EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 145
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 29, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1010
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANAGING FOR RESULTS 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1998-99
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Reference to Standing Committees
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Prostitution
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1020
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-57. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1025
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1030
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1035
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1040
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1045
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1100
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1105
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1145
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1150
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1210
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1215
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1250
1255
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1310
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1315
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Godfrey |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1330
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-48. Second Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARLIAMENTARIANS ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THEATRE COLLINGWOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GROUP OF PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF UNESCO
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SMALL BUSINESSES
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMILLE LAURIN
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRED GILLIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DATURA STRAMONIUM
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Request for tabling of documents
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-48. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1615
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1630
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
1635
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1705
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1725
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND CANADIAN BOUNDARIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1825
1830
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Water Exports
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Royal Canadian Mounted Police
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1835
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1840
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Coast Guard
|
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1845
![V](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 145
![](/web/20061116180917im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 29, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of
privilege raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition
on October 19, 1998, concerning the Canada Millennium Scolarship
Foundation.
First, I would like to thank all the hon. members who made
comments on this matter: the Leader of the Government in the
House, the hon. member for Calgary-Nose Hill and the hon. member
for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
[English]
The House leader of the official opposition has recalled a
matter which had been previously raised by the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill on February 26, 1998 concerning the Canada
millennium scholarship foundation.
In his submission the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford argued
that an issue relating to the February 26 question of privilege
remained unresolved. That issue was the allocation of money for
the establishment of the foundation before parliament had the
opportunity to consider the matter. He deplored the fact that
there had been no legislation setting up this foundation, nor had
the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion to the foundation
been adopted. In his opinion this constitutes a contempt of
parliament.
[Translation]
It has been several months since this matter was first raised and
I took it upon myself to refresh my memory as to the sequence of
events.
The Millennium Scholarship Foundation was refferred to in
general terms in the Speech from the Throne in September 1997,
and was subsequently a provision of the Budget presented on
February 24, 1998. This Budget was adopted by the House on March
10, 1998, and Bill C-36, the legislation implementing its
provisions, was introduced on March 19, 1998, and was given Royal
Assent on June 18, 1998.
[English]
Budgets by nature refer to actions the government intends to
take and often include the proposed amount of money to be
allocated. The announcement of such policies does not preclude
parliament from making a decision on the subsequent implementing
legislation.
In support of his argument the hon. member referred to new
evidence relating to this matter. In particular, he alluded to
the auditor general's report to parliament as well as an article
that appeared in the Ottawa Sun on October 18, 1998. The
member quoted from this article in support of the view that the
government had not followed proper accounting practices when it
charged the costs for the millennium scholarship fund to fiscal
year 1997-98 when the expenditures would not take place until a
year later. The hon. member noted how this action by the
government was being portrayed as a contempt of the House. The
member went on to state correctly that contempt of the House is a
matter that must be resolved here in the House of Commons and
nowhere else.
1010
[Translation]
The Chair always takes very seriously any allegation of
contempt. On the subject of contempt, Maingot states at page 229
of the 2nd Edition of his work, Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada:
“Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his “parliamentary” duty, or which has a tendency,
directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as
a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.”
[English]
My colleagues, in the matter before us the hon. member argues
that the government by its accounting practice of charging the
costs of the millennium scholarship foundation to fiscal year
1997-98 before legislative action is taken by the House is making
a mockery of our parliamentary system and that this constitutes
contempt of the House. However, as Maingot indicates, the test
is whether the action of the government obstructs or impedes the
House in the discharge of its parliamentary duty.
I do not believe the House has been obstructed or its members
impeded in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. Members
have not been prevented from debating the matter at issue here,
nor has the authority of the House been brought into question or
circumvented. Indeed the auditor general's reports on these
matters are permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e) and that
committee can pursue these matters at length and report to the
House thereon if it so wishes.
Whether or not the accounting practices of the government are
appropriate is a matter for political debate and it is also a
subject that members may choose to raise. Notwithstanding the
previous debates on the budget and the implementation
legislation, members are not precluded from bringing up this
issue for consideration by the House through the usual procedures
available.
In my view it is not the Speaker's role to comment on the
government's accounting practices and interfere thereby with
matters which the House has given to the auditor general by
statute and to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by
standing order.
In my opinion the information offered by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford does not represent evidence, prima facie, of
a contempt of parliament or a breach of privilege.
I thank the hon. member for having brought his matter to the
attention of the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
MANAGING FOR RESULTS 1998
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as a
result of a comprehensive effort to inform parliamentarians and
Canadians of the government's record, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Managing
for Results 1998”, the annual report of the President of the
Treasury Board to Parliament.
I also have the honour to table the 80 reports on the
performance of government departments and agencies.
* * *
[English]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1998-99
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting
supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March
31, 1999 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and
read by the Speaker to the House.
