The House met at 11 a.m.
The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion.
As the motion outlines, in any fundamental democracy it is key
that anything governments do with public money or anything
governments endeavour to do be made public through access to
information to almost anyone who would like to see the
information.
There are three key elements that I would like to address in the
House today regarding this motion. I will outline them before I
begin my speech.
There is the key issue of transparency. Governments need to
make more of an effort to become transparent. In addressing this
motion it is important to talk about the issue of transparency.
The second issue is federal-provincial relations. In the House
we have heard many different points of view on federal-provincial
relations. How we enhance and balance those relations is
fundamental when heading into the new century. I would like to
address the issue of federal-provincial relations and what the
government claims could be unfortunately hurt by making more
documents public and by making people more aware of what the
government is doing.
The third issue is how this will impact unity. There are many
issues right now. The Quebec election is taking place. There
are different points of view from different provinces when it
comes to what direction Canadian unity should take and what sort
of changes should be made in the federation.
What this motion tries to address will fundamentally impact the
direction of unity in the country. In the long run, if we follow
the direction of this motion it could enhance unity by following
the two key elements of transparency and federal-provincial
relations.
In addressing the issue of transparency I want to say that there
has been widespread public disillusionment with governments.
Generally, Canadians feel that their governments are trying to
hide a lot of information that belongs to them.
Unfortunately, because of different things we have seen in the
past, especially with the APEC scandal and other scandals of this
government, there has been more and more public disillusionment
with the way governments operate.
If we look fundamentally at this motion, all it is trying to do
is make federal government operations more transparent. There is
nothing wrong with that. Most members of the House would agree
that it is in the best interests of governments to become
transparent. They definitely should make the public aware of the
sorts of things they endeavour to take part in and make available
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, memos and anything else
that should be made public.
We can especially point to the issue of the Calgary declaration.
The public is skeptical. They really do not know what the
federal government's role is within the Calgary declaration.
Obviously it was a provincial effort. All of all the premiers of
the country came together to suggest issues of positive change in
the direction of unity.
However, the federal government has a role to play and has taken
a role in that process. It is very important to make what its
role is public. The issue of transparency is fundamental in
trying to regain public confidence in governments and in the way
they operate. I believe that is the crux of this issue.
Given the times we live in and the fundamental skepticism about
politicians there is no reason for any member of this House to
oppose this motion.
The second thing I want to address is the issue of
federal-provincial relations. I have heard government members in
their debate on this motion so far say that transparency would
harm the government's ability to conduct federal-provincial
affairs. As a member of this House and as a participant of
democracy that is very confusing for me. As I mentioned earlier,
when I look at the opportunities for governments in this whole
direction of being more transparent and trying to enhance
federal-provincial relations, the best way to do that is to make
public and include the public in the endeavours the government
chooses to take part in.
When one looks at the alienation that exists in this country
between the provinces and the federal government there is no
better time to change the direction of that public opinion by
making government operations more transparent and by sharing
information with the public.
Alas, we know what the government's stand is on trying to deal
with the regions and the provinces. We have seen so many cases
where it does not respect democracy and does not want to enhance
its relationship with the provinces. We seen that most recently
in the case of Alberta with its Senate elections. People in that
province who are trying to change the way democracy works have
gone ahead with an election process, trying to make the
federal-provincial system of Senate representation work much
better. They have been thwarted in that process. There is no
direction on the part of government to try to enhance
relationships between the provinces and the federal government.
We have also seen that on other issues concerning parliamentary
reform. Many people in this country want changes, but we tend to
see over and over again the heavy-handed governing strategy of
this government and that unfortunately creates alienation between
the federal and provincial governments.
The argument that the tabling before this House copies of
documents reporting on meetings, notes, memos and correspondence
relating to the Calgary declaration will harm the government's
ability to conduct federal and provincial affairs is absolutely
ludicrous to assume. Because we have not made a lot of these
things public is the reason we have harmed provincial-federal
relationships to begin with.
The official opposition, in its new Canada act, has outlined
ways to specifically address provincial-federal tensions. One of
the best ways to do that is to make governments more transparent
and to address the fact that we need to make anything the federal
government does more transparent.
This would allow a relationship to develop between the provinces
and the federal government, and the government has failed
miserably in doing so. I encourage the government to consider
that because there is nothing to hide and there should not be
anything to hide.
The final point I want to address is the impact on unity. When
it comes to the whole issue of the Calgary declaration, the
initiative of the provincial premiers, there is definitely a will
for change in the country. There is definitely a will to address
this age old unity problem with some new solutions.
I mention the new Canada Act. The official opposition has made
that public. We encourage debate on that. We encourage people's
feedback on that. We feel it is important that the public gets
involved with important issues that will fundamentally change the
future of the country. Why do we not see that sort of effort and
will on behalf of the government?
One of the questions raised with this motion is how on earth as
democratic representatives we can argue against making public any
sort of reports, documents or memos pertaining to the Calgary
declaration which could fundamentally affect the future of the
country. It is a wonderful initiative on behalf of provincial
premiers trying to evoke change.
I would like to summarize that if the government were interested
in democracy, if it were interested in freedom and if it were
interested in allowing positive change to take place in the
country, it would make an effort to make its dealings more
transparent. The government should want to make an effort to
make provincial-federal relations more transparent and more
effective. It would make it easier for for them to work together
and for the provinces to deal with federal problems and vice
versa. To be able to deal with the Calgary declaration in the
way the motion says the government should allow unity and the
future of unity to be debated openly. That should be encouraged.
All of us in the House should support the motion.
This is a very sensible motion, as my colleague said, calling
for transparency with respect to an important development on the
national unity file. It is particularly important because several
times my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has risen in his
place to ask members of the government cabinet at question time
what exactly they plan to do, if anything, to consult Canadians
on the Calgary declaration.
I believe the maiden question put by my colleague from
Edmonton—Strathcona in this place last year related to that
point: what, if anything, the federal government was doing to
consult Canadians about the Calgary declaration given that at
least nine of the ten provincial governments engaged in fairly
exhaustive and in depth consultation processes.
Unfortunately we have yet to receive, notwithstanding several
efforts, a clear response to that very simple question. It seems
the federal government has no plan to consult Canadians about the
future reform of the federation and potential amendments to our
Constitution.
We find this very worrisome. If Canadians have learned one
thing over the past 15 years of politics surrounding national
unity and the Constitution, it is that a behind closed doors top
down approach to constitutional reform is rejected out of hand by
Canadians.
We saw this in the approach the Liberal government took to the
repatriation of the Constitution and the adoption of the charter
of rights in 1982 by limiting debate to a small circle of
political elite within the government.
That decision did not carry the support of the majority of
Canadians in a majority of regions. It ended up helping to
create ongoing constitutional discord because it did not embrace
the heartfelt concerns of Quebecers with respect to repatriation.
Similarly in the efforts made by the federal government in 1986
through 1990 to adopt the Meech Lake accord we saw the same kind
of top down, secretive, behind closed doors, executive
federalism. It was elite brokerage politics which left ordinary
Canadians on the outside of the information loop and left
politicians alone on the inside. This led to enormous public
cynicism about the Meech Lake accord, which ultimately was its
undoing.
That in itself led to a revival of separatist sentiments in the
province of Quebec, which then led to the sad history of the
Charlottetown accord in 1982. The then federal government
finally realized that leaving Canadians on the outside of the
process and maintaining secrecy about negotiations and
consultations on unity and constitutional reform was no longer
acceptable. That question was put to Canadians in the referendum
held in October 1992. We know of the remarkable historic result.
Canadians overwhelmingly rejected the jerry-built approach to
special status in constitution making and interest group politics
found in the Charlottetown accord.
We started this process once more with the Calgary declaration.
Nine of the ten premiers gathered in good faith in Calgary in the
summer of 1997 to examine ways to once again begin as a
federation to talk about the need for reform of our
constitutional framework to include all Canadians, including
westerners and Quebecers. The premiers came up with the five
principles of the Calgary declaration as a framework for
discussion. They encouraged their various legislatures to engage
in an exhaustive process of consultation.
All those provincial governments went to their constituencies.
Through a variety of techniques which included public opinion
polls, focus groups, town hall meetings, information circulars,
surveys, brochures, Internet sites and special committees, each
provincial government reviewed the input from the public and each
premier reported back to their fellow premiers.
We had the beginning of a bottom up process for reform of the
federation and the Constitution. Unfortunately no similar effort
was undertaken by the federal government. When my colleague for
Edmonton—Strathcona asked the government whether it intended to
engage in such consultations in the province of Quebec, the
answer was no. There was no such plan.
We as the official opposition assumed the responsibility to
consult with Quebecers. We mailed an information circular on the
Calgary declaration to a quarter of a million homes in the
province of Quebec seeking input on the declaration. We
conducted a poll and held public meetings. We generally did
whatever we could within our limited resources to get public
feedback.
This is why we have put the motion before the House. We feel
the government has been cavalier and indifferent at best to the
Calgary declaration, which by no means is perfect. It includes
elements of deep concern to many Canadians. Many people are
concerned that the unique characteristics clause may be some day
interpreted to confer special legal privileges on a particular
province.
Notwithstanding, most Canadians support the general direction of
consultation, the principle of equality of provinces under the
law and the principle of rebalancing powers as the premiers
further manifested in their social union agreement in Saskatoon
earlier this year.
The motion comes before this place simply to ask the government
to show the House and to show all Canadians what, if anything, it
has done, said and thought about or how it has consulted
Canadians in the way of public opinion polls and other mechanisms
with respect to the Calgary declaration.
It is important. This should not just be regarded as some
sleepy motion. It is critically important that we get the
process right at the front end, that we do not once again find
ourselves as a country in the backwaters of the constitutional
elite brokerage deal making that occurred at Meech Lake and
Charlottetown. It is absolutely critical that we know exactly
what the Government of Canada has done, said and plans to do with
respect to the constitutional future of the country and reform of
the federation.
While speaking to the motion I would also point out it is
unfortunate, in seeking access to critical information of this
nature, that increasingly Canadians and parliamentarians find the
legal framework for access to information far too inaccessible.
The Access to Information Act passed in parliament in the 1970s
has become a joke in terms of guaranteeing real access to
government information. It is well known that the bureaucracy
has learned how not to comply with the spirit of the act but has
managed to twist the letter of the law to its advantage to keep
secret government information which should be public.
It is not just a partisan opinion that I express. Some members
of the government opposite, including the hon. member for
Hamilton—Wentworth, have put forward a comprehensive private
member's bill before us to completely overhaul and reform the
access to information law so that it will once again put Canada
on the leading edge of governments with respect to openness,
transparency and accountability. This is an important principle.
As someone who used to work at an advocacy organization seeking
information on government spending I can say that time after
time—
In trying to respond to the comments that have been made, and
certainly the comments that were made when the House was
previously seized with the matter, it is important for us to
reflect on a couple of points.
I am in my 11th year as an elected person. I spent two terms in
the provincial house and I am now in my second term here. It has
been my experience—and I think this experience holds in most
walks of life—that we do our best work and create the best
results when we work together, when we work in co-operation, when
we attempt to put aside some of our differences and work on
behalf of the best interests of the country and the people we
serve.
Nowhere is this more important than in the issue of
constitutional reform which affects every person in the country.
It is an issue that must be considered very carefully. Each
decision we make will become part of the structure of the country
for a very long time.
It is not a process to be entered into lightly and I certainly
do not hear members opposite suggesting that we should. The
important aspect for me is that it is a process that needs to be
entered into co-operatively. It is a process that is entered
into when people are sitting down, not to fight about their
personal differences or their broad political differences, but to
look at ways in which they can produce something that is truly in
the best interests of Canadians.
Having said that, I am a little surprised by this motion. It is
said that if the policies or actions of the government cannot be
attacked, then attack the process. Unfortunately, recently in
this House when members cannot attack the process, they attack
the person.
We have seen a lot of debate in this House in these last few
weeks, certainly since we came back into this House in September,
that has little to do with reality, little to do with actions of
individuals and a lot to do with an attempt by members of this
House to personally discredit and attack individuals. I find
that extremely distasteful. In the two speeches that were just
made I have heard the words “secrecy”, “behind closed doors”,
“talked down”, “ramming things through”.
What is the government's response to this motion? It will
produce all the papers. That was the government's response
before it was debated in the House. There is no secrecy here.
There is no attempt to hide anything.
The government has said from the beginning that we do not have
any objection to sharing this information. I would suggest on
issues such as this one in the future that if there is a concern,
if there is information members opposite want, and I am not
saying all information will be shared automatically, but the
information will be shared. I am certain there will be policy
issues and information that will come forward at times between
the government and others where it will be difficult to do that.
On this issue, I would advise members that if they want
information from the government, perhaps the first approach would
be to call the minister and ask if they could have it. If
members get told no, then they have the option of going the
freedom of information route and all this information would have
been received that way, or members could come to the House.
To start at the top simply uses a lot of time that could be
spent elsewhere and produces no advantage, no additional result,
particularly when members have been told they would get the
information. One has to wonder why members came into the House
to do this. Is it because they really want to get the
information because they are concerned about transparency or is
it because they want to create a straw man that reinforces the
image members want to create regarding secrecy and lack of
accountability? Members want to run against that.
I would argue frankly that it is the latter. I would feel, if I
were allowed to feel things around here any more, that that was
probably an abuse of the time of this House. More importantly it
is an abuse of the process that we have to create if we are going
to create the kind of constitution we all want.
What is the official response of the government to this motion?
This comes from the speech of the member for Simcoe North. The
government agrees to follow up on this initiative. The member in
saying this has said his prediction is that the government will
vote down this motion. Why are these polls being held back? Why
are we not being apprised of the situation? The government's
response is “Sure. If you want them, you have got them”.
All of that information will be produced.
In terms of the comments that were made by the member from
Calgary about the government's supposed concerns about the
Calgary declaration, let me read what the former parliamentary
secretary of federal-provincial relations said when he spoke on
this motion in the House: “The Calgary declaration is based on
seven principles that are completely”—completely, not
partially, not maybe, not sort of—“in line with our
government's national unity policy. It highlights our country's
diversity”.
How that can be twisted into some other government playing games
with the Calgary accord or not supporting the Calgary accord is a
little difficult to figure. The point I would like to make is
that if we are truly going down the road to changing, rebuilding,
restoring confidence of Canadians in our constitutional framework
and we are truly going to rebuild this framework, maybe we should
begin that process by trying to work together on it rather than
simply making it one more straw man that arguments are created
about. I do not know how that assists the process.
The main point is that if the elected representatives of the
people of Canada are to be effective and make proper decisions in
a democracy as we pretend to have here, we need to have that
information. It needs to be forthcoming. I have had a lot of
experience in the last five years where that information has not
been forthcoming.
We have an issue here regarding the Calgary declaration, or
separation, or the Quebec issue, whatever the label is, where
that information is not forthcoming. This issue gravely affects
the country and for the government not to be producing all of
these things is very serious. The government pretends it is but
it is not.
I have had information denied to me regarding positions that
this country has taken at the United Nations and the government
continues to stonewall. It continues to deny us the information
as to what it is saying and doing internationally. I cannot
understand why it does not share this information. The
government shares it all over the world. It shares it with
people from other countries, many of them dictators and people
whom we may not even agree with. The government is more open with
those people than it is with the people of Canada.
We have a very serious problem here, especially in parliament.
When we are dealing with issues here we need information and I
hope that information will be forthcoming.
Another example is my experience with questions on the Order
Paper where we specifically ask the government for information in
relation to a certain matter. The government is supposed to
answer within 45 days. I have yet to have an instance in which
it does answer within 45 days. We sometimes have to wait a year,
even longer. This is unconscionable.
The people of Canada ought to be aware of the fact that one of
the biggest problems I face as a parliamentarian is the fact that
I cannot get proper information in a timely fashion.
Since we have allotted the time until 12 o'clock in which to
debate this motion and everyone will be sitting here doing
nothing if we do not continue the debate until 12 o'clock, I
would like to seek unanimous consent that we allow this motion to
be further debated for the next 20 minutes and if necessary, the
amendment be allowed.
The reason is that an election in the province of Quebec is
happening as we speak and in less than a month there will be a
new government chosen to represent the province of Quebec. In
this whole issue of federal-provincial relations it is important
that the federal government comes clean on what it has as
documentation with regard to the Calgary declaration. It is only
fair that it does so in a timely fashion so that it can be taken
into account by the electorate of the province of Quebec.
The question really lies with what was the federal government's
role in the Calgary declaration, what was its position and what
type of backroom negotiations, deals, polls and whatnot did it
conduct with regard to the declaration. That is what this motion
fundamentally speaks to.
There is a will for change in this country. One of my other
colleagues mentioned that. The Reform Party obviously has a will
for Senate elections. The Bloc has a will with regard to a change
in the nature of the relationship between the provinces and the
federal government. The NDP wishes to abolish the Senate. The
Progressive Conservatives in this House have a will for change
with regard to their own leadership.
This really is about consultation and whether or not the federal
government has engaged in that and what it has done with regard
to that in the Calgary declaration. It is one of the reasons we
wanted to see these papers.
The last time this type of thing was done with regard to
constitutional papers was with the Charlottetown accord in 1992.
The opposition at that time went on a fishing expedition and
found a goodly amount of information with regard to what the
government was up to on the Charlottetown accord.
As to the issue of transparency, as I said before, in a month
there will be a new government in the province of Quebec. We
will find out what the people of Quebec decide with regard to
their future. If the federal government has nothing to hide, it
should be willing within a month to provide the information so
that the people in Quebec know what position the federal
government was taking in secret and in public with regard to the
declaration. This amendment that we were trying to put through
was so that the reasonable portion of the time line would be
respected.
I have been told that the government should provide these types
of documents within 90 days, or three months, call it what you
will. I wanted to make sure that the government was held true to
that and if we could speed up that process we should endeavour to
do so. In that way everyone would know what the federal
government was up to on this.
I will touch on a couple of other things just to wrap up this
debate. I want to see the Liberal government operate and come
forward with these documents in a timely fashion.
In the red book in 1997 the Liberals promised that any future
debate that puts into question the continuing existence for the
unity of Canada would be characterized by clarity and frankness.
In that spirit, the Liberals wrote it themselves by their own
hand, by their own pen.
In the red book of 1997 they said they wanted to have clarity and
frankness, and that is what the opposition is demanding on this.
There was not clarity and frankness with regard to provision of
documents. In 1992 with regard to the Charlottetown accord the
government at that time said that one of the considerations that
had to be taken into account was the potential for causing great
damage. The member for Wentworth—Burlington brought up that
issue. If the federal government were forthright and had no
difference between its public and private position there would be
no potential for causing great damage. I think we all want to
see that.
I want to touch on the whole idea of co-operation. When I
brought this motion forward I had a flurry of calls from the the
government asking me to pull this motion because it did not want
to provide the papers. It said I should do it through an access
to information request which means that I would get fewer papers.
The government asked me in a flurry of activity in the 48 hours
before the motion was put to pull it.
The government said it had the documents. I said if it had them
it could provide them and it refused to do so. That is why I let
the motion go forward and now that is why we ask for them.
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-54, an act to support and promote electronic commerce
by protecting personal information that is collected, used or
disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of
electronic means to communicate or record information or
transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the
Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion
that the question be now put.
Right at the start, the Bloc Quebecois had to remind this House
that, when it comes to protecting personal information, Quebec's
law has for some time been unique in North America.
Quebec had a law protecting privacy in the public sector as far
back as 1982. The federal government and the provinces later
enacted similar legislation. In 1994, long before the federal
government had envisaged doing so, the Quebec law extended the
protection of personal information to the private sector. Once
again, Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to do
so.
Quebec's privacy laws were adopted to ensure respect for major
fundamental rights provided in international instruments such as
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantee the
right to privacy.
These international instruments were reflected in the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975,
and which was in fact the first law dealing with the right to
privacy.
I remind this House that section 5 of the Quebec charter,
enacted in 1975, provides that “Every person has a right to
respect for his private life”. This implies of course that
governments must pass laws to protect this right, including
against any misuse of personal information.
The Quebec act respecting the protection of personal information
in the private sector is rather similar to the directive from
the European Union on this issue, which is also a leading-edge
document. This means that Quebec and the European Union are the
jurisdictions that are most respectful of the right to privacy
when it comes to the protection of personal information.
As for Bill C-54, which is now before us, it is in response to
numerous commitments made by the government to enact a federal
law to protect personal information in the private sector, which
comes under federal jurisdiction.
However, the title itself shows a will to reduce the level of
protection that the legislation should provide, since it reads
an act “to support and promote electronic commerce”. This means
it is first and foremost an act to promote electronic commerce.
Then comes “by protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances” only “by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions”.
Indeed, the title already tells us about the limits which the
government wants to impose on the protection of personal
information that may be used or collected by the private sector.
So, this bill is not an act to protect personal information but
rather an act to manage the use of personal information in the
sole area of commercial activities.
Unfortunately, Bill C-54 is another bill whose core is to be
found in a schedule and one that restates guidelines originally
developed at the OECD and embraced by standards organizations in
Canada. This is a bill whose schedule, which is its heart, its
core, is written in the conditional.
One has to take a close look at this bill and its schedule to
notice that the so-called requirements are in fact written in the
conditional, which means that for all intents and purposes
theses requirements are really only suggestions or
recommendations being made to those who hold personal
information and should ensure its best use.
In fact, in considering the bill, under paragraph 5(2), every
government institution is required to specify the identified
purposes to the individual from whom personal information is
collected, but subparagraph 4.2.3 of the schedule states, and I
draw members' attention to the use of the conditional here, that
the identified purpose should be specified at or before the time
of collection to the individual from whom the personal
information is collected.
Two subparagraphs further, subparagraph 4.2.5 of the schedule
states—and again I draw members' attention to the use of the
conditional—that persons collecting personal information
should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which
the information is being collected.
So, it would seem that the purpose of Bill-54 is, through
watered down obligations written in the conditional, to promote
electronic commerce by making the right to privacy in the
private sector a secondary consideration. Worse yet, the Bloc
Quebecois believes that, in some instances, this bill will
restrict the rights Quebeckers currently have under legislation
passed by the Quebec national assembly.
Under section 17 of Quebec's protection of personal information
legislation, an Eaton employee in Montreal is entitled to see
his personal file, even if it is kept in Toronto. However, with
Bill C-54, he would not necessarily be able to view his file,
because his request would be subject to legislation that ignores
the right to privacy when the access to information request is
made under labour relations provisions and is not of a
commercial nature.
One of the weaknesses of this bill, and we have pointed this out
in the last few days, is that clause 27(2)(b) gives the Governor
in Council excessive powers that should never be given to a
government and that should be spelled out in the bill if there
is really to be any respect for the fundamental right to
privacy.
The bill relies on the voluntary CSA code. This code is
mentioned in the preamble to the schedule. But those with
primary responsibility for protection of personal information
were not impressed.
We gave an example that is worth repeating today.
The access to information commissioners for Quebec and for
British Columbia were quite critical of this code and argued
that it did not go far enough and did not provide optimal
protection.
In his 1997-98 annual report, the Quebec access to information
commissioner said that going along with this proposal, the CSA
standard, would be a step backward from the current situation in
Quebec as far as protection of personal information is
concerned. The British Columbia commissioner made similar
comments.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Bill C-54 makes this
a long and complex procedure that will do nothing to protect the
legislation—
It is surprising that the thrust of this bill is not the
protection of personal information and privacy. As we look into
it, we realize how different it could be and in fact how much
work went into making it different.
I would be amiss if I did not mention that the Minister of
Justice had announced at an international conference he would be
tabling a bill on the protection of personal information. We
understand it was the upcoming OECD conference that pushed the
government into action.
Unfortunately, this haste caused it to circumvent the
federal-provincial consensus reached. The consensus was on
harmonization.
It is important to note that, for a long time, it was hoped in
Canada—and it was the wish expressed by the former privacy
commissioner, Mr. Grace—that protection of personal information
in the private sector would be voluntary.
When privacy commissioner Bruce Phillips was appointed, and
after he himself had tried to provide for a voluntary
arrangement that would adequately protect the public, he said,
in his 1997-98 annual report, that he had reached a different
conclusion.
—and the developing European Union common data law which risks
restricting information flow to countries with inadequate
private standards—of which Canada is one.
The preparatory work done by Mr. Phillips, the commissioner, and
by the provinces and the federal government was based on harmony
and dialogue.
1215
However, we have no choice but to deplore as strongly as we can
the fact that Bill C-54 and particularly clause 27 not only have
the federal government establishing a lower national standard,
but also give it the outrageous power to decide whether the
Quebec legislation applies to Quebec, and when, because they
give the federal government the power to decide to what type of
organizations and activities the provincial legislation applies.
This is totally unacceptable and incomprehensible, particularly
in the case of Quebec and in light of the comments made by the
privacy commissioner.
Quebec has had a law since 1994 to protect not only commercial
information, but also the numerous exchanges between businesses,
associations, and so on, a law to protect privacy and personal
information.
As it now stands, the federal bill restricts in many ways the
scope of the provincial act. Some of the conclusions stated in
the Owen report were reaffirmed by the task force on the future
of Canadian financial services. The Owen report also recognizes
that the Quebec act currently applies to all businesses in the
province.
Mr. Dubreuil, a constitutional expert, was asked what would
happen if the constitutionality of the provincial legislation
was challenged. Mr. Dubreuil stated twice that the Quebec law
would survive such a challenge.
That means that this law applies now not only broadly to all
businesses on Quebec soil, but it protects the rights of Quebec
citizens when information about them is used elsewhere.
The same report notes, and I quote Richard C. Owen: “National
institutions across the country will have to come to terms with
these provisions”—the ones in the Quebec law—“when personal
information is sent outside Quebec. In practical terms, this
means that they may be required to not send personal information
about residents of Quebec, unless measures meeting the
requirements of the law throughout Canada are met”.
That means Quebeckers are protected beyond the borders of
Quebec.
Now what happens with Bill C-54? This bill has the power to
regulate all transactions outside Quebec. It will also have the
power to regulate transactions of businesses in Quebec under
federal jurisdiction.
There is at least a third matter of concern: the influence of
the federal bill, which recognizes the CSA code in the schedule,
on future jurisprudence as it applies to the meaning of the
Quebec legislation.
1220
This is a clear collision of what I might call Quebec and
Canadian cultures. The effort in Quebec and elsewhere before
was focussed on harmonizing the two. It might be advantageous
for Canada, but this was not what the federal government chose.
This government chose to deprive Quebeckers of the rights they
enjoy under their law. It chose to not give Canadians
equivalent protection. It chose to include the schedule in the
bill, the CSA code.
This code, which businesses have agreed to apply, is a good one.
However, the code is unclear. It errs seriously in the matter
of requirements concerning the consent businesses must obtain so
people will know what information about them is being gathered
and how it may be used.
For us and for all Quebeckers—since the Quebec legislation was
recently revised by the Liberals and the PQ—Bill C-54 is
unacceptable.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
needless to say, I take great interest in joining with my
colleague for Mercier at third reading of Bill C-54 to support
and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal
information that is collected. I will not read the title in
full.
In my opinion, the primary purpose of this bill is to promote
e-commerce. If there is time, and if the government and public
servants are so disposed, an effort will be made to protect the
personal information that has been gathered using the
increasingly sophisticated electronic equipment available on the
market.
