here because the government all of a sudden cares about justice in the military but because the government knows it made a mistake and now it wants to hide that mistake as well as possible. It is not because the government all of a sudden cares about military justice. The government shut down the Somalia public inquiry and the armed forces were left with no resolution. The government not only hurt the people involved directly in the Somalia case when it shut down the inquiry, it hurt the entire Canadian forces.
There is much in the bill that my party agrees with. The problem, however, is that when one tries to cover something up rather than address the real issue, as this government so often does, the result is often very inadequate.
Similarly, because the government introduced the bill for the wrong reasons, it does not go far enough in addressing the real problems.
The government missed an excellent opportunity to instil new confidence in the military. The government could have taken measures that would truly make a difference, measures that the Canadian public could point to and say the government listened, and they now have faith in the way the military operates, but the government did not listen. Instead it shut down an inquiry and stifled debate.
Now the Canadian public feels cheated, and justly so. The government feels proud when it says it is fulfilling 80% of the recommendations of the Somalia inquiry. I want to make two points on this not so great accomplishment.
First, the Somalia commission was cut short and so we do not know what the full recommendations would have been. Second, while the government thinks 80% is something to brag about, my party's answer is that quality is much more important than quantity.
The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended that the judge advocate general be a civilian. The government ignored that recommendation. The Somalia inquiry commissioner recommended that an office of the inspector general be created. The government ignored that recommendation.
My party proposed in our election platform last year and we maintain today that creating the office of the inspector general would be the best way to make the military accountable and increase transparency to give the public more confidence in its armed forces.
We proposed in our platform establishing an inspector general for the armed forces to act as an ombudsman to address concerns that cannot be dealt with in the routine chain of command.
In the government's response to the Somalia inquiry, a document that for one reason or another which my party has not yet figured out is called “A commitment to Change”, the government turns down the proposed inspector general.
Why is this minister convinced that the Department of National Defence does not need an independent inspector general when experts who have studied for months and made recommendations to this department tell him he does need an inspector general?
The Minister of National Defence said the Canadian forces do not need someone looking over their shoulder. He went on to say that the role of the inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways. He mentions the grievance board made up of eminent Canadians. He mentions the new ombudsman.
If the minister really thinks the role of the inspector general is being fulfilled in other ways, why does he react so violently when my party recommends such an office?
It seems to me that if this grievance board and the ombudsman truly did the same thing as the inspector general, the minister would not be so quick to shut down the idea of inspector general by saying such a thing as the military does need someone looking over its shoulder.
Could it be that the grievance board and the ombudsman do not do what an inspector general could do? The way the bill would have it, these bodies have absolutely no teeth. They can make recommendations and the CDS can ignore them.
The Canadian public has little reason not to believe the recommendations will be ignored. The Canadian public is looking for a Canadian forces justice system that is fair and transparent. The Canadian public needs such a thing if it is to continue supporting the Canadian forces.
Unfortunately the government squandered the opportunity when it refused to listen to the advice of its own commissioners and ignored their recommendation for an inspector general.
The government does not listen. It does not hear. It does not want an office with teeth, with real authority. The government ignored the Somalia commissioner's recommendation and what my party cannot accept is the way the government picks and chooses what recommendations to follow.
My party wholeheartedly agrees with the need to change the military justice system. The bill needs to go further to create real change. We want people to know their military serves them and not itself. The bill fails to do that and the government has failed to do its job.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, December 7 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, given that votes are already scheduled for 5 o'clock on Monday, I think you might find consent to have this vote deferred to the same time on Monday.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Message From The SenateThe Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a bill, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Alfonso Gagliano: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.
The bill represents the fulfilment of a commitment made by the federal government to the people of Nunavut to bring forward legislation in a timely fashion to establish a single level trial court in Nunavut.
The establishment of a trial court which is specifically designed to meet the needs of the people of the north is part of the larger dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic to shape their own future. I am very proud today to be part of a process that will help the people of Nunavut realize that dream. We are all part of a new process making history today.
The witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights praised the consultative process through which Bill C-57 was developed.
As Ms. Rebecca Williams, the assistant deputy minister designate for Nunavut so eloquently said:
The process we used to develop the Nunavut Court of Justice was revolutionary in our history because it involved Inuit. Inuit were able to express what kinds of systems they needed to handle conflicts and to work for peace and safe communities in the future. The process itself has given me hope about the future of our public government in Nunavut. I learned from this process ways of bringing our time of silence to an end.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Ms. Nora Sanders, the deputy minister designate for Nunavut, who praised the open, respectful and meaningful way in which federal officials conducted the consultation process in respect of Bill C-57. They should be commended.
The development of Bill C-57 also signals the commencement of a new phase in the partnership between the federal government and the people of Nunavut. It is a concrete acknowledgement that reform of the criminal justice system in Nunavut now and in the future must be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people of Nunavut.
I am very pleased to announce that, when the Minister of Justice appeared before the standing committee last week, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party indicated to her that they supported Bill C-57.
I call upon all members of this House to support this bill, and thus help the people of Nunavut to realize their dream of establishing a single-level trial court before April 1, 1999.
Since Bill C-57 was studied so thoroughly by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have no intention of discussing the content of the bill in detail. I would, however, like to go over its salient points, which bring out certain unique aspects of the Nunavut Court of Justice.
One of the important characteristics of the Court of Justice is that, unlike judges in other jurisdictions, the judges of this court will be authorized to hear all cases. An amendment to the Nunavut Act authorizes a judge in the Nunavut Court of Justice to exercise and perform all powers, duties and functions which any law in force in Nunavut confers upon a representative of the judiciary.
The amendments made to a specific part of the Criminal Code provide that a judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice has and may exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions of any court or agent of the judicial authority prescribed in the Criminal Code.
Consequently, a single judge of the Nunavut court of justice will be able to do in a remote locality what cannot be done anywhere else in Canada, that is to hear all matters on the docket of a given circuit court, from the most mundane to the most serious cases, in both adult and youth courts.
Territorial legislation will also enable judges to hear all cases, whether family or civil. I have no doubt that this characteristic of the new court will expedite trials and ensure speedier access to justice.
Another important point is that the bill confers on the Nunavut court of justice the jurisdiction of a superior court. Because of the demands associated with the administration of justice in Northern Canada, judges of the Nunavut court of justice will, of necessity, perform most of the functions and duties normally performed by other agents of the judicial authority. However, these judges will perform these duties in their capacity as superior court judges and will have all the powers vested in superior court judges.
Since the judges will reside in Nunavut and be in frequent contact with the various communities in Nunavut, I have no doubt that the people of Nunavut will notice an improvement in terms of access to justice. They will also be able to explain their problems to judges who are familiar with their culture, their values and their needs.
I am pleased to say that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to establish a single level trial court will not curtail in any way the rights of the parties before the court.
This respect for equity is reflected, for example, both in the appeal provisions and in the new statutory form of review designed to ensure the review of certain key decisions made under the criminal justice process.
Bill C-57 preserves the full ambit and scope of appeal rights relating to summary convictions made under all legal proceedings instituted in Nunavut. The appeal of summary convictions made by the Nunavut court of justice will be heard by a single judge of the court of appeal. At the second level, the appeal will be heard by three judges from the court of appeal.
As for the changes made to the legislation, those hon. members who take a close interest in the more technical aspects of a single-level court system will note that, unlike provincial and territorial court rulings, the decisions of the Nunavut court of justice cannot be reviewed through prerogative writs, since the Nunavut court of justice will be a superior court.
To compensate for this, the provisions of this bill will create a new statutory form of review for certain important decisions in the criminal justice process. As is the case with summary conviction appeals, the review will be conducted by a single judge of the court of appeal and an appeal will lie from the review decision to a three person panel of the court of appeal.
In describing these features of the statutory review scheme in some detail, I want to emphasize that one of the important purposes of the scheme is to ensure that the people of Nunavut are not treated as second class citizens when it comes to the rights accorded to them by their court system.
It is because of these features that the government can say in the summary printed on the first page of Bill C-57 that the bill:
—creates a single-level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut in order to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of responding to the unique needs of Nunavut while, at the same time, maintaining substantive and procedural rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.
A final theme in Bill C-57 concerns the changes to the Judges Act necessary to accommodate the operation of a single level trial court in Nunavut at the superior court level.
The amendments to the Judges Act provide for the appointment of three superior court judges to the Nunavut court of justice. As I indicated earlier, all of them will be resident in the territory itself.
The Minister of Justice is committed to finding candidates who are qualified, experienced and committed to the north to be appointed to the Nunavut bench. The hon. minister is on record with a commitment to consult the people of the north to ensure that appointments reflect and respond to the unique demands, culture and conditions in Nunavut.
The establishment of a single level trial court in Nunavut represents the starting point in developing a justice system which meets the needs of the people it serves.
The Department of Justice is committed to working closely with the interim commissioner of Nunavut, Nunavut organizations and the new Nunavut government when it is established to help further adapt the justice system to the needs of the Nunavut people.
For example, one very important issue relates to the training of justices of the peace to ensure that they will have the ability to complement the work of the Nunavut court of justice by resolving less serious matters at the community level. While the training of justices of the peace is a territorial responsibility, the Department of Justice will do everything it can to assist the new territory in this important task.
Another aspect of the administration of justice which will continue to be an important aspect of justice delivery in the north is the use of both community justice committees and youth justice committees. Continued funding for both committees will be the responsibility of the new territory.
Youth justice committees are extensively used on Baffin Island and deal with youth in a pre-charge context. Youth justice committees are also recognized as alternative measures programs pursuant to the Young Offenders Act. Both the youth justice committees and the community justice committees have been and will continue to be an important part of the broader justice system in Nunavut.
The creation of a single level trial court brings with it high hopes for a court structure which is more responsive to the needs of the people of Nunavut, the people it stands to serve.
The new system proposed in Bill C-57 is unprecedented. There will be a need therefore to monitor and evaluate the system in the years ahead to ensure that it achieves the objective of providing an efficient, effective and accessible justice system in the north. The Department of Justice is working with the interim commissioner's office to design a monitoring and evaluating system to identify problems and possible changes to the court system which might be needed.
The creation of Nunavut in a mere four months from now is a momentous event in Canadian history. It signals a realization of a 25 year old dream of the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. It signals the creation of the first single level trial court for criminal, civil and family matters in Canada. It signals a new chapter in partnership between the Inuit and the federal government. As one witness indicated to the standing committee last week, it signals the dawn of a new age of hope for the Nunavut people.
The evidence given before the standing committee last week by Miss Leena Evic-Twerdin, policy adviser for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is noteworthy in this regard. I quote:
Today we are beginning the process of reclaiming our identity and our ways. It is the opportunity that is unfolding in front of us that is allowing us to begin the process. Nunavut is that opportunity and everything that falls under the establishment of Nunavut is a chance for a positive impact on the future of the Inuit. The successful passage of Bill C-57 will mean a better opportunity for Nunavut and its people. That is why we are here to encourage you to support the bill.
I thank all the members of the committee and of this House on behalf of the minister for their attention today. I ask for their support in the speedy passage of Bill C-57 so that we may make history together.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-57.
This legislation comes down to the creation of the Nunavut court of justice, a single level of court to handle all trials in this new territory. Instead of two levels of court as we have in the rest of the country, Nunavut will have this single court. This is required because of the small population of approximately 26,000 spread over such a vast territory with only about 25 settlements. This only makes sense.
Three superior court judges are to be appointed. These individuals will be tasked with all matters. While it is unfortunate to have these highly expensive and qualified judges being assigned the responsibility over all types of cases regardless of importance, there appears to be little alternative. It does not make sense to transport a federal level judge and a territorial level judge to each community when one judge could come in a deal with all cases available for adjudication. We all understand that most of these communities are isolated and remote. Judges are not available except from centralized and more populated areas.
The bill amends a number of other pieces of Canadian law but these are mere consequential changes. A number of our acts use procedures or terminology which must be altered to recognize the new territory of Nunavut, the Nunavut court of justice and the single level of court.
My Reform colleagues and I have expressed our very serious concerns over the methods used to select our superior court judges. We have expressed our opposition to the recent pay increases granted to judges in Bill C-37 at a time when Canadian families are under intense financial pressures. We also expressed concerns surrounding the creation of this new territory and its untold costs. However, those issues are not relevant to this debate.
Nunavut is a reality. As I have said, this legislation is highly practical for that reality. All citizens of Canada are entitled to an efficient court system.
If the Nunavut court of justice model proves successful, and I am sure we all hope that it does, perhaps we will see it replicated in other remote, sparsely populated parts of this vast country we call Canada. That would be up to the provincial or territorial governments concerned.
There has been some opposition expressed to this legislation as it is currently worded, most notably by the Dene of northern Manitoba whose traditional territories extend into Nunavut. It is my hope that fair and just minded peopled, both north and south of 60, will work together toward a solution agreeable to all.
The Reform Party will be supporting the legislation. It makes the most practical sense both for Canadians and for the people of this new territory to be known as Nunavut.
I extend to the people of our newest territory our best wishes and look at the legislation as a step toward further self-determination. We wish them all the best toward seeing their dream realized.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as an associate member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak again today on C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other Acts in consequence.
My position and impressions with respect to Bill C-57 are really no different than the comments made at second reading. We were favourable then, and we are favourable now. Ever since this bill was introduced in the House, we have wanted to see it passed as promptly as possible.
The purpose of Bill C-57 is to amend the Criminal Code so that it reflects the realities of the new territory of Nunavut and to make it possible to establish an operational government before April 1, 1999, the territory's official launch date. It is therefore very important for this bill to be passed so that the people of Nunavut may be prepared and equipped with all the necessary tools to be equal to the challenge of this new government.
Bill C-57 is part of the process that began in 1992 with the territorial land agreement setting out the legal and political framework of the new territory of Nunavut. Approved in 1993, the creation of Nunavut is supported by Bill C-39, which we debated in the House last year and which provides for the holding of a legislative election, while facilitating the transition and legitimizing the process. Bill C-57 is part of this ongoing process. It is the last building block, as it were, in the political and legal structure that will allow the inhabitants of this territory to at last be ready for April 1999.
We are on the threshold of 1999. It is high time to give the inhabitants of Nunavut all the political, and more particularly in the case before us today, all the legislative instruments they will need. This will enable them to have a court that meets their needs and that is closer to them. The creation of a trial court, as provided in Bill C-57, is vital to full government autonomy.
Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949—I said “Confederation” but I should have said “federation”, because we know that the successive federal governments, without any consultation, threw out Confederation and replaced it with a federation.
Since 1949, Canada's borders have not been changed. This indicates clearly just what a historic moment the creation of Nunavut represents and also explains the importance of its creation to the people living there. The Northwest Territories will therefore be divided into two separate entities.
Nunavut covers some two million square kilometres and is north of the 60th parallel. It is divided into three regions and includes 28 communities. Eighty per cent of the population is Inuit. “Nunavut” is a lovely word from their language meaning “our land”.
Needless to say, life in the Canadian far north is very different from life as we know it in our big cities. The size of the territory alone explains the need to pass legislation more suited to these northern communities' needs and realities. I firmly believe Bill C-57 meets that need.
With the establishment of a single level trial court and the broader powers accorded it, the judges will be more versatile and better able to meet the specific needs of the people of Nunavut.
I would like to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-57, which enables thousands of native people to move closer to solid, viable and more relevant self-government.
Bill C-39 passed in the House last year permits the Inuit in Nunavut to administer their land through a legislative assembly elected by universal suffrage. We supported the bill at the time. It gave form to more than 25 years of negotiations and enabled the Inuit, a great people within Canada, to take their place on the continent by controlling their own destiny.
