36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 19
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 23, 1997
1000
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Legislative Counsel—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1005
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1010
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1997-98
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
1015
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS TARIFF
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-11. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-12. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-264. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Reference to Standing Committees
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Reactors
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Goods and Services Tax
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Highways
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Fishing Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1050
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1055
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1110
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1125
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1130
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1200
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1230
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1235
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1300
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1305
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1310
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1315
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1330
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1335
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1340
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1355
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RÉAL CAOUETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHTS OF VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1400
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GREEN-A-THON
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMPAIRED DRIVING
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Bonin |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1405
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE PILOTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUADELOUPE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1410
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFRASTRUCTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1415
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1420
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC-FRANCE AGREEMENT ON CHILD SUPPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LABOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1435
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON COLLECTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1440
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC-FRANCE AGREEMENT ON SUPPORT PAYMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1445
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRPORT SECURITY
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENITENTIARIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1450
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENITENTIARIES
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1500
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling Documents
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1505
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE FRED MCCAIN
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1510
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1515
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1520
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE RODRIGUE BOURDAGES
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1525
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1530
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Canadian Fishing Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1545
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1615
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1620
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1635
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George S. Baker |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1650
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1655
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1710
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1715
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1720
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1725
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1730
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-202. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1750
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1755
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1800
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1815
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1820
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1825
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 19
![](/web/20061116175524im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 23, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
PRIVILEGE
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to render a ruling on the
matters raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton on October
7, 1997 and by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River on
October 2, 1997. These matters concern the delivery of
legislative counsel services to all private members.
I want to thank other members who also made comments on this
question.
[Translation]
Following the earlier submission made by the hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River, I suggested that he speak with his
representative on the Board of Internal Economy, since
administrative matters of this sort come under its
responsibility.
When dealing with similar questions, my predecessors have
repeatedly indicated that these should be brought to the
attention of the Board of Internal Economy and should not be
raised on the floor of the House as a point of order nor as a
question of privilege.
1005
[English]
Although presented as a question of privilege, the matters
raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton involve, in my view,
basic administrative issues.
As Speaker Sauvé indicated in two rulings on December 15, 1982,
complaints or grievances dealing with the delivery of services by
the legislative counsel, and in particular the drafting of
private members' public bills, do not constitute the basis for a
question of privilege but are, indeed, questions concerning the
services of the House. I refer hon. members to the Debates
of December 5, 1982, pages 21603 to 21605.
I must therefore rule that the matters raised by the hon. member
for Sarnia—Lambton do not deal with privileges of members or of
the House.
That being said, I wish to reassure hon. members that the matter
will be revisited by the Board of Internal Economy. As a
governing body of the House of Commons, the Board of Internal
Economy has a long statutory history, originating in 1868.
Initially composed of five members, its powers were essentially
the same as they are today.
In 1985, however, in order to meet members' demands for
opposition and backbench representation from that body, the
membership of the board was increased to nine members. The
intent of this recommendation was to enable private members to
have “an effective voice in the decisions governing the
management of the House”.
[Translation]
Despite the fact that only four of the nine members are from the
backbenches, their opinions and input are crucial, as the
practice of the board is to arrive at its decisions by consensus.
[English]
Let me now refer to the power and authority of the board as
provided in section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act:
(a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its
staff; and
(b) the members of the House of Commons.
In other words, the Board of Internal Economy is entrusted with
specific administrative oversight functions such as the delivery
of legislative counsel services to members.
[Translation]
I understand the concerns of members in respect of the
legislative counsel services privided to them by the House. As
your Speaker and also Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I
would like to take this occasion to briefly comment further on
this matter.
[English]
The board reviewed this matter in the last Parliament when it
established a subcommittee to consider proposed options and
alternatives for the delivery of legislative counsel services to
House committees and to private members.
At the time, the subcommittee considered many related issues
which are still relevant today and which make this matter more
complex than simply throwing more resources at it.
There is, for instance, the matter of what exactly is the proper
function of legislative counsel, whether in respect of private
members' public bills or government bills at committee or at
report stage.
On some occasions, counsel, who are House staff responsible to
the Speaker, are asked to play the role of advocate in the sense
of explaining and defending private members' legislative
initiatives.
There is also the practice of legislative counsel giving
priority on a first come, first serve basis which is sometimes
challenged by caucus and legislative priorities.
Finally, there is the fact that over half the private members'
bills drafted in the last Parliament were never introduced in the
House by private members.
As your Speaker I have taken to heart the concerns expressed by
members regarding these services. In my capacity as chair of the
Board of Internal Economy, I have already asked the board to
conduct a review of these issues as it is the body designated to,
by statute, act on all financial and administrative matters of
the House.
I therefore invite members to submit their concerns directly to
the board.
[Translation]
I thank you for allowing me to clarify the Chair's position on
this very important matter.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1010
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the administration of the House of Commons for the 35th
Parliament.
* * *
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1997-98
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting
supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March
31, 1998 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and
read by the Speaker to the House.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
delegation to the 38th annual meeting of the Canada-United States
interparliamentary group which was held in Sydney, Nova Scotia
and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island from September 11 to
September 15 of this year.
The meetings, like previous ones, outline the close personal and
interpersonal relations between Canada and the United States.
While we do not always agree on all aspects of this issue, we had
the opportunity to honestly exchange viewpoints and information
in a friendly manner showing the mutual respect that each country
has for one another.
At the historic fortress of Louisburg we dealt with many
important issues. Trade and economic matters, global peace and
security and transport are questions that affect the billion
dollars worth of trade a day going across our borders. We have
not been able to directly resolve some of these important issues
but we had the opportunity of putting forward in the strongest
terms Canada's position as we approach the millennium.
Unfortunately the Pacific salmon dispute tainted the tremendous
relationship that exists between the province of British
Columbia, indeed all Canadians, and in particular the states of
Washington, Alaska and Oregon.
With this in mind it was the consensus of all those attending,
the Senate from the United States, the House of Representatives
and members of Canadian Parliament, that they should convene a
meeting on the west coast to deal with those issues that are
supportive of the friendly relations that exist between the two
countries. We will pursue that and advise the House accordingly
as we proceed down that path.
* * *
1015
[Translation]
CUSTOMS TARIFF
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-11, an Act respecting the imposition of duties
of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International
Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding
System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties
of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters
and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-12, an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-264, an act to amend the
Access to Information Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill would introduce
46 substantial amendments to the Access to Information Act, in
effect, overhauling it entirely.
It is an act that is of great interest to every member in the
Chamber. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to be
allowed to speak for three minutes on my private member's bill
and for it subsequently to go directly on to the order of
precedence.
The Deputy Speaker: I will deal with the member's
request after getting the bill introduced.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would request that you
rule on my request for unanimous consent now, so that I can carry
on with my remarks since I was in the middle of making them.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has requested consent
to speak for three minutes at this time on the bill and then have
the bill placed on the Order Paper in the order of precedence.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
* * *
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing orders 81(5) and 81(6) I wish to move a
motion concerning the referral of the estimates to the standing
committees of the House.
There is a lengthy list associated with the motion and if it is
agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1998 laid upon the table on October 23, 1997, be
referred to the several standing committees of the House in
accordance with the detailed allocation attached.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
—Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes la, 5a, 15a,
L20a, L25a, 35a, 40a and 50a
—Canadian Heritage, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, L21, 30a, 35a, 45a, 70a,
80a, 90a, 110a, 125a and 130a
—Foreign Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 20a, 25a and 45a
(10) To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities
—Human Resources Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a and 35a
—Industry, Votes 1a, 5a, 20a, 25a, 30a, 35a, 55a, 60a, 65a, 70a,
75a, 80a, 85a, 95a, 110a, 115a and 120a
—Justice, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 30a, 33a, 40a and 45a
—Solicitor General, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a, 25a, 30a, 45a and 50a
—National Defence, Votes 1a, 5a, and 10a
—Veterans Affairs, Votes 1a and 10a
—Canadian Heritage, Vote 135a
—Natural Resources, Votes 1a and 10a
—Parliament, Vote 1a
—Privy Council, Votes 1a and 5a
—Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1a, 5a, 15a, 20a and
31a
—Treasury Board, Votes 1a and 10a
—Privy Council, Vote 25a
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1020
PETITIONS
THE FAMILY
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to
present a petition signed by 36 residents of my constituency who
reside in Quesnel, British Columbia. My constituents request
Parliament's support of a motion that was introduced by the
member of Parliament for Yorkton—Melville which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should
authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General
under the Great Seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to (a) recognize the fundamental
right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue
interference by the state and (b) recognize the fundamental right
and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children, and urge the legislative assemblies of the other
provinces to do likewise.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present from constituents in my
riding and from others in the region several petitions.
The first one relates to the issue of nuclear weapons. Whereas
there are over 30,000 nuclear weapons on earth, the petitioners
call on Parliament to support the immediate initiation and
conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention that
will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear
weapons.
NUCLEAR REACTORS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have another petition that relates to the sale of
Candu reactors to China.
The petitioners call on Parliament to immediately withdraw from
all arrangements concerning financial and technical assistance to
China for nuclear reactor technology, and to ensure that the
Government of Canada does not finance or subsidize the sale of
Candu reactors to China or any other country.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a further petition that calls on Parliament to
lift the GST off books and reading materials in Canada.
HIGHWAYS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a final petition regarding the national highway
system. It calls on Parliament to urge the federal government to
join with the provincial governments to make a national highway
system upgrading possible beginning in 1997.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition today from my constituency of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis, and that the benefits that police
officers and firefighters receive for their families when they
lose their lives in the line of duty are often insufficient to
meet the needs of their families, and that all the public mourn
the loss of police officers and firefighters who lose their lives
in the line of duty.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers, including police
officers, firefighters, et cetera, who lose their lives in the
service of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC) moved:
That this House recognize the urgent need
for action to address the serious problems in Canadian
fisheries on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and calls
upon the government to establish a comprehensive national
fisheries policy that demonstrates real commitment to
resource conservation, leadership on the issue of resource
sharing with foreign interests, and sensitivity to the
individuals, families and communities whose futures are
linked to the health and sustainability of the Canadian
fishing industry.
1025
He said: I am honoured today to have the privilege of moving
the very first motion of the Progressive Conservative caucus in
this House on an opposition day on an issue that requires urgent
attention, given recent events.
I would also remind the Chair that only a few days ago we
pressed the Chair for an emergency debate, given the last set of
events. We were unsuccessful in obtaining that debate, but we
are using the very first opportunity available to us to put this
matter before the House.
The crisis in the fishery on the east coast and on the west
coast did not happen overnight. It is important, as we begin
this debate, if we are going to have any intelligent discussion
about its future, to recognize that the issues are complex. The
issues we are dealing with today have developed over many years.
If the answers were easy, frankly, we would have solved a number
of problems. In all honesty, we all have to recognize that the
problems are not easy to solve. Governments, both provincial and
federal, have grappled with these issues, with success in some
cases. However we must recognize today, having done our best in
some circumstances, nonetheless we are faced with a real crisis
on both coasts.
The fishing industry affects the communities, the men, the women
and a lot of rural areas across this country.
[Translation]
Not one region of the country is unaffected by this issue, by
this crisis in the fisheries, whether they be in the Atlantic
provinces, on the coast, in Gaspé, or in Ontario or some other
place where they are directly or indirectly connected to the
industry. I scarcely need to point out that the entire Canadian
population is affected.
[English]
I would like to refer to the crisis in the salmon industry in
British Columbia. That industry employs thousands of hard
working men and women. The salmon industry accounts for about
30% of the total wholesale value of the west coast fishing
industry.
Last year in B.C. was the lowest year in 36 years of commercial
fleet revenues, totalling less than half the average of the
1990s. That in itself tells a story.
Poor resource management tops the list of reasons for the
decline. Other factors that have brought the west coast salmon
fishing industry to its knees include habitat destruction,
changes in the ocean's climate—a complex issue which also
affects the east coast—poaching, overfishing, new technology and
overcapacity in the industry.
The issue of overcapacity is not new. For a number of years
various commissions of inquiry have studied the issue. Task
forces, one after another, have all commented on the very
important problem of overcapitalization within the commercial
salmon fleet and have recommended that the number of vessels be
significantly reduced.
Among those within the B.C. industry, there is widespread
recognition of the necessity to reduce the fleet. Less obvious
is the question of the best way to make it happen. What is
apparent is that the approach taken by the Liberal government to
date has not worked.
In the spring of last year the federal government unveiled its
Pacific salmon revitalization plan and presented it as a panacea
for the problems in the B.C. fishing industry. It was called the
Mifflin plan. It called for a speedy reduction of about 50% of
the capacity of the commercial salmon fleet. Single-gear ships
and area licensing would be implemented, as well as license
stacking.
The people who knew the industry at the time, it needs to be
said, told the government that this plan would not work, that the
plan was flawed. The people who support their families through
their hard work and earn their living through this industry in
rural communities along the coast of British Columbia were the
ones who spoke up. They told the government that this plan was a
mistake. They told the government that the management strategy
had to be longer term, that the pace of fleet reduction must be
within the industry's capacity to absorb, and most of all it must
be within the capacity of individual communities and families to
absorb these very important changes.
I regret to say that the government did not listen. What we got
was the typical Ottawa knows best and “We are on the eve of an
election campaign and we have to move”. The Liberal government
chose to move ahead with its plan.
1030
Guess what happened. People were right. Strong opposition to
the Mifflin plan expressed valid fears that it would wipe out
smaller fishers and home fleets in the coastal communities,
concentrating the industry and fishing in larger boats in urban
areas. In too many cases that is exactly what has happened as
people have been thrown out of work and communities have been
crippled by the implementation of this plan.
Not only that, but from the point of view of resource
sustainability that must be the cornerstone of anything we
undertake. In fact this is the very essence of the motion we
have put before the House today. From the perspective of how we
will maintain and manage this resource, this plan is a dismal
failure. While it sought reduction to the actual number of boats
there was no component to address total fishing effort.
What has it meant? It has meant that fewer boats are taking the
same amount of salmon out of the water. The result is that we
now have zero salmon stock conservation benefits. That is the
net effect of the Mifflin plan.
The Liberal government has demonstrated a fondness about talking
or doing some consultation in this area. A good example of it is
that most of the consultation including some announced recently
has not come before the implementation of the plan but after the
implementation of the plan. Quite a consultation it will be.
Having inflicted this mess on the men and women of British
Columbia and the salmon fishery over the course of the 1996
fishing season, the government now apparently scratches its head,
shrugs and decides that maybe it is time that it actually talk to
the people concerned and affected by the changes. Together with
the provincial government they have formed a three member panel
to study the effects of the Mifflin plan, study the damages they
have inflicted on the people of British Columbia, to find out
just how badly thought out it was.
I am sorry to report, without having the benefit of
consultation, that what we know from the implementation of the
plan is that some of the damage now incurred in these communities
may very well be irrevocable. Many have already been forced out
of the industry and those who remain have borrowed hundreds of
thousands of dollars to stack licences. Now that they have
borrowed the money and have not been able to generate the revenue
to pay off the loan they are stuck. They are stuck in the plan.
They cannot walk away from it. They cannot walk away from their
commitments. They cannot walk away from their licences. They
are struck within the whole framework.
Let me refer to the Liberal record on managing the Pacific
fishery documented in the 1996 report for the B.C. Job Protection
Commission. The imposition of an ill-conceived Mifflin plan on
top of what was already a poor salmon season last year resulted
in the loss of 7,800 direct jobs. If we apply the multiplier it
means almost 20,000 jobs have been lost. That is the net result.
The impact of job losses, it needs to be stated, was felt the
most in isolated communities, predominantly native communities
with few alternatives of employment for the people in those
communities. They are the ones in British Columbia who are now
suffering the most from the plan.
One such community is Masset, British Columbia, home of about
1,500 people on the Queen Charlotte Island. It is just one rural
place where as a direct result of the government's fisheries
mismanagement the local fish processing plant closed down and
left people without work.
I quote from a letter from someone who lives in that community,
a women who said:
—Fisheries and Oceans Canada seems to be slowly and
systematically reallocating the catch away from the traditional
commercial fishing sector, upon which our small community relies.
I would add that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has seen
fit to send a letter to the Sports Fishing Institute of B.C.
indicating that the recreational fishermen can expect an
allocation of chinook salmon in 1997. There has been no
indication of any allocation to the traditional commercial
sector.
That is the sector most affected. Would this be what the
government considers leadership in managing our fisheries? If
the Liberals think that responsible public policies means taking
shots at the little guy and if success is choking off the
viability of rural communities along the coast of British
Columbia, I am sorry to report today that the Liberal government
would have succeeded.
1035
For the longest period the east coast has been dramatically
affected by this issue. There are very grave problems in the
policies of the government with regard to the east coast fishery.
We have had a lot of pronouncements, posturing, endless study and
so-called initiatives, but it all speaks to the broader issue of
the management of the fishery on the east coast.
One of the reasons we chose to raise the issue as a caucus in
the House of Commons today is that the auditor general spoke on
it so vividly in the report produced only a few days ago. In
particular he spoke about the management of the TAGS program.
The auditor general is a servant of the House. He does not
report to any particular department in government. He does not
report to cabinet. He reports to us, Mr. Speaker: to you, to me
and to members of the House. The auditor general is at arm's
length from the government.
He offered a very vivid report in which he said there was no
management plan for the fishery. In the context of TAGS he
pointed to it as being the major flaw which explains the dismal
failure of the TAGS program.
Throughout most of the Atlantic region cod stocks are at
historic low levels. Debate continues about the contributing
factors. There are many, as I said earlier in my remarks. It
would be nice if we could say in this debate what is precisely
wrong. I would like to be able to say that, or that one
government decision was wrong over 30 years. If we were able to
do that I would feel better. Why? Then we could fix the problem
overnight. We could actually do what we are all here to do and
help the people involved.
Whether it is the inshore fishers, offshore fleets, cold water
temperature, size of quota, size of mesh, age of fish harvested,
availability of food, the seal population, accessibility or
reliable scientific debate, all these things affect the decisions
we make. We are all prepared to acknowledge that the collapse of
major stocks in the Atlantic ground fishery is a complex problem.
As with any complicated question it may be understandable that
the solutions are not necessarily easy. The point of the debate
today is to look to the future and the men and women who are in
the industry now. What is inexcusable and unforgivable is that
there is not a plan for the future. There is not an exercise of
leadership on the government side that offers hope with regard to
what must be done for the future.
The crisis in fishery management has been devastating for the
communities and the families on the east coast. Literally
hundreds of fishing communities have been seriously affected. By
1995 the groundfish fishery accounted for only 8% of the total
catch, the value of landings on the Atlantic coast.
What answer was cooked up? It was the TAGS program. That was
the government's answer announced with a great deal of fanfare in
1994. A lot of key code words were in there.
I will quote some that were part of the plan. It was to
“provide an integrated approach to capacity reduction”. It was
to “call for partnerships with all stakeholders”. It included
“career planning and employment counselling” and “sustainable
development in Canada's long term economic development”. These
words were associated with the $1.9 billion allocation of funds,
with a view to retiring licences. TAGS would have removed
approximately 23% of the groundfish licences in place at that
time.
This is much less than half the original target and will still
leave 10,000 groundfish licences in place. The TAGS component of
the program directed at retiring licences has failed even though
$1.9 billion has been put toward this effort.
What did the auditor general have to say about the government's
success in achieving its objectives? In his recent report he
drew the following conclusion:
Groundfish harvesting capacity was not significantly reduced
through TAGS measures. Active labour adjustment measures were
halted, and whether they actually contributed to reducing the
number of persons dependent on the industry is not known. Excess
fishing capacity remains, and poses a major risk to the
sustainability of the fishing industry.
1040
That is a real indictment of the government. It was not by
someone in the Chamber, not by someone with any partisan axe to
grind, not by someone involved in the industry, but by an officer
of the House of Commons who reports independently to us and has
at his disposal the tools to evaluate these programs. He has
indicted the government on TAGS for its failure to the men and
women of Atlantic Canada.
We have a program that will run out of money six months before
it is scheduled to without any sense or any indication. Every
time I travel to the Atlantic, whether it is with my colleague
from Burin—St. George, St. John's West or St. John's East, the
people in the community always raise the same issue. How is it
that the government came forward with the TAGS program, said it
would be a five year program and now is telling us that will be
over in four years?
Their lives have been disrupted. They have had to reorganize
their families. They try to plan for the future. They planned
for the next five years on the reasonable expectation that the
government would meet its commitment. Now they are told “Do you
know what, Harry? Do you know what, Bill? Do you know what,
Selma? The program will end in four years and not five. We are
sorry. You may have wanted to continue on to school but it is
over. We are the Government of Canada in Ottawa. We know
best”. Tough luck is the message they are getting from the
government. It is a cruel message to people who are in a
position where they are vulnerable, weak and in transition.
The Auditor General of Canada seems to see that and understand
that but for some reason the government does not seem to hear the
message. That is not new. Maybe we should not be surprised.
My colleague from the riding of Saint John, New Brunswick,
fought very hard for good reason in the House of Commons when the
employment insurance legislation was brought in. The legislation
had hidden behind it a reduction of $33 million in benefits to
the fishers in Atlantic Canada through a regulation.
The member for Saint John, who is with me today in the House of
Commons—I remember it well—had me sign a petition so there
could be debate on the regulation, not change it but debate it.
She went to the Liberal caucus. There were 31 members of the
Liberal caucus from Atlantic Canada out of 32. She asked them not
to change the regulation but to sign a petition so we could
debate it in the House of Commons and Canadians could hear what
we had to say. Not one member would sign the petition. This was
over and above everything else.
Finally, if we are to be successful in dealing with the issue we
have to press the government, the House and all political parties
to look to the future and move to a plan based on maintaining
resource conservation, which has to be the cornerstone. Canada
is a resource based economy whether it is the fishing industry,
the forestry industry, the mining industry, the agriculture
industry, the energy industry, hydrocarbons or hydroelectric
energy.
Those who understand our economy would know that maintaining
these resources on a sustainable basis is key to our future
economic success and the success of our children. The same is
true for the fishing industry.
The government needs to answer the cry of Canadians who want to
know what exactly it intends to do so that they can move ahead
and allow the industry to survive in the future.
I followed with great interest the debate of the government on
the Pacific salmon treaty signed in 1985. Certainly from my own
experience I freely offer some advice to the government today. I
do not know whether it will be followed. I refer to an issue I
dealt with in the 1990s when I was minister of the environment.
With my colleague at the time, the minister of fisheries, we
fought hard in the international community to get an
international convention on overfishing at the summit in Rio de
Janiero on the environment and the economy. We were successful.
We did it in only six months. But we were successful for a
reason. We pressed every cabinet member to raise the issue with
other governments at the time.
I see that my time is running out. There will be further
opportunity to add some comments in the question and comment
period. I look forward to that. I look forward to the next few
minutes and in the day of debate today to offering some ideas
from our caucus on how the issue must move forward and how we can
help Canadians on the east and west coasts to regain propriety of
their communities, their pride, the opportunity to work and the
opportunity to make their contributions to Canada.
1045
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion certainly is a very straightforward motion. I have
not conversed with my colleague the fisheries critic so I am not
sure where we are coming from but from my perspective, I think it
is a good motion. That is not the point.
The point is that this leader has a tremendous amount of gall.
This leader was in government. He just finished saying he was in
government as the environment minister working with John Crosbie
who at the time was the fisheries minister. What was going on was
that the fisheries science was being completely swept aside. Just
take a look at the political interest from a Conservative
perspective on that day in 1990. The problem has been created by
successive Liberal and Conservative governments. It has never
been more true that Liberal, Tory, same old story when it comes
to fisheries issues.
I find it absolutely amazing that this leader would stand up and
make this kind of speech when it was he, his department and his
party that actually were the major contributors to the problem in
the first place.
Where the Reform Party is coming from on this issue is we
respect the perspective of the people of the Atlantic and the
people of the Pacific. The people in the area should have had
the input. The people in the area who know what is going on
should have had the input but they did not have an opportunity.
It was centralized. It was drawn into Ottawa. The bureaucracy
made the decision and it was at the time when the Progressive
Conservative Party was in power that the issue absolutely peaked.
I ask this leader, how in the world he can stand up in this
House condemning the Liberals as they should be condemned when in
fact it was his policies that in the first place created this
mess.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
member for Kootenay—Columbia for announcing that the Reform
Party will support our motion. I sincerely appreciate that.
I have to regret that he gets up and makes my point about one of
the problems we have in this place. He started by saying he did
not know how they would vote on it. He lives in British
Columbia. This is a motion that is tabled today and he does not
know how his party will pronounce. He is from British Columbia
and he does not know what his critic's position is on this.
One would think that being from British Columbia where this is
one of the main issues discussed over the last few months the
member for Kootenay—Columbia would have a position. I am
disappointed he does not. I imagine his constituents will be
equally disappointed that he did not take the time to make out
his position.
What we got instead, I do not want to comment on it. We have
heard it a thousand times. It is the grandstanding. Notice the
style, pointing the finger and saying it is the Tories' fault or
the Liberals' fault. I can only imagine that the people who are
affected by all these decisions today cannot be feeling very
good. I do not understand what that does for them. For any
unemployed British Columbian today, the member has offered zero
in terms of any kind of hope for the future.
Instead, I would like to speak of what I would like to see the
government do, contrary maybe to their approach. Who knows,
maybe the Reformers during the day will give us come concrete
ideas of what the future should be about.
First, in the case of the Pacific salmon fishery, what I think
is important is that the government and the Prime Minister give
very real instructions, strict instructions to his ministers to
raise this issue at every opportunity with their American
counterparts.
When I was Minister of the Environment, every time we met with a
minister of another government we systematically, no matter what
the issue was, no matter what the responsibility of the minister
may have been, whether it was trade or transport, would raise the
issue with our counterpart of the other country. Why? Because we
wanted to drive home the point that this was a very important
issue for Canada. By forcing that issue and by raising it at
every opportunity we were successful in doing exactly that.
I would like the government today to make a commitment to do
that and to have every minister of the crown opposite raise the
issue with every American counterpart. No matter what the
circumstance or the issue of the day is they should take that
opportunity to raise the issue.
That would be the first thing to do. In other words keep the
issue on the table.
1050
Second is the matter of the treaty. This is a treaty which our
government signed in 1985. No treaties are perfect. The member
was alluding to what had been done. In 1985 the government of
the day was able to secure this treaty. In the years that
followed there was a management plan. It has only been in the
last four years that there has not been a management plan. That
is even more important.
The principle of equity that is found within the treaty is
extremely important. We need to secure that principle, to press
it. We need to keep it front and centre in everything we do to
ensure that as we move forward with our American counterparts
that the principle of equity will be front and centre with
respect to any agreements we make in the future.
The third thing we need and which is sorely lacking is an
industrial adjustment strategy. I regret that the hon. member
for Kootenay—Columbia did not speak about that because it
actually affects the people of British Columbia. What about the
men and women who do not care about Liberal, Tory, same old
story, and the huff and puff of the House of Commons? They have
kids in school. They have bills to pay. They would like some
help. This government should have an adjustment strategy which
would allow them to make the transition into new jobs and give
them some training. Some money should be put toward that end.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
It is true that he is not all that bothered because things did not
go any better for the fishers of Gaspé when his party was in power.
The fishers tell us now it was a fiasco. It started in their time
but it seems that the hon. member is repenting a bit, and that is
all for the better. He wants to help the government, but he ought
to have helped his own at that time.
I, however, agree with him on two points. When he says
decisions are made in Ottawa, that is true. In my former riding we
had the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, whose opinion is respected
throughout the world.
Its highly competent researchers have carried out studies in the
Gaspé, the St. Lawrence, the Atlantic Ocean. The federal public
servants have now come up with another study, and of course the
study by the federal public servants takes precedence over the one
by our own public servants, who are independent.
I would ask my colleague from Sherbrooke what he himself would
do, if he were the government, for these little fishers in Gaspé
who will go on unemployment this winter, if they have enough
“stamps”. Yet these fishers are hard-working and want to work but,
because of their profession—nearly all the cod quotas have been
cut—they end up with nothing, or next to nothing. What would he
do?
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I travelled extensively in the
Gaspé area. Actually, I worked very closely with someone he knows well
and a very respected person in the Gaspé, namely Dr. Charles-Eugène
Marin, a former member for Gaspé. I can see the hon. member nodding his
head in agreement. I think that Dr. Marin has made extraordinary efforts
for fishers in the Gaspé.
I think that one of the changes made and imposed by the federal
government that have affected them the most and hurt them the most—and
I am sure my hon. colleague will agree with me on that—is the
unemployment insurance reform, including the fact that their benefits
were cut by $33 million. That is what I was talking about earlier.
My colleague, the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick,
circulated a petition asking that a debate be held in this place on this
issue.
I think that approximately 40 signatures were needed. She was unable to
get a single member of the Liberal Party of Canada from the Atlantic
region to sign. This explains in part this government's arrogance and
contempt for these men and women.
Seasonal workers depend not only on fisheries but also on forestry.
Let us not forget the Eastern Plan, which was important to our region as
it created jobs. Forestry is also important in the Gaspé region.
1055
The federal government may cut left and right but try as it might,
it cannot cut seasons. They can certainly not make winter disappear and
privatize seasons in Canada. And unless they can cut one season, we will
continue to live in a seasonal economy where these needs must be
recognized. Our party, which, I hope, will form the next government, is
committed to ensuring through the employment insurance legislation that
these realities are recognized so that these people can earn an honest
living.
[English]
I will finish with a little word of poetry. There is no
position coming from the Reform Party. I will quote for
Reformers the official position of their party in regard to the
fishery. This is a direct quote from their leader in response to
a question about TAGS. He repeatedly said that displaced
fishermen and their families in the TAGS program were receiving
“the last big social megaproject engineering thing to come out
of Ottawa”. I quote the Leader of the Opposition's plan for the
future of the resource, “All you can do is say it is over”.
There is the plan of the Reform Party for the fishery of Canada.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see
that the leader of the fifth party has recognized this serious
crisis did not happen overnight.
We on this side of the House welcome this debate which will
allow us to put on the record the many ways we are moving as a
government to address this crisis. The member for Sherbrooke
criticized that there is not a plan for the future. Nothing
could be further from the truth. We will show today where we are
at in moving forward with a plan for the future to protect the
resources and to protect the communities and the fisheries. As
members opposite try to do in question period, I will put a few
things in perspective.
As has been indicated this issue did not happen overnight. Where
was the member for Sherbrooke in 1984 when the collapse of the
groundfish stocks really took place? Where was he when the former
fisheries ministers in the Mulroney government basically ignored
the scientific reports of the day? The individual who just spoke,
the leader of the fifth party, is none other than the same
individual who served as the Minister of the Environment in the
Mulroney government while foreign fleets were allowed to destroy
the northern cod and the Grand Banks stocks.
We took on that issue when we formed the government in the last
term. We challenged the issue and got some agreement. We are
doing what we can with what is left. It is hard to conserve a
stock that has been left in the kind of condition that the
previous government left it in, but as a government we are
showing every day that we are willing to take up that challenge.
The mover of the motion, the leader of the fifth party, is the
very same individual who outlined under the so-called Charest
platform a plan that would make the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans disappear. Under the Charest platform the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans would disappear and would be lumped into a
department of sustainable development with several other
departments. The voice for the fisheries at the cabinet table
would disappear along with it. That is the kind of background
the individual comes from.
The current minister has been speaking out at cabinet, standing
up for fisheries issues across the country and around the world.
The minister has made it very clear that the objective of the
Government of Canada is the conservation and protection of
Canada's fisheries resource and the achievement of a sustainable
fishery and fishing industry, building a future for our resources
and our people.
We know the outlook for the next two years will prove to be very
challenging but we are moving forward.
This will involve several role changes for stakeholders for the
delivery and funding of programs. Contrary to what the leader of
the fifth party states, we have identified several priorities to
advance industry and program renewal. One such area is fisheries
management itself.
1100
We are moving forward on the implementation for the renewal of
the fishing industry, the necessary reform of the government in
Canada's fisheries management programs and achieving fundamental
changes in relationships with fisheries and other client groups.
We are rapidly moving ahead with the establishment of integrated
fisheries management plans for all the major and most sensitive
fisheries and eventually extending this approach to all fishers.
We are developing with stakeholders in individual fisheries
additional co-operative management arrangements which will form
the basis for future partnering agreements. We are establishing
other institutional mechanisms which will establish arm's length
licence sanction tribunals for the decriminalization of many
fisher violations and allow greater responsibility in
allocation and management of decision making.
Another priority is Atlantic reform. On the domestic front
industry restructuring has been initiated to build a fishery that
is ecologically sustainable and commercially viable. The long
term strategy for change is based on establishing a balance
between resource supply and industry capacity, including a
smaller more self-reliant industry, a core of professional full
time fishers, controlled access to the resource and a
co-operative management approach between government and industry
for management of the fisheries resource.
We are also moving forward in Pacific reform, another area that
the leader of the fifth party mentioned. Like the Atlantic,
Pacific stock conservation is a growing public concern.
Allocation conflict prevails and the economic viability of the
salmon fishery has been jeopardized by cyclical declines in
abundance, by low market prices and high fishing costs.
Following much consultation and independent review,
recommendations have been produced on intersectoral salmon
allocations involving the commercial, recreational and aboriginal
sectors. Decisions on these recommendations will be required and
are likely to be contentious.
Reforms designed to reduce capacity and participation and
promote economic and ecological sustainability have been
implemented. However, we recognize that these changes have been
and will continue to be controversial. Staying the course on
industry reform will be a continuing challenge but the minister
and this government are certainly up to that challenge, as we
have already shown.
The recently signed Canada-B.C. fisheries agreement on federal
and provincial roles and responsibilities in the management of
the west coast salmon fishery has major implications on the way
the government of Canada will carry out its salmon conservation
and fisheries management mandate in the future.
The challenge will be to find ways to cultivate constructive
provincial involvement in departmental programs and processes
through such institutional mechanisms as the new council of
ministers, the Pacific fisheries resource conservation council,
which will be in place for 1998, the Pacific stock assessment
review committee and the proposed licensing and allocations
board.
Arctic fisheries are also a priority of this government. These
fisheries play an integral role in the lives of northern
Canadians. Harvesting of fish and marine mammals provides a
considerable portion of the food requirements and one of the few
sources of income and employment in northern communities.
Pressure on Arctic fishery resources is increasing because of
rapid human population growth and because protein,
self-sufficiency and fishery development especially off Baffin
Island are priorities of aboriginal groups and the territorial
government. The focus of fishery management will continue to be
on conservation for sustainable utilization through close
co-operation with the legislative co-management boards.