Bill C-54 contains a number of shortcomings. Primarily, this is
an extremely fragile and confusing piece of legislation that is
liable to interpretation and to problems in determining
divisions between the provinces and territories and the central
government. This bill hands discriminatory power to the
governor-in-council, or in other words the cabinet. What is more,
the commissioner has no real power. Finally, this legislation
will interfere with the Quebec legislation which has already
been in place since 1982 and which has been reinforced in order
to protect personal information not only in the public sector,
in publicly owned corporations and in government, but also in
the private sector.
For all these reasons, therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will most
definitely object to Bill C-54, to which we are speaking this
afternoon.
In this context, there is danger that the bill will limit
Quebeckers' right to privacy , and no certainty that it will be
capable of meeting the expectations of Canadian consumers.
Since ensuring homogeneity across Canada in the protection of
personal information would appear to require the harmonization
of legislation, one might well have expected the federal
government to at least take some of its inspiration from what
has been going on in Quebec for the past four years, from our
experience with the protection of personal information. But it
did no such thing.
1225
Privacy is a fundamental right. The experts equate the right to
privacy with other human rights such as the right to equality
and justice.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United
Nations over 50 years ago and to which Canada was a signatory,
states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of the person. It also states that no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Privacy is also protected in Canada, although only partially.
This protection is not specifically included in the Charter, but
that is how the courts have interpreted two important sections
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7 and 8.
I will take a moment or two to read these sections. Section 7
reads as follows:
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice”.
Section 8 provides as follows:
This brings me to what happened a scant year ago in Vancouver,
when the Prime Minister was host to APEC leaders. One of these
leaders was Suharto, a head of state who was trampling the most
elementary human rights within his own country.
While some 200 students demonstrated across from where the area
where the meeting was to take place, the Prime Minister's Office
and the Prime Minister himself issued no-nonsense orders to the
RCMP to clear the area by 4 p.m. We all saw what happened. The
duty RCMP staff sergeant gave orders to the demonstrators,
students aged 17, 18 or 20 years old, several of whom were
accompanied by their father or mother.
Imagine being with your daughter, who is exercizing her civic
right here in this country to express her dissatisfaction with
our Prime Minister for showing so much deference to a dictator
like Suharto. This same Prime Minister then asks the police to
give a warning, but 20 seconds later, the police go all out,
using what our PM referred to as civilized methods, that is
pepper spray. The next day, the Prime Minister mocked us by
saying he only used pepper in his soup.
How do you expect our privacy rights to be respected in a
country where even our civic rights are not respected?
In this respect, I had the opportunity and pleasure to meet Roch
Gosselin from East Angus Sunday morning. This middle-aged man was
proud to tell me he got arrested, not under this government but
under another Liberal government that was in office in 1970,
when the current Prime Minister was a very high-ranking member of
the cabinet that passed the War Measures Act.
1230
Nearly 500 arrests were made among the Quebec elite, often
without just cause. Roch Gosselin, of East Angus, was one of
those who were detained for a dozen days without knowing why.
His only fault was to want to give his children and
grandchildren a country: Quebec. Like Pauline Julien, he was
jailed.
Today, the government is apologizing profusely, but the same men
and women are now sitting across the way and proposing Bill C-54
presumably to protect our privacy, our personal information.
They want to see this legislation passed. Why do they not tell
us the truth this afternoon?
Why not say that the primary purpose of this bill is to promote
the sale of electronic products?
Roch Gosselin is a distinguished citizen in his town of East
Angus, yet his civic rights were trampled. He was jailed. What
did the current Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, do
when in cabinet at the time? Again, he mocked us.
In a free vote, this government refused to fund the legal
representation of financially challenged Vancouver students by
renowned lawyers. An artist slated to receive a $10,000 prize
from the governor general, has agreed, and I congratulate him on
this, to donate his prize money to the student legal
representation fund.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are
continuing a very important debate on Bill C-54, the purpose of
which is to support and promote electronic commerce by
protecting personal information.
It will be recalled that the government introduced this bill
last week, and everyone in this House, except the Bloc
Quebecois, seemed to expect it to move rapidly along, like a hot
knife through butter, more or less. Fortunately, that was not
how things went. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois pointed out
some of the shortcomings and serious problems in Bill C-54, and
once the House was aware of these, it was able to engage in a
more thorough debate.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased to have been able to make a highly
significant contribution to this examination, one which is all
the more significant because we are well placed to judge the
enormous shortcomings in the bill, since we in Quebec have
legislation for the protection of personal information in the
private sector. That legislation has been in place for the past
four years and has proven itself.
There is always room for improvement in any legislation, of
course, but ours is a serious act, one with muscle, one that is
useful in defending people against intrusion into their private
lives.
The bill we have before us now, however, unfortunately lacks
muscle. It is a bill without sufficient regulations and
provisions to really protect the public.
All that it does contain is a number of precautions and covers,
very often in the conditional, things that should be done, with
no obligation to comply. People can opt out. Where e-commerce
is concerned, merely having a few obligations is really very
weak.
That is not the worse thing, however. In some ways, this bill
is undermining what Quebec has so wisely accomplished. We in
Quebec find ourselves trying to move ahead up an escalator,
while the federal government is trying to make us go back down.
The bill is a serious step backwards.
1235
I will give a few examples. Paragraph 5(2) of the Privacy Act,
which governs the public sector, provides that:
5.(2) A government institution shall inform any individual from
whom the institution collects personal information about the
individual of the purpose for which the information is being
collected.
This is the legislation governing the public sector, federal
institutions. Now, this government is going to treat the
private sector differently.
Clause 4.2.3 of the schedule to Bill C-54 reads as follows:
4.2.3 The identified purposes should be specified at or before
the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal
information is collected—
Clause 4.2.5 of the schedule provides that:
4.2.5 Persons collecting personal information should be able to
explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is
being collected.
Here we have two conditionals, two clauses in the schedule that
are not obligatory and easily ignored. The identified purposes
should be specified to the individual.
They should be, but if they are not, it is not a serious matter.
What kind of legislation is this? The bill says “should”but
failure to do so is not serious. Who will comply? Nobody,
obviously.
Later on, the bill says:
Persons collecting personal information should be able to
explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is
being collected.
It says “should be able to explain”. This is wishful thinking.
If the person is unable to explain, too bad. The public will
provide information but will not know for what purpose. There
is no obligation to explain. The public is not entitled to
know.
The person should be able to explain, but may not be able to or
does not feel like explaining and, whoops, the law becomes null
and void.
These are two simple and clear examples, but they show that this
law lacks vigour and teeth. It renders no service to the
public. It is essentially a useless law.
However, there is worse. Bill C-54, in some cases, will restrict
the rights of Quebeckers, rights they enjoy under provincial
legislation. Under the Quebec law, someone working for Eaton's
in Montreal is entitled to see his personnel records, even if
they are kept in Toronto. Section 17 of the Quebec legislation
provides for this.
Under Bill C-54, this same employee in Montreal will now no
longer have access to his records, because Bill C-54 makes no
provision for the right to privacy in connection with a request
for access under labour relations laws or when, in any case, the
request for access is not of a commercial nature.
Quebec spent a lot of money on parliamentary commissions,
hearings, receiving memorandums and legislation that is solid
and respects individuals' right to privacy. It cost money.
Today, and for a week now, what have we been doing? We have
been trying to save Quebec, because the federal minister is
trying to undermine what it has done.
In other words, I am being paid at the moment not to improve the
situation, but to prevent its deterioration.
If Quebec were a sovereign state, if it made its own laws—in
fact it already has a law to protect personal information—I
would not be here trying to defend its legislation. Federalism
is not just a question of profitability and non-profitability. It
is also a matter of respect for the decisions made by citizens,
in a legitimate and democratic fashion.
This bill will undermine a Quebec initiative, an important right
for its citizens, in this era of telecommunications and at a
time when electronic commerce is expanding. This makes no sense,
but I have no choice. In fact, this is not the only bill that
puts us in such a situation.
1240
For example, I can think of the young offenders bill, which was
introduced by the Minister of Justice and which includes
measures that are totally opposite to Quebec's successful
initiatives. Sometimes, we Quebeckers look at what is going on
and it makes us feel sad. However, when we get here, we feel
much better.
There are some things that we in Quebec do very well. The
protection of personal information is ensured in a very adequate
manner. The same is true regarding the rehabilitation of our
young offenders. It is in Quebec that the youth crime rate is
lowest and that rehabilitation measures are most successful.
It is so because, for over 25 years now, we have had a youth
protection branch that has constantly been improving and
providing really useful services. But the federal Minister of
Justice introduced a bill whose content contradicts Quebec's
successful initiatives, a bill which will lead us to the abyss
where the other provinces already are when it comes to young
offenders.
Again, I am looking forward to the day when Quebec becomes a
sovereign state so we will no longer have to try to save what is
working well in Quebec and prevent Ottawa from imposing lower
standards. Indeed, Quebec's sovereignty looks more and more like
the solution for our province.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak to Bill C-54. As I told this House
previously, this bill is about a fundamental value in our
society, namely the protection of privacy.
It has an impact beyond this chamber. This morning, there was an
article in Le Devoir entitled “Increasing Pressure for the
Protection of Consumers' Privacy”. It discusses the threats to
our privacy and the need for consumers to be informed of their
rights.
It also discusses the bill we are debating today, emphasizing
that the federal legislation will be imposed on any province
that has not passed its own legislation in this respect within
three years.
The need for a bill protecting personal information and privacy
is not new.
Most provinces have already passed such legislation. The federal
government is the one dragging its feet when it comes to taking
its responsibilities and introducing a bill governing federally
regulated businesses.
In fact, we expected this government to draw on existing
provincial legislation to bring forward a bill that is coherent,
effective, clear and in harmony with provincial jurisdictions.
Unfortunately for all Quebeckers and Canadians, this bill is
wide off the mark.
Instead of protecting privacy as it should, this bill only
protects the right of large private businesses to make profits
with as few restrictions as possible. This is unacceptable. The
federal government must go back to the drawing board as soon as
possible.
It must introduce a bill that really deals with the protection
of privacy.
If it is not yet convinced of the urgency of the situation, it
should contact the president of the Quebec Commission d'accès à
l'information, Paul-André Comeau. It will see that the Quebec
government receives 2,000 calls each month from people concerned
with the protection of their privacy.
The Liberal Party is fuelling the cynicism against politicians
by using this empty and confused initiative to try to convince
our fellow citizens that it is concerned with the protection of
privacy. But it does not say it introduced a bill that is simply
in favour of commerce, a bill that is only based on voluntary
compliance by businesses as far as protection of privacy is
concerned.
1245
This bill is full of loopholes. It leaves many sectors without
any protection. This bill is filled with ifs and whens and
shoulds. This means the government says to large businesses they
should, if possible, be concerned with the privacy of their
clients. I insist on the word should because this is exactly
what we have in this bill.
This situation is unacceptable. First of all, I would like to
stress the fundamental nature of the right to privacy. Others
have spoken of this before me, but I am returning to it because,
with this bill, the Liberal Party is putting the right to make a
profit before the right to privacy.
The experts equate the right to privacy with other human rights
such as the right to equality and justice. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 50
years ago and to which Canada was a signatory, states that
everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
It also states as follows:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation.
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms also impacts on
the protection of privacy, even though this is not specifically
in the charter. In Quebec, as members are aware, this right to
privacy is explicitly recognized in the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, which was enacted in 1975.
There is nothing ambiguous about section 5, which says, and I
quote:
This right is also recognized in Quebec's Civil Code, and my
colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, who is very knowledgeable
in the law, can tell us that I am right. This right is indeed
recognized in chapter III of Quebec's Civil Code entitled
“Respect of Reputation and Privacy”, and I quote:
35. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation
and privacy. No one may invade the privacy of a person without
the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.
It is crystal clear: respect of privacy is a fundamental right
that is recognized internationally, as well as in Canada and in
Quebec. It is wrong for the federal government to introduce a
bill that does not protect this fundamental right.
As mentioned in the article published this morning in Le Devoir,
the situation in Quebec in this regard is particularly
exemplary. The Government of Quebec is the only government in
North America that has passed legislation protecting personal
information in the public and private sectors.
Furthermore, many experts say that Quebec's law, which applies
to the private sector, is one of the best in the world. It is a
lot better than the federal bill that applies to the public
sector only.
It is surprising in this context that the government did not
draw on Quebec's legislation. It would have achieved two
objectives at once.
First of all it would have ensured consumers would have top-notch
protection. It would also have avoided all the inevitable
loopholes and pitfalls of unharmonized federal and provincial
legislation.
This leads us to believe that the real objective of this bill is
not the protection of privacy, but a vague exercise in public
relations. The government would like to use this bill to show
that it responds to the public's concerns. This, however, is
totally false.
The bill does not meet the expectations of the people of Quebec
who want their privacy protected. Instead, it serves commercial
interests.
Even Canada's privacy commissioner notes that the working
document proposed by Industry Canada and the Department of
Justice focuses more on commerce than on protecting privacy.
1250
In conclusion, one simply needs to compare the titles of the two
acts. Quebec's act is entitled “An Act respecting the protection
of personal information in the private sector”, whereas the
convoluted title of the federal act reads as follows:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances—
The Quebec act is clearly more strict and more comprehensive, in
terms of its format, definitions, clarity and because of the
power of order given to the commissioner.
It is for these reasons that we categorically reject Bill C-54.
The federal government refused to follow the example of the
Quebec act, even though it is recognized as a model in this
area. This does not come as a surprise, because Quebec's act is
aimed primarily at protecting citizens, whereas the federal
government's bill is essentially intended to please big
corporations.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today especially as I have not seen you in a
while.
For those watching us on TV, I am the member for Québec East. My
riding is close to Quebec City. One of the most beautiful
ridings in Quebec, it encompasses L'Ancienne-Lorette, Duberger,
Les Saules, Vanier, Saint-Odile, Lebourgneuf, Neufchâtel, Les
Méandres, Loretteville and the Huron village. I invite anyone
following this debate and recognizing me as the member for
Quebec East to write to or even call me if they have any comment
regarding what is being said in the House today on Bill C-54.
As my colleagues said repeatedly, this bill is weak and does not
meet the population's needs. I have grave concerns regarding
this bill because times are changing.
We are living at a time when communications are very quick. My
old communications professor, Marshall McLuhan, coined the
phrase “the global village” to stress the extent to which we are
increasingly close to one another.
This is not the only problem. Today, in the late 1990s, on the
eve of the 21st century, there are significant changes in the
way trade is being conducted around the world. This morning in
the Quebec daily Le Soleil, I read that there was less
competition among Canadian firms. For instance, Loblaws is in
the process of buying Provigo, a Quebec company. There are also
the proposed bank mergers. Several of these developments are a
sign of things to come that might not necessarily be good as
mergers reduce competition and choice, often resulting in more
expensive services and products.
Moreover, when companies such as banks and multinationals become
very powerful in today's electronic era, they might use personal
information in a way that might be harmful to individuals. This
is a real danger and the thrust of the debate surrounding Bill
C-54.
We wish the federal government were aware of its
responsibilities. Unfortunately, such is not the case, as the
labour minister and members across the way readily acknowledge.
The way Mr. Chrétien has been behaving during the “Peppergate”
events in Vancouver, showing a total lack of respect for the
most basic democratic principles, is a case in point.
1255
It is not surprising that the current government is putting
forward a personal information protection bill that is, for all
intents and purposes, weak, inefficient and contrary to another
right which has become fundamental these days, the protection of
personal information.
This is in fact becoming an urgent and important right given the
changing world economy. It has also been recognized by the
privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips, who used to be a reporter
for CTV, if I am not mistaken.
Let me quote what he had to say about some of the elements of
personal information:
[English]
<“The myriad of transactions that involve personal information
about identifiable individuals that take place without their
informed consent constitute the disregard and destruction of a
treasured human right on a massive scale. These are good
descriptions”.
[Translation]
What he is describing in rather complex terms is the right to
the protection of personal information.
[English]
<“In the new information age we will respect each other as
individual human beings”.
[Translation]
This is what the commissioner had to say. Basically, he wants
the government to respect the individual. This is elementary,
but we found nothing comforting in Bill C-54 as introduced by
the Liberal government.
In fact, this is a bill Jean Charest, in Quebec, could very well
support, because it puts corporate interests before the public
interest. Jean Charest has recommended to Quebeckers changes
that would give priority to corporate interests over public
interest, that would destroy much of the work done by the
current government at the expense of individuals. Bill C-54 is
the kind of legislation Mr. Charest would support.
The Liberal government's Bill C-54 even undermines Quebec's
existing legislation. It must be recognized that Quebec has
been a leader in a number of areas. For instance, our elections
act is among the best in the world. We have passed farming
legislation.
We have even carried out an enviable reform in the health sector
that is a tribute to the courage of the present provincial
government. Well I remember watching Marc-Yvan Côté, the health
minister in 1990, as he introduced his proposed health reform on
television. The bill for this reform would have been $650,000.
Ultimately, nothing was done, for the other government took
over.
The present provincial government has passed a number of laws,
including one on the protection of personal information. Quebec
passed this law in 1994. It is just one of many examples.
It proves that the present government in Quebec, with its
open-minded and progressive bills, is on top of things. This
particular law is one of the best, if not the only one, of its
kind in North America, requiring that personal information be
protected in the private sector. The federal government's Bill
C-54 would be a step backward from the legislation passed by
Quebec in 1994.
1300
In other words, Bill C-54 is, once again, a step backward. One
of many. The Prime Minister and this backward-looking Liberal
government really lack the strength to bring in any
forward-looking bills.
Perhaps we should support those who are calling for the Prime
Minister's head. For instance, this week, La Presse wrote that
it was time for the Prime Minister to make his exit. The
Toronto Star has also called for his resignation, as have the
Globe and Mail the Gazette and the Edmonton Journal.
Last week, there was a chorus from numerous English-language
dailies—not known for their separatist views—all after the Prime
Minister's head because he does not respect fundamental rights
in this country. One good example of this lack of respect is
Peppergate, but there was also the Somalia scandal and the
ensuing attempted cover-up.
It is not therefore surprising that Bill C-54 is so wishy-washy,
weak and contrary to the interests of Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much having the
opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-54, which I
suppose is a serious attempt by the government to modernize
legislation in recognition of the fact that Canada is entering
the digital age. It is an effort by the government of the day to
provide a regulatory environment that will enhance electronic
commerce and ensure that electronic commerce flourishes in our
country.
I want to acknowledge that when we look at the advances
countries have made in electronic commerce, Canada has in fact
played a leadership role in this respect, certainly as far as
public policy is concerned. I noticed with interest just in the
last six months the number of new publications that have come
into being regarding various areas of this phenomenon called
e-commerce.
If one was to identify the specific purpose of Bill C-54 it
would be to create a legal and regulatory framework for
electronic commerce by introducing measures to protect personal
information in the private sector, by creating an electronic
alternative for doing business with the federal government and by
clarifying how the courts assess the reliability of electronic
records used as evidence.
There are a number of important issues that are attached to this
legislation. Let us first look at the implications of electronic
commerce itself. I suspect that most Canadians are unaware at
this point of the effect that e-commerce will have on their lives
in the very near future. The growth of electronic commerce is
expanding arithmetically in such a fashion that it will be
doubling, tripling and quadrupling in the weeks and months ahead.
Let us look at some of the larger Canadian firms. I will not
mention any specifically because I suspect that at this point
this is relatively privileged information. However, we have been
told by a number of the larger firms in Canada that now a
significant amount of their purchasing is done using e-commerce.
That has done away with a whole number of what we would normally
refer to as middlemen: the wholesalers, the retailers, the
shippers and all sorts of others who would normally be part of a
commercial arrangement between, let us say, a manufacturer and
the eventual purchaser of goods.
Some of the larger firms have indicated that they now purchase
over 85% of their annual goods using this type of method which, I
guess if we were to extrapolate this in the long term, means that
we will see, as the result of e-commerce, hundreds of thousands
of jobs disappear.
1305
They will not disappear over the next 10 to 20 years, they will
disappear over the next 10 to 20 months as firms introduce
electronic commerce as a way of purchasing their supplies and
realize the financial benefits attached to using e-commerce. I
suspect a lot of people are going to make a lot of money by
simply introducing this to individuals firms. A lot of firms
will save a lot of money directly, but the fallout will be that
hundreds of thousands of existing jobs will no longer exist
because they will be made redundant as a result of electronic
commerce.
In my previous comments to the House regarding Bill C-54 I
detailed how this process would work. I will not repeat that,
but I will say that since I made those comments I have spoken
with a number of individuals who are presently involved in
setting up electronic commerce facilities in various businesses.
They tell me that this is going to—and I use the term
advisedly—revolutionize the retail sector. That is actually a
euphemism for wiping it out. Modernize, revolutionize and major
change are other ways of saying that whole sectors of the retail
sector of our economy will be eliminated. This will take place
very quickly.
We could consider, for example, a business such as a travel
agency. Travel agents should probably start looking at college
and university courses for a new career because electronic
commerce is pretty well going to make them redundant. People who
are in the brokerage business advising clients, particularly low
and middle income clients, with respect to their stock portfolio
should probably look at another career option because this type
of electronic networking will simply do away with the need for
these folks in our society.
One can lament that, but I think it is fair to say that we are
not Luddites by definition. We acknowledge that e-commerce is
with us. What is crucial is that we understand the incredible
impact it will have on our society economically, particularly
when it comes to jobs, in the next little while.
Normally many of us think that in another decade or two we will
see major changes. I wish we were talking about a decade or two,
but we are probably talking about a year or two. This will
result in huge and major changes to the way business is conducted
in our country. I do not think that we appreciate the impact
which electronic commerce will have.
I know this is a modest effort by the government to move in the
direction of ensuring privacy.
Just the other day I walked into a store in the city of Ottawa.
I made a purchase and they asked me to sign a little screen. I
asked why I was signing the screen. They said that once they had
my signature I would not have to sign anything any more when I
made purchases. I did not think that sounded like a good idea. I
would just as soon be on record as having made a conscious
decision every time I made a purchase. I refused to sign the
screen, but the reality is that presumably people are signing
these screens and their signatures are on record. Once a
signature is on record in one place, I suppose it could be moved
very quickly to other locales. I use this as a practical example
of how privacy will be affected as a result of these moves toward
a digitalized economy.
It is fair to say that in our society there are a number of
organizations which have attempted to protect human rights in our
country. The right to privacy, for example, is a human right
just like the right to equality and justice. The United Nations
universal declaration of human rights, which is celebrating its
50th year this year and to which Canada is a signatory, specifies
that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of
person and that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy—family, home or
correspondence—nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Obviously our concern about privacy is very serious.
1310
I could go on and on to make the point. However, what I am
going to say in closing is that I do not believe our privacy is
adequately protected by this legislation. When this bill moves
to committee this will be a crucial part of the inquiry that
needs to take place. We will need to have a sufficient number of
witnesses come forward to convince the parliamentary committee
that privacy has, in fact, been dealt with adequately in the
legislation.
I want to indicate that a number of individuals representing
groups have come forward in support of the general thrust of the
legislation in principle, but, on the other hand, they have gone
out of their way to point out a potential flaw, and that is the
right to protect privacy, not only in the legislation, but in the
attached regulations as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
you will allow me, first of all, to greet the great many people
from my riding of Repentigny who are watching us.
Yesterday, a very important event took place in the riding of
Repentigny in this busy and eventful month of November we are
having in Quebec this year. This event was the convention to
reconfirm our current MNA for L'Assomption, Jean-Claude St-André,
as the official PQ candidate.
I can see that I have the unanimous consent of the House to
extend our congratulations to him. Even the hon. member from
northern Ontario agrees.
There is therefore consent to allow me to extend our
congratulations to the current and future member for the riding
of L'Assomption.
Having said this, it is my pleasure to now turn to Bill C-54,
that members of the Bloc Quebecois and others eloquently
criticized, to show why the bill, as it stands, should be
opposed.
As an introduction, I shall discuss the origin of the bill and
why we must debate it today. I can see there are members who
want to hear the rest of my speech and hear why Bill C-54 is
before us today.
Let me read the title of the bill, which, as the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve pointed out, is quite convoluted. It reads
as follows:
An act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic
means to communicate or record information or transactions and
by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments
Act and the Statute Revision Act.
This is all one sentence: I did not omit anything. This is how
the title of the bill reads. The title says it all: we are
definitely facing a very convoluted bill, as I said.
But where does it come from? It is the government's response to
requests from several groups across Canada. It is a commitment
the federal government made to introduce legislation on the
protection of personal information in the private sector.
This commitment was first made by the Minister of Justice in
1996; he then promised a bill to protect privacy.
The Minister of Industry made that commitment his own—as they
often do things twice over—when he responded to the
recommendations of the information highway advisory committee.
Following these two commitments, documents were drafted. And
last January, both ministers released a joint working paper
entitled “The Protection of Personal Information: Building
Canada's Information Economy and Society”.
In total, the working group created to examine the issue
received 90 briefs. Almost all of these agreed that legislation
was needed to protect privacy in the private sector.
Thus, we were expecting good new when Bill C-54 was introduced.
Almost everybody stressed that the protection of personal
information voluntary code developed by the Canadian Standards
Association was a good start, but that it was a minimum and
should be reinforced.
1315
The protection of privacy is recognised as a fundamental right.
Sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Constitution refer to it
indirectly. Section 7 deals with the right of everyone to life,
liberty and security of the person. Section 8 protects Canadians
against unreasonable search.
As for the Quebec Charter for Human Rights and Freedoms enacted
in 1975, it is very clear. Its references are not indirect. The
Quebec 1975 Charter reads as follows: “Every person has a right
to respect for his private life”. So, from a legal point of
view, there are not too many problems with its interpretation. I
repeat: “Every person has a right to respect for his private
life”.
As you can see, Quebec has been a pioneer with regards to the
protection of private life in this sector.
It is the only jurisdiction in North America that has passed
legislation to protect the private life of its people. For four
years now, this legislation has been covering all aspects of
human activities, commercial as well as others.
I want to remind you of an act protecting private life that was
enacted in 1982, and of an act amending it that was passed in
1994. In 1982, an act for the protection of personal information
in the public sector was introduced. The federal government and
all provinces all passed legislation in this regard. Then, in
1994, an act extended the protection of personal information to
the private sector. It already exists. In Quebec, we have been
dealing with this protection of private life process for several
years.
The Bloc believes the federal government should have used
Quebec's experience as a model not only because it is recognized
internationally, but also because it is essential that all laws
passed in Canada and in the other provinces be compatible with
one another for the greatest benefit of the citizens of Quebec
and Canada.
Compatibility of federal and provincial legislation, or their
harmonization, does not seem to be a priority for our friends
across the way. One has only to look at the Young Offenders Act,
at the Tobacco Act, and now at the Privacy Act. Compatibility of
federal and provincial legislation probably comes in tenth place
in the order of priority of our Liberal colleagues in the
government.
Why harmonize legislation when one has the big end of the stick,
as the Prime Minister of Canada would say?
All we have to do is wave the stick, and the others will have to
respect our opinion.
This bill, which was eagerly awaited by everybody, is too weak
and too soft for us to accept as it now stands. What are theses
weaknesses? I will mention a few.
Most of the measures concerning the protection of personal
information are not in the bill itself, but in the schedule,
where the Minister for Industry has decided to introduce word
for word the standard personal information protection code
developed by the Canadian Standards Association. This code was
judged to be utterly inadequate by the federal and provincial
personal information protection commissioners and by all
consumers groups.