Bill C-39 provides for a transition period and for the powers of the federal and territorial governments to be devolved to the Nunavut territorial government. This legislation also amends the Constitution Act, 1867, so that the people of this territory will be represented in the House of Commons and the Senate.
It ensures that representatives of the Inuit of Nunavut will be able to serve their constituents in an operational legislature as soon as their territory is officially created.
While Bill C-39 dealt with many issues, some of them must still be addressed to ensure the proper functioning of the new territory at the political and legislative levels. Indeed, much work remains to be done between now and April 1, 1999. That is why it is essential that Bill C-57 be passed as soon as possible to complete the establishment of the territory's legal and administrative components.
In order to be ready by April 1999, Nunavut must have at its disposal all the necessary legislative instruments now. This is what Bill C-57 is all about, and we support it. The transfer of certain territorial and federal jurisdictions to Nunavut is not a simple matter, but it is nonetheless vital and meets the needs of the far north.
This bill establishes a single level trial court system for the territory of Nunavut. This tribunal, to be known as the Nunavut court of justice, is established to provide an efficient and accessible court structure capable of meeting the unique needs of Nunavut, while at the same time maintaining rights equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere in Canada.
In concrete terms, this means that the new Nunavut territory will now have its own court of justice. This court of justice will replace the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories as the superior court, and the territorial court as the lower court. Bill C-57 makes further amendments to the Nunavut Act, passed in 1993, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power.
The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut court of justice
The senior judge of each of the three territories must be a member of the Canadian Judicial Council. Indeed, given the expanded jurisdiction of that tribunal, it is important to make sure that the judges will be competent to hear cases from the lower and superior courts, with the exception of those cases that come under the jurisdiction of specialized and administrative tribunals.
The bill also amends the Criminal Code to provide for new procedures for the court of justice and it includes a whole range of legal considerations. The creation of this court of justice will ensure a flexible and efficient legal process for the whole territory of Nunavut. By making the court competent to hear any case, whether it involves a minor wrongdoing or a serious criminal offence, we give the people of the territory access to a service that is more consistent with its reality.
From now on, when a judge travels to some small community in Nunavut, he will have broader powers. It must be understood that the multiplicity of jurisdictions, in other words a multifaceted court system, useful in high density urban centres, is not necessarily useful in the proper administration of justice in a territory such as Nunavut. This is why legislation must be passed on this issue and to permit the necessary changes to be made to the various laws that, up to now, have granted various jurisdictions authority to hear various cases.
Bill C-57 provides the changes needed for the establishment and operation of this court of justice, and it also meets the wishes of the promoters of self-government.
I add that we support the bill and that we will continue to support the principle of actions that, like Bill C-57, enable peoples to find the tools they need to reach their full potential.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member for Manicouagan wishes, he will have approximately 30 minutes after question period when debate resumes.

Statements By Members
Dalian, ChinaMr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month while travelling in China with the Canada-China Business Association we had the opportunity to visit Dalian in northeast China.
It was a memorable trip. Dalian is truly one of the most beautiful and most dynamic cities in China. It has one of the largest ports in China, comparable to our own port of Vancouver with which it is twined. It has a modern, efficient industrial infrastructure.
This dynamic city is led by an equally dynamic mayor, Mayor Bo Xalai. His obvious love of his city and the people who live there and their admiration for him were marvellous to behold.
Home to a major international fashion festival and an extremely competitive soccer team, Dalian is a city I am sure we will all hear more of in the future.
On behalf of the members of the Canada-China Legislative Association I thank Mayor Bo for his hospitality and wish him and his city the very best in the new year.
HealthMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, someone much wiser than I once said “where there is no vision, the people perish”. That is exactly what we have happening in the country today. There is no visionary leadership coming from the government, especially in the huge matter of health care, and people are literally perishing.
As long as there are 188,000 sick and dying people on waiting lists, as long as wards are being closed, as long as 1,400 plus doctors are moving to the States and as long as nurses are being laid off, people will continue to suffer.
There have been $7 billion in cuts to the provinces. The Liberals cannot blame the provinces. They cannot blame any other party. They must accept the blame. They gutted health care to preserve their precious spending spree.
Now the government tells us that it has a $10 billion budget surplus. Next year is not the time to put this money back into health care. Canadians need that money now. They have been waiting for five years. In that time how many people have perished because of inadequate health care?
Robert SimpsonMr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Robert Simpson, a resident of Thunder Bay, founder and past president of the Thunder Bay Salmon Association was an honorary recipient of the Recreational Fisheries Award presented by His Excellency Romeo LeBlanc, Governor General of Canada.
For years Mr. Simpson led the battle to enhance our fisheries resources. His efforts were not for his own gain, but for the benefit of Canadians and our recreational fisheries. He has done his part to give us a richer resource and has acted as a model of public spirit in northwestern Ontario.
It is really gratifying to see that the fine work of anglers, outfitters, guides and other people who care about recreational fishing are being recognized.
We should all know that recreational fishing is an important contributor to our country's economy, culture and heritage. No one knows this better than Bob Simpson.
NunavutMrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our opportunity as residents of Nunavut to manage our own affairs will come in about 117 days with the establishment of Canada's third territory, Nunavut, on April 1, 1999. To do this we need to have trained personnel.
Part of the challenge in creating a civil servant employment base representative of the population has been met by the innovative Sivuluiqtit Nunavut Management Development Program created by Nunavut Arctic College and the Canadian Centre for Management Development.
This partnership designed a very effective program that allows participants to continue working in their home communities with periods of intense formal training in Ottawa and other centres to expose them to best practices management theories and Inuit traditional ways.
A unique element of this program is the utilization of mentors and elders, giving Sivuluiqtit a dimension unlike any other training program. The success rate alone is testament to the effectiveness of this holistic approach to training.
TobaccoMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, cigarette smoking is a scourge in our society, especially and regrettably for youth.
Over 40,000 Canadians die each year from tobacco related diseases. Eighty-five per cent of smokers in Canada make the decision to smoke before the age of 18. What 12 year old thinks about lung cancer or heart disease as they light up their first cigarette? The answer is, a child who has been educated about the dire consequences of tobacco use.
This government has heard, has listened and is acting. The tobacco control initiative allocated $50 million for research program development, public education and enforcement of legislation; legislation restricting access by young people to tobacco products, restricting promotion of tobacco products and empowering the imposition of health warnings on package.
Bill C-42 will impose a complete ban on tobacco sponsorship by 2003. We are committed to spending $100 million to reduce tobacco use, $50 million of which will be targeted to young Canadians. We are committed to win this tobacco war. Young Canadians, indeed Canadians of all ages, will be much better for it.
Canadian FarmersMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the crisis in agriculture has reached new heights. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan has called on the Clinton administration to begin formal trade actions against Canada because of the deceptive trade practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Our farmers are reeling under the effects of this avoidable agricultural crisis. They are facing bankruptcy because of low commodity prices. They can hardly afford to feed their families, let alone their livestock. Worst of all, they have been blindsided by this government which stands idly by while they are being bullied by foreign politicians.
The day after tomorrow borders from Minnesota to Washington State will be blockaded. American producers are rallying public opinion, demanding an end to the predatory tactics of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have done nothing to guarantee Canadian producers that their products will continue to flow freely across the border.
How much more abuse are our farmers going to have to take before this government steps in and demands an equal playing field?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year has been a very difficult one for Canada's farmers. A crisis is unfolding in Canada's agriculture industry.
This industry, which is Canada's third largest employer, is suffering great losses and is facing financial ruin. Farmers in my constituency of Waterloo—Wellington have approached me about their great concern for this problem. Hog and grain producers across our country are facing horrible circumstances in relation to commodity prices. Financial forecasters are expecting conditions to get even worse.
These circumstances are beyond their control since many of the problems have their roots in Asia and elsewhere in the world.
Family farms are a very important resource in Canada. They are the cornerstones of our country and when they experience difficulty all Canadians are affected.
The national farm income crisis is a sad realty and one that needs to be dealt with and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is doing so. I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the government and the Minister of Agriculture and thank him on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington for his help on this very important issue.
Professional SportsMr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it appears that being in power gives one the right to choose. Yesterday, the Liberals made a choice.
They see an urgency to use the budget surplus to create new tax credits worth hundreds of millions of dollars to satisfy the bottomless appetites of the sport millionaires. The Bloc Quebecois totally disagrees with this and we beg the Minister of Finance not to give in to his irresponsible colleagues.
After the $42 billion in cuts to federal transfers to the provinces, millions of Quebeckers and Canadians believe money must be reinvested in health. Employment insurance must be improved, for it has become poverty insurance for the unemployed, and surplus insurance for the government. Taxes on the middle class must be reduced.
The public will never agree to this government's giving in to these spoiled kids who want millions just to push a puck around. When I was with the New York Rangers, we played mainly for the honour—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul.
The Prime MinisterMr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the sentiments of Canadians and give many congratulations to the Prime Minister.
Last night our Prime Minister received the Beth Shalom Synagogue Humanitarian of the Year Award. It is richly deserved by a man whose vision of Canada is one nation wanting the very best for her citizens, a nation with a soul for humanity for all.
In accepting the award the Prime Minister said: “Canada is a nation where there is no higher calling than helping people build better lives for themselves and their families. It is a country that is worth protecting and fighting for”.
With his characteristic humility he continued: “This award is more about Canada than anything I have accomplished in my career”.
These are truly the words of a man whose habit of the heart and habit of mind throughout his entire political life have remained focused on ensuring one Canada for all. I, along with my colleagues in this House, salute our Prime Minister.
Social UnionMr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the comments recently made in private by the Liberal caucus and the Prime Minister clearly indicate that the federal government has no intention of co-operating in good faith with the provinces to create winning conditions for the social union.
The Prime Minister puts his love of power before the needs of the country. Ten premiers and all the opposition members of this House support a strengthening of the social union. We want to improve health care, education and the other social programs in Canada.
Canadians have had enough of the status quo. On Monday, Quebeckers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister.
It is time to show leadership. It is time to set partisan politics aside. It is time to create the winning conditions for a new Canada.
Violence Against WomenMrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989 the reality of the issue of violence against women was forcefully brought home to Canadians and to the world community when 14 young women were gunned down at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
As a result, Canadians from coast to coast to coast faced that tragedy, first with profound shock and horror and then with determination and the conviction that violence against women must end.
Today, to honour the memory of those 14 young women, I urge all of my colleagues in the House and Canadians across this great country to pause and reflect on December 6, the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.
We must all collectively work together to effect real change and to ensure that no woman must live or die in the shadow of violence.
Universal Declaration Of Human RightsMr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of hope. Fifty years ago a group of men and women from diverse cultures, traditions and faiths came together to offer humanity an extraordinary vision of how the world could be.
They adopted the Universal Declaration of Human rights which, half a century later, continues to address directly what is necessary for a life of dignity for every human being.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a proclamation of the most fundamental rights to which a human being is entitled, written in large part by a Canadian. It was to represent a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations. It is a message of hope, equality, liberation and empowerment. It is a message to all who are committed to freedom, justice and peace in the world.
On behalf of my party and for all of our children, I encourage Canadians to reflect upon these values and celebrate human rights day on December 10.
Violence Against WomenMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1989, 14 young women were killed in Montreal. As we know, violence is a worldwide problem. Everywhere, women and young girls are victims of psychological and physical violence, including rape, assault, mutilation, sex slavery, dowry crime and infanticide.
We have a collective responsibility to ensure safety, equality and justice for women and their children. I join the Urgence-Femmes organization in marking the national day of action to fight violence against women, on Sunday, December 6. To show that we will not tolerate such crimes, the Urgence-Femmes team is asking all of us to light a candle and put it in our window, on Sunday.
I invite all Canadians and Quebeckers to say no to violence against women through this symbolic gesture.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians commemorate December 6 as the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. 1998 marks nearly a full decade since the tragic deaths of 14 promising young women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
Let us remember them by name: Geneviève Bergeron, 21; Hélène Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Marie Klueznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St. Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Langanière, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, 21. These are the beloved daughters, sisters and friends who are deeply missed to this day.
Canada is that much more poorer because of the remarkable promise lost in these young lives. By remembering them and acknowledging our collective loss, may we be inspired to create a peaceful society, a society where gender based violence must never again cut short the lives of women.
Guysborough CountyMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is making decisions that are costing jobs in Guysborough County, Nova Scotia.
In July I joined with the town of Canso, the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op and the local chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers in supporting Seafreez's request to the minister that the Canso plant continue to be allowed to process turbot caught by foreign offshore vessels.
Had the minister acted promptly, 300 jobs would have been created during the first six months of 1999. Moreover, Canso trawlermen would have had the opportunity to work on offshore vessels.
Instead, DFO waited five months before finally granting the request from Seafreez. Instead of 300 jobs for six months, the people of Canso and surrounding communities will be lucky to get 150 jobs for six weeks.
Meanwhile, there will be no offshore jobs for the trawlermen because of DFO's unacceptable foot-dragging.
On behalf of Guysborough County, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to be more prompt in his decisions and start to work with our local people in bringing prosperity and hope to the local fishery workers and their families.
The EconomyMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is good news this morning. November 1998 marked the fifth consecutive month of economic growth in Canada.
In November 103,000 new jobs were created, the unemployment rate fell to 8% and 60.3% of Canadians were employed. This marks the first time since 1991 that the employment rate has been above 60%.
So far in 1998, 425,000 new jobs have been created, more than were created in any full year in the 1990s. The vast majority of these jobs were in the private sector or in self-employment.
The government's well balanced approach to getting the fiscal house in order, creating the environment to grow the economy, while at the same time providing help to those who are struggling is paying off with a brighter future for all Canadians.
The Kyoto ProtocolMr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this week marks the one year anniversary of the signing of the Kyoto protocol regarding Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 25% by the year 2010.
This is one of the most important economic issues facing Canada, yet the government still has no economic analysis of what that reduction will mean to Canadians. Independent studies show that the cost will be staggering and that Canada will be more adversely affected than almost any other developed country.
Last month negotiations in Buenos Aires failed to resolve critical issues such as mechanism for the implementation or signing on of developed countries.
The reality is we signed on to a bad deal for Canada. The environment minister agreed to reductions without knowing what they meant in economic terms and there is little hope that the reductions agreed to will be met.
Once again the government has given Canada a black eye on the international stage.

Oral Question Period
TaxationMr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on January 1 the Liberal government and the finance minister will take yet another step toward the biggest tax hike in the history of Canada.
With the CPP premiums going up more than twice as much as the measly EI premium refund or decrease, when we do the math it works out to another net tax hike for Canadians, yet another pound of flesh cut out of Canadian family budgets.
The parliamentary secretary told the truth when he said he would take the blame for the Liberal assault on health care.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have stood up and praised the government for the fact that our policies have brought about the lowest unemployment rate in almost 10 years.
He is missing the fact that this means money in the pockets of millions of Canadians who are working rather than being unemployed if conditions had remained the same as they were before we took office.
The hon. member talks about tax hikes. He is wrong. He should remember the tax cuts in the budget of February 1998. Millions of dollars of tax cuts—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, if they want to talk about tax cuts, they should talk to Ralph Klein and Mike Harris. Over 60% of all the jobs created in Canada over the last two years were created by Klein and Harris.
If the government does not get the message that tax hikes kill jobs, why does it not simply follow the lead of Mike Harris and Ralph Klein and what they did in those provinces?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we know about creating jobs. One and a half million jobs have been created in Canada since this government took office.