1105
Jointly, the government of Canada and the boards will establish
fishery co-operative management plans and will fulfill their
responsibilities under these plans. The negotiation and expected
settlement of additional land claims would produce the formation
of other co-operative management boards with fisheries management
responsibilities.
There is a growing global concern about the health of oceans and
the sustainability of the world's fishery stocks. Governments
around the world are being increasingly challenged to demonstrate
that their fisheries, as well as those managed through
international arrangements, are environmentally sustainable.
Working in partnership with the fishing industries we will move
forward in those areas of creating international agreements to
benefit Canada and the fisheries resource around the world. We
are showing leadership in dealing with difficult choices.
I would like to propose an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word “establish”
and by substituting therefor the words “continue the
implementation of”.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I get
tired when I am in the House of Commons and listen to members
turning around and always talking about the past.
We have people who are hurting today. I cannot help what
happened in the past. I want to change things around today for
the future.
I had fishermen in my area come in to see me on Monday this
week. One man sat there with tears in his eyes. He had his wife
with him. They said: “We were loosing everything. We have lost
our home and we are loosing the boat. We have no way to earn our
living anymore”.
I want to say to the hon. member from P.E.I. that I realize that
he has fishermen in P.E.I. as well, but we want to know why the
playing field is not equal. The people in my area, district 36,
earn only $17,000. That is it. Yet in district 35 they earn
$50,000 because they have a longer period of time for lobster
fishing. The people in the other districts have longer periods.
All they are asking is that DFO please treat them fairly. Will
it please look at it, change it around? They want their dignity.
I am sure that the hon. member from P.E.I. wants them to have
their dignity as well.
I am so tired that every time it gets up in the House the
opposition talks of the past. Let us deal with the present and
the future.
I ask my hon. friend from P.E.I. will he help us with DFO to
straighten this matter out.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I
mentioned the past is so we do not continue to make those
mistakes.
We recognize there is an over harvesting capacity. We have to
reduce that capacity. The government is trying not to do what
was done in the past, which was to ignore the scientific advice,
continue harvesting and let people believe the resources were
endless and abundant. We know they are not.
1110
The leader of the fifth party stood up and condemned the TAGS
program. One reason the Atlantic groundfish strategy was put in
place was to deal with the families we knew would be in crisis.
The Reform Party will talk about the money that went into TAGS
being a waste of money. It was no such thing. Yes, it may have
been spent better and yes, we may have been able to achieve
better progress in terms of reducing the harvesting ability.
However, the fact is it helped people and communities to live and
put bread on the table.
We have learned from the auditor general's report and we have
seen some of the errors that are being made and we are moving
forward with plans for the future in terms of retaining this
resource for future communities and people.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am concerned about the amendment of continued
planning. I will explain the kind of continued planning we have
had, at least in my region where there are fishermen.
All connections have been cut off to the wharfs and fishermen
are stuck paying for it, the same fishermen seeing cuts
everywhere. Licences have been increased by 1000% which again is
an attack on fishermen. Conservation does not exist when it
comes to fishing. Fishermen are now speaking on lobster because
the cod is gone. They are now speaking out about the
conservation of lobster, but no one is listening. There are no
consultations. The EI program is attacking the fishermen. If this
is called continued planning, I would not want them to admit they
were planning something.
How can they explain cutting off all funds to the wharfs, some
of which are closing because people cannot afford them? There is
only so much volunteer work that can be done. People have no
money to give. How are they going to make sure that the lobster
will still be there? People in Ottawa love to eat lobster, but
the way our seasonal industry is being attacked they will not be
there in five years.
Could the member please explain to me how they are going to make
sure our fishing industry will survive all this.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine the
member saying there is no consultation.
The fisheries resource conservation council and the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans through its personnel hold all kinds of
consultations with people in fishing communities. We are taking
those recommendations of the fisheries resource conservation
council seriously. We are looking at the stocks and trying to
move forward in a way which will conserve and build those stocks
so that they are sustainable in the future for the fishers and
the fishing communities. We are working in partnership with
fishermen for the future.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion of the hon. member
for Sherbrooke.
The member's motion refers to the urgent need for action to
address the serious problems in Canadian fisheries on the Pacific
and Atlantic coasts. Fishermen on the east coast say they
identified the problems to the government of the day in the early
1980s.
The hon. member from Sherbrooke assumes in his motion that there
are no problems in Canada's third commercial fishery located
inland. I will return to this fishery in a moment, but first let
me make an observation.
In my 50 years of living on the prairies I have seen so many
times occasions when the previous Progressive Conservative
governments and the previous and current Liberal governments
ignored the aspirations and problems of the citizens living in
northwest Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the
Northwest Territories.
There have been many acts, errors and omissions by both these
governments over the years, like the goods and services tax, the
firearms act, the reduction in health care transfer payments, and
I could go on and on.
1115
The point is that once again in dealing with the problems in
Canada's fisheries, the hon. member and leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party, which aspires to become a national party, has
ignored important parts of Canada. The parts of Canada I
previously referred to I would like to name again because some
members in this House seem to forget they are part of Canada
also. They are northwest Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta
and the Northwest Territories.
What do these Canadians have to do with commercial fishing, many
are possibly wondering. Would it surprise anyone in this House
to know that there is a multimillion dollar freshwater fishery in
these areas sometimes referred to by politicians from central
Canada as the hinterlands.
We in the Reform Party recognize that when national problems are
addressed, such as the Canadian fishery, we should always
consider all of the problems along with solutions for all of the
Canadian people affected. This freshwater fishery has problems
and it is just as important that they are addressed along with
those on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
I would like to point out to members of this House and to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he is responsible for the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which has its headquarters
in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It also has its fish plant located there.
It is from these facilities that tens of millions of dollars of
fish products are shipped across Canada and exported to places
like Europe and the U.S.A.
I will get to the problems in this fishery in a moment, however
due to the apparent lack of knowledge or lack of concern by the
hon. member for Sherbrooke and possibly others in the House, I
feel it necessary to describe this fishery, the people, the
employment it creates and the hardships that will ensue if our
problems are not dealt with as part of an overall solution to the
problems identified in the motion.
The commercial fishermen who sell their fish through the FFMC
include both aboriginal and non-aboriginal men and women. To
many of the aboriginal fishermen there is little or no
alternative to fishing as a way to be self-sustaining
contributors to Canadian society. Would the government or the
leader of the Progressive Conservatives have them go on welfare
because there is no employment as a result of failing to deal
with problems in the FFMC? For those with the possibility of
other employment, why should they lose their business and way of
life just because their problems are not being addressed?
I would now like to discuss the problems. I assure members I
will relate how the fishermen's problems in the FFMC district are
caused by the Liberal government and by motions that if supported
by this House do not take into account the Canadian national
fishery big picture.
The FFMC fishermen have problems with high water levels in many
of our lakes and spawning streams reducing the number of fish.
High input costs for items like fuel, boats, electronics,
marketing and processing the catch are of great concern. There
are concerns with high taxes, high employment insurance premiums,
reduced employment insurance benefits and many others.
One could argue that some of the problems are the responsibility
of the provinces, such as in Manitoba where our major lake water
levels are subject to control by Manitoba Hydro for
hydroelectricity production.
The major threat to the inland fishery at this time involves the
blatant, outrageous, pork-barrelling patronage appointment of all
time in Manitoba. I refer to the announcement of the hon.
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on October 16, 1997 that
ex-Liberal member of Parliament Ron Fewchuk has been appointed
president of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation effective
November 28, 1997.
We all remember that Ron Fewchuk was elected in 1993 and when
the 1997 election was imminent, he declined to contest the
Liberal nomination. The major portion of his old riding was
Selkirk—Interlake where Jon Gerrard ran unsuccessfully. What did
it take to get him not to run? I think we all know now.
This patronage appointment will have an immense negative impact
on the profitability of the FFMC because, in essence, the FFMC
will now be paying two president equivalent salaries, one to the
former president, Thomas Dunn who I understand is staying on at
his president's salary, and one to the new president.
The salary range is from $88,000 to $103,000. Remember that the
FFMC gets no government moneys. Therefore, as the actions of
this government drive up FFMC administrative costs, the lowly
fishermen will make less if any profit.
1120
Mr. Dunn, an accountant and FFMC president for many years, saved
the corporation from bankruptcy and was an outstanding president.
Why did Mr. Fewchuk have to be appointed? Sadly the only
conclusion I can come to, and I am sure a majority of Canadians
across this great country will do likewise, is Liberal patronage.
I have spoken to members of the elected board of the FFMC and to
fishermen, all of whom oppose Fewchuk's appointment because they
have no faith in his capabilities to run the day to day operation
that management of the FFMC requires. This kind of administration
and policy making is a big reason why there are few fish on the
east coast and the B.C. and FFMC fisheries are under financial
threat.
In conclusion, the major problem in the Canadian fisheries
today, as it has been under successive Liberal governments, is
the total ineptness of the ministers of fisheries and oceans. We
must take action now to ensure the survival of the remaining
fisheries and restore the east coast fishery.
The minister can take an important first step by rescinding the
appointment of Ron Fewchuk and restore Mr. Dunn to the
presidency.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “continue
the implementation of” and substituting the following therefor:
“implement”.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has very great reservations
about the admissibility of this amendment. It appears that the
subamendment appears to change the intent of the amendment back
to what the motion originally stated. Accordingly, since it
appears to be contrary to what the amendment intended to do, I
must rule the subamendment out of order.
The hon. member for Elk Island may have a submission on the
point before I make a final ruling and I will hear him.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
point of distress to us that when a member of the opposition puts
forward a motion of the day, as the Conservatives have done
today, the government can hijack the purpose of that motion that
we are debating by basically negating it. We have had such
absurd cases where the government has actually moved an amendment
as to say “delete all the words after the word `that' and
substitute therefor”.
According to Beauchesne's citation 567, “the object of an
amendment”—and this would certainly apply to a
subamendment—“may be either to modify a question in such a way
as to increase its acceptability—to the House”. I am just
citing parts of it. What we are doing here is we are talking
about increasing the acceptability of this particular motion to
the House, the government's amendment having hijacked the thing.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. member is
saying, but I think the point is that when the government or any
member moves an amendment to a motion, its admissibility is
determined on the basis of whether it is acceptable as an
amendment to the motion.
1125
What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that the subamendment
negates the original amendment's intent, which was to change the
first motion. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member may
disagree with the amendment. I do not think that is the point in
issue. The question is can a subamendment change an amendment by
in effect negating the amendment. I suggest that it cannot.
Therefore, I must rule it out of order.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before you make your final ruling, may I ask you, sir,
if the intent of the amendment to the amendment is any different
than that of the amendment to the original motion, it does change
the character of the motion, but that was also the position of
the government in the amendment which it brought to the original
motion.
I would ask you to consider that, sir.
The Deputy Speaker: With great respect, I have
considered the matter. My recollection is that the original
motion said that the government should establish something and
the amendment said that it should continue the implementation of
something. That is a change from the original motion. It is a
change which in the Chair's view is in order because any member
is entitled to move an amendment that changes what is alleged to
be a statement of fact in the first motion and turn it into
something else. It did that.
The subamendment sought to move that back in effect to the
original position. That is what is out of order. That is what I
am ruling out of order. I think we should move on.
There may be questions or comments on the speech of the hon.
member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member is rising on the
same point of order, I have heard him once and I have heard the
hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin. I am not disposed to hear
more argument on this point. If it is a different point I will
hear him.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly additional and
relevant information and it was just pointed out to me.
Citation 923 deals specifically with allotted days. Citation
923(3) states:
The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the
allotted day and ought not to be interfered with except on the
clearest and most certain procedural grounds.
That is why we are seeking to undo what the government has done
in violation of this principle of Beauchesne.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear the hon. member for Elk
Island. I want to stress to him that in making a ruling in
respect of an amendment or subamendment, the Chair is bound to
have regard to what has previously transpired.
When an amendment is moved, the amendment must be to the main
motion. It is constrained. It can only seek to amend the main
motion. A subamendment must amend only the amendment. That fact
restricts the scope for amendment on a subamendment because it
must follow in as part of the amendment itself.
In this case the subamendment is negating the amendment. The
amendment is not negating the main motion. Accordingly—
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
The Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for interpretation by
hon. members. As I say, I think the amendment is in order and I
think the subamendment in this particular case with these words
is not and I so rule.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island
North.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question for my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake
deals with freshwater marketing.
Being from that part of the country, I know that the appointment
which has been announced and has not yet been tabled in the House
has created great consternation among many of the people involved
in the fishery. I wonder if the member would like to elaborate
somewhat on some of the real concerns which have been expressed
by the people and how widespread those concerns are about this
appointment.
1130
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
Problems have arisen out of this appointment. I refer to a
comment made by the hon. member for Malpeque who stated that
bread and butter on the table was the important part for
fishermen. Mr. Fewchuk will be receiving a president's salary.
Mr. Dunn will not work for less than the salary he was already
receiving, no no doubt in the hundred thousand dollar range. We
will have the FFMC, an unsubsidized corporation, paying two
salaries out of the profits of fishermen on the lake.
These fishermen are not wealthy by any means. Native fishermen
on the lake have no alternative employment. The problems we are
talking about transfer to their families. It is actually a
matter of sustenance and living an acceptable lifestyle.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there are also political
levels and other jurisdictions than fishermen that are expressing
great concern over the appointment.
I am not sure how free the hon. member is to elaborate on this
point, but we do not have the full breadth of concern about the
issue or what a terrible precedent it sets.
Mr. Lee Morrison: A precedent in this government?
Mr. John Duncan: It is only a precedent for the FFMC. We
have certainly seen it in most other aspects of patronage
emanating from this administration.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the FFMC board is
compromised of an appointed president and four appointed members
by the government, along with five elected members by fishermen.
These elected members and fishermen in the boats are coming to me
expressing concern about the appointment and the qualifications
of the appointee.
Problems have been brought to the attention of the provincial
government of Manitoba. I understand one of its minister has
been in contact with the federal fisheries minister. I have not
spoken to the provincial minister, but it is my understanding
that he too is expressing concern about the appointment and the
negative impact it will have on the management of the
corporation.
We could end up in a situation with two presidents in effect
arguing with each other. Being a smaller fishery there is not
the money for the kind of waste that will be created by the
appointment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the opposition
motion on the lamentable failure of the federal groundfish strategy.
I take the liberty of pointing out that this is nothing new for me.
A few years ago I wrote a document on the fact that eastern Quebec was
the laboratory for the failure of federalism and the symbol of the
results of the inefficient intervention of the federal government and
other levels of government.
I feel today that I am living a similar nightmare, since now all of the
Atlantic provinces and the entire eastern region of Quebec and the North
Shore are in the same situation.
The motion asks us to “recognize the urgent need for action to
address the serious problems in Canadian fisheries” and also criticizes
the lack of a national policy. I think everyone is quite aware of this,
and the amendment proposed by the Liberal majority is totally
unacceptable. They want us to say that the government will maintain the
same approach.
1135
This reminds me of the time when Réal Caouette, the Créditiste
leader, said that we were on the edge of a precipice and that the
Créditistes would move us forward. The Liberals have much the same
attitude today. The auditor general himself and not the opposition said
that the Atlantic groundfish strategy was poorly designed and poorly
managed.
The auditor general added that there had been a kerfuffle between
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Human
Resources Development, a lack of rigour on the part of the departments
involved and a poor estimate of most of the parameters used in
developing the program.
In other words, the government struck out on all fronts.
It did not properly assess the number of people that would be covered by
the plan and then it did not ensure compliance with the criteria that
were set. A lot of clarification is needed.
The auditor general was doing his job when he said that the program
that had been defined had not been followed. Instead of acknowledging
this, the Liberals accused the auditor general of being inhuman, because
the program had provided subsistence for the people of the region.
The problem is that the government is not there to provide a
subsistence living for people, but to ensure that economic development
allows the regions to become self-sufficient. When a program that
changes and diversifies regional economies is set up, it must be
followed through and the desired results obtained.
If the program became a means of survival, it is not the fault of
the communities in Atlantic Canada, eastern Quebec or Quebec's North
Shore region. It is the government's fault. The auditor general is
condemning the fact that the program was not properly managed and does
not achieve the desired results.
After several years of involvement in a critical sector for which
it is responsible under the Constitution, the federal government has
failed miserably. All that is left is what I saw in Gander,
Newfoundland, when the human resources development committee travelled
to that region.
I expected to find in employment centres documentation on how to
develop our economy or how to exploit our local assets. I did not see
any of that.
What I found in the display stand of the employment centre was a nice
prospectus explaining how to find a job in western Canada. This, I
think, accurately illustrates the current problem in Canada. The
government has been using a strategy whereby people are expected to go
where the jobs are, instead of promoting local opportunities.
It should be noted that at the end of the 19th century and at the
beginning of the 20th century, eastern Canada, and particularly the
maritimes, was totally self-sufficient from an economic point of view.
The region was then producing what it needed, and was playing an active
role in North America's economy. However, the federal government,
particularly during the Trudeau era, came up with a terrible deal for
the country: to concentrate production and processing activities in
Ontario and give transfer payments to eastern Canada and Quebec.
For 20 years they have been telling us: “Federalism works very
well. We give just as much money to the poorer provinces, and it
comes from the rich provinces”.
What most people, including senior federal officials, have not
understood, is that people do not want subsistence policies. Of
course, they want to survive, be able to eat three meals a day,
have their children attend school, but what they want most of all
is programs that will make it possible to create strong regional
economies.
What the auditor general is telling us is that, in order to
improve matters in the fishery, steps should have been taken to
reduce the number of people involved in this sector and to assign
them to other functions, so as to diversify regional
entrepreneurship. Today we are looking at a terrible failure.
I hope that both government members and the public will
understand the difference in the present situation. There is no
point in criticizing the auditor general for having done his job.
There is no point in blaming local communities and citizens who are
trying to survive. What we must do in the present situation is ask
ourselves whether the federal government handled the fisheries
issue properly.
1140
I think that the answer is a resounding “no” on every count.
I would go so far as to say that one of the fundamental reasons for
this state of affairs is that, for some time now, the federal
government has managed the fisheries from Ottawa, rather than from
the regions by means of a truly decentralized approach directed at
the regions' individual needs.
For eastern Quebec, the Gaspé, the North Shore, and the
Magdalen Islands, fishing is very important. It represents a
relative percentage of the Quebec economy as a whole, but for the
regions, it is very important.
What is required is a targeted approach, unlike the approach that
might work for the other Atlantic provinces or the western
provinces.
The federal government has never managed to achieve this
degree of fine-tuning. If ever there were to be a so-called
national fisheries strategy in Canada, the first component would
have to be complete decentralization to the provinces, who want to
assume responsibility for this sector in order to avoid results
like those we are now seeing.
Three years ago, people noticed that there were no longer any
fish in the Atlantic. Since then, the government has told fishers
they should find something else to do and promote entrepreneurship.
But three years have gone by and nothing has been done. There is
no evidence today that the result will be a transformation of
regional economies. The only result we see is that the subsistence
program will have to be extended. People cannot be allowed to
starve to death.
We will, however, also have to make sure that things are back under
control.
We are faced with an example very much like what happened in
the 1980s, which led to a ghastly deficit. Today, in the fisheries
sector we are faced with the same failure.
I believe it is important for the House to understand clearly
that, all partisan politics aside, there are some interesting
elements in the motion, statements which must be taken into
consideration, but what is the most important is that the amendment
proposed by the Liberals must absolutely not be accepted.
The Liberals are asking us to continue along the same path,
while the auditor general has just said that the entire strategy
was badly thought out and badly administered. They tell us that
the financial support ought to represent 36% of the budget over
five years, while the auditor general indicates that it will
represent close to 76%.
Do you think their evaluation was wrong?
The last federal election sent a message. Some regions of
Canada sent a clear message to the government. I believe it ought
to assume the responsible attitude of accepting major changes in
its approach, and particularly ought to give local communities the
necessary tools for development instead of sticking to the
principle of providing mere subsistence to regions that may
experience regional economic development problems. They must be
given all of the tools they need to develop, instead.
The Liberal government cannot use the Conservative government
as an excuse.
They have been in power for three and a half years, soon coming up
to four, and I believe they must be judged severely. The
population of the Atlantic provinces has judged them, and the
government must acknowledge this. The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
is the symbol par excellence of this at the present time.
I hope that the government's amendment will not gain the
support of the Liberal MPs for the maritimes, for if it does they
will be contradicting themselves. They have already done so on
employment insurance reform, and we have seen the results of that
in the last election.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take issue with
some of the remarks of the hon. member. He is trying to leave
the impression that the federal government believe subsistence is
sufficient for fishing communities in the province he comes from.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us look at the number of programs that he talked about in
terms of the Atlantic groundfish strategy and the partnership
agreements we are moving forward with.
He sat on the committee in the last parliament where we ensured
there would be employment insurance for communities in seasonal
industries to protect the livelihoods of those people in the off
seasons.
So we are moving forward.
1145
The member basically made allegations that we are not taking the
region into consideration. The minister of fisheries held a
bilateral meeting with his Quebec counterpart to discuss a number
of issues of concern to Quebec on October 5 and 6.
At that meeting there was an agreement on the importance of
quickly passing a modernized fisheries act which will deal with
these fishers and communities that are affected. There was an
agreement on the need for the federal minister to consult with
provincial and territorial colleagues prior to the introduction
of the legislation. That will happen.
There was an agreement to reconvene the meeting of ministers in
six months time to review progress. There was also agreement with
the Quebec minister to support the need for an ocean strategy.
There is all kinds of discussion. It shows that federalism is
working and that we have a strong national government in
consultation with the various provincial ministers, recognizing
the concerns of the regions and the concerns of communities and
coming up with the appropriate policies to address them. We are
on track for the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the question of my
colleague opposite and I will let the people judge.
He says we are accusing the government of failing to allow local
communities to develop. I would remind him of certain things, however.
In Quebec alone, the situation affects 4,000 people. Problems with
funding shortened the program by a year so the $1.9 billion budget would
not be exceeded. So, because money has not been spent in the right
place, it will be available for less time. It was used for subsistence,
but regional economies were not allowed to develop.
Then a serious error was made. The Canada manpower adjustment
program was cut by $190 million.
It was decided that there was not enough money for it and that the money
would be given to people daily in order to keep them alive. In the case
of young men and women who completed two or three years of high school
and signed up for fishing or took related courses, it was decided that
they would not complete their training, that they would not be given any
option and that their entrepreneurial skills would not be developed.
This is why people find that the Liberals' amendment proposing to
continue this policy is not a very good idea. The Liberals should at
least acknowledge that errors were made and that significant corrections
are necessary. However, the amendment proposed is to carry on as before.
This means that they will continue to spend money on people's
subsistence, that regional economies will not be developed and that
things will go unchanged.
The licence retirement program was even cut to $30 million instead
of $135 million. Under the policy, $135 million had been set aside to
retire licences so that people could find other work. This amount was
reduced to $30 million, and now nobody wants to give up their licence.
A person keeps it, it is not usable and they subsist off the plan. This
strikes me as a poor show.
For all these reasons, therefore, I am asking people to judge
whether it has been effective, and if it is relevant, as the government
is saying, to continue the policy as it stands. I think the answer is
right there for all to see. A change in direction is absolutely vital.
Quebec had an administrative agreement with the federal government
from 1922 and to sometime in the 1980s. This agreement provided for
reasonable management. A certain fishing practice had been developed so
that, for example, costal fishers with small boats would have a big
enough catch.
The federal government cancelled the agreement with the provincial
government, and I close on this point, at the very time it was
discovered that the fish had disappeared. That fact is very clear. The
federal government's action in recent years has been totally
ineffective, and Parliament should never support this amendment, which
would just have things go on as before.
1150
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the
Conservative motion. When I saw the motion from the leader of
the Conservative Party I was very impressed.
It is obvious that my role in Parliament to work with other
political parties to come up with political solutions to grave
problems is working. I commend the leader of the Conservative
Party and his caucus for the motion.
At the same time it is reprehensible that the Liberal government
would try to amend the motion to satisfy its own needs. It is
simply scandalous that it would try to do that.
I must say to the Conservative Party that I only wish that when
its leader was in government for the nine years it had developed
some kind of national policy back then. We might not be in the
state we are in today. That is old history.
We have a new government that has been in power for over four
years. I believe that it has to answer to the 20,000 fishers and
their families in Atlantic Canada.
I wish the motion had also included not only the west coast but
the Arctic and the inland fisheries as well. These are serious
problems which we have and they intend to be ignored in the
proper debate.
We support the national fisheries policy as long as the policy
recognizes that harvesting the resource can only be sustainable
through the use of small boat inshore fishers and not through the
corporate trollers, and as long as there is an independent
judicial inquiry into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
its policies and practices in Atlantic Canada.
The reason I have been so adamant in calling for a judicial
inquiry is that science has been literally ignored. There is
evidence galore throughout history, at least since 1983 that I am
aware of, that science has been ignored, ripped up and altered to
satisfy the needs of the government of the day. Only through a
judicial inquiry will the scientists from the Atlantic and west
coasts be allowed to speak freely without the fear of job
retribution or so-called gag orders which they are under right
now.
I do not believe that the current management of the DFO has the
intelligence and capability of instituting a national policy
unless we have a judicial inquiry to find out exactly where
things went wrong. I do not believe, according to the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, that it would a waste of time and money.
I firmly believe that a judicial inquiry would go a long way in
solving the problems of the current fisheries crisis.
Regarding the auditor general's report. He went a long way on
the fiscal side of the TAGS program but he unfortunately left out
the humane aspects of it. This is most unfortunate.
I look at Newfoundland. When it joined Confederation in 1949,
unknown to it it also transferred its entire responsibility of
the fishing industry, which survived well over 400 years, to the
government of the day. In less than 50 years it is completely
destroyed. This is completely unacceptable to the people in
Newfoundland as well as the rest of Atlantic Canada.
It is the typical thing. This is why the west coast is so upset
now. We have central Canadian views being forced on those in the
west and those in the east. It simply does not work anymore.
What needs to happen is complete consultation with the people
within the industry; not just select groups that the government
of the day chooses to speak to, but the people who work the
resource in the small communities throughout Atlantic Canada and
the west coast.
This is why I have constantly asked for the inquiry. I would
hope that in my constant asking for it more groups will join and
ask for it as well.
A report commissioned by the fisheries department director of
Newfoundland stated that department scientists were routinely
silenced while ill informed spokespersons conveyed false
information to the public by inflating stock estimates to defend
high quotas and by emphasizing the role of seals and cold water
in the cod collapse instead of overfishing.
I could give example after example of what has been going on
with these people. What has happened now is that 35,000 Atlantic
Canadians are literally out of work and on an income support
program. I find it reprehensible that the government would
promise in 1994 the TAGS program for five years; not four but
five. There are many thousands of people who made their
financial commitments based on the fact that the TAGS program
would run out in May of 1999, not May of 1998.
In question period and in other areas I have been given the
answer that the government has consulted people within the
industry to say “yes, we are the ones who consulted the cabinet
to make the decision to cut the program from five to four
years”.
1155
I can hardly stand in this House of Commons and honestly believe
that the government would go to fishers in Atlantic Canada and
say “would you like your income support dropped off by a year?”
and getting an overwhelming yes to that response. I find it very
difficult if that happens.
Again, an inquiry of that nature would get down to the truth, to
exactly what happened and who cut that program off. I am of the
firm belief that the finance department made that decision, not
the fishers of Atlantic Canada and of Quebec.
We go on and on with this. It gets almost to the sound of a
broken record. This government does not have the capability of
instituting a national policy on its own. It must institute a
national policy with comprehensive consultation with not only the
fishing groups but other political parties as well. Only then
will we have the solutions to a long term sustainable fishery.
I honestly believe that there are many thousands of people
fishing in the industry who can still be fishing 10 years from
now if we just come up with a comprehensive plan in order for
them to do it.
As members know, if people go out to the outlying areas of
Canada and speak to the fishermen and fisher women of Atlantic
Canada and the west coast, fishing is in their blood. In most
cases many of these people are under educated in terms of
academics. What they know is fishing.
Here we are in the government, in the House of Commons, saying
to many of them they will no longer be able to have that way of
life. To me it is completely unacceptable to say that to them
because it is not the fault of the fishermen and fisher women of
Atlantic Canada for the collapse of the ground stock. It is
government policy. It is mislead information from the
scientists, overcapacity by the huge trawlers that are out there
now. We have trawlers out there now that are still dumping
by-catch. We still have fish being dumped over the side as we
speak today.
We have Cuban trawlers inside the 200 mile limit fishing our
stock, but we have fishermen and fisher women sitting at home
collecting TAGS program. It is simply unacceptable that we would
do that. I would love the government to be able to respond to
that at a later time, during question period.
One fisherman from the Sambro area who had a grade 5 education
said to me “Peter, it is like this. You can have one fisherman
making $200,000 a year or you can have seven of us making $30,000
a year. Make your choice”.
I think the choice is quite clear, to be able to put as many of
these people back into the fishing industry which they so desire. I
am not saying that every single person will get back into the
fishing industry. Obviously there has to be reallocation of some
of these folks to other areas.
That can be done through an attrition process, through either
retirement of the licences when they reach the ages of 50 or 55,
retiring these people completely so that they can retire with
dignity and with respect, as well as going out of the ITQ
systems, the corporate individual transfer quotas, and move back
to the way it used to be on a community based allocation. I
believe that would be a firm response and a positive method on
the way to go.
I again compliment the leader of the Conservative Party for his
motion. I can assure him that the New Democratic Party caucus
will be supporting him in every way we can.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
certainly nice to see you in the chair. I think this is the
first time I have had the opportunity to speak while you are in
the chair. I want to make a few comments, most of them with regard
to the fishing industry in my riding of Charlotte. Of course, that
is the one I am concerned about.
What really appalls me are the licensing fees and the changes
this government has brought in in the last number of years. There
are lobster fishermen in my riding whose licensing fees have gone
from $17 to $3,000 in a single year.
How could any fisherman in any jurisdiction in any country in
this hemisphere survive those kinds of charges? Nobody can. It
is forcing individual fishermen out of the business.
They have done the same thing with our scallop fishermen. Small
fishermen now are being required in the riding of Charlotte to
put monitors on board.
In some cases it costs up to $350 a day to put a monitor on board
just so matters can be checked. It is like the big eye of
government looking down on a small fishermen who can hardly
afford to put fuel in his boat.
1200
The most discouraging thing is that the laws, the rules and the
regulations for these fishermen are applied differently,
depending on what side of the bay they live on. Some of the
restrictions do not apply to fishermen, for example, that are
lucky enough to live in some parts of Nova Scotia. It is
ridiculous. I have no quarrel with fishermen in Nova Scotia, but
if the government is going to apply a policy to fishermen it
should be applied evenly across the board. The government is
putting fishermen in my riding at a tremendous disadvantage to
people 40 miles across the water. It is absolutely insane.
The same applies to wharves and the reconstruction of wharves.
New Brunswick does not have enough money in the budget, for
goodness sakes, to buy 50 pounds of spikes for the number of
wharves that are in the riding. This is absolutely ridiculous.
We pretend we have a multimillion dollar fishery, and we do, but
how can fishermen survive? The government is actually forcing
fishermen who are making the meagrest of all livings, to take
money out of their back pocket at the end of the day to repair
the very wharves for which the Government of Canada should be
responsible. How in the name of goodness can the fishermen,
under those set of circumstances, survive? The answer is very
clear. They cannot survive under those kinds of circumstances.
That is not the end of it. The fisheries department entered
into agreements with the Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs to bring natives into the fishery, which is fine. We
want to see that happen. However, there is no co-ordination
between the two departments. Neither department knows what is
going on. They have no long term strategy. Again, it is throwing
money at a problem with no vision for the future.
People are at a tremendous disadvantage now because of that lack
of co-ordination. Fishermen in my riding are being sacrificed
because neither of those two departments, fisheries nor Indian
and northern affairs, want to take responsibility for their
actions. We cannot continue. The fisheries in Atlantic Canada
are on the rails and this government wants to simply abdicate its
responsibilities.
This type of motion should be on the floor of the House every
single day for the next year so that Canadians can get the
message that the fisheries are in tough shape. It is time that
the government took responsibility for the very fishermen who it
is supposed to be representing.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, again we can hear the
frustration in the voice of the hon. member from the Conservative
Party.
I would like to advise him that this is the typical divide and
conquer attitude that the current government is displaying with
our fisher people in Atlantic Canada, not only between the
fishers but as well as the First Nation fishers, not only between
New Brunswick but also P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It
is the old divide and conquer with its quota systems that do not
work. It is unfortunate because there is a lot of infighting
among the fisheries. I expressed the same frustration that the
member is speaking about.
This is the last time I will call for this today because I am
being cut off. We have a judicial inquiry into the practices of
DFO. I think we can come to a reasonable solution and solve some
problems in the Atlantic fishery.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I guess there is not enough
time today to talk about this motion and the situation in the
fisheries on the west and east coasts of our country.
This morning I was at the parliamentary committee on fisheries
and oceans listening to three inshore fishermen from Newfoundland
and Labrador. Yesterday I travelled to the riding of Burin—St.
George's to two isolated communities, Burgeo and Ramea where the
fish plants have been closed for approximately five years.
I witnessed firsthand the frustration of the inshore fishermen
this morning and of the people in those communities yesterday,
whose futures are so uncertain.
1205
Out migration is a terrible problem. The youngest and brightest
people who could be the most productive members of those
communities are leaving. People do not know if they will be able
to keep the very social fabric of those communities together.
Town councils are trying to run the municipalities with a
shrinking tax base. They do not know if they will be able to
provide the services. On and on the problem goes throughout
Atlantic Canada.
A parallel crisis is looming on the west coast with the Pacific
salmon situation. If government does not react very quickly it
will have an identical situation on the west coast to what is now
being experienced on the east coast. Somehow government likes to
pretend things are going well, that it is making the right
decisions. There is no doubt in this case that it is the great
pretender.
A lot of people on the west coast of the country have already
experienced bankruptcy or are about to experience bankruptcy
because they cannot make a living from where they traditionally
fish. The Mifflin plan and other federal Liberal government
plans have not worked in British Columbia.
For the last four years the government has failed to enter into
a fish plan, agreement or arrangement with the U.S. There is
talk now that the U.S. may even abandon the treaty. What will
that do to salmon stocks on the west coast? They will be
obliterated, wiped out. Yet the government seems to think
everything is moving along okay, it has lots of time and the real
enemies in this situation are British Columbians and Premier Glen
Clark.