1015
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Orders 81(5) and 81(6), I wish to introduce a motion concerning
referral of the estimates to the standing committees of the
House.
Therefore, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1999, laid upon the Table on October 29, 1998, be
referred to the several standing committees of the House in
accordance with the detailed allocation attached.
There is a lengthy list associated with the motion. If it is
agreeable to the House I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it had been read.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
—Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 6b,
10b, 15b, L20b, L26b, 30b, 40b and 45b
—Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1b, 5b, 15b, 20b and 25b
—Canadian Heritage, Votes 1b, 5b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 40b, 50b, 60b,
65b, 70b, 75b, 80b, 85b, 90b, 95b, 105b, 110b, 120b, 125b and
135b
—Foreign Affairs, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 20b, 25b, 40b and 45b
—Health, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 25b
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities
—Human Resources Development, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and
35b
—Industry, Votes 1b, 5b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 50b, 55b, 65b, 70b,
75b, 85b, 90b, 95b, 100b, 110b, 115b and 120b
—Justice, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b, 35b, 40b, 45b and
50b
—Solicitor General, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 45b
and 50b
—Canadian Heritage, Votes 130b
—Governor General, Vote 1b
—Natural Resources, Votes 1b, 10b, 20b, 25b and 35b
—Parliament, Vote 1b
—Privy Council, Votes 1b, 5b, 35b and 46b
—Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b and
21b
—Treasury Board, Vote 1b and 10b
—Privy Council, Vote 15b
—Transport, Votes 1b, 5b, 10b, 15b, 27b and 30b
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today on the issue of firearms
registration. The petitioners call on the government to repeal
Bill C-68 and to redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars
being wasted on the licensing and registration of legally owned
guns by responsible firearms owners to things proven to be more
cost effective, such as reducing violent crime and improving
public safety, having more police on the streets, particularly in
British Columbia, having more crime prevention programs, more
suicide prevention programs, more women's crisis centres, more
anti-smuggling campaigns and more resources for fighting
organized crime and street gangs.
These petitions come from my constituents in the riding of
Medicine Hat.
CHILD PROSTITUTION
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
signed by some 1,200 residents of the lower mainland of British
Columbia.
Child prostitution is a blight on our society and these
petitioners request parliament to raise the age of sexual consent
between a young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.
BILL C-68
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have three petitions to
present which are identical in form and content. They come from
the communities of Bengough, Ogema, Melville, Canora, Kamsack and
St. Wallburg in Saskatchewan. They bear a total of 372
signatures.
These petitioners are concerned with the effects of Bill C-68
which will come into full force on December 1.
1020
They state that there is no evidence that this legislation will
be beneficial and that the search and seizure provisions of Bill
C-68 would constitute a breach of traditional civil liberties and
be an affront to law-abiding Canadians. They humbly pray and
call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and all associated
regulations with respect to firearms or ammunition and to pass
new legislation designed to severely penalize the criminal use of
any weapon.
This brings the total number of signatures that I have received
on petitions of this nature in the last few months to 4,398.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition signed by members of the towns of Wetaskiwin,
Millet and Leduc in my riding who want to call the attention of
parliament to the following: “Whereas the majority of Canadians
understand the concept of marriage as only the voluntary union of
a single, that is, unmarried male and a single, that is,
unmarried female, it is the duty of parliament to ensure that
marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada,
be preserved and protected”.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation such as Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to
the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in
consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion for second reading of Bill C-57. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied
by foreign periodical publishers, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to express my support for Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.
Revenues from the sale of advertising services are part of the
economic fabric and the very foundation of the Canadian
periodical industry. They play a pivotal role in supporting and
guaranteeing the survival of the Canadian periodical industry,
and of its Canadian content.
They are also one of the primary means of ensuring the vitality
and viability of this Canadian cultural resource.
[English]
In the 1950s less than a quarter of all magazines circulating in
Canada were produced by Canadian publishers. Today that number
is nearly three-quarters.
A provider of over 6,000 Canadian jobs and more than $194
million in salaries, wages and fees, the Canadian periodical
industry is comprised of over 1,000 small and medium sized
companies.
[Translation]
The bill will help make Canadian advertising revenues accessible
to more Canadian publishers, a group which includes a growing
number of young Canadians, all of them creative and talented.
The Canadian periodical industry is an important vehicle for
Canadians' ideas, values, dreams, and pride.
1025
[English]
Without continued access to revenues from the sale of
advertising services, this success could be seriously eroded.
Low incremental costs would allow foreign publishers to sell
advertising services directed at the Canadian market at discount
rates.
Foreign publishers simply do not incur the costs of Canadian
publishers because foreign publishers do not invest in producing
content for the Canadian market. Foreign publishers do not hire
Canadian writers, engage Canadian photographers or other Canadian
creative talents.