If jobs increased in Alberta, certainly the praise for that has to come to the federal government as much as any other level of government. Furthermore, contrary to what the Reform Party says, those provinces are still integral parts of the government and the country of Canada. We deserve praise as much as—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the figures do not lie. Let us do it slowly. Tax cuts in Alberta, increase in employment. Tax cuts in Ontario, increase in jobs. Those are the facts. The C.D. Howe Institute says the CPP increase of 73% will cost $13 billion in GDP and 200,000 jobs by 2003.
How on earth can the government's high tax policies contribute to the Canadian economy? How can they create jobs? They can only lose jobs for Canadian workers.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that the adjustments in Canada pension plan premiums were agreed to by the very premiers, Klein and Harris, he is citing. Is that not correct?
If that is the case, he should go back to Klein and Harris if he disagrees with them but I know that would hurt his strange efforts to unite the right. It is a strange way to do, attacking Klein and Harris for a program they agreed to.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for this government to say it has increased employment is like me saying I lost 25 pounds at Christmas and not telling anybody that I gained 30. This is ridiculous.
The fact is that after January 1 every employer and every employee will be sending more money to Ottawa. Money sent to Ottawa means money not at home to create jobs.
Why will the government not admit this and start dealing honestly with people?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants honesty he should talk honestly about his weight. He is certainly not a heavyweight when it comes to asking his question.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be the highest court in the land. In any other court if the minister answered a question like that he would be in contempt of court. I want an answer to this question, not flippant responses. I want to know when the government will start reducing the total payroll tax load on employers and employees so we can get people working again.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, there was just an announcement of a substantial decrease in employment insurance premiums. That is a tax cut by their standards. In the last budget we announced cuts for lower and middle income Canadians worth billions of dollars. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the Reform Party voted against these tax cuts. So much for sincerity.
Professional SportsMrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we know, the report on sports was released yesterday. It contains many recommendations for the provision of financial assistance to professional sports. According to our calculations, if the government acted on all these recommendations, sports tycoons would be reaping more than $600 million in hidden subsidies over the next two years.
Will the minister who, yesterday, considered this report to be an excellent report admit today that the measures in support of professional sports proposed by the committee really do not make any sense?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member does not know what she is talking about. She should have known, having sat on this committee, that 68 of the 69 recommendations pertained to amateur sport. Now, with the help of all parties who take an interest in amateur sport, we will be addressing these recommendations.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, for once the minister should be more on the ball. If she had read the recommendations, she would have realized that all 69 recommendations, not 68, deal with amateur sport. Once again, her incompetence is showing.
The message this report is sending to sports tycoons is “Wait, do not leave just now; the Canadian taxpayers are prepared to stuff your pockets before you move to the United States”, is it not?
That is the real message.
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have students from the Terre-des-Jeunes school of Bonaventure with us today. If we take them as an example, a 10% increase in the level of physical activity of Canadians—
Suzanne Tremblay: Answer the question.
Sheila Copps: —would translate into a $5 billion saving in the health system.
So, why does the hon. member not want to invest in Canada's youth? What does she have against the 200,000 Canadian soccer players? Why does she not want—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are already helping professional sports teams. Corporate boxes and tickets are 50% deductible. Sports facilities can be written off, and so forth. Sports millionaires receive special treatment and then turn around and squeeze hundreds of millions more out of the public, and people are already fed up.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage really think that increasing the tax write-off to 100% for corporate boxes, lowering the taxes sports millionaires pay to American levels, and writing off professional sports facilities in one year, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues, will fly with Canadian taxpayers?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, there were 69 recommendations in the report. Sixty-eight of those recommendations spoke to the importance of amateur sport and fitness for young Canadians. All Canadians know how important health is, particularly for young people. I would like to underscore the findings of the committee that if all Canadians were active, annual savings to health care for heart disease alone would be $776 million.
I want to invest in young Canadians. I want to invest in amateur sport and I want to keep Canadians happy, healthy—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, that really takes the cake. We are talking about sports millionaires, not amateur sport. Once again, she is lying.
For three years now, the government has been telling us it has nothing to offer unemployed workers, nothing to offer those who are ill, nothing to offer hepatitis C victims, nothing in the way of pay equity, nothing for the poor and the middle class. It has nothing for—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. It has been confirmed that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot accused the minister of heritage of lying. I would ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to withdraw that statement forthwith.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
But this is a government we have been after for months to help the poor and the unemployed—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know it hurts to lose the majority in an election.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Sheila Copps: But what matters is that we are doing—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Sheila Copps: —an in-depth analysis of the amateur sport recommendations. Give us the time to examine the report in its entirety and we will—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. After question period we will deal with the question of the request to withdraw the statement. We will go now to the hon. member for Halifax.
Human RightsMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today the world celebrates the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.
On this day the federal government, despite its bragging, has been caught by the United Nations and roundly condemned for abusing the basic human rights of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The government has consistently ignored the pleas of Canadians. Will it now listen to the UN and reverse the policies that are creating so much hardship for so many Canadians?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the UN report has not been formally presented to Canada. We have not had a chance therefore to review the text, but I think we have made serious and important efforts to combat child poverty. We have introduced the national child tax benefit, $1.7 billion a year for families with poor children. We have increased deductions for child care. We have provided a family income supplement for some 350,000 low income parents on employment insurance. We have introduced tax relief for low and middle income Canadians, taking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Halifax.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the government should be humiliated by the two very different Canadas that exist today for our citizens. But what does it do instead? It continues to boast. I am humiliated and so are most Canadians.
When will the government clean up its act and respect its international obligations? When will the government respect the rights of all Canadians?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are respecting our international obligations but even more important, we are respecting our obligation to Canadians through the kinds of programs I have just outlined. I am sure we will continue these efforts to do more and more for low income Canadians and all Canadians.
Parliament HillMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister said in 1991: “The rule is simple. You take the blame when something is wrong. You do not finger anybody else but yourself. This is what a person of dignity does”.
Does the Prime Minister support the decision of the public works minister to not take the blame for cost overruns on Parliament Hill renovations and to instead blame a civil servant and ruin his career?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the hon. member is referring to. Maybe he should be more clear. I did not blame any public servant. My officials are doing a very good job in my department.
We are preparing a long term plan. I did not ruin anybody's career. Perhaps, if the member wants to be more specific, I can answer.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Mr. Glen Duncan. I will quote what the Prime Minister also said: “Every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for his department. If there is any bungling, nobody will be singled out”.
The cost of parliament renovations are out of control, but the minister is more interested in hanging his own staff out to dry.
Will the Prime Minister direct his public works minister to take full responsibility for these cost overrides?
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am taking full responsibility for my department every day. The work plan that has been approved is within budget.
We are looking at the complete long term plan. When that long term plan and the budget are approved I will announce it. The member does not know what he is talking about. He does not even know how this place works.
HockeyMr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals announced an emergency aid package. No, not for farmers. No, not for hepatitis C victims. Guess what? It is for millionaire hockey players and billionaire club owners.
How could the Liberal government possibly justify government handouts to rich hockey players and club owners while it is nickel and diming starving farmers?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the government made no such announcement.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sports committee got one thing right yesterday. It blamed our hockey woes on Canada's low dollar and high taxes. That is true.
How can Canadian teams compete with their American counterparts? Farmers and businesses have the same problem. There is one solution to all this. It should cut taxes and get our dollar back up to where it should be.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Is professional hockey's number one problem not the finance minister?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I am amazed at the level of questions coming from the Reform Party. This one tops them all.
I cannot believe that Reformers would actually take the time and spend taxpayers money to ask such a ridiculous question. Are those the priorities of Canadians? I think not.
Montreal Convention CentreMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
The expansion of the convention centre is important for the Montreal region. With double the area, this significant economic infrastructure could draw 15% of the American convention market, thus creating 2,732 jobs.
While his government is considering paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to sports millionaires, will the minister acknowledge that, by refusing to become involved in the expansion of the convention centre, he is undermining Montreal's competitive position in the international convention market and causing the loss of thousands of jobs held by ordinary people?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the question is erroneous.
I must say that we did hear Montrealers' views on the convention centre. At this point, there is no program available to help with this project. There was the infrastructure program, which was used for the Quebec City congress centre. It was also used in Toronto for the same purpose. However, it was decided not to use it for the Montreal convention centre.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, here again, the minister is refusing to do his part for Montreal, whereas his colleague from Bourassa says he is prepared to support the construction of seven new stadiums, seven white elephants, elsewhere in Canada in order to support a potential application to hold the World Cup.
Does this government's priorities lie in the sports fantasies of the member for Bourassa or in Montreal's economic development?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, what I find sad about Bloc Quebecois members is that they are trying, as usual, to talk out of both sides of their mouths.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Sheila Copps: On the one hand, they say they want money invested in infrastructure, on the other hand, they are saying, as the member for Rimouski—Mitis mentioned in the report, that they oppose such investments. I hope the two members will consult each other so they will speak with a single voice for once.
AgricultureMr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on December 6 American farmers will be blockading the Canada-U.S. border. This will only add to the economic problems faced by Canadian farmers.
For the past two months the government has been telling us that its trade working panel will resolve all these issues. We find out today that it is a total sham. It is resolving nothing.
Will the minister finally get out from under his desk, talk to the Americans and tell them that we will not take this harassment any more? Or, does he have to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage for permission to do that?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm today that we have signed an understanding with the Americans. It is a good result from the Canadian perspective.
There are no quantitative limitations, no caps, on Canadian exports. There is no new audit of Canadian grain marketing systems. It is agreed that all sanitary issues at our border will be resolved on the basis of sound science and sound science alone. There will be no political interference.
We have built in insulation against U.S. trade harassment possibilities, either self-initiated by the administration or provoked by individual states. We want to diffuse the border tensions and facilitate—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we know the border is to be closed. You know the border is to be closed. The minister has sat and done absolutely nothing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask the hon. member to direct his question through the Chair.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has done absolutely nothing with regard to this issue.
Will the minister finally do his job, or does he want me to go down there? If I have to, I will take the hon. member for Wild Rose with me and get it straightened out.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, more specifically Canada and the United States reaffirmed their commitment as contained in the international trade agreement to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to meet the obligations contained in the agreement, including their observance by state and provincial governments.
The United States has an obligation to ensure that its citizens obey the law.
Ice Breaking PolicyMr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, eight days ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with officials from the Canadian shipping industry regarding the ice breaking issue. He promised he would contact them again in seven days to inform them of his intentions. But industry officials have yet to hear from the minister.
If the minister did not bother to keep his word, will he at least inform the House of what he intends to do with the industry's counterproposal?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do keep my word. As I told the House over the past two weeks, we carefully considered the alternate proposal made by the shipping and industrial coalition of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.
I am pleased to announce today that we have accepted the coalition's request to reduce fees. The new fees will come into effect on December 21. The objective will be to reduce the fees by 50%.
Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I must say we are very pleased with the minister's decision. However, since the industry's counterproposal does not expressly deal with the specific issue of the ferries, which are a public service, will the minister immediately pledge to exempt St. Lawrence ferries from any type of fees?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I often said over the past two weeks, I intend to take a close look at the fees for ferries. I will reduce the fees by 50% for the coalition, and by at least 60% for ferries.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, accountants hired to probe apparent financial irregularities as a result of complaints by grassroots natives of the Stoney Indian Reserve have now referred 43 cases to the RCMP for criminal investigation.
Many other natives across the country are calling for forensic audits on their reserves. Does the minister not believe that grassroots natives know when things are wrong on their reserves?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the results of a forensic audit at the Stoney First Nation. This was an extraordinary measure taken in extraordinary circumstances.
I can confirm that 43 files were referred to the RCMP for review. We got other recommendations which will help that first nation work toward building a strong, accountable and transparent government.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why does the minister only listen to the chiefs and councils when the grassroots people report injustices?
Why does the minister talk only to the chiefs and councils? Why does the hon. minister not listen to the people who are really in need?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members opposite why they think the appropriate response is to start at the extreme.
A forensic audit is an extreme measure. Our view and our belief is that we have to work in partnership with first nations communities so that we can build sustainable resolutions to very difficult problems.
Water ContaminationGhislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on October 20, the Minister of Transport acknowledged his department's responsibility in polluting the water table around the beaches in Sept-Îles.
To date, he has offered only weak excuses and bottled water.&gt;
What is preventing the minister from making a firm commitment to resolve quickly and completely the problems his department caused? People's health is at risk.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the Department of Transport was part of the problem and we have put measures in place to improve the situation.
We are working with local authorities to resolve the problem, and I think that in the future there will be a solution for everyone in the region.
Foreign AffairsMr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The International Court of Justice has ruled today that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear Spain's complaint on Canada's arrest of the Spanish fishing vessel Estai in 1994 just outside our 200 mile territorial zone.
What are the implications of that decision?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we very much welcome the decision of the court which respects Canada's reservation in terms of the conservation of stock outside the 200 mile limit.
The position we have taken all along is that negotiation is a much more effective way of dealing with the problem. Negotiation has paid off. We now have agreement with the European Union on quota allocation. Negotiations have led to the straddling stocks convention at the United Nations.
I look forward very much to consideration by the House of the legislation to implement the straddling stocks convention so we can pursue that good arrangement to conserve fishing stocks around the world.
Human RightsMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after crying for the release of convicted kidnappers in Brazil, the foreign affairs minister is begging for the release of a convicted murderer in Texas, is helping this convicted murderer.
Why has the minister ignored Mr. Michael Kapoustin, a Canadian citizen who has been held without charges in a Bulgarian jail for the last three years?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the tone of the hon. member's question is quite offensive. We are not going around begging from anybody.
All we are saying to country after country is that there is a Vienna convention on consular agreements which makes every country responsible for ensuring that nationals arrested in another country have access to that government, access to their families and certain rights that must be respected.
We will do everything to ensure that Canadians who are arrested in other countries have their rights under international law properly respected by any country that wants to turn them over.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the list of ACOA failures grows. Taxpayers can kiss another cool million of their hard earned dollars goodbye because the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has failed again.
Now Planta Dei, a herbal remedy company in New Brunswick, is closing its doors after announcing it cannot pay its bills. Marthe Boissonnault, an ACOA employee, says that writing off bad loans is the nature of ACOA's business. Will the minister for ACOA admit that he is going to write off the money and he is going to write off the jobs?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tone and the context of the hon. member's question do not at all indicate the work ACOA does. We take risks and in certain areas where high technology is involved the funding is very difficult to—
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Your tone is terrible.
Fred Mifflin: If you want to know the answer to the question, pay attention.
It is difficult for these companies to get funding from other areas. I would ask the hon. member to comment on some of the difficulties that were experienced by the 35,000 successful projects that have operated in Atlantic Canada for the last 10 years.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders in Manitoba do not agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's self praises. They want a meeting with the Prime Minister.
Intolerable conditions on many reserves have driven them to consider desperate measures. Poverty and unemployment are widespread. Suicide and disease rates are many times higher than the national average. The United Nations has called these conditions subhuman. First nations are tired of the government's token gestures and they are tired of getting the runaround from Indian affairs.
Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with Manitoba's first nation leaders? A simple answer, yes or no?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the litany of concerns that the hon. member brings forward was also presented to us in the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
As a result of that significant documentation, this government has taken new measures through “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” to recognize that we have to build a new structural relationship. We have to focus differently on areas of providing income support. We have to encourage educational curricula that will ensure children stay in school. We have to focus on new methods of providing housing on reserve. This is all part of the government's approach through “Gathering Strength” to ensure aboriginal people in Canada also feel the benefits of this great country.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the land claim agreement for the Nisga'a people is now in the B.C. legislature. It faces bitter opposition from both the Liberal and Reform parties of B.C. So far the only defence and promotion of this agreement has come from the NDP. The minister's department did not acknowledge my request for a briefing.