I say to this government and to the parliamentary secretary who
sits there listening and taking his notes that they should
pressure the minister of fisheries, pressure the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, pressure the Prime Minister to recognize this
very serious crisis on the west coast before the government finds
itself in the same situation we have with Atlantic Canada. That
is what I ask of the government.
These people are now starting to talk about the need for some
kind of compensation and financial relief because they are losing
their enterprises, because they cannot feed their families,
because they are about to lose their homes. It is just not good
enough that this sort of situation is allowed.
Solutions were suggested to the former minister of fisheries and
to the current minister of fisheries who is from British
Columbia. Changes need to be made to the area licensing
management plan off British Columbia. It is too restrictive.
Fishers cannot make a living under that system. Why does
government not look at the suggestions that have been made? Why
does it not consider these suggestions? Why is it so stubborn?
The Liberals get so inwardly drawn and are so stubborn about
issues that they will not listen to the people concerned, the
real people affected. The real people who understand the
situation better than anyone else in this country and in this
government are the fishers on the west and east coasts. These
people know best. These people have made their livings for 20 or
30 years from those fisheries.
The government pretends it knows best. It completely ignores
the fishers. No wonder the people in British Columbia say that
the minister of fisheries is more interested in the steelhead
than he is in the fishermen. Maybe it is because he has a steel
head. Maybe it is because he is that hardheaded they compare him
to a steelhead. I do not know, but something has to happen and
happen fast.
We all know the situation on the east coast. Our east coast is
in crisis. It is not only those people who have been TAGS
recipients. I want to say this today because I feel so strongly
about it. What we are trying to deal with in Atlantic Canada is
not just for TAGS recipients but for the entire economy of
Atlantic Canada. It is for every retail business in Atlantic
Canada, for every wholesale business in Atlantic Canada, for
every car salesman, every clothing salesperson.
If something is not done in Atlantic Canada after May 1998,
there will be a lot more out migration, many more jobs lost. That
will happen if the government takes those millions of dollars out
of Atlantic Canada.
What choice is there? The government is saying to them “Get out
or go on welfare”. That is the question the government has to
answer.
1210
It was interesting to listen to members of the fisheries and
oceans committee this morning, but it was more interesting to
listen to the fisher people who were there. They are trying to
stay and live in their communities in Atlantic Canada. They had
good suggestions to make. They know what has caused the problems
and they want to be part of the solution.
They were not listened to when they suggested for years that our
fish stocks were going down the tube. Now that there is some
regeneration of those fish stocks in certain areas, those same
fisher people are being ignored and neglected again.
Those fisher people know better than the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans. They know better than the officials in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They know the real science.
Why is the government not listening to them? Because they
believe there is a scheme to get rid of them; to get them out.
I would like to direct a comment to members of the Reform Party.
They have to make up their minds whether they are an ally to
Atlantic Canada or an enemy. Every second day they change their
message. They have to make up their minds. Do they believe
there is a future for Atlantic Canada or do they believe that
Canada should end at Ontario and go no farther east? That is the
choice they have to make.
As an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, I find some of the
statements which these people make revolting. They do not
understand the issues of Atlantic Canada. How can they
understand the issues of Atlantic Canada any more than I can
understand the issues of the west?
Having said that, I feel today that I understand the problems
and the issues in the Pacific salmon fishery better than they do.
That is because I am sincerely interested in it. I bring passion
to the issue. I am not here for the sake of talking about this
issue, I want to talk about this issue.
I grew up with this issue. I have family in the industry. I
have friends in the industry. I worked in the industry to help
put myself through school. It gets annoying when people who have
no feeling for or understanding of Atlantic Canada make
statements and try to influence the government of the day as to
what it should do. They try to influence the government as if
they know what the solutions are for Atlantic Canada. They do
not have a clue what the solutions are for Atlantic Canada. They
really do not.
I am sorry I have to stand here today to say this, but I could
not live with myself if I did not say exactly what I am saying to
them. I hope that they come around and realize that this country
is diverse and different. We need special attention in Atlantic
Canada, not because of a problem which we created, but because of
mismanagement by successive governments.
I say to Reform members that if someone in the Progressive
Conservative governments of the past made a mistake, so be it.
It was a mistake. It was wrong. Just as it is a mistake and is
wrong today. Let us rise above that. We could live in the past
forever. It is what will happen in Atlantic Canada after next
May that I am worried about.
Madam Speaker, I guess I have to sit down.
An hon. member: No, you don't. You are sharing your time
with me, so if you want to continue—
Mr. Bill Matthews: Is that all right, Madam Speaker?
An hon. member: We can go for 20 minutes, can't we?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If the House agrees,
I have no problem with it. Are we in agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jim Abbott: No.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Let the man speak.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, in the normal course the
member can speak for the full 20 members, but he is splitting his
time. But if they are not splitting their time and they want to
somehow reconfigure their speeches to 20 minutes from 10, that
would certainly meet with our approval.
1215
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is exactly what
the hon. member has been requesting so we shall proceed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for
their concurrence. Now I have forgotten where I was. I know
where I am, but I have forgotten where I was.
An hon. member: You are here in Ottawa.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, I say to the hon. member from the
Reform Party, I am here in Ottawa. But my life is not dictated
to by Ottawa, I say to him and others. My life is dictated to by
the people I was sent here to represent and they are in Atlantic
Canada.
If there was a legitimate need in the west which there is in
British Columbia, I can say to members I will stand here,
highlight it and support it. I will support the people of
British Columbia because there is an identified problem.
I only ask that those immediately to my left would recognize and
identify the legitimate problem in the east that was not created
by the people in the east. It was created by people who sat here
in successive governments—
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: From the west?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, and people from the west who
happened to be in the cabinet who did not know a fish from that
mace—
Mr. Jim Abbott: How about John Crosbie, did he know
anything?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes he did and he still knows a lot.
John Crosbie knows more than the whole 60 of them put together
not only about fish but about anything else I say to hon.
members.
There is one thing I can stand in this House and say about John
Crosbie. I am not shy about defending John Crosbie. John
Crosbie would not expect me to stand here today and say that
everything he did was right. John Crosbie was always a man who
if he made a mistake he admitted it. The first clue to success
and the first way to be successful is to recognize when one is
wrong.
I guess today we are asking the government to recognize that
there are things that have been done wrong over the years which
are really impacting upon our people today. And TAGS is a part
of it.
Having said that, TAGS was necessary. If it was not for TAGS
the Reform wish of Atlantic Canada disappearing may have already
been realized. I say that quite sincerely. It may have already
been over but the question is now what will come after TAGS. We
are hearing many suggestions. We are preoccupied with it these
days in Atlantic Canada. Many people there have very good
suggestions.
When Mr. Harrigan and others go around this country I hope they
talk to the people who are really involved in the industry, the
people who have had to try to stay alive for the last four or
five years on a meagre income. There is a perception that has
been portrayed throughout this country by certain groups that
this has been a total waste and this dependence has to end. I am
sure people to my right know who I am talking about.
These people have been only kept alive. They have not been able
to live in mansions. They have not been able to drive new cars.
They have not been able to pay for their children's tuition for
post-secondary education. They have only been kept alive.
What was wrong is that successive governments of Canada
mismanaged the fishery to a degree that those people could no
longer earn a living from that resource, a common resource, a
people's resource. What was wrong with the government
recognizing its mistakes and the problem it has created?
What is wrong now when we ask as a party and other parties in
this House ask for solutions to the problem and to help those
people in Atlantic Canada after May 1998? We must not forget
that this program was designed to continue to May 1999. The
federal government has cut a year off that program.
Why has there been a year cut off the program? Because there
were 52% more take up on the income support component than was
anticipated. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to think about that. How
could anyone underestimate by 52% the take up on income support
of a program that followed NCARP, the previous program? All the
government had to do was transfer the files from NCARP to TAGS,
from DFO to HRD but can you imagine that they underestimated the
income support take up by 52%.
So people wonder why I am here today and why I am so frustrated
and why I behave and speak the way I do. I want members to
listen to this. It is because my worst fear is that after NCARP
and TAGS it is most conceivable that if there is something after
TAGS, we could even make it worse.
1220
There should be no lessons left to be learned about TAGS. We
should already know the answers, we should know what will follow.
There are certain components that are going to be compulsory.
There is going to have to be early retirement. There is going to
have to be effective licence buy-out if we are going to reduce
the harvesting capacity.
I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this time not to
just buy the licence out from the fisher person and pay him the
$100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 and allow his boat and gear to
remain fishing. If we are really sincere about reducing
harvesting capacity, it should come out of the industry. That is
where there has been a big failure.
Last week when the House was not sitting, I met with fisher
groups in two areas of my riding. I say to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and to members that today there are more
people fishing in those areas, more boats, more vessels fishing
than there were before the moratorium. And there is a reflection
cast upon Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadians that they seem
to be the problem. Can you blame us for wanting to make a
living, for trying to stay alive?
The government program has failed and I have to say to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans since he is listening that this
is a very complex problem that has taken a number of years to get
to this point. I have to very seriously question whether the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the ability or the
competence to straighten out the Atlantic fishing problems. I am
not saying that just for the sake of saying it. But I question
the department. I have to ask if it is really capable of dealing
with the complex problems in the east and the west. I do not
take great comfort that it has the ability to deal with it.
I guess I am running out of time but I want to repeat the
problems in the west for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I
plead with the minister and the government to get more involved
than they have already been in the Pacific salmon issue. There
is a direct parallel, an identical situation brewing in British
Columbia as is now taking place in the east. If the minister and
the Prime Minister do not roll up their sleeves and get more
involved in the issue, we will be here in the not too distant
future talking about the Pacific salmon crisis and the people
affected just as we are talking about Atlantic Canada and TAGS.
It does no good just to pay lip service. Why is the Prime
Minister not more involved in the issue in the west? Why is the
federal government more preoccupied with attacking Premier Glen
Clark? Why have Glen Clark and British Columbians become the
enemies? The Americans, the Alaskans are the problem. They are
the ones who have consistently overfished. The Alaskans are still
fishing at pre-1994 catch rates, yet the British Columbians are
targeted as the bad guys.
I say to the minister that if he had gone to the troubled areas
of British Columbia we would not have had that altercation with
the blockade of the ferry. If he had gone there and talked to
those people, we would not have had the problem. We would not
have had the blockade.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Why didn't he go?
Mr. Bill Matthews: I have no idea. You will have to ask
him that. He may have been fishing.
It is a very, very complex problem. However I am very proud to
say that at least my party and our leader have initiated this
debate. As my colleague has said, we should have more days like
this because we are dealing with the future of regions of the
country, particularly the Atlantic region. If we do not debate
and suggest solutions, then there is a region of the country that
may just disappear. It is the role and responsibility of the
federal government to find solutions.
This country is so diverse and our problems are so different.
All that the people of Atlantic Canada are asking is to continue
to be a part of this great nation and to be treated with dignity
and respect and be allowed to stay where they have lived, worked
and been educated.
1225
In concluding, I would like to move the following amendment. I
move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “continue
the implementation of” and substituting therefor the word
“implement”.
Why I say that is, how can you continue the implementation of
something that you have never implemented, such as a national
policy on sustainable fisheries? How can you continue to
implement something when the auditor general so clearly
highlighted in his report that there is no clearly defined
national policy on sustainable fisheries?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Questions and
comments.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, he has proposed a
subamendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will consider the
receivability of the amendment and will get back to you very
shortly. In the meantime I think we should proceed with
questions and comments.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, what solutions
does the hon. member for Burin—St. George's have? He had a lot
of criticism in his remarks. Having sat through several
fisheries meetings now, I would like him to soon get to the point
of proposing some solutions that we could add to what we are
already proposing in terms of our national fisheries policy.
In his passion he got a little carried away and I would like to
clear up a couple of facts.
He tried to leave the impression that this government is doing
nothing on the west coast in terms of the salmon treaty. Nothing
could be further from the truth. On that issue, the minister of
fisheries has travelled extensively, to Oregon and Washington and
has met with senators and congressmen and people in British
Columbia. The Prime Minister has appointed two special
representatives to report back to him. We are dealing with that
issue and we are making progress. It surprises me that the member
for Burin—St. George's is now crawling into bed with the NDP
premier of the province of B.C. I can hardly believe that.
I hope he is at least admitting that we did what we had to do on
the east coast in terms of dealing with the initial crisis in the
downturn of the fishery. We tried to be there to support the
communities and the fisher people. We in fact have welcomed the
auditor general's critique of that particular program and what
fisheries and oceans is doing. We said in committee the other
day that we are going to use those results to learn some lessons.
And we have in fact. I think the hon. member agrees with this
point. We have appointed Mr. Harrigan to look at the impact on
those communities and he is doing that at the moment in going to
those communities now.
Having said that and having tried to clear up those facts, out
of all his remarks could the hon. member highlight for me a
couple of areas where he is proposing solutions in terms of a
comprehensive national fisheries policy which the motion
suggests. I have not heard anything in terms of solutions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before proceeding
with questions and comments, I advise the House that the
subamendment has already been ruled out of order by the Deputy
Speaker this morning. Therefore, that decision stands and we
will proceed with questions and comments.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest
to the parliamentary secretary asking about solutions.
We are talking about a national policy for a sustainable
fisheries.
1230
Can we imagine being minister of fisheries and oceans and trying
to make management decisions about fisheries on either coast
without adequate research and adequate science? Therein lies a
big problem. The government has gutted the research and science
budgets of DFO. The solution is to get money back into the
research and science budgets and to get research and science
activities operating on both coasts to determine exactly what
fish are there and what environmental problems are being
experienced.
We hear talk on the east coast about the effects of cold water,
the effects of seals and the effects of foreign overfishing. We
are now talking about a fishery of the future without in essence
a budget for science and research.
I ask the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans how they can make any management decisions. How can
we ever hope to have a sustainable fisheries if we do not have
proper and adequate research and science? Excuse the pun, but we
have been floundering around too long.
It was indicated at the parliamentary committee this morning
that a former minister of fisheries set a total allowable catch
of double what the scientific community recommended. That is bad
enough. We can blame that on the minister. However, to be
making management decisions when they do not have anything to
base them on and then trying to shift the blame on to people in
those regions of the country for all they have done—
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you want to spend money or cut
taxes?
Mr. Bill Matthews: I have not met the hon. member. Maybe
I should never meet him. Does he realize the value of fish
resources to the people of Canada? Both of them are in big
trouble.
The member is saying that they would not spend any money on
research and science. They would keep on making the same old
mistakes. They would let the stocks go down the tube and more
people would be unemployed.
Does it not make more sense to put money into science and
research so that we make sound management decisions, have a
sustainable fishery and keep people employed on the Atlantic and
west coasts? What is wrong with spending some money to do that?
Are they going to cut spending money on everything? Maybe that
is the member's solution. If they do that they will wipe out
Atlantic Canada.
An hon. member: I am trying to help.
Mr. Bill Matthews: He is not trying to help me. He is
not trying to help Atlantic Canadians. He is trying to help Paul
Martin and his quest to become prime minister. He has lost sight
of his priorities.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. With due respect, I am sitting hear
and listening to the member referring to the finance minister by
name.
I wonder if you would admonish the member, Mr. Speaker, and
advise him not to use the minister's name.
The Deputy Speaker: I have been making gestures to the
hon. member who was speaking. I thank the hon. member for
Mississauga South for drawing the rules to the attention of the
House. I have been striving to do that. Given his distance from
the Chair, perhaps he was unable to hear me.
Perhaps we could proceed with the next question.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I fully respect the member and the passion he brings to the
debate. I mean that with all sincerity.
We can take a look at the fact that the department had adequate
research and science and consistently under the government of his
party made political decisions that created the problem. He says
we have been floundering around too long and guess who has been
in charge. He talks about the mismanagement of successive
governments.
The member referred to NCARP about which former Fisheries
Minister John Crosbie said:
The government will have to change the assistance. It will not
be able to go on paying people for doing nothing.
1235
When his leader of today was environment minister the Tory
government knew for at least five years before the 1992
moratorium that cod stocks were seriously declining. The former
environment minister, now leader of his party, could have used
this information to save dwindling cod stocks while there was
still hope.
This member and the member for Saint John say that we should not
be dealing in the past, that we have to deal with the future. I
agree. If the people who created the problem in the first place
have the audacity to stand in the Chamber today and say we are
wrong and they have all the answers, what hope do the people of
Atlantic Canada have?
The Reform Party is gaining ground in Atlantic Canada for the
simple reason that we bring a fresh approach. Clearly the
Liberal approach, the Tory approach and the NDP approach have
ended up putting Atlantic Canada into the position it is in
currently. That is a crying shame because of the kind of people
and the kind of resources in Atlantic Canada.
The Reform Party has some fresh new ideas, not the regurgitated
ideas of the member's party. In the same way as the
parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister asked, I
specifically ask what the new ideas are. They will have to break
away from the past failures of the Conservatives on this issue.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for using the
name of the finance minister. I could have said other things.
I want to respond to the hon. member. I have been here since
June 2. I am new to the House of Commons. Whoever made mistakes
made mistakes. I will not stand here and try to defend mistakes
that were made by former governments. That is not my role. That
is the way it is with me.
Mr. Jim Abbott: What is the new idea?
Mr. Bill Matthews: I know the member's new idea. There
would be no Atlantic Canada if the member had his way. He would
cut us off. There would be nothing in the east. The elitists
from the west cannot identify with the problem in the east.
Are they really gaining ground in Atlantic Canada? Is there any
doubt about that?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: For three years you can let them dry
back there.
Mr. Bill Matthews: What are you talking about? Let what
dry?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time for questions and
comments has expired.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have noticed many times when I rise to
answer questions that this microphone is defective.
The Deputy Speaker: The light is not working in the front
row. That is why it is not on. I assure the minister, when I
sit down, that his microphone will be switched on and all will
hear him. The lights are not working today, just so that he is
aware.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know
my switch is activated by your sitting down in the chair.
I congratulate the hon. member, the Conservative Party critic,
but he does remind me of the words of a former minister of
fisheries of the House, namely Mr. John Crosbie, who said “No
one will pressure more for short-sighted and bad decisions than
provincial fisheries ministers”.
The member was a former minister in Newfoundland. Month after
month, year after year, Mr. Crosbie had to put up with the
pressure of bad decisions being made that led to the collapse of
the fishery. He is as responsible as any member here.
It is amazing that during the time Mr. Mulroney was in government
the Liberal Party did not make decisions. I wished to explain to
the hon. member of the Reform Party.
1240
I refer to the problem Mr. Crosbie outlined in his new book. I
recommend that hon. members buy it; it is cheap at the price. The
book points out that people like the hon. member were the cause
of the decline of the Atlantic fisheries. Indeed they were the
cause of the collapse of the Atlantic fisheries. For him to come
here today and happily say that he is new here and not here to
defend mistakes, as he literally did two minutes ago, is a bit
thick.
I refer to the motion before the House:
That this House recognize the urgent need for action to address
the serious problems in Canadian fisheries on both the Pacific
and Atlantic coasts, and calls upon the government to establish a
comprehensive national fisheries policy that demonstrates real
commitment to resource conservation, leadership on the issue of
resource sharing with foreign interests, and sensitivity to the
individuals, families and communities whose futures are linked to
the health and sustainability of the Canadian fisheries industry.
We have put an amendment forward. My hon. colleagues, the
parliamentary secretary, has put an amendment forward pointing
out that the objectives outlined in this resolution are in fact
the current policy of the government which took over from the
Conservative Party and changed the very policies that created the
problem we have.
The hon. member, typically Conservative, forgot one basic. He
talked about from coast to coast. There are three coasts to
Canada. The Arctic coast is also important, with important
fisheries. He should recognize, like many of his Conservative
friends, that he is living in the past when he refers to only two
coasts.
He mentioned science. Recently I had the opportunity to travel
in the Arctic region. I was on a coast guard vessel, the
Louis St. Laurent, now the world's premier platform for
scientific work in ice regions. Some first class work is being
done under the surface heating and Sheba-Jois programs. This
program involves freezing the ice-breaker in the ice for 12
months. People are coming to us wanting to work with DFO
scientists in this very important area. It refers to global
warming and other issues, namely reflection of the surface and
other problems we face in the Arctic.
At least 20 American organizations including all the premier
research organizations in the United States, for example Scripts
and Woods Hall, are putting up $5.1 million of the total $8.1
million cost. They would not come to Canada to work with us if
they knew that our science was not the best in the world. The
American organizations involved could go anywhere in the world to
work with any other nation or could do it themselves. They come
here because we do the best work in the world. Our scientists at
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in our universities
are the best in the world.
It is important for the hon. member to recognize that his
criticisms are off the mark when it comes to science. They are
cheap shots at our good scientists. As a member of the fisheries
committee he should ask its chairman and the parliamentary
secretary to make sure the committee has the scientists before
it. Then he can learn what he obviously does not know now, which
he admits by getting up and saying that he is new here and knows
nothing.
He referred to the Atlantic groundfish stocks and the
consequence of the collapse. We have had to cope with the
consequence to business, communities and individuals. They have
all had to change a way of life and a tradition their families
practised for generations. I know the hon. member has experience
with that. We needed a national effort to assist those in
trouble and to rebuild a sustainable Atlantic fishery.
Members opposite, members of the Conservative Party and the
member who was a provincial minister of fishery, cannot sit here
and pretend they had nothing to do with it. They cannot pretend
they had nothing to do with the state of the groundfishery off
Atlantic Canada in their years of government when the cod stocks
collapsed and 40,000 Atlantic Canadians were out of work.
Rather than sit on the sidelines and look for someone to blame,
this government has applied what we have learned from the lessons
of that groundfish collapse.
1245
We have learned that the stocks are not inexhaustible. I quote
a former department of agriculture publication about codfish and
the east coast fisheries in 1885: “Unless the order of nature is
overthrown, for centuries to come our fisheries will continue to
be fertile”. We proved that wrong in Atlantic Canada. We proved
that the fishery is exhaustible and the policies that created
that were the policies of the previous Conservative government
and the policies of the previous speaker who was the minister of
fisheries of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have had to recognize that we need to change our ways. Fleet
sectors have changed their ways, individuals have changed their
ways, processes have changed their ways, governments have changed
their ways. The people who have not changed their ways are the
reactionaries of the Conservative Party who sit opposite.
Studies have dissected the failings of the past. Prescriptions
have been put forward as the way for the future. We have all
embraced the need for change with the sole exception of the
Conservative Party. We have all attempted to face the future
with new prescriptions.
The fishery of Atlantic Canada is being downsized and
restructured. It has secured new sources of raw material and
focused on new products. Some of that raw material comes from
the Bering Sea. It has been and is becoming more resilient,
adaptive and despite all odds has moved forward.
Through the painful lesson of stock reduction and moratoria we
have been reminded that we must always put conservation of the
resource first. We in government have learned the need to change
our relationship with the industry and we know now that we cannot
do it ourselves, that partnership and co-operation with the other
players are essential. I offer to the hon. member and his party
that co-operation, that willingness to work with them so we can
get away from the attitudes that so dominated the Conservative
Party year after year in the past.
I will quickly mention the international commitment to
conservation through our efforts to negotiate the United Nations
fisheries agreement on straddling stocks and through NAFO, the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. In recent years we
have worked successfully through NAFO to put in place the
necessary control mechanisms such as onboard observers and port
inspections as well as management decisions in accordance with
the best scientific advice, international scientific advice as
well as Canadian advice, which is still the best of all
international science available.
When it comes into force, the UN fish agreement will provide the
foundation in international law for effective conservation of
straddling and highly migratory stocks on the high seas. That
means groundfish.
Opposition members come into this House and call for a national
fisheries policy. Unfortunately the only thing they can say
about their proposed national fisheries policy is that they would
like it to be “comprehensive”. When my parliamentary secretary
even asked the gift question to the Tories of what they would do,
they had no answer for him whatsoever.
So let us look at what does constitute a national fisheries
policy. Does it mean a national policy across the country which
my hon. friend was hinting at when he started to talk about
British Columbia, a national standard, one size fits all policy
at a time when we are recognizing the importance of diversity? Of
course not. Does it mean, and this is even more troubling, that
opposition members have ignored the views and input of fishermen
and their organizations from across the country? Does it mean
they are so divorced from reality that they are not even aware
there are differing views of what the fishery of the future
should be? Are they pretending that our job as legislators is to
be responsive to those views or not? Are they asking us to do
what they did, which is to ignore the very people who make their
living from the fishery?
I have met with fishermen from coast to coast to coast.
Had the hon. member not had such a comfortable summer, had he
looked at what was going on within the fishery, he would have
known that instead of making the errors which he did in his
earlier presentation.
1250
I have been to St. John's, his city, six times since becoming
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
First in the national policy we must develop an environmentally
sustainable fishery. Conservation must be first. We must accept
the notion that conservation is central to the economic viability
of individuals and companies engaged in the fishery and of the
well-being of the communities that depend on the fisheries for
their very existence.
I challenge any member opposite to tell me that environmental
sustainability is not the best principle for the fishery.
I challenge any member opposite to rise and tell me that there
is any better way of putting in place that conservation concept
than through the precautionary principle of making sure we err on
the side of caution.
I challenge any member opposite to rise in their place and tell
us why they did not put conservation first and why they did not
apply the conservation principle in the decade they were in power
here in Ottawa and in the similar period when they were in power
in St. John's.
The second principle which I have put forward very clearly is
that the fishery of the future must be economically viable. It
must be managed so as to provide participants with a good
livelihood, something better than subsistence. The fishery must
not been seen, as it has been in the past, as the employer of
last resort or as the doorway to some government program of
support.
As a nation we have been blessed with a diverse and valuable
marine resource base. We must continue to develop that base and
develop the tools to manage it so that we have a good return for
the participants to be able to sustain their coastal communities,
not just in the best years but year in and year out in the
fishery. That means there must be a recognition that the fishery
will be smaller.
Once again I refer the hon. member to the words of wisdom of my
predecessor, the hon. John Crosbie, when he discussed this in his
book. If he looked at the St. John's newspaper this morning
he would know that there are excerpts quoted in that very paper.
He would see in those excerpts Mr. Crosbie's recognition of the
errors of the past and his commitment to a sustainable fishery in
the future based on that reduced size.
There have to be fewer participants and harvesting capacity must
be more in balance with the capacity of the resource.
The fishery of the future must be internationally competitive.
The vast bulk of our fishery resource product is sold overseas.
We must continue to focus on quality. We must continue to pay
more attention to stability of supply, ensuring a competitive
price.
The final principle that I will put forward of this government's
sustainable fisheries policy is that the fishery must be
self-reliant. Fishermen must continue to work with us as
partners in management, not as adversaries, as marked the
situation when the hon. member was the provincial minister of
fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador.
That adversarial relationship is another aspect of the fishery
which we inherited from the very party which has put forward this
motion in the House today. Those members should rise in the
House and explain how they allowed the fishery to deteriorate to
the state it did.
The Fisheries Council of Canada has said that fact that the
groundfish stocks collapsed to such an extent should serve as a
warning that the fishery of the future should not mirror the
fishery of the past. The warning is clear.
On the day I was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I
declared conservation to be my major goal and it will remain so.
It means that when I take a tough decision, as I did in
Newfoundland on the recent food fishery decision, I will not be
put off course by complaints from opposition members. A
Conservative member, a colleague, a former member of the
legislature, headed up an organization simply to oppose me on
that science based decision of the food fishery.
1255
Let me quickly turn to the west coast. I have no apology to make
with respect to the west coast. The policy we have followed is
to get the best deal we can for British Columbia fishermen.
The hon. member was making some rather foolish remarks about the
west coast fishery. We have learned the lessons from the east
coast fishery and we are applying fleet reduction on the west
coast fishery. We are reducing the number of fishermen. We are
introducing area licensing so that we can avoid the problems that
have plagued the east coast fishery over the years.
I have here the list of
targets and achieved targets. For example, area 23 in Barkley
Sound, the sockeye return has reached 260,000 fish. The
escapement target is expected to be achieved. In area
B, the south coast seine, the catch of 3.6 million sockeye toward an
allocation of 3.8 million, only 200,000 out and the fishery was
continuing. In the same area 2.7 million pinks have been
harvested out of an allocation of 2.5 million. In other words, we were
over .2 on the pinks and under .2 on the sockeye.
In Area D, allocation is very closed to being achieved. In Area
E, which the Fraser River, Juan de Fuca, an allocation of 1.4
million sockeye has been achieved. In Area F allocation has been
achieved. In Area G the fishery closed September 21 with an
estimate catch of 1.307 million sockeye toward an allocation of
1.377 million. We were under by 70,000 in that fishery. In area
H a catch of 713,000 sockeye was recorded against an allocation
of 688,000. We are over again there. We are meeting targets. We
are meeting the allocation levels despite the difficulty of
marine forecasting.
I suggest to the member that he pay particular attention to what
is taking place on the west coast. I would also like to point
out that when it comes to dealing with Americans we have followed
the policy of making sure that we worked with the measures that
have the best chance of achieving the best deal for our west
coast fishermen.
It is easy to attack the Americans roundly by such measures as
the blockade of a ferry. That is easy to do. What it does not do
is achieve the results for west coast fishermen. The member knows
because of his experience that if we are to have an international
area of fishery such as the west coast of North America and the
northeast Pacific, the United States and Canada must work
together. He knows that.
Last week the premier of the province recognized that and after
all his months of complaining and criticizing that we kept
contact with the Americans and discussed this with the Americans,
he has now reversed himself and said that we did not discuss it
enough. We did not have enough contact with them.
Even the premier of B.C. has made a 180 degree change of
direction, done his somersault. The only person who is left out
there preaching the concept that we should continue to attack the
Americans is none other than the hon. critic of the Conservative
party.
We have adopted the measures that are most likely to achieve
success. I want that understood. I would be happy to answer any
questions he may have.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am gratified to hear the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans talking about erring on the side of caution and of his
concern for conservation. I share those goals very much.
I would like to ask the minister two or three questions in that
regard.
I live in an area on the upper Fraser River. Not much fishing
takes place there, but a lot of fish spawn there. There have been
a lot of problems in that area for a good period of time. For
example, why was a young rancher charged with disrupting a fish
habitat when he cleared out a beaver dam to make stale, stagnant
water fresh so that the fish could live there again?
Why was another person who wished to rescue young fry from the
back waters that had begun to dry up told he could be charged if
those fish were rescued and put into an environment where they
could live instead of becoming bird food? That person was told
it was simply nature's way and the birds need food too.
1300
The real questions I want to ask are with regard to the Likely
hatchery. That hatchery was cut back from a production of about
two million fish to about 200,000 fish and then shut down because
it was uneconomic. Now local volunteers are raising about $1,500
a month to feed the fish that they strip and put into spawning
channels and care for throughout the year. Why will there be no
assistance to these people in the conservation of the chinook
salmon?
This fall the spawning channels in the Horsefly River have been
left closed so that the sockeye salmon cannot spawn there. These
salmon are destroying the natural spawning of the riverbed
because there is no room for them. Yet these spawning channels
have remained closed. It is a large run this year and the
devastation of that fish stock is evident to everyone who has
been there.
The people of Cariboo—Chilcotin hold the conservation of these
fish stocks to be a very high priority. Yet we have had no
co-operation from the Conservative government, from Mr. Tobin
when he was the minister and now from this minister.
I would like the minister to answer these questions on the basis
of his concern for caution and conservation.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is at
liberty to make me aware of the particulars of the young
rancher's case, which I do not know, or the issue with respect to
the beaver dam on somebody's property in British Columbia. Again
I am unaware of the details of that.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the measures taken by
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are not the only measures
sometimes taken with respect to water courses. The department of
agriculture and the ministry of agriculture for the province of
British Columbia are involved as well. Enforcement may not be by
DFO officials. It may be by members of the fish and game branch
of the province of British Columbia. I simply do not have the
details. If the hon. member will give me those details I am
willing to look into those cases.
The hon. member spoke about hatcheries. They do have remarkably
successful results in some instances but not all. It depends on
what type of salmon the hatchery is designed to produce, whether
it is chum, sockeye, chinook, coho or indeed whether it is
steelhead.
I am happy to look into the issue for him to find that out but
the assumption that every hatchery is an improvement is not
entirely correct in all instances. I have to point out to him
and his colleague who is sitting next to him that there are major
genetic problems with taking a small group of fish and flooding
the entire gene pool of a particular species of salmon. Genetics
is a problem that we are facing with hatcheries around the
country. It is a worldwide problem and if that is the situation
I certainly will be in touch with him.
On the Horsefly sockeye channel I simply do not know why that
would be the case. If the hon. member will discuss it with me
later I will get him the details. Sometimes we have closed
artificial spawning channels when the optimum number of fish have
spawned. That is appropriate because any extra fish simply stir
up the gravel and do not increase the production of fish. I will
have to check on that. I am happy to do it on the member's
behalf.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member
for Burin—St. George's.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am reluctant to rise on a point of order, but I feel compelled
to do so. I wish to say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
that unknowingly he referred to me on six occasions as a former
minister of fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on the
record and I want to correct it and inform the minister, speaking
on a need for money for—
The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe this is a point of
order. The hon. member may get an opportunity in debate
subsequently to refute a point but I do not hear a point of order
in anything the hon. member is saying at this stage, but I will
listen further.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to do
this, but if something has been put on the record of this House
that is incorrect and untrue, then certainly the member who was
referred to should have a chance to stand and correct the record.
If that is not a point of order I do not know what a point of
order is.
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order is an argument about
the rules of the House and whether they are being correctly
applied.
The hon. member cannot use a point of order to refute arguments
that are made in debate.
1305
An hon. member: It is the only time you will recognize
me, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order is for a specific
purpose and the Chair is not going to let it be used for other
things. I am sure the hon. member will get an opportunity or
will have one of his colleagues make an intervention in the
debate to correct the minister's error if such is made.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the statement by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I will do my best to keep it short as I believe we only have 10
minutes for questions and comments. The minister listed four principles
that should, in his opinion and according to the amendment, continue to
improve the overall policy. One of the four stated principles is
emphasis on sustainability versus prudent harvesting. He wants to
balance the harvesting capacity with the biomass production capacity. He
wants the fisheries to become more self-reliant through joint
management.
His ultimate goal is preservation.
I could perhaps agree with him on the last of the four principles,
but I have serious concerns about the others. I encourage the minister
to listen to my speech this afternoon. But what about the minister, who
this morning talked about balancing the harvesting capacity with the
biomass? What does his department have in mind? How do they think this
can be done when, according to the auditor general's report, nothing has
been done to even begin rationalizing fisheries? I wonder how they can
talk about improving something when the machine is stuck in neutral.