[Translation]
As members of parliament and as Canadians, we have the duty to
ensure that our children and grandchildren see, hear, read and
discover the stories of their country.
[English]
The bill before the House today meets a pivotal challenge in our
pursuit of that important promise. The foreign publishers
advertising services act establishes a fair and effective
framework for the distribution of advertising dollars in the
Canadian markets. It will ensure that Canadian publishers
continue to have access to the advertising revenues they need to
thrive. It will guarantee that only Canadian publishers will be
able to sell advertising services aimed at Canadians. It will
put in place tough penalties for foreign publishers who attempt
to go against the regulations flowing from this proposed
legislation.
[Translation]
Today, in Canada, general interest periodicals bring in only
about 7% of the total advertising revenues available in the
Canadian market, the lowest share of all advertising revenues of
the various media. This situation is due in part to the
presence of foreign periodicals in Canada and to the fact that
Canadian advertising goes to foreign periodicals.>
If foreign periodical publishers were given unlimited access to
the Canadian market, Canadian content periodicals would become
considerably less visible.
[English]
Clearly we need to put in place advertising measures that will
give our periodicals a fair shake. Clearly we must do what we
can to enable our Canadian storytellers to tell our Canadian
stories. Clearly we must see to it that Canadian readers have
the greatest access possible to those stories.
As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have
stated time and again, Canadians must be able to see themselves
in the stories we read and in the stories we share with the
world.
[Translation]
That said, Canada intends to play by the rules. So, the measure
proposed is in keeping with our commitments to international
trade. Canada is a bridge builder. Our commercial and economic
markets are among the world's most liberalized.
[English]
Through this legislation Canada is upholding these roles and
responsibilities to the fullest. In no way will this bill affect
the importation of foreign magazines into Canada. In no way will
this bill impede the access of foreign magazines to the Canadian
market. In no way will this bill target current advertising
operations of foreign publishers already in the Canadian market.
Word for word, the foreign publishers advertising services act
is consistent with all of Canada's international advertising
service obligations under the general agreement on trade and
services.
[Translation]
We are reconciling align Canada's cultural objectives and its
trade objectives. We are reconciling our roles as citizens of
Canada and of the world.
Canadians want to read more than just the articles appearing in
Maclean's, L'Actualité and Châtelaine, and they also want
greater access to more periodicals such as Garden West and
Safarir.
[English]
It will help maintain a level playing field in Canada to
preserve a prominent place for Canadians to see their own
reflection.
Canada's periodical industry was built by creative and talented
individual Canadians and it has been driven to success by the
powerful collective will of our nation.
The foreign publishers advertising services act honours that
strength and that drive. It pays homage to past successes and
draws strength from that force of will. The foreign publishers
advertising services act will guarantee a prominent and sustained
place for the ideas, dreams and vision of our Canadian children
and grandchildren.
Therefore I move:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is the House prepared to accept the
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
1030
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On questions and
comments, the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my question for the parliamentary secretary has to do with the
likely retaliation we will get for continually beating our head
against the wall with this legislation. We know it was
substantially defeated the first time it went before the WTO. Now
we are trying a back door approach which we know will fail again.
All we are going to do is incite problems with our biggest
trading partner, a country we trade with to the tune of $1
billion every day.
Can the hon. member tell us why he thinks we are not going to
face reprisals as we have faced in the past, perhaps in other
areas such as farming where we already have a huge crisis in this
country? Why would the government risk that type of reprisal to
push through legislation it knows will ultimately fail?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, I have to disagree
totally with the member's premise that this will fail. We
believe this will sustain any test of the world tribunals for
exchange in respect of our general agreement on services. The
notion that we as a country should not proceed because of the
threat that our neighbours to the south may not like it is a
rather sheepish way to deal with our own sovereignty.
Canada has negotiated international trade agreements that have
excluded cultural matters entirely. It is in keeping with this
strategy that as a country which is somewhat smaller in terms of
population than our neighbours to the south, our cultural
sovereignty is not to be put at risk. It is not to be put on the
table. It has been excluded from these agreements. This is in
keeping with that strategy.
The government is quite comfortable that with this legislation
we will continue to have a thriving periodical industry which we
would not have if we did not act.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is quite clear what the government is attempting to
do with this bill. It is attempting to redefine advertising as a
service instead of as a good. It is trying to go through the
back door with this legislation. It is very clear.
The hon. member mentioned that this bill is consistent with
Canada's trade obligations. How in the world can he justify that
comment given the facts mentioned by my colleague and that this
legislation in its previous life had no success at the WTO? It
is simply bad legislation. How can he say this is consistent
with Canada's trade obligations when it goes against NAFTA, an
agreement this government applauds?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
mistaken to say this goes against NAFTA. Cultural matters have
been excluded from NAFTA. Whether or not this is referred to the
World Trade Organization is a decision our neighbours to the
south will make. It would be a rather sheepish way to run a
country to cower because they threaten to do that. We are not
prepared to do that.