How would the minister defend and promote this treaty? How will she convince B.C. Liberals that this agreement is essential to move the first nations people out of poverty?
Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is a historic undertaking in the province of British Columbia. Over the past number of months, I have enjoyed being in that province going into communities and talking with municipal and business leaders and individual British Columbians about the importance of this treaty. I am very proud of the recognition our Prime Minister has given to the significance of this treaty and his point that we will introduce legislation to settle the Nisga'a treaty as soon as that legislation is available.
InfrastructureMr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Statistics show that as of 1994, 93% of Canadians served by municipal sewer systems have at least primary sewage treatment. However, in Atlantic Canada more than 50% of the people had no sewage treatment at all.
Does the minister acknowledge a significant regional disparity in the level of sewage treatment in Atlantic Canada as compared with the rest of the nation? Would she not agree that the matter warrants a major federal initiative to reduce that disparity?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, one of the great priorities of this government is to ensure the necessary infrastructure is put in place for all Canadians to enjoy a very decent healthy life. There are disparities across the country.
It was this government some years ago that brought in the $2 billion infrastructure program which involved the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. It was up to local authorities and provinces to choose those priorities. This program could address the concerns of the hon. member.
Norman E. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, given that answer and given the regional disparity in sewage systems in Atlantic Canada, would the minister not agree that major harbour clean-ups in places like St. John's, Newfoundland warrant a special infusion of federal dollars, not token dollars, but a meaningful contribution that will make possible the clean-up of St. John's harbour at least sometime in the next century?
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated earlier, with the infrastructure projects $6.8 billion of good works were extended with the ability of partnerships with governments at all levels to work together.
We hope that at some point in the future there will be another opportunity to continue developing the infrastructure so badly needed in the country and to ensure environmental clean-up is part of the process. The sewers he is talking about are part of that process. We hope he continues to support the government on its infrastructure works.
Ice BreakingJohn Maloney: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Shipping companies in my region have serious concerns that the minister's ice-breaking fees will have serious financial implications possibly leading to business failures. Is the minister prepared to reduce these fees now before the winter season starts?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am. I would like to add to what I said earlier on the subject of ice-breaking fees. First, there will be no moratorium on fees. They will enter into effect on December 21 as originally planned. In addition there will be no changes to the constitutionally protected ferry runs, but for the levels of cost, they will be reduced for ferries 60% over the original proposal, and it will be 50% for other ships.
Aviation SafetyMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have no trouble finding hundreds of millions of dollars to finance their loopy gun registration scheme because they say it is a safety issue, but they cannot find any funds to improve or make adequate aviation inspection services.
The Minister of Transport bragged that 179 inspection positions have been generated in the last few years, but more than 70 of those positions are vacant and the department continues to lose a net average of four inspectors per month.
When will the minister address this real safety issue and why did he provide the House with spurious information?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would never provide the House with spurious information.
The government is all about informing Canadians and members of the opposition with the true facts. I answered the question the other week. We have indeed increased the number of inspectors. I do not deny that because of attrition there are vacancies. This is being addressed by retraining, reclassification and recruitment. The bottom line is that Canada's aviation system is indeed safe.
Gm Plant In BoisbriandMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Auto Workers President Buzz Hargrove has criticized the attitude of the Minister of Industry concerning the situation at the GM plant in Boisbriand.
According to him, “We got a far better response from Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry than from the federal Minister of Industry”.
What does the Minister of Industry have to say to workers who are concerned about the future of the GM plant in Boisbriand and need every possible assistance if their jobs are to be saved?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we have been working in close collaboration with GM management in the discussions on the future of the Boisbriand plant.
I am convinced that a solution can be found. It must be realized that, if GM invests in Boisbriand, some political certainty will be necessary.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
John Manley: The best thing Messrs. Landry and Bouchard can do to help the Boisbriand plant is to declare that there will be no referendum for at least ten years.
AgricultureLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The minister of agriculture has said that farmers might have to wait until after they file their income tax before they can expect a cash payment from the disaster plan. We know that the farmers cannot wait. This is the biggest crisis we have had since the Great Depression.
I would like the minister to answer a couple of direct questions. Can the minister assure the farmers that there will be a bankable announcement before Christmas? Will they have cash in their hands before spring seeding so that they can pay last year's bills before they plant next year's crops?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister's objective is obviously to make the most definitive announcement at the earliest possible date. He and his cabinet colleagues are working very much in that direction.
I would also note that one of the points clearly made by Premier Romanow when he campaigned against former Premier Devine in Saskatchewan was that in dealing with agricultural programs, especially disaster programs, it was important to avoid the ad hockery and the chicanery of Mulroney and Devine. We intend to follow that same pattern.
Lobster FisheryMark Muise: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Halifax Herald stated that lobster catches in St. Mary's Bay were down significantly, suggesting that fisheries could be headed for a disastrous season.
As everyone in this House knows, I have repeatedly called on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to put an end to this illegal lobster fishing before it seriously affects the livelihoods of thousands of commercial lobster fishermen.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans acknowledge that our fishers' worst fears are being realized and that the illegal lobster fishing has led to a decline in catches?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the hon. member's interest in this issue. I can assure him that only yesterday I was in consultation with the premier and minister of fisheries of Nova Scotia. I have also been in consultations with my colleague the solicitor general.
We will be setting up joint federal-provincial task forces to work on the lobster smuggling issue. We will not simply be doing that at the site of the boats and the docks. We will be going after trucks. We will be going on the highways and will be at the border. We will be going after restaurants. Anybody who buys poached lobsters can be sure that they will be prosecuted.
AgricultureMr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the wheat board announced minutes ago an agreement between Canada and the United States. I want to know whether this means that Canada has received a commitment from the United States to foster increased two way trade in agriculture and agri-food products rather than pursuing trade-disrupting political actions.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that is very much the spirit of the agreement. I would repeat that there are no quantitative limits and no caps on Canadians exports. There is no new audit of Canadian grain marketing systems.
It is agreed that all sanitary and phytosanitary issues are to be resolved on the basis of sound science and sound science alone. We have built in insulation against U.S. trade harassment possibilities, either those that are self-initiated by the U.S. administration or those that are launched by individual states.
We want to defuse border tensions and facilitate two way trade. We believe this agreement will help.
PrisonsMr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, inmate Lawrence Stocking blew the whistle on rampant drug use in Canadian prisons. Guess what? He was transferred to a maximum security prison where he mysteriously died.
Why was he transferred? Was it to save this government from the embarrassment of drug use in our prisons?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the inmate in question was transferred because he threatened other inmates. He was therefore moved from a minimum to a maximum security institution.
There are only three inmates in Canada who are not allowed to speak to the media, two of them being Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo. Would the opposition want them to be able to speak to the media?
The EnvironmentMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the second time since 1996, the auditor general concludes in a report that the federal government still does not have a complete picture of the various environmental hazards posed by the 5,000 contaminated federal sites.
What is the Minister of the Environment waiting for to adopt a comprehensive environmental policy to remedy this serious problem?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, this government has a very comprehensive environmental policy that takes into account the concerns of the hon. member. Certainly I will draw her particular concerns to the minister's attention when she returns to the House on Monday.
PovertyMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister crows about the government's care of the poor but the UN committee knows the real story and has slammed the government for an unconscionable level of poverty and homelessness and for the living conditions of aboriginal people. It also slams Canada for its evasiveness. Rather than boasting about what is really a terrible record, is the Deputy Prime Minister proud of the fact that Canada will be the first wealthy nation to violate this important international covenant?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, the government appreciates the research work of the United Nations and we are anxious to read the details of this latest report. But I must point out to the House that the figures on which this report was based were collected prior to 1995.
We have always been very concerned about poverty and that is why we have committed $1.7 billion by 2000 to the national child benefit.
We believe the real solution to poverty is finding people paid work. That is why we are very proud that 1.5 million new jobs have been created since 1993 and especially proud that last month alone 103,000 new jobs were created.
Young OffendersPeter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last spring, the Minister of Justice announced that her government would be introducing a new young offenders bill.
Winter is now at our door, but the minister has not delivered on her promise. Canadians from coast to coast are sick and tired of waiting.
When will the minister act on her promise to introduce the legislation this country so badly needs?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I will answer in French, seeing that the question was put to me in French.
We did respond in the House to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, and the minister will be introducing a new young offenders bill during the next session, whenever it opens.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot I know is a servant of the House. We may have our differences but I know the hon. member respects parliamentary traditions. When I asked the hon. member to withdraw the remark he did so forthwith.
I moved directly to the member for Halifax because in my opinion, and this is the right of the Chair, it was the right thing to do to maintain order in the House. It meant that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot lost his supplementary question. That is just the way it is.
The fact is we will not allow the House to descend into something of which we are not proud.
Points Of OrderCharlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I asked, the Minister of Natural Resources referred to an agreement that was signed between Canada and the United States and read from that agreement. I would ask that the agreement be now tabled in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If a minister or a parliamentary secretary reads verbatim from a specific report, that is the custom.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will be obtaining later today the formal text as signed. I was referring to the notes but they include the specific language that I referred to. I would be happy to present the formal document as soon as it is available, which I presume will be in the next hour.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. I was under the assumption, as were many people, that the minister was quoting from the document.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That has already been dealt with.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which took part in a meeting of the Council of Europe held in Strasbourg, from September 21 to 25, 1998.
Committees Of The HouseMr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, December 1, 1998, the committee has considered Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, and has agreed to report it with one amendment.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance on prebudget consultation.
Nunavut Waters And Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal ActJane Stewart: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut surface rights tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with representatives of all the parties. I seek unanimous consent that the following bills, moved by me and seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau, be deemed adopted at all stages without debate or amendment: Bill C-445 in my name, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Stormont—Dundas, and standing in the list of items outside the order of precedence; a bill in the name of Mr. Stoffer, Sackville—Eastern Shore, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Sackville—Eastern Shore, and standing on the order paper under the heading introduction of private members' bills, item No. 20; a bill in the name of Mr. Dumas, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Argenteuil—Papineau, which has not been on the order paper.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit it may be a breakdown in our party but I am not aware of this and I would have to decline that unanimous consent until we know something. It can be done again later if it is on the fair and square.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I had not asked for unanimous consent. With the consent of the House we will come back to this in a few minutes.
PetitionsLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that expresses concern about refugees being left in limbo after they have been declared convention refugees.
The petition signed by 280 Canadians calls on the government to ensure that refugees are not forced to wait more than two years for landed status.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from 161 people. Basically they are requesting the government follow the recommendations of the Krever report and to compensate those people who contacted hepatitis C outside the timeframe of 1986 to 1990.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of several members of the Olds community in my riding of Wild Rose.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 in order to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male and single female.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents in Ontario who are asking that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of grandparents to have access to or custody of the children.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first bears 831 signatures.
The petitioners call on parliament to enact two strike legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor to be sentenced to life without eligibility for parole or early release whatsoever.
The second group of petitions bears 736 signatures. The petitioners call on parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This would thereby ensure the protection and safety of the victims and the community of such a convicted offender.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 25 signatures.
The petitioners say that in the opinion of the House the government should authorize a proclamation to be issued to the governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies to do likewise in the provinces.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have 53 signatures on the last petition.
These petitioners request that parliament exempt all physical and sexual offenders from the provision of section 742 of the Criminal Code.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition on behalf of citizens throughout Canada who call on the government to comply with article 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and comply with the human rights tribunal decision in the matter of pay equity.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a group of constituents from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey I would like to present the House of Commons with a petition that requests the government, through the Medical Research Council, increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian Multicentre osteoporosis study.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to present two petitions on behalf of constituents of Blackstrap, Saskatchewan. They are both very important.
The first petition deals with the repeal of Bill C-68. I have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 signatures on this petition.
Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with amendments to the Young Offenders Act, specifically reducing the age of eligibility from 12 to 10 years.
Roy H. Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people in the immediate areas of Ottawa, Kanata and Nepean, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition contains over 600 signatures. These people are deeply concerned about the topic of pornography.
The petitioners are asking parliament to pursue changes to legislation that would give municipalities some say and a right to prohibit these activities within their communities.
Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Introduction of Private Members' Bills.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to private members' bills.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Private Members' BusinessBob Kilger: moved:
That the following bills: Bill C-445, in the name of Mr. Kilger (Stormont—Dundas), entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Stormont—Dundas” and standing in the list of items outside the Order of Precedence;
a bill in the name of Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Sackville—Eastern Shore” and standing on the Order Paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”, (item no. 20);
a bill in the name of Mr. Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau) entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Argenteuil—Papineau” and not having appeared on the Notice Paper;
be deemed carried at all stages without debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the chief government whip have unanimous consent to present the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsJohn Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.
The first two petitions implore this House and parliament to enact a bill to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, the second pair of petitions from my riding of Erie—Lincoln is from petitioners who implore this government to enact legislation to authorize a proclamation to be issued by the governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. These petitioners urge the legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-57. I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for permitting me to speak before her. I also want to indicate to the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East.
This bill will amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice. It will also amend other acts as a consequence. It is a very important step in our justice system.
I would commend my colleague from South Shore who has been a strong and vigorous spokesperson, not only on behalf of his riding, but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and all Canadians with respect to his responsibilities as critic for the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.
I also want to take the opportunity to commend the efforts of the hon. member for Nunavut. Although we do not share the same political affiliation, I know the member is deeply committed to achieving progress for her constituents as they enter the 21st century as residents of Canada's newest territory.
Her participation in Tuesday night's hockey game also showed that she is one of the Liberal Party's smoothest skaters. I look forward to hearing her provide some lessons to her less limber and perhaps less timber happy colleagues, especially the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-57 I want to highlight an often overlooked participant in the creation of the Nunavut territory. He was a leader with foresight and vision who pursued an aggressive and activist agenda. He was the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who as prime minister set the wheels in motion to establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claims agreement in 1992. The creation of Nunavut is yet one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion to the Order of Canada. Furthermore, it was under his government, as well as that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark as constitutional affairs minister, that aboriginal people became full participants at formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian history.
It was refreshing to hear the Minister of Finance say a few weeks ago that it was because of the PC government's economic plan that the budget is now balanced. It cannot be stressed enough that it was the previous Progressive Conservative government which gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the constitutional table, a voice through a royal commission, a voice through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and a voice for our Inuit people now through the signing of the Nunavut land claims agreement.
Today we are debating another piece of legislation that was introduced by a government with a proud legacy, that is, the government of the Progressive Conservative Party. Although our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history has shown that it was by and large the Progressive Conservative Party that brought forward these initiatives for the betterment of Canada.
Bill C-57 deals with the best way of providing a court system for Nunavut, which is a new and expansive territory. There have been those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object, on the basis of jurisdictional concerns, that this bill would create an intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that this bill might somehow violate the equality provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms and create constitutional problems. I believe this piece of legislation addresses those problems in a fair and practical way.
As the justice critic for our party, I do not share the objections that have been raised by some opposition members. Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit people will form a strong majority of the Nunavut population; 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of the overall size of Canada, yet its population is only 22,000, less than one-quarter of 1% of the entire population.
In that context, let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden and one-fifth the size of China. With those expansive territorial boundaries we must factor in population distribution. Nunavut only has one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of its physical territory. Canada, as a whole, has nearly three people living per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square kilometre.
Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not only unique to Canada, they are unique to the entire world. For example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highways.