I would like the minister to explain to us how he intends to start
balancing all that. I know that the minister has not been fisheries
minister for long, but I would like to give him food for thought. He may
want to consult his predecessors.
I understand that a major problem is precisely that the provinces were
largely left out of the process. Perhaps the federal government did not
co-operate enough with the provinces.
Why do I make this point? Some will say: “Sure, you Bloc Quebecois
people are only interested in achieving sovereignty”. But before
achieving sovereignty, we would like to leave a legacy of good
management to Canadians. Why is it important to talk with the provinces?
It is the provinces that finance the boats and issue the processing
permits. Did the minister think about offering quotas to his provincial
partners in order to reassure them so he could achieve some form of
rationalization?
My second point to the minister is that when he talks about
making fisheries somewhat more self-reliant, he is in fact
talking about co-management. But I hope he is not referring to
the same type of co-management as that provided in the bill
introduced during the last Parliament. The reason is very simple:
fishers are tired of having to pay the bills. Co-management means
“you will help me pay operating costs”. I have yet to see any
place where fishers are allowed to manage or enjoy profits, and
particularly to take advantage of the options available. There
was a clause in the former bill to the effect that it is up to
the minister to invite this or that group. That is why fishers'
associations feel their rights are being infringed upon.
So, here are my two questions: First, how does the minister intend
to balance the harvesting capacity—what does he do with the
provinces? —and second, does co-management simply mean to him that
costs should be shared with the fishers?
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the hon.
member has asked these questions. First of all, I want to tell him
that I am anxiously awaiting his speech and will listen carefully
to the first points he will raise. I will read his speech
afterwards, and perhaps we can have lunch together and discuss some
of the points on which we are not in complete agreement.
As for his first question on co-operation with the provinces,
I met with Quebec's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in
Saint-Jean a few weeks ago.
Our discussions were very constructive. He was very nice, and in
the interviews he gave after our meetings, he mentioned that we had
got along well together and that we will continue to hold
discussions regarding close co-operation.
1310
The hon. member has put his finger on a specific problem.
Without this co-operation at the provincial level, there may be an
increase in the capacity of fleets at the same time as the federal
government wants to, and must, reduce the size of the catch.
As for his second question, it will be in the new legislation,
but I think that the rules do not allow me to speak about it before
the bill is tabled in the House. We can also get together to
discuss the changes sought by the hon. member.
Like his colleague who used to sit on the Standing Committee on
Transport, he is well aware that I am very favourable to
suggestions from the opposition regarding bills.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I want to bring to the minister's attention
that he was dead wrong in his facts when he was referring to the
hon. member for Burin—St. George's as a former minister. He was
never ever a former—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member will
recognize that that is not a point of order.
Hon. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have
mis-described him, but I understand that he was on the resource
policy committee of cabinet which included oversight of the
department of fisheries—
The Deputy Speaker: We are getting into debate rather
than a point of order, as I suspected we might. We will move on.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, whenever I take part in something like this I am most
unhappy with the fact that we finally have everybody in the room,
we can ask some really good questions and get answers and
comments, but there is never enough time for it to happen. There
is something inappropriate about the way this place works because
that is inevitably the result.
Mr. Lynn Myers: It is called democracy.
Mr. John Duncan: It is called democracy, but there are
some democratic reforms which are necessary.
The federal government has prime responsibility for one natural
resource and that is fish. Without a doubt, it is the worst
managed resource in Canada. It has a terrible track record.
To quote my Liberal colleague from Huron—Bruce this week at the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, if fisheries were
agriculture they would be managed properly.
The Canadian fisheries have sustained a tremendous number of
Canadians for a long time in every region of the country, but
there has been a betrayal of the entire fishery through
mismanagement, lack of serious consideration of legitimate
scientific research, and betrayal of the fishermen dependent on
good management by both this Liberal administration and the
previous Tory administration.
The taxpayer pays taxes in good faith, expecting that money
spent for accurate scientific data will be put to its best use
and the data collected will be used to make wise management
decisions, not ignored or altered for political expediency.
The open politicization of fisheries management was demonstrated
very clearly by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake in his
speech earlier today when he indicated how the minister is using
his appointment powers at the expense of the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation to tidy up Liberal patronage for an MP from
the previous Parliament who did not qualify for the MP pension
scheme.
The politicization of the fisheries puts the resource at risk.
When the resource is at risk the fish stocks suffer, the
fishermen suffer and the communities which depend on fishing
suffer, not the politicians.
Newfoundland and Labrador lost 25,000 people in the last year.
That is sad. No one has ever apologized for the largest layoff
in Canadian history. No one seems to be accountable.
1315
There has been an ongoing front page dispute that has revolved
around the Pacific salmon treaty with the United States all
summer long and it continues to this day. The Pacific salmon
treaty was a rushed document produced during the Mulroney era in
1985. It was rushed to completion to meet a signing ceremony for
the shamrock summit between Reagan and Mulroney.
One of the major architects of the treaty told me earlier this
year that much to his dismay the treaty as it currently exists is
unworkable, that it is a failure. There has been no fishing plan
attached to this treaty since 1993 when this government came into
power and prior to this year there has been no priority on paying
attention to the Pacific salmon treaty. Even now the commitment
from our foreign affairs department as to the priority of
resolving issues around Pacific salmon with the United States is
questioned by many. Our federal fisheries minister has failed to
demonstrate that resolution of the treaty is his number one
priority. People involved—
An hon. member: Rubbish.
Mr. John Duncan: Well if it is true I would like to have
that on the record. If that is the minister's number one
priority I would be absolutely delighted to have him put that on
the record. We have a window of four or five months this winter
to get that resolved. Is the minister of fisheries the one who
is primarily accountable or is it the minister of foreign
affairs? We do not know right now. People are questioning who
is the accountable party.
Hon. David Anderson: We both work on it. So does the
Prime Minister.
Mr. John Duncan: That is not clear responsibility.
Somebody has to take the lead. In the absence of hearing
anything clearly I would have to assume that the minister of
fisheries will wear it if it is not resolved.
People involved with the west coast fisheries know one thing
clearly. Without a working treaty the salmon resource on the
west coast is at great risk. In September I wrote to the
Canadian envoy, Mr. Strangway, who is dealing with the Pacific
salmon treaty. I asked him to act as a catalyst for a Pacific
salmon symposium where we can get scientists from both Canada and
the U.S. to put fisheries science on the table with respect to
the migratory salmon on the west coast. This could be a possible
turning point in educating the public and could bring political
resolve to fix this intolerable dispute.
A week after I sent the letter, I received endorsement of this
concept from American federal politicians from Alaska and
Washington. We are looking for a commitment from the minister to
endorse this concept so we can expedite this symposium. I would
like to hear that too.
The science from both sides of the border needs to be in the
public domain at the same time and needs to be subject to peer
review. We need a commitment from the minister that DFO
scientists will be allowed to attend this symposium and to speak
publicly about the state of fish stocks without a muzzle.
The auditor general makes a very strong statement in last week's
report about sustainability in the fisheries. The department has
stated that its mandate is conservation of the fisheries resource
base and that is implied in current legislation. Nevertheless
the auditor general found no clearly stated national policy for
sustainable fisheries. How does the minister reconcile his claim
that conservation is his priority when his policy on the west
coast this summer was to ignore conservation principles?
On July 27 the minister said “Conservation is my first, second
and third priority. Glen Clark has asked me to fish aggressively
and jeopardize conservation of the stocks. I have refused”.
Three days later the minister gave fishermen the order to “fish
aggressively to overwhelm the efforts of the smaller U.S. fleet
intercepting Fraser bound fish”.
Hon. David Anderson: That is wrong. I never used that
word. Vigorously is the word I used.
Mr. John Duncan: That is a quote.
Hon. David Anderson: It is wrong.
Mr. John Duncan: On the east coast we had a collapse of
the cod fishery which essentially occurred as a result of the
actions of the previous Tory administration and the fallout from
this collapse has been exacerbated by the Liberals. We know the
Tory government knew for at least five years before the 1992
moratorium that cod stocks were seriously declining. The then
environment minister and now leader of the Progressive
Conservatives, the member for Sherbrooke, could have used this
information to save dwindling cod stocks while there was still
hope.
1320
Scientific studies said cod stocks would not recover until the
end of the decade. Why was the moratorium put in place for two
years only? They hoped the problem would go away. Rather than
address the problem, the former government decided to experiment
on fishermen. They wanted this program to get them past the next
election. The Liberals then put in a five year program to get
them past the next election again. This would take it to May
1999, but now that we have had the election early, they want to
cancel the program early. Politics is rampant.
In April of this year the minister of fisheries announced he
would re-open three areas of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada
without any support from fisheries scientists anywhere. With
many fisheries scientists actually condemning the act, how could
the minister have even contemplated such a move given the
disastrous state of the Atlantic cod stocks? Now we have one set
of information and two opinions. The former minister, Brian
Tobin, recently stated that Atlantic cod are being “fished to
the point of extinction”.
This is not a happy story. We have fleet overcapacity on both
coasts. We end up with these gigantic social upheavals, fleet
restructuring, displaced fishermen and communities marginalized.
DFO has proven itself to be inept in handling these
circumstances.
One more example of political incompetence, this morning in the
Globe the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated that he
wished the United States would live up to its obligations under
the Pacific salmon treaty. I agree.
I also think that Canada should live up to its obligations under
the international treaty which since 1955 allows the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission to run a very successful sea lamprey
program. It has run successfully for 40 years and is the
backbone of the Great Lakes commercial and recreational
fisheries. Two years ago it was put at risk by the Liberal
government. The government is currently $200,000 in arrears and
has not responded to requests for budget allocations at least
since July 2 of this year.
We went through the auditor general's report last week which
condemned the government for turning the Atlantic groundfish
strategy from what was supposed to be a fleet restructuring to
primarily a poorly managed income support program and seriously
criticized the lack of conservation focus on the government.
On the west coast the combination of restructuring the industry
and low prices has resulted in the displacement of fishermen,
associated workers, their families and communities. The minister
announced in November and again in January an aid package for
B.C. that consisted of a $7.7 million retirement program which
has come to nothing, and a $30 million transition program. With
this $30 million program we have seen a lack of strong commitment
from the minister and the affected parties are very concerned
that the government will renege on this commitment as well.
The minister this past winter went further and said they would
spend whatever it takes. I can tell the minister that federal
commitments are much less than $30 million and there are
demonstrated transition proposals. What is he waiting for?
Why should any fisherman believe the government when it is
reneging on TAGS and failing to deliver on its retirement and
transition programs in B.C.? Why make announcements, raise
expectations and affect personal plans and then renege? This is
not fair to fishermen or their families.
Obviously a primary alternative employment for displaced
traditional fishery workers is in alternate fisheries. We have
heard many examples of DFO foot dragging in terms of responding to
enlightened proposals to deal with putting people to work but
still in fisheries related work.
I have correspondence on abalone on the west coast, sealing
proposals on the east coast. Why is the government still sitting
on the Liberal task force report on aquaculture which has been in
the hands of the government since November 1996?
We understand that there are some enlightened proposals in there.
1325
We need a vision for the fishery. There is a need for more room
at the table for fisheries managers from the provinces and
communities because they are the most directly affected and are
most directly accountable.
There is a better way. We need to depoliticize the licensing
process. We need to separate scientific research from political
control within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I agree with the minister that the scientists we have in Canada
are among the very best in the world and in many cases are the
best in the world. But we also have many documented cases this
year of these very scientists complaining about the political
interference and manipulation under which they suffer. The
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences ran a
major article on this.
We had many scientists sign on. We had our previous fisheries
critic for the east coast make appointments to visit fisheries
scientists working for the department in the Atlantic provinces.
When he arrived he was told he had no business going to visit
scientists, that he must talk to the assistant deputy minister of
science in Ottawa. This is total politicization and it is
unacceptable.
We have some proposals that I think would work across the
country in terms of helping fishermen, helping their families. We
know that disposable income is an important concept. A family of
four with one income of $30,000 would see 89% shaved off their
tax bill with our proposals.
By cutting unemployment insurance premiums, what we have is a
circumstance whereby employers will begin to add to their
payrolls rather than lay off workers because Liberals and Tories
put a tax on jobs.
We believe that the long term solution relies more on the people
in the affected fisheries than on programs and plans designed by
the federal government and operated out of Ottawa.
As a transition measure we are convinced that money currently
devoted to regional development and a program such as TAGS should
be given directly to municipalities or provincial governments.
It would be money delivered in a much more focused and much less
wasteful fashion.
Mr. Speaker, I understand I have three and a half minutes left.
I would like to use that time for questions and comments. I
would particularly like to have a discourse with the minister,
but of course that is dependent on his co-operativeness in this
regard.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. member's
wishes. Unfortunately, the rules do not permit me to add the
extra time to the 10 minutes allowed for questions and comments
following on the hon. member's speech, unless the House gives its
consent to do that. We will start with questions and comments.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now you are sitting down and my mike
works. It is the part of your body that activates the mikes that
intrigues us all.
The hon. member has said that nothing has been done to assist
displaced west coast fishermen. I want to ask him this question.
Is he aware that 54 weeks ago the job protection commissioner of
the province of British Columbia and the province of British
Columbia requested that the federal government spend $20 million
on assistance for displaced fishers?
Is he aware that since then we have in fact under programs with
HRD in co-operation with local community groups spent $21 million
under that initial program, that we have another $7.6 million
being spent under that program and that we have in addition $15
million for habitat programs out of the Department of the
Environment, of which $7.25 million will be put out this year and
the remainder in later years?
1330
Is he aware we have spent more than 50% over and above what was
requested by the job protection commissioner and the province of
British Columbia over one year ago?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the $15 million the
minister refers to is a separate announcement. It has nothing to
do with the $30 million that was promised.
The political apparatus of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans is playing a shell game with people in British Columbia.
It wants to count the same money two, three or four times and
make two, three or four announcements.
I understand that the money that has been allocated, without the
shell game and depending on how you count it, is somewhere
between $12 and $18 million. These are the best numbers I have.
The minister is saying it is $21 million and $7.6 million. If
those numbers are correct, I would be very happy to receive
documentation from the minister. I will certainly go out of my
way to apologize to him if those numbers are clean and do not
reflect previous announcements, which is what keeps happening in
most people's opinion.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Reform member from Vancouver Island
is more or less a statement and is a clarification of what the
minister said earlier.
I believe that no one has defended the rights of scientists to
speak more than I have in the House of Commons by continually
asking for a judicial inquiry.
I reiterate two points for the member from the Reform. First,
because he has a lot of concerns with the science that is going
on and the misinformation that is appearing, will he join me in
calling for an inquiry?
Second, the minister spoke earlier about the faith that he has
in the expertise of the scientists within the DFO. He failed to
mention that the DFO still has to go through another two years of
cuts. He failed to mention that the coast guard, since its merger
with DFO, has turned one of the finest institutes in the world,
the Bedford Institute of Technology, into a morale mess. It is
one of the finest institutes of the world for fisheries and
oceans studies. The morale in that building in Bedford, Nova
Scotia is at an all-time low because of the policies of the
federal government.
Will he now join with me in asking the minister and the
government to remove this suppression or gag order from
scientists so that they can speak freely about their findings and
their interpretation of science, without fear of losing their
jobs?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
questions.
I would like to take the three questions I detected in the
intervention in reverse order.
In regard to the DFO and the coast guard, depending on which
part of the country you go to, there are regional differences as
to who has had the most dramatic impact on whom. In some cases
the coast guard has been the loser. In other cases DFO has been
the loser in this amalgamation.
We do not think there has to be a loser. We think the mandate
of the coast guard is best fulfilled not through an amalgamation
with fisheries and oceans. They have a mutually exclusive
mandate. We think the coast guard should be a part of the
military. That would fix the whole problem. We are in some
general concurrence.
This certainly has created problems with respect to the cuts the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is suffering. Our major
observation is that the field operations and the regional
services are the ones that take the brunt of the cuts.
The centralized operation, particularly in Ottawa, has actually
added personnel in a high-priced category over the last two or
three years. We think this is absolutely and totally
inappropriate.
1335
As for calling for an inquiry, we are talking about the rights
of scientists. Science should be on the table. The public
should know what the science is. That will keep the politicians
honest when they make moves which might go against the science.
The way to make that happen is through structural change and
legislation which ensures that scientists have freedom in making
their opinions known.
That is the way to go, as opposed to a full blown inquiry,
because an inquiry will inevitably get bogged down. As well, if
the inquiry is not going the way the administration wants it to
go, it will end up being ineffectual, just like several of the
inquiries we have seen in recent times.
That is a more practical and immediate way for us to go. That
is what I would promote.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the member to comment on a news item which was recently
reported. A well known premier in the Atlantic region decided to
step down and, having stepped down, he was free to speak his
mind. Mr. Frank McKenna announced that he felt the grants and
subsidies which had been provided to the Atlantic region had
effectively become an opiate for that region. He was advocating
that maybe one of the best thing that could be done would be to
have a tax reduction in that region.
I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to speak to that
particular item.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly spoke about tax
measures which could be taken. We also have other things in mind
for the Atlantic region which we think are very positive.
There is a market of 14 million people between the Atlantic
provinces and New England and there are very poor infrastructure
links at the current time. A very solid way for government to
invest in the Atlantic region would be to ensure that those
infrastructure links are strengthened.
We have seen a strong report from the port of Halifax. The
Halifax Chamber of Commerce estimated in 1996 that conversion to
a post panamax port would result in 24,000 full time permanent
jobs in that area. That is the kind of proposal which we think
the federal government should be strongly behind.
We know that one of the major problems in developing a
non-subsidized seal industry on the east coast is the
bureaucratic inspection system on meat products coming from seals
which basically categorizes the seal as a fish rather than a
mammal. It has become a real problem.
We think the government has shown a lack of resolve on the
Voisey's Bay operation. This is a major employer. Thousands of
people could be put to work and it is being held up because of
bureaucratic red tape and a lack of resolve emanating right here
in Ottawa.
Those are some very strong ideas. As I mentioned before, we
have alternative fisheries, we have aquacultural opportunities,
and they just get totally bogged down because the department is
playing by old, timid rules. There is no advocacy going on,
other than for the way things have been done before. It is just
not working. We need major structural, systemic change. We need
to re-focus.
1340
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for
Vancouver Kingsway.
This morning the fisheries committee met and we heard from
various fisher people in Atlantic Canada and some of their
concerns with the TAGS policy. They are concerns which we hope
we can hear in the committee on fisheries and oceans.
In the weeks ahead under the capable leadership of our
chairperson, we will try to hear the reports from Atlantic Canada
and the concerns with the fishery, and hopefully provide some
solutions to what their concerns might be.
I come from a community in which the fishery is very important.
In fact, the community has approximately 10 small fishing wharves
and approximately 400 boats that are out on the water during the
fishing seasons. There are three fish plants relying on the
resources from the sea.
I think we in Atlantic Canada appreciate the fact that the sea
is a great resource for all of us. We go out with our boats, we
get our gear, our nets together and of course, hopefully we will
have a successful fishing season.
For those involved with the groundfish, especially cod, the last
10 years have not been good. In fact the past five years when
they were not able to fish in most areas has been a tremendous
blight on the economy in Atlantic Canada. I am glad that the
House has taken a day to look at these problems of the Atlantic
fishery, and also to discuss some of the problems on the west
coast.
This year we celebrated the 500th anniversary of the landing of
Cabot's ship on the shores of Newfoundland. For at least 500
years, in fact before 1497, the Grand Banks and those waters off
the coast of Newfoundland were looked on as a tremendous resource
for fish, that great protein source that our people have. For
almost 500 years we have had a successful fishery.
I think all of us in this House recognize that in the last 30 or
40 years our fishing techniques, our new methods and all those
ships that are coming from offshore to visit our waters have put
a tremendous drain on that great fishery.
In terms of our own area, the Miramichi, which I mentioned
before, we have had to look at difficult situations in terms of
our own fisheries. In fact, if we look at the last decade, most
of the fishermen on the Miramichi who hold groundfish licences
have not been able to fish groundfish.
None of them have participated in the TAGS program because, as
fishermen, they saw the decline of the cod stocks in the last
generation as a reason why they should not be out fishing that
resource. They have waited for a return of the cod fishery and
they have waited in vain because right now, we still do not see
prospects of the cod returning to Miramichi Bay.
We have seen in terms of our Atlantic salmon that, since the
1970s, the Atlantic salmon has no longer been a commercial
fishery. In fact, the several hundred fishermen who had that as
part of their licences in the early 1960s and into the 1970s,
have had to give up those licences.
Many of them sold them back to the government. In any case, the
Atlantic salmon fishery has declined to the stage where today it
is only a recreational fishery and then only in terms of a
limited catch that can be kept by any recreational fisherman.
In fact this year the recreational fishery in the Miramichi is
allowed approximately eight tags. Among those eight tags, they
are only allowed to keep the smaller fish which are referred to
as grilse, which are less than 26 inches in length.
We heard across the House the problems of the hatcheries. I
think I would be remiss if I did not point out that I was a bit
disappointed to find that this year DFO has closed all the
hatcheries in Atlantic Canada.
In my own case of the Miramichi, we had the oldest fish hatchery
in Canada trying to promote and enhance the Atlantic salmon. That
hatchery, which existed since before Confederation is a
historical site in terms of our sites and monuments. It is
sometimes called the oldest hatchery in North America and was
turned over this month to a local group that is attempting now to
run it on a limited budget.
DFO should be criticized for having closed the Atlantic salmon
hatcheries.
1345
In terms of our lobster fishery we have to look at the concept
of gear. Most of our lobster fishermen, for example, had 350
traps they could put in the water. Historically they were traps
made of wood approximately three feet in length. Putting out 350
traps has been changed now to the concept of putting out steel
traps which are four feet in length. Many lobster fishermen are
concerned what effect a change in gear will have on that fishery,
the main source for fishermen on Miramichi Bay.
We also have to think about what fish really are. They are a
resource. They travel across the great oceans of this continent.
They are available not only to Canadian fishermen but to many
other fishermen who visit our waters and fish sometimes within
the 200 mile limit with the permission of our country and often
times outside the 200 mile limit.
We think of the Americans, our neighbours. We think of the
French fleet that sometimes fish off the shores of St. Pierre and
Michelon. We think of the Spaniards and other members of the
European Union who fish off our shores. In other words, they
have tremendous pressure on the Atlantic fishery.
The minister and his officials have worked hard through such
organizations as NASCO and NAFO to try to make international
arrangements by which our fishing resources could be enhanced and
conserved for future generations. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans and the Department of External Affairs have to look at
concepts and agreements among the various nations of the world.
We think of the tremendous tuna resource we have today. It is
worth as much as $30 a pound to some of our Atlantic fishermen.
Those tuna are being chased not only by our Atlantic fishery but
by other nations of the world, especially Japan.
I hope the minister will look at some of the communications
problems of his department. If we look at politicians in the
House today, some criticize us for what has happened to the
fishery. Others will criticize our scientists. Some criticize
the very management of DFO. We have to recognize that there has
to be better communications.
For a good period of time we have heard concerns about seals and
how they are affecting cod stocks off the coast of Atlantic
Canada. A tremendous report produced by our science division
indicated that the seals were not a major source of difficulty in
terms of how many cod stocks they were eating. The report went
on to say that seals were caught and dissected and their stomach
contents indicated they had eaten very few cod.
I showed that report to some fishermen in the area of Hardwicke.
After reading the report an elderly fisherman said to me “When
there is no codfish for fishermen, how could there be codfish for
the seals?”
Sometimes we look at science but science has to be measured
against the people who are out there fishing, the people with
experience, the people who know what their jobs are all about.
Today we hear of the many changes happening within DFO. We hear
that fees are being charged. We hear there are observers out
there and that various methods are being used. We commend the
department for some of those steps it has taken.
In any case, as a member from Atlantic Canada I want to say that
it is very complex. We cannot point fingers but we have to look
at the fact that this resource has tremendous pressure on it. We
cannot really blame those who are here today or those who were
here before us. Many people have relied on that source of
income. Certainly many fishing people, especially in
Newfoundland, relied on TAGS and are concerned. We have to be
concerned that the human needs of every person in this great
country of ours are met.
1350
From the west coast we have the hon. member for Vancouver
Kingsway. I am sure she will take some time to talk about the
west coast fishery, but in terms of the east coast I hope we as
parliamentarians can work together to offer some vision and some
possible solution to a very complex and difficult problem.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am interested in the fact that although he comes from
the Miramichi the hon. member has extended his comments to the
outer shelf, which is what I want to address in my question. I
know there are no sharks in the Miramichi except perhaps for a
few Liberal bagmen, but we will not worry about them.
I want to speak for the sharks. I wonder what the hon. member
thinks about the fact that the shark population in the north
Atlantic, including our territorial waters, is being decimated.
The sharks are being taken in almost unlimited quantities. It is
a fishery of unbelievable cruelty. It makes any other branch of
the fishery or the sealery seem utterly benign.
When they destroy sharks as they surely will—these things will
become extinct—we will lose the main control on the seal
population that exists. This in turn filters down to the fish
which provide the increased numbers of seals with their
sustenance.
Why is the DFO not out there doing a little surveillance, some
controlling and keeping people from decimating the shark
population?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to try
to reply to the hon. member. I know he has been in the cattle
business and in the oil business. I believe he has a son who has
been connected with the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. He
has a very broad knowledge in terms of all this, a knowledge that
probably surpasses some of my own.
We have to look at the fact that Canada alone cannot control all
of that. In terms of the tuna, swordfish and sharks, it is part
of our international obligations. We have to negotiate with
other countries in terms of those species.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of representing
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough which is almost three-quarters
surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. I have a great number of
fisher persons in that riding who are having tremendous
difficulty in getting consultation with the government, members
of DFO, and in particular members of the ministry of fisheries
office.
With respect to consultation and the idea of fisher persons
having direct input into the policy process and procedure by
which they are governed, what is the government doing in a
substantial way to foster this ability for actual input and
consultation?
The Canso Trawlerman's Association and Pat Fougere have been
repeatedly trying to have a meeting with the minister of
fisheries as have the zone 18 fishermen and crab fishermen. The
idea of information flowing back and forth is a substantial
problem that needs to be addressed.
I am very interested to hear what the hon. member proposes in
terms of increased consultation and input from those in the
industry who have the most working knowledge of the problems that
face fishermen on both coasts of this great country.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, the member mentions a
good point. Only this morning our committee met by video
conference with Mr. Sam Ellsworth, president of the Halifax West
Commercial Fishmen's Association, and Mr. Ron Newell, president
of the Southwest Fishermen's Quota Group, Halifax. Our committee
will certainly be visiting the east coast. I hope we will hear
input from all.
As my speech indicated, fishermen with experience are just as
important to us as those scientists who have Ph.Ds but have never
set foot on some of the great ships and boats out there fishing
on our waters.
1355
I think we will hear from all groups. I know the minister will
be interested in hearing our report.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Miramichi is quite aware of the situation
in our region where the cost of unemployment insurance has made
it extremely difficult for people to survive in rural
communities. On top of that the federal government, DFO, has
opted out of the funding of wharfs.
Does the member for Miramichi recognize that this is a problem?
Is he willing to work on making sure that our fishermen have
secure decent wharfs from which to fish?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Speaker, it is not often one is
given an opportunity to speak of constituent concerns directly on
the floor of the House.
We do have 10 wharfs. We are very pleased that in most of those
areas fishermen's committees have been set up. In terms of the
member asking the question, the nearest one I have to her
constituency is the wharf at Saint-Louis de Kent which together
with the wharfs at Point Sapin and Escuminac are attempting to
provide resources. A significant amount of money was granted to
the wharf at Saint-Louis. The committee, under the leadership of
Gerald Robichaud, has done very well in trying to meet the needs
of the fishermen in that area.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe the time for questions and
comments consequent on the hon. member's speech has expired. In
light of the hour we will proceed to statements under Standing
Order 31.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
RÉAL CAOUETTE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who knew
Réal Caouette remember his famous phrase: “Write me in Ottawa. No
need for a stamp, it will get to me”. Now he has his own stamp.
We are paying tribute not just to a politician, but to a
friend. Mrs. Suzanne Curé-Caouette said that her husband would have
been very pleased and honoured to know that Canada was recognizing
what he had done for the country. She said that “throughout his
career, he tried to bring people together and to make politics
understandable”.
Réal Caouette was born in Amos in 1917. He became a national
political force when he took up the leadership of the Quebec Social
Credit movement in 1939 and was elected to the House of Commons in
1946. Everyone will remember his television broadcasts in which he
sometimes used a blackboard to get his point across.
Thank you, Réal, and thank you, Suzanne.
* * *
[English]
RIGHTS OF VICTIMS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week I spoke with a woman in Duncan, British Columbia, whose
sister was killed by her husband six years ago. He got one year
because he was drunk. She told me that at that time the family
was assured it would be notified of any change in the offender
status.
A few weeks ago a friend called to tell her that her sister's
killer was spotted in a nearby town. He was released on early
parole and they were not told anything. This woman and her
family are terrified of him. There is also a very real concern
that he may attempt to gain custody of his daughter who witnessed
the killing.
I asked if they had made request for notification in writing as
is required by the parole board, and she told me that they had
not because nobody told them that they should. They were merely
told that they would be notified.
Although this case is provincial due to the light sentence, it
is typical of stories coming out of the federal system. It is
high time the solicitor general took appropriate steps to ensure
that victims are properly informed of their rights.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we must take
advantage of Small Business Week to recall the importance of small
businesses to the economy of Quebec. In 1995, there were 177,000
businesses with fewer than five employees. If we add to that the
436,000 self-employed workers, we have some idea of the changes the
work force is currently undergoing.
Moreover, between 1978 and 1995, the proportion of total jobs
which were in businesses with 50 employees or less rose from 28% to
38%, while the proportion for large businesses dropped from 46% to
37%.
1400
These entrepreneurs and self-employed workers work hard.
Often, their businesses are less cost-effective. They have trouble
getting credit, and even more trouble obtaining the risk capital
that is so indispensable for startup and for growth, which is
always a perilous undertaking.
Women are increasingly achieving success in these areas. Let
us pay homage to these men and women, whose efforts must be given
more than mere lip service.
* * *
[English]
GREEN-A-THON
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, cleaning up
our environment and making a difference in our community is not
only on the minds of our leaders but is important to Canada's
youth as well.
On Friday, October 24, 1997 McKenzie-Smith Bennett public
school, Robert Little public school and St. Joseph's separate
school, all of Acton, Ontario in my riding of Halton, will be
holding a Green-A-Thon.
Some 1,300 students will participate in this event along with
teachers and supervisors. The Credit Valley conservation
authority has also been working very closely with the schools in
planning the activities. The children will be raking leaves for
seniors and the town churches in addition to cleaning up creeks
as well as school property.
I commend the efforts made by all the teachers and students in
making this event possible. I wish them much success in this
endeavour.
* * *
FISHERIES
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what
is the real cause of dwindling fish stocks? Is it greedy seals
or is it overfishing?
Until a few days ago fisheries officers were engaged in a seal
cull in British Columbia. The purpose of the cull was said to
be saving endangered stocks of chinook salmon, cutthroat trout and
steelheads.
Is killing seals a desirable solution or should we instead
sustain the fishery? Should we harvest more than nature can
replace or instead stay within the limits imposed by nature?
To achieve sustainable development we need long term sustainable
solutions. The recovery of an endangered species does not
justify the destruction of another species.
The problem lies not with seals but with us.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1996 impaired driving killed over 1,700 people in
Canada and injured more than 100,000. This epidemic which is
causing these terrible tragedies shows no sign of decreasing.
Representatives of MADD Canada are in Ottawa this week to talk
to members of Parliament and reinforce just how serious this
problem is.
It is crucial that federal and provincial governments stop
treating impaired driving as simply another social ill. In fact,
impaired driving is a senseless crime that can be eradicated if we
have the will to do it.
Governments must adopt a zero tolerance policy toward impaired
driving. Anything short of this will simply result in more
senseless deaths.
I ask my colleagues in the House to join with me to fight
against impaired driving, to ensure that more innocent Canadians
do not become victims of irresponsible impaired drivers.
* * *
MINING
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to recognize the mining industry's continued support
to community development throughout Canada.
Last week Falconbridge Limited pledged a $360,000 donation to
the Cambrian College Special Needs Regional Resource Centre in
the region of Sudbury. In turn, the membership of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers CAW Local 598 pledged an additional $10,000 and
the United Steel Workers of America Local 6855 pledged $3,000 to
the centre.
The special needs centre is a world class institution that
provides students with disabilities the tools and skills to reach
their full academic and employment potential.
The generosity of the Falconbridge nickel mines and its
employees clearly demonstrates their commitment to the community.
We thank them and applaud them.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday the Business Development Bank of Canada
presented the prestigious Young Entrepreneur Awards for the 10th
year in a row.
At a special awards ceremony held at the Metro Toronto
Convention Center, 12 outstanding young business people aged 29 and
under from each province and territory were honoured. This ceremony
officially launched Small Business Week.
1405
Winners were chosen by a panel of judges made up of business
professionals, entrepreneurs, members of local boards of trade and
chambers of commerce, and representatives from the Export
Development Corporation and BDC.
They were judged on operating success, connection with new
economy activities, innovation and community involvement. The bank
also introduced the Export Achievement Award, which was presented
to one of the 12 winners. This award is presented by the Export
Development Corporation in partnership with BDC.
Congratulations to the young winners.
* * *
MARINE PILOTS
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a momentous event recently took place in the port of Quebec
City.
One of the largest drilling rigs in the world, the Spirit of
Columbus, arrived in Quebec City. Anyone who knows the St. Lawrence
River well can appreciate that, were it not for the skill of the St.
Lawrence pilots, this rig would never have made it into the port in
Quebec City.
I would like to pay special tribute to all members of the
Corporation of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, who, through their
determination, courage and expertise, were able to convince the port of
Quebec City, Hydro-Québec and Petrobas officials that their rig could
arrive safely in port.
The association's president, Paul-Yvan Viel, and the president of
the international association of marine pilots, Michel Pouliot,
themselves acted as pilots to guide the Spirit of Columbus to Quebec
City.
Congratulations and hurray for our Quebec marine pilots.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from October 19 to October 25 the YWCA of/du Canada is holding
the second annual YWCA Week Without Violence.
This important international initiative is being held in 17
countries and recognizes the devastating economic, social and
health consequences violence produces.