The Minister of Industry could have used the Quebec Act
Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private
Sector as a model. I am sure that he could have followed the
exact wording of that legislation without fear that Mrs. Louise
Beaudoin, Quebec's minister of culture, would ever claim
copyrights for the use of that sensible and reasonable act.
By choosing to apply without change the CSA standard, the
government revealed that it was opting for permissiveness
instead of the full protection of Quebeckers' and Canadians'
privacy. Among this bill's several loopholes is the fact that
the annex contains eight clauses using the conditional tense.
Clause 4.2.3, for example, reads: “The identified purposes
should be specified at or before the time of collection to the
individual from whom the personal information is collected—”
1320
Clause 4.2.5 reads:
Clause 4.5.2 reads:
Clause 4.5.3 reads:
Personal information that is no longer required to fulfil the
identified purposes should be destroyed, erased, or made
anonymous—
The worse is the default consent. In the area of personal
information, informed consent is a basic principle where there
should be no ambiguity. However, the voluntary code says that
that consent can be obtained by default.
That means that if someone does not check the box indicating
that he or she does not want his or her personal information to
be transmitted, it will automatically be. That is what is called
default consent.
In concluding, I will say that for these two reasons and all the
others that my colleagues discussed so eloquently, we must
oppose Bill C-54 as it was introduced in this House.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to join my colleagues in addressing the bill before
the House.
Protection of privacy has always been a major concern of mine. I
was involved in the labour movement for many years before going
into politics. I remember that when I was a member of the CSN,
the organization's offices were searched by police. I saw police
officers open books and carelessly search everywhere. To me it
was a breach of privacy, of the collective life of our union.
They searched our offices, our work spaces.
I have always been very much concerned by this question of
privacy and this is why I have decided to rise today to address
this bill. In my view, there are in fact a lot of enforcement
problems.
As my colleagues have already mentioned, it is very important to
recognize that there is a difference between the situation in
Quebec and what goes on in the House of Commons.
There is a tremendous difference just in the titles of the two
acts. The Quebec act is entitled “An Act Respecting the
Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector”.
The title of the federal act is:
An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting
personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in
certain circumstances—
The difference is quite apparent just in the two titles. The
title of the provincial act emphasizes the importance of
protecting personal information in the private sector.
We are debating a bill whose purpose is to promote electronic
commerce and allow for its greatest possible extension and,
incidentally, to protect personal information and privacy.
As we can see, the federal government is not seeting exactly the
same goal as the Government of Quebec, which was primarily to
protect personal information.
If we talk about protection of individual rights and respect for
privacy in relation to the economy, since this is the true title
and the true purpose of the bill, we have to wonder how the
Liberal Party is protecting privacy in relation to economic
liberty.
For instance, if we examine the behaviour of this government on
the international scene, we realize that human rights often come
a distant second behind economic expansion.
I remind the House of what happened recently with the APEC. It
has been in the news a lot, lately. Which was given greater
priority, respect for democratic rights truly or the
unreasonable demands of Suharto, a dictator?
A bill like this one does nothing to calm our concerns. The
government says that it will promote electronic commerce but,
since there may be some problems, that it will also try to
protect privacy. It is not easy to trust this government about
the issue of privacy in relation to the economy.
As my colleagues before me pointed out, this bill is flawed.
Furthermore, the schedule will, in my opinion, be a source of
problems in terms of application. Too much is written in the
conditional.
In my opinion, lawyers will have a field day with this bill
because of the use of the conditional.
1325
Lawyers are very happy with this kind of bill, as they are most
of the time with federal bills, because this government's issues
and federal bills are put completely within the realm of the
courts. Very often, lawyers are the first ones praising this
approach.
With all due respect, we should understand that this is the way
lawyers earn a living. They prefer the adversarial approach,
because they can go in court and defend their clients as
effectively as they can. I do not deny this.
We should ponder over bills such as this one and others that
have been put before the House and who involve a greater role
for the courts.
It is inappropriate for the government. It seems to be saying:
“Listen, if you are not satisfied with this bill or the existing
law, just challenge it before the court”.
People then have to pay huge legal costs, whereas the government
has its own army of lawyers in the justice department and
elsewhere. The government also has the money to pay lawyers to
refute the arguments of any Canadian citizen who is seeking
justice.
If private confidential information is disclosed in an
electronic business deal and the whole legislation, in
particular the schedule, is in the conditional it will be
difficult for someone to say: “My private life has been exposed
by this electronic commerce with which I disagree, and I would
like you to protect me”.
We can see on which side the government will be. It will simply
say: “Dear sir or madam, we are sorry, but your point of view is
not in keeping with ours, and if you're not satisfied just sue
us”. And then we start a legal saga which, too often, requires
the taxpayer to pay sums of money he cannot afford, which means
the government wins by default.
Let us take, for example, the Henry VIII section which in my
opinion is absolutely terrible.
You will remember that Henry VIII could, by decree, order that
anyone in England be beheaded. Fortunately Henry VIII no longer
rules because if he did it is quite likely that 45 heads of Bloc
Quebecois members would be rolling on the floor of the House.
But it is the same system because these people will be able to
change the rules simply by Governor in Council decision, which
means cabinet decision, and this in my opinion is a huge
problem. Who is lobbying the government? Associations for the
protection of private life? Consumer associations? I think not.
Then, who is lobbying the federal government? It is the huge
corporations, the big banks, all the people who have money and
make billions in profit.
If they think that some aspects of the schedule or the
legislation do not suit their purpose, they will tell the
government: “We are financing your party—we know how it works—our
big corporation is financing your party so we do not want
any interference with our electronic commerce”. Then they will
ask the government to change the regulations. And we know what
will happen.
The Bloc Quebecois is quite secure because we are funded by the
people. We get $10 or $15 in rural areas, in small towns. Our
hands are not tied unlike the government in front of us.
Government members have some obligations, because any major
corporation that contributed $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 to
their party and now wants to engage in electronic commerce will
say to the minister “Look, Sir, can you talk cabinet and the
governor in council into making changes to the regulations,
because I have a small problem here that is costing me
approximately $100,000 or $200,000 a year?”
What will the government do? Once again, it will bow down
before big business, and those who defend private rights and the
right to privacy will end up empty-handed, as they usually do
under this government.
1330
Members will understand that it is very hard to support such a
bill. I urge government members who still have some conscience
left to vote with the Bloc Quebecois and to ensure that priority
is given to privacy over all-out economic expansion, total
freedom for big business.
I urge all members to vote with the Bloc Quebecois, in other
words to defeat this bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
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): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The chief government
whip has requested the vote be deferred until the end of
Government Orders tomorrow. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an
act respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation
areas, and more specifically to the amendment now before the
House, which calls on the government to go back to the drawing
board, to put it simply.
This piece of legislation has a laudable purpose. However, the
means to implement it are appalling, and that is why the Bloc
Quebecois is asking the government to go back to the drawing
board.
This bill, whose purpose is to define the legal framework for
the establishment of 28 marine conservation areas, including
eight in Quebec, each representative of the ecosystems
identified so far in Quebec and in Canada, follows up an
international commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois supports this research, undertaken at the
instigation of the World Conservation Union. It supports the
environmental approach underlying this bill.
However, the Bloc wants to forcefully state its disagreement
with the means used.
1335
The Bloc Quebecois wonders why the federal government did not
draw on the agreement reached on the creation of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park in Quebec, which called for the
cooperation, on an equal footing, of two governments in their
respective jurisdiction and which even led to Quebec passing a
legislation similar to the federal law, showing the respectful
cooperation on the part of both governments.
The Bloc Quebecois was totally in agreement and urged adoption
of this bill because it is the way to proceed where shared
jurisdictions are concerned.
Quebec is willing to co-operate, as it has shown with phase III
of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, but for the bill to state as a
prerequisite for the federal government's involvement in the
management of marine conservation areas that title to the lands
to be included in the marine conservation areas be vested in Her
Majesty in right of Canada is unacceptable.
This means that, instead of co-operating to ensure that in
difficult circumstances, riparian communities take part in the
preservation of those marine areas in the river, in the gulf and
in the estuary, the federal government is saying that this land
must belong to it, or else.
For it, the implementation of the international agreement, its
commitments are more important than the fact that this land that
would become federal is most definitely located in Quebec
waters.
It is a change from what we hear constantly repeated here, for
example in the flattering record the Prime Minister presents and
the progress he supposedly made in his relations with provinces,
including Quebec. This government action is possible only if the
concerned aquatic territory in Quebec is declared federal.
This is an authoritarian and disrespectful way of acting that,
ultimately, would not be efficient. How can one imagine that not
only coastal populations but also every stakeholder in Quebec
will co-operate if this bill becomes law? We hope very much that
it will be withdrawn and reworked. How can anyone imagine that
it could lead to a co-operation of various governments instead of
creating an institutionalized conflict due to the federal
government's arrogant attitude, saying there will be work only
if the marine conservation areas are federally owned?
This bill contains other major problems. Overlapping is one that
can certainly not be overlooked. This time, overlapping
jurisdictions would not be provincial and federal governments,
but different federal departments. This could be pretty funny. I
hope the Royal Air Farce will examine this issue. They could
also look into other matters, there are lots to choose from.
1340
There are three federal bodies. The Department of Fisheries and
Oceans has marine protected areas and regulations. There is
Environment Canada, which has marine wildlife reserves and
regulations. Finally, there is Heritage Canada, which has marine
conservation areas and its own regulations.
One would think that these three federal organizations would
talk to each other, would find a way to co-operate with the
provinces, including Quebec, particularly since this is going on
at a difficult time for people in the maritime provinces.
Indeed, the coastal communities who rely on marine resources, on
fish, are very disturbed and live in fear, if not in poverty.
How can we expect to have the freedom of mind that is necessary
to look at the ecosystem from these various perspectives if the
workers who have lost their jobs do not know what their status
will be in two or five years? More importantly, these people do
not know if they will have resources to live on. The fact that
they live in such insecurity is evidence that something is
wrong.
Three federal organizations are looking after the ecosystem and
the fishery, but what about the men and women who need to earn a
living, who are faced with an employment insurance reform whose
effects are being felt more and more? As we know, things will
get even worse in the spring, but these people are already
experiencing the adverse effects of the employment insurance
reform, at a time when the government has an enormous surplus,
which makes it all the more painful for them.
There is overlap among the federal departments, which, through
numerous consultations with the public and departmental
interventions, can do nothing but foment exasperation and anger.
The context needed for these commitments by Canada is the total
opposite.
We share these commitments, but we say that if the government is
serious, if it wants to progress, it will have to create, with
the provinces, the conditions that will enable stakeholders and
the public to become involved in a task that will fall to them
in the end.
It is good news to hear that the St. Lawrence is not as polluted
as we thought. That is what a study revealed two weeks ago.
It is good news, but we know that our problems are not over and
that the protection of ecosystems and marine areas requires
public involvement.
1345
I cannot help but underline how shocking it is to see that, far
from honouring its commitment in this regard, the federal
government persists in acting in a unilateral and authoritarian
way toward the provinces, particularly Quebec, so it can put the
word “Canada” on every little marine area, instead of
collaborating with Quebec and creating the conditions required
to work with the public.
Despite all its sweet talk to Quebeckers, with Bill C-54, this
government actually decides when the Quebec legislation will
prevail and, with Bill C-48, it says it will not become involved
in the conservation of marine areas unless its ownership is
recognized.
This is the mark not of a centralizing government but of a
government which denies the very existence of the provinces,
which wants to take over the areas under their jurisdiction. In
doing so, the government wastes not only money but also energy
and hinders the co-operation needed.
This government sang the praises of renewed federalism.
If there is a new way to make federalism evolve, it will be
found in these bills because we rely not on the press releases
which supposedly explain the meaning of the bills, but on the
text of the bill itself. It is our responsibility. Indeed,
whatever a minister may say about his intentions, he will have
to act according to the law.
Our responsibility is not to say “My God, the minister has good
intentions and would never do such a thing”. We cannot do that
because the minister may change his mind anyway, even if he had
the intentions which he said he had. We cannot do that because
this government could decide otherwise. The government may
change and, anyway, legislation is interpreted not according to
news releases but according to what is written in the act
itself.
We know that the supreme court, particularly in the two
successive decisions from Justice Laskin and Justice Dickson in
a case whose name I hope I can remember before the end of my
speech, is interpreting provincial jurisdictions in a way that
is increasingly eroding them. Our responsibility is to ensure
that, if governments have other intentions, they spell them out
in their legislation.
This is why, for both Bill C-54 and Bill C-48, if ministers have
in mind something other than what appears in the legislation, we
ask them to withdraw and rewrite them. We know that even with
amendments the spirit of a bill will not change.
Our amendments were rejected often enough for us to know that,
in the future, to change the spirit of the bill, we must ask
that the bill be withdrawn and rewritten in such a way that the
interpretation given will really be the one used in enforcement
of the legislation, and not only in the news releases.
1350
I urge my colleagues opposite to read the bills drafted by their
government instead of just relying on the news releases. They
will understand why we are against Bills C-54 and C-48. What
matters is the text.
I remember instances where the Minister of Finance introduced
new wording for his budget implementation bill, telling us that
the original text should have read that way. These things do
occur. The Minister of Finance did so and, in so doing, he
confirmed that we were right in our interpretation. However, it
took some reporters to understood it the same way we did.
Unfortunately, all bills do not get the same attention from
reporters in the House who are simply not enough to cover
everything that is going on here. We sincerely regret it because
we could certainly see changes in behaviours and different ways
of writing if the public understood better what is happening. We
cannot say that a text means one thing when in fact it means the
opposite. This is true of bill C-54 and it is also true of the
spirit of Bill C-48.
I suggest that the minister go back to the drawing board and I
can assure her that, as was the case with the development of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the Bloc critic concerned, the
member for Rimouski—Mitis, will do her share.
In light of the intensity of her speech, I am sure she will.
However, if she does not agree with the bill, it would be a lot
more difficult to support it and to enforce it afterwards, a
situation that I hope will never happen.
At this point, we are still confident because we believe in the
set goal, but we are forced to realize that we were often
disappointed. This is in fact the reason why bills C-54 and C-48
reaffirm the necessity for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is only
recently that I have become interested in this bill. There are
some aspects that I understand, some that I do not. I will ask
my colleague to shed some light on this for me.
I believe that the bottom of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf
are within Quebec's jurisdiction. I believe that the British
North America Act clearly states that the bottom belongs to
Quebec and is within its jurisdiction. Even if it wanted to,
Quebec could not sell it to anyone, let alone the federal
government.
Yet, if I understand correctly, the purpose of the bill before
us is to have the federal government take over these areas in
the river and in the gulf, on the grounds that they are wildlife
conservation areas, which contain shellfish, plants and algae it
wants to protect. And in a way expropriate from Quebec.
I believe this is unconstitutional. I believe that the federal
government has no right to do so. Why then is it proposing
legislation that clashes directly with the Constitution?
I would like my colleague to shed some light on this for me.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will agree
with me that I am not the greatest expert on this bill. What I
understand is what I read.
This issue of expropriation is not mentioned. However, it is
clearly stipulated that the schedule cannot include the names of
marines areas. Clause 5(2) reads as follows “An amendment to
Schedule 1 may be made only if the Governor in Council is
satisfied that clear title to the lands to be included in the
marine conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in right of
Canada—”
1355
This can be interpreted to mean that the federal government is
reserving the right to force any province to transfer an area in
the river, the gulf or the estuary. Otherwise, the area in
question could not be included as part of the action taken to
comply with the international agreement.
There is something in that logic that does not ring true. As I
said, it does sound arrogant and even somewhat mean, because we
have made our support for compliance with this international
agreement known. However, we will not be able to support it if
we have to give up the title to some areas, which is something
we do not have the authority to do, anyway. Quebec does not have
the right to transfer these titles to the Canadian government.
Once again, this is a very strange piece of legislation,
which is why we are asking the minister to withdraw the bill and
allow the committee to reconsider the issue.
The Speaker: There will be six minutes left for questions and
comments when we will resume after question period. It being
almost 2 o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members
so that we can have a little more time afterwards.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RON GAUDET
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ron
Gaudet, President of the Greater Moncton Economic Commission, who
was recently named economic developer of the year by the Economic
Development Association of Canada, a 400 member association.
As president and CEO of the Greater Moncton Economic Commission
for the past four years, Mr. Gaudet has seen our region through
some difficult times and has played a major role in revitalizing
our economy.
Under Mr. Gaudet's presidency the greater Moncton area was named
one of the ten best cities in Canada in which to do business for
three years in a row.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaudet has greatly contributed to the economic growth of
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. On behalf of the people of the Greater
Moncton area, I thank him for his dedication to the economic
development of our community.
[English]
On behalf of the people of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe I
congratulate Ron on his much deserved reward and thank him for
his dedication to the development of our community.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
farmers are facing a cash crisis and although there are many
factors contributing to their financial plight, the greatest
challenge faced by our farming communities is to overcome Liberal
arrogance, apathy and inaction.
With world commodity levels bottoming out, it is obvious that
Canadian farmers are suffering the ill effects of the Asian flu.
For example, first estimates for 1998 suggest that the drop in
farm income will be 40% across Canada with the worst hitting the
prairie provinces.
Yet in their time of need Canadian farmers hear too little too
late from the Liberals. The weak willed government simply
restates that regular income stabilization schemes like NISA and
crop insurance will pull farm families through.
The government has abandoned farmers, abandoned those who put
food on our tables and therefore abandoned an essential element
of Canada, our farming communities. It is time for Canadian
answers and action, not indifference and denial from the
government.
* * *
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
National Art Centre's production of The Bush Ladies: Life in
the Backwoods of Upper Canada was a fine contribution to
Women's History Month.
This show stitches together the written witness of four Canadian
pioneer women, Catharine Parr Traill, Susana Moodie and Anne
Langton, who all lived in Peterborough riding, and Anna Jameson.
Their record of life in Upper Canada is a tribute to their
cohorts and an inspiration for all Canadians.
Catherine Parr Traill, a writer and botanist, is the most famous
of them. Her book The Backwoods of Canada is a literary
and scientific account of her first three years in Canada. Her
sister, Susana Moodie, is best known for her book Roughing it
in the Bush.
Peterborough's tradition as a home for literary women has
continued through talented authors like Margaret Laurence and
recent winners of governor general's awards.
1400
Each summer this tradition is celebrated by the Literary
Festival of the Village of Lakefield which I encourage all
members to attend next year.
The contributions to our country of these four special women
were most worthy.
* * *
ABORTION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
share the outrage of many North Americans concerning the brutal
and senseless shootings of Canadian abortion providers and the
recent murder of American Dr. Barnett Slepian.
There have been four shootings in the last five years in Canada
and the U.S., all occurring on or close to Remembrance Day.
Since 1997 the RCMP has been co-ordinating a national task force
which is investigating the shootings. This task force includes
members from the Hamilton-Wentworth, Vancouver and Winnipeg
police forces as well as the RCMP, and now the FBI.
The Department of Justice's resources are being made available
to the task force as are the services of the Canadian Police
Information Centre and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.
I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Hamilton-Wentworth
Regional Police Chief Kenneth Robertson and the international
task force for providing advice and assistance to physicians who
are concerned for their safety.
Police believe there is someone out there who can provide
information. They are urged to call the task force through their
local police department.
* * *
[Translation]
GALA DE L'ADISQ
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to join
with all Canadians in heartily congratulating all of Quebec's
artists who participated in yesterday's 20th anniversary gala
for the Association du disque et de l'industrie du spectacle
québécois.
All this talent on a single stage speaks eloquently of the
excellence of their work. The prizes awarded these artists is
undeniable proof of the public's appreciation.
Congratulations to Kevin Parent and Bruno Pelletier, who each
won three Félix awards.
Congratulations to the groups Dubmatique and Lili Fatale, fine
representatives of the next generation of musicians in Quebec.
Congratulations as well to renowned performers Linda Lemay, Lara
Fabian and, of course, Céline Dion, who hosted the evening with
panache.
And congratulations to all the others who, for lack of time, I
cannot name.
Canada may rightly be proud of these musical talents and the
recognition they are given by their fellow citizens and by
audiences worldwide.
* * *
[English]
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the launch of MADD Canada's annual Red
Ribbon Campaign against impaired driving.
Impaired driving kills almost 2,000 and injures nearly 100,000
Canadians every year.
Impaired driving is a senseless tragedy as well as a 100%
preventable crime. I salute Mothers Against Drunk Drivers for
their tireless work.
I also salute my colleagues in the Reform Party for their fight
against impaired driving. As a result of this fight, for the
first time in 13 years the justice committee must now take steps
to strengthen the laws that prohibit impaired driving, this
senseless crime.
It is incumbent on every member of parliament to join this
fight. I plead for their support to pressure the government to
take leadership against impaired driving.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
come November 30, Quebeckers will be expressing loud and clear
their love for Quebec, a Quebec within Canada.
On November 30, Quebeckers will say in no uncertain terms that
they will not tolerate the scorn in the words of the acting PQ
premier, Lucien Bouchard, who said that Jean Charest did not
like Quebec.
On November 30, Quebeckers will vote Liberal because they have
had enough of referendums, which have cost more than $400
million to date. They have had it with talk of separation and
the words of Lucien Bouchard, who says Canada is Quebec's
arch-enemy.
On November 30, Quebeckers will vote for Jean Charest, because
they know Canadian federalism will be improved with him and, in
Abitibi-Est, with Lionel Brochu.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend, the premier of Quebec accused the
leader of the Quebec Liberal Party of not loving Quebec.
In doing so, Lucien Bouchard is insulting all Quebeckers who do
not share his views. In fact, with this statement he is finally
putting thoughts he has had for some time into words. The
sovereignist leader is cultivating division by insulting all
those who believe Quebec should remain within Canada.
The PQ leader has decided to stir up dissent—let him go ahead and
do so!
Quebeckers will have a chance on November 30 to give him a frank
answer by voting Liberal, by backing Jean Charest.
* * *
1405
[English]
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last May the Leader of the Opposition invited supporters of
different federal and provincial parties to come together at a
national assembly to discuss forming a united alternative to
Liberal misgovernment.
A poll released just today adds strength to this initiative by
offering proof that Canadians want a strong united alternative to
the top down, tax and spend, soft on crime, Ottawa knows best
mentality of this increasingly arrogant government.
According to the National Post-Compass survey, 36% of
Canadians would vote for a united alternative for fiscal and
social responsibility, democratic accountability and strengthened
unity through rebalanced powers. Add to this base another 30% of
Canadians who say they will consider voting for a national
alternative that shares their values and this spells big trouble
for the Liberals who won the last election with only 38% of the
vote and lost it in nine out of ten provinces.
That is why I wish once again to extend to all Canadians,
especially my friends in the Conservative caucus, an invitation
to join like-minded Canadians in helping to shape a broad
political movement that can govern Canada leading into the 21st
century.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we recently
learned that this finest of countries, Canada, is far from
heaven on earth for its aboriginal people. According to a
Department of Indian Affairs report, the living conditions of
on-reserve Indians are comparable to those of the people of
Russia, Brazil, Mexico and the third world. According to the
human development index for status aboriginals, Canada ranked
47th of the 174 UN member countries.
To top off this already bleak picture, regrettably, over half of
Canadians believe that there is no difference between their
living conditions and those of the aboriginal people.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is urging the Canadian government
to act promptly and energetically, not only to improve the
living conditions of aboriginal people, but also to change the
social perceptions of which they are victims. This is an urgent
matter.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois must not feel like the odd man
out any more. Indeed, over the weekend his colleague from
Rimouski—Mitis also stated that a vote for the PQ was a vote for
a referendum, but she specified the timeframe.
As for the Quebec Premier, he made himself very clear this
weekend when he said anyone who does not share his views does
not love Quebec. On November 30, Quebeckers will have an
opportunity to let everyone know how much they love Quebec by
voting in favour of keeping Quebec within Canada, that is by
voting Liberal.
* * *
[English]
COLUMBIA
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since
the civil service strike in Columbia started on October 7, nine
more trade union leaders have been murdered, bringing the total
to 2,700 trade union activists and organizers killed since 1987.
The death toll alone in the past three weeks includes Hortensia
Alfaro Banderas, the president of the nurses union; Macario
Barrera Villota, the president of the teachers union; and Jairo
Cruz, the president of the local branch of the United Workers
Centre. Others include Hector Fajardo Abril, Hernando Hernandez,
Gabriel Alvis, Jésus Baldivino, Jésus Bernal and Jorge Luis
Ortega Garcia. Nine more martyrs for the national trade union
movement, nine more murders for the international right wingers
of the world who would rather kill than share their hoarded
wealth.
It is only tyrants who fear the labour movement. Canada should
condemn Columbia in the strongest terms possible for failing to
protect the right to organize and the right to free collective
bargaining.
* * *
HOUSING
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
interim report of the Toronto mayor's homelessness action task
force reveals that in Toronto alone about 3,000 individuals stay
in shelters. In addition about 37,000 are on a waiting list for
subsidized social housing. An additional 40,000 are spending
more than half of their income on rent or living in extremely
precarious housing.
The situation in other Canadian cities is also serious. It has
been described by municipal leaders as “a national disaster”.
Evidently this is an issue requiring urgent and immediate
attention. Federal and provincial assistance is needed in the
form of funds toward the construction of social housing units so
as to provide a home for the homeless.
* * *
[Translation]
TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ADISQ
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday evening, ADISQ, the Association québécoise de
l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, celebrated
its 20th anniversary at the Molson Centre, in Montreal.
During this time, ADISQ, which works on behalf of Quebec's
popular music industry and whose existence is proof of the
industry's vitality, spared no efforts to promote Quebec's
talent and have it recognized.
1410
The Bloc Quebecois is proud to have worked closely with ADISQ to
have neighbouring rights recognized in the federal legislation
on copyright.
We hope the federal government will soon include the rights of
creators and performers, as part of phase III of the review of
the Copyright Act.
Culture has always been a priority for the Bloc Quebecois, and
for the Quebec government, as demonstrated by the commitments it
made yesterday.
Long live the ADISQ gala, and congratulations to the winners and
to all the nominees. Each and everyone of them contributes to
the vitality and the richness of Quebec culture.
* * *
[English]
LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that he accepted all
the conservation harvesting plans proposed by Nova Scotia lobster
fishermen for 1998 and 1999. What he has not stated is that these
plans have been changed.
The discussions with fishermen promised an evenly implemented
across the board plan to double lobster egg production. The
minimum carapace size would be increased to 3 8/32 inches.
Egg-bearing females would be v-notched and females with a
carapace of over 5 inches would be released. This was supported
because it was seen to be applied evenly across all lobster
fishing areas.
We now learn that this is not to be the case. In short, once
again this government has been advised by fishers to apply one
set of conservation measures. The rules have been ignored, their
advice has been ignored and another set of measures has been
applied.
For instance where fishers share a line, between district 33 and
district 34, they are so close together that the buoys entangle.
How does it expect one side to obey conservation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
* * *
DOWN'S SYNDROME
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, November 1 to November 7 is National Down's Syndrome
Awareness Week. Each year communities across Canada officially
recognize this week and host a variety of events.
Down's syndrome is a chromosomal disorder which affects one out
of every 700 children born in Canada. This disorder causes delays
in physical and intellectual development. The actual cause of
Down's syndrome is still unknown.