Moreover, there is disparity between communities. The largest community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call Iqaluit home.
The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa and the average temperatures range from -30° Celsius in January to 15° Celsius in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24 hours of daylight in June, while they find no more than six hours of daylight in the month of December.
Grise Fiord is Nunavut's most northern community. In fact, I believe it is one of Canada's most northern communities and it is a community I had the pleasure to visit some time ago. It is a full 2,700 kilometres from the capital. The population is only about 130 people, who experience an average temperature of -35° Celsius in January. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.
I experienced a number of challenges practising law in rural Nova Scotia. At that time I always found it a pleasure to work with the law enforcement community and those who administer our criminal justice system. By and large, I found that many of those individuals work long, hard hours and go above and beyond the call of duty, like police officer George Mageney in the community of Stellarton, in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who I have a great deal of time and respect for.
It is nevertheless difficult for me, drawing upon my own experience, to perceive how court proceedings as they relate to criminal, civil or family law, would occur effectively and efficiently in such a large jurisdiction as this new territory. With such a small population and with such diverse communities, this will truly pose an incredible challenge to the people of this new territory of Nunavut.
However, as has been mentioned previously, Bill C-57 amends several existing federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to establish a single level of trial court at the superior court level, to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice.
It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for senior judges in each of the territories.
It amends, most consequently, the Criminal Code to provide for new structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of judges; summary conviction appeals; a new statutory form of release; judicial interim release; and elections as to a mode of trial.
All of those technical changes that occur within our Criminal Code are encompassed in Bill C-57.
It also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate structures and procedures for a single level of trial court, consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal Code.
I believe the drafters of this legislation should be credited because it does mesh nicely with the existing provisions of the code.
I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that recognizes the unique characteristics and conditions of the people and the territory of Nunavut. However, I have a number of concerns which were not completely addressed at the justice committee by the minister and her officials.
The first concern deals with the greater use of justices of the peace. The Department of Justice believes that with appropriate training there is potential for greater use of justices of the peace to conduct preliminary inquiries and in some cases summary conviction trials. I endorse this concept. My concerns mainly arise out of the training and the funding for such training that will ensure that those who appear before these justices of the peace will receive adequate treatment under the law, the same treatment that they would receive from a properly ordained justice, if I can use that term.
I share the belief of many that the greater use of justices of the peace would not only benefit this single justice system in Nunavut, but also some of the courts, as our friends in Nunavut would say, in southern Canada, that is, the rest of Canada.
If the role of justices of the peace is to expand, training must be assured. Unfortunately, responsibility for this training falls solely under the responsibility of the Nunavut territorial government. So the federal government is once again, in some instances, able to wash its hands clean and download to a territory or a province. It is therefore problematic for the federal government, through Bill C-57, to open the door for increased responsibilities for justices of the peace without assuring that they will in fact be able to fund this new initiative.
We need only look at the federal government's downloading of the funding of the young offender programs in the rest of Canada to fear that similar problems could arise in Nunavut.
We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the due course of justice.
I join my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to support the bill as it is very positive in content. Let us continue to build upon the legacy of Inuit self-government left by the Progressive Conservative government.
Norman E. Doyle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act. The bill is important not only for what the legislation entails but also for what it represents. The bill provides for a single tier court system in the new territory of Nunavut.
The creation of this territory on April 1, 1999 will be a very historic occasion. The legislation will help to ensure that when that day comes everything will be ready to begin operations and allow for a very smooth transition for this new territory.
The Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada will be watching with interest when Nunavut becomes a territory. With the unique justice system the legislation will put in place there will be even greater reason to monitor the situation closely.
The single court system has been discussed on many different occasions but has never been implemented by another province or territory. It will be interesting to see how well it meets the needs of the Inuit people. Currently all provinces and territories operate on the two court system.
I will provide some historical background and information on the demographics and size of Nunavut. The creation of a separate Nunavut territory has been discussed for many years, beginning in 1976 with a request by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to have a boundary drawn between the eastern and western sections of the Northwest Territories. It was not until a land claim settlement was signed in 1993 under the Conservative government of the day that the new territory was realized. The creation of Nunavut was included as a provision of that agreement.
As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said, the agreement gives the Inuit control of about 350,000 square kilometres within the more than two million square kilometres that will become Nunavut. The Inuit will make up approximately 80% of the population of the new territory which will be approximately one-fifth of Canada's land mass. However it will only have a population of 22,000. That sparse population base makes the one court system preferable in the eastern arctic.
Less time will be spent travelling to remote communities with only one court level. A judge will be able to rule on cases relating to criminal, civil or family matters while in the community, negating the need for a number of judges to make similar trips. That should reduce costs and eliminate administrative details such as the scheduling of numerous court appearances. In time the judges should become more familiar with the different communities, which may assist them in their duties.
The one court system was chosen for the eastern arctic at the request of the Inuit. The Inuit have their own views of what a justice system should provide. It is hoped that a one tier system will better meet their requirements. We shall have to wait to see if that is the case.
The creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999 has special significance for me. It will be the first new territory or province created since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. Obviously that will be a very historic day for Canada. I am pleased to support a bill that will help to ensure the transition occurs smoothly and put in place a system which will be adequate to address the needs of the Inuit and non-Inuit residents of the eastern arctic.
I had the opportunity in the last session of parliament to speak to a bill which also amended the Nunavut Act. I am pleased to speak again to another amendment to the act. I will be watching closely with my colleagues when Nunavut becomes the newest territory in Canada in April 1999.
Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-57.
The people of Nunavut have a unique culture and deserve to have a court system which reflects their culture and geographic realities. The NDP has been consistent in its support for self-government and that is why at second reading our aboriginal affairs spokesperson indicated our principled support for the bill.
However I have very serious concerns about the bill. If the court system created by the bill is implemented, it will have devastating consequences for the Manitoba Dene whose traditional territory straddles the Manitoba-Nunavut border. The Manitoba Dene are my constituents. Although I too support self-government for Nunavut, I cannot support or endorse a bill which runs counter to their well-being.
The Manitoba Dene are those bands in the Dene nation whose reserve lands fall within Manitoba. There are two such bands, the Northlands First Nation who signed a treaty with Canada in 1907 and the Sayisi Dene First Nation who signed a treaty in 1910.
These treaties guaranteed members of the nations the inalienable right to hunt, fish, trap and select reserve lands anywhere in their traditional territories. Fifty-seven per cent of their traditional territory lies north of the 66th parallel that divides Manitoba and Nunavut. This area represents less than 5% of the territory of Nunavut.
Ever since these first nations signed their treaties they have continued to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territories north of 60. When the federal government negotiated the Nunavut agreement with the Inuit of Nunavut, the Manitoba Dene asked to be included in these negotiations but were inexplicably and unjustly excluded. There was no justification for this exclusion.
The government was negotiating the transfer of lands to which the Manitoba Dene have a right according to treaty. In a feeble attempt to justify what it had done the federal government claimed out of the blue that the Manitoba Dene had no rights north of 60.
This claim would almost be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the Manitoba Dene. No one who knows anything about the Manitoba Dene believes this ridiculous claim in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Archeologists have proven that bands have occupied lands of north of 60 for 2,600 years. These bands have no less than 25 burial sites north of 60. They have occupied lands north and south of the 60th parallel for as long as there have been historical records about them.
For most of the past two and a half centuries they have been a nomadic society. The staple of their diet was the caribou and they travelled across vast distances following the great northern caribou herds. This is why their traditional lands do not match up with the nice straight lines we see on maps. Caribou do not care about the lines on maps. By the terms of the treaties the Manitoba Dene signed in the first decade of this century they have an undeniable claim north of 60.
The Government of the Northwest Territories acknowledges the ridiculousness of the federal government's position with an administrative measure called the border A licence area. Within this area, which very closely coincides with the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene, Manitoba Dene are not required to have a licence to carry out their traditional practices.
This policy directly contradicts the federal government's claim but acknowledges the reality of the situation. To this day the Dene of Manitoba still hunt, fish and trap north of 60. In these communities where most food has to be flown from the south, making it very expensive, most people still rely on hunting and fishing to feed their families.
Despite the evidence arrayed against their position, the Government of Canada clings irrationally to its claim that the Manitoba Dene have no rights north of 60. Even when in 1993 the standing committee on aboriginal affairs unanimously called on the government to recognize the rights of the Manitoba Dene within Nunavut, the government refused. At that time the Progressive Conservative Indian affairs minister said that the Manitoba Dene claim north of 60 would have to be resolved in the courts.
In response to this challenge, the Manitoba Dene filed a claim with the Federal Court of Canada asking the court to enforce their treaty rights. This case remains before the court today. While the Dene of Manitoba case has dragged on, the Liberal government has forged blindly ahead with the implementation of the Nunavut Act.
The bill before us today is to establish a Nunavut court of justice to reflect the unique cultural and geographic realities of Nunavut. I say again that my party and I support the Inuit right to self-government and we support the creation of a separate court system for the territory.
The Northern Manitoba Tribal Council, of which the Manitoba Dene are members, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, also officially support the Inuit of Nunavut. However, they know as I do that it is not fair and it is not right to settle one land claim at the expense of another.
When Nunavut comes into being a few months from now, the Nunavut wildlife management board will have jurisdiction over hunting, fishing and trapping in the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene. Nunavut leaders have refused to recognize the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until there is a ruling from the court. In the meantime, since the rights of the Dene are not recognized, they will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Nunavut wildlife management board.
The Nunavut court of justice created by the bill will have the power and responsibility to enforce the regulations of the board. I cannot in good conscience support the creation of a legal authority that will prevent the Manitoba Dene from hunting, fishing and trapping in their traditional lands. I therefore submitted an amendment to the bill which would have granted a stay of prosecution of the Manitoba Dene people charged with these kinds of offences in their traditional lands.
I want to take a moment to read that amendment:
Any proceedings before the Nunavut Court of Justice that involve the Denesuline of Manitoba claiming as a defence any matter set out in the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of the Sayisi Dene First Nations and the Northlands First Nation in the Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) in a Statement of Claim dated March 9, 1993, as amended, initiating suit T-703-93 against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Attorney General of Canada (among other defendants) shall be stayed pending the final decision of the Federal Court of Canada with respect to the matter of, if the matter is appealed or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, the final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
When the Table ruled this amendment out of order because it went beyond the scope of the bill, I was extremely disappointed and frustrated. This one amendment could have protected the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until the courts affirmed them.
How typical of the disrespect and contempt with which the Canadian government has treated these people. In a bill dealing with the Nunavut court of justice and its jurisdiction to try different crimes in the territory of Nunavut, an amendment to temporarily modify its jurisdiction seems entirely within its scope to me, especially in light of the number of omnibus bills we have seen pushed through the House in the last two months. What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal government. Without tainting or delaying the process that the people of Nunavut deserve, the Manitoba Dene, MKO and I have done what we can to try to amend the bill within the methods available to us.
Now that we are at third reading all I can do is say I am opposed to the bill. I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that the rights of the Manitoba Dene are respected. The Manitoba Dene deserve justice. If their treaty rights are respected there is no reason why the Inuit and the Dene cannot find some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation in the context of Nunavut.
I emphasize again that the area in question is less than 5% of Nunavut. Rather than promote such a resolution, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have denied Manitoba Dene treaty rights and have acted as roadblocks to their justice.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The notice paper contains a motion in amendment at report stage of Bill C-58.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and put to a vote.
I now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 12 the following:
“(3) Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.”
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to outline my reservations about Bill C-58 introduced by the government to optimize rail transportation safety.
Anything that has to do with the rail system is of interest to the inhabitants of the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau. In 1994, we prepared a brief opposing CP's request to abandon its operations in the subdivision of Lachute between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso in the province of Quebec .
Fortunately, through the intervention of Jacques Léonard, the then provincial transport minister, we obtained a moratorium so the line would not be abandoned. Because of this moratorium, the trains are again running between Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel and Thurso.
While the Bloc Quebecois welcomes this bill, it deplores the circumstances that led up to it. In September 1997, a VIA rail passenger train left the tracks near Biggar in Saskatchewan with tragic results. This is what it took to get the minister's office to introduce the substantial amendments to the 1989 Railway Safety Act that were needed.
We have carefully examined the bill, which is a series of very technical amendments to the present legislation and, with some reservations, are in favour of Bill C-58.
First, we see it as positive that steps have been taken to enhance the government's ability to get the railways to remedy nuisances and hazards relating to safety and to the environment. Thus the government is assuming more of one of its fundamental responsibilities, to ensure people's safety.
It is also obvious that the government is taking advantage of this opportunity to encourage collaboration between the various parties involved in railway transportation in the process of creating and implementing safety measures for rail users and employees, and the population in general.
Finally, this bill gives the Minister of Transport the necessary authority in cases not covered by the legislation to step in promptly, overstepping the regulations, in the interests of the safety of those affected by rail transportation. We acknowledge the justification of this provision. It is a valuable tool in the hands of a Minister of Transport with concerns for public safety.
As I have said, one of the provisions in the bill strikes us as unacceptable in its present wording. This is clause 19, which gives the governor in council authority “respecting the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations”.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the construction and maintenance of roads is a provincial and municipal responsibility. Railway safety is, and we do not dispute this, under federal jurisdiction. We nonetheless believe that steps must be taken to prevent Ottawa from using this responsibility as an excuse to once again invade provincial jurisdictions and letting the province or municipality foot the bill, when they cannot afford the road work required, especially in the case of small municipalities.
Clause 19 is sufficiently vague and its scope sufficiently broad that the governor in council could, under this provision, force a municipality to build a bridge to carry the road over the rail line on the pretext that it will mean greater safety for road and rail passengers.
This is totally unacceptable, hence our amendment, which reads as follows:
Section 24 of the same Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).
(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.
I am delighted to have the member for Jonquière seconding this amendment.
Indeed, it is desirable and normal that the measures decided by a round table headed by the federal Minister of Transport and designed to improve safety conditions relating to a railway line are not a financial burden unfairly imposed by the federal government on the province, city or municipality concerned. Clearly, the safety of a railway line is the responsibility of the operator of that line.
We realize that imposing fees on the railway companies concerned may be a deterrent to the implementation of projects designed to improve the safety of the facilities. This is why it is important to include in the act provisions specifying that even though the cost of such work must be borne by line operators, it must in no way adversely affect the implementation and the timetable of such projects.
In conclusion, while the Bloc Quebecois supports this purely technical bill, it insists that the proposed amendments be taken into consideration, in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.
Our party remains firm in its determination to protect the interests of Quebeckers and to oppose potential or actual federal interference in jurisdictions that come under the provinces, which this government has no business doing. That being said, we think this is basically a good bill.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that once the necessary adjustments have been made, everything should be done to ensure the bill's quick implementation. As for us, we are prepared to work to that end.
Stan Dromisky: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today in response to the motion to have a new section in this bill that would require railways to fund provincial or local government costs. We are not able to support these proposed changes for a number of reasons.
Subsection 24(3) proposed by the hon. member of the third party seeks to make railways responsible for reimbursing governments for any cost they may incur in complying with requirements established under subsection 24(1) of the Railway Safety Act. We should consider what this truly implies and particularly how this motion would improve safety.
The requirements under subsection 24(1) of the act could conclude control or prohibition of a variety of land uses adjacent to railway property to the extent that they may constitute a threat to safe railway operations. This might mean buildings or other structures, mining operations, drainage systems, storage of materials on adjacent property, and fencing to name a few. Bill C-58 adds to this list by proposing that safety requirements could be established for road approaches, an important provision that I will touch on later.