Consider these statistics. More than 100 women are victims of
domestic homicide every year by an actual or former husband or
common law partner. Approximately one-half of women 16 and over
have been victims of violence as defined by the Canadian Criminal
Code. The great majority of personal crimes committed against
women are not reported to the police. Sixty per cent of women in
Canada are afraid to walk alone in their neighbourhoods after
dark. Boys who have witnessed violence against their mothers
eventually tend to be more violent toward their spouses. Violence
costs the Canadian economy approximately $4 billion every year.
This year 36 YWCAs and YMCAs across Canada are working to find
solutions to violence. I am proud to offer my support to the
YWCA—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yellowhead.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a letter from a constituent protesting the early release of
sex offenders including Michael Chretien and the killer who
first raped her teenage daughter and was released early even
though a high risk.
Sadly the saga of Liberal justice continues. Serial child
killer and rapist Clifford Olson was granted an early parole
hearing this summer. Can it get worse, Mr. Speaker? You would
think not, but it does.
Recently Albertans were shocked. Larry Takahashi, according to
the investigating officer, raped at least 100 Edmonton women.
What did he get? Life in jail, a few lashes, the noose? No, he
got day passes for heaven's sake.
Canadians are pleading for the justice minister to fix the
Criminal Code. Canadians are begging the solicitor general to
overhaul the parole board. For God's sake, do something.
* * *
[Translation]
GUADELOUPE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
witnessing today what appears to be an unprecedented conspiracy against
our cousin and friend, France.
We have just learned that recently, without its own government
knowing it, a foreign separatist movement had one of its experts attend
a meeting of the Guadelupian movement, an organization dedicated to
withdrawing this West Indian island from French trusteeship.
This truly looks like interference in the domestic policy of one of
Canada's friends.
In light of the seriousness of this situation, we demand a clear and
unequivocal answer to the following question: Did the Quebec separatist
movement delegate hand his hosts a note saying that Quebec will be with
Guadeloupe on the road it chooses to take, yes or no?
* * *
1410
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last month $7.2 million in infrastructure projects were announced
for Cape Breton county, creating 214 short term jobs. Good news?
Maybe not. When my constituents tried to find out about those
jobs no answers were forthcoming.
Even more interesting, there are four byelections going on in
Nova Scotia as our seatless premier tries to win a place in the
legislature.
Recently when I crossed the border into the premier's sought
after riding, I was shocked by the beehive of infrastructure
activity.
Why are the only jobs created in Cape Breton always designed to
help Liberals win elections? Why do those jobs always disappear
when the polls close?
Nova Scotians are fed up with being exploited, fed up with only
getting the roads fixed at election time.
Cape Bretoners deserve to know how and when they can get
information about these projects regardless of their political
affiliation.
As for the byelections, Nova Scotians will not be hoodwinked
again. I look forward to congratulating four new NDP MLAs on
November 5.
* * *
OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an effective official opposition is the
conscience of Parliament. An effective official opposition poses
well thought out and researched questions during question period.
The member for Edmonton North is quoted in the Ottawa Sun
as having goofed not once but twice in the last three weeks in
her campaign to dig up dirt.
Reform has promised to hold bingo fund-raisers at Stornoway to
pay down the national debt.
One of the best examples of an oxymoron and government waste in
this House is Reform research.
* * *
[Translation]
BREAST CANCER
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, with breast
cancer awareness month drawing to a close and our attention turning
to other causes, it is essential that we not give up the fight.
This illness is devastating for victims, their families and
their friends. I myself lost my mother to breast cancer five years
ago.
It is estimated that, every 30 minutes, someone is diagnosed
with breast cancer, that one million Canadian women are afflicted
and that over 5,000 of them die from this illness annually.
These statistics are a reminder to us of the importance of
prevention.
We must continue to support agencies providing assistance to
those with breast cancer, and also to make women aware of the
importance of these preventive examinations.
* * *
[English]
SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
across Canada small and medium size businesses are helping to
power Canada's economic renewal. Their ability to innovate and
to respond quickly to changing markets is enabling smaller
businesses to create jobs for Canadians in increasing numbers.
[Translation]
It is small business week and I would ask the House to join
with me in paying tribute to the achievements of this vital sector
of our economy.
[English]
I also take this opportunity to salute a company in my riding
which exemplifies a very successful small business. Alumicor
Limited, located in Rexdale, is a company that manufactures,
among other things, architectural aluminium storefronts. Founded
in 1959, Alumicor Limited is a great Canadian success story.
Currently the company has grown to employ 200 people. It has
four offices across the country and generates sales in the $20
million range.
During this small business week Canadian entrepreneurs can
celebrate the contribution they make to the Canadian economy and
to all Canadians.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to give you a few
pieces of information. The first is that when you stand to make
your statement, many times there is talking going on, but these
microphones are very sensitive and you need not raise your voices
too loud to have all of us hear you. It will come through. It
will be all right.
1415
The second thing has to do with microphones. I would tell all
of the front bench on the government side, your lights will not
come on. We have a small technical problem.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We will now go to oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we too have noticed that the lights are out. We have
asked the environment minister nine times this week to explain
the Liberal position on CO2 emissions that she will take to the
Kyoto summit and still no answer.
Considering the fact that she has agreed to sign this agreement,
we want to know how much her promises are going to cost Canadian
taxpayers. The conference board states that it is going to cost
thousands of dollars per family.
Does the minister believe that a cost of thousands of dollars
per family is an acceptable cost for the Kyoto deal?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, climate change is, no doubt, a very
serious issue. The international community agrees with the
science on this issue. The cost for Canada will be enormous if
we do nothing and that includes the cost in western Canada.
The government is committed to signing on to a legally binding
target in Kyoto. The economic fear-mongering on the other side
of the House is totally unrealistic. There is much opportunity
on this issue, including investments in technology which will
help us to meet—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister could allay the fears by frankly expressing
and telling the House the cost. That is all we are asking. That
is the 10th non-answer in a row.
Let us see if the Minister of Natural Resources can help the
environment minister out of her dilemma.
Yesterday, outside the House, this minister said that the
government was considering new taxes to pay for this emissions
treaty. He mused about energy taxes. He mused about fuel taxes.
It is a Liberal instinct: if in doubt, tax.
What kind of taxes are the Liberals cooking up now? Is it taxes
on the industry? Is it taxes at the pump? Is it taxes on fuel
bills in the home?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are a variety of ways by which countries around
the world can come to grips with climate change. There are
self-initiated efforts by the private sector. There are measures
to support energy efficiency. There are incentives for science
and and technology, technology commercialization and transfer.
There are renewable sources of energy. There are joint
implementation plans. There are emission credits and trading.
Only the Reform Party is fixated on taxation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Talk about gaseous emissions, Mr. Speaker.
Since the government is considering new taxes to pay for the
Kyoto treaty, surely it is time to hear from the finance
department on this subject. Perhaps the finance minister will be
the author of the new national energy program.
Is the finance minister prepared to let the government sign a
treaty without knowing what it costs? Is he in favour of an
energy tax or does he have to wait for his boss to come back from
Europe to sort this mess out?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on this issue of taxation, let me quote the Calgary
Sun of October 15, 1994 where this quote appears in
relation to certain forms of taxation, not a carbon tax but other
forms of taxation related to the environment. It reads: “It is
worth consideration. If it is truly an environmental tax then I
do not have a serious problem. I think the public is, by and
large, willing to pay a reasonable amount to address an
environmental problem. I guess our greatest fear was a carbon
tax imposed on the wellhead”. That quote is attributed to
Premier Ralph Klein.
1420
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
environment minister talks about the inevitable cost of complying
with the Kyoto summit and the resource minister says that the
Reform Party is only fixated on taxation. A recently produced
study by the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association says that
those costs could be $180 billion to the Canadian economy and $1
per litre of gasoline.
Is this the minister's idea of reasonable costs?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our nation together will be looking at
how we can address this important issue. In the challenge there
are many economic opportunities. I would like to know what
Reform is proposing. Is it proposing that we hide our heads in
the sand and not go to Kyoto? What is its resolution of this?
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we on
this side of the House are not talking about arbitrary figures on
a piece of paper that mean nothing. We are talking about peoples'
lives, thousands of jobs, the ability of people to support their
families.
Does the minister really think that $1 a litre gasoline and
doubling home heating fuel costs is a reasonable cost today?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Insurance Bureau of Canada tells us
that the cost of losses due to disasters between 1992 and 1996
rose 65% from the previous five-year period as a result of
greenhouse gas emissions.
The year 1996 proved to be the industry's worst year in Canada
and with the floods in the west this year, I doubt that 1997 will
be much better.
What does the Reform Party propose we do as a nation if it is
not to work together to resolve and attack these problems?
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC-FRANCE AGREEMENT ON CHILD SUPPORT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
saga concerning the agreement reached between Quebec and France
continues because the federal government systematically refuses to
approve this accord.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs confirm that Ottawa
is rejecting the Quebec-France agreement because it includes the
expression “contracting party” to designate Quebec, and because it
refers to the use of diplomatic channels as a means to solve any
dispute?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are several problems with the draft agreement, including the
suggestion that Quebec is a contracting party to international
conventions signed between existing or future states. But this is just
one problem.
Another problem is that the draft agreement includes areas not
covered by the Canada-France treaty, thus technically preventing it from
becoming a formal agreement, both in France and in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
regards the expression
“contracting party”, I remind the minister that
it was included in the 1987 agreement signed by Robert Bourassa and
Jacques Chirac, yet the federal government did not take exception to it
and approved the agreement.
I ask the minister, who is constantly taking cover behind the
framework agreement, whether he recognizes that the 1987 agreement
signed by Robert Bourassa and Jacques Chirac, that is between Quebec and
France, made no reference to the framework agreement of the time but was
nevertheless approved by the federal government.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the agreement was approved because it did not contradict in any way the
Canada-France treaty at the time.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister is refusing to approve the Quebec-France
agreement claiming the need to refer to the Canada-France
agreement.
Will the minister acknowledge that the master agreement he is
referring does not even apply at the moment, since it has not been
ratified by the French National Assembly?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, article 26 of the Canada-France agreement provides the
following:
France and the provinces and territories of Canada may
enter into arrangements concerning any matter dealt with in
this Convention that is within provincial or territorial
jurisdiction, to the extent that such arrangements are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Convention.
The provisions of the Canada-France agreement must be met when
agreements are to be signed with the provinces.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not answer the
question.
I repeat my question: Is this agreement in effect and is he
objecting to the conclusion of an agreement between Quebec and
France on a treaty that is not even in effect?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the treaty is not yet in effect, but it is through this
treaty that agreements may be signed between the provinces and the
French government until it does take effect.
One thing must be clearly understood: Quebeckers cannot have
rights with force of law in France, unless it is in the context
of a treaty between governments, according to French provisions,
in fact. For the good of Quebeckers, may the Government of
Quebec negotiate with the Government of Canada as quickly as
possible.
* * *
[English]
LABOUR
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in July
the trade minister gave assurances that Canada was fighting to
protect our labour standards in negotiating the multilateral
agreement on investment.
A leaked document now reveals that the minister was giving these
assurances at the very same time Canada's negotiators were
sitting on the sidelines in total silence. It was left to the
United States to propose tough labour and environmental
standards. This government sold us out on NAFTA. It is now
selling us out on the MAI.
When will the Minister for International Trade stop using labour
and environmental protection as bargaining chips for
international investors?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third or fourth party,
whatever it is, should stop using hysteria as opposed to selling
the government or Canada short.
It is very important for Canada to be at the MAI table not only
for the purposes of attracting foreign investment to Canada,
which is about jobs and economic activity, but there is as much
investment by Canadians abroad as we have investment coming in.
It is a two way street and we need to protect that.
Insofar as labour and environment—
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
the problem. Labour and environmental standards are always an
afterthought with the government. The Liberals have become wimps
when it comes to protecting our labour and environmental
standards in trade deals.
When asked about Canada's failure to fight for tough standards
in the MAI, the trade minister said he does not want the binding
version, the Cadillac version. If clean air, clean water, decent
wages and safe working conditions are the minister's Cadillac
model, imagine what his economy model must look like.
Will the trade minister instruct our negotiators to stand up for
Canadian workers and a clean environment when they meet next week
in Paris to continue negotiations on the MAI?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, this minister said no such thing
to the The Globe and Mail reporter. We never said that
they would be used as bargaining chips. We never said that
Canada would not support binding references to both labour and
environment.
The Canadian position has been made very clear. You cannot
judge a position from one set of meetings going back to 1995.
Canada has said as much as the Americans with respect to labour
and environment. We want both issues addressed by the MAI just
the way NAFTA has addressed both environment and labour to its
satisfaction.
* * *
FISHERIES
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of jobs in the fishing industry on the Pacific coast
have been lost in 1996 because of a bad season, but also because
of the government's policies.
I would like to know whether the Minister of Human Resources
Development is going to make some funding available, funding that
has since dried up, to help the coastal communities, and whether
the government is preparing an adjustment strategy for those
coastal communities so that the families affected can be helped?
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government remains very
preoccupied with the situation in Newfoundland and I welcome the
question put to me by the Conservative leader.
I think he is absolutely right that some of these situations
need to be monitored very closely. At the beginning of this
month I asked one of my very senior officials, a person who is
very talented, to review the post TAGS situation and its impact
on the communities, the fishers, their families and on the
provincial finances as well. He is supposed to bring a report
back to me in December.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister and the government will also know that thousands of
Canadians on both coasts, east coast and west coast, are
dramatically affected by the dwindling stocks, by the situation
that we are in today.
If the Reformers do not care about this issue and will not ask
questions, maybe they will want to listen to what happens in this
House. I want to know from the government, when will there be a
national policy on fisheries, one that has as its cornerstone the
issue of sustainable development for this country so that these
Canadians will know that there is a future for the fishery in
Canada.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member bothered to attend
the debate that took place today in the House up to the question
period and if he bothers to wait and come back to the House after
question period, he will discover that it is a Tory motion on
this very issue that we are discussing.
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Many times we have slips of the lip and I am
sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition will want to withdraw
that. Oh, excuse me, not you, the member would withdraw that.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader
of the Opposition would actually want to withdraw.
The Speaker: I put it to you directly, will you withdraw
the word please.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the
Chair and for the House, I will withdraw the word.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to the last question to the environment minister, she
answered by stating that the way to solve the global warming
problem is to work together. I have to ask, why is she not doing
that?
Ordinary Canadians will be paying for this deal. The provinces
will now likely have to administer it. It only makes sense to
have the provinces' agreement before she gets to Kyoto. I once
again ask the minister, will the minister ensure that she has the
agreement of all the provinces before she gets to Kyoto, and not
after?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces are working with me in
discussing this very important issue. They are well apprised of
what we are doing as a responsible nation in the international
community.
There are many thousands of Canadians who are very concerned
about this issue. The Reform seems blind to that reality. There
are many companies, including Loeb grocers, who have reduced
their greenhouse gas emissions, their energy costs by 30% by
reducing the speed limits on their delivery trucks to 90 to 95
kilometres an hour. They are saving 30% of their—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
she simply will not answer the question.
The environment minister said in the House yesterday that she is
going to strike a deal in Kyoto and only then get the
co-operation from the provinces. This is clearly unacceptable to
the provinces. Alberta's environment minister has publicly stated
that Alberta will not accept legally binding limits arrived at
this manner.
1435
I ask the environment minister once again, will the minister
commit to getting the agreement of the provinces before she goes
to Kyoto, yes or no?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in discussing this issue with my
provincial counterparts yesterday, including the minister from
Alberta, I believe that we are satisfied that we are working
together on this issue in a transparent manner. I also believe
that the minister of the environment in Alberta is very concerned
about the negative impact of climate change on his province.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCE-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON COLLECTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have just
learned that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is insisting on
blocking the agreement between Quebec City and Paris for the simple
reason that the Canadian agreement has yet to be signed and is therefore
not yet in existence.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs block an
agreement negotiated in good faith between Quebec City and Paris just
because there is a Canadian agreement that has not yet been signed, that
does not have force of law and that does not therefore exist?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the master agreement between France and
Canada exists. The basis for that is international public law.
So no agreement between Quebec and France can have legal force
outside Canada without the support of the Government of Canada. The
Government of France has already indicated that the federal government's
agreement preliminary to the signing of a legal agreement—
The Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. The
member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the secretary is
very kind, but he must realize the Government of Canada is in the
process of changing 20 years of international practice, because other
agreements have already been signed and there is a way to approve them.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I do
not want him to dodge the issue, I would like him to answer. How can he
base his position on an agreement that does not exist, that is, the one
between Canada and France, thus denying women and children in Quebec
their child support? How can he do that?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have answered this question a number of times, and the answer is that
Quebeckers can only have rights that have force in law in France under
a treaty signed by two governments.
I would add one thing. The fact that things have dragged on so long
is due to the partisanship of the other side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: We keep trying to practice empty-chair
politics. Between 1994 and 1996, Canada negotiated with France, and the
Quebec government refused to take part. Now it has tried to negotiate
a parallel agreement, which cannot have force of law in France because
of French, Canadian and international provisions.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have some prison guards with us today, including Roy Tremblay.
Roy recently was asked to relocate an inmate from one cell to
another. In the process of moving this inmate and relocating him,
he got poked with a needle. This inmate has full blown AIDS.
The guards have been after the system for days and days to
provide them with puncture safety gloves, which it has failed to
do. Will the solicitor general scrap his idea of a tattoo
parlour for the cons and provide these guards with the material
they need to do their jobs?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the entire Chamber is aware that I am very
concerned for the employees of the Canadian corrections service.
I think they do good work. I support them regularly. I will take
under consideration the suggestion of the member.
1440
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they
have been asking for these things for a long time. Talk is
cheap. They had better turn the lights on in the second row as
well.
A few days ago we were talking about knives and cleavers in the
kitchen. Remember that? They heard the plea and guess what?
They got some cord and they attached the knives and cleavers to
the tables like we asked. Isn't that neat? The knives can cut
the cord.
Will the solicitor general provide us today with some
information that will say to the guards who are present that we
will chain both of these knives to the tables so they cannot be
turned into lethal weapons against the people who work there?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Union of Solicitor General Employees has brought the
issue to the attention of the management of CSC and the knives
have been attached to the tables.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC-FRANCE AGREEMENT ON SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In his desire to place the Quebec-France agreement on
collection of support payments within an umbrella agreement, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is creating a situation which
is extremely prejudicial to the women and children of Quebec.
Will the minister confirm that the umbrella agreement under
which he wishes to place the Quebec-France agreement contains no
provisions for access to legal aid by Quebec women in the territory
of France, as there is in the agreement between Quebec and France
he is willfully blocking?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an umbrella
agreement between Canada and France on which there has been
practice for 30 years. The juridical force of judgments of
Canadian courts in France depends on this umbrella agreement.
Without an agreement between Quebec and France being concluded
within the framework of that agreement, no judgments of Canadian
courts can be applied in France.
Therefore, it is the single mothers and their children of Canada
who cannot receive payments in France because the Quebec
government will not conform to the agreement.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again we see clearly that the Liberal government understands
nothing, and women will be the ones hurt by this policy.
Can the minister confirm that the umbrella agreement to which
he wishes to subordinate the agreement entered into by Quebec and
France calls for a period of limitation for collecting support
payments which gives women fewer rights than the one negotiated
between Quebec and France?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of France
in its communication of October 21 made it clear that the
preliminary approval of Canada is necessary for any agreement
between Quebec and France to have force in international law.
It is the Quebec government that is preventing single mothers
and their children from receiving their benefits in France.
* * *
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general admitted that the parole board is
responsible to no one. Here is an example.
In 1986 school teacher Robert Noyes was sentenced to an
indefinite term and declared a dangerous offender after pleading
guilty to 19 charges of molesting children in British Columbia.
Mr. Noyes' victims have learned that this dangerous pedophile has
been granted unescorted temporary absences from his Quebec
prison.
Can the solicitor general explain why he has placed the
community at risk?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said a number of times, the National Parole
Board is an arm's length organization. Were I to interfere with
its decisions, members opposite would be telling me that it was
ministerial interference.
The reality is that the National Parole Board is guided by the
interests of public safety. Safety is served by a gradual
release system and that is what it pursues.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the lights are still not on in the second row.
During a parole hearing Mr. Noyes confessed to having at least
60 victims and hundreds of incidents of abuse. He has been
diagnosed an incurable pedophile by Correctional Service Canada.
1445
How can the solicitor general sleep at night when he knows he is
responsible for letting dangerous pedophiles out on the street,
or doesn't he think he is responsible?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an important principle to understand that the
National Parole Board makes decisions based on public safety
issues with the best advice and information it has available at
the time. It is very important to recognize that a gradual
release program is the most effective way to guarantee public
safety.
The Speaker: I know all hon. members would want to hear
the questions as well as the responses.
* * *
[Translation]
AIRPORT SECURITY
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, recently, when we asked the Minister of Transport why the
RCMP was still present at the Dorval and Mirabel airports, his
answer was that the situation was a temporary one.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he explain
why Ottawa has reversed it decision regarding the RCMP's presence
in Montreal, when ADM and the Sûreté du Québec were on the point of
reaching an agreement? Why? That is clear.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained that renovations are being done at Dorval
airport. It is a period of change and we are going to leave the
RCMP there for the time being.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR SAFETY
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Quite recently residents of Pickering have been very concerned
about the lack of safety measures that exist at their nuclear
facility.
Although the Government of Ontario has primary responsibility
for this facility, could the Minister of Natural Resources assure
my constituents that the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada is
on top of these rather troubling developments and will insist on
corrective action to ensure the plant's very safe operation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the primary operational responsibility obviously rests
with Ontario Hydro, which is a provincial crown corporation.
Regulatory matters in relation to nuclear safety are in the
professional hands of the atomic energy control board. I have
met with the chair of the board and I have been assured of the
board's solid handle on the safety issues pertaining to Ontario
Hydro.
The board is closely monitoring the situation with both on site
and off site surveillance. That monitoring led to the original
wake-up call to Ontario Hydro that has brought the matter to
public attention and remedial action and, yes, if further action
is warranted the control board will—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Blackstrap.
* * *
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is
another example of what guards face every day. Despite spending
$50 million to retrofit Kingston Penitentiary, Correctional
Service Canada has put guards at further risk by implementing a
locking system which effectively gives inmates the keys to their
own cells.
In Bowden, Alberta, inmates are given and do hold the keys to
their own cells. Is this a mistake or does the solicitor general
honestly believe that inmates in a penitentiary can be trusted to
lock themselves in?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is important for everybody to note that Correctional
Service Canada, the National Parole Board and the Ministry of the
Solicitor General are all driven by the interests of public
safety.
All evidence shows that the best way to deal with public safety
in a corrections system is a gradual controlled release system,
which is what we are engaged in.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can
see in the second row that the lights are on but no one is home.
By not having a secure locking system the solicitor general is
leaving the door open for trouble, for assaults and for riots at
Kingston.
This week the emergency response team was called on four times
because surprise, surprise, the inmates refused to lock
themselves in. What will the solicitor general do to change this
preposterous system?
1450
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very committed to the safety of the officers of
Correctional Service Canada.
I visited these facilities. We have discussed these issues and
I have every confidence that in the management of the system we
are looking after the safety of the inmates.
* * *
FINANCE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Emergency shelters for the homeless across the country are
running out of space and the cold weather has not yet hit. The
government has abandoned programs that help the poorest and most
vulnerable in society. The cuts have been devastating, including
in my own riding of Vancouver East.
Will the minister take responsibility for this crisis of growing
homelessness and outline what specific steps his government will
take to shelter the homeless?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one can remain impervious to the terrible scenes of
homelessness. No one can remain impervious to the degradation in
which a large number of our fellow citizens find themselves.
As a result the government has consistently refused to engage in
scorch and burn policies advocated by others. When we had to
cut, which we had to do, we did it in a humane way with plenty of
notice. At the same time we engaged in a series of programs such
as the child tax benefits and the reinjection of $6 billion into
the CHST to enable the provinces and the municipalities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
that is not good enough. The government has cut billions of
dollars from social programs and thrown in the towel on jobs and
housing. Its child tax benefit does not help the poorest of the
poor.
When will the minister establish national standards and give
real support to ensure that no one goes hungry or homeless
because their income has been pushed below survival levels?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one, and certainly not this government, wanted to
find themselves in the financial difficulty that we found
ourselves when we took office. The fact is that if we had not
acted our ability now to take positive action to help the people
the hon. member is referring to would have been severely
circumscribed.
We are now in a position to do that which a Liberal government
and a responsible government wants to do. I would simply say
that the hon. member ought to read what some of her own people
have said. Don't be misled by politicians who make expensive
promises. Saskatchewan followed that path in the 1980s and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Vanessa, a Dutch owned tanker vessel, just sunk at 1
o'clock Atlantic time. There are 30 people in lifeboats waiting
to be rescued. Naval Lieutenant John Larson from the Halifax
rescue staff has told my staff “Our helicopters can't go because
it is just out of range”.
When are we getting our helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with whatever other aircraft we have
available and ships that may be available in the area I am sure
we will do all we can in terms of that rescue situation.
With respect to the helicopters, I anticipate that we will have
this matter brought forward very soon. We are anxious to get on
with making sure that the fine, dedicated people who are involved
in our search and rescue missions have proper equipment. We want
to make sure we get good value for the taxpayers' dollars and
that we get the best operational aircraft to carry out search and
rescue.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
those 30 people are facing eight metre waves out there. Canada
is not properly equipped for today's operation. We hope it all
goes well and they all get back safely. However we have waited
long enough.
I ask the minister of defence again where our helicopters are.
When are we going to get them?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a search and rescue operation and
we will do all that we possibly can in terms of those 30 people.
Meanwhile we have for some period of time been going through a
process of evaluating the proponents for the new search and
rescue helicopters. If in fact the member's party had not fouled
the matter up previously we might have had something today.
* * *
1455
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
farmers in my area of Ontario are very concerned about the issue
of supply management.
My question is for the minister of agriculture. I want to know
exactly what the government plans to do to protect supply
management in preparation for the impeding talks at the next
World Trade Organization meeting.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last round of multinational
negotiations the government successfully supported and defended
the interests of the supply managed sector. We have also very
effectively put in place tariff protection for the producers of
dairy, egg and poultry products in this country.
We also very effectively and successfully, in co-operation with
the producers, processors and the provinces, succeeded in the
arguments with the U.S. NAFTA challenge opposing our actions in
the dairy, egg and poultry sector.
We will continue to use that as a template as we negotiate and
set our strategies and we go forward into future multilateral and
bilateral negotiations.
* * *
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
The pressure cooker of the Kingston prison is ready to blow:
prisoners assault guards without fear of consequence, sue for
compensation with 13 prison lawsuits claiming $23 million and
guards disciplined if they do not keep the jail quiet. The
result is hundreds of unsettled union grievances and perhaps even
riots in the making.
Will the minister convince his colleague ministers of the need
to take back control of these con run prisons and do what is
right rather than what is convenient?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the question because it gives me the
opportunity to bring to the attention of everyone the kind of
fearmongering that is going on in terms of these institutions.
It is a fearmongering that even the union says does nothing to
help the situation.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of the Environment.
In preparation for the Kyoto conference, the federal
government is getting ready to redefine its strategy to reduce
greenhouse emissions. This morning, we learned that one of the
main victims of global warming will be the St. Lawrence River, with
all the catastrophic effects that one would expect.
Does the minister admit that Quebec might be at a serious
disadvantage because of its inability to agree with Canada's
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this is a national
issue and a national challenge but there are national
opportunities. There is not one area of the country that will
not be negatively affected by the results of climate change.
Canada will be working collaboratively with Quebec and every
province of the country to find appropriate resolutions. If we
do not, we risk our water, agriculture, fisheries and forests. It
is a serious issue.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's aboriginal peoples are used to hearing a lot of words
but seeing very little action from the government which stressed
the importance of partnership in the throne speech. Almost one
full year after the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples the government has yet to respond. Is that what
partnership means to the government?
My question is for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.
Will the government end its silence and commit to a full and
complete public response to the recommendations before the
November 21 anniversary of the release of the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
RCAP is one of the most important tools in the department of
Indian affairs. There are great needs and great hopes within the
first nations.
No one is happy with what is happening right now with the status
quo. In the near future we hope to have a full response to RCAP.
It is the intention of the government to provide a good response
and not just a response. The government wants to address all the
problems of the first nation.
* * *
1500
SHIPBUILDING
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
The shipbuilding industry in Canada operates at an unfair
competitive disadvantage as other countries around the world have
shipbuilding policies that give them bank loans, equity funding,
lease packages and shipyard credit.
The Minister of Industry stated that unless you elected a
Liberal none of the priorities for this government would be in
the top ten priorities of his department.
Will the minister create a shipbuilding policy that will even
the playing field for Canadian shipyards competing against
shipyards in foreign countries and help—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the lists of advantages that are offered by other
shipbuilding countries to their manufacturers very often include
very generous and substantial subsidies. Canada continues to
participate in the group concerning shipbuilding at the OECD
trying to put an end to these unfair subsidies.
If her question is whether I will advocate that our government enter
into a subsidy bidding war with these other countries, the answer
is no.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the solicitor general a question but I think
I have to ask it of the government House leader.
Could he tell the House the business of the House for the
remainder of this week and for the week following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the opposition
House leader is correct that I am not the solicitor general.
The business for the following days is as follows. Tomorrow the
House will consider the customs tariff bill introduced earlier
this day. On Monday we will consider a motion to establish a
special joint committee to consider the amendment to the
Constitution of Canada proposed by the Newfoundland House of
Assembly. On Tuesday and Wednesday we will complete any business
left from Friday and Monday, followed by Bill C-8, the Yukon
bill, Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley bill, Bill C-7, the Saguenay
Park bill, Bill C-3, the DNA bill, time permitting. Next
Thursday shall be an allotted day.
The Speaker: I will now deal with the points of order.
The first one is from solicitor general.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the course of question period a question was put
with regard to safety of guards in the correctional system. I
inadvertently referred to inmates rather than guards. I would
like to correct that.
The Speaker: The record will show that.
Another point of order is from the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
TABLING DOCUMENTS
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the Minister of the Environment quoted
from an insurance document. Under standing orders, I would ask
that she table that document in the House.
1505
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are endeavouring to verify
the point. If in fact the minister quoted from any kind of
document other than from her own briefing notes, we will table it
at the earliest opportunity, possibly later this day.
The Speaker: That will be taken care of as soon as we
find out.
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to comments
by the minister of fisheries.
In response to a question posed by the leader of the
Conservative Party, he referenced the fact that the member may
not be aware of a motion that was brought forward. He also
referenced the fact that the member was not present in the House.
The Speaker: You are right. I believe I heard that and I
should have responded quickly. All hon. members know that
we do not refer to whether a member is here or not. These things
happen. I hope they do not happen too often because I
should be on top of that. The point is well taken. Orders of
the day.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. We had been led to believe that there would be tributes
made prior to commencing orders of the day.
The Speaker: Of course. Forgive me, I did not have the
note up here.
Yes, we are going to have tributes to two of our members who
passed away. The first is for Mr. Fred McCain, with whom many of
us in this House served.
* * *
THE LATE FRED MCCAIN
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, as you
mentioned, Fred McCain served in this House many years. Mr.
Speaker, you served with him, as did the leader of our party.
I want to pay tribute today to Fred McCain. Fred served the
people of New Brunswick and Canada for 34 years, 18 years as a
member of the provincial legislature and 16 years as a member of
the House of Commons.
Fred was a great orator, a tremendous speaker who spoke always
from his heart with deep rooted convictions, convictions he held
and defended to his last breath. He loved his country and
certainly dedicated his life to that end.
In what I consider one of the most prophetic speeches ever made
in this House, Fred McCain rose in his place on October 21, 1980
during the Constitution debate to say:
—this is indeed an historic debate and one in which, in a way,
I find no great pleasure in participating. I think it implies
that we either recognize the concept on which this nation was
founded or we may be laying the foundation of its destruction.
This is a debate on a resolution that has the potential to alter
the face of this country like no other before it. I believe that
if this resolution is accepted in its present form it will change
the shape of federalism as it has existed historically and that
it may not be accepted as a favourable change.
I think it would be valuable to spend time examining the force
of federalism over the last century, because if this is to be
called an historic debate, then, I say, history should play a
part in the determination of its climax.
The precedents set by the wise men of the past, and the examination of
these precedents, should not be overlooked—.
The good of the proposed nation as a whole was the primary
objective of those who gave this nation their earliest
consideration. Although these men had differences, they put those
differences behind them and proposed a union that would be
mutually beneficial to all parties concerned.
On October 24, 1986, again he rose in support of a united Canada
with these strong and eloquent words:
Let us not divide the voters of this nation. Let us not put
culture against culture, region against region, man against
woman, women against everybody and man against all concerned for
the political purposes and for the gain of votes.
1510
During the very contentious debate on the issue of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, with his quick wit and memory
for quotes, he chose to say this in response to a challenging
colleague's retort: “The hon. member is never lucky in the
coincidence of his facts with the truth”. Fred went on to quote
Sir Winston Churchill: “I think it hardly possible to state the
opposite of the truth with more precision”.
Always the gentleman, Fred was always the gentle man.
How familiar to New Brunswickers are Fred's phrases, quotes,
humour and kindness, and that genuine ability to listen to people
and truly hear them. These attributes exemplified Fred McCain.
Fred leaves behind a wonderful family: his wife Frances, his one
sister Deanne, two sons, Fred and David, two daughters, Susan and
Patricia, two step-children, Susan and Richard, and 10
grandchildren.
His first wife, Marjorie, as many of us know, passed away in
1988 while Fred was still a member of this House.
In closing, I offer to this House these thoughts. Fred was my
mentor. He was a great Canadian with a great capacity to listen
and understand people. He had a remarkable record which was a
tribute to his natural affinity for people. He worked hard and
was eager to help others regardless of their political stripe.
He will be greatly missed by his family, friends and all of us
who believe that politics is an honourable profession.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would also like to rise today to pay tribute to Fred
McCain. I welcome the opportunity to do that following the fine
words of the hon. member for Charlotte. I know they were
heartfelt. I know the people of his constituency would see many
similarities between the good representation provided by Mr.
McCain and the present member.
I never met Mr. McCain, but he served in the New Brunswick
legislature as the representative for Carleton county for 18
years before he moved to federal politics as the member of
Parliament for Carleton—Charlotte in 1972. He served as the MP
for what became known as the fish and chip riding until his
retirement in 1988.
Mr. McCain was a classic example of a gentle rural politician
who moved easily from the potato farmers of Carleton county to
the weir fishermen of Charlotte county, always willing to work
for his people and listen to their concerns.
New Brunswick and Canada have lost one of their longest serving
and distinguished politicians.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, to Fred's wife, Frances
Manning Crompton, to his four children, two step-children, 10
grandchildren and to his sister we extend our deepest sympathies.