During this special week the Canadian Down's Syndrome Society
will be conducting a public awareness campaign to focus attention
on the unique abilities, strengths, and contributions of
Canadians with Down's syndrome.
In my riding, the Lambton, Middlesex and Wallaceburg
Associations for Community Living are part of the national
non-profit charitable organization whose mandate is to enhance
the quality of life for all individuals with Down's syndrome.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government claims most departments will be
ready for the year 2000, but only most departments. What does
this mean?
Nineteen departments are identified as having mission critical
systems. These are systems where a problem like the Y2K bug will
directly affect the health, safety, security and economic
well-being of Canadians. These systems keep track of food
inspection, security intelligence, air navigation, weather
forecasting, search and rescue, and the pension plan.
Will the computer programs be ready for January 1, 2000? Hardly.
In fact, recent government surveys show that the Department of
National Defence is not ready for the year 2000. If our defence
systems fail, the lives of Canadians could be at risk.
Canadians need to know how serious the Y2K problem is. It will
affect our daily lives. The question now is how will we be
affected? The government's repeated comments about making the
necessary efforts are not realistic or responsible. Is the
government too far behind to catch up? When will we know?
The government has done too little too late in addressing this
urgent situation. So much is at risk, the government should be
ashamed of itself.
* * *
VETERANS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadian
men and women who risked their lives to secure our freedom.
Veterans continue to help improve the quality of life of
Canadians. In my riding of Cambridge, the Preston, Galt,
Hespeler and Ayr legions donate thousands of dollars and hundreds
of volunteer hours to our community each year.
As Remembrance Day approaches, I would ask all Canadians to
reflect on the sacrifices of Canadian veterans and thank them for
their continued contribution to our daily lives.
To all of those men and women, thank you for your courage,
dedication and love of country. God bless you all.
* * *
YOUTH CRIME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want action and are tired of rhetoric from
a Liberal government that is soft on youth crime and light on
legislation.
Since the April 1997 justice committee report on the youth
criminal justice system, the Minister of Justice has repeatedly
told Canadians that we would be seeing new legislation in a
timely fashion.
Behind closed doors last December in Montreal with her
provincial and territorial counterparts, the minister promised a
draft bill by next year's meeting.
1415
On May 13, 1998 the justice minister finally broke free from her
bureaucratic masters and told the House of Commons that she would
be introducing a new young offenders bill this fall.
At last week's meeting with provincial and territorial
governments the Minister of Justice broke that promise. She had
no draft legislation and no commitment for legislation this fall;
just more vague promises.
If the Minister of Justice cannot be trusted to keep her
promises on this legislation, why should she be trusted to
introduce any legislation that truly addresses youth crime?
I urge the minister to show that her word means something and
introduce new youth justice legislation this fall.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister admits that he wants to skim money
from the employment insurance fund, money that is not his, but
there is one small problem: it happens to be against the law.
The Prime Minister has ordered the finance minister to meet in
private with the Employment Insurance Commission to get it to
change the rules without public scrutiny or debate.
Why this hush-hush meeting to change EI? Is the Prime Minister
actually ashamed, as he should be, of what he is doing?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the
contrary. We are very pleased with our record in EI.
When we took office in 1993, EI premiums were at $3.07 and going
to $3.30. We froze them. Since then we have reduced them every
year to $3 to $2.95 to $2.90 and to $2.70. We will continue
those reductions in EI premiums.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister was scheduled to meet with the
Employment Insurance Commission on November 13. Today we are
hearing that the minister wants to delay his EI announcement
until after November 30. Employers and employees must now wait
until after the Quebec election to learn how much they will be
ripped off in EI overpayments.
If the finance minister's EI changes are not bad news for
workers and businesses, why is he waiting until after the Quebec
election to make his announcement?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very simply,
every announcement the government has made on EI premiums has
been welcomed by employers and by employees and they will be in
the future.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you who will not welcome this announcement.
The largest number of Canadians paying employment insurance are
the poorest of the working poor, Canadians earning less than
$10,000 a year. Literally two million of them will get hit by
the Prime Minister's EI changes.
Why is the Prime Minister picking on the poorest Canadians for
this employment insurance tax grab?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this new
found concern for the poor a little unusual coming from that
leader.
If he has such profound concern for these people, why did he not
support our bill last year when we cut 400,000 low income
Canadians right off the tax rolls? Why did he not support the
$1.7 billion we gave to the child tax benefit to help the poor
working families?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
would have done one better. We would have taken a million
families off the low income rolls, giving them a tax cut.
The employment insurance is the worst kind of tax because it
hits the working poor the hardest. It does not make any sense.
These people are being gouged by the Prime Minister and the
government.
According to the chief actuary of the plan, every worker should
get $350 back and small businesses should get $500 back for every
worker they employ.
In all seriousness, why is the Prime Minister punishing the
working poor?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I again find
unusual what the Reform Party is saying because in securing the
dividend of January 1998, last year, the Reform Party urged the
government to use the EI surplus to pay down the debt.
In Fresh Start the Reform Party said we should only cut EI
premiums by 28% and cut them for the employers only.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
workers and employers should be paying lower premiums.
Four years ago the finance minister said:
There is nothing more ludicrous than a tax on hiring. But that
is what high payroll taxes are—they affect lower wage earners
much more than those at the high end.
1420
Four years ago the Liberals had an excuse, that they were
running a huge deficit. That was great then. What is their
excuse today?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the excuse is
very simple. If we were to cut payroll taxes to the extent
advocated by hon. members opposite we could very well be in a
deficit, and we will not do it.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is responsible for what is happening in
health care after cutting transfers to the provinces in that
area by 35%.
Yet now it is about to announce, in the next budget, the
creation of a new health program, even though all the premiers
would rather have a transfer payment refund.
Will the Minister of Health confirm that the government is about
to repeat the same mistake it made with the millennium
scholarship fund by unilaterally creating a new health program,
using money that comes from cuts in basic services?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has already stated the government's intention to
reinvest in health care, but the member will have to wait for
the budget to get the details.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's intentions are really something we should be
talking about, because it has demonstrated a real obsession with
visibility by creating the millennium scholarship fund.
In the area of health care, should the government not give
priority to efficiency by respecting provincial jurisdictions
rather than by being concerned only with visibility?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
currently having discussions with my provincial counterparts
regarding ways of improving the health care system.
However, I can tell the member that the most important thing is
to recognize health as a priority, which we have done. As the
Prime Minister himself has said, we intend to reinvest in that
area, and we will do it soon.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every
government in Canada is having serious trouble as the result of
the cuts made by the federal government, which created its
budget surplus by cutting health care transfers.
Why is the federal government not facing up to its
responsibilities when its cuts to Quebec amount every year to
half the salaries of all the nurses in the Quebec health care
system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is that the cuts ended 18 months ago, and we increased
transfer payments by $1.5 billion over the past year.
We have already started re-investing and we intend to continue.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, cuts re-occur
every year.
Why is the health minister trying to make us believe that cuts
in health care are hurting only Quebec when the provincial
ministers meeting in Saskatoon all unanimously agreed that the
federal government must re-invest in health care as a priority.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
said, and it is clear, we have started re-investing.
We increased transfers by $1.5 billion 18 months ago. For us,
the whole issue of health care is a top priority, and we intend
to keep on re-investing in it.
* * *
1425
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government is dragging its feet on the hepatitis C issue.
Victims have been waiting for their money for seven months, but
the disease does not wait. It progresses.
What is the minister waiting for to show some leadership? Is he
waiting for the victims' lives to be at risk?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
demonstrated some leadership with our position. A year ago, we
initiated a process with the provinces. Then we presented an
offer, with the provinces, to settle all pending court cases.
The lawyers are now discussing the details, and we should have
the results soon.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister tries to tell us that he cares about hepatitis C
victims, but where are the results?
There have been seven months of delay, seven months of
disappointment and seven months of hardship. Not one victim of
tainted blood has received one red cent of compensation. Is the
minister content with this lack of progress, or will he admit
that his process has failed to deliver results?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
those who have suffered by virtue of being infected with
hepatitis C through the blood system in the period in question
are represented by legal counsel. Those legal counsel are in the
process of negotiating with the government details of the offer
we have made to settle their claims. Those discussions continue.
Indeed, as I understand it, there are also separate and
accelerated discussions for those in urgent need to identify
people who are in need of immediate payment. We hope soon that
there will be agreement on how to determine those individuals and
deal with those cases very quickly.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week the government appointed 12 directors to the new CPP
Investment Board. Directors Mary Arnold, Dale Parker, Joseph
Regan, Richard Thompson and board chair Gail Cook Bennet have all
made substantial contributions to the Liberal Party either
personally or through their own companies.
Is this another example of Liberal political interference in the
Canada pension plan? Are Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
seats for sale by the Liberal Party?
The Speaker: The question as it is phrased is out of
order, but I will let the member go to his second question.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, five
of the twelve members of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
are significant Liberal contributors. In fact 42% when only .2%
of adult Canadians contribute to the Liberal Party. The board
also includes a defeated Liberal MP.
Will the government end the political interference and restore
the credibility of the Canada pension plan by ensuring that the
parliamentary process of review occurs with every appointment to
this important board?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every one of the
directors was selected by a joint federal board. They were not
appointed unless they had provincial approval.
If the member has a difficulty, maybe he should take it up with
the provinces.
* * *
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe they were smoking a joint. Maybe that was the problem.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member is going to ask his
question now.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, just over a month ago we
had the Prime Minister in Saint John saying there would be no
more new spending for the Liberal government. Yet the estimates
have just come out and they reveal that the government has gone
on a spending spree with billions of dollars in new spending.
1430
In fact the government at this point is $4 billion over budget.
Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise of no new
spending?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the only new spending in the tabling of the estimates was $628
million for the Pacific salmon fishermen and the post-TAGS
program. The others were expenditures that were already
announced in the previous estimates.
I would like to know what the hon. member is against. Is it the
payments to the British Columbia salmon fishermen? Is it the
payments to the people who were affected by the ice storm during
the winter? Were these the payments that came from the increased
health payments?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me tell the minister what we are offended about. We are offended
about the $4 million going to the millennium arts project and the
$3.2 million going to the Senate. I am sure that is what
Canadians want to hear.
A few weeks ago we had the finance minister saying we have to be
concerned because we have worldwide turmoil. We have to be
prudent.
Does the minister think it is prudent to give $4 million to the
millennium arts project and $3.2 million to the Senate? Is that
what the minister thinks?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the total amount given for the millennium which is
$145 million has been set in previous estimates. The member
could easily have picked up the amount at that point and made his
comments on it. I will repeat my comment.
The really large amounts in the estimates are transfers to
various parts of the population that found themselves in
difficulty, the salmon fishermen, the people affected by the ice
storm and the increase in payments to the health transfers. Are
these the payments my hon. colleague would like to see decreased?
* * *
[Translation]
PRATT & WHITNEY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for Industry.
Last Friday, after meeting in Longueuil with Pratt & Whitney
officials, who announced 900 layoffs, the Minister of Industry
said that he was pleased with the $100 million increase in the
Canada technology partnerships program to allow the aerospace
industry to maintain its technological advance and to continue
to create high level jobs.
Can the Minister of Industry assure us that he will do
everything in his power to ensure that Pratt & Whitney continues
to do research in Longueuil?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said to journalists that this is a very important program. This
$150-million program was introduced in the 1996 budget. We have
now increased funding to $250 million so far, and Pratt &
Whitney has received the largest share of this program.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned
this morning that 100 Pratt & Whitney engineers will be
transferred to a sister company in the United States to work on
a new model being funded by the U.S. defence department.
Technology partnerships Canada is not a subsidy program, it is a
repayable investment program.
What is the Minister waiting for to take action?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am happy that the member recognizes the difference between a
subsidy and an investment program. This is very important
because not all members of Parliament understand the difference,
but she does.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. John Manley: Furthermore, I would say I am confident that
with the development of our aerospace industry here in Canada,
we will soon rank fourth in the world. I am sure that our level
of employment in this industry, and also at Pratt & Whitney,
will increase.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hep C
victims of tainted blood have not received anything from this
government's compensation package and the reason is that the
lawyers are haggling.
Why does the health minister not take his responsibilities
seriously? He should grab all those lawyers, lock them up in a
big room and say do not come out until we have a compensation
package. Look after the victims.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I said in response to an earlier question, I understand
parties are communicating. They are discussing elements of the
offer governments have made to resolve the claims.
1435
Progress is being made. In particular, attention is being
focused on those in most urgent need so that they can be provided
with the help they need as soon as possible.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting that they have not met for three months.
If this minister had presented to the Canadian public a proper
compensation program there would be no need for all these
lawyers, no haggling, no delays.
Why does this minister not stop acting like the chair of the
Canadian Bar Association and act like he was in charge of our
health care system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I suppose we could have dictated unilaterally what people would
receive. Former governments have done that. It does not take
into account the needs of people.
Instead, what we have under discussion with those who were
infected is customized relief to look after their individual
circumstances. That is the way this government does business,
not decreeing in some arbitrary fashion but talking in detail
with those who are affected to find out how we can best serve
those needs. That is the way we think we should do business.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
meeting between provincial and federal justice ministers made
one thing clear. The minister is trying to keep western Canada
happy by toughening up the Young Offenders Act, while letting
the provinces think they can adopt Quebec's approach.
When will the minister realize that the only possible solution
to youth crime in Canada is for the present act to be left alone
and all the provinces to follow Quebec's approach?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my provincial and territorial
colleagues and I had a very good discussion last week in relation
to the reform of the youth justice system.
Coming out of that discussion are four things the provinces put
on the table. First, they want a flexible regime. Second, they
want additional resources. Third, they want a balanced regime.
Fourth, they want additional consultations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's youth crime rate
is among the lowest in North America, proof that the Young
Offenders Act is working very well in Quebec.
How does the minister explain that such is not the case in the
rest of Canada, in the English provinces?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my provincial colleague Mr.
Ménard, the attorney general of Quebec, had the opportunity to
share with his colleagues from across the country the approach
taken in Quebec and its success.
All ministers around the table concluded that what is important
and the challenge for me is to ensure there is sufficient
flexibility within any reformed youth justice system to
accommodate different approaches.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure what planet the health minister lives on, but the
rest of us know what is going to happen.
If these lawyers and lawsuits go to court because of government
inaction, lawyers are going to get the money that should be going
to the victims of hepatitis C. That is simple.
Why is the health minister determined to put the earnings of
lawyers above the health of victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was precisely to avoid people having to go to court and the
expense of litigation that governments got together and made the
offer we have.
Now the parties have those details under discussion, how can we
best accommodate the needs of the people who were infected. Let
us let the parties work it out. They have been making progress.
What we can do is let that process continue. It is in the
interests of the victims.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the truth is while the minister is dickering around on this
people are dying. That is the truth.
The AIDS tainted blood compensation package was administered
quickly because it was done without a horde of lawyers who had
their noses in the trough.
Will the health minister stop trying to act as the fundraising
director of the Canadian Bar Association and—
The Speaker: If the hon. minister wishes to address that
question he may.
* * *
[Translation]
APEC
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the next
APEC summit is to be held in mid-November in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
1440
We know that the former deputy prime minister and finance
minister of that country has been detained. His imprisonment,
which has been strongly condemned by Amnesty International, is a
clear breach of human rights in every respect.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Several
countries have already expressed reservations about holding the
APEC summit in Kuala Lumpur. Will the government show leadership
and ask that the next APEC summit be held somewhere else?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, all the countries that are members of APEC have
indicated their willingness to go to the meeting and will be at
the meeting, in particular because of the serious issues involved
dealing with the financial crisis and the impact on people in
that region and around the world.
As a member of APEC we will be attending but at the same time we
are taking steps to make sure there will be a very effective
involvement of civil groups and public groups at that meeting to
make sure the full range of opinions is heard.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that Mr. Stanley
Faulder, a Canadian citizen, it to be executed in a Texas prison
December 10. It would appear there were irregularities in the
evidence presented in the case and that Canadian officials were
only notified of Mr. Faulder's situation in 1991, a violation of
international convention.
What course of action is the minister pursuing to prevent Mr.
Faulder's execution?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right. There is a
very clear violation of the Vienna convention, which requires
states to offer proper counsel support for those who are
arrested.
I wrote to the governor of Texas about a year ago drawing that
to his attention without any recourse. I followed up this week
with letters to the governor, to the head of the pardons
convention and also to Secretary of State Albright. I have also
asked our officials to meet with Mr. Faulder's lawyers to see if
we can join with them in submitting an amicus brief in the
petition to the supreme court to ensure that Mr. Faulder's rights
are properly recognized by the United States.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP in British Columbia is facing an $8.5 million budget
reduction which means the airplanes are not flying, no overtime
and no training.
What does the commissioner of the RCMP do about all this? He and
his wife and a few guests take a private jet to British Columbia
and attend a retirement dinner. That is just after they flipped
off to England to attend more social events.
Exactly what does the solicitor general think he is doing with
RCMP rank and file members, where the money should be spent on
crime enforcement—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this kind of demagoguery is particularly unfortunate in
the 125th year of RCMP service to this country.
The hon. member could well serve this country to speak of the
accomplishments of the RCMP this year and not that kind of trash.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable to rank and file
police officers in Canada.
RCMP positions are going unfilled because of these funding cuts.
Detachments are being called on to stretch their resources to the
breaking point. Frontline police officers are being told there
is no money for standby or overtime. At the same time the
commissioner and his guests jet set across the country or over to
England for a photo op with the Queen.
That type of response is totally unacceptable. What kind of
message is this sending to rank and file police officers?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the trip to England was not paid for by the RCMP. What
kind of message is that sending to Canada?
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, now that the first round of consultations on the
so-called health protection branch renewal is over, the Minister
of Health should be acutely aware of the lack of confidence and
trust that Canadians have in our health protection system.
The sworn testimony of scientists on the matter of bovine growth
hormones only serves to further darken the cloud of suspicion
hanging over the health protection branch.
To restore confidence in this discredited branch will the
Minister of Health now do the right thing and launch a full
independent inquiry into the health protection branch?
1445
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member cannot have it both ways, both to criticize health
protection branch for being secretive and looking only inward at
itself and then to criticize the health protection branch when it
goes across the country to hold public consultations about
renewing itself and changing the way it does business to be more
open and transparent.
That indeed is our objective, to ensure that the health
protection branch does its job in a way that has the confidence
of Canadians. We throw open the doors and windows, bring the
public in and let them know how decisions about safety and health
protection are made.
That is the point of the consultations. That is the point of
health protection branch transition. It is a good process.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health does a great disservice to
Canadians by not acknowledging their concerns and by not acting
now to clear the air.
With over 70% of the drug approval process paid for by the drug
industry itself and with growing allegations of industry
lobbyists taking precedence over the public interest, there is a
serious concern before the minister today.
Why will the minister not show some leadership, get his own
house in order and launch an immediate independent inquiry into
the health protection branch?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would have thought the member and her party would support the
government in what it is doing.
We are looking at the way the health protection branch is
structured. We are looking at the quality of the personnel. We
are looking at the way it makes decisions. We are looking for a
way in which it can fulfil its important public function in a
fashion that will hold the confidence of Canadians in an open and
transparent process.
That is what health protection branch transition is all about.
It is part of that process to go public, to have public
consultation, to hold open meetings where everyone is present and
to talk about these issues.
That is the process in which we are involved. We believe it is
the right way to restore confidence in the health protection
branch.
* * *
GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
year ago I questioned the Liberal patronage appointment of Ron
Fewchuk, the CEO of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.
After a year of turmoil it seems the minister is about to make
some changes, including the infamous Mr. Fewchuk.
Does the minister not realize that it takes more than running a
bait shop to run a $50 million operation?
Is the minister prepared to stand today, take responsibility and
admit that he made a mistake with this patronage appointment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fewchuk has resigned as president of
the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
I intend to seek a replacement for him in due course. I will
announce that person's name to the House when in fact I have
chosen such person.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when Ron Fewchuk was appointed as the CEO of the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Board there was a CEO in place already. In fact, for
the last year there have been two CEOs.
Mr. Fewchuk has resigned. As a matter of fact, when he gets his
pink slip there is going to be a severance package paid to Mr.
Fewchuk. He had a severance package when he left parliament. He
had a $100,000 salary and now he has another severance package.
Will the minister please tell us how much it cost Canadian
taxpayers to have this Liberal appointment made to the Freshwater
Fish Marketing Board?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member asked me a question which he
knows full well I cannot answer for the reason that privacy
provisions prevent us from commenting on severance packages or
anything else of that like.
With respect to his comments about patronage, I can assure him
that we are not following the practice of the previous Tory
government which was awash with patronage.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
The Bank of Canada is saying it plans to print more money to
deal with the possibility of excessive withdrawals from our banks
brought on by the public's concern over the year 2000 bug.
Are our banks themselves fully prepared for the year 2000?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very
important question.
I am assured by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
that they have had extensive discussions with the banks to ensure
that they will be compliant by the year 2000.
Moreover, they have encouraged the banks in dealing with their
customers to also pass on the message that it is critical that
all Canadian businesses be compliant by the year 2000.
* * *
1450
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
Canadians tune in to Hockey Night in Canada they notice a
large Government of Canada sign on the ice surface of the Molson
Centre. Those signs cost $540,000.
How can this government justify spending over half a million
dollars on these signs when the other emblem of our Canadian
self, the RCMP, is not receiving enough funds?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada participates in different sports activities, whether it is
Formula 1, hockey, baseball or football. These sports are
sponsored by the Government of Canada. I think the member should
be proud that when Canadians and the rest of the world are
watching a hockey game they will see that Canada is there.
* * *
[Translation]
FRENCH SPEAKING COMMUNITIES
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government took money away from Canada's francophones to reduce
its deficit.
That much is clear, because between 1993, when the Liberals came
to office, and the year 2000, the total official language budget
of the Department of Canadian Heritage will have been reduced by
40%, which is also the case with its direct contributions to
francophone groups in Canada.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage give a positive answer to
the francophone groups from all over Canada, which have often
asked her to raise the amounts set aside for agreements between
Canada and French speaking communities?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is usual with them,
our friends opposite come to the rescue of Canadian francophones
when it suits them.
They forget to mention the school system, the community radio
stations, the expansion of the TVA television network from sea
to sea and the support that the Canadian government gives to
many institutions to help the French speaking community not only
to survive, but to flourish.
* * *
[English]
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Centre for Social Justice has proven that the gap between
the rich and the poor is widening. The Centre for the Study of
Living Standards has proven that economic well-being is in
decline. A study by HRDC has proven that urban poverty is
increasing. They all point to a critical need for government
action.
Instead we hear that the government plans to address poverty by
redefining the way it is measured.
My question is simply this: Is this government planning to
eradicate poverty by scrapping the LICO and redefining poor
people out of existence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this government is very concerned about the issue of
poverty. This has been demonstrated by the fact that it has
committed $850 million to enrich the child tax benefit aimed at
poor children and poor families. It is devoting another $850
million to further fight poverty.
This is proof. It is not just talk like the hon. member is
doing. It is action that Canadians want and they are getting
positive action from this government.
* * *
AIR SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In two recent airplane crashes both planes were determined to
have not been equipped with emergency locator transmitters. The
transportation safety board has now said that all planes should
be equipped with ELTs, but the industry has responded by saying
that it is going to be too expensive.
Considering that the price of an ELT is about the same price as
a one-way ticket from Ottawa to Halifax, will the minister make
it a requirement that all planes in Canada be equipped with ELTs
so that every time a Canadian gets on a plane they will know the
plane is equipped with an ELT?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member I am sure forgets that some months
ago I made this assurance. In fact, the committee on air
regulations has been meeting with the industry to make sure this
goes into effect. There are meetings happening in the next few
weeks.
I think the hon. member's point is well taken, but he is a
little late. We have already announced that decision.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN MUSEUMS
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
important for Canadians to have a better understanding of their
history and truly live out their culture.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What is
the minister doing to encourage Canadian museums to make
Canadians across the country aware of their exhibits?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Nickel Belt for his question.
This is a happy coincidence, but this morning the Minister of
Canadian Heritage announced funding for the museums assistance
program will increase by $2 million to $9.4 million, which will
allow all museums and galleries to do more to promote our common
heritage.
1455
The minister also announced an indemnification program for
travelling exhibitions, which would allow Canadian museums and
galleries to attract international exhibitions to Canada to
travel across the country without having to cover insurance
costs. This will foster a better knowledge of our heritage.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand on behalf of RCMP officers all over Canada and especially
on behalf of those in the province of British Columbia. Why can
the solicitor general not understand the chagrin, the anger and
the frustration of RCMP officers when the commissioner flies out
in the RCMP private jet for a retirement party while there is a
cutback of $8.5 million, there is no overtime and there are no
boats and no planes? Why can he not understand that?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why can the hon. member across the way not understand
what a discredit it is to him to taint the reputation of the RCMP
based on information that is inaccurate? He suggests that the
only reason the commissioner was there was for that purpose when,
in fact, there was a whole series of business conducted during
that trip.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-44
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
with Bill C-44, the federal government is trying to put the
chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on an ejection
seat. According to the President of the Treasury Board, however,
there is no such threat in there since the independence of the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is recognized in the act.
If what the President of the Treasury Board says is right, how
can he explain that the last three CEOs of the CBC and 21
well-known journalists are saying they are very concerned about
the provisions of Bill C-44?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again,
the full independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
is guaranteed by the Broadcasting Act. However I would like to
ask a question of my colleague from the Bloc. If holding office
during pleasure under the federal act is so dangerous, how is it
that the chairman of Télé-Québec is appointed under the very same
conditions?
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
announcing a multibillion dollar income assistance program for
U.S. farmers, which starts tomorrow, the U.S. secretary of
agriculture said “the package will get out some real help to
farmers whose livelihoods are on the line”.
My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
When will this government announce a relief program that will
allow Canadian farmers whose livelihoods are equally on the line
to begin planning their 1999 crop instead of their 1999 auction
sale?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out to the hon.
member the attributes of our safety net system in Canada. There
is $2.5 billion allotted to that system.
Also of importance, as we all know, is the fact that I have
called a meeting for Wednesday of the farm leaders and provincial
ministers. This will allow us to continue to plan a “coherent
and clear national strategy to provide producers with security”.
The hon. member should recognize exactly what we are doing and
what we are about to do because that is a quote from “A
Framework for Canada's Future”, the NDP platform from the last
election.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
To follow up on my colleague's question, I think an instrument
landing system is important, particularly in outlying areas.
Unfortunately, it took the Clarenceville accident to shed light
on some of the deficiencies involved here.
Does the minister know that it can take months to have an
instrument landing system repaired, and that meanwhile the
aircraft has to do without the system? That is the unfortunate
explanation for some accidents.
I would like to know if the minister intends to force companies
to temporarily replace instrument landing systems that are being
repaired.
1500
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the service period
involved has been revealed. I believe in the Air Canada accident
some time ago it was inordinately long.
This is one of the aspects of the regulation that will be looked
at by the committee in developing the new regime under which all
these planes will operate.
* * *
POVERTY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
According to a recent study there is a growing gap between
Canada's richest and Canada's poorest families. By 1996 Canada's
richest families were making 314 times the average income of the
poorest.
What does the minister suggest be done to rectify this
situation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, poverty is an issue that has
tremendously preoccupied the government since coming to office.
This is precisely why our government introduced a number of
measures specifically to help these people out of poverty.