It is important to remember that section 24 of the act does not address who will pay for meeting safety requirements, except where the owner, lessee or occupier of the land suffers a loss. In that case the act wisely provides that the railway company will pay such losses as are agreed to between the parties. It also provides that where there is a dispute, the Canadian Transportation Agency may make a determination. This appeal process is specifically intended to ensure that any economic considerations are resolved through an independent body.
There is the question of the costs of meeting any regulations established under this section. All government regulations are developed in consultation with affected parties so that both the cost of complying with the requirements and the safety benefits are established. Each specific regulation must also identify which party is responsible for meeting the requirements.
For example, a regulation may specify that a drainage system meet certain standards for the purpose of railway safety. It would normally be the responsibility of the owner of the drainage system to design and build it in compliance with the law. It would be their responsibility to pay for it. This is the very same situation for the railway company today that must pay the cost of meeting requirements for safety of rail equipment, or manufacturers of motor vehicles that must meet safety standards.
On the third point, subsection 24(1) applies widely and not just to provincial, local or municipal governments. Many of the owners or occupiers of land are private industries or individuals. Even if we supported the intent of this motion, which we do not, it would not help anyone other than governments.
I would like to turn for a moment to the intent of clause 19 of the bill as presently written. It adds two sections aimed at improving the safety at railway crossings, an important issue for all Canadians and a major priority for the Department of Transport.
Every year in Canada people are needlessly killed and injured in accidents at crossings and while trespassing on railroad property. While the number of accidents has come down, initiatives proposed in the bill will help to reduce it even further.
This will ensure that Canada maintains its commendable rail safety record as was noticed by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport.
The intent of the bill is to improve the safety of Canada's rail transportation system. The act recognizes that a number of parties are involved in meeting this objective and has the necessary authority to ensure the respective obligations are met.
The proposed motion does not in any way lead to a possible improvement in this regard, since it addresses economic issues only. It would also conflict with government regulatory policy by making only one party bear the cost when in many cases others have responsibility to do so also.
The act already provides adequate protection where there are economic disputes. This motion is not, in our opinion, necessary for that purpose. Therefore the government is unable to support the proposed amendment by the hon. member. The Railway Safety Act has already led the way in ensuring that our nation's railways operate in an extremely safe manner.
The review of this legislation has shown that our system meets high safety standards. Bill C-58 will ensure that we continue to build on this well established safety base.
I strongly urge all hon. members to give quick passage to this legislation when put forward for third and final reading.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Reform Party cannot endorse the amendment presented by the Bloc. We cannot support an amendment that would require railways to pay for the removal of hazards created as a result of the emissions of local governments. This defies natural justice. In that respect only we cannot support the amendment.
For example, if a local road authority allowed brush to grow wild on the approach to a railway crossing and then was forced to remove it, under the terms of this amendment, as I understand it, the railway would be required to pay for the work. That would be patently unfair.
If I have misunderstood the motion, I hope during questions and comments that will be brought to my attention. As I interpret it, this is simply wrong.
As far as the general question of this legislation is concerned, in my part of the country this entire debate is becoming moot or academic. The railways it would govern are disappearing thanks to the government's brilliance in writing the new Canadian transportation act. It is pretty hard to have a railway crossing accident where there are no railways. This is happening to us out there at a very rapid rate.
I am a little concerned that this bill has been fast tracked the way it has. Basically there is not much in the bill with which I could find fault. But it certainly is clear evidence of utter disorganization in the office of the minister that the bill has sat around for heaven knows how many weeks and all of a sudden it is being pushed through first reading, second reading, committee, report stage, bang, bang, bang, for no good reason that I can understand unless we are looking at prorogation.
The bill has been languishing over there in that tower. Now we have it here and we have to deal with it. The bill has not even been printed as reported. It is not even available online, on the net. Yet here we are debating the terms. It has not been printed as reported.
I suppose we could raise that as a point of order and create some disruption. I do not intend to do so but this is ridiculous. What is the hurry?
If I had not alerted some stakeholders to the fact that the bill was coming up in committee, they would not have had time to even think about preparing presentations. It caught them completely off guard. They had to rush to do what they had to do and they did it very well. Other stakeholders would have come forward if they had known what was going on. Perhaps I am impugning motive but the government did not care whether the public was aware of what it was doing so the word did not go out that committee meetings were to be held.
I have one example. The Canadian Trucking Alliance hired a prominent transportation consultant to review the bill, specifically the provisions related to crossings and the standards for construction or alteration of railway works. I presume since these guys do not work cheap it cost the association a bundle of money. The report will not be completed until Monday, December 7, which is too late to have any impact. So these people have wasted their time trying to get some input into the democratic process.
The opposition has not obstructed the bill in any way because it is in essence a technical bill. On the advice of various stakeholders we tried to introduce some minor amendments in committee but, as usual, the Liberal members lined up in lock step to stop us. Same old, same old. I sometimes wonder why we have committees when everything is done according to the wishes and whims of the minister. However, we are on the rails here. I am not going oppose the bill nor are my colleagues but we are getting sick and tired of this nonsense of being pushed around and bullied when there is no good reason for doing so.
Roy H. Bailey: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, in particular to the Bloc motion before us. Perhaps we should look historically at the motion. Railways were the first type of major land transportation. They were used years before cars were built and we had highway traffic acts in each province. Therefore the standards set out in the Railway Safety Act must be applied from coast to coast. We cannot put in a separate statute for a safety feature for one province and negate that safety feature in another province.
As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands said, it appears the bill is aimed at one province, that it is not national in its scope. It seems to be a redundant and therefore I will not be able to support the amendment.
There is a growing concern that we should have a more co-ordinated safety program. Like my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I am wondering why we had to hurry this bill through. It would be more of a safety issue at this time to have a national trucking safety policy co-ordinated with this bill.
Eventually we will have to deal with a national policy on the trucking industry and adapt it to the bill before us. That could have been done in conjunction with this bill which would have made abundantly more sense than pushing this bill through as quickly as we did. The last time the Standing Committee on Transport met we had a presentation on ITS, intelligent transportation systems. This presentation proved to the few members there that this is the coming thing. ITS no doubt in the future are there not just for the railway system but for the trucking system. They are there for the automobile, all traffic, and should have been co-ordinated. All these things should be built in to one facet of a National Safety Council presentation.
The railways in the United States, because they are the oldest, are reneging about getting into ITS. I suggest to hon. members opposite that the same would be true in Canada that the railways will be the last to co-operate in ITS because historically they are the oldest and they are the granddaddy of them all.
What impressed me with the presentation, which leaves the motion out, is we must have a national program and that national program through intelligent transportation systems will eventually become a continental program. I agree with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that we should not have pushed this so rapidly. We should have incorporated it not within this bill but made this bill more applicable and easily applied when we move to the highway trucking industry.
I want to congratulate a person who came to the transport committee. I asked him for a video. It was about safety on the rails. I viewed the one hour video which was excellent. The problem is it was made in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, however the reason I wanted this was to see if it was all right with the copyright to make some copies, send it out to my schools, particularly on the two major railways through my constituency, for safety reasons to be presented in the schools.
I saw the big accidents of Amtrak, Southern Pacific and so on. I had some concerns about that. I encourage the Minister of Transport in working with other ministers in the House that we should present a Canadian video to each province's departments of education and schools so that we could stop these needless fatalities of children taking chances, playing on right of ways of the railway and the needless risking of lives at crossings and so on.
We cannot support the motion. We will be supporting this bill. The final plea I make is please look at the safety features not only with regard to the operation of trains but relating to the general public and for this department to come up with a good safety video similar to the one I mentioned produced in the United States.
Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for proposing this amendment to Bill C-58.
This is a very reasonable amendment to the railway safety aspect to ensure that railway companies take financial responsibility for the safety of operations. Should there ever be a cost to comply with the safety regulations under clause 19 it is only fair that the railways pay for this. This amendment if passed will ensure that local taxpayers are not forced to pay for railways to comply with these regulations.
In response to some of the concerns my hon. colleagues in the Reform have mentioned, there are already regulations in place. If it is a matter of highway and roadway brush, regulations are in place within the provinces to ensure that they are responsible.
We have seen more and more devolution of responsibility from the federal government on to the provinces and ultimately the municipalities to cover costs. They are absolutely taxed to the limit. We need to ensure that the railways are owning up to their responsibility. As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain indicated, perhaps it will not be a problem in the prairies because rail lines are disappearing rather quickly. It is inherently important that we ensure the municipalities do not suffer the consequences.
The amendment is also very timely because it deals with the larger issue of corporate welfare. I have to comment on the suggestion that sports teams should have some kind of a tax break when citizens throughout Canada are suffering hardships because of lack of money going into health care. It is inherent that we make those who are profiting from certain things pay the price.
Taxpayers already give up far too much pay for corporate welfare. The Liberal government cheered on—here is where the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands comes in—by the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties shells out billions of dollars in tax break and direct subsidies to private interests. One of the most outrageous examples was the privatization of CN Rail. Since 1867 and even before then Canadian taxpayers have paid for our railway system.
Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My party and I are being defamed. We have been leading the pack in fighting against corporate welfare.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon. member is getting into debate.
Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I am not really concerned because most Canadians truly know who are speaking out on their behalf.
Taxpayers paid for the trans-continental railway that linked the country from east to west. They got an excellent return for their investment as the railway spurred economic growth, particularly in the west where it facilitated transportation of prairie grain.
I can remember a time not too long ago when branch lines criss-crossed the prairie provinces. I grew up in southern Saskatchewan and feel a great love for the prairie provinces as well as for my new home in northern Manitoba. Grain elevators in small prairie towns all connected by rail were gathering points for communities.
All that began to change when the Liberal government betrayed the Canadian people and sold off CN Rail at a bargain basement price. A few investors got very rich off the corporate welfare measure but prairie farmers have ultimately paid the price. CN Rail has begun ripping up the branch lines taxpayers paid for and selling them off, leaving prairie farmers to truck their grain themselves.
Another aspect of corporate welfare is the double standard when it comes to taxation. Individual Canadians and small businesses carry large burdens primarily from regressive consumption taxes like the GST. Corporate taxes in Canada are among the lowest in the developed world. Yet when the Liberal government decided to balance its budget it cut programs like health and education rather than rebalance an unfair tax burden. It balanced the budget on the backs of ordinary Canadian workers and small business people who suffered the consequences of the cuts while carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. All the while corporate welfare bums made higher and higher profits.
Now that the budget is balanced the government should reinvest in health and social programs and make tax cuts where they are needed, like phasing out the GST and reducing the burden on small business. Instead the Liberal dominated finance committee has recommended a set of tax breaks in favour of high income Canadians.
The New Democratic Party opposes this tax cut. In its place we propose reinvesting in health and other vital programs and targeting tax cuts like a GST cut that will help everyone, not just people making well above the national average income.
I will be supporting the Bloc member's proposal as I feel that it will ensure Canadian municipalities and provinces will not suffer further consequences from the government. It certainly is in the spirit of ending corporate welfare.
Mark Muise: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to report stage of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, and in particular to the Bloc amendment regarding compensation to provinces and municipalities due to regulations made under section 24 of this act.
The act is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 introduced during the last parliament which unfortunately died on the order paper at the call of the election.
The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which came into effect in January 1988. A statutory review took place after five years and the result was the previous Bill C-43 and now Bill C-58.
We are pleased with the exhaustive consultation which took place with the stakeholders involved and their valuable input. The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change in the way we regulate railways and in how railways interact with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with the legislation before us today I hope it will become even better.
The member for Cumberland—Colchester examined the bill in detail in committee. He was glad to hear the witnesses who appeared including CP rail, Canadian National, the Canadian Railway Association of Canada and three groups representing labour.
We are in support of the amendment proposed by the Bloc today as we feel it will enhance railway safety in Canada. The Railway Safety Act currently allows for compensation to land owners affected by the regulations made under section 24 of the act and the amendment extends that compensation. The proposed amendment addresses the new areas in which the governor in council may make regulations as a result of Bill C-58.
The new regulations deal with the construction, alteration and maintenance of roads for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operation and respecting the control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on road approaches to railroad crossings for the purpose of ensuring safe railway operations.
It is always a top priority of the Progressive Conservative Party to ensure safe railway operation and to provide compensation to those affected through no fault of their own. I am glad to say that we will be supporting the motion as we look forward to a safer railway system as a result of the bill.
Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, in my brief time in the House rarely have I seen something rushed through as quickly as Bill C-58.
I had the joy of sitting on the transportation committee. The bill was as quickly considered as a bill could be considered in committee. For the information of the folks at home, the Liberals across the way have decided that prorogation of the House is a good idea. I see members shaking their hands, some one way and some the other, but that is basically what is going on.
The Liberals have been dragging their feet on changes to the Railway Safety Act for a very long time. Each time they talk about it they decide they did not do it right the first time and have to make a couple of amendments. That is what is going on here.
They went ahead and brought the bill to committee. They did not take a lot of time, energy or effort to go ahead and notify stakeholders with regard to Bill C-58. In one session on one day all the people who had an interest—and I have copies of their briefs—were rushed through very quickly, one after another, rapid fire, so the government could get its changes to the bill. Now it is before us at report stage.
Let us look at some of the interesting scenarios we have with regard to Bill C-58. The Reform Party put forward some amendments to the bill in committee. Just like in all other committees we recognize the government will not have its ears open in this regard. It does not want any changes or any improvements to the legislation.
In committee the Reform Party recognized that government members were trying to go for very broad and encompassing definitions of what would be considered a combustion emission or pollutant. In the past they have included very broad definitions which were as expansive as possible so that if any problems arise they are able to address them.
This was not the first time this type of thing happened. We recognized that if we strictly defined pollutants as combustion emissions it would be very clear what the government was intending in this regard. It would not be talking about noise pollution, for example, which is referred to in other pieces of legislation. It would be fairly specific. It would address exactly what we were trying to regulate.
It is very important to be precise in terms of what we are trying to regulate. If we allow the government too broad a definition, it sometimes takes too great a liberty. Who gets hurt by that? It is the railways and the other stakeholders. We tried to make that small amendment.
I am just raising this as an example. This is not the first time we have brought forth amendments to a piece of legislation to try to improve it. Government members turned it down because they wanted as broad a definition as possible. They did not want to discuss it. As a result, somewhere down the line somebody will have to pay the price for that.
The government does not want to accept responsibility with regard to provinces and municipalities in terms of any costs that will come about as a result of the regulation. It does not have any problem with hoisting all types of costs on people, whether it be the railways in terms of precise definitions like combustion emissions versus pollutants, or whether it be the provinces and the municipalities as a result of the regulations. It does not have a problem with other people internalizing the costs of its regulations.
When the government does these types of things it forces others to pick up and internalize their costs. We learned in economics in university the whole concept of either internalizing or externalizing costs. If people do not want to internalize a cost, they spread it to others.
That is when government members like to talk about sharing. They love the concept of sharing when they can share costs or expenditures with others. That is when they like to share. That is exactly what we have in this government legislation. That is exactly what we see with the Liberals all the time. They love to share the misery. They love to share the costs.
This is not just with regard to Bill C-58. I can look at a whole bunch of other pieces of government legislation to see that the Liberals love to share misery. They blame Mike Harris and Ralph Klein when they make cuts to health care. Indeed it is the Liberals who are offloading those costs and responsibilities.
It is exactly the same in this case. It is more minute but nonetheless we have members of a Liberal administration who love to share the misery. They love to share the cost with others, but they do not like picking up the responsibilities for what they do.
I have given a couple of examples in Bill C-58 where that type of top down arrogant philosophy continues on big issues like health care which impact on every Canadian. It has spread to other things, even the minutia in the Railway Safety Act. That is the type of problem we have.