If the member is not prepared to understand that there is GATT,
and GATS where we are talking about services and not products,
then that is where he is mistaken. It is the belief of this
government that this will withstand the test wherever. Canada's
cultural sovereignty has to be protected, defended, encouraged
and promoted. That is what this government has done and will
continue to do.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I find it rather strange that the word culture keeps
being used when we are talking about advertising and revenues.
This is commerce. Through this back door legislation the
government is trying to bend the intent of NAFTA and other trade
organizations.
1035
The member talks of cowering. It is not cowering to maintain
good faith in international trade regulations. That is not
cowering; that is being honest.
I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to tell us if he
does not feel that Canada is a big enough kid in the world to at
least behave decently in its trade relations.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, first regarding this
notion of the back door, if the member equates the floor of the
House of Commons as the back door, then he has a problem. The
government is not attempting to use any back door here. It is
presenting legislation on the floor of the House of Commons, the
Parliament of Canada. That is far from a back door, number one.
Number two, if the member is not prepared to understand that the
cultural industries need support such as advertising services
which could be scooped up by foreign publications, then obviously
he is out of tune and is not in touch.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on behalf
of Bill C-55, an act that will ensure that a vibrant and
successful Canadian magazine industry continues to provide
Canadians with stories that reflect our values, our culture and
our points of view.
I also rise to speak on behalf of all those Canadians who want
to see themselves, read about themselves and learn about each
other from other Canadians and not to do so vicariously through
others, most notably the Americans.
Bill C-55 is in keeping with the longstanding policy of this
government of promoting and investing in Canadian culture. It is
a policy that over the past 40 years has clearly been a success
as there are currently 1,500 Canadian magazines on the market.
It has often been stated that the question is not whether we
ought to support Canadian culture, but how best to support it. As
the Right Hon. Kim Campbell, our current consul general in Los
Angeles said in a speech in March 1997, “Cultural industries are
our national defence. A country must be able to articulate its
own reality in its own voices and it is not always easy in
Canada”.
Support for culture is needed in Canada as the U.S. and Canada
share the world's largest bilateral trading relationship at over
$1 billion a day, 365 days a year and the world's longest
undefended border.
As Robert Lantos, the former chairman of Alliance so eloquently
stated last Monday evening, “We must never forget that our
economic and cultural sovereignty are inextricably intertwined”.
Yet 95% of Canadian movie screens are showing American films. It
is almost impossible for a Canadian film to be shown on a
Canadian movie screen. Eighty per cent of English magazines on
Canadian newsstands are American.
Bill C-55 ensures that Canadian magazine publishers continue to
have access to Canadian advertising dollars. Advertising revenue
is the lifeblood of this industry, with advertising accounting
for an average of 60% of total revenues in the magazine sector.
This is an economic fact. At the same time, Canadian publishers
are using advertising dollars to produce Canadian stories for
Canadians. If this revenue were to decline, it would not be long
before Canadian publications and the Canadian magazine publishing
industry would suffer and become less viable.
If this bill were not in place, Canadian magazines would not be
able to compete with split-run editions of foreign magazines that
have no editorial costs. This gives foreign publishers an unfair
competitive and economic advantage. These foreign magazines would
be in a position to scoop up Canadian advertising dollars by
offering lower advertising rates than their domestic competitors.
Canadian magazines simply cannot survive without sufficient
advertising revenues.
One must not take a short-sighted view of this issue. If this
situation were to perpetuate, this would inevitably lead to a
reduction in the number of Canadian magazines.
A reduction in the number of magazines would also lessen
competition and could lead to higher advertising rates in the
future.
1040
Those who advocate a completely unfettered free market should
consider the potential long term implications on Canadian culture
and on our economy. We care about the survival of our culture
and our economy.
Last spring in a mailing survey of 50,000 Canadians conducted by
12 magazines, 84% of respondents said that it is important to
them to read Canadian stories. This government wants to ensure
that Canadians continue to have access to their own ideas,
stories and information. This is why Bill C-55 is so important.
The act will only prohibit foreign publishers from supplying
advertising services directed primarily at the Canadian market to
a Canadian advertiser. Canadian governments have long maintained
measures to prevent this from happening. As a result of these
measures, U.S. publishers have not had access to the Canadian
advertising services market for over three decades.
Some U.S. publishers are not satisfied with their already very
generous share of the Canadian magazine market. They also want to
dominate our advertising services market by producing split-run
advertising editions of the magazines they already sell here.
I cannot overemphasize the fact that this measure deals only
with supplied advertising services to Canadian advertisers. It
will not affect the importation of foreign magazines. It will
not affect any Canadian reader's ability to purchase foreign
magazines at newsstands or through subscriptions. The Canadian
market