We are putting $1.7 billion in the national child benefit to
help children in low income families. This is on top of the $5
billion that the government is already investing toward families
with children.
We also believe the best way to help people out of poverty is to
help them get into the labour market. This is why we introduced
the Canadian opportunities strategy to help access. We have the
transitional jobs fund—
The Speaker: That will bring to a close our question
period for today.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 109 I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to the third report of the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled
“Capturing the Advantage: Agricultural Biotechnology in the New
Millennium”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on June 9,
1998.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition to the House
today.
Whereas a majority of Canadians understand that the concept of
marriage is the voluntary union of a single unmarried male and a
single unmarried female, the petitioners pray that parliament
enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Prohibited Degrees
Act and the Interpretation Act so as to find in statute that a
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
I agree with the petition.
1505
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows he cannot say
that. I would invite him to comply with the rules at all times.
I know he would want to do that.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present two petitions on behalf of the residents
of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The first one is signed by 83 constituents from the surrounding
area. It is on Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act,
which as we all know would support that a marriage should only
happen between a man and a woman.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition that I am pleased to present to the House is
again on behalf of the residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
It relates to private member's Bill C-304, which is again a
fundamental principle that needs to be propped up in our society.
It would strengthen the protection of property rights and the
Canadian bill of rights.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to present a petition
on behalf of about 66 constituents of Prince George—Peace River.
The majority of Canadians understand the concept that marriage is
the voluntary union of a single male and a single female.
They further pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to
amend the Marriage Act 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. I know I cannot say
it but I agree with this petition.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has surely heard my
rebuke to his colleague already. I would hope he would comply
with the rules in all respects.
[Translation]
BILL C-36
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition from several residents of the
municipality of Stornoway in the riding of Frontenac-Mégantic.
Proposed changes to the calculation of the income security
benefit are creating much concern and dissatisfaction among
Stornoway seniors. This new bill that would base this benefit on
family income will be particularly harmful to women.
We consider this as discrimination against most women.
The people of Stornoway ask parliament to show more concern for
the interests of seniors by withdrawing Bill C-36.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, a petition signed by many Canadians. In
particular, it is signed by people from Bellefeuille and
Montreal, Quebec; Thunder Bay, Ontario; and other places.
The petitioners are very concerned about the Liberal
government's GST plans and the fact that it has broken its
promise to eliminate the GST.
They also oppose the creation of the super tax collection
agency, which is the privatization of something that is very near
and dear to the pocketbooks of every Canadian. They are asking
the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform of the
system.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of about 7,000
constituents who are calling for a major overhaul of the tax
system.
They have all probably filled out their income tax forms
recently and are reminded about the goofy nature of our tax
system. They are suggesting that it should be revised from top
to bottom.
It is a pleasure to present the petition on their behalf.
TRADE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated topic, the petitioners
again from throughout British Columbia are calling upon the
government to consider international trade agreements like NAFTA
that make it difficult for governments to pass legislation to
protect the health of Canadians.
They specifically imply the MMT and the PCB issues facing the
government.
ANIMAL CRUELTY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by young
people from various schools and others in the Kamloops region who
are concerned about the lack of proper sentencing against people
who commit offences against animals. They point out a number of
offences against animals.
The petitioners feel that the judges simply do not understand
that people who inflict cruelty upon animals ought to be
receiving a good smack, or perhaps more than that. They do not
elaborate.
1510
BILL C-68
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to
present a petition from people in Minden, Kinmount, Kirkfield,
Tory Hill and other places,
They are calling for the repeal of Bill C-68 to redirect the
money to a more effective reduction of violent crime, improvement
of public safety, more police on the street, more crime
prevention, more suicide prevention centres, more women's crises
centres, and other things.
RIGHTS OF PARENTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by some 32
residents of Calgary and other parts of Alberta.
They are calling on parliament to take note of the need to
reform our laws with respect to child support payments and child
custody to ensure that all parents are guaranteed access to their
children and that non-adversarial means be used wherever possible
in mediating co-parenting situations.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
question No. 125 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 125—Mr. Ted White:
Of the 2,224 minister's permits issued by the immigration
department in 1997 to individuals who would otherwise have been
inadmissible to Canada for technical reasons, the 1,797
inadmissible for criminal reasons, and the 275 inadmissible for
medical reasons, could the government please indicate the 10 most
common reasons for the issuance of a ministers' permit for each
of these three categories?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): a) In 1997, the Department of Citizenship
and Immigration issued 2,244 minister's permits to persons
inadmissible for a variety of reasons other than criminal or
medical inadmissibility. The department does not have a list of
the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were issued on
behalf of the minister because data is not collated in this
manner. However, the majority of permits issued for technical
reasons were issued to members of the family class to allow early
admission to Canada before all of the processing steps were
concluded. An example would be the issuance of minister's permit
to a spouse of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is
unable to undergo the required immigration medical X-ray due to
pregnancy. A minister's permit may be issued to allow her to be
reunited with her family despite the fact she has not met the
medical requirements.
In such cases, the X-ray is normally completed after the birth
of the child and the processing of the spouse's application for
permanent residence is then completed in Canada.
Minister's permits may also be issued to facilitate the entry to
Canada of highly skilled workers or business immigrants where
Canadian jobs are at stake. An example would be that of an
applicant for permanent residence destined to work with a
Canadian high-tech company. The worker is key to the
implementation of a project or the ability of the company to
honour its contractual obligations. Hundreds of Canadians will be
laid off if the company is not able to bring in the skilled worker
immediately. The prospective immigrant cannot be issued an
immigrant visa because the medical examination or criminal or
security screening have not been completed. A minister's permit
may be issued to allow the prospective immigrant to enter Canada
and to start work immediately while processing of the immigration
application continues abroad.
b) In 1997 the department issued 1,497 permits to persons
inadmissible for criminal reasons. The department does not have
a list of the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were
issued on behalf of the minister because data is not collated in
this manner.
However, an example would be that of a prospective
visitor who admits to a minor criminal conviction several years
ago, such as driving under the influence, possession of
marijuana, or shoplifting, but wishes to come to Canada to visit
family. After determining that the individual presents no danger
to the public, a minister's permit may be issued to facilitate
the visit.
c) In 1997 the department issued 275 permits to persons
inadmissible for medical reasons. The department does not have a
list of the 10 most common reasons for which these permits were
issued on behalf of the minister because data is not collated in
this manner.
An example would be spouses and dependent children sponsored by
Canadian citizens or residents that are found to be medically
inadmissible. Minister's permits may be issued in such cases on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds in order to facilitate
family reunification. Departmental officials consult with
provincial health officials before issuing minister's permits in
such cases. Another example would be minister's permits issued to
medically inadmissible visitors, including children, coming to
Canada for medical treatment where the treatment is not available
in the home country and the treatment has been prepaid by the visitor
or the visitor's family in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an
act respecting marine conservation areas, be read a second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to talk about Bill C-48.
This bill is entitled “An Act respecting marine conservation
areas”, and its purpose is to provide a legal framework for the
creation of 28 marine conservation areas representative of each
of the Canadian ecosystems.
The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but is not governed this legislation since it
has its own legislation.
Bill C-48 follows a commitment made by the Prime Minister of
Canada to the World Conservation Union Conference held in
Montreal in 1996. At that time, as in 1994, the union passed
resolutions asking all coastal nations to act quickly to put in
place conservation measures for marine areas.
The year 1998 was designated the International Year of the Ocean
by the United Nations. Among the most important initiatives to
mark this event we should mention the World Exposition in
Lisbon, Portugal and the signing of the Ocean Charter, prepared
by UNESCO, in September 1997 in St. John's, Newfoundland.
The creation of marine conservation areas fulfills the
objectives of many international forums and documents like the
World Conservation Strategy of 1980, the 1991 report entitled
“Caring for the Earth”, prepared by the IUCN, which is the
United Nations Environment Programme, and the World Wide Fund
for Nature, which is financed in part by the Government of
Quebec.
Of course the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures to protect
the environment. More particularly, the Bloc Quebecois reminds
the government that it supported the legislation creating the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois
knows that the Quebec government is also pursuing initiatives to
protect the environment and sea floors in particular.
1515
The Quebec government is also open to working together with the
federal government, as evidenced by the agreement signed by the
two governments on the third phase of the St. Lawrence action
plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois has to object to the bill before us
for a number of reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue,
as in the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the
federal government wants to create marine conservation areas
regardless of Quebec's jurisdiction over its territory and the
environment.
Second, Heritage Canada is proposing the establishment of a new
structure, that is the marine conservation areas, which will
simply duplicate Fisheries and Oceans' marine protected areas
and Environment Canada's marine wildlife reserves.
In a nutshell, believe it or not, the federal government has
found a way to divide itself into three components to better
invade Quebec's jurisdictions.
At this stage, I would like to elaborate on our objections to
this bill. First, let us look at the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
Marine Park, which is a model. In 1997, the governments of
Quebec and Canada passed legislation to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This legislation led to the
creation of Canada's first marine conservation area, and one of
the main features of this legislation is the fact that the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be
created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without
any land changing hands. Both governments will continue to
fulfil their respective responsibilities. The legislation also
states that the park is made up entirely of marine areas.
It covers 1,138 square kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed
through an agreement between the two governments, provided there
is joint public consultation in that regard.
In addition, in order to promote local involvement, the acts
passed by Quebec and by Canada confirm the creation of a
co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by
the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is
to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve
the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly
by both governments, at least once every seven years.
As well, any exploration, utilization or development of
resources for mining or energy related purposes, including the
building of oil lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited
within park boundaries.
Finally, by means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and
of Canada will be able to determine measures for protecting the
park's ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public.
More specifically, they will be able to define how each category
of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.
The Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park should have served as a
model to the federal government for the creation of other marine
conservation areas.
Another model it could have followed is Phase III of the St.
Lawrence action plan. On June 8, 1998, the environment
ministers of Canada and of Quebec announced phase III of the St.
Lawrence development plan, representing a total bill of $230
million to be shared equally by both levels of government.
One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the
area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to
120,000 hectares.
Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both
governments invested over $300 million.
Let us now examine Bill C-48, which unfortunately fails to
respect the integrity of the territory of Quebec. One of the
conditions essential to the establishment of a marine
conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the
conservation area will be established. This land, let it not be
forgotten, belongs to Quebec.
1520
Subsection 5(2) of the bill stipulates that the minister may not
create a marine conservation area unless “satisfied that clear
title to the lands to be included in the marine conservation
area is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada”—this of course
being the Queen of England—excluding any such lands situated
within the exclusive economic zone of Canada”. A highly
complicated way of putting it.
It must be noted that section 92.5 of the Constitution Act, 1867
recognizes that the administration and sale of lands in the
public domain are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In
other words, the 1867 Constitution says that Quebec is the
exclusive owner of its territory. There is a kind of
contradiction here.
As I asked earlier, is what we are dealing with here
expropriation in disguise?
Moreover, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the
Quebec National Assembly, applies—and I invite the public to
listen carefully, as well as this House—to all crown lands in
Quebec, including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the
St. Lawrence River, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by
sovereign right.
I am not making this up. It is there, clearly written. Quebec
cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. I repeat,
Quebec cannot transfer its lands to the federal government. The
only thing it can do within this legislation is to authorize, by
order, the federal government to use them only in connection
with matters under federal jurisdiction
However, the protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of
joint federal and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of
Quebec plans to establish a framework for the protection of
marine areas in the near future.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation areas are
planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean
floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems
in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St.
Lawrence River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action
plan, phase III”, which was signed by all federal and provincial
departments concerned and which provides for an investment of
$250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities
relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such
arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where
it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of
permitting bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and
thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction?
I would like to say a word about environmental matters in the
context of shared jurisdictions. Under the Constitution Act,
1867, the governments of Canada and Quebec share responsibility
for the environment.
Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal
government has control over the following areas:
91. —the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of
Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of
Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say:
10. Navigation and Shipping.
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine
Hospitals.
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign
Country or between Two Provinces.
1525
Quebec's jurisdiction is also recognized in the following
sections of the British North America Act of 1867:
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws
in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects
next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
5. the Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the
Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon;
Section 92A(1) is also interesting.
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make
laws in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the
province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable
natural resources and forestry resources in the province,
including laws in relation to the rate of primary production
therefrom.
Therefore, Quebec's Act Respecting the Conservation and
Development of Wildlife specifies the role to be played by the
Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife. Section 2 reads
as follows:
2. The Minister of the Environment and Fauna ensures the
conservation and development of wildlife and wildlife
habitats.
Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to
appoint conservation officers.
By refusing to use the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as a
model and by making title to the territory an essential
condition for the establishment of marine conservation areas,
the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa used to
say, like a centralizing government that wants control over
everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.
Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration
itself. Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal
government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it intends to create
marine protected areas. Through the Department of the
Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves. This
means that a single site could find itself protected under more
than one category.
The Department of Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for
creating marine conservation areas in the preamble to the bill.
It is establishing marine conservation areas to protect natural,
self-regulating marine ecosystems for the maintenance of
biological diversity; establish a representative system of
marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada contributes to
international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide
network of representative marine areas; provide opportunities
for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate Canada's
natural and cultural marine heritage; and provide opportunities
within marine conservation areas for the ecologically
sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of
coastal communities.
As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it is proposing the
establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a
discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January
1997, the purpose of marine conservation areas is described as
follows:
These zones are established to ensure the conservation of
commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their
habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats,
unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any
other marine resource.
In both cases, we are told that local people will have a
significant involvement in the establishment of marine protected
areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many information or
organization meetings local people will be invited to, serving
bureaucracy instead of democracy.
As for Environment Canada, it is proposing to establish marine
conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine
reserves, expanding the concept of the national wildlife
sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 nautical mile
limit.
These areas are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but
require a different set of regulations.
Under these various laws, the Government of Canada is proposing
to create marine conservation areas, marine protection areas and
natural marine reserves. The same territory could, according to
Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and subject to
various regulations. Welcome, folks, to the complex world of
Government of Canada bureaucracy.
1530
The minutes prepared by the Fisheries and Oceans officials
following the consultation meetings on marine protection areas
held by the department in Quebec, in June 1998, state, and I
quote:
There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders
regarding the various federal programs on protected marine
areas—The departments concerned should harmonize their actions
and co-operate to create protected marine areas.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the views of those who participated in
these meetings and feels that this is bureaucratic overkill that
will not serve the public's interest, in the end.
The existence of an interdepartmental committee of these various
departments is no reassurance.
We know from experience that having a number of departments
involved in the same project makes it difficult for them to work
together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. The
government would have been better advised to have a single
department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the
departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating
their respective responsibilities.
As we can see there is confusion but there is more. The bill
provides that each federal department will retain jurisdiction
over its own marine conservation areas. However, when the
Department of Canadian Heritage deems it appropriate it may, in
co-operation with the department concerned, adopt regulations
regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the
existing provisions.
In this case, the change agreed to between the Department of
Canadian Heritage and the department concerned takes precedence
over other regulations under the Fisheries Act, the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection
Act or the Aeronautics Act.
Briefly, I would like to add this. Consultations were held. Of
all the answers given by participants and obtained by the
department, only one was in French. As we do not have access to
the names and addresses of respondents because this information
is confidential in accordance with the Act respecting the
protection of personal information, we can only conclude that
Quebec did not have the opportunity to take part in
consultations.
I say this, the Bloc Quebecois, on behalf of the population of
Quebec, will stoutly defend the right to territorial integrity.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
my colleague from Portneuf for such a good speech showing how
complex this bill is.
This is like shooting one's self in the foot. The member clearly
showed the overlap between three departments that want to be
sure to intrude into an area that is outside their jurisdiction.
The Liberals' federal government has been shouting from the
rafters it has met all of Quebec's demands. In its speech from
the throne it claimed it was putting an end to overlap and
intrusion into areas under provincial jurisdiction. However, it
has now found a way to divide itself into three components and
to actually overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to
meddle in our affairs and invade an area that comes under the
jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces.
I would like our colleague to demonstrate how three departments
overlap to be sure, in a roundabout way, to interfere in our
affairs.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, the issue is this: there is a
river bed along the St. Lawrence and a seabed in the gulf.
Shellfish and plant life can be found there.
1535
Questions will be asked: to whom do the shellfish and the plant
life belong? Does Fisheries and Oceans have jurisdiction? Is
this a heritage issue? Should the environment minister determine
whether the river bed and seabed where the plant life and the
shellfish are to be found is contaminated or in good condition?
All this is done on Quebec's territory.
In other words, it is as if I were at home, on my property, and
someone came to tell me how things must be done. Is my lawn in
good condition? Are the ants developing well? Am I taking good
care of the environment?
All this, without asking my permission, without talking with me,
without trying to reach an agreement, without trying to have a
dialogue, without trying to agree on terms and conditions,
without taking my own concerns into consideration.
What we have here an invasion of territory through legislation.
There is no physical invasion, just legislative invasion. This
is not the first occurrence. Let us look at the millennium
scholarships, an extraordinary example.
We know that, in Quebec, there has been a sound policy on
scholarships for the last 35 years. This is why Quebec students
have the smallest debt load in Canada, about $11,000 per person;
for the rest of Canada, it is $25,000.
Quebec made some good societal choices about thirty years before
Canada did.
Now, Canada takes a part of our money, about $600 to $700
million from Quebec, and puts it in the millennium scholarship
fund to provide us with something we already had but that the
rest of Canada did not have.
We often face this situation: the federal government invades our
jurisdictions, duplicates the efforts, walks all over us without
any concern for what it is destroying. With an attitude such as
this, I am increasingly proud to be a sovereignist and
increasingly anxious for our people to say yes.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
my colleague for the quality of his research on this subject. I
like to hear about the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence
River.
In 1984, Parks Canada and the federal government did not have
one single document about the Saguenay fjord. When I was elected
as a young member in 1984, one of my main priorities was to do
everything I could to have the fjord included in the Canadian
national parks system.
When I was re-elected, I was happy to be able to co-operate with
the minister on this issue. That co-operation led to the creation
of a new national marine park by the federal government. It took
14 years. Millions of dollars were invested in research. It must
be said though that environmental issues were an important part
of the government's agenda at that time, which led to the treaty
on acid rain, the St. Lawrence River action plan and the green
plan.
All that to illustrate the fact that it was an ongoing concern
of the government.
I can tell my colleague that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park is an extraordinary accomplishment. Not only will it
contribute to the preservation of our marine resources, but it
will also help bring our region to the fore nationally and
internationally.
I am a little bit surprised that my colleague would want to
focus on frictions between the two levels of government, because
the establishment of the park, which required the co-operation of
several departments at the provincial and federal levels, was a
success.
Are there any documents or statements by the Quebec government
or the federal government that show disagreements in the
negotiations related to this bill?
I would like to be made aware of these disagreements, because
the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park was a
complete success. For the next hundred years, it will allow us
to preserve our resources and also to be known in the rest of
the country. Knowing that Parks Canada advertises all over the
world, one can see why this is important for our region.
I would really like to know the source of these frictions
between both levels of government.
1540
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I thank my
hon. colleague for this excellent question. He has given an
example of exactly the right kind of situation.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a project that is
working out just fine. It has been designed and developed thanks
to the co-operation of the Canadian and Quebec governments. Both
levels of government have passed mirror legislation to create
that park. It has been a real success. That is a good approach,
but the Canadian government does not seem inclined to use it
again.
If it had been a disaster, I think the government would use that
approach again, but since it was a resounding success, it does
not want to.
It does not want to copy what has been done in the past. It is
designing a new system to which the Quebec government is not a
party, in which it is not involved as an actor or a negotiating
party. Quite differently, the feds are just intruding, and that
is what is wrong.
When something is working just fine and we have a good approach,
when we find the right move and the right procedure, with
respect for the jurisdictions of both levels of government,
co-operation and harmony, why not use the same approach? We have
a good model. My colleague told us he is proud of that
achievement. All of us are.
We have a good model, but they will not follow it anymore. They
refuse.
They are designing a new one, in which they will be trampling on
Quebec jurisdictions and, through three departments, impose
legislation on the marine floor in Quebec without asking for any
permission, without negotiating any agreement, without asking
any question. They make themselves at home.
But the Canadian government is not at home in an area of
exclusive Quebec jurisdiction recognized by the Constitution.
Once again, we are going to oppose most vigorously this federal
encroachment in an area that, constitutionally, is under
Quebec's jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to have the opportunity this afternoon to address the
House with respect to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine
conservation areas. The proposed piece of legislation is designed
to protect and conserve the areas of Canada's marine landscape
for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the
world.
My constituency of Fundy—Royal straddles the beautiful and
scenic Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy has the largest tides in
the world. Many beautiful beaches have evolved throughout the
Bay of Fundy region following centuries of constant pounding
delivered by these often unforgiving tides. Tourists from around
the globe have been attracted to the Fundy region to witness the
record tides while also revelling in the opportunity to enjoy
down-home maritime hospitality.
This region has also been the focus of many environmentalists
who are drawn to the area to study our unique marine ecosystem
and the Fundy escarpment. Like many of our local residents,
these individuals are deeply concerned with the often callous
indifference for our environment.
The Bay of Fundy has been the lifeblood for many of my
constituents, just as it has been for my neighbours across the
bay who are effectively represented by our party's Canadian
heritage critic, my colleague from West Nova.
The Bay of Fundy is home to many different species of marine
life. For instance, the right whale, of which very few breeding
pairs exist in the world, call the Bay of Fundy home every
August. For years Fundy fishing grounds supported the very
prosperous inshore scallop fishery. Groundfish used to be found
in abundance, helping create a very lucrative fishing industry.
Today many of the species fishermen depend upon for their
livelihoods are disappearing due to overfishing. Only the
lucrative lobster fishery remains. This is also threatened. From
that perspective I am very concerned for the individuals from St.
Martins in my riding who earn their livings by fishing.
We support Bill C-48. We feel it is time politicians started to
take a leading role in helping to preserve our environment so our
next generation will enjoy the scenery and the beauty that exists
throughout the country. This is another reason why I look
forward to the introduction of the Canadian endangered species
protection act in February.
1545
A lot of individuals when they talk about protecting endangered
species do so in order that we can protect those for future
generations. Some people believe that piece of legislation is
rather complex. It comes down to a number of points.
First, when it comes to endangered species we do not kill them.
We do not destroy their home and we give them a habitat in which
to live. We also look after those concerned Canadians who are
land owners so that we can provide them with economic instruments
with respect to stewardship. Obviously when that piece of
legislation comes in I will have more to say at that time.
We can only achieve the goals by taking immediate action through
protective measures as outlined in this bill. Education must
play an integral role in helping raise Canadians' awareness of
our environment.
Having been born and raised along the Fundy shore I can
certainly appreciate the importance of our natural environment
and the importance this environment plays in our everyday lives.
Many of my constituents depend on the ocean for their
livelihoods.
Our aboriginal peoples fished these great waters long before the
arrival of any European settlers. Fish were an important staple
in their everyday diets. They recognized the importance of this
natural resource for their survival. Even today their leaders
respect and appreciate the value of maintaining a viable fishing
industry. Aboriginal peoples recognize that conservation
measures must be of paramount concern whenever discussions
surround the allocation of fish stocks.
Deriving one's living from the oceans is a cultural way of life
for many individuals on all the coasts of this great country. We
depend on the preservation of this large habitat for our survival
and for the survival of our next generation. It is incumbent on
all to begin taking immediate steps toward protecting our
ecosystem.
On this note I am also very proud of the leadership which was
displayed recently in my riding near the town of St. Martins in
the development of the Fundy trail parkway. In this park we have
an opportunity to view the Bay of Fundy.
Through the leadership of the hon. Gerald Merrithew, a minister
for the province of New Brunswick at that time, I must compliment
provincial colleague Stuart Jamieson and some other stewards such
as Mitchell Franklin who actually had the foresight to develop
this park to view the beautiful Bay of Fundy.
Recently our coastal regions have been facing another menacing
attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have
been pillaging the ocean floors almost unabated by officials of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The lucrative lobster
fishery can be in danger if strong measures are not immediately
taken to put an end to this illegal activity.
The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with
preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the
national marine park policy. In 1987 the country's first
national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in
Georgian Bay was established.
In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement
with British Columbia to create a national marine conservation
area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed
a historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to
create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary in
the St. Lawrence River.
[Translation]
I am proud to have had the opportunity last summer to visit this
park in the Saguenay fjord. I must say that this is an
incredible region and a great park.
[English]
I am proud to say that the government and provincial governments
collaborated to build such a wonderful park along the Saguenay
area, Lac-Saint-Jean toward Tadoussac and into the St. Lawrence
River.
We have outlined the ecosystem leadership the government at the
time had. I think that is an indication of the vision the
Progressive Conservative government had during its era between
1984 and 1993.
I point out some of the initiatives that were brought forth
which dovetail in terms of our commitment to ecosystem
development and protection and respect for the environment.
Under our government in 1988 the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act was brought forth by the minister of the day, the
Hon. Tom McMillan and the Hon. Jean Charest.
1550
During that time it was prime ministerial leadership under Brian
Mulroney that developed the Clean Air Act which took on the
Americans and brought forth a national accord that addressed acid
rain. The same prime minister cared enough about the environment
and showed leadership at the Rio earth summit with respect to
biodiversity and climate change.
The commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party with
respect to our national parks and our conservation areas and the
environment is unprecedented.
It is important to note that although the proposed legislation
is designed to establish and manage a system of marine
conservation areas respective of the 29 marine areas, it does not
specifically identify a precise geographic location to be
protected.
These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation
with members of the general public, provincial governments and
obviously those individuals who earn their livelihoods from our
distinct waters.
I mentioned our aboriginal peoples' dependence on these waters
for their food fishery. It is important that aboriginal peoples
be involved in the negotiations. With many land claims still to
be resolved, it is imperative they be consulted on creating any
new marine reserve areas.
There are restrictions on non-renewable resource extraction. I
believe careful examination of any proposed site must be explored
as to its potential for oil and gas exploration in a very
sustainable way.
Nova Scotia is finally going to reap the economic benefits of
Sable gas. This economic boom would not have been possible if
the Sable area had been designated a marine protected area. That
is why we must exhaust all opportunities for constructive
consultation sessions with all those who have a vested interest
in our ocean floors.
We must immediately begin the process of identifying appropriate
locations for inclusion within marine conservation areas. This
bill will help provide the framework for creating these much
needed conservation areas.
We are very excited about trying to identify at least 10 marine
parks by 2000. I applaud the government for actually setting a
goal because I fundamentally believe what gets measured actually
gets done. Let us make sure we take our time to do it in a very
prudent, consultative fashion and that we locate those ecosystems
that should be preserved the most.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue on behalf of
our critic for heritage, the member for West Nova, and to
participate in this afternoon's debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his comments. I also want to make it clear
that the Bloc Quebecois is absolutely in favour of protecting
the environment and taking the necessary measures to ensure that
we live in an increasingly cleaner environment.
However, the Bloc Quebecois is totally opposed to Bill C-48,
because it is yet another federal interference in areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
If the government wants to create marine areas, regardless of
which department does it and regardless of the names given to
these areas—because we now know that three departments are
interested in creating such areas—it must first appropriate the
ocean floor.
But the ocean floor comes under the sovereign right of the
provinces.
The federal government is once again showing its bad faith.
There can be no better proof. The hon. member said he visited
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence park last summer. It is a beautiful
park co-managed by Canada and Quebec.