I will apply a couple of the tests which I said the government should have applied before to other pieces of legislation. Who wants it? Who wants some of the changes? The Liberals did not even have the gratitude or openmindedness to notify ahead of time the stakeholders who were to be intimately affected by some of these things. They were rushed through the committee very quickly.
Stan Keyes: Madam Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the member's speech. I think it is valuable to hear what he has to say. However I am rising to seek unanimous consent.
Maybe some of my colleagues across the way will bear with me. The hon. member has about four or five minutes remaining. In order that we may hear his concluding remarks, and in order that we may have the bill at report stage, I ask for unanimous consent of the House that we not see the clock at 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, one more time we have the case of the government wanting other people to pick up its costs for its regulation and for the things that it wants to see done, but the government does not want to pick up the responsibilities and the costs. It is only willing to share the costs, the expenditures and burden others with its problems.
I want to wrap up with a couple of simple questions I wish the government would apply to every piece of legislation it brought into this House. One, who wants it? Two, who wants to pay for it or who is going to pay for it?
I look at these things time and again and the list goes on. Whether it is health care, jobs programs, or whatever it happens to be, even the minutiae in the railway safety act, we see time and again that the government likes to get its way but wants other people to pay for what it wants done. The government does not like taking the costs itself. It likes sharing the burden with others. This is a classic case of that.
I wish the government would have been willing to listen to some of the amendments from the opposition. I wish it would have notified the stakeholders and given them appropriate time. I wish it would have asked itself some of these crucial questions when proposing legislation like this. The government failed on all of those accounts. However, the government will get its way because it has a majority.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, December 7, 1998, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, the division will take place on Monday at 6.30 p.m. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at the same time as the other votes, at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to have this division held at 5 p.m. instead of 6.30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Points Of OrderDick Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention something that could be considered a serious breach of the integrity of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Madam Speaker, as you know the finance committee report was due to be released at 1.30 p.m. today in the public environment. Yet, not more than 15 minutes ago the chairman of the finance committee was in the public environment outside the House with a copy of the finance committee report in his hands in the presence of media.
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that he was the only person of the Standing Committee on Finance who had a copy of that report. I therefore question the independence of the report in view of that fact. I would ask that the Chair recognize this.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this is the first I have heard about this. I will endeavour to verify these facts immediately. If I have enough information before we adjourn this afternoon, I will gladly report to the House.
It is a breach of our standing orders for anyone to release a report publicly before it is tabled in the House. All members know these rules. However, I will verify that and report to the extent possible before we adjourn today as to our findings.
Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify for the government House leader that the report was not circulated. However, it was in the public venue outside this House and outside the confidentiality that was required before the public release of the report.
We, as committee members, are given to understand that we are considered equals when it comes to dealing with the confidentiality of reports. Confidentiality applies to all of us. I have some grave concerns in light of the concerns that were expressed in this House in this past week regarding the leaking of reports.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will wait for the government House leader to come back with his comments.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
The EnvironmentCharles Caccia: moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.
Madam Speaker, members may ask why we are debating this motion. The brief answer is that certain harmful polluting substances, which travel long distances, are landing in the Arctic. The Government of Canada is constructively working with other governments in arriving at agreements to reduce these polluting substances, to protect human health, the environment, wildlife and people living in the Arctic.
The name of these polluting substances is POPs. They are pesticides used in agriculture, chemicals such as PCBs, products such as chlorinated dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons otherwise known as PAHs, resulting from fossil fuel combustion, the burning and processing of wood and other materials.
One might ask why the signature on the protocol of persistent organic pollutants or POPs is important and urgent. Because 16 nations are required to ratify the protocol so that the agreement to reduce organic pollutants goes into effect. I am told it will be open for signature by interested nations after December 21, 1998.
The situation in the Arctic is described in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report which was produced last year.
The report states that persistent organic pollutants from sources outside Canada and outside the Arctic have been transported to the Arctic by air. These pollutants find their way into the Arctic food chain and accumulate in traditional aboriginal foods. As a result, high levels of the pesticides toxaphene and chlordane have been found in beluga muktoq and seal meat. In many cases, our Inuit people who eat even a very small quantity of traditional sources of meat may ingest more than what Health Canada considers tolerable.
It is important to note that neither toxaphene nor chlordane is used in Canada.
In that report we find also that there are disturbing measurements of PCBs in the breast milk of Inuit women which are now among the highest levels in the world. In the cases of 40% and over of Inuit women, the PCB in their blood is up to five times the level of concern prescribed by the Department of Health.
Clearly, human health depends on what we do about pollutants and in the case of the Arctic, about these POPs. In southern Canada, Professor Jules Blais of the University of Ottawa whose research appeared in the journal Nature in October 1998 reports disturbing quantities of pesticides transported by air to the Rocky Mountains. In the Columbia ice fields and at Lake Louise, Professor Blais found traces of the prairie crop insecticide, lindane; endosulphan, a popular insect killer used in eastern Canada; chlordane, a banned termite terminator; and even DDT, a pesticide banned in Canada but still in use in China, in Mexico and in other countries.
There are also reports related to Denver and Mexico City. People may face a problem with respect to their drinking water from snow melts on mountains more than 3,000 metres high where there may be even greater accumulation of pollutants than found in our Rockies. Scientists in Switzerland have also expressed alarm because a number of Swiss towns also take their water from lakes high in the mountains.
All this points to the problems posed by these POPs as faced by people and governments in different continents.
For the Government of Canada, it therefore becomes necessary to control the release of these POPs that we still produce at home, such as dioxins and furans. As long as we continue to produce them, POPs will enter the ecosystem and the food chain.
The more we pollute, the higher price we pay in terms of health care costs. Many POPs we are told cause endocrine system defects, immune system dysfunction, reproductive abnormalities and developmental problems in humans. Some POPs can induce or promote cancers. Here at home once we clean our own backyard, then of course we can urge our neighbours to clean up theirs.
Ratifying the POPs protocol becomes desirable so that other countries know we are serious about the reduction of these organic pollutants.
We need to take a lead role in the implementation of the new global agreement. A meeting of international experts on organic pollutants held in Vancouver in 1995 produced recommendations. The agreement I am referring to is the one that UNEP, the United Nations environment program, produced to ensure that firm targets and timetables are set for the elimination of these POPs around the globe.
It will take a great deal of political will to convince developing countries of the long term human health benefits of eliminating POPs. It will also require significant financial resources to help those countries to change their processes and practices in agriculture and pest management.
Apparently the World Bank and other international lenders, as a condition for giving financial aid, often force farmers in developing countries to use pesticides containing POPs. This policy led to a meeting in Vancouver three years ago when international experts got together and came up with the following recommendations.
One, that international and national banking practices should promote safe alternatives to and the reduction and elimination of POPs.
Two, that incentives for the use of safer pesticides and chemicals be offered to communities in developing nations in order to reduce and eliminate POPs.
Three, that there be an enforcement of stricter limits on pesticide residue on food and that countries be discouraged from using POPs in agriculture.
Four, that human and ecological health be taken into account when making decisions related to trade and investment.
The importance of addressing the human health implications in the Arctic resulting from the long range transport of organic pollutants is proven by the northern contaminants program. This will be funded in Canada for a further five years by the Government of Canada, in the amount of $6 million each year, for a total of $30 million.
The elimination of these organic pollutants also points to the need to take action in Canada on several fronts.
First, we must continue to do research on the effects of POPs. Second, we must enact strong legislation to eliminate and prevent POPs and enforce it. Third, we must regulate industry efficiently and prevent damage to human health. Fourth, we must ban substances that are dangerous to human health and, where certain substances cannot be banned, use pollution prevention policies.
We are mindful of the fact that there are over 23,000 substances registered for use in Canada. So far only a handful have been banned. Thousands of others still need to be reviewed to determine if they are toxic and plans for their management, control and elimination still are to be developed.
There is a need to implement a policy whereby health is given priority over the economy because, as we are discovering, over the long term a healthy society and a healthy environment ensure the foundation for a healthy economy. This is the reason we as parliamentarians are interested in promoting and accelerating treaties which reduce international pollution.
International organic pollutants, POPs, must be seen as a threat to health and the economy. Pollutants from faraway places can and do harm us. Hence, there is a necessity for agreements between governments so as to ensure good economic and environmental behaviour among nations.
For parliamentarians there is a role to play through the Arctic Council. There are parliamentary colleagues in Scandinavia, the U.S.A. and Russia interested in preventing pollution. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I discovered this fact several years ago and have at every opportunity advanced the cause of pollution prevention and reduction through the signature of protocols. In the case of organic pollutants, we have done so in Iqaluit, in Salekhard, Russia and at the Council of Europe.
Next year we intend to intensify our efforts in Brussels on the occasion of a meeting of the Arctic Council and again in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe.
I conclude in urging colleagues in this House to speak forcefully in favour of pollution reduction and prevention and any initiative that can take us toward the reduction and virtual elimination of pollutants which are so damaging to human health, the economy and the environment.
As the population on this globe grows and human activities intensify, it is becoming evident that we have to accelerate the process of pollution reduction and, where possible, pollution prevention through changes in industrial processes and practices if we are to make life on this planet possible in the long run.
The issue of POPs is a classic example of international interdependence. The pollutants we let into the atmosphere can harm people in distant places and the pollutants emitted in distant places harm us. We have to renew the strong will which guided us in the seventies and the eighties and make a concerted new effort toward the goal of a pollution free society. Today that is what this debate on POPs is all about.
Points Of OrderDon Boudria: Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to inquire into the matter raised previously on a point of privilege by another member of the House in the matter of the tabling of a report by the chair of the finance committee.
I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding, I am sure inadvertently, in the beginning. I had concluded from the comments of some hon. members that there was an allegation that in fact the report had been circulated and made available to the media and possibly commented on by the chair of the committee prior to it being tabled in the House.
I am satisfied that was not the case. In fact the document was tabled in the House and then the chair left and commented on this report.
I was also led to believe, and perhaps this is my mistake, that copies were made available to the media prior to being made available to members. That was not accurate either.
I have made inquiries to the officials of the House of Commons and they inform me that they are doing their best to have copies available as quickly as they can. Obviously, committee members had their own working copies when they were in committee. Apparently two or three copies are being sent to the opposition lobbies now, with the good graces of our clerk's office, and I have obtained two copies myself which I am certainly willing to share with any hon. member who wants one.
I am told that the matter is a matter of printing with the House of Commons and has nothing to do at all with anything that the chair either has done by way of commission or omission.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Rick Casson: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to speak to Motion M-37, moved by my hon. colleague from Davenport.
The member for Davenport has been chairing the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as we go through CEPA, a bill which has some 380 clauses and some 480 amendments. So his task in the last few weeks has been rather daunting. It is encouraging to see that he still has the strength to be up on Friday speaking to his private member's motion.
We do not agree on how to get to a clean environment, in most respects, but we do agree that a clean environment is important.
The motion reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.
I think it is important in order to fully understand this motion to explain the origin of the POPs protocol. The roots of this protocol can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, a forum at which the countries of North America, western, central and eastern Europe and central Asia came together to forge the tools of economic co-operation.
This large group of countries, with close historical ties, accounts for 64% of world production, but it also is responsible for 60% of the world's CO2 emissions. These facts illustrate the region's responsibilities toward its own people as well as toward those of the other regions of the world. They are the backdrop against which UN/ECE's activities are carried out. The ECE is intended to be a forum for dialogue aimed at bringing about better understanding and agreement on common guidelines and policies. Where agreements are negotiated and assistance activities prepared, its main purpose is to harmonize the policies and practices of its member countries.
The ECE has many different divisions, one of which deals with environment and human settlements. One of the many bodies of this division is the executive body for the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. This was drafted after scientists investigated the link between sulphur emissions in continental Europe and the acidification of Scandinavian lakes and later studied the possibility that air pollutants could travel several thousand kilometres before deposition and damage occurred. This implied that co-operation at the international level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.
The convention was the first international legally binding instrument to deal with problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. It was signed in 1979 and entered into force in 1983. Since its entry into force the convention has been extended by seven protocols, one of which is a protocol on persistent organic pollutants. The executive body adopted the protocol on persistent organic pollutants on June 24, 1998 in Denmark. It focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The list contains eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three byproduct contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any discharges, emissions and POPs.
The protocol bans the production and use of some products. Others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage. The protocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH and PCBs. The protocol includes provisions for dealing with the wastes of products that will be banned. It also obliges parties to reduce the emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHs and HCBs below their 1990 levels. It lays down specific limit values for the incineration of municipal hazardous and medical waste.
Canada has been host to the first of five negotiating sessions to be held over the next two years that will eventually see a legally binding treaty by 2000. What does this mean to Canada? The Canadian Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the past 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as heavy industry and from distant regions of the world through air and sea currents.
Since this is the case we are faced with quite a dilemma. Many of the contaminants of concern in the Arctic are pesticides and industrial chemicals that are no longer used in Canada and that in many cases have been banned or restricted for use in most of the developed world. However, they continue to be used by developing countries and can be found in Canadian lakes, rivers and snow. It is important for developing countries to be part of any protocol to reduce pollution in the world. Canada has been a world leader in assessing the problem of long range airborne pollutants but it will require co-operation on a global scale before the pollution problem is properly assessed.
Arctic ecosystems are very fragile. The nature of these chemicals is such that they tend to accumulate in the tissues of living things. Animals at the top of the food chain have been found with unexpectedly high levels of these contaminants which is cause for some concern for Inuit people. The Inuit people rely heavily on naturally harvested foods such as fish, seals, caribou not only for their diet but also to maintain their culture.
If this were to be taken away the socioeconomic impact alone could be vast. Because of this heavy reliance on traditionally harvested foods northern aboriginal people are susceptible to exposure to the potential adverse effects of these contaminants. Although the Canadian arctic contaminants assessment report concludes there is not an immediate threat to the health of adults, there are concerns over possible health effects on unborn children and infants.
This motion is not the right way to fix the problem. The environmental damage to Canada's north is from more than just POPs. The motion is only a piecemeal solution to a much bigger problem. The government has not yet told Canadians how it is planning to deal with contaminated sites on federal lands.
Last week the auditor general recognized that the government has no idea how to deal with the estimated 5,000 contaminated sites located on crown land in Canada. It has no comprehensive view of the potential risk to health, safety and the environment associated with these sites. It does not yet have a complete and accurate view of the related contingent or actual liabilities.
The government has not developed and implemented a central timetable and has not finalized and implemented a high level environmental policy for common standards for due diligence in a consistent manner. There is still confusion over who would take a leadership role with respect to this mess, so as a result there is no leadership.
The Reform Party recognizes the right of all Canadians to dwell in a clean and healthy environment. It has been our policy from the beginning to support immediate long term restoration programs for areas of the environment damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations.
But this motion is not a long term restoration program for an area of the environment that has been damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations. It is a solution to only a small part of a greater problem.
The motion lets the government off too easy. When will we see a motion that would commit the government to a clear plan of action, a plan where it will take responsibility and show some leadership? It would be seriously remiss for this House to approve this motion, although I know it is not votable, while ignoring the bigger problems Canada's northern people face.
Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley did not accuse the chairman of the finance committee of leaking the report but accused the chair of compromising his position to take advantage for himself while the other members of the committee were disadvantaged because the report was not available to them.
I want to make it clear that since the report was not printed the other members were disadvantaged. Ethically it was not appropriate to use his position in this way.
Louise Hardy: Madam Speaker, I rise to support this motion.