Mr. McCain, a father, a grandfather and a brother, was a man who
held service to the public in high esteem and, in turn, was
greatly admired and respected by the public. We all benefit as
politicians from the esteem which he brought to the job.
May Mr. McCain rest in peace and be an example to all of those
who follow in his footsteps.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
also rise to pay tribute to the memory of Fred McCain and to pay
my respects to his family.
Although I never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. McCain, his
reputation as a strong grassroots politician is well known. As
others have mentioned, he served in this House from 1972 to 1988.
Mr. McCain was a politician with a hands-on approach to matters
relating to his constituency. He had a genuine concern for his
constituents.
As I read over the material about Mr. McCain, it struck me that,
in particular, in his first year as a member of Parliament he
logged over 50,000 miles travelling to each of the communities in
his riding.
In the final years of his life his constituents would approach
him and offer their thanks for the fine work he had done as their
member of Parliament and in the legislative assembly.
Mr. McCain promised to do what he could for his constituents. He
did what he promised. This was evident as he remained in
politics, in elected life, for 34 years. I think all of us in
this place can learn a thing or two from Mr. Fred McCain. He
placed his constituents first and worked hard every day of those
34 years for his constituents.
1515
Our best wishes go out to his wife Frances and to the entire
McCain family. May Fred McCain rest in peace.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to extend our deepest
condolences to the family of Fred McCain, who passed away recently.
For 34 years, Fred McCain took up the difficult challenge of
representing part of the population of New Brunswick both in the New
Brunswick legislature in Fredericton and here in the House of Commons.
He had decided to devote the best part of his career to serving his
fellow citizens. His only promise, he said, was to do his very best to
serve those who voted for him. This vision of political accountability
does him credit.
As parliamentarians, we know how demanding political life is,
requiring both commitment and generosity.
That is why we want to recognize the outstanding professionalism of
Fred McCain in his political career. His family and relatives have every
reason to be proud of him and of what he achieved for his fellow
citizens.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I did have the pleasure of knowing Fred McCain and I did have the
honour of serving with him in this House for nine years. Although
he preceded me in this place by seven years, I did have the
opportunity to serve with him for nine years between 1979 and
1988. I have very fond memories of Mr. McCain as a gentleman and
a gentle man, as was said earlier by his Conservative colleague,
who loved debate and who loved this House of Commons.
I think I tangled horns with him on a couple of occasions, but
he was always the gentleman in debate and always the kind of
person with whom you could discuss the issue afterwards. He was
the kind of person who, when I first arrived here as a rookie, as
a senior member at that time, would be willing to talk to newer
members and give them the benefit of his experience.
I recall seeing him in the last year or so. I do not know if he
was here for a meeting of the Canadian Association of Former
Members of Parliament or what brought him to Ottawa but I
remember bumping into him in the hallway, just before the last
election. We had occasion to renew our acquaintance and talk
about Canadian politics.
I want to say to his wife and family that his memory will always
be honoured among those of us who had the opportunity to serve
with him. I extend our condolences to them on behalf of the NDP
caucus.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on October 12 Canada lost a man who dedicated over 34 years to
serving the people of his community, province and country. Canada
lost a statesman held in the highest regard by all those whose
lives he touched in so many ways.
On October 12 the people of western New Brunswick and Canada as
a whole lost a friend. Fred McCain died two Sundays ago and left
behind a family and a province who loved him dearly.
Fred was a man who became the yardstick by which all other
politicians are judged. Throughout both his public and private
life, Fred always acted with a genuine concern for those around
him. Fred was a man who did not see himself to be above those he
represented but rather would take the time to walk through a
potato field to check on the year's harvest and chat with the
local farmers.
One of the last times I had the opportunity to see Fred was
during the recent election campaign. The leader of the
Conservative Party had taken the time out of a busy campaign tour
through Atlantic Canada in order to stop by and say hi to an old
friend. The look on Fred's face as the Charest tour bus pulled
up and Jean stepped out is something I will never forget.
Even in his last months, Fred took the time to grant an
interview to local newspapers. He took the opportunity to stress
to the people of Carleton county the importance of a return to a
Progressive Conservative government was in the best interests of
our country.
Fred's commitment to the Progressive Conservative Party and to
the people of this nation will never be forgotten. I consider it
a privilege to have known Fred and to represent the portion of
the riding he so proudly worked for just a few years ago. It is
an honour for me to pay tribute to him in this House.
* * *
1520
[Translation]
THE LATE RODRIGUE BOURDAGES
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit
of those who did not know Rodrigue Bourdages, or who did not have the
pleasure of meeting him, let me say that Mr. Bourdages was a major
builder of the City of Laval, in addition to having been a Progressive
Conservative member of Parliament under the leadership of John
Diefenbaker. Mr. Bourdages was elected for the first time in 1958.
Unfortunately, he passed away last weekend, at the still young age of
73.
Today, I want to begin by offering my most sincere condolences to
Mr. Bourdages' family, his wife, children and grandchildren, and his
party colleagues. I also want to pay him a well deserved tribute.
While it is not usual for us to do so, I wish to mention that some
members of his family are here in the gallery. Johanne and Raymond
Bourdages, as well as Rodrigue's sister, Thérèse, are here to relive
fond memories of a father and brother who served in this House.
Mr. Bourdages, who was of Acadian descent, was born in Halifax, in
1924. As I said earlier, he became known in part for his central role in
the building of Quebec's second largest city, Laval. At the time, Laval
was made up of a number of cities and villages that were experiencing
spectacular growth and needed someone who could bring them together, so
they could be in a position to provide modern services. Rodrigue
Bourdages was the one who rose to the occasion and provided his
leadership for this extraordinary effort. He was indeed at the centre of
one of the greatest achievements at the municipal level.
In addition, he decided as well to run as a candidate in the 1958
election. Pierre Sévigny, who was the organizer for the Conservative
Party in Quebec at the time, recounts a rather funny story that well
illustrates Mr. Bourdages' character. When he contacted this person he
did not know, Mr. Sévigny had a candidate in mind for the riding, but
Mr. Bourdages said that he would be the candidate and the next member of
Parliament. And in fact Mr. Bourdages did run in the election and became
the next member of Parliament.
He served in the House of Commons until 1962. Subsequently he
continued his political activities serving as an organizer for our party
in Quebec. After that he was, of course, very active at the municipal
level.
Some of his achievements in the House still give food for thought.
He accomplished things that are noteworthy today, because they are
relevant to the debate on our future.
He was, for example, the first French Canadian to respond in French
to the Speech from the Throne in January 19, 1962. That is not so long
ago. I should remind those in this House and elsewhere in the country
who feel that French is taking up too much room that 1962—the first
time a member rose to respond in French in the House of Commons—is
not so long ago.
He instituted simultaneous interpretation and bilingual government
cheques. It was a real revolution at the time: bilingual federal
government cheques, when francophones had founded Canada and lived
there. He got Mr. Diefenbaker to agree to the idea of Expo 67, which was
being considered at the time, thus enabling Montreal to become an
international city a few years later.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Bourdages then became an organizer for
our party. And he was an exceptional one. He later worked as a property
administrator for the Quebec department of public works.
Mr. Bourdages has left us something, fortunately, an autobiography.
Written in 1988 with great sincerity and warmth, it describes a past
that is not so distant and pays tribute to all those who, like him,
wanted to do things, to build things, to make a contribution.
I have an indelible memory of Mr. Bourdages from election time. You
will pardon a little partisanship. The year was 1988. He was on the
podium. In 1995, during the referendum, he was there to give us a hand
and in 1997 as well. I even proposed to Mr. Bourdages that he run again,
but he cited his family.
He said: “You know, Jean, I don't think my wife would agree to it. I
have done my bit”. Rodrigue Bourdages, in fact did a whole lot.
1525
Today, on behalf of us all, I thank him and his family.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the
hon. member for Sherbrooke, I too wish to pay tribute to Rodrigue
Bourdages, who died on October 12.
On March 31, 1958, Mr. Bourdages was elected to the House of
Commons in the 24th Parliament as the representative for
Montreal—Laval. He was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and
graduated from the Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf in Montreal. He
married Évelyne Arsenault, a native of Saskatchewan, and they had
three children.
Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of knowing
Mr. Bourdages, who played a major role in the building of Laval and
was very involved in the community. He was also a Knight of
Columbus. He was viewed by many residents of Laval as a successful
entrepreneur, and he was an excellent manager at the Société
immobilière du Québec.
He was also vice-president of the Corporation
d'investissements de Laval, director of the Dicana corporation and
vice-president of Rapidco. As a contractor, he was responsible for
the construction of several schools and churches, which are now
part of Laval's rich heritage.
Mr. Bourdages was proud to be a Canadian and was an example to
all his French speaking compatriots. In 1962, he became the first
French Canadian member of Parliament since Confederation in 1867 to
give the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in French.
During this address, he expressed a wish that has since come to
pass, for Canada now has the distinction of being the world leader
in trade missions with its team Canada.
He said, and I quote: “We have reason to hope that other
markets will soon be opened for our products and that the efforts
of free enterprise ably seconded by the officials of the trade and
commerce department will be successful”.
In this same address, Mr. Bourdages expressed his deep love
for Canada, and I quote: “Canada is strong because it is united,
because we have the feeling that its unity will develop into a
closer and more efficient association—Canada is a great and
grand country. Certainly in its geography, but even more so in its
citizens”.
In 1989, out of a desire to give wider expression to his love
for Canada, Mr. Bourdages published his memoirs.
I am honoured to pay tribute to him today, because it is
through the pride of builders like Rodrigue Bourdages that Canada's
francophones, whatever their province of origin, can proudly
proclaim that they are part of our great country.
On behalf of the Government of Canada and the people of the
riding of Laval West, I extend deepest condolences to Mrs.
Bourdages, their children and his entire family.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Rodrique Bourdages.
It was so warm to hear these kind comments from the other
parties. I am glad to see members of the family here.
Mr. Bourdages was a strong community worker and family man who
played a leading role in the building industry in Laval and area.
As a long time member of the Knights of Columbus, he achieved the
fourth degree.
In his desire to help his community he ran as federal member of
Parliament in 1957 and again in 1958 when he was elected to
represent his constituents from the riding of Ile Jésus.
To his family, who are here, I would like to extend on behalf of
the Reform Party and members of Parliament our sincere
condolences. I am sure Mr. Bourdages will be sorely missed by all
who have had the very distinct privilege of knowing him.
1530
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker,
on behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and myself, I would like to
extend our condolences to the family of Rodrigue Bourdages, who died on
October 12.
Born in Halifax, Rodrigue Bourdages settled in Quebec and first got
actively involved in the development of Laval-des-Rapides, one of the 16
municipalities on l'Île Jésus, and later, after 1965, in the development
of the city of Laval.
As a building contractor in the 1950s, he pioneered the development
of the city on the basis of urban planning standards and helped set up
the Laval-des-Rapides police department, later to become the Laval
police department as we know it.
Between 1958 and 1962, he served his fellow citizens as the federal
member of Parliament for l'Île Jésus, then became the administrator of
the Montreal courthouse and the manager of the Société immobilière du
Québec. The man who passed away last week was more than a former
parliamentarian, he was also one of the builders of Laval, the second
largest city in Quebec.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, in my capacity as MP for Laval
Centre, I want to acknowledge his contribution to the development of the
Laval community. He served his fellow citizens with conviction and
sincerity. He will always be a symbol of pride for his family, his
relatives and every member of the Laval community.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
first I would like to salute Mr. Bourdages' family. As an Acadian, it is
an honour for me to pay tribute to their father's memory.
I take this moment to ask the House to remember Rodrigue Bourdages,
who passed away on October 12, 1997 at the age of 73. Mr. Bourdages was
born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 22, 1923. He is the son of Mr.
and Mrs. Adolphe Bourdages.
He studied at Brébeuf school and then became a general contractor
in Montreal. As president of Bourdages Construction Ltd., vice-president
of Laval Investments, director of Dicana, and vice-president of Rapidco,
he excelled as a building contractor and as a manager for the Société
immobilière du Québec.
Mr. Bourdages was a third and fourth degree member of the Knights of
Columbus, a member of the international order of the Alhambra, and a
member of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
He was elected to the House of Commons on March 31, 1958, under the
Progressive Conservative Party banner, and he represented his
constituents well during his four years of tenure, until his defeat in
1962.
Mr. Bourdages is mourned by his wife, Évelyne Arsenault, his two
children Raymond and Diane, his sisters Fernande, Armande, Thérèse and
Micheline, his grandchildren Sébastien, Normand, Ève-Lyne and André-Julien,
and by many relatives and friends.
At this time, I would like, as an Acadian, to offer my condolences
and those of my colleagues to the family and friends of Mr. Bourdages.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to speak on habitat management in British
Columbia. B.C. enjoys salmon resources which are valued at
hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pointed out that his
priority for the department is conservation. DFO's effort to
protect the habitat has three principal goals: fish habitat
conservation, fish habitat restoration and fish habitat creation.
Those goals are met through several strategies which combine
enforcement of the Fisheries Act, scientific research and
activities with the co-operation of local communities.
With respect to habitat conservation, DFO staff work closely with
developers to ensure that development proposals such as mining,
power generation, urban development and forestry do not have a
negative impact on the fishery. Habitat biologists make sure
that there will be no damage to the fishery. They advise
developers to avoid harming fish when they are spawning or are at
other critical stages of their development.
1535
DFO spends approximately $6 million and has about 75 people
dedicated to the conservation and protection of fish habitat in
B.C. In addition, $2 million and 20 people work every day to
restore fish habitat in B.C. A further $25 million and 180
people are involved in stewardship and salmon enhancement
activities.
In all, $33 million are spent each year by DFO in managing the
habitat and enhancing the salmon stocks in B.C. The large
habitat management program in B.C. reflects a strong commitment
to that region, a recognition of the importance of the salmon to
the people of B.C.
Last January the minister of DFO announced that the federal
government would contribute $15 million over three years to
habitat restoration and salmon enhancement. Furthermore, the
minister challenged the province of B.C. to match those funds.
Today B.C. has not yet come up with the funds.
The goals of the program are to restore habitat, rebuild weak
salmon stocks and to promote resources and watershed stewardship.
I can go on and on. We have initiated many programs. The
T'Sou-Ke First Nation, the South Island Streams/Community
Fisheries Development Centre and the Island Stream and Salmon
Enhancement Association are making vital contributions to the
conservation of the resources and this government is proud to
support those efforts.
On October 15 the minister of DFO announced a further $2.7
million for habitat conservation projects in Vancouver Island
communities of Port Alberni, Port Hardy, Port McNeill and
Courtenay. On the Fraser River, which accounts for 60% of the
B.C. total salmon catch, the minister of DFO recently announced
more than $2 million for habitat restoration and salmon
enhancement.
As a part of this funding, the Langley Environmental Partners
Society and unemployed fishermen are working to protect habitat
in the Salmon, Nicomekl, Yorkson and Bertrand river systems
threatened by urbanization and farming.
The Community Fishery Development Centre in Vancouver will
receive $150,000 to co-ordinate a coast-wide habitat data
management system and in doing so, will train displaced fishermen
in the collection of habitat data.
The development centre in Langley is being funded to clean up
wood waste and other materials.
1540
Further up the Fraser River the Salmon River Watershed Round
Table, a community watershed group that includes land owners,
First Nations, government agencies, industry and the citizens
around Salmon Arm will use $100,000 to help rebuild the coho
stocks.
The Shuswap Nation Fishery Commission will, with $160,000,
collect data on juvenile coho and adult abundance in the various
streams in the North Thompson system.
Community and environmental groups are also working closely with
DFO to protect and to restore salmon and the habitat in several
streams near Prince George. The Baker Creek Enhancement Society
and a local landowner have rebuilt a side channel for young
chinook and rainbow trout.
I could go on and on and recite many projects in which the
government has been involved. I would like to also mention a
special project that is currently under way in Campbell River,
known as the Discovery Coast Wetlands Restoration Project. In
this case the regional district of Campbell River is serving as
the umbrella organization and the overall administration for a
variety of community groups which have joined together to submit
a comprehensive plan to improve the habitat for chinook, coho and
steelhead in the Campbell River area.
The Partnering Organization is an almost $500,000 project which
includes hake, brown, kingfisher. The Creek Society, the
district of Campbell River, the Steelhead Society of B.C. and the
local developers, Campbell River Elementary School, Campbell
River Guides Association and stream keepers, among many others,
have been working together.
My point is that many groups and the people of B.C., with the
support of the government, are joined together to conserve the
important natural resources, especially the salmon resources of
the west coast. In all the government is supporting over $7
million worth of projects this year alone and will be supporting
over $7 million for habitat restoration and salmon enhancement
work next year. This is a commitment to the resources.
I submit that this is responsible action by the government to
protect the important fishery resources of B.C.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member for Vancouver Kingsway
speak so well of my community of Campbell River, British
Columbia. I recognize some of the very good work that is being
done in that community.
As a matter of fact, the transition moneys that have been
dedicated to Campbell River and North Island fisheries
initiatives are probably some of the best spent moneys when it
comes to training displaced workers than is spent anywhere in
Canada right now.
The main program, out of a through put of 336 people, had a
placement rate of 102 people, which is a virtually unheard of
figure. It works out to something like a 30% success rate. That
compares with a success rate for the northern cod adjustment
recovery program of 5%.
1545
The best numbers that I have been able to come up with for the
TAGS retraining component are closer to 1%. I recognize direct
comparisons like that cannot be made. Nevertheless, the program
in Campbell River is being looked at by many as one that should
be emulated in many regards.
Certainly I am a proponent of that. I think when the federal
government decides that it is going to allocate money, we want
full accountability, a demonstrated set of measurable standards
to which we will operate and to try, in one way or another, get a
return on our investment.
All of this, of course, has a very human dimension to it. One
of the things that continue to concern me is that the government
continues to make announcements of a nature that it has no plan
or no commitment to meet later.
For example, we had an announcement of a $7.7 million retirement
program for fishers on the coast. That announcement was made in
January. We have some older fishermen who were very much
interested in that. Their expectations were raised and now we
see no commitment from the government to follow through on that.
Does the hon. member have any knowledge that there will be
follow through from the federal government on that issue?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to
hear my colleague from B.C. make a very positive comment about
our work in Campbell River.
We are working on that for the retirement funding and I can
assure him that we will not overlook the people in B.C.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear both hon. members from
the west coast speaking on this issue. Certainly it is an issue
that spans the entire country and touches on the Arctic Ocean as
well.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has clearly stated that,
based on recent program reviews, conservation is a key and core
role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a
responsibility.
With respect to that responsibility, I would suggest that the
government has not lived up to that. I am asking this member,
specifically to the conservation of salmon in the rivers in
British Columbia, whether she can inform us what her government
intends to do with respect to continued support for the
preservation for both Atlantic and Pacific salmon hatcheries.
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
question. We are definitely sticking to our principle of
conservation. The priority of DFO is conservation.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise following discussions among all the parties. I believe you
will find consent for the following motion:
That the present debate on the opposition motion continue until
5.30 p.m., and at the conclusion of the debate all questions
necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put and a recorded
division be deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October
28, 1997 at the expiry of the time provided for government
orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
government whip have unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1550
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I see we have an audience of the faithful here this
afternoon. We will take advantage of the opportunity to teach
the adult class of hon. members seated across the way a thing or
two, because they certainly need it.
I am pleased to speak today on a subject as crucial as the
future of the fisheries. I note that the Conservative Party has
made it an opposition day topic. That is a step in the right
direction, but I would like, if I may, to clarify where I stand on
it.
I agree that the fishery should be discussed every day. I see
the Conservatives calling in the preamble to their motion for the
House to recognize the urgent need for action to address the
serious problems in fisheries. Well yes, there are serious problems
in fisheries. And hooray for them, the Conservatives have woken up
and realized it. I must also point out they were part of the
problem.
Where they go off the track, however, is that their motion
identifies the problem but is way off on the solution. The
Conservative motion asks the government to establish a national
policy. I will explain why they are on the wrong track.
In this motion, the Conservative Party forgets that British
Columbia called for an agreement on co-operative management, which it
obtained in part, and their premier, Mr. Clarke, whom I
congratulate warmly on it, wants more because it is his perception,
along with all the BC fishers, that the federal government is
negotiating from a grovelling position with the United States.
The Conservatives also forget that the Government of Quebec has
called for repatriation of part of the management of the Quebec
fisheries, particularly the non-migratory species, and for a
co-operative management agreement for the migratory species. If
a party wants to regain power, it needs to treat the east the
same as the west.
This motion speaks of resource conservation, that the
government must assume leadership.
I must remind you that the Conservatives and the Liberals were in
power over the last ten years, and that the problem originates with
those two parties.
I listened this morning to the speech and the response to a
question asked after the speech by the Conservative Party critic.
He was replying to a question by the Parliamentary Secretary for
Fisheries who asked him “What would you have as a national
policy?” His reply: “More research. More research”. Studies
we've got. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have their
studies, but they are commissioning more. They accept the ones
that suit them.
The problem is that they are both judge and accused. They
look at the biomass, for instance, determine the total allowable
catch, and then when that figure is not high enough to suit their
little buddies, they just cook the figures and raise the TAC.
I think that it was an NDP colleague who called this morning
for an investigation.
We are in favour of one as well.
We are not in agreement with the motion, and I will explain a
little more. We are not in agreement with a policy that is styled
as national and overall, but we are still less in agreement with
the amendment proposed by the Liberal government, to continue with
the policy already in place. That is a free translation of what
was said: continue the implementation of.
How could I possibly give my blessing to a government that has
been the downfall of the fisheries. The auditor general's report
is still fresh in everybody's mind. The auditor general was not
exactly kind to the Liberals.
He told them point-blank “You created a strategy to rationalize the
industry and allow it to survive”. What mark does he give them?
Let me tell you: 0% because, in their obsession to reduce the
deficit, cuts were made in manpower training, in licence buy-backs,
in early retirement programs.
1555
Hearings started this morning in fishing communities.
Witnesses from Newfoundland, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and
Nova Scotia were heard. People are saying that they still need the
Atlantic groundfish strategy because they have not yet started to
diversify. In some cases, it is almost out of the question. The
program is still needed.
Better still, however, people are coming with ideas on
improving things. They are looking to the future, something the
government opposite is not, obviously. The government should keep
a close eye on the work of the standing committee.
I think the coastal communities will show us the route to take.
I will not dwell on the policy of the Conservatives, because
I learned nothing new this morning. However, I was surprised that
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans actually spoke on the subject.
I consider him brave for setting out four principles this morning.
He spoke of what, in his view, could guide a national policy.
He spoke of trying to establish a relationship between
sustainability of the stocks and the advisability of issuing
quotas. That is all very well, but I heard nothing in the
minister's speech of his course of action.
He also spoke of trying to strike a balance between catch size
and fish stock renewal capacities. Here again, the minister
indicated no course of action.
He provided no specifics, only principles. I recognize that
principles is what we are dealing with, here.
The minister's third principle was about ensuring
self-sufficiency for fisheries in the future. He wants to try to
make coastal communities and fishing associations
self-sufficient. He talked of his way—and here a way is
offered to achieving independence—he spoke of co-operative, or
joint management.
Every time I have heard the Liberals opposite talking of joint
management it always translated as: “Well, ladies and gentlemen, we
are going to manage jointly, that is, we are going to share the
bill with you”. And it is true, fishing licence fees have gone up,
and, as we saw in the previous bill, under the system of joint
management, the government was preparing to unload part of the bill
for biological and management costs. I still have not seen the
benefit of this.
The fishing community, whether coastal or midshore, has yet to see its
share of benefits.
The fourth principle stated by the minister, and the last speaker
boasted about this quite a bit, is conservation, the ultimate goal. For
that I must commend the minister. No one can argue with that, not even
a sovereignist Bloc member like me. We are all for conserving our fish
stocks. But let us wait and see how this will be done.
To continue with this adult education class for the members across
the way, with your permission, I could table before this House a
document I released last February. We had a different fisheries minister
at the time; it was long before an election was called. This goes to
show that the we in the Bloc Quebecois do not wait for an election to be
called to put proposals forward.
In this document, I set four prerequisites to a reopening of
fisheries; indeed, last spring, the minister was toying with the idea of
perhaps starting to reopen fisheries. But there was not much
consultation with fishers. The biomass threshold at which fisheries
could reopen was not determined.
There were no discussions with fishers either to let them know how
this would be done, because it has to take place gradually. We expected
a reopening but with small quotas.
1600
Nothing was done to identify fishers and on what basis. Nothing was
done in terms of identifying the nucleus of fishers who will make up
tomorrow's fisheries. This is a serious problem. Everyone in the
industry agrees that there are too many people active in the fisheries.
Some will argue the harvesting capacity is too big. We will see within the
prerequisites I will identify how a balance can be struck between the
harvesting capacity and the number of individuals who will be able to earn
a living fishing.
Let us start by looking at my four prerequisites. First, the
downsizing, or reduction of the harvesting capacity. Second, we must have
some idea of what we will do with fishers once they start fishing again.
This refers to versatility, to the possibility of catching various
species. The third point critical to any reopening, to any negotiation
and to the future of fisheries is provincial quotas. I will elaborate on
this in a moment. The fourth point is the delegation of powers to the
provinces, as I briefly mentioned earlier.
How will we achieve this streamlining and why do we have to do it?
Under its Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS, the Liberal government
promised to streamline operations. This was the ultimate goal. In return
for this upcoming streamlining, the government was to provide income
support. Everyone waited. People thought if they were not designated as
surplus fishers or workers, it would mean that, some day, they would be
able to work in the fisheries again.
However, the Liberals fooled us, because not long after the first year
of implementing the TAGS program, everything was stopped as regards
buying back permits and offering preretirement programs.
The objective behind the streamlining was to match the harvesting
capacity with the available biomass, once the moratoriums were over. So,
when the minister says he wants to try match this with his second
principle, I have suggestions for ways of doing it. An assessment of the
situation must be done.
The worst as regards streamlining, and I will say it again, is the
definition of the core group of fishers. Those who said this morning
that the harvesting capacity must be reduced are on the right track.
They recognize that it might be necessary to reduce it by 50%. This is
a laudable objective. Some will suggest using more ecological fishing
gear. I know there are several schools of thought on the issue.
Some will say that only longlines should be used. For those who
have never heard of them, these are lines with nothing but baited
hooks. It takes a fish of a certain size to be able to take the
hook and the bait. That is one approach.
I myself am of another school of thought that says that the
various types of gear used nowadays are aimed at different year
classes. In the category of mobile gear, longlines and gill nets
each catch different year classes. Each of these year classes has
a mortality rate. I think that the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans could examine the mortality of each, and of course, if we
wanted to catch more slightly older fish, we could perhaps reduce
the catch of those who are taking a bit more. But we shall see.
I am indicating an approach, and I am open to other suggestions.
Why is variety so necessary? Everyone began talking about
variety when the moratoriums were being introduced. People said
that when they began to fish again, they would like to be able to
count on fishing from one freeze-up to the next, because everyone
knows that, when winter comes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there is
the problem of ice and it is very difficult to go fishing. Or, as
our NDP colleague said the other day, it is not easy to pick
strawberries in January and blueberries in February. Our activities
depend on the seasons.
1605
Why am I talking about variety? Regardless of the gear
fishermen have, there is always a risk that they will catch a
species other than the one they were looking for or the one on
their permit. People should therefore be allowed an incidental
catch that is a bit larger than present limits. And there should
be monitoring of all catches landed as to size and variety.
When I say variety, I am not talking about someone who sets
out to catch herring but who sets his nets for salmon—even when he
no longer has a commercial fishing permit for salmon. That is not
what I mean by variety.
When fishers are after groundfish, they can end up with
species other than cod—monkfish and rake, for example—which
would add to the value of catches. These are species we are not
much used to catching at present, and particularly unused to
selling. But it is important that we go in that direction.
That will also enable us, while avoiding waste, to return to
the sea certain of the species classified as non-commercial. That
would also allow us, since we are entering new markets, to say that
the small fish taken accidentally—even though no one wants to take
the small ones—can also be sold.
When they are deep fishing, any fish that is brought up must be
expected to die, because when they are brought up fast through
several atmospheres, their guts will burst.
What I see in multi-species licensing is that everyone can
have access to various fisheries. We often hear people calling for
crab quotas, and they are not traditional crab fishers. Some call
for shrimp quotas, and they are not traditional shrimp fishers.
If we took the time to properly rationalize by type of
commercial fishery, identified by name at present, the time to do
the exercise so that each of these fisheries would be in a
position to support the number of fishers and others working in
it—first of all there would have to be a fishery-by-fishery
exercise. What I am then proposing is that, when it can be
identified that such and such a fishery is capable of supporting
such and such a number of persons, the type classifications
should be removed. The main problem is that the principal
lucrative types of fisheries we have are highly specialized and,
in many cases, operated only by single-licence fishers. They do
not, therefore, have access to diversifying their catches.
What I would propose is that a mechanism be put in place that
could be called something like an individual transferable quota.
It already exists in areas such as shrimp fishing in the St. Lawrence
River or midshore cod fishing, but it should be expanded to other
groups.
Why suggest an individual transferable quota? Because, with
individual quotas, it is possible to control the fishing effort
of any given catching vessel. I would like this quota to be
transferable so that, some day, groups of midshore cod fishers
can trade quotas—against cod of course—with shrimpers using
essentially the same type of gear, that is to say mobile gear. We
could take similar measures regarding so-called offshore crab
fishers whose gear is called fixed.
Through these mechanisms, we could establish a relationship between
the various fishery stakeholders.
The cornerstone of this whole downsizing process is, of course, the
provincial quota—and in this respect the minister will have to come
to terms with what went wrong with the TAGS program the first time
around: insufficient involvement on the part of the provinces. Why did
the provinces not want to get involved? Precisely because they had no
guarantee that provincial quotas would be protected.
1610
How could a fisheries minister, say in Newfoundland, agree to
reduce the number of existing plants without any guarantee that his
quotas will be protected? It goes without saying that, in order to
resolve the deficit problem and effect downsizing, powers will have to
be transferred to the appropriate provinces.
It is very important that the minister be made aware of these four
prerequisites and I think these four principles give him something to
work on. I am now prepared to entertain questions and comments from my
hon. colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
enjoyed the remarks from the member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.
The hon. member opposite makes suggestions very different from
what I heard from the Reform Party, especially the allegations
from the member in the back row that really what we should be
giving people in fishing communities when they have had disasters
is tax breaks.
I will tell the Reform Party that tax breaks do not work when
there is no resource for the people to fish. We want to change
that. That was the allegation from the member in the back row.
That is the kind of stuff we hear from the Reform Party all the
time, as if they do not care about Atlantic Canada.
It was very good to hear some of the hon. member's remarks.
There are some suggestions that make a lot of sense. I am
particularly interested in his comments on transferable quotas.
Having come from a strong farming background, I certainly favour
a supply managed industry and quotas which will manage the supply
according to demand. One of the problems with the quota system
in the past has been that over time it concentrates the ownership
in fewer and fewer hands.
One of the concerns on ITQs put forward by fishers and fishing
communities is that if they went to a transferable quota system,
the quotas might be concentrated into corporate hands and
therefore not meet what the real objective is which is to ensure
long term viability for the fishing community.
How in terms of the transferable quota system does the hon.
member foresee preventing transferable quotas from becoming
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the
government party is interested in my proposals. I will continue to
provide those opposite with a little adult education.
Transferable individual quotas are arranged by and for the people
who work in the fishing community. Before I get into politics, I would
point out that I have worked for a fishing association in Gaspé. We
developed one of the individual quota systems, and as we did so for and
by the fishers, we knew who it was for and so could set a certain limit
within the rules. I will explain.
This has to be anticipated because at some point it becomes
difficult when quotas are held by only two or three. No association is
possible.
The maximum share of the total eligible catches that can be taken by the
various parties must be anticipated. It is possible to go even further.
It is possible to establish a dollar value by mutual agreement.
If you take the time to meet with the fishers, they will tell you
that they want an opportunity to get out. They want to be equipped to be
able to work. In many cases this is not possible. I do not need to be
a dyed-in-the-wool sovereignist to come up with that. I am happy to see
my colleague opposite, who does not share my political philosophy, take
interest.
I will go even a bit further in the context of multiparty
management of catches and of individual quotas.
1615
A provincial partnership is necessary and there has to be a
provincial quota so that the provinces can say: “Okay, with such a small
percentage, we will streamline our processing industry”. If a province
had this type of undertaking, with Ottawa if necessary, individual
quotas could be established. In other words, the available resources
would be put on the table and we would look at how many fishers could
live off them.
And here I will go a little further. Things could be organized not
only by province but also by coastal region. If I take the example of
Quebec—I will leave it up to the parliamentary secretary from Prince
Edward Island to speak for his region—it is because we in Quebec have
four main pillars.
There is the north shore of Quebec, the north part of the Gaspé, the
south side of the Gaspé, that is, the baie des Chaleurs and the Magdalen
Islands. I would not want fishers in the northern Gaspé to be drawing on
the quotas of the people of the Magdalen Islands and vice versa. If we
protect each other in our communities, the provinces should also protect
one another.
It is the fishers who are fishing at moment. Some licences are for
processing plants. Some have a grandfather clause. Perhaps we could
look with them at ways to manage things, except that the plants need
resources to process.
There is always some give-and-take in negotiations. However, the
government must show from the outset a will to provide provincial
protection, to allow a system of individual quotas, and to put in place
a structure that will prevent any concentration. We want fishers to have
access to that process themselves. It may be decided that the permit
holder will be the operator of the boat. All this can be included in the
system of transferable individual quotas.
It goes without saying that this implies something in return, as
fishers must go through the controls at the docks. Some things must be
included in the package.
When we talk about partnership and co-management, if fishers are
designated and told which group they can join, if they know where the
minister is going and at what negotiation table they will be invited to
sit, in return, they will say “Okay, we know the number of players
involved, now we can talk”.
I had this discussion with many associations. Sure, I still have to
establish some contacts. However, I want hon. members to realize that
the issue of protection through provincial quotas is extremely
important. If I were a provincial fisheries minister, I would never
agree to reduce the number of processing plants without a guarantee that
my percentage would remain the same. We must always be prepared. This is
why we have everything to gain by examining the process.
While I still have the floor, I would like to say that I thought
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would provide an answer. But it is
his right to leave the floor to his parliamentary secretary. I would
have liked to talk to him in more detail about the Atlantic groundfish
strategy and how he intends to go about identifying the core group of
fishers.