1555
As my colleague, the member for Portneuf, pointed out, the
Government of Canada has once again interfered in an area of
provincial jurisdiction in attempting to create marine
conservation areas on our territory.
I would like to know whether my colleague is aware of this
problem of the federal government again charging into an area of
provincial jurisdiction, and whether he does not share our
impression that once again the Liberal government of the Prime
Minister, the member for Shawinigan, is doing everything it can
to pit the provinces against the federal government.
[English]
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, I think the premise of my
colleague's question surrounds issues not as related to this
piece of legislation as to other ones. I agree with her concerns
that the government on too many occasions has interfered in
situations that have provoked provinces into some very difficult
positions.
In my critic's position I noticed it in terms of when the
federal government chose to turn its back on the agreement
established November 13, 1997. At that time it made an agreement
with respect to climate change. The very next day the Minister
of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources said
that is not necessarily our position.
It was a provocative move what the government chose to do with
respect to the supreme court. This country was actually formed
from an act of will. We did not go to any lawyers, judges or
courts to determine whether we should have a country or not in
the first place. It was an act of will on the part of the
political leadership of the day.
With the millennium scholarship fund it is clear interference
with respect to provincial jurisdiction. It would be more prudent
for them to actually inject the moneys into the CHST which would
pay for health care, post-secondary education and social
services. Those are the things where we should be working in
partnership with the provinces as opposed to taking provocative
steps.
With respect to this legislation there are very valuable ways we
can have some very positive provincial-federal relations. We see
that with respect to the park I had the pleasure of visiting this
summer along the Saguenay River. It is one of the most
picturesque areas of the world. There are very few fiords where
people actually have access. We see it in Norway and we see it in
one of God's most beautiful areas in this country along the
Saguenay.
The federal government on occasion has interfered in areas where
it should not have. I do not think this is necessarily
applicable with respect to this piece of legislation because it
is very possible to build some very positive partnerships with
the provinces in protecting our marine areas with respect to
having better conservation for everybody.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I also live in a riding which has an extensive marine ecosystem.
I probably have ten times more coastline than highways in my
riding.
I have five Gulf Islands among numerous other islands. Those
islands are all frequented by daily ferry service. I live in a
very sensitive marine environment with all kinds of marine life
from pods of orcas to grey whales.
We in the Reform Party also support protecting ecosystems. We
want to make that very clear. We are very concerned about
ecosystems and it is important that we protect them.
This legislation has all kinds of problems with it. I will
focus and demonstrate to this House how this legislation is very
typical of the type of legislation we see in this House. We have
a hollow piece of legislation.
1600
There is absolutely nothing in it. I will demonstrate that to
the House with numerous specific examples which will make it very
clear to see. We have a piece of legislation brought forward by
the government suggesting that it actually wants to protect an
ecosystem, but in effect it is hollow.
Furthermore it does not bring in other groups such as the
provinces. It does not bring in the resource base to ensure that
there is active participation in the management of parks and to
ensure that the resources can be removed safely so that we do not
trample on the rights of the people who are already there.
Members opposite do not agree with what I am saying. Let me
give an example. Schedules I and II of the legislation describe
the lands that are to be set aside. We have a bill that is for
marine parks, the Marine Conservation Act. I ask members to get
out their legislation. Schedules I and II describe the areas
that we are thinking about.
However, when we look up schedules I and II we cannot find them.
They are not there. This is just a hollow piece of legislation
that provides broad powers to the minister. The government will
decide this later.
I emphasize the problem I have with the legislation. I am a
strong advocate of conserving our marine life. I would fully
support legislation specifying pockets that should be set aside
for marine parks. I would even go further to say that the small
pockets should be class a marine parks that we cannot even
touch. That is not what we have. We have no idea what we are
getting ourselves into.
I have watched the example set by the government. The current
minister of fisheries talks over and over again about his three
priorities: conservation, conservation, conservation. However
what happens when the actual practices come down? For example
there is the Makaw whale hunt that is happening outside my
riding. The minister supports the Makaw whale hunt. He is
supporting the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters.
I have to question whether the government is serious when it
asserts that it wants to protect our ecosystems. It can be done
but this is not the legislation to do it. It is hollow.
My experiences in the House have shown that we do not have
openness and transparency. The government would like to bring in
legislation where all these decisions would be made by orders in
council or after the fact. We have no idea. Will there be a
consultation process if there is an abundance of shellfish in a
marine park?
Furthermore, the only way I found out about the legislation and
what the government was intending to do was through government
press releases. My riding is one of the ridings that would be
most affected by the legislation. I have had private meetings
with the people in the bureaucracy and have asked them about it.
It is only after I pursue and dig into it that I find out what is
going on.
The government does not come forward and inform all members of
the House, as we have seen over and over and over again with the
bills that are brought forward. It operates in a vacuum, this
little tight-knit group, this handful of people who surround the
Prime Minister. What we have is a dictatorship.
I could go on. The legislation does not even identify which
areas will be designated as marine parks. We have no idea what
is happening. I know the minister has announced a couple of
small areas, his wishes for marine parks, but the reality is that
the legislation leaves it wide open.
There are broad, sweeping powers for the minister. We have no
idea whether the provinces will have any participation in the
marine parks. We have no idea whether the resource based
industries in British Columbia, the fishing sector or the
forestry sector, will have any input regarding how they will be
affected. Both the forestry and fishing sectors are in a very
difficult situation in British Columbia. I could safely say in
the House, after speaking with those representatives, that they
are also very strong supporters of maintaining our ecosystems.
Bringing in legislation that will not consult with them to ensure
that all these people can be brought on board to make sure it is
done in a very economical and positive way is not the way to go.
1605
It enlarges the minister's jurisdiction. There are all kinds of
examples of this in clauses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 which enlarge the
minister's jurisdiction. They effectively empower the minister
to designate whatever areas he or she feels fit, depending on the
time. Right now it comes under the minister of heritage. She
would have the power to do as she sees fit. It has raised
concerns among the residents of British Columbia. Many of them
are strong supporters of our ecosystems.
They raise flags with me in discussions. They are somewhat
amazed when the government comes out with this kind of
legislation in flashy press releases with no substance. Then,
only hours later, they find out that the minister of fisheries,
Mr. Conservation, is about to allow the slaughter of whales on
our beaches. Whales will be floating up on the beaches of
Victoria in his riding. This has caused them great distress. He
has taken absolutely no initiative to stop it. I have approached
him and the Minister of Foreign Affairs with no success, asking
them to lobby against the the unnecessary slaughter of the Makaw.
Even more disturbing is the Canadian government's giving the
Makaw tribe permission to slaughter these whales in Canadian
waters. It is absolutely unacceptable. Then the government
tells us that it is bringing in marine parks to preserve our
ecosystems.
I listened to the Conservative member from Nova Scotia. I agree
with him it is very important that we protect our ecosystems and
our marine parks. However the legislation is not the vehicle
that will do that. We have a hollow, empty piece of legislation.
I question why it is there. I question what the government is
doing. It imposes upon the provincial governments, as was
pointed out by my hon. colleague in the Bloc, without their
active participation. If we are to succeed in doing something
meaningful and in providing something that would preserve some of
the ecosystems, the provinces should be brought on board as
effective partners and not just have a dictatorship against them.
I will conclude my remarks. This is but another example in the
House of the Liberal government bringing in legislation which is
absolutely hollow. It does not give us specifics. I repeat that
it is not worth the paper it is written on. It does nothing to
give us any specifics on preserving ecosystems, a process which I
support. The government should look at the record of what it is
doing and get the Canadian public to agree before it starts
bringing in these types of bills.
I understand the minister of fisheries would like to designate
some areas in Victoria, but he creates his own problems when he
allows the slaughter of whales in Canadian waters. He should be
ashamed of himself for supporting that initiative and suggesting
that he also wants to come out with legislation for marine parks.
On that basis I will be voting against the legislation because
it is a scam against Canadians to suggest that the government is
in any way concerned about our marine environment.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment a
bit and then ask the member a question.
I refer the member to section 8.(4) of the act which talks about
agreements with provincial authorities. There is no forcing of
anybody to do anything. We are talking about agreements with
provincial authorities and other agencies, as has been the case
in the establishment of parks throughout our history. Let us not
get carried away by inventing motives that do not exist.
1610
The member started his speech by parrying for more consultation.
There are ample elements built into the proposed legislation to
guarantee consultation in designating 28 of the 29 conservation
areas the legislation intends to establish. He rightfully
requests more consultation. Then he said that he would vote
against the legislation because it is hollow. To determine that,
he referred to the annexes where the conservation areas are not
listed. Of course not, because they have not been selected.
There has been a mapping out of the 29 areas in Canada
representing the 29 ecological zones we wish to protect with the
marine conservation area legislation. The locations within these
areas have not been selected and that is the subject of
consultation. Which is it? Should we decide there should be no
consultation and make these decisions unilaterally? Of course
not.
The government has indicated its intention once the legislation
is approved to establish 10 such areas, hopefully by the
millennium year, in consultation with the relevant authorities
and not unilaterally as the member would rightfully object to.
We cannot possibly list them in the annexes. The member cannot
have it both ways. Which is it? Does he want consultation or
does he want us to go ahead and pick unilaterally? I do not
think so. That is the question the member has to answer.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, we have to go back to the
government's record. The legislation contains numerous Henry
VIII clauses. We all know that a Henry VIII clause will allow a
minister to designate new areas under the act without having to
steer the amendment through parliament. That is an absolute
given.
I can only go on the performance of the government over the last
year and on what it has done in the House. I do not have
confidence in the government at all. We have seen that dwindling
among Canadians over the past month. The Liberals are going down
and down and down and they know it.
That is why I say the legislation is hollow. How can we
possibly sit here and believe when the minister of fisheries is
allowing the slaughter of whales by Americans in Canadian waters?
Those whales could potentially wash up on the beaches of
Victoria. How can we expect the government to mean that it will
consult with industry, the provinces and the different sectors?
The government's record is dismal in this area. We have had a
dictatorship. We have seen it over and over again.
I can give them all kinds of examples. We could look at the EI
fund. Every member on this side of the House has demanded
consultation, and all we hear is the Liberals saying no. There
are a hundred examples. The record speaks for itself. Their
performance has been absolutely dismal.
They are sighing over there because they have nothing better to
say. They know it. It is a fact. The legislation is very
clear. It gives broad sweeping powers to the minister. We would
like to know exactly what we are passing in the House before we
vote on it. We will not vote on a hollow piece of legislation
which will give the minister the ultimate say on where the parks
are.
Let us not forget there are all kinds of resources attached to
these parks. There is the fishery which the government has
destroyed. The Liberals can talk to their own member from
Gander—Grand Falls in Newfoundland. He has been very open in
the House and is a big defender of the fishery. He will talk
about how the government has destroyed the resource over the last
10 years. It has been an absolute dismal failure. The auditor
general has confirmed this in numerous reports. Now the Liberals
are coming out and are to be the great saviours of the ecosystems
and the environment. It does not add up.
We would like to support something that would truly protect the
environment and the ecosystems and would include these people in
the process. This legislation clearly does not do that.
1615
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my Reform Party colleague and congratulate him on seeing, as I
do, the tragic aspect of this bill, with its sham consultation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Briefing sessions were held. We were
told that the federal government had consulted Canadians; we
read in the Minister of Canadian Heritage's notes that 3,000
organizations had received questionnaires and mailed back little
scraps of paper, which were put together into a magnificent
document that was presented to us in a folder. A sham
consultation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Members opposite are upset because they
do not like having their negligence brought to the attention of
the people of Canada.
It is high time that the public knew that this government is
arrogant beyond all belief; it pretends to consult and spouts
fine rhetoric.
I would like to know whether my Reform Party colleague also
thinks that, in addition to conducting a sham consultation, this
government has gone too far with its interference in provincial
jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.
I think it has been made quite clear by the members of this House
that in fact the consultation process—and again I will use the
word—is hollow. The government can send out questionnaires, but
there is nothing in the legislation except empty schedules.
The member asks whether it will trample the rights which the
provinces have under section 92 of the Constitution. She makes a
valid point. I think it is open for debate. I believe that the
bill gives the government broad powers over our inland waters in
creating parks. That, without question, I would agree is
provincial jurisdiction. The only area that we may question is
the waters which are shared by two provinces. That could be open
to interpretation.
The waters of the Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay areas which I
visited this summer are very beautiful. I think it is up to the
province of Quebec to impose provincial legislation to protect
and to choose the waters in their provincial parks. Similarly,
with respect to the inland waters of British Columbia, it is up
to the province of British Columbia to implement legislation.
The last thing we need is different levels of government and
bureaucracies all trying to do the same thing, which we have seen
over and over again in this country. It is a waste of taxpayers'
dollars.
Again I would agree with her comments, with the exception of
waters which are shared between provinces. That would be open to
debate.
However, regardless of the jurisdiction, this is a hollow piece
of legislation. Looking at the government's record, we have to
question whether it is really sincere about actually protecting
the ecosystem, considering its past performance and the fact that
it is allowing Americans to slaughter whales in Canadian waters
which are potentially going to wash up bloodied on the shores of
Victoria in the riding of the minister of fisheries.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas,
and the amendment moved by the Reform Party.
Before getting into my presentation, I wish to inform you that I
will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for
Rosemont.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal framework for the
establishment and future development of 28 marine conservation
areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the
ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada.
1620
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill
because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and
in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois supports measures to protect the environment.
I want to remind the House that the Bloc Quebecois did not
hesitate to support the government when it suggested passing
mirror legislation to create the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine
park and to establish a legal framework to ensure it would be
jointly managed by the two levels of government.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is
launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment,
particularly the marine floor.
The Quebec government is also open to working in co-operation or
in partnership with the federal government on any project
designed to ensure or promote the protection of the environment,
as evidenced by the agreement signed by the two governments on
the third phase of the St. Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against Bill C-48 for
a number of reasons. First, instead of relying on dialogue, as
in the case of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, the
federal government wants to create marine conservation areas
irrespective of Quebec's jurisdiction with regard to the
protection of its territory and environment.
Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the
establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas,
that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected
offshore areas.
The federal government, which proclaims from the rooftops that
it has met all of Quebec's demands, and states in its Speech
from the Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to
interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found
a way to divide itself into three components and to actually
overlap itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one
way or another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of
Quebec and the other provinces.
One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine
conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the
conservation area will be established.
Bill C-48 does not, therefore, respect the territorial integrity
of Quebec and the other provinces. What is more, Bill C-48
creates overlap within the federal administration itself. What a
setup!
Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal
government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created
marine protected areas. Through the Department of the
Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.
It should be carefully noted that a single site could find
itself protected under more than one category. The Department of
Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine
conservation areas in the preamble to the bill.
Heritage Canada is establishing marine conservation areas to
protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the
maintenance of biological diversity; to establish a
representative system of marine conservation areas; to ensure
that Canada contributes to international efforts for the
establishment of a world-wide network of representative marine
areas; to provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of
the world to appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine
heritage; and to provide opportunities within marine
conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of
marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities.
As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it proposes the
establishment of marine protected areas.
1625
A discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January
1997, entitled “The Establishment and Management of Marine
Protected Areas under the Oceans Act” indicates that the areas
are created to protect fishery resources, commercial and others,
including marine mammals and their habitats, endangered or
threatened marine species and their habitats, unique habitats,
marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity and
any other marine resource.
As the result of discussions held in Quebec in June 1998 by
Fisheries and Oceans on marine protection areas, the report
prepared by public officials states, and I quote: “There remains
a lot of confusion among stakeholders about the various federal
programs on marine protected areas,”—these are not our words, but
the words of government officials—“marine protection zones,
national marine conservation areas, marine fauna reserves, and
so forth. The departments involved should get together and
collaborate in establishing marine protected areas”.
Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish marine
conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine
reserves, expanding the notion of the national wildlife
sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit
within the exclusive economic zone under the Canada Oceans Act.
These zones are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but
require a different set of regulations.
In short, let us summarize, because the triple federal overlap
at the federal level—setting aside its overlap with provincial
jurisdictions—becomes almost a federal maze where people can get
lost.
Therefore, under the various laws, the Government of Canada is
proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection
zones and natural marine reserves.
According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the same
territory could find itself with several different zonings under
different regulations that could confuse the user.
Yet, an initiative such as the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park
could have been a model to follow. In 1997, the governments of
Quebec and Canada agreed to pass legislation to create the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This resulted in the creation
of Canada's first marine conservation area.
That legislation established the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park, the first marine park to be created jointly by the federal
and Quebec governments, without any transfer of territory. Both
governments will continue to fulfil their respective
responsibilities.
The federal government should have used this first partnership
initiative as a model for the creation of other marine
conservation areas.
Instead of using a policy of openness and co-operation, the
federal government has used arrogance, aggression, invasion and
overlap, everything we need to make us want to leave at the next
opportunity.
In conclusion, unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to
vote against the amendment moved by the Reform Party, because it
did not identify some points that we consider really important.
Our interpretation of the bill leads us to believe that the
reasons it gives are unacceptable.
This bill invades the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other
provinces involved, and Quebec cannot and will not operate
within this system.
We showed the Canadian government great openness when it came to
managing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we regret
that the government has not learned its lesson.
1630
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise this afternoon to make a very specific point and
I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question of the member.
I have been listening to the points that the government has been
making across the way. Hon. members are always using the word
“consultation”. It is a word that we hear all the time in the
House. “Just pass this legislation and we will consult with all
of the provinces and the stakeholders” in whatever issue they
are putting forward in parliament.
One of the things that this bill will do will be to enlarge the
minister's jurisdiction. That should be of concern to all
Canadians. Power is being taken away from the people of Canada,
through their elected representatives, and it is being given it
to a bureaucracy which will tell the minister what needs to be
done.
To make my point I refer hon. members to something that I said
previously. I asked some lawyers in the House of Commons to do
some research for me with regard to a number of bills that were
coming before the House. I asked them this simple question:
“Which one of the current bills before the House of Commons
takes power away from parliament and gives it to the
bureaucracy?” I received a very shocking answer. They did
research on six separate bills and every one of those bills took
power away from parliament and gave it to the bureaucracy. In
other words, the people of Canada are losing control of the
agenda. That control is being concentrated in the hands of a
very few.
As we look at this bill we see the same thing happening. We are
losing control through this bill which seems to be so nice and so
wonderful and so compassionate in expressing concern for the
environment. It actually does not do anything like that.
When government members go about using the word
“consultation”, we have found by experience that they do not
really and truly consult. They may have a dog and pony show and
go around the country making it appear as if they are, but they
do not really listen. What they call consultation is putting on
a show, but not really putting into place what the people of
Canada genuinely want.
This bill gives the people behind the scenes more control over
the agenda. I am wondering if the member does not have a concern
about this. I realize she is not supporting Reform's amendment,
but we are very concerned about what is going on. Giving
bureaucracy more power and taking it away from the people of
Canada is what is going on. Once this bill is passed, no matter
what the government says about its consultations and its process,
it is gone forever. The next thing government members say will
be “Parliament passed this bill. We have the power to do this.
What are you complaining about?”
I would like the member to comment on what I have just said.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Reform member for his very relevant question which we take
seriously.
Yes, we are concerned, because we fear that these consultations
will be a sham. Under clause 9, the minister can consult
whoever she wants whenever she wants. She transfers these duties
to her staff without consulting, informing or bothering to get
input from the public in general or even its elected
representatives.
We are democratically elected to this House to represent our
constituents and we have to inform them. As legislators, we
should also be able to represent them well.
We are shown this bill and then told: “The minister will carry
out some consultations.”
1635
We are very concerned about this type of consultation, because,
as we know, by and large these consultations always turn out in
favour of the government or of the minister introducing the
bill. This is why we think these consultations are a sham.
This is truly a tragic situation, because the government is
trying to hoodwink us and would have us believe that the people
have been consulted, when it is not so. It is also tragic
because, once again, it is trying to impinge upon provincial
areas of jurisdiction.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise today to speak on Bill C-48 at second reading.
This federal bill entitled an Act respecting marine conservation
areas is aimed at establishing 28 marine conservation areas
representative of various ecosystems in Canada. As we all know
the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill
because it is covered by its own legislation.
I stress that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of measures aimed
at protecting the environment. I should know since I was in
charge of this issue for over a year. Also, as I recall the Bloc
Quebecois supported the establishment of the Sagenuay—St. Lawrence
marine park.
I remember it well. I believe this must be very clear; there is
a difference between the bill and the marine park.
We are opposed to Bill C-48 respecting the establishment of
marine conservation areas because, instead of relying on
dialogue, as in the case of the marine park, the federal
government wants to impose marine conservation areas, regardless
of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of
its own territory and of the environment.
Moreover Canadian Heritage is proposing to put in place new
structures, marine conservation areas, that will duplicate
the marine protected areas of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected offshore areas.
Simply put, the federal government is using three departments to
infringe upon areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.
What is more, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec
government is launching initiatives aimed at protecting the
environment, particularly the marine floor. The Quebec
government is also open to working in co-operation or in
partnership with the federal government on this, as it has done
for phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan.
Why then is the federal government behaving once again as if
Quebec did not exist with regard to this issue, proposing a
national project that does not take into account Quebeckers'
wishes concerning environmental protection?
I am asking this question while knowing this approach by the
federal government is increasingly commonplace. Since the Prime
Minister became convinced he met Quebec's traditional demands,
his government has been introducing one centralizing bill after
another.
We have, in fact, several objections. In 1997, the governments
of Quebec and Canada agreed on an act to create the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park. The two pieces of legislation resulted in
the creation of Canada's first marine conservation area. Allow
me to explain the main features of the legislation.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park
to be created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments,
without any transfer of territory. The two governments will
continue to fulfil their respective responsibilities. The park
includes only marine areas and covers 1,138 square kilometres.
1640
In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by the
Quebec and federal governments confirm the creation of a
co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by
the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is
to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve
the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly
by the two governments, at least once every seven years.
By means of regulations under their respective legislation, the
governments of Quebec and of Canada will be able to determine
measures for protecting the park's ecosystems and resources and
for protecting the public.
More specifically, they will be able to define how each category
of area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.
This first partnership initiative should have served as a model
to the federal government for the creation of other marine
conservation areas. There is also one other example to follow,
Phase III of the St. Lawrence Action Plan, of which I shall now
speak.
On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Quebec and of
Canada announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan,
representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally
by both levels of government.
One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the
area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to
120,000 hectares.
Third, this phase III follows the two previous ones in which
both governments invested over $300 million.
There is something which should concern everyone in Quebec. It
is the fact that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the
territory of Quebec. If I may, I would like to mention six
factors which show that Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity
of the territory of Quebec.
First, one of the conditions essential to the establishment of a
marine conservation area is federal ownership of the land where
the conservation area will be established.
Clause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can establish
a marine conservation area:
Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that
the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
Third, Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec
National Assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec,
including beds of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St.
Lawrence river, estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by
sovereign right.
In addition, this legislation provides that Quebec cannot
transfer its lands to the federal government. The only thing it
can do within this legislation is to authorize, by order, the
federal government to use them only in connection with matters
under federal jurisdiction. However, the protection of habitats
and fauna is a matter of joint federal and provincial
jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans to establish a
framework for the protection of marine areas in the near future.
According to the notes provided to us by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation
areas are planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary
and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the
ocean floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
1645
Why is Heritage Canada now arrogantly demanding ownership of the
ocean floor in order to create marine conservation areas, rather
than allowing bilateral agreements between Quebec City and
Ottawa that would let Quebec maintain its jurisdiction?
The answer is that this is the new approach to federal-provincial
relations. This is what they did with the millennium
scholarships. It is what they want to do with new health
programs and the new young offenders legislation. It is what
they are doing with the personal information protection bill.
And they are doing it today with this marine conservation areas
bill.
This Liberal government has decided to put Quebec in its place
and that is why it is ignoring the promising experience of the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at this
point I would rather make a comment than ask a question of my
colleague, the member for Rosemont, whom I thank sincerely,
especially for helping out the Reform Party colleague who is
wondering why the Bloc Quebecois does not support his party's
amendment.
As you no doubt know much better than I, Mr. Speaker, with your
broad experience and generally recognized expertise, there are
different procedural tactics for delaying the passage of a bill
at second reading.
First, a motion may be moved that it be postponed for six
months. Second, a motion may be moved that it not be read the
second time but that the objectives of the bill be referred to
the committee under whose jurisdiction it comes.
Third, and this is the approach of our Reform Party colleagues,
a motion may be moved that the bill not be read the second time
because of the absence of fundamental principles.
This is the approach the Reform Party has taken. It has invoked
the absence of principles from the bill and, when I spoke last
week, I was even surprised that the amendment was deemed
votable. I was very surprised at this, given that our reading
of the bill is not at all the same as that of the Reform Party.
The principles the Reform Party is raising do not seem to us to
be absent from the bill.
The fact that we cannot support the principles, which the Reform
Party claims are not to be found in the bill, is the reason we
in the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support the Reform
Party's amendment to the effect that second reading not take
place.
It is unfortunate that we could not come up with one single
amendment for the opposition. We will still not support the
amendment, but we will not be supporting the bill either. As
all of our colleagues here have pointed out, this bill blocks
any progress on environmental matters, because before we can get
to protecting the environment we have to battle over who has
jurisdiction here and who has jurisdiction there, when it would
have been so simple to follow the example of the Saguenay-St.
Lawrence marine park.
In closing, I would ask my colleague, who was involved in
environmental matters, whether he can enlighten me a bit on the
differences between provincial and federal jurisdiction over the
environment.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago the federal
and provincial governments together negotiated a harmonization
agreement with the Government of Quebec, an agreement Quebec did
not sign. Why did it not sign? Quite simply because the
federal government refused to recognize that the environment was
under Quebec's jurisdiction.
1650
So long as the harmonization agreement and the bills—and I am
thinking, for example, of Bill C-32, which is currently being
examined and which changes the entire Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, known as the CEPA—interfere in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, Quebec will reject such bills.
So, Quebec is clear, we will not sign a harmonization agreement
so long as the federal government will not give this recognition.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, APEC Summit.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this bill is
so important I had to rise today and speak to it.
I do not often find myself in agreement with members of the Bloc
Quebecois but on this particular bill they are absolutely right.
What on earth is the federal government doing dictating to the
provinces what their marine conservation strategy should be?
These are provincial jurisdictions. They always have been. I do
not understand where the federal government gets off thinking it
is going to somehow make our national unity problem easier to
resolve when it keeps forever intruding into provincial
jurisdictions on a more and more draconian basis.
I come from northern British Columbia. I have lived all my life
there. I think I represent the point of view of most of the
constituents I represent who live in northwest British Columbia.
I am a skier, a boater and a recreational fisherman. I do a lot
of hiking in the back country. I am a hunter. I spend a great
deal of my recreational time in the great outdoors. I for one am
very concerned and very interested in seeing that it is there for
my children and their children, but in Canada we have gone
completely overboard in pursuit of this radical environmentalist
and preservationist agenda.
One of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party who
spoke earlier was lauding the accomplishments of the previous
government in the creation of South Moresby park in the Queen
Charlotte Islands. That certainly waved a red flag in front of
me. It is easy for that hon. member to pontificate on what the
creation of South Moresby park meant because he lives 4,000 miles
away. He is not the one who has to go out in the middle of the
night when some poor family is moving out, taking everything they
own in the back of a pickup.