In June 1997 the Arctic environmental strategy, northern contaminants program issued the Canadian Arctic contaminants report. This report was the result of 6 years of scientific research and more than 100 studies. The results confirmed what northerners had been saying for years, that the environment is changing, people are becoming sick by compromised immune systems, thyroid malfunction, tumours and cancer. These are unheard of through thousands of years of northern people's histories. The fish, the caribou, the birds, they too are sick, the very food and sustenance of the north.
The science identified a complete contamination of the northern ecosystem. Persistent contaminants could be found throughout the Arctic ecosystem: air, surface, sea water, suspended sediments, show, fish, marine mammals, seabirds and terrestrial plants and animals.
The most frightening and shocking findings were that contaminants in northern people are in mothers' breast milk. PCBs and other chemicals are there. There are very high levels of thyroid malfunction in the north as well. The science calls it POPs, persistent organic pollutants. They persist and they are unmanageable.
The New Democratic Party recognizes these POPs are an international concern, an issue that threatens ecosystems around the globe, a danger that is all too real for aboriginal peoples through the north as well as anyone else who lives in the north.
We support this motion that calls for strong action on POPs and we commend the hon. member for Davenport for raising this issue, for his persistence and his dedication in doing so. We are truly fortunate to have such a member of parliament among us.
Canada's Arctic is one of the most susceptible and proven dumping grounds on earth for these insidious poisons. The cold climate acts as a sink. These pollutants do not evaporate to be carried elsewhere. They persist and they remain in the north. They are known as the dirty dozen. They are acknowledged deadlies and there are thousands more as yet undefined and unidentified.
The United Nations meeting in Montreal for the elimination of POPs, held this June, is a significant step toward reaching a global treaty by 2000. Canada's environment minister called for the elimination of POPs which do include PCBs.
Yet she refuses to clean up the PCB laden Marwell tar pit in Whitehorse, Yukon. This government owned the land, allowed it to be polluted then transferred it to the Yukon tar pit, PCBs and all. Yet this government refuses any responsibility for these deadly pollutants in the middle of a major city in the north.
I worry that this government has little regard for transboundary contaminants in the north. An excellent example of the obvious indifference demonstrated by this government to the environmental degradation in Yukon and the north is not limited to the mass deforestation encouraged by this government.
I call to the attention of the House a request for information on possible transboundary contaminants related to four decades of the United States military operations in Alaska. POPs and environmental contaminants are known to be carried by the wind and water. These operations were conducted within 200 kilometres of Canada's borders, perhaps carried across our borders.
On September 29, 1998, I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to determine if possible cross-border environmental contamination of Canadian territory, Yukon, had occurred. This request was related to the following five points: chemical and biological weapons testing at the Gerstle River site of Alaska; transportation of replacement nuclear reactor cores to Fort Greely in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1970; the March 1998 bunker bomb testing using depleted uranium bomb cases just across the border from Yukon; chemical weapons testing at Fort Wainright in the early 1990s; unexploded ordinance, nuclear waste storage, landfills and disposal sites at various points in Alaska.
We have not received a response to date, this after the November 30 meeting in Washington D.C. with the minister's counterpart Madeline Albreight. If northerners cannot receive a basic response from this government to concerns related to environmental contaminants such as chemical and biological weapons testing adjacent to the Yukon Territory, how can we expect any leadership related to international efforts related to persistent organic pollutants?
I hope we as a nation can acknowledge the terrible price the north is expected to pay for inaction. Action is needed.
I quote Craig Boljkovak, part of the U.N. treaty on persistent organic pollutants. Canada's moral authority is in peril:
At present Canada is headed down a road where its hard fought gains in the form of a POPs treaty are being seriously undermined by its weak domestic record. Political intervention is necessary at the highest level to put the government back on track. The environment and its human inhabitants deserve no less.
Canada's international reputation belies its lack of domestic action on POPs and other toxics.
The government has done a laudable job of publicizing the plight of the Arctic and the Great Lakes among countries considering action on POPs and Canada can be considered a driving force for a treaty. This high level of international activity unfortunately is not matched by domestic action on POPs.
These are the very citizens in the north who depend on our government to protect them and to protect the environment and food source in the north.
Action is needed. Leadership is needed. Political will is needed to reduce the pollutants, prevent their creation and to clean up old messes.
Yukon has over 200 abandoned military sites that need to be cleaned up and again this government cut funding to the Arctic environment strategy which identified these contaminated sites for clean-up.
The United States has a serious involvement. It has abandoned distant early warning sites, old military sites and airfield sites. The list goes on and on. Much of this was done during the second world war but that does not mean it should not be cleaned up.
I conclude with the words of Norma Kassi, a woman who represented the flatlands of Old Crow for many years. She is a Gwitchin woman:
I was raised on Old Crow Flats in northern Yukon. Old Crow Flats is one of the world's great wetlands, having more than 2000 lakes throughout 600,000 hectares just above the Arctic circle.
The name of my people, Vuntut Gwitchin, means the caribou people of the lakes. We've lived here for thousands and thousands of years.
For a long time I've watched the birds come back to Old Crow Flats every spring.
I remember when I was about ten years old, sitting with my grandfather at the lake where a lot of birds used to come. They would land and play and meet one another after their long trip. They made a lot of noise. They were singing. They were happy. They were telling stories. These birds I only knew in my own language.
My grandfather said to me “You know, someday when you are a woman you are going to see a lot of changes. When there are only loons out there you are going to know that something is wrong with the land and the weather”.
That was 30 years ago. Now I go back to Old Crow Flats every three or four years and I see the changes. I sit at the same spot and I remember my grandfather's words.
Every time I return I see fewer animals, fewer fish, fewer birds. The water is silent and so crystal clear I can see to the bottom. There used to be so much activity, so much aquatic life, insects and little bugs. But now I can't. And now I see a pair of loons only out there and that is about it.
These are Norma's words and I think we should take them as a warning and act before it is too late.
Again I would really like to stress that often the north is overlooked. It is not a large population but people are getting sick. People of Old Crow have suffered an incredible amount of loss through cancer, yet their elders have remained strong, those who lived off the land. The younger generation is suffering. I do not think as a country we should be allowing that to go on.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon to Motion No. 37 as presented by the hon. member for Davenport that in the opinion of the House, the government should act decisively in response to the evidence in the Canada Arctic contaminants assessment report to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.
The member for Yukon had the opportunity to speak to this motion. She represents a riding obviously of a northern nature that is more susceptible to the effects of persistent organic pollutants than any other region of our country.
I also want to point out that pollutants that are created from afar affect us no matter where we reside in this country. Also, pollutants with respect to POPs produced where we live actually have an effect on individuals who live very far from us.
The motion refers to the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report. I would like to read a few words of that report:
The Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the last 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as mining and from distant industrial and agricultural regions of the world. These persistent contaminants have been detected throughout Arctic ecosystems including air, surface seawater, suspended sediments and snow.
I would also like to highlight another comment with respect to POPs:
Contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, known as POPs, heavy metals and radionuclides enter the Arctic through long range transport on air and water currents, with the atmosphere being the primary pathway.
The point is individuals who may not be responsible for manufacturing or creating these pollutants are actually victims of these pollutants.
The report goes on to say that from 1985 to 87 PCBs were measured in the blood of Inuit in the community of Broughton Island, NWT, known to have a relatively high per capita intake of traditionally harvested foods. Results showed that blood PCBs exceeded tolerable levels set by Health Canada in 63% of the females and males under 15 and in 39% of females 15 to 44. In 6% of males 15 years and older, they also had a higher proportion of PCBs in their bodies than the acceptable level as set out by Health Canada.
The point is the evidence of this report is actually calling on society and the world community to take actions. POPs are carbon based chemical compounds that are products and byproducts of human industry. They are highly toxic substances that cause a wide array of adverse health effects.
This motion is about human health, that the pollutants we create affect others. The member for Davenport encouraged all members of the House to speak aggressively about pollution prevention, the reduction of pollution and ultimately eliminating all persistent organic pollutants.
POPs have what we refer to as a grasshopper effect. They are released in the environment through evaporation and deposit and are transported through the atmosphere to regions far from the original source. The colder the climate, the less these substances tend to evaporate. As a result the north is a cold trap for them. POPs can be found in people and animals living in regions such as the Arctic, thousands of kilometres from where POPs are produced.
This phenomenon is especially prominent in the north. As a result Inuit women have up to eight times higher levels of PCBs in their breast milk than women in southern Canada. These are well over the limits permissible by Health Canada. Some POPs are known to affect the liver, the nervous system, the kidneys, the reproductive system and the immune system. They are endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances as we aggressively discussed as we went through clause by clause consideration of the Environmental Protection Act.
No man is an island. POPs is a global problem that requires global solutions. I point to the DDT pesticide which has been used to combat malaria in a number of developing nations. Even though DDT has been banned for a number of years in this country it ends up in our food chains. As a wealthy industrialized country it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we develop replacements for pesticides such as DDT so that we can change practices for combating diseases such as malaria. It is our responsibility to help the developing world, which has real concerns with respect to malaria, to do that.
What has been done so far? At the Rio earth summit in 1992 we began to discuss the issue. Agenda 21, including chapter 19 which called for an intergovernmental forum on chemical safety to promote and co-ordinate international work on chemicals, was adopted. Countries were committed to formulating a joint plan of action.
In June 1998 the intergovernmental negotiating committee met in Montreal to begin laying the framework for a global plan. Negotiators were asked to target a short list of the 12 most dangerous POPs known as the dirty dozen. They were also assigned the task of defining a procedure for identifying new substances as candidates for future global action.
What needs to be done? The government needs to act quickly. The persistence of these substances and their accumulation in living tissue means that each year that passes without a solution will result in decades of additional exposure.
A second round of international treaty negotiation talks will take place in February 1999. A deal must be reached by the year 2000. The only effective solution is to phase out and eliminate POPS as the source and to begin now. CEPA, as is currently written, does not accomplish this fact and thereby continues to fail to protect the most exposed and vulnerable in the north.
We need to phase them out. We need to find replacements. We need to change practices. We need a stronger CEPA, one that assesses and classifies new substances quickly before they further contaminate the north. The proposed system for assessing substances is weak. Attempts to improve the new CEPA bill have been voted down by the government on a number of occasions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment spoke in committee. She said it was perhaps too premature to include any kind of mechanism to address endocrine disrupters or hormone disrupting substances, many of which are POPs. I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that in defeating amendments tabled by my colleague from the NDP, the member for York North, and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, supported by the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, and me, she had to build a coalition with Reform. The parliamentary secretary is now building an environmental coalition with a party that is still challenging the science on climate change.
The government is now in the sixth year of its mandate and has still yet to pass a piece of environmental legislation other than the MMT bill which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million. The government needs to develop an environmental agenda.
Often the government likes to criticize the Conservative government's record between the years 1983 and 1993. Our record on the environment is the establishment of the green plan, our leadership on the Montreal protocol which banned ozone depleting substances, and our leadership in bringing forth the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the control and use of toxins. Our crowning achievement with respect to the environment was in the area of acid rain.
Eleni Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, I am proud to report that Canada is actively pursuing initiatives and making great progress in the management and control of persistent organic pollutants or POPs, particularly with respect to foreign sources of substances that are impacting on the health and environment of Canada.
In speaking to this item I wish to begin by thanking the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Natural Resources for the effective way in which we have all worked together to make the POPs protocol a success story for Canada. I also thank the member for Davenport for raising this very important issue.
Our tracking of the POPs issue indicates that we are also making progress in aspects of great importance for the federal government, such as health, children and aboriginal peoples.
Although Canada has banned or greatly cut back on the use of POPs in the Canadian North, other countries continue to use them.
POPs continue to be a problem for Canadians since they are carried by air currents from sources outside Canada and are deposited in Canadian ecosystems, particularly in northern Canada.
Canada has contributed significantly to the science that has enabled us to substantiate the need for international action and agreements on persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. We have stopped releases from most Canadian sources of POPs and reduced domestic emissions of heavy metals. Unfortunately domestic efforts are not enough to protect the peoples of the Arctic.
Reducing POPs in Canada's Arctic requires concerted international efforts. Canada has played a leading role in using the scientific information contained in the Canadian Arctic contaminants assessment report and AMAP reports to achieve international action on contaminants reaching the Arctic.
Regional protocols on the reduction of POPs and heavy metals have been drawn up under the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
These protocols, signed in June 1998 by 34 countries, including Canada, the United States, and the countries of Eastern and Western Europe, as well as the former Soviet Union, are the first enforceable major multinational agreements aimed at protecting the environment and human health by imposing limits on the release of POPs and heavy metals.
These protocols will serve as a model for even broader world-wide participation.
In June, under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, Canada hosted the initial session to negotiate a global POPs agreement, which is expected to be signed around the year 2000.
Canada strongly supports this effort and is committed to playing a vigorous leadership role. The government is committed to a continuing leadership role in moving the UNEP global initiative to a successful conclusion, for it is only through the concerted and vigorous action of all countries to eliminate or reduce their emissions of hazardous substances that Canada can achieve the protection it requires from these chemicals that know no borders.
By signing and ratifying the protocols, Canada demonstrates its ongoing and serious commitment to actively looking for ways to lead an international campaign on health and environmental issues of concern to Canadians.
We must play a leadership role in these initiatives in order to ensure that the serious risks POPs represent for the environment and for the health of Canadians, particularly aboriginal peoples in the north, are taken into account. This approach is consistent with the priority our government accords to native issues.
Canada's signature of the protocols will be an important step towards signature of the UNEP global agreement on POPs.
At the recent joint meeting of ministers of energy and environment in Halifax, all provinces and territories supported the expeditious ratification of the POPs protocol.
It is the government's intent to conclude the ratification of the POPs protocol, as well as the companion heavy metals protocol, before the end of this year. Indeed, Canada will be one of the first, if not the first country to formally accept the controls on POPs specified in this agreement.
I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, because of the hour I will make only some brief remarks in thanking hon. colleagues for their interventions and input today. The members for Lethbridge, Yukon and Fundy—Royal brought out a number of additional issues and dimensions which are important. I concur with them that we should have an approach which is as broad as possible in resolving the question of pollution.
The member for Lethbridge dwelt on the question of contaminated lands. His observations reflect the reality there, as did those of the member for Yukon when referring to over 200 national defence sites that have been abandoned.
I have some difficulty in understanding completely the logic of the member for Lethbridge. He said that he and his party cannot support this motion because it is not comprehensive enough and does not deal with all aspects of the issue that we are facing, not only on the POPs but also the contaminated lands and related issues. It seems to me that there is a choice between incremental action and supporting any possible motion that moves the agenda forward or no action at all. It escapes my ability to follow the logic of the Reform Party in this respect, and I must say in other respects also.
I would like to thank the member for Yukon for her very kind remarks and friendly suggestions. She certainly brought to our attention the situation that is now being faced in the north, which probably was the same situation faced in the south several decades ago. We should draw some lessons from what the northerners are telling us as to what they are observing so that we can see the necessity in prevention and that the north retains its pristine quality. Possibly through that lesson we can regain the lost ground in the south.
I also thank the member for Fundy—Royal who got a little carried away with partisan remarks which is understandable. He felt it was necessary to put on record the achievements of the previous government. We have not forgotten that record. He certainly reinforced the theme of this motion and provided a helpful observation which I will take very seriously.
I thank the parliamentary secretary for the good news she gave the House and for emphasizing the importance of co-operation in achieving something which, because of its international nature, is extremely difficult. Canada has developed a skill for which we are highly respected abroad, namely the capacity to bring diverging interests together in the pursuit of the environmental agenda.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being after 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)