I would also have liked the minister to be here, because there are
rumours concerning the closing of a coast guard radio station in the
Magdalen Islands. Based on the discussions I had with the minister at
lunch time, this station is not slated for closure. The minister even
confirmed he was prepared to look at the most recent arguments in favour
of keeping the radio station in operation.
Therefore, allow me to question the government's will to establish a
partnership, given the marks it received from the auditor general and
its attitude regarding management in other areas.
I am still prepared to answer questions from the parliamentary
secretary.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from the Bloc. He
obviously knows a lot about the subject and I believe in the last
Parliament was also involved in this committee.
1620
It is important that we tell all of the story when we talk about
transition. Leaving more money in people's hands, no matter what
they are doing, is very important. A focus on retraining and a
focus on fewer boats fishing is also crucial. All of the
transition strategy cannot be based on income support.
People leaving Newfoundland, for example, is very sad indeed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I hope we will have a chance
to talk again with the Reform Party member.
If I understood the first part of what he said clearly, he is
saying that he would rather leave more money in taxpayers' hands
and that that is why they are calling for a halt, if I understood
correctly, to extending TAGS. I am not in agreement. If they do
not want these amounts to keep coming up every year, the right
action has to be taken.
If members take the time to read the four conditions I am
proposing, they will find solutions that will cost the government
nothing later on.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques-employment insurance; the hon. member for Scarborough
East-human rights.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the motion tabled by the leader of the fifth party. I
would like to tell the House right now that I will be dividing my
time with my colleague, the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: You see how enthusiastic the members
opposite are.
I will give a report on the famous Fonds Québec Côtier. The
results are so good that the members opposite are already excited.
The motion tabled by the leader of the fifth party raises an
important issue in that it addresses the problem of the fisheries,
particularly the Atlantic fishery. In this sense, I must say that
the motion has some merit.
However, where the government differs fundamentally with the
motion by the leader of the fifth party is when the latter mentions
that the government has done nothing to help, that it is
indifferent to the fate of fishermen and their families.
This is to largely ignore the measures put in place by this
government, by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, beginning in May 1994. Furthermore, it will be
recalled that the measures had several components. They were seen
in part as emergency measures because, obviously, economic issues
were involved, as well as more humanitarian ones. It was necessary
to act immediately, on an urgent basis, to help these families.
In May 1994 my colleague introduced a multi-faceted program.
Obviously, there were income support measures, which were
transitory, but there were also economic and community measures.
In the Province of Quebec, these measures were assigned to the
Federal Office of Regional Development, which I have the pleasure
to head up, and we implemented the Programme Québec Côtier. I
recently had an opportunity with others to look at the situation in
the Gaspé last October 14.
1625
The aim of the program was to ensure that we could intervene in the
regions and communities affected by the groundfish crisis, to help not
only the fishers affected but also all of the communities, so that the
Canadian government together with all the people involved in economic
development can rebuild an economic safety net by repositioning the
fishing industry and developing new sectors.
At the start of my speech, I heard members of the Bloc shouting and
enjoying the fact that I was rising to speak.
I can understand that, because they have had little opportunity to
become familiar with my report. I must say it is rather an eloquent one.
It exists because of the government's intervention and because people in
the regions affected were particularly dynamic. They knew how to roll up
their sleeves and work together.
In this report, which covers the period from March 30, 1996 to
September 30, 1997, in the context of the Québec Côtier program, 229
requests for financial assistance were submitted to the department. Of
this number, 121 received offers worth a total of $5.3 million. A total
of 380 jobs were created or maintained as a result of these joint
ventures. These figures clearly attest to the quality of the Canadian
government's commitment.
As the member for Sherbrooke, the leader of the fifth party,
pointed out in his motion, these figures testify to the seriousness of
our commitment, the quality of our leadership in this matter and our
sensitivity to the problems of the families and people affected by the
groundfish crisis.
Now if we look a little closer at this intervention by Québec
Côtier, and break it down into sub-regions, in the Gaspé region, 70
projects worth a total of $2.8 million were implemented and 200 jobs
maintained or created.
On the subject of partnership, the community futures development
corporations, which are prime movers in the area of rural and local
development, were brought on board. They were stakeholders in the
program. They helped deliver the front line services of the Québec
Côtier program.
As my colleague from Abitibi pointed out, these corporations are
without equal in regional development. The quality of assistance and
expertise that they offer is remarkable. When we talk of accurately
targeting interventions, we are, obviously, talking about intervening in
technological sectors, in cutting-edge sectors but also in areas that
are a bit more traditional.
As I indicated, results are encouraging, and the results are
encouraging because we in the Government of Canada were concerned and
because the interventions were true to our philosophy of working in
partnership and in tune with regional realities. This is why we joined
up with a policy committee, and I would like to thank the members of
this committee, and especially its chair, for having helped develop and
implement the program.
All of the objectives for this program for economic intervention were
met.
As you know, my colleague has indicated that income support
measures would end in May 1998. He also announced that he would set up
a committee, an individual to determine the impact of the end of these
income support measures.
Of course the government will pay close attention to all of this
study's recommendations.
1630
I would like to point out to the House that, when the time
comes to examine future courses of action, if the government deems
it appropriate, and particularly if my colleague deems it
appropriate in light of the studies' findings, I must say that the
model of the Québec Côtier program is one that had considerable
success and, although it was an interim measure like all those
announced, might prove to be a formula we could continue.
In closing, since I am getting the sign that my time is up—ten
minutes is always too short, unfortunately—I would like to
sincerely thank the people who worked on the implementation of
this program, the members of the advisory committee, and all of
the public, because this was obviously not an easy undertaking.
Families were affected, but with all of the people helping, we
have been able to take a certain number of steps that, without a
shadow of a doubt, may make it possible for the regions affected
to, essentially, cast their economic nets in different waters and
to build quality businesses and, as a consequence, to develop
quality lasting jobs, so that not only the major centres but all
of the regions will be able to move on into the 21st century.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, as the Bloc
Quebecois critic for regional development, I am pleased to be
here for the first speech of the Secretary of State responsible
for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec. I
listened carefully and noticed right away that the minister is
very self-congratulatory. We have a self-congratulatory secretary
of State. It is quite remarkable.
He mentioned projects, indicating that some 70 projects,
totalling $2.8 million, created 200 jobs. But the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok tells me that
4,000 jobs were needed. So, to congratulate oneself for creating
200 jobs is all fine and well, but 200 jobs are a far cry from
the 4,000 that were needed.
In this context—I listened carefully and did not miss a word of
what he said—he congratulated the president. That is but one
person. If he claims to have consulted the Gaspe by
congratulating one person, the president of the steering
committee, he is off the mark. He must do more than that.
He mentioned local community futures development committees.
That is fine but there are regional development structures in
place in Quebec. He did not say a word about these structures,
which have been recognized by the Quebec government, and not a
word either about co-operation, consultation,
collaboration—these are all good words—with the Quebec fishery
minister, who is also the agriculture minister. He did not say a
word about that.
I am giving him an opportunity to tell us how well he works with
the regional officials within structures under the jurisdiction
of Quebec and I would like the Minister of Agriculture, or else
the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of
Regional Development for Quebec, to explain how he intends to
proceed.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the first
comments of the official Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development.
Based on his comments, and given the information provided by the
government, there seems to be a lack of experience or understanding on
the part of Bloc members regarding regional development, including the
number of interventions, the spirit of co-operation and the drive that
are required not only from governments but from people in every region
to succeed in creating jobs.
1635
In this respect, I want to point out that, in my main speech, I
first thanked the members of the steering committee and the residents of
the communities affected, because these people displayed an incredible
drive. It was unfortunate on the part of the critic on regional
development to say that a mere 300 or 400 jobs were created.
An hon. member: Two hundred jobs.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Two hundred jobs. For them, 200 jobs is
nothing. We should have created 4,000.
Such a disconcerting attitude shows to what extent Bloc members can
be disconnected from regional reality. I am pleased that the government,
in co-operation and in partnership with all those affected by this
crisis, managed in a short period of time to create or maintain such a
high number of quality jobs.
I stand by what I said earlier, namely that the role played by the
Québec Côtier program was appropriate and meshed with other measures
taken by the Canadian government on regional development, including
investment funds for community future development corporations and for
youth, and also the programming of the Federal Office of Regional
Development, through the EEDI-EMP, and the strategic regional
initiatives.
Since our government took office in 1993, we have managed to
establish good relations with the regions—in Quebec and across
Canada—and we will continue to do so to ensure our expertise
can be of help to the regions in their development, so that they
can enter the new millennium with a strong momentum.
[English]
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, after listening to the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party introduce this motion in the House and
listening to what he said were the disaster points in the
Canadian fishing industry, I only wish he had listened to the
member for Sackville—Eastern Shore this morning or the MP from
Îles-de-la-Madeleine yesterday before the committee because he
might have learned something.
Let us set the record straight on one thing. The major mistakes
in the destruction of the northern cod were made when the
Government of Canada decided to destroy the food of the cod. The
first action it took was in 1990 off the coast of the hon.
member's riding, Sackville—Eastern Shore.
The squid caught on the Quebec coast and the coast of Nova
Scotia and the coast of New Brunswick and the Gaspé coast and the
coast of Newfoundland are actually born in Florida. They travel
up the coast of the United States in a thin black line. The
fishermen call it the trans-Canada highway of the squid. They go
up the coast of Nova Scotia and into the gulf and around Quebec
and P.E.I. and up around the coast of Newfoundland.
In 1990, the federal government approved five foreign nations
using factory freezer trawlers to put down nets with one-half
inch mesh—
An hon. member: One-half inch?
Mr. George S. Baker: Yes, the fishermen used to call it
the panty hose zone. The fish plant workers called it the hair
net zone. The federal government called it the small mesh gear
zone at that time. Five foreign nations with licences to fish
inside Canada's 200-mile zone interrupted the run of the squid.
I ask the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who
introduced this motion, were the Liberals in power in 1990 when
this was done?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. George S. Baker: No, Madam Speaker. Who was in power
in 1990 when this was done?
An hon. member: Brian Mulroney.
Mr. George S. Baker: It was the Tory Party of Canada.
1640
The second biggest error that was made was for the other major
food of the codfish. If you want to catch a codfish using bait,
you first of all try squid. You would then go to a fish called
capelin. The great capelin capture in Canada took place in 1991
when the Soviet Union was given a quota of 100,000 tonnes of
capelin in Canadian waters, which is more than any recorded catch
of capelin in Canadian history.
In 1991 was it the Liberals who were the Government of Canada?
No. It was the Tory party of Canada.
The third greatest mistake that was made by the Government of
Canada involved mackerel. The greatest spawning area for
mackerel in the world is the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The mackerel
enter the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the Atlantic Ocean at the end
of May. Prior to 1957 when the causeway was built to Cape Breton
Island they would come in between Cape Breton Island and Nova
Scotia. Now they go up the coast of Cape Breton Island and in
through Sydney Bight.
In 1990 three foreign nations were given what were called
experimental quotas to catch mackerel in Sydney Bight. In 1991
five foreign nations were given so-called developmental quotas to
catch mackerel as they entered Sydney Bight.
Was it the Liberals who were the Government of Canada in 1990
and 1991 when this was done? Who was the Government of Canada?
The Tory party was the Government of Canada in 1990 and 1991.
What was the greatest error ever made as far as the spawning
grounds for codfish are concerned? It just so happens that in
1990 an internationally recognized spawning ground for cod,
commonly referred to as the Flemish Cap, had had international
protection for 10 years. This great Canadian government in
Ottawa went to international meetings and sat down with the
international community under NAFO and decided to lift the
moratorium on codfish on the Flemish Cap, on an internationally
recognized spawning ground where a moratorium was in existence.
That was the Canadian government in January 1991.
Was it the Liberals who were in power in 1991? No. The leader
of the PC party forgets it was the Tories who were in power at
that time.
An hon. member: A selective memory.
Mr. George S. Baker: Yes, the Tory leader has a selective
memory.
That is four or five disasters. Let's go to another one. It is
what we commonly refer to on the east coast as the Greenland
halibut disaster.
When the codfish were disappearing the Government of Canada came
into this chamber and announced the great find of the century. It
was called an underutilized species. It was identified as a
Greenland halibut. The government announced that there was so
much of this Greenland halibut that it was going to allow
foreigners to catch it.
The fishermen in the maritimes and Quebec were wondering what
the Greenland halibut was until they saw a picture of it.
The picture showed a flat fish called Greenland halibut, commonly
referred to as blue halibut in Britain, black halibut in Germany,
and a hellefisk in Denmark. Here it was with one of the eyes up
this way and the other eye halfway around looking like a Cyclops
and the fishermen said “Ah, that is a Newfoundland turbot”.
1645
That turbot that was classified in 1991 by the very government
of the leader of the Tory party became the catch-all for foreign
nations. That fish was, it just so happens, the mainstay of the
fishermen of eastern Canada.
In the early spring all of our fishermen would go out in the
trap boat fishery for cod and then in the summer they would
switch to turbot. And the great Canadian government here in
Ottawa made the decision that there was so much of this species
that now foreign nations could catch it. That was the year 1991.
Was it the Liberals who were in power in 1991? Who was in power
in 1991? The Tories were in power, the very party that has moved
this motion before the House of Commons today. The mistakes
continued until the year 1992. It is a great thing that in 1993
the Liberal Party was elected so that we could try to clean up
the mess.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I was
very interested in the comments made by the hon. member. I know
that he is an individual who is deeply concerned for the welfare
of all Atlantic Canadians.
As a fellow Atlantic Canadian I also understand the tragedies
that the families in Atlantic Canada and in British Columbia for
that matter have actually undergone over the collapse of the
fishery, particularly with respect to groundfish.
I do not even live in a riding that actually has groundfish to
speak of. However it does not take very long for us to realize
and contact some of our friends and our families who have
actually ended up leaving Atlantic Canada for other places.
I think it is important for us to recognize the real issue here.
It is not necessarily a matter of which government was in power
at this point. It is not a matter of which government was in
power before us. I know the hon. member understands this is an
issue that has to be addressed today. The solutions that we need
are solutions that we need today for the future of all Atlantic
Canadians. I know the hon. member respects that comment. The
motion before us today is to discuss constructive solutions about
the future of Atlantic Canadians.
I know the hon. member was sincere in terms of not making this a
partisan issue. He has spoken often with respect to the fishery
in Newfoundland. I know he is a very respected member in
Newfoundland. This is an issue in which we are trying by this
motion to ensure that we can find solutions in terms of helping
these families who are desperately in need. That is the issue.
I will point to my colleagues on this side of the House as well.
I know it is in everybody's interest from time to time to make
political hay in terms of who was in government. But the issue
in play is that we need to find solutions for the families who
are hurting.
Mr. George S. Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's comments but I simply brought forth these examples
because the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party during
his speech had laid blame.
1650
Even today we are left in Canada with the decisions that
governments made years ago. Today a blue fin tuna would get you
about $30,000 yet we entered into agreements years ago during the
period of time I was talking about in which another nation has
five times the quota of the hon. member's riding for blue fin
tuna inside the Canadian zone.
We have a ridiculous situation which again is a leftover from
the early nineties. We have to slowly try to get out of these
agreements because it is difficult to break them immediately.
There were 11 Cuban trawlers off the hon. member's riding in Nova
Scotia a couple of weeks ago. One of them had a national quota
inside Canada's zone. The other 10 were hired by Canadian
companies while our fishermen sit ashore with nothing to do.
The bottom line is that we have to try to correct the mistakes
of the past. That is exactly what the Government of Canada is
trying to do and what we are trying to do as a standing committee
with members from each side of the Chamber. I think everybody is
operating in unison to try to find the solutions just as the
Government of Canada is trying to do.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Vancouver East on debate.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my
time.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to once again return to this whole question of the
amendment that has been put forward by the Liberals on this
opposition motion. I would like to refer to section 566 of
Beauchesne's.
I think these amendments should be posed in such a way that they
are more acceptable to the House of Commons. How can that be
when the very amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal
government which talks about calling upon the government changes
“establish” to “continue the implementation of a comprehensive
national fisheries policy that demonstrates real commitment to
resource conservation”.
My point is that just last week the auditor general in his
report said very clearly that the department has stated that its
mandate is conservation of this fishery resource base and that is
implied in current legislation. Nevertheless we found—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion has
already been accepted by the Chair. At this time it is too late
to go into debate any longer so we will resume.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My colleague is attempting to make a point on the relevance of
an amendment in this House. I would like to refer you to
parliamentary rules on amendments, Beauchesne's citations 567 and
568. The point my colleague is making is that there is a
substantive change in the motion that was put forward by the
Conservatives, and the fact that the Conservative motion is
attempting to establish—
An hon. member: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I have the floor.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Malpeque.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the point of
order of the member opposite is out of order. The Speaker has
already ruled. It is as simple as that.
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): You are quite correct
so please carry on.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I will now attempt to
make my point. Citation 567 of Beauchesne's says this with
regard to amendments:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in
such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the
House a different proposition as an alternative to the original
question.
1655
Citation 568 states: “It is an imperative rule that every
amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment
is proposed”.
The fact of the matter is the amendment that the government put
forward on the Conservative motion changes that motion
substantially. The Conservatives are attempting to establish and
the Liberal government is insinuating that there is an
established process and it wants it to be continued. That is
substantially different.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, the member opposite is
trying to debate an issue that was decided on long ago by the
Speaker. It is a judgment call and we maintain on this side that
the amendment is in order. The Speaker has ruled that way and I
believe that you should stand by that ruling.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I commend my friend for bringing this to the floor
of the House. This is new information. He has made a specific
reference to Beauchesne. I would encourage the Chair to take
this under consideration. It is not a revisitation of the same
point of order. I would encourage the Chair to render the
decision according to the new information which has been provided
by the hon. House leader.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
there is a longstanding tradition in this House that when the
Chair makes a ruling, there is no appeal to that ruling. In the
best parliamentary tradition notwithstanding the interests of the
parties opposite to, I would simply say, expand the negative on
the amendment by using the word, and I believe the word was
“implement”, but that is secondary. The principle that has to
be maintained, defended and upheld is that of the Chair making a
ruling and having the final decision. There is no appeal to that
ruling.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time for making
that objection has passed. The Chair has already ruled on this
and it is time to resume debate.
The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
1700
It was very interesting to hear the history lesson by the
government member from Gander, Newfoundland. However, it is very
curious that his history only went up until 1993. What we are
concerned about today is what is happening in terms of our
fisheries on the east coast and the west coast.
Pacific salmon stocks have been depleted to crisis
proportions. The impact that this depletion has had on the
environment and on the lives of west coast fishers and their
families and on coastal communities has been devastating.
Not only has the federal government refused to support B.C.
fishers against the tide of American commercial exploitation of
the fisheries, but it has taken action that has devastated
coastal communities and small and independent fishers and their
families.
In my constituency of Vancouver East, many of my constituents
are reeling from the government's utter lack of commitment to the
Pacific fishery. There are 10,000 commercial fishers and 6,400
shore workers in B.C. who depend on salmon for their livelihoods.
The average annual wholesale value of the salmon harvest in B.C.
is approximately $500 million. The Americans are overfishing the
Canadian salmon and the cost to all Canadians is $60 million a
year. That means that four million fish are being illegally
harvested by the Americans.
The basic problem is that the U.S. is ignoring the terms of the
Pacific salmon treaty originally signed in 1985 and under
renegotiation since 1995. Instead of respecting the principle
that salmon belong to the country of origin, Alaskan fishers are
stealing Canadian sockeye salmon returning to spawn in Canadian
waters where they were born. As they pass through Alaskan waters
American fishers are taking four or five times more sockeye than
they are entitled to under the terms of the treaty.
Even more recently, the U.S. has been aggressively overfishing
the early run of salmon heading up the Fraser River in the south.
Despite the devastating effect of this overfishing on the west
coast and the blatant disregard that the Americans have shown
Canadian sovereignty, the federal government has done little to
change this situation. In fact, the plan that the federal
government has put in place is woefully inadequate.
If anything it does more to hurt the majority of B.C. fishers
than help them, indeed the Mifflin plan named after the former
Liberal fisheries minister actually punishes Canadians because it
forces B.C. fishers to choose one specific zone to fish and
allows licence staffing.
The Mifflin plan has been an ecological and sociological
disaster. Internationally it has been proven that fisheries work
when they are community based. However, what is the federal government
doing? The federal government has undercut the community in
favour of mega-companies that care more for the bottom line than
for the preservation of our environment and our coastal
communities. It edges out the fishers who live and work and
raise their families in these communities and who have a real
vested interest in the preservation of salmon stocks.
Simply put, the Mifflin plan has been a disaster in Atlantic
Canada. It has been a disaster in western Canada and it has been
a disaster for all of Canada. Even the promises that have been
made about transitional funds have been a disaster.
The federal government had promised $30 million to the
transitional funds for community fisheries development program.
In a meeting with the president of the fishers union in B.C., Mr.
John Radosevic, I was told that the people involved in that
transitional plan are still waiting to have an answer from the
federal government as to whether there will be multi-year
funding.
My colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is the critic
for the west coast fisheries for our party, raised this in the
House on October 1. What did the minister say? He said be
patient.
The fishers of the west coast and the east coast have been more
than patient. They have been waiting to see if this government
will put an action plan into place to ensure there is
preservation.
The only real leadership that we have seen in dealing with the
west coast fisheries crisis has come from the premier of British
Columbia and from many other people in my home province who
clearly recognize that the time has come to take a stand. Premier
Clark has been making tough decisions and what has the response
of the federal government been?
When the premier of B.C. moved to cancel the sea bed lease at
Nanoose, did the federal government move to support B.C. efforts?
No. The federal government is now suing the B.C. government and
claiming that B.C. does not have the power to cancel the sea bed
lease.
1705
I can tell the House that the federal NDP has long held the
position that Nanoose should be closed as a sea bed testing range
for U.S. submarines. Why? It is a relic of the cold war and an
environmental hazard. My colleague, the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, tabled a motion on this precise issue in the
House on September 23.
Second, when Mr. Clark initiated legal action against Alaska and
Washington to enforce the terms of the treaty, the federal
government refused to support the action and went even further
and undermined the B.C. position by releasing legal opinions.
In a more recent development, when the U.S. Congress recently
held congressional hearings on the issue, the federal government
refused to send government representatives. So Canada's position
was not at those hearings.
The leader of the NDP raised this issue in the House on
September 25. Now there is real concern that the U.S. may walk
away from the treaty altogether. Clearly the federal government
has to do everything in its power to prevent this from happening
because chaos will ensue.
The present fisheries minister, a British Columbian who we had
hoped would take tough action, has done little to ease the burden
of west coast fishers. By contrast, the minister did not even
meet with B.C. fishermen until they had been driven out of
frustration and need to take desperate measures in blocking the
passage of an American passenger ferry. Even then, I am sure
that the minister was persuaded more by American reaction than he
was by Canadian desperation.
A recent provincial public opinion polls shows that the majority
of British Columbians support the strong actions taken by our
provincial government to achieve a fair and workable Pacific
salmon treaty. Why will the federal government not do the same?
The Liberals say that they want to address westerners' feelings
of alienation, but when push comes to shove they continue to
ignore western concerns.
It is not good enough for the finance minister to attend a
meeting on the west coast as he did last week and say “we are
addressing your concerns”. Instead of spending his time
publicly bashing the premier of B.C. as he did in the House of
Commons, the minister of fisheries should be trying to emulate
the tough stand that our premier has taken on behalf of B.C.
fishers and coastal communities. The only real action that the
federal Liberals have taken is to appoint someone to monitor the
situation.
New Democrats have stood up in the House and will continue to
stand up in the House to fight for the survival of coastal
communities and sustainable jobs and a healthy fishery. We
believe this must be the primary goal of the federal fisheries
policy. The most important step toward achieving this goal is to
genuinely share the control of the fishery with the women and men
in the coastal communities that catch the fish.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand in
amazement at what I have just heard.
The member said we are not doing enough to achieve a
fair and workable fisheries treaty. That is in fact what we are
doing. This debate is about trying to make suggestions and all
we heard from this member was some political rhetoric and an
attack on the minister of fisheries.
To set the member straight I will outline it again, as I have
done many times. Nothing can be learned in the House if members
do not listen. Obviously members of the NDP are less interested
in listening and more interested in trying to protect the premier
of British Columbia in terms of some of the errors he has made in
terms of our trying to achieve a fair and equitable treaty with
the U.S.
An hon. member: Protect Canadians.
Mr. Wayne Easter: We are. Maybe the member was not
present earlier today when the minister spoke in response to a
question.
1710
He clearly said that he has worked as strongly in Canada's
interest in establishing the fishery treaty. The fact of the
matter is that a task force was called to explore possible
measures on July 19. The minister met with Premier Clark, as
well as Minister Eggleton in Vancouver. Minister Anderson met
with those in the blockade to try and remove that problem. The
task force reported to the minister. Minister Anderson met with
the senators of Alaska, Oregon and Washington State.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I urge the parliamentary
secretary to refer to ministers by their title and not by name.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, my mistake. The Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans met, as I said, with the senators of
Alaska, Oregon and Washington state, with Secretary Daly and
senior state departmental officials in Washington, with fisheries
and environmental organizations, with Governor Knowles of Alaska,
and the list goes on and on.
As we already know, this strong pressure from Canada goes right
up to the prime minister. We have appointed special
representatives who will report to the prime minister and to the
president on this issue. The minister and the government have
been fully engaged in efforts to resolve the Pacific salmon
treaty dispute, doing everything we can within our power while
the members opposite want to talk about political rhetoric. It
amazes me.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments and I agree that it is important to listen.
I invite the member to British Columbia so he can hear firsthand
and listen to the concerns of fishers in coastal communities who
feel they have been abandoned by the federal government. When
the member says that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has
been fully engaged, fully engaged in what? Certainly not in
defending the interests of fishers in B.C. and supporting the
Government of British Columbia which has been standing up for the
fishers.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been engaged in soft
peddling this issue. Yes, it is important to listen. It is
important to listen to the people who are directly affected by
the lack of a national fisheries program. That is what this
issue is about.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to the hon.
member, her party, which is the governing party in British
Columbia, has chosen to take some actions against the Americans.
We all agree that there is need of action, a real concern on this
issue.
When Al Gore and Bill Clinton wanted a park created up in
Tatshenshini, Mr. Harcourt said “I'll bend over and give you
anything you want”. He did. What was the prime reason for
creating the Tatshenshini? It was the unreal concern of the
Alaskan fisherman over the downstream impacts on the Alaskan
fishery.
Why does the member not go back to her friend, the premier of
British Columbia, and ask him to reverse that decision on the
Tatshenshini and put 2,000 British Columbians to work? That would
really get the the attention of Al Gore and Bill Clinton. They
have been sitting there watching this whole drama unfold without
taking it seriously.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is
confusing the issues. We are here debating a motion about our
fisheries on the east and west coasts.
The Government of British Columbia when it made the decision, a
historic decision, to establish the Tatshenshini park, it was a
decision that was for the environment and for our future
generations. It shows the commitment of the British Columbia
government to live up to its responsibility to ensure that these
unique areas of our province are preserved for future
generations.
1715
I am proud to say the present Premier of British Columbia is
willing to stand up and take on the U.S. government over this
treaty. If the federal minister of fisheries would do his work
with the same amount of commitment and dedication, maybe we would
not be in the mess we are in today over the situation with the
treaty.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, through
you I indicate my support for the motion with respect to the
fisheries put forward by my Conservative colleagues. The motion
asks the House to recognize the urgent need for action to address
the serious problems in the fisheries.
This is an extremely important issue for me because it has a
direct impact on the people in my riding. The fishery is a very
important industry for us. Entire villages are dependent on the
viability of this industry. We depend on a great number of
resources to put bread on the table of families who survive by
fishing. We fish for crab, shrimp, lobster, herring and some
plaice.
But I am going to dwell a bit more on a species we no longer fish,
cod, and on the reduction in crab, herring and lobster quotas.
As for the moratorium on cod, each time there are incidental
catches of cod when people are fishing for plaice, plaice fishing
gets shut down too. To all intents and purposes plaice fishing is
shut down for 50% of the season.
Although I congratulate the Conservative Party for drawing
attention to this very important issue, I find it somewhat ironic
that they are asking the Liberal government to take action when it
is they who are partly responsible for the crisis in the fisheries.
We all know that the disappearance of the cod stock is due to
poor management of the fisheries. And who is responsible? Our
Liberal friends, yes, but also our friends in the Conservative
Party. It was the Conservatives who were irresponsible in their
management of the fisheries throughout Canada from 1984 to 1993.
And what was the result?
A crisis in the cod sector that became critical and that has
remained so to this day.
The Conservatives can now say that they are concerned about
the difficult situation facing fishermen, but it is too little and
too late. They should have been concerned by these issues when
they were in power.
I do not know which is worse: Conservatives who mismanaged the
fisheries for ten years, or Liberals who are indifferent to the
difficulties caused by the crisis. The Liberals are like ostriches
who stick their heads in the sand and are surprised when they pull
them out to see boats landing empty at the docks.
The Liberals are refusing to do something about the suffering
of people by proposing immediate solutions. The Liberals are
refusing to recognize that some people have nothing to eat.
As a result of the changes they brought in to employment insurance,
fishers and plant workers have no incomes for a certain period of
the year.
What is still more unforgivable, however, is the refusal to
address the structural problems related to fishing. We are
debating this issue today because of a crisis that is happening
now, and will continue, and yet this government remains passive.
The government even says there is no fishery crisis. It ought to
visit the Atlantic provinces, not just the hotels of Moncton, but
where the fishing is really taking place.
This government does not always react, and when it does, it
reacts badly. We need a proactive government that formulates short
term strategies to deal with people's suffering but also, and
primarily, we need long term strategies to diversify the economy of
the communities hardest hit by these difficulties.
We need to put into place a forum that will bring together all
of the stakeholders affected by this issue. This means that the
federal and provincial governments must give up a bit of their
power and must listen to the communities directly affected, and
accept their proposals. This means that everyone needs to be
represented, people in industry and the various levels of
government.
This undertaking needs to be guided by certain basic
principles. Initially, we must ensure that resources are
conserved. It is very simple. If we do not take care to manage
the stocks, there will be no more fish and no more industry.
Communities like ours will then disappear. A long term preventive
approach must therefore be the primary objective of the forum.
1720
This forum must address the sharing of resources. We must ensure
that every member of the community shares in the success of lucrative
fisheries. If we want to get out of this difficult situation, we must
all be prepared to put in an equal effort to ensure that the community
as a whole benefits. This problem will not be resolved by going it
alone.
Finally, we must ensure that funding is available for processing.
Why should we send our fish abroad for processing when we have the skill
to do it at home?
This would necessitate collaboration between the various levels of
government as well as a commitment from industry stakeholders.
Fishers and plant workers are looking for work. Here is a long term
strategy that could help ease the pinch these groups are feeling. In
addition, this kind of initiative will promote a degree of
diversification in our local economies. There is no quick fix, but there
are better solutions than those put forward by the Liberals.
People in the fishing industry want their government to be
concerned with the difficulties they are facing. They do not want the
government to penalize them, like the Liberals did, on account of the
depletion of fish stocks. They want a proactive government capable of
developing short term and long term solutions.
The Liberals did not meet that challenge. When will they wake up and
protect the interests of fishers and plant workers?
Also, the government should in the industry to support second and
third level processing in addition to rationalizing fisheries and
plants, buy a few vessels, as used to be done, and give a pension to the
people over 50 in the fishing industry who had never benefited from the
fruits of this industry up until a few years ago, to help improve the
situation of the fishery industry.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate
the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his speech. I also congratulate
him for defeating the former Minister of Human Resources Development who
contributed to causing a great deal of damage in that region with the
employment insurance program. Today, however, we are debating the issue
of fisheries. In a way, there is a connection between the two, because
the Liberal government made hundreds of fishers lose their jobs, many of
them in the Acadian peninsula, where the hon. member comes from, and
many more in New Brunswick and throughout the maritimes.
I have a question for the hon. member. Everyone knows the Liberals
have all but disappeared in the maritimes.
Does the hon. member think it is primarily because of the cuts to
employment insurance, or because of the government's inaction on the
fisheries?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I would say it is both. Maybe they
both had something to do with ousting the Liberal member from the
Acadian peninsula, with throwing him out and replacing him with an NDP
member. Sometimes, I refer to myself as the new NDP member in New
Brunswick, because our party is a novelty in that province, at the
federal level.
The Liberals were ousted from the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, and
in fact right across the Atlantic region. Earlier our friend from
Gander—Grand Falls talked about the situation up until 1993, but he did
not keep going because his party came to office that year. The reason
the Liberals were ousted is that after the mess left by the
Conservatives, they too left us a mess, after making promises to
Canadians when they formed the opposition.
They said they would save employment insurance, which would be a
disaster for the Atlantic provinces. That is what the Liberals
said. When they came into power, they did the same as the
Conservatives. They even went further.
With the changes to employment insurance, they went even
further than that. Now people can no longer connect two fishing
seasons, because of the problems with the fisheries. What they
call that now, down home, is “the black hole”.
1725
I will tell you how July's changes to employment insurance
work, in case you did not know. I will educate you a little, if my
predecessor has not.
In May and June, we catch crab. In July and August, there is
nothing to fish for, where we are. Then the herring fishery starts
around August 28, or after the fête des Acadiens on August 15. So
our people suffer. They have no employment insurance in July and
August, because they have not had the chance to accumulate enough
weeks with the crab fishing to be able to get employment insurance.
The Liberal government is ignoring this problem completely,
washing its hands of the whole problem, letting our people suffer,
and this is totally unacceptable.
That is why the people of Acadie—Bathurst showed Doug Young the
door on June 2.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the member
mentioned New Democrat I thought he really meant new. What we
heard from the member for Acadie—Bathurst was similar to what we
heard earlier from the member from B.C. It was rhetoric about
the minister not going into the area.
I will have to establish those facts because the minister
travelled extensively in the member's riding, meeting with
fishermen, the Sea Coast Advisory Board, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans for New Brunswick, the Maritime Fishermen's
Union, the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association and the Nova Scotia
fishing groups. He was down to the joint meetings on fisheries.
I would wager a guess that if the member does not know the
minister was in the area maybe the minister has spent more time
in Atlantic Canada trying to resolve the problems than the member
has spent in his own riding, from the sound of things.
He talks about New Democrats. I would like to see them come up
with new ideas and give us some proposals we could consider
rather than the rhetoric they are throwing at us.
We moved on the EI issue to try to protect fishermen and the
fishing communities, and we in fact have.