People have been forced out of work. There are no economic
opportunities left for them any more. The logging industry was
shut down on the strength of a bunch of lies and half truths and
mistruths on the part of the radical environmentalist and
preservationist agenda.
The Queen Charlotte Islands are an archipelago comprised of two
major islands. South Moresby is the large island on the south
part of archipelago. In the mid-1980s radical environmentalists,
preservationists and others with a hidden agenda made a concerted
effort to convince ordinary decent Canadians that something which
should not be happening was taking place on the Queen Charlotte
Islands. They tried with the help of the media to persuade
Canadians that clear cutting was taking place, the Queen
Charlotte Islands were being decimated, the environment was being
ruined, wildlife was being driven out and there was going to be
no future if something was not done.
In 1986 the Government of Canada under Brian Mulroney and the
provincial government created South Moresby park. The effect was
that it stopped all logging in South Moresby. People were told
that there was going to be—
1655
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could ask those members
across the way, who want to talk and shout, to go and do so in
the lobby.
I would like to hear what my colleague from the Reform Party has
to say. If they want to shout, they should go there. There is a
member there, all by himself. We will hear them less and they
will be less disruptive; or else they should step out in the
lobby, because our colleague deserves some respect.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We all need to be
apprised from time to time of the necessity of courtesy to each
other. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis is quite correct in
bringing this to our attention.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, hopefully it will be a
little quieter in here for the next few minutes.
The people of South Moresby were promised at the inception of
South Moresby park that there was going to be an alternative
economy for them. It would not be logging any more; it would be
tourism. This was going to be the way of the future for South
Moresby and the community of Sandspit. For several decades it
had been a logging community employing several hundred people on
a full time basis who made very good wages.
South Moresby is one of the richest, most productive forests
anywhere in the world. It was taken out of forest land and
turned into a park. Parks Canada runs that little park like a
fiefdom. It limits the number of Canadians who can go into that
park every year. For these bull hards down here who do not want
to listen, the number of people who can go into the park is
limited to under 2,000 every year.
You would have to be somebody special to get into the park, if
you can afford it. It is only wealthy lawyers from Toronto and
New York who can get in there. As northerners who live there, we
cannot afford to go into the park because it costs so much. It
is cost prohibitive.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I mentioned earlier
that we should be tempered in our language. I remind and ask all
hon. members to be temperate in their language. As we all know,
there are certain words that raise the temper of the debate to a
point that it does not remain civil.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I too have
heard words that raised my level of anger. I feel very
passionate about this issue because it directly affects
constituents of mine. People I know, people I feel for and
people I care for have been displaced as a result of this. The
same kind of thinking that went into the creation of South
Moresby park has gone into the creation of this nonsense.
We who live in regional parts of Canada, we who live in the
north depend on access to resources for our livelihoods. We have
to have it. People do not go up to northern British Columbia to
go shopping. They do not go to northern British Columbia to bask
in the sun. They go there primarily to work in a resource
industry or in some other commercial venture that is most likely
there to support a resource industry or the commercial industries
that support the resource industry. Everything feeds on each
other; it is a domino effect.
If we are going to have an economy in northern B.C., if we are
going to have an economy in regional Canada, we have to have
reasonable access to resources. We have to have reasonable
access to water. We have to have reasonable access to the land
base. This bill is specifically designed to prevent this from
happening. This bill is cobbled together by a bunch of misguided
politically correct soft heads on the other side who are
listening to the environmental agenda and the radical
preservationists. They are not considering what the impact is
going to be on ordinary Canadians.
In the case of South Moresby we are not talking about hundreds
of thousands of people. We are not talking about a political
voice that is going to be loud and vociferous and heard in Ottawa
on a regular basis. We are talking about a community of 500 or
600 people, but that community is dying on the vine.
That community has been blindsided by government. How do they
feel about mother Ottawa forcing on them something they had no
involvement in? They are not in agreement with it. This has
been forced down their throats.
1700
Frankly, I am tired of seeing the people of the north who have
put everything they own, their life, their property, their future
and their children's future on the line only to have the rug
pulled out from under them by this kind of nonsense.
In the last parliament the government was asked to basically
rubber stamp a decision that was made by the province of British
Columbia. The Tatshenshini River is in the northern part of
British Columbia. It is on the Yukon border. There is a
copper-cobalt deposit in the Tatshenshini which is probably one
of the top two or three copper-cobalt deposits ever found in the
world.
I talked to one of the senior geologists at the Geological
Survey of Canada who told me that they do not even know the whole
extent of that deposit. Conservatively it was estimated that the
deposit contained, at a minimum, $10 billion worth of
copper-cobalt ore. It was estimated that, at a minimum, it could
provide 1,600 permanent, full time, year-round jobs for
approximately 40 years.
The geologist I talked with said that in his experience, based
on some of the further testing that was being done and some of
the samples they were starting to see, this deposit could
actually be anywhere up to four times as large as they had
actually proven. Just consider that for a minute.
When we go to a manufacturing facility that closes down and
people are put out of work, it is easy to see the sadness, the
pain and the hurt because these people have been displaced. We
can put a name and a face to that. However, we cannot go around
and interview the 1,600 people who never got jobs up in the
Tatshenshini region because of this ridiculous decision.
This government rubber stamped the NDP government's ridiculous
decision to create a park by having this nominated as a world
heritage site at the United Nations. I cannot fathom what was in
their minds when they agreed to this.
Let me give the House more examples. In British Columbia the
Fisheries Act, which is an act of this parliament, is a very
powerful piece of legislation. That act states that there shall
be no development of any kind on the coast of Canada that would
involve any net loss of fish habitat.
If we carry that to the extreme it means we cannot walk down to
the beach and kick a stone over because somebody could come along
and argue that was fish habitat. If anyone thinks I am being
ridiculous, let me assure them I am not. I have had meeting
after meeting with constituents in Prince Rupert who cannot get
access to the waterfront because every time somebody comes along
and proposes to develop the foreshore, to build a dock, a
berthing facility or a log dump, or proposes any kind of access
to the waterfront, the first person on the scene is the local DFO
biologist who shuts it down and says that it poses a danger and a
threat to fish habitat.
Prince Rupert right now, because of the downturn in the fishery
and problems in the forest industry, is looking at very serious
unemployment and economic situations. Prince Rupert is not
alone. The people in the larger communities in the riding that I
represent are suffering and they are suffering a great deal.
They are looking for alternatives. They are looking for ways to
offset some of the downturns that have taken place. They cannot
get access to the waterfront to do anything because DFO will shut
them down.
1705
I am not making this up. I am telling members that DFO will not
allow a pile to be driven in the water, will not allow a dock to
be constructed, will not allow somebody to build the most
rudimentary access of any kind from the foreshore to the water
because it might interrupt fish habitat.
Let me tell members that British Columbia is a province which
has literally thousands and thousands of miles of waterfront.
Let me say as well that British Columbia is a province which,
outside of the lower mainland, does not have much of a population
base and has not experienced much development. Really there is
no threat to the integrity of the environment in British
Columbia, but that is contrary to what most of the
preservationists and radical environmentalists would have us
believe. That is the truth.
This legislation is one more chink in the armour. It is one
more step down the road.
The radical environmental agenda is becoming clearer as time
goes on. These people are profoundly anti-human. These people
think we are nothing better than pestilence. Some of these
people have even voiced that thought.
David Suzuki, who is the founder of the Suzuki Foundation, has
opined that what should take place is a mass die-off of human
beings in order to preserve the environment. Can we believe
that? I am not making that up.
I should point out that this environmental movement is a very
well-funded movement, controlled predominately by large estates
in the United States. Most of their money does not come from
Canada. Most of their money comes from the United States.
Their agenda is becoming clearer as time goes on. Some of them
have publicly said: “Would it not be great if human beings were
all living in rural communes with rudimentary housing and no
hydro-electric power?” Some of them have said that all the dams
that have been created in British Columbia should be dismantled.
Can we imagine that? There would be no power. There would be no
means for people to generate electrical power for industrial or
commercial use. But that is what these people see. That is their
vision for the future.
I say that this legislation is driven by that kind of mentality.
The goal is to further limit human activity of almost any kind
and this is one more step in that direction. These people want
to limit economic activity with the eventual goal of eradicating
it altogether.
As I have already said, the environmentalists and the
preservationists have been saying a lot about the environment in
British Columbia and across Canada. Let me tell members that
there is very little truth to any of it.
They have been saying, for example, that we need to stop logging
in order to preserve habitat for wildlife. I know a little about
wildlife, since I have spent most of my life hunting and fishing
in the backwoods. Do members know what the aboriginal people did
in this country when wildlife was becoming scarce? They went on
a controlled burn. They burned the forest because they knew that
a heavy forest canopy did not allow for the growth of small
deciduous plants and berry bushes, the plant life that is
important for wildlife to live on.
If we go into the so-called old growth areas of British
Columbia, I assure members they will find very little wildlife. I
can take a boat down the Douglas Channel, which is down from my
home town of Kitimat, and see every place where some logger has
a-frame logged old growth. There is regeneration and the berry
bushes are reappearing. That is where we would find the
wildlife, the bears and the deer and the moose, because something
is available for them to eat. If we went to where the old growth
was, there would be nothing available for them to eat.
1710
The wildlife population in British Columbia is extraordinarily
strong at the present time. As much as the people who run the
bear watch campaign would have us believe otherwise, I can say
from living in the Kitimat Valley all of my life that the bear
population in that region is as high as I have ever seen it.
When I was a kid, prior to logging in the Kitimat Valley, it
would be a very rare occasion that a moose would be seen. Now
that the valley has been logged and we have a nice regeneration
taking place, the moose population has probably quadrupled.
When the radical environmentalists and the preservationists talk
about old growth logging and how it hurts wildlife, I can say
that nothing could be further from the truth. Their agenda with
this bill is to further limit human activity on Canadian soil.
Their eventual agenda, if this bill is adopted, is to make sure
that we do not have access to the waterfront at all any more.
There will be no chance to revise the Fisheries Act to bring some
sense to the development of the Canadian waterfront.
I am a British Columbian. I am a Canadian and I love Canada. I
would not be in this parliament if I did not feel strongly about
the federation, but I have to agree with my friend in the Bloc
Quebecois. This is provincial jurisdiction. Why in the name of
God is the federal government getting involved? Does it not
think that when it gets involved it puts up big red flags, not
only for members in the Bloc but for members in other parts of
Canada as well?
I say this bill should be defeated on its face for those very
reasons.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I have great
sympathy for his objection to environmental groups. They often
have agendas that have nothing to do with preserving the
environment but have a lot to do with getting donations and
publicity.
I know that he is a proud Canadian and that he is concerned with
national values. However, I have to say to the member, as a
Canadian, that there are too many examples across the country
where major problems have been created in the environment because
provincial governments have not acted.
In Ontario the provincial government is retreating from
environmental issues in every way. In Newfoundland, for example,
there are environmental problems occurring in the logging
industry. If we fly over Corner Brook we can look down to see
that the trees are gone. While perhaps what is growing back may
be good for some types of wildlife, there still is the disruption
of the natural landscape. I could cite examples right across
Canada.
My problem with the member's remarks is that in siding with the
Bloc Quebecois he simply asserted that the federal government has
no role in the environment. I fundamentally disagree with that.
If he sets aside that criticism, upon which the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois are constantly together, that is, provincial
power at the expense of federal power, can he tell us something
about what his genuine concerns are about this legislation as it
pertains to the marine environment, and not the logging industry,
the mountains and the forests?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, my first concern is that we
have this legislation at all. If the member says that provincial
governments are retreating, so be it. That is their right. It
is not the right of the federal government to override that and
say that it will step in and do it.
The provincial governments in this country have jurisdiction
over the environment. The Liberal government's philosophy has been
for 30 years, and it is what has led us to the brink of breakup
in this is country, that we have to have a strong central
government, mother Ottawa, dictating to the rest of the country
how it will live. I say, frankly, that is not on.
1715
Does the federal government have a role to play within the
environment? Absolutely. When it comes to matters of
international negotiation, the federal government has a role in
concert with the provinces. It also has a role in consultation
and agreement with the provinces. Beyond that there is not. The
provincial governments have jurisdiction. If the federal
government would just butt out and leave matters to the
provinces, we would all be a lot better off and the tensions in
this country would start to decrease rather than increase.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. member who said that the government is going too far in its
efforts to preserve marines areas.
Yet the critic for his party, in his remarks at the beginning of
second reading, stated that he could not support this bill
because it did not go far enough, because it did not include
conservation measures.
Perhaps he should check with his colleague, the critic for his
party, to find out whether the bill goes too far or not far
enough or whether the Reform Party opposes it as a matter of
form and not reform.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, that question is easy to
answer. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said this is a
hollow bill. By hollow he meant that it gives the minister a
great deal of discretionary power without specifying what that
power is going to be used for and without specifying where the
marine conservation areas will be, et cetera.
An hon. member: Do you want us to consult?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, the member across asked me
something. I want him to butt out. Do not tell us in northern
British Columbia from Ottawa what we can and cannot do with our
marine areas. We do not need somebody from the other side of
Canada telling us what we can do in our own backyard. If the
member would only get that message and understand that it applies
to Newfoundland, Quebec and the rest of the country, the country
would be a lot better off.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for our colleague from the Reform Party.
If I heard correctly, British Columbia asked the Canadian
government to establish a park and the government agreed,
without holding consultations. I am not sure I heard correctly
on account of the noise.
If so, I would like him to tell me, because this is indicative
of something about this government that I find extremely
dangerous. As members know, once bitten, twice shy, and what
goes around comes around.
We know how the Liberal government operates, saying it is
holding consultations but not taking them into account. We saw
it when the issue of the changes to the boundaries of Tuktut
Nogait Park was brought up. The government never agreed to
recognize the rights that were being claimed.
So, could the hon. member tell me exactly what he said about the
park in British Columbia that was authorized by the Government
of Canada?
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
question. I will try to explain what happened. The federal
government decided it wanted to create a national park. It asked
the province for permission to do that and the province agreed to
do so provided there was consultation.
There was a small degree of consultation. It was not widespread
by any means. As a result of that consultation a number of very
serious promises were made on the part of the federal government.
There was a $38 million fund to be established to assist in the
transition to a different economy. Promises were made with
regard to assisting the community in transforming from a resource
based economy to a tourist based economy.
The federal government has not kept its word on any of that. It
has not kept the bargain. The people hanging out to dry are the
people who live on South Moresby and Sandspit on the Queen
Charlotte Islands—
An hon. member: Like the Bloc.
Mr. Mike Scott: I see that blowhard from Vancouver—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us not get into
that again. The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
1720
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should know that I have two brothers, a
sister and a mother who live in Victoria, B.C. I go back and
forth and have done that for the last 20 years.
I admire the province. I love the province. I love the island
and I feel it is very much a part of me. When he says butt out,
what he is basically saying is if you do not live in the
province, you have no say over the environment.
As a Canadian I care about this country from sea to sea. It is
of interest to me. I know the provincial government in B.C. now
is probably the most venal government in Canada. It is inept. It
would do anything in order to get votes, including raping the
landscape and raping the ocean.
As far as I am concerned the federal government is doing the
right thing because if we are Canadians we should care about
B.C., about Quebec, about Newfoundland. We on this side do care.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am genuine when I say butt
out and I am genuine when I say I do not think as a British
Columbian that I should be involved in dictating to Ontario,
Quebec or Nova Scotia how they should handle their environmental
concerns and problems.
The member is quite right. There is a very venal government in
British Columbia. If it makes mistakes, it is up to the people
of British Columbia to rein it in and correct it. I am confident
they will do that.
In the meantime, we do not need mother Ottawa complicating the
situation, intruding, intervening and dictating what should
happen to B.C.'s environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, before I forget, I would like to inform you that I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Témiscamingue. We will
each speak for ten minutes. My colleague will speak last.
I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-48, an act
respecting marine conservation areas. As members have seen from
our previous speeches, we have several reasons to oppose this
bill which, once again, interferes in areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
I was flabbergasted, a few moments ago, when I heard the Liberal
members automatically make a connection between the Reform Party
and the Bloc Quebecois because we were talking about respecting
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like them to be honest. From the beginning, they have
been talking even louder than us—they are always very grouchy
when we speak—but I would like them to tell us frankly and
honestly that they have absolutely no respect for areas of
provincial jurisdiction and that they think the simple solution
to Canada's problems would be to eliminate the provinces.
In the Canadian Constitution of 1867, there are areas of shared
jurisdiction, including the environment. The federal government
says it must interfere in areas such as the environment because
there is a problem in Newfoundland or there is a problem in
British Columbia, but let us look at what it has done on its own
turf. Let us look at what it has done on northern native
reserves.
The environment committee visited these reserves. What has the
government done? It can all be found in the committee's
proceedings. What has it done to protect the environment at
airports and on Canadian forces bases? The Liberals, when and if
they check in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, will
see what the government's obligations are. They can read
evidence given by federal employees and by other witnesses who
have seen the federal government renege on its obligations on
its own property.
It is easy to blame others and say “We must have the upper hand
because we are better, more intelligent, more clever, more who
knows what else, we must have the upper hand over the Government
of Quebec and every other province. There are crooked trees in
the provinces”.
If only the government looked at its own areas of jurisdiction,
it might see it has problems too. It is a lot easier to shrug
off its own problems and point to the problems of other
governments, claiming it will take care of them.
Unfortunately they have not stopped to think about how they
could improve things. What we see today is the result of this
approach. The government and the bureaucrats, who are trying to
justify their positions, come up with countless new ideas
1725
Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage suggested, we are not opposed to this kind of
environmental protection. We are in favour of measures aimed at
protecting the environment.
More specifically, the Bloc Quebecois would remind the
government it supported legislation establishing Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park. Moreover the Bloc Quebecois knows the
Quebec government is embarking on initiatives aimed at
protecting the environment, particularly the sea floor.
Why did we support the establishment of Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park when we now object to this bill? It is very simple, really.
On one hand, there was joint action and perhaps the
parliamentary secretary—I read it in his speeches—did not
understand this aspect or did not want to understand it. We
agreed to determine a procedure for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park, and if we were had been offered the same procedure,
the same joint action and the same harmonization, perhaps we
would be talking differently.
But no, today, Liberals say “The federal government, even to
establish these marine parks, will have to be the owner of the
seabed”. The Constitution does not allow the government to take
such a direction, to own the seabed to establish a marine park.
If the parliamentary secretary read his bill once again, he
would probably find this clause.
Also, the problem is not only one of overlap between the federal
and the provincial governments. Let us look within the federal
government alone. There is a small problem.
If only the federal and the provincial governments were
involved, the bad separatists could be there to throw a monkey's
wrench into the works.
We will find ourselves with three designations, three
categories, namely who will take precedence, where and when. I
will name them: the Department of Canadian Heritage, which was
once again short on visibility, has decided, by forgetting or by
intentionally omitting, to establish marine conservation areas.
At the same time, Fisheries and Oceans Canada had marine
protection areas. At the same time, there were protected marine
areas within a same department. We could ask this question. If
there were a problem, would it be environment, heritage or
fisheries and oceans that would deal with it? So, there will be
discussions, task forces and probably consultations to determine
who will deal with this problem.
First, leaving the provinces aside, they create a federal body
to examine this problem so things can move forward once again.
We are not alone in deploring this situation. I would like to
quote a report from a group of officials from the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans who wrote the following: “There is still a
great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various
federal programs on protected marine areas, marine protection
zones, national marine conservation areas, wildlife marine
preserves — The departments concerned should harmonize their
actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.”
These comments were not made by the Bloc Quebecois or the member
for Rimouski—Mitis, but rather by DFO officials who were asked by
a committee to write a report commenting on the creation of
marine conservation areas across the country, including eight in
Quebec.
We have heard time and time again that different groups had been
asked to share their concerns or their views on the
establishment of marine conservation areas in Canada. Actually,
what happened is that Heritage Canada, very proud to be able to
show that they were consulting Canadians, had 3,000 copies made
of the document. They decided to go ahead and consult all the
environmental groups, all the groups who were in any way
concerned with the establishment of marine conservation areas.
It was quite a consultation.
1730
They apparently received 300 answers, which represent 10% of all
the people who were consulted. Yet, when those answers are
requested through access to information, one does not get 300
answers, but 73. Of these 73, one comes from Quebec and they
want to create eight marine conservation areas in Quebec after
telling us that there were extensive consultations.
At the same time, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was
holding consultations in Quebec. They also—duplicating the
efforts of Canadian Heritage—sent 650 documents to different
groups about the creation of protected areas. Of 650 requests,
they received 30 answers. This is less than 5% for Fisheries and
Oceans Canada et 0.1% for Canadian Heritage.
How can we trust them when they say “We have consulted
Canadians. We want to protect the environment. We know what is
good for the country and we know that the provinces cannot
honour their commitments under the Canadian Constitution.”
Those are other reasons why the Bloc Québécois must oppose this
bill and prevent it from going any further. This bill should be
withdrawn.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we listen to members of the Bloc on an issue that should be
of national significance It should come as no surprise to anyone
in this place that they would oppose it.
Their very existence or their very being is one of opposing
anything that might in some way unite all of Canada over an issue
as vital as the environment. I am not at all surprised. In fact
I am prepared to acknowledge at least their honesty in saying
that they want to break the country apart.
I ask the member—
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We are doing our duty as any other member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate and the hon. member for Mississauga West has the right to
make assertions which may or may not find accommodation on the
opposite benches.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is astounding. I said
I respected the fact that Bloc members were being honest. We know
what their agenda is.
I ask the member who just spoke from the Bloc whether or not he
feels a slight twinge of discomfort when he hears members from
the Reform Party support regionalism, provincialism and anything
that would allow them to oppose the government, even though the
Reform Party is saying that it agrees with the Bloc.
They are in bed with the Bloc and think the environment should
be left in the hands of provincial governments that have
parochial interests of their own and, as my colleague pointed
out, may be driven by a need to gather votes. They would hand
over the environment of the country to provincial parochial
politicians. I would suggest the Bloc at least has an agenda.
Does the member who just spoke not feel slightly uncomfortable
finding himself in bed with the Reform Party on this issue?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to such
demagogic and terrible remarks. First, I will say to the hon.
member making these ridiculous comments that the Bloc Quebecois
supported the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park. So we are not so bad after all.
Second, he is comparing provincial jurisdictions with municipal
jurisdictions. Perhaps he too neglected to read the Canadian
Constitution.
Even though we did not sign it, we can read it to him. His
culture is lacking, so we will improve it a bit. I will quote
for him some parts of section 91.
1735
Section 91 states that:
10. Navigation and Shipping;
11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine
Hospitals;
12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries;
13. Ferries—
In addition, the jurisdiction of Quebec is further recognized in
the British North America Act of 1867 under sections 92 and 92A.
When a member, whether from the Liberal Party, the Reform Party,
the Bloc Quebecois or any other party, objects to the fact that
we want to respect this Constitution, at least as long as we
live within Canada, and says that a province, whether it is
Quebec or any other province, only has jurisdiction to deal with
municipal problems, it is a shame for Parliament, a shame for
this party and a shame for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask my colleague from the Bloc about the inference in the Liberal
member's intervention.
Is it that the provinces are not to be trusted, that the people
in those provinces are not to be trusted with their own
environmental concerns, and that the only way we can have proper
environmental legislation is for it to come from Ottawa? Does
the hon. member agree that this is one of the areas that starts
to build walls between people in Canada rather than unite Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, the Reform member is
absolutely right. The members opposite are telling us that if a
bill is good it must come from the federal government.
Well, they will have to go back to the drawing board. They
should look at the Rio agreement to see if they have fulfilled
their environmental commitments. If they bother to do their
homework, they will realize that they cannot even manage their
own jurisdictions.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn
to speak about Bill C-48. I cannot help but start with a few
comments on what I just heard from the Liberal government and
its spokespersons here today.
It is rather arrogant on their part to tell us from the outset
that in the end no one is in a better position to establish high
environmental standards than the federal government. This is
what they said. They even went so far as to say that the
provincial governments may be motivated only by electoral
considerations.
What is the motivation across the aisle?
What is the motivation of all those hypocrites?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pierre Brien: That is what they are. I have been in politics
for five years so I remember when they campaigned across the
country saying they would abolish the GST upon taking office.
Since they have been here, every time I carry out a transaction—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
the hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, do you agree with the
unparliamentary remarks the member opposite just made when
accusing members of this House of being hypocrites?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Témiscamingue knows that
we cannot call other members hypocrites.
I am sorry, but I was speaking with someone else, and I did not
hear the hon. member pronounce that word. I have no doubt that
if he called other members hypocrites, he will withdraw that
word.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I am ready to
withdraw that word. I wish, however, to specify that I called no
one in particular a hypocrite. If some thought the remark was
aimed at them, that is their problem.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1740
Mr. Pierre Brien: I go on.
As I was saying, five years ago, in order to get elected, these
people promised they would abolish the GST in the best interest
of Canadians. Five years later, I still pay GST on my
transactions. Now, they say that they are better than us at
representing constituents and that they can better defend the
interests of constituents and citizens all over Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect them to react
that strongly.
But, let us go back to the proposal included in this bill,
because it reflects what is found in many bills.
We see this repeatedly in intergovernmental affair issues. The
Liberals want to occupy every inch of space in the Constitution
of Canada, to elbow their way in, to be more present, to
interfere more in every area of provincial jurisdiction. We have
seen it with the millennium scholarship fund.
I know that the government has an important financial leeway.
Now that it has done it, that it has reduced its transfers to
the provinces, payments to the most disadvantaged, funds for EI
benefits and welfare, it becomes more present. Liberal members
think they are very wise and know best what is in the interest
of the people.
This debate is about marine areas. I remember hearing on the
Réseau de l'information the press conference given by the
Minister of Environment of Quebec and by the Minister of
Canadian Heritage, regarding the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park. An agreement suitable for both parties was signed.
But what is happening suddenly? Are there regrets? Is an
agreement respecting both parties' areas of jurisdiction no
longer possible?
To establish marine areas, the federal government will now
demand ownership of the land and subsoil. They will invoke
certain sections of the Constitution to extend their powers,
saying that the federal government can act in the interest of
Canadians, that it is a matter of good governance, setting aside
the whole question of the distribution of powers as provided in
sections 91, 92 and 93 of this same Constitution.
They could not care less. We heard earlier what this government
really thinks. When they think something may benefit them, they
could not care less about jurisdictions.
That is why there is so much overlap between the federal
government and the provinces. But in this case,
not only do we see overlap between the federal government and
the provinces—and we will have another example of this—but the
federal government itself has seen a possibility to meddle in
the environmental area. We do not question the objective of
creating marine areas, to respect our fauna, our heritage, which
is important. Nobody is against this. Can anybody be against
virtue? Of course not.
There are important things to do in this regard. Everybody
agrees with the objectives. However, the approach used by the
government to achieve these objectives is not working.
Two or three departments in Ottawa have seen this. All of a
sudden, every one of them wants to take care of this. Heritage
Canada says: “Yes. This a good idea. We will do something”.
Let me quote some of the objectives the Department of Canadian
Heritage has defined: the protection of natural self-regulating
marine ecosystems for the maintenance of biological diversity;
the establishment of a representative system of marine
conservation areas; and many more.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is another department that found
this initiative interesting. It has its own goals, which are to
ensure the conservation of commercial and non-commercial
fisheries resources and their habitats, endangered or threatened
species and their habitats, unique habitats, productive
ecosystems and biodiversity, any other marine resource.