With regard to the motion today we on this side of the House
have begun to bring forward a comprehensive national fisheries
policy that demonstrates a real commitment to resource allocation
and conservation. We have shown leadership on resource sharing
with foreign interests. The turbot question is a prime example.
We are showing sensitivity to the individuals, families and
communities that are affected. TAGS was an example. There were
some problems but we were there when we were needed and we will
continue to be there when we are needed in the future.
What new solution will the member propose rather than
misrepresenting the real facts?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to my colleague and
I will use the same words he used earlier. When he is in the
House, he should perhaps listen and stop preparing a second
question without listening to what is being said.
What I said in my speech was that I invited the Liberal
government to visit our community. First, I will set the record
straight: I never said that the minister never came to New
Brunswick. Second, what I said was that I invited the federal
government to organize a forum in our community, to get the people
in the industry together, and I made a suggestion to the effect
that I want to get to the root of the problem and find a solution.
We will come back to the fact that they say they wanted to
solve our problems. I will tell you something.
People in my riding tried to escape the cycle of poverty because
they could no longer work in the fish plants for a living. All
they were told, according to the government's recommendations, was:
“Go and work somewhere else. Go and make some wreaths or in other
sectors”.
Do you know what the Liberal government did three years ago?
It turned around and did a poor job. The Minister of Human
Resources Development began checking into those who had received
employment insurance. What did he do? He investigated 150 people.
Now he is telling them: “Sorry, we made a mistake; now you owe us
$20,000, now you owe us $25,000, because our department made a
mistake and gave you employment insurance. We are sorry, but you
poor folks who can hardly put bread on the table owe us Liberals
$25,000.
We want you poor people to give us $40,000”. That is what the
Liberals have done.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It being 5.30 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the question is
deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have
been demanded.
[English]
(Division deemed demanded and deferred)
An hon. member: Excellent idea.
The Deputy Speaker: Sorry, the vote will be held at the
end of government orders for that day.
Before we begin the first private members' business hour of the
36th Parliament, the Chair would like to take a few moments to
review with the House the rules governing the length of speeches
during this segment of business.
[Translation]
As members know, on Friday, October 10, the House passed new
Standing Order 95. This is the Standing Order that governs the
length of speeches during the hour reserved for the consideration
of private members' business.
[English]
The adoption of this new standing order results in the
following: for votable items, the old rule remains unchanged
from the last Parliament, that is, the member moving the item has
up to 20 minutes and all other members up to 10 minutes.
For non-votable items, as is the case today for the motion
standing in the name of the hon. member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, a different regime now applies. The
member moving the item has up to 15 minutes and all other members
up to 10 minutes.
After all members who wish to speak have spoken and provided
there is still time remaining, the member moving the item may
speak for up to five additional minutes. Copies of the revised
Standing Order 95 are available at the table.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): moved
that Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada health Act (nutrition
services) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to
Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act. The bill is
intended to amend the Canada Health Act by inserting the words
“nutrition services”.
The Canada Health Act lists insured services, and nutrition
services are not insured.
We all know that dieticians and nutritionists are specialists in
nutrition.
They promote the distribution and application of nutritional
principles, advise on food choices and help prevent or treat the
consequences of inadequate nutrition in people of all ages and
groups from all communities.
They perform a professional function, whose aim is to promote
health through healthy food choices. Their services are used in
hospitals, sports centres, food markets, government and
international agencies, medical clinics and educational
institutions, to name but a few.
[English]
The public hears and reads a great deal about nutrition. The
industry is constantly putting new products on the market or
promoting particular ways of eating. Because of the difficulty to
understand and interpret this information, people often turn to
the dietitian nutritionist, someone who understands nutrition
because of his or her university training in this science.
1735
Dietitians and nutritionists in their concern to protect the
public are worried about the quality of information disseminated
about food and nutrition and want to warn people not to believe
everything they read and hear.
Dietitians and nutritionists are experts in nutrition. All that
is medically and nutritionally required falls within their field
of specialization.
The reform of the health care system, the shift to ambulatory
care and the subsequent redeployment of professionals increase
the number of situations where the protection of the public and
appropriate health care need to be improved and prioritized
despite the economic climate.
[Translation]
Dietitians and nutritionists are in a good position to help people
suffering from hunger. By linking their knowledge of foods with respect
for others, they come up with creative ways of appeasing the hunger of
thousands of people.
One of the places that comes to mind is the Dispensaire diététique
de Montréal, which was established over 50 years ago and which has
helped some 2,600 pregnant women in difficulty, a third of which were
disadvantaged, and which established a model for effective dietary
counselling in order to be able to answer society's greatest need: child
poverty.
When children suffer from malnutrition, the first thing that
springs to mind are health problems: anemia, underweight babies, delays
in growth, deficiencies in nutritional elements such as calcium, iron,
zinc and vitamins A and D, to name the main ones.
In addition, low birth weight is a risk factor in perinatal
mortality and in physical and mental handicaps. It can also affect
performance at school, reduced attention, fatigue and mood changes.
School programs also try to help young people from disadvantaged
communities eat better. For example, milk has been provided in certain
schools for over 20 years. Programs offering snacks, soup, low cost
meals, food banks providing non-perishable items and nutritional
education have been set up to help young people eat properly.
In another area, assessing needs, determining quantities and
measuring effects on the organism are factors that must be taken into
consideration in planning an expedition or athletic training.
For example, polar exploration requires very specific nutritional
logistics. Everything has to be calculated. To ensure full nutritional
value is obtained from prepared food and beverages, various factors must
be taken into account: the explorer has to fight cold and wind, he will
have long distances to travel, he will be carrying weight and the
expedition may last a number of days, if not weeks.
This knowledge enables the dietitian or the nutritionist to be an
invaluable partner in organizing such an adventure.
[English]
As mentioned earlier, dietitians and nutritionists are
specialists in nutrition. They work to disseminate and apply
nutritional principles, guide dietary choices and help prevent or
treat the consequences of inadequate nutrition in groups of
various milieu and individuals of all ages.
The dietitian's professional goal is to promote good health
through proper nutrition. An ever-increasing number of
individuals, businesses and organizations are utilizing the
services of a dietitian. As members certainly know, the Canadian
government recognizes them as a key resource in drawing up health
policies such as Canada's food guide which provides guidelines
for a healthy diet.
Historically the first nutrition programs were offered by the
University of Toronto in 1902 and Toronto's Hospital for Sick
Children was the first hospital to hire a professional dietitian
in 1908.
In Canada there are two professional orders of dietitians: one
in Ontario and one in Quebec. All the other provinces and
territories have associations recognized by their respective
provinces and territories.
We must therefore conclude that the profession of these persons
is recognized by their province but not by their country.
1740
[Translation]
We will remember that, in 1992, at the international conference on
nutrition in Rome, the participating countries, including Canada,
supported a world declaration on nutrition and made a commitment to
develop national nutrition strategies.
Health Canada set up a steering committee to prepare a national
strategy on nutrition, and the committee presented its report
providing strategies on nutrition for new directions in health in
the spring of 1996.
The document on the subject of nutrition as a source of savings for
the health and social services network issued in June 1997 by the Ordre
professionnel des diététistes du Québec indicates that good nutrition is
very cost effective and that it rapidly improves the health of those who
are sick, cuts medication and the risk of complication, shortens the
length of hospital stays and reduces the rate of return to hospitals and
transfers to chronic care centres.
A look at the particular needs of the most vulnerable groups,
including pregnant women and elderly persons, indicates that nutrition
is indeed a source of significant saving for the health and social
services network.
People aged 65 years and over have twice as many chronic health
programs as those in all other groups in the population as a whole.
Chronic illness and physical disability combined with a reduced
appetite seriously affect seniors' nutritional balance. The result,
among others, is a greater risk of infection, dehydration and
osteoporosis.
The effectiveness and efficiency of health care could be
significantly improved through early nutritional examination of people
at risk, through special nutritional intervention and a joint action by
all decision-makers and interveners.
We should remember that the population aged 65 years and over has
almost doubled in the past 30 years, and the proportion continues to
grow.
Persons aged 65 years and over on the average have twice as many
chronic health problems as the population as a whole. Reduced mobility
often leads to difficulties in obtaining and preparing meals.
A number of social factors also effect seniors' health, including loss
of a spouse, retirement, isolation and insufficient income.
Because they eat less, seniors have a hard time meeting nutritional
requirements for vitamins and minerals.
It is acknowledged that during chemotherapy and radiation
treatments for cancer, multiple alimentary distresses can affect the
individual's appetite and quality of life.
This is why good nutrition is essential to keeping the immunity
system healthy. Malnutrition, even low level, may upset this immunity
balance.
Of the people displaying malnutrition on leaving the hospital, 29%
are rehospitalized unexpectedly within the three months of their
leaving.
Appropriate nutritional action provides the most appropriate
treatment of protein-caloric malnutrition in seniors preventing their
return to hospital in the short term.
An American experiment, in which elderly persons were fed
nutritional meals at home, shows that it is possible to reduce the
number and the length of infections as well as the number of hospital
stays and medical complications. It should be noted that the annual cost
of this service amounted to the cost of a single day's hospitalization.
In another area, everyone has heard of osteoporosis, the
deterioration of bone which may result in very severe fractures.
1745
Osteoporosis patients must pay continued attention to the way they
eat. Dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D is a decisive factor in
prevention and treatment.
One can conclude that all of these physical difficulties, linked to
a loss of appetite, can significantly affect the balanced diet of
seniors, who can then become weaker and weaker. They become more
vulnerable to infection, do not have the reserves to heal fast and
therefore they need more health care services.
It is obvious, as many studies have indicated, that well adapted
and timely nutrition services can help to limit the costs of health
services, by reducing the number of days spent in hospital,
prescriptions and medical examinations and by delaying or even avoiding
admission to an institution.
Now, let us talk briefly about cardiovascular diseases, the main
cause of death in Quebec. These insidious diseases develop throughout a
period of at least 20 years and are linked to our lifestyles.
Risk factors on which we can have some kind of influence are
hypercholesterolemia, high blood pressure, smoking and an inactive
lifestyle. A single one of these factors doubles the risk of disease,
two of these factors quadruple it and three multiply it by eight.
Strokes are the main causes of brain damage among adults. This
alarming trend can be altered.
In 1995, the Massachusetts dietetic association released a study
that showed that nutrition is the most effective and least expensive
initial approach to the treatment of patients with low or moderate
hypercholesterolemia.
According to another American study carried out in 1987 among
patients with high blood pressure who were taking hypotensive drugs, in
50% to 69% of all cases, nutrition can replace hypotensive drugs during
the first year of treatment.
[English]
In conclusion, my purpose today is not to convince members of
the great value of the services provided by this group of
professionals. We are all convinced of that value. In practice,
however, this group whose national association has over 5,000
members, over 90% of them women, is not recognized by the Canada
Health Act.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the way in which the bill underscores the importance
of nutrition services for Canadians. Studies have shown beyond
any shadow of doubt that a proper diet is very crucial to the
healing process. It also provides a needed preventive measure
against illness.
Reformers and I are definitely in support of preventive and
holistic measures. I endorse the way in which the bill
constitutes a vote of confidence in Canada's dietitians who are
skilled professionals and who serve the Canadian public well.
However I cannot support the bill for a few reasons. First, it
is because I am not convinced and have not been convinced by the
member's speech that it merely extends gracious recognition to
dietitians. Rather it seems to put dietitians on a par with
physicians as far as their ability to invoice the government
directly is concerned.
It would appear that the bill will have the effect of creating a
massive increase in expenditures due to the inclusion of
nutrition services in the Canada Health Act. The summary of the
bill shows us that the bill's purpose is to include nutrition
services in the definition of insured health services. In fact
they are already covered when a physician refers a patient to a
dietitian.
It occurs to me that there has to be something more about the
bill that I am not fully aware of to this point. If this is only
about affirming health care providers, why not include
physiotherapy, optometry, chiropractic services and all dentistry
and not just surgical-dental services as the Canada Health Act
now provides?
1750
Given my concern I cannot support the bill because it fails to
reckon with the economic forces at play in our country right now
in relation to the budget. We have had a $7 billion shortfall
from the Liberal government during the course of the last term in
health and education. It fails to reckon with what is going on
with medicare in our country at this time.
The Reform Party strongly supports the public funding of
medicare as an essential, comprehensive, universally accessible
national health service publicly funded and portable across the
country.
Reformers also know that supporting such a program requires a
great deal of funding. In order for that to happen across the
country, the funding needs to be there. As I said before,
funding of late has been insufficient to meet the needs of
Canadians because of some of the cuts that have occurred over the
course of the last number of years, expressly to the tune of some
$7 billion for health and education.
We must be sober and acknowledge that the context of our debate
today is a widely acknowledged crisis in health care funding. It
is in this context that we need to ask a question. Can we afford
to pay the additional costs that would be associated with adding
nutritional services to the Canada Health Act? I would say that
the answer at this point is no.
I also cannot support the bill because it further complicates an
already existing strained, tense relationship at times between
federal and provincial governments justifiably upset with being
short-changed in respect to provincial health dollars.
Provincial health ministers are not waiting with bated breath
for decrees from the House requiring additional expenditures. The
provinces will simply not ask how high when Ottawa issues the
command to jump. Nor will they ask how many when Ottawa issues
the command to make bricks out of straw.
National standards will be meaningful and well received by the
provinces only if they are backed by the funds needed to meet
those standards, which is not currently the case.
A few quick phone calls I made this afternoon divulged to me
another concern of mine, that there has not been a consultation
process across the country. There has been no consultation with
deputy ministers, health ministers and other key stakeholders.
It would be presumptuous for us in Ottawa to tell the provinces
what their priorities in spending should be. There is no
justification for fast tracking this through and giving it
precedence over other health care services that are also
interested in having more money to work with.
In some of the health districts in Saskatoon their concerns
revolve around MRIs and keeping beds open since 70 beds will be
closed in the Regina District Health for two weeks over
Christmastime. Those people are more concerned about the
shortfall of funding in those areas.
We have big concerns in other areas. Why would we add another
area when there are big concerns and shortfalls in other areas
that need to be shored up?
I recall a story from my province within the last couple of
weeks of a 79 year old woman from Coronoch, Saskatchewan, who had
to wait six days to have a hip pinned. Her life was endangered
because of the policies of the government in terms of shortfall
in funding. I am sure that she and her general practitioner
would tell us that there is need for extra funding in other areas
before we add more areas, which is the implication of the bill.
For these and other reasons that we do not have time to get into
I oppose the bill as it stands. I would be open to further
discussion in the future with the member opposite about the
intent of the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to say a few words in support of Bill C-202,
introduced by my colleague who is a physician and the hon. member
for Pierrefonds—Dollard, and seconded by the hon. member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, whose riding is just beside mine.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of measures aimed at
improving the health of the population. However, we always insisted on
respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec and other Canadian provinces in
the area of health.
Nutrition services can be of great help to Quebeckers and
Canadians.
Whether they work at the community level, in food services management,
in education or in clinical practice, nutrition professionals help the
population to better balance their food intake, hence their health in
general.
1755
In the present context of tremendous pressure due to budget cuts
imposed by the Liberals since they came to power, it is clear that any
measure aimed at improving the health of Quebeckers and Canadians can
only be welcomed. When people are in better health—something good
eating habits can only promote—they are less likely to become
frequent users of health services; and this relieves pressure on the
system and reduce costs in general.
That having been said, Bill C-202 is not without raising a few
questions.
The Canada Health Act, which would be amended by Bill C-202, sets
out the conditions for the payment of the amounts provided under
the 1977 Established Programs Financing Act, now part of the
notorious Canada social transfer, for insured health services and
related services.
As you know, the Bloc Quebecois has always taken a very firm
and very clear position on health: the administration of health
care is a provincial matter. It is necessary to be vigilant and
ensure that a province that does not wish to comply with this
measure or that wishes to introduce a similar service is
compensated.
We must therefore be clear. Nutrition services cannot help
but have a positive impact on the health of the general public.
And if this is done with respect for the respective jurisdictions
of each level of government, a point that has yet to be thrashed
out, broadening access to nutrition services will help thousands of
Quebeckers and Canadians to achieve a better lifestyle, better
nutrition and, therefore, better health.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam
Speaker, Canada's New Democratic Party supports the concept and
believes the idea could be implemented with political will but
without opening up the Canada Health Act.
Health care is about much more than hospitals and doctors. That
is why the NDP has been standing in the House talking about
issues like jobs, poverty, education for our young people and the
social safety net.
About 1.4 million children live in poverty in Canada. Over 50%
of aboriginal children both on and off reserve are living in
poverty. The National Forum on Health says people who have been
unemployed for any significant amount of time tend to die
prematurely. That is why we continue to raise in the House daily
the issues of employment and employment support programs like EI.
Canada's NDP has been a long time advocate for expanding
medicare. We have been advocating for a national pharmacare
program to include coverage of prescription drugs under the
public insurance system. Liberal cuts to federal transfers for
health have led many provinces to de-list drugs and impose
increased user fees. These cuts hit poor Canadians and seniors
hardest. A national pharmacare program would reverse this trend.
Unfortunately the Liberal promise on pharmacare rings hollow. We
have had no assurances that Liberals intend to follow through on
their election rhetoric.
Canada's NDP has also advocated change in the area of home care.
A national home care program would encourage innovation in the
area of health care and help provinces deal with the changing
roles of hospitals and doctors. The huge burden placed on women
in the home, the ones who are primarily left to care for
patients, would be reduced.
Canada's NDP will continue to fight for better health care. We
will fight to stop the $1.2 billion cut in federal Liberal health
transfers this year. We will fight for programs to relieve
poverty and for jobs.
1800
We appreciate the spirit of this motion. This House can rest
assured that Canada's NDP will be there fighting for better
health care for Canadians, for pharmacare and for home care.
[Translation]
I think it is important to take a look at what is happening in
health care. Our situation in New Brunswick is very critical, and
I think it is very important to talk about it, because every day
New Brunswick's newspapers carry articles about our seniors in
nursing homes. Because of the Liberals' cuts to the provinces,
these are no place for our seniors.
My mother would not go into one of these homes, that is for
sure. There are some frightening stories in New Brunswick today;
there are a number of investigations taking place into health care
in the province. Why?
There are two reasons: health care cuts, and cuts in provincial
transfer payments. In addition, our provincial Liberal government
would rather put money elsewhere than in health care.
I was also very surprised at the comments by the Liberal
member when he said he was concerned about health care for women.
I would like to see him just as concerned about the problem of pay
equity for women
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this private
member's Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act. I
compliment my colleagues for the initiative.
However, I want to address today the difficulty of reconciling
the proposed amendment with the fundamental purpose and the
intent of the Canada Health Act.
Let me say at the outset that I, and I think all other members
of my party, are sympathetic to the concerns raised in the bill.
Although the promotion of better nutrition is important,
unfortunately the Canada Health Act, in my opinion, is the wrong
instrument to achieve this objective. I hope to illustrate that
over the course of this intervention.
The Canada Health Act sets out the broad principles under which
provincial plans are expected to operate. The act establishes
certain criteria that provincial plans must meet in order to
qualify for their full share of the federal health care transfer
payments. Federal transfer payments may be reduced or withheld
if a province does not meet the criteria and the conditions of
the act.
[Translation]
These critera are the cornerstones of Canada's health care
system. They are: reasonable access to medically required
services, unimpeded by charges at point of service or other
barriers; second, comprehensive coverage for medically required
services; third, universality of insured coverage for all
provincial residents on equal terms and conditions; fourth,
portability of benefits within Canada and abroad; and finally,
public administration of the health insurance plan on a
non-profit basis.
[English]
In addition to the above criteria, the conditions of the act
require that the provinces provide information as required by the
federal minister and that they also give appropriate recognition
to federal contributions toward health care services in order to
qualify for federal cash contributions.
The act also discourages the application of extra billing or
user charges through the automatic dollar for dollar reductions
or withholding of federal cash contributions to a province or
territory which permits such direct charges to patients. In
fact, the threat that user charges and extra billing would erode
accessibility to needed medical care was a major impetus in the
development of the act.
The Canada Health Act was enacted to protect the fundamental
principles of our publicly financed, comprehensive, portable,
universally accessible health insurance system. I think
everybody in this House would agree that these are laudable
objections.
[Translation]
Our system of national health insurance, or medicare, as it is
popularly known, is close to the hearts of Canadians and
something too precious to tamper with for no valid reason.
Canadians support the five principles and feel that medicare is a
defining feature of Canada. Time and time again, polls
demonstrate high public support for medicare.
[English]
The amendments presented by my hon. colleague and friend, if
adopted, would affect the definition of insured services under
the act.
1805
In short, this means that if Bill C-202 is passed by this House
the provinces and territories would be required to provide on an
insured basis to all of their residents nutrition services. This
is not the purpose of the Canada Health Act.
The purpose of the Canada Health Act is to ensure that Canadians
have access to medically necessary hospital and physician
services without financial or other impediments. Moreover,
Canada Health Act principles deal with the organization and
delivery of health care services on the level of provincial and
territorial plans.
The addition of nutrition services to section 2 of the act would
be intrusive and interfere with the provincial-territorial
responsibility for health services management.
Clearly the Canada Health Act is not the proper place to
regulate matters such as nutrition services which properly fall
under provincial jurisdiction and are better handled at this
level. Even if the Canada Health Act were the appropriate place
for such a provision it would probably not achieve its objective.
The act places conditions on payments to the provinces and
territories and can reduce or withhold transfers if these are not
met. It cannot dictate to a province or territory how to run its
health care plan much less its institutions.
The federal government recognizes that provinces and territories
have the primary responsibility for the organization and delivery
of health care services and that they require sufficient
flexibility to operate and administer their health care insurance
plans in accordance with their specific needs and institutions.
[Translation]
This is why the flexibility inherent in the Canada Health Act
has always been one of its strengths. Since the enactment of the
Act in 1984, the federal government has always attempted to work
with the provinces in order to make the act a viable piece of
legislation. It could be dangerous to tamper with the provisions
of the Act when they have received such wholehearted support.
If we want medicare to survive, we must be vigilant against
blatant threats such as user charges.
[English]
I want to come back to the point that while nutrition is a
serious concern the Canada Health Act is not the appropriate
place in which to address this issue. As it stands now the
Canada Health Act does not require that the services of
nutritionists be provided on an insured basis. It does not
forbid provinces and territories from providing coverage for
these services as well.
For the federal government the decision to provide nutrition
services as part of a package of insured health services should
be left to the provinces and to the territories. This does not
mean that the federal government has no interest in the nutrition
issue. Quite the contrary. The federal Department of Health has
always been involved in the promotion of good nutrition in
Canada.
In 1992 Health Canada released Canada's food guide to healthy
eating. The guide provides Canadians with information on
establishing healthy eating patterns through the daily selection
of foods. To date, and this will be of interest to colleagues in
the House, over 21 million copies of the guide materials have
been distributed. That means that every man, woman and child
capable of reading in this country has a copy in his or her
possession potentially.
The food guide then is currently serving as the basis for a wide
variety of nutrition initiatives across Canada implemented by a
broad range of partners including provincial, territorial and
municipal governments as well as non-governmental organizations,
consumer groups, the private sector and school boards.
The most recent national population health survey shows that
more and more Canadians are taking steps to improve the quality
of their nutrition. This is encouraging. I believe that it is
important that we continue to support the efforts that promote
the importance of good nutrition.
The proposal put forward by my hon. colleague and friend is very
commendable.
1810
However, it is in my opinion problematic in that it raises the
problems I have outlined. That is why I cannot support the bill,
regrettably.
Normally I would speak for much longer, but I see that my
colleague wants to address the issue even further. Therefore I
will relinquish my position now.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I also rise to speak on the subject of private member's
Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act.
Given the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal
and provincial territorial governments in the area of health
care, I believe that amending the Canada Health Act may not be
the best approach to address the concern of our hon. colleague.
[Translation]
As you are already aware, under the Canadian Constitution, the
responsibility for health care lies with the provinces and
territories. In other words, the provinces and territories are
responsible for administering and delivering the health care that
is available to Canadians.
[English]
This means that the provinces and the territories act as
planners, managers and administrators of their own health care
systems. In practical terms, this includes negotiation of
budgets with hospitals, approval of capital plans and negotiation
of fee agreements with medical associations.
The federal government, for its part by law, is responsible for
the promotion and preservation of the health of all Canadians.
Health Canada is responsible for bringing together parties on
health issues of national and interprovincial concern.
The federal government also assumes the responsibility for
setting national policies and for providing health care services
to specific groups such as treaty Indians as well as Inuit. It
is appropriate when describing federal responsibilities in health
care to note what the federal government cannot do.
It cannot interfere in provincial territorial responsibilities
as defined under our Constitution, nor can it be seen to be
infringing on these responsibilities.
Bill C-202 attempts to require provinces and territories to
provide nutrition service on an insured basis. As it is the
provinces and territories that are responsible for matters
dealing with the delivery of health services, to require that
nutrition services be added to the list of insured health
services would be perceived as an unacceptable intrusion on the
provincial territorial responsibilities under our Constitution.
The federal government cannot and should not act unilaterally in
an area of provincial jurisdiction. Any decision to extend the
scope of the Canada Health Act requires extensive consultation
and support from the provinces.
In 1984 concerns over hospital user fees and extra billing by
physicians led to the passage of the Canada Health Act. This was
achieved with all-party support. The federal government's aim in
passing the Canada Health Act was to reaffirm its commitment to
the original guiding principles expressed in the earlier
legislation.
It was also to provide a mechanism to promote the provinces' and
territories' compliance with the act's criteria, conditions and
extra billing and user charge provisions.
[Translation]
In short, the purpose of the Canada Health Act is to allow
Canadians reasonable access to necessary prepaid health services.
[English]
The provinces and territories have retained the responsibility
of administering their health insurance plans under the Canada
Health Act and for managing their respective systems. The
management of health care personnel and related issues, such as
the one proposed in Bill C-202, is also their responsibility.
The criteria of the Canada Health Act are known to most
Canadians and regarded as the defining principles of medicare.
The principles of public administration, comprehensiveness,
universality, portability and accessibility are valued and
cherished by Canadians who will not accept changes to them.
Poll after poll indicates great public support for these
national principles.
Even while discussions of health care reform are taking place,
the values which are reflected in each of these principles are
not being debated.
1815
Provincial and territorial ministers of health share this
support. We know that Canada's health care system needs to be
modernized to ensure that all Canadians continue to have access
to needed health services. This is of particular importance as
delivery methods, as well as venues, change over time. However,
governments at all levels have articulated their support for the
five principles of the Canada Health Act.
Regardless of the reforms currently taking place, the principles
of the Canada Health Act remain the cornerstone of our health
care system.
[Translation]
I would like to reiterate that the provinces and territories
may, at their discretion, provide insured services other than those
covered by the Canada Health Act. Nutrition services may be
offered as complementary health services.
[English]
Although the objectives of Bill C-202 have merit, to pass this
bill would disrupt the historical distinction and balance between
federal and provincial jurisdiction. It would infringe on the
longstanding federal and provincial territorial relationship that
has facilitated the creation of a health care system that is
widely cherished by the Canadian public.
For this reason, although I recognize the value of nutritionists
across Canada, this bill cannot be supported by the federal
government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We have about a dozen
minutes left. Does the hon. member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle
wish to take advantage of his five minute prerogative?
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Madam Speaker, it will not take me five
minutes.
I thank all of my colleagues for their support and I would
like to seek the unanimous consent of the House on the following
motion:
I move:
That Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Canada Health Act
(nutrition services), be designated as votable.
I present this motion in the interest of all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The period for Private
Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to
move on to deliberations on the motion to adjourn. Since it is not
yet 6.30 p.m., is it agreed to call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the
adjournment debate. On October 10, I asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development a question concerning the procedure for setting
the criteria to determine the amount of the surplus in the employment
insurance fund.
1820
The answer the minister gave at the time was somewhat incomplete,
and I would like him or his representative to clarify this answer for
me.
I would like to remind the hon. members that the auditor general
finally came to the same conclusions as the people who rallied
against employment insurance reform in my riding, in
Rivière-du-Loup, l'Isle-Verte or Saint-Antonin. While the
terminology may be different, he said essentially the same thing.
These people asked, and so did the auditor general, how the
employment insurance surplus is managed. We finance the EI fund by
paying premiums, but we have no control over it.
We do not know exactly how this works, what the criteria are and how
large the surplus will be allowed to get.
The government is keeping our money in a separate account. The
auditor asked the very same question. He suggested that there be a
separate employment insurance account so that we will know if the
premiums paid by employers and employees to secure an income for
themselves between jobs is actually used for that purpose or for some
other purpose, such as making up the government's deficit.
We all agree on the need to reduce the deficit, but we must realize
that people are putting money into the EI fund not to reduce the deficit
but to ensure workers have a decent income while they undergo training
for a new job. There is nothing about that in the existing policy, and
the auditor general backed this position in his report.
The greatest concern for the public—and the auditor general
echoed this concern after realizing in his analysis that this was not
being done—is to determine how the reserve fund amount is set. The
employment insurance surplus is approximately $12 billion. We started
off with a $6 billion deficit two years ago and will end up with a $12
billion or $13 billion surplus by December 31, 1997.
This means that over a two-year period, the government will have taken
between $18 billion and $19 billion from employers and employees to
manage a fund, and we do not even know how the amount of the reserve
will be determined.
Will the surplus have to be $6 billion, $8 billion, $10 billion or
$12 billion? Will it be $20 billion, $22 billion or $25 billion in a
year? There are no set criteria and this is very surprising, because the
immigration board is supposed to do this on the advice of the governor
in council. One can see a pattern developing.
On the one hand, the Minister of Finance will, of course, want to
reduce the deficit. This means recovering as much money as possible,
eventually by reducing the number of weeks during which people can draw
benefits, while increasing the number of weeks required to become
eligible.
On the other hand, the Minister of Human Resources Development must ask
himself whether there will be an adequate level of income for those who
collect employment insurance benefits.
Will the program provide seasonal workers with a sufficient income
by the end of the year? Will there be enough money for training? All
these questions remain unanswered for the time being. We do not really
know how the amount in the reserve will be determined. We do not know
how the government will make rational choices.
Since we are in the pre-budget consultation period, this should be
a priority. The government must tell us what will be an acceptable
surplus for the coming year.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I want to
remind the hon. member that, as the Minister of Human Resources
Development recently pointed out, the last federal budget and the main
estimates already contain a great deal of information on the employment
insurance fund.
This being said, there is no great mystery about the reserve in the
employment insurance fund. A reserve is necessary because it allows us
to set more stable contribution rates throughout the economic cycle, so
that we do not have to increase these rates should a recession occur. It
also helps us ensure there is enough money to pay the benefits when
these benefits are most needed.
Let us take a look at what happened during the last recession.
Within a period of two years, the employment insurance fund went from a
surplus of $2 billion to a deficit of $6 billion, and the government had
to increase contributions by 30% at a time when it was already difficult
to create jobs. Given these facts, the government believes it is wise to
have a reserve in the employment insurance fund.
1825
The reserve itself can vary at any given time. It goes up and
down with the payment of benefits. Right now, it is estimated to
contain about $12 billion. However, this amount is going to be
reviewed and the government will soon announce its decision in this
regard.
Let us remember that the money is held in the account against
future expenditures that could be required under the program. As
for the interest, it is credited to the employment insurance
account. As indicated in the Main Estimates for 1997-98, the
interest this year was $345 million.
The employment insurance premiums paid by workers and
employers make it possible to offer income protection, which is
very important for those who unexpectedly lose their jobs. But
best of all, employment insurance helps the unemployed to obtain
stable jobs as quickly as possible. That is why—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. The hon. member for Scarborough East.
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
asked the question in the House of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs concerning the legislation passed by the Russian
parliament disenfranchising religious minorities. It is an
affront to those who believe in religious freedom, democratic
values and human rights.
To his credit, the minister raised the issue with
representatives of the Russian government and expressed Canada's
dismay at the passage of the legislation. Coincidentally, the
Prime Minister was in Russia on that very same day trying to get
President Yeltsin to sign on for the land mine treaty and to
stand up for the legal rights for Canadian investors in Russia.
News reports disclose a potential $70 million loss on a Canadian
investment despite international and Russian judgments in favour
of the Canadian investors. News reports also disclose the
climate of fear and intimidation to the Canadian employees and
investors of that company.
Despite the Prime Minister's intervention, President Yeltsin had
the nerve to complain that Canada was not investing enough.
Is there a connection between the abuse of religious minority
rights and the abuse of investors' legal rights? I would submit
that the two are inextricably linked. Religious minority rights
in particular but human rights in general are the canary in the
mine shaft.
A country which abuses its religious minority rights will abuse
other legal rights as well. Abuse of religious minority rights
and abuse of other legal rights go together.
When Canadians contemplate investments in countries which
routinely abuse minority rights, they put their investments at
risk. It is part of the bottom line and should be part of the
government's advice to Canadian companies contemplating
investments in countries whose human rights' records are somewhat
dismal. It is as important a consideration as dollar
fluctuations, interest rates and workforce skills. Losing one's
investments is the most significant cost of doing business.
We need to move to the protection of religious and human rights
from the fringe agenda to the concerned and make it part of the
business agenda. The only language that Russia and other nations
that abuse religious minority rights understand is money. If the
investment money dries up, there may just be an incentive to
provide a legal framework for the protection of those citizens
and the international investors which will lead to prosperity and
protection for all.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said in the House on October 20, we have
expressed our concerns about Russia's new religion legislation
consistently and at the highest level.
The Prime Minister has just spent five days in Russia. He spoke
about the new religion legislation with President Yeltsin, Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin, the chairman of the Federation Council and
the speaker of the Duma Parliament. He told each one of them
that the legislation appears to discriminate against certain
religions and that it is sending a negative message
internationally about Russia's democratic reform efforts.
He reminded the Russian political leaders of Russia's
international obligations as a member of the Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, and of the Council
of Europe and of the United Nations. He cited, in particular,
the UN Commission on Human Rights' resolution 53 on religious
intolerance.
This is not all. The Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the
issue with Russian Foreign Minister Primakov during the latter's
visit to Ottawa on September 29 and 30.
In July we expressed our concern about the proposed legislation
at the OSCE meetings. The Canadian Ambassador to Russia took up
the issue with the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
1830
In spite of our expressed concerns and those of many other
countries the law has been passed. The Kremlin has given
assurances that minority confessions will not be adversely
affected.
This gives us some margin for further interventions. We have
advised the Russians that we will continue to monitor
implementation of the law very closely.
Many Canadian citizens and religious organizations in Canada are
watching this issue. We will continue to provide updates to the
House on appropriate occasions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)