This department decided it had a role to play and had to get
involved in this area. It also wants to take credit for the
bill.
And the list goes on. Of course, that has the Department of
Environment a bit concerned.
It also wants to get involved.
So, we have three departments, with different responsabilities,
the departments of Environment, of Fisheries and Oceans and of
Canadian Heritage, that want a piece of the action. So we can
talk about marine protection zones, marine reserves or marine
conservation areas. Everyone has its own name for it and
everyone will have its own regulations. It will be total chaos
within the federal government who, to make matters even worse,
will tackle the provinces head on.
Let me ask you this: how is it that, not after hundreds of
years, but only after a few months of a framework agreement with
Quebec where areas of jurisdiction were respected, we are
suddenly no longer able to keep going in this direction?
1745
Why is that so? Do they already regret the agreement they
signed? Did some of them suddenly wake up, saying: “We should
never get trapped again. We should not respect provincial
jurisdiction, but rather invade it to preserve our room to
manoeuvre and defend the interests of the people we pretend to
represent”? There is a problem.
In conclusion, I would like to come back to what was said at the
beginning on the fact that this responsibility should not be
left to the provinces because their motivations are purely
political. Let us examine those words. What is their meaning?
In the end, they do not want citizens to put pressure on their
provincial governments.
I am convinced that Canadians approve of the environmental
protection goals we are giving ourselves today and that those
same voters are able to put pressure on their provincial
governments. But in order to do so, they must know clearly whom
they can talk to, instead of being told that the federal
government is responsible for this area and the provincial
government for that area. This creates dissension and confusion
about responsibilities.
If things are clearly defined and jurisdictions are respected,
citizens might understand better and put more pressure on their
elected representatives. Ultimately, it is those voters who will
put pressure on either level of government to make sure that
they act and that our wildlife habitat is better protected and
environmental standards better implemented in various areas.
It is not to the federal government, in its wisdom, to decide
suddenly what is good or bad for us.
One of the things that bother them is the fact that when they
attend international forums in foreign countries, they have to
say that those issues come under provincial jurisdiction. They
feel somewhat powerless, inferior, diminished. They do not want
decentralization. They ask themselves what they can do and once
they are back home, they get together. One will admit having had
a problem relating to the environment, while another had a
problem in another area. So they all agree that they should
centralize even further.
Those people want a centralized state. No wonder we the big, bad
separatists are not alone in denouncing this situation.
There are also people from other political parties, with other
priorities and other agendas, who do not agree at all to our
cause, but who also condemn what is happening because they are
committed to serving the interests of Canada, perhaps even more
than Liberals, and who would like the government to respect
provincial jurisdictions.
I find it very amusing today to hear members praising the
government's virtues. I challenge these members to try to
understand the agreement that was signed with Quebec on the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park. I am convinced that, in fact,
most members do not even know it.
They should examine it, study it and ask the minister some
questions, if they can get a word in during their caucus
meetings. They should ask why this agreement is not being used
as a model. They should take a stand, and we will see what comes
of it.
We will put the bill into the proper perspective and use last
summer's agreement as a model, so that we can do something
lasting for the environment, something that will respect
jurisdictions and serve the public's interests.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the people
in my riding are the best ones to know what the environmental
concerns in that area of British Columbia are and they are the
best ones to deal with it. I find it offensive to hear members
on the other side suggesting they are not capable, not to be
trusted and that this must be done from Ottawa.
Does the hon. member not agree that the Liberals caved in when
it came to cleaning up the litter, the refuse and the pollution
from the American military installations around Canada? Does he
not agree they have completely failed to perform on their
commitment to clean up the Sydney tar ponds? Should they not at
least clean up their own act before they start to pretend they
can dictate to the rest of Canada what our environmental
legislation should look like?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. These
people should have a look at their own backyard first and their
own jurisdictions, and try first to see what they can do there,
before they intrude on provincial jurisdictions.
I also think that, ultimately, voters in affected areas are in
the best position to set their own priorities. Generally, people
are much closer to their provincial governments than to the
federal government, and provincial politicians are much more in
touch with their constituents than we are. The same holds true
for municipal representatives.
So we can say there are quite a few members opposite who are out
of touch.
1750
Voters are much more likely to put pressure on the elected
representatives who are closer to them and in a better position
to determine their needs. I cannot determine what is best for
the people in B.C., and they cannot determine either what is
best for us. I respect this type of approach.
The federal government should take a look at its own backyard.
It has enough problems as it is without looking for more
elsewhere. I do not want to digress, but we know that the feds
have a debate on their hands about the surplus in the EI fund
and the budget surpluses.
Why do these members not stand up, not speak up, not shake up
their government so that it will take care of the most important
priorities? No, these people are looking for jurisdictions, for
squabbles between the federal and provincial governments and for
senseless debates that keep us from moving forward. They really
do love squabbles. They are always looking for more of them.
An hon. member: They even fight with their allies.
Mr. Pierre Brien: They even fight with their allies. It is true,
I had forgotten that.
In Quebec, they even fight with their allies, which is nothing
new. Then they accuse us of provocation. There is no one better
than a federal Liberal to provoke fights in Canada. They are the
masters in that game.
So, I want to tell the member that we share his approach, and I
hope the government will finally understand. I always hope that,
in a moment of lucidity, the Liberals will show some courage.
They have the majority, but only by five or six seats. It would
take only a few of them to make a stand. They do not realize the
power they have. Wake up. You could wake up the government, make
things change instead of constantly backing away and backing
down from the Prime Minister. Think about your own future. Stand
up.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
hon. member who spend a good part of his speech saying that the
Liberals are the big bad wolves, who are always looking for
squabbles.
Could he explain to the House, first, whether he too does not
feel somewhat out of touch as a federal member of parliament
and, second, why the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party
both support the bill? They are not big bad wolves. How can he
explain that?
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to explain. There
is en excellent example right now in Quebec. Like many people,
we have a very hard time making the difference between the
Liberals and the Conservatives and we have a very good
illustration of that in this case. There are many similarities
between the two parties.
I must admit, however, that, in general, the Liberals are the
kings of confrontation and I do not want to strip them of their
title. I must give them that, but I must say that it is
sometimes very hard to distinguish between Liberals and
Conservatives because they so very much look alike. But in some
cases, it is easier than in others to distinguish the political
stripes. But let us go back to the issue at hand.
An hon. member: Let us get back to the subject.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Yes, that is it. Why would it be impossible to
do what we already did once? Why would it be impossible to
conclude the kind of agreement we signed in the case of the
Saguenay-Saint-Laurent marine park?
What is the problem? Why can we not do the same thing for the
other marine areas? I would like an explanation.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
I did not intend to speak to this bill but some of the things
that have been said must be challenged. I think the Canadian
people should hear what is in the bill. That would be a very
unusual approach to take in a debate.
I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of
heritage ask a question a moment ago to a member of the Bloc. The
member asked if he felt he was a member of federal parliament. It
occurred to me that Reform and Bloc members are provincial
members of the federal parliament. There is quite a distinction.
1755
It is fascinating to hear Reform Party members stand and defend
the rights of the British Columbia government to take care of the
national environmental responsibility. I understand the Bloc
doing it, as I said before, because its members would separate
Quebec from the rest of Canada. Are Reform members now telling
us they would separate British Columbia?
An hon. member: In a minute.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: In a minute. That is the message, and
the member would actually unite with these guys.
An hon. member: Not a chance.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Unite the right apparently is in some
difficulty. There appear to be some good reasons we are hearing
about today.
I was a provincial politician for eight years in the Ontario
legislature. I fully understand the constitutional relationship
between the federal government and provincial governments. I
fully understand the responsibility of a provincial government to
deliver services to its citizens.
We provide transfer grants. Those grants go for health care. We
do not interfere in the actual delivery of health care or in the
running of the hospitals. That is the responsibility of
provincial governments.
There are some people in my province who might like us to
interfere in education when they see the kinds of cuts taking
place by Mr. Harris and company, particularly in the area of
health care. They might like us to interfere but that is not the
way the system works. We understand that.
An hon. member: The system does not work.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: A member of the Reform Party says the
system does not work. He would simply build a bridge right
through the heart of the Rockies and separate the province of
British Columbia. That is the message.
The member wants all the regulatory power to be put in the hands
of Premier Clark. That is what we are hearing those members say.
They know what is best.
My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington pointed out that he has
a mother, a brother and a sister living there. I have many dear
friends in Victoria. Most of them are Liberals, he might
appreciate, but dear friends nonetheless.
We have a former long time mayor who now represents his
community in this place. When someone is elected on a federal
agenda they are elected, it seems to me, regardless of their
parochialism, regardless of their tunnel vision, regardless of
their inability to understand that from sea to sea to sea there
are issues of significance to all Canadians. The treatment of the
environment in the province of British Columbia I believe in my
heart is important to the people of Newfoundland and vice versa.
The treatment of the Great Lakes, the treatment of our fisheries,
the treatment of pollution, of dealing with water purification,
is important to all Canadians.
The proof of that came when recently there was an announcement
that water would be sold out of the Great Lakes basin to the
United States. The uproar, believe me, was from sea to sea to
sea.
Should we turn that decision over to the province of Ontario?
Should we abdicate our national responsibility? Members in the
Reform Party would probably suggest we should turn it over to the
state of Michigan, given their track record and their background
and where many of their policies come from.
Do a survey in virtually any part of this country and simply ask
should the federal government, the national government, the
Parliament of Canada, have input into the protection of the
environment in this country or should we simply wash our hands
and abdicate that responsibility to the provincial governments.
I heard one member talk about Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I am
not sure who but I heard somebody, Bloc or Reform, say that
perhaps the municipalities should be given control over this.
Would that not be interesting?
I also served 10 years as a municipal councillor. I understand
the role and I appreciate the role. My wife currently serves as
a councillor.
It is a incredibly important service to the community, but with
all due respect to my dear wife, my mayor and all municipal
politicians, I do not feel I would stand here and abdicate my
responsibility for national programs to the municipalities.
1800
How would members like to see Mel Lastman and Hazel McCallion in
a two out of three mud fall, fighting over the environment? I do
not think I want to see that. I do not think the national
parliament wants to give up that kind of authority to the
municipal level. The member opposite is shaking her head, but it
was one of her own members who suggested it.
If the official opposition wants to criticize the federal
government that is fine. That is its job. I understand that;
been there and done that. If it wants to dismantle it, it should
have the courage. At least the Bloc says it like it is from its
perspective. It wants to dismantle the country.
Do Reformers expect that we should wrap up federal
responsibilities with a great big bow, things Canadians hold dear
to their hearts, and turn them over to provincial politicians? If
that is what Reformers want to do, they should say that.
It would not surprise me terribly, considering that they only
represent two provinces and considering they do not have a seat
east of the Manitoba border, that their interests might lie in
the fact that Ralph Klein is the latest champion of the Reform
Party and the unite the right. It would not surprise me at all.
It would not surprise me considering the fact that the hon. Tony
Clement, minister of transportation for the province of Ontario,
sings the praises of the Reform Party. I wonder why. He might
like to avoid a provincial Reform Party starting up in the
province of Ontario. Maybe that is the motive. I do not know.
If there is a Reform Party in the province of Ontario running on
the same side of the agenda as Mike Harris, it seems to me a lot
of people would be tripping over one another because Mike Harris
is already fundamentally a Reform Party member.
Mr. John Herron: No. He is one of us.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: He is not one of them. He is a
Reformer. The Conservatives should be a little nervous. I hear
that the venerable Bill Davis recently attended a unite the right
cocktail party. I wonder if they were serving arsenic or
whatever. I understand there is a move to have the Reform Party
leap-frog over the Bloc to join the Tories in the unite the
right, but I am delighted to hear members say that it will not
happen.
We have some federal legislation. Should we turn it over to the
provinces? The Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, the Canada
Shipping Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the
Migratory Birds Act, all these statutes are relevant to the
conservation of marine resources. They are relevant to this
place. It is our responsibility and the responsibility of
Reformers to stand and defend the nation. They should stand and
say that they will vote with the government if it means
protecting the national environment on behalf of all Canadians,
even though they only represent a few in a few small areas of the
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I heard the
Liberal member say in his eloquent speech that when a party is
elected on a particular political platform, it must follow up on
that platform. He could have talked about the elimination of the
GST, pay equity, withdrawal from the free trade agreement, the
elimination of the GST on books or the end of patronage
appointments, all to be found in the red book, but he simply
forgot.
Listening to his speech helped me understand why people have so
little confidence in and so little respect for politicians. To
summarize his speech, we could say, as we used to say in the
schoolyard when we were kids, “my father is stronger than
yours”.
That was more or less the substance of his speech.
I will now try to ask a different question to the Liberal
member. I will ask him what part of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence
marine park agreement would be unacceptable in Bill C-48. I
remind him that this has nothing to do with the big bad
separatists.
1805
Second, clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 reads as follows:
Clause 5(2) talks about lands owned by the Canadian
government but, at the same time, section 92.5 of the
Constitution says that Quebec legislation applies to all public
lands, including river beds.
First, how can the member explain the inability to come to an
understanding on the basis of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park agreement, and second, how can he explain the difference
between clause 5(2) of Bill C-48 and section 92,5 of the Canadian
Constitution?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting
response, the issue of my father is stronger than your father. I
am paraphrasing. Perhaps it is close to what was said.
We on this side of the House are saying that our Canada is
stronger with Quebec as part of it than the hon. member's country
separated. That is very simple. If that is school yard bully
tactics then so be it, but I do not think it is. We understand
that my Canada, the Canada of people on this side of the House,
is stronger with British Columbia as part of it and is stronger
with Quebec as part of it.
The member opposite continues to chirp. I guess he did not have
enough time to ask his question. Perhaps he has a particular
amendment that he wants to make to the bill. Is he saying he
does not? He is asking why it cannot be like the agreement in
the Saguenay.
Why not bring it to committee? This is second reading. It will
go to committee. Why not bring it to committee and take a look
at some amendments? The hon. member might be surprised. If
there is a way of improving the bill, who knows? We could
discuss it. It could be possible.
The hon. member wants to stand in this place and use it as
nothing more than a political soapbox for the absolute display of
unity between the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois that are both in
their own inimitable way determined to destroy the country. The
Liberal Party of Canada, the government of the country, will not
allow that to happen.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I get from
the member's intervention the notion that if we do not support
this kind of heavy handed interventionist legislation we are
somehow not patriots.
If we are truly looking to keep Canada united and strong, the
federal government has to back off. If the federal government
does not do that, we will lose Canada.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes a
procedure. It is not a short term proposition. Like national
parks the areas we are talking about are intended to be created
in perpetuity.
It is absolutely a puzzle to me why Reformers would object to
perpetuating and perpetually protection of the environment
through the bill. They are using it for their own political
purpose to grandstand because they only know how to be against an
initiative of the government instead of trying to understand it
and support it for all Canadians.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am someone who very much likes to travel in North
Africa. It is a beautiful part of the world, particularly Egypt.
I am very fond of the desert.
One of the most stunning adventures, if one is into the
environment and into wildlife and that sort of thing, is to
travel to the shore of the Red Sea and snorkel in the Red Sea,
which is what I did about six or seven years ago.
1810
The Red Sea is famous for its underwater marine environment. I
arrived there and went swimming. There is a reef just offshore.
It is quite fantastic because when looking around with my face
out of water it is all desert. When I put my face in the water
it was a riot of colour. There is life everywhere competing.
There were fish, coral, sea fans and everything imaginable within
my view. The water was beautiful and perfectly clear.
That was in one little cove that the local guides took us to. I
asked to go a little way down the shore where again I went into
the water and looked down with my face mask and snorkel on and
there was desolation. There was nothing. Everything was totally
dead. As I walked along the shore the sand looked perfectly
normal, but I stepped on something soft. It was a sand coated
globule of oil.
Prior to passing through the Suez Canal the oil tankers trim
their tanks by dumping oil into the Red Sea. The devastation of
one of the most fantastic ecosystems in the world is
unbelievable. It is all because of a weak national government
which did not apply standards to the tankers moving through the
Suez Canal. Egypt did not apply those standards because it needs
the money. It is as simple as that.
Let us return to Canada for a moment and travel with me to
Newfoundland, to Cape St. Mary's on the Avalon peninsula. I was
there the summer before last. It is an absolutely splendid
situation. It is a bird sanctuary. Approaching the edge of the
cliffs there is a huge pinnacle a couple of hundred yards
offshore. The drop is about 300 feet. Tens of thousands of
birds swarm around that pinnacle. That is their breeding ground.
An hon. member: Puffins.
Mr. John Bryden: No, not puffins. On other islands along
the shore there are puffins and whales, just along the east coast
of the Avalon peninsula. There is wild life and biodivisity in
incredible quantities.
If someone in Newfoundland decided to shoot all those birds or
kill the whales found along that coast, or maybe develop the
islands where the puffins breed, would the people in B.C. care?
Would they be affected? I suggest that every Canadian would care
if this type of environment in Newfoundland were destroyed. I
would say every Canadian would care. The world would lose
something but Canada would lose something most of all. Even if
we do not see it and even it is not in our province it is
important to us.
I move to Lake Ontario. Just off Welland there are two ships
that lie in about 500 feet of water. They are called the
Hamilton and the Scourge. They are American vessels
from the War of 1812 which were actually seized from the
Canadians and refurbished into American men of war. A storm came
up and the ships capsized and sank in about 500 feet of water in
Lake Ontario.
About 12 years ago they were located and an expedition was
mounted to go down and examine them. These are two War of 1812
warships that are in absolute pristine condition on the floor of
Lake Ontario. They are absolutely perfect. They are a wonderful
snapshot of a period in all our history that determined the
future of Canada when we were under threat and at war with the
United States.
The legislation covers the preservation of that type of
historical situation at the bottom of Lake Ontario.
It is under threat because all those artifacts on the lake floor
are a tremendous attraction to scuba divers and relic hunters.
1815
That is a classic case where the heritage ministry has a role in
this kind of legislation. We have to protect that kind of thing.
It is of interest. It is of value. People do care in British
Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland about that kind of
archeological treasure in Lake Ontario because it is Canadian.
Let us go to Victoria. Let us go to British Columbia and look
at Long Beach for example. Long Beach on Vancouver Island is one
of the most splendid marine environments we could ever hope to
see. For miles there is surf rolling up. We can walk along the
shore and find shells of every diversity. The waters off British
Columbia are as equally famous as the Red Sea for their
biodiversity. Scuba divers come from all over the world to
British Columbia to dive in those waters.
The city of Victoria is noted for its very long sewage pipe
which dumps raw sewage into the ocean. I would ask members on the
opposite side of the House, especially the B.C. members, if they
seriously want to tell me that the federal government has no role
because we can trust the provinces and the municipalities. We can
see for ourselves, and Victoria is the classic example, that in
order to save a few dollars or perhaps to save jobs, Victoria is
dumping raw sewage into the sea. And it does float back, I have
to say, and all they do is make the pipe longer. That is the type
of problem that exists when we leave environmental issues solely
to the provinces and the municipalities.
The real thrust of my talk is that we have choices in this
country. We can believe that what pulls together a country of
this size and this diversity is its diversity. It is its
difference in its cultures, its environment, its forests and its
sheer beauty. Perhaps the fundamental difference between members
on this side and members on the opposite side is that I feel very
strongly that all of it belongs to me, not just what exists in my
municipality which is at the head of Lake Ontario, not just what
exists in my province, but the entire country.
I come from a riding near the city that had the Plastimet fire.
The Plastimet company came under Ontario and municipal fire codes
and environmental laws and what did we have? Hamilton had one of
the worst toxic fires in this century, at least in Canada. The
provincial controls were there on paper but they were not there
in action.
The fundamental difference between members on this side and
members on the other side is, be they Bloc Quebecois or Reform
members, they do not appreciate—the NDP have indicated that they
do not want to be included with the Bloc and the Reform Party and
I appreciate that, and I did not notice a reaction from the
Conservatives. The fundamental point is simply that the
difference politically that exists in this country is exemplified
by this legislation. One side wants the legislation for the
entire nation and the other side does not want the legislation
for provincial parochial reasons.
The Bloc Quebecois members although they do not like the
nationalist component in this legislation have certainly
indicated that they agree in principle with the general idea of
preserving these ecosystems. I know it is impossible for the
Reform Party but I would suggest that the Bloc Quebecois remember
that this is second reading, agreement in principle. Therefore
support it in principle and vote with the government on this
occasion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a comment on something a few members from the
Liberal Party said about the New Democratic Party.
1820
It is quite easy to understand why the NDP is in favour of this
bill. It is simply because the NPD is a centralizing party, just
like the Liberal Party. It is normal for these people to support
a centralizing bill.
The previous speaker shared with us his tremendous knowledge. He
analyzed what is happening in Africa, at the Suez canal,
throughout the world, but I think it is time for him to wake up
and realize what is going on in Canada.
I see that the Minister of Justice is here, so the member may
want to listen to what I say and then ask her some questions.
The situation in Canada is very complex. Let me give the example
of a fisherman from the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who wants to
go fishing in the St. Lawrence River.
Then the member can tell me that this whole thing they are
setting up is not complicated.
This fisherman asks the province for a fishing licence. He will
go fishing in a boat he has bought in Quebec and for which he
has paid the federal and the provincial taxes. To launch his
boat, he has to register with the federal government. Then he
brings his boat to the shore which is an area of provincial
jurisdiction. As soon as it is launched, the boat is in federal
waters. However, the bottom of the river is provincial. The fish
swimming in the water belongs to the federal, but the crab at
the bottom falls under an area of shared jurisdiction.
One thing is certain, as soon as the fish swimming in federal
waters is caught and thrown in the boat, it comes under
provincial jurisdiction.
But as if that were not good enough, we also have federal
fishing quotas.
If, on top of this, it is a commercial fishery, there are
federal and provincial laws and regulations on food, the
environment, safety, equipment, and so forth..
The bill before us is completely flawed. As if things were not
complicated enough as it is, Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and
Oceans and Environment Canada will now be involved in the
implementation of the bill.
Does the member who studied how things are done around the world
and believes they are easy to manage in Canada not think it is
not normal for the federal government to always try to
complicate matters? It is creating problems where there were
none.
The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean marine park is a case in point. Why not
duplicate it?
No, it would be too easy. As if things were not complicated
enough, as if there were not enough stakeholders in matters such
as water and fisheries, now three other departments and all
their bureaucrats are involved, and the provincial government
has been pushed aside. We know how this works. This makes
absolutely no sense.
Will the member opposite open his eyes and ears for once in his
life and, when the time comes to pass the bill, will he rise and
vote against the government and the bill?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, again I detect from the
hon. member's remarks that he does support the bill in principle.
I would suggest to him that it is he who should be rising in
support of the bill rather than the opposite. The often valid
objections that the Bloc Quebecois brings up should be debated in
committee. If they cannot be resolved at that stage, it makes
sense then to vote against the bill at third reading. When we
agree with something in principle, we should support it in
principle.
As for my colleague's general remarks, it seems to me that the
easiest way to resolve the problem of too much mixed jurisdiction
in issues of the environment, the fisheries and the coastal
regions would be for the provinces to back off and allow the
federal government to play its proper role in managing these
resources on our coastal waters.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous
consent to deem it 6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it 6.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1825
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House and to see
members opposite.
I am pleased to speak tonight on the Liberal government's
complete mishandling of the APEC affair. I hasten to add that
the handling is really the question.
Contrary to what has been stated by Liberal members, this is not
an issue of partisan politics. Rather, this is an issue that
involves serious questions pertaining to the responsibilities of
ministers of the crown.
Canadians are deeply troubled by a Prime Minister and a
solicitor general who appear to have clear disregard for their
respective duties and outright refuse to be accountable for their
own actions, not unlike the infamous Airbus affair which we have
yet to hear the last of.
Upon assuming office ministers of the crown must swear an oath
to Her Majesty the Queen to uphold responsibilities which are
inherent in serving the federal cabinet. The Prime Minister and
the solicitor general in particular are entrusted with very heavy
responsibilities.
Canadians need to know the level of the Prime Minister's
involvement in directing RCMP officers to suppress peaceful
protesters so as not to offend the sensibilities of an Asian
dictator. What offends the sensibilities of Canadians is not only
the callous remarks of the Prime Minister and the efforts to
dodge the issue that the government is engaged in, but how
closely was he involved and is it appropriate that he was
involved. These are the fundamental questions that have remained
unanswered throughout.
Of equal importance is why did the Prime Minister and his
government not simply answer questions about this matter in this
House when the matter was first introduced? Instead of engaging
in that, they stepped up their efforts by engaging spin doctors
to deflect these questions to avoid the hard questions that were
posed to them.
Sadly and to his personal shame, the Prime Minister has refused
to account for his actions and the actions of his office. His
government has chosen the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to
investigate these allegations. Despite the commission's lack of
a legal and moral mandate to undertake such an inquiry with a
broad truth seeking authority or any real final say in the
matter, the government has been hiding behind this.
It has recently been declared that the federal court will not be
hearing the appeal that was put to it. Instead, the commission
itself is going to be tasked with the decision as to whether the
commission has already prejudged this matter by the chair's
alleged remarks in a casino. The commission is left with the
tantamount task of deciding its own fate. This has gone from the
sublime to the ridiculous.
This matter has completely lost the faith of the Canadian
people. This entire affair has a stench around it now that
Canadians will not tolerate.
The solicitor general openly chastised the opposition members
when they asked questions about this. He then went out, got on a
plane and spoke about this in a very forthright way saying that
Hughie was going to take the fall and that certain officers were
going to be the fall guys in all of this.
This matter has been completely compromised by the government
and by the actions of both the solicitor general and the Prime
Minister. There is a blatant contradiction in what the
government has asked the Canadian people to swallow, which is
that they should have faith in this commission. However, when
the commission asked on two separate occasions that the students
be funded, the government refused. How can Canadians have faith
in this commission if the government will not listen to the
requests of the commission?
The member for Palliser made very damning allegations against
the solicitor general and these allegations were repeated.
I suspect that we have not heard the end of this APEC matter. I
am very interested to see how the parliamentary secretary will
respond to these allegations.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to do this in
French, but I will repeat an English phrase that was used
earlier.
My colleague across the way used the expression “from the
sublime to the ridiculous”. Oddly, that is just what I was
thinking when watching the behaviour of the party over there in
connection with this matter.
1830
Let us have a clear understanding of what the problem is: there
are incidents. A commission was created a long time ago for
handling this type of problem. The case is referred to it.
First, the allegation is made that the commission does not have
the power to do what has to be done. That is false, but such is
the allegation, and the commission's credibility is undermined
as a result. It is alleged that the Prime Minister got
involved. It is alleged that the commission is a lame-duck
commission. The allegations keep coming. Allegations about
what happened on a plane. I do not believe my colleague was on
the plane and therefore he did not hear first hand what was, and
was not, said.
The underlying principle is that someone said this or that.
This becomes an absolute truth. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Enough to make a person weep.
Now, going further with this, who is it that is behind these
allegations? Members of opposition parties. Why are they
making these allegations? To defend purely political and
partisan causes. And what does this have to do with reality?
Nothing whatsoever.
They are not at all interested in the truth. What they are
interested in is the media circus in the House around a matter
that could have been settled very readily, and will be settled
very readily, by an organization created for that very purpose,
a commission called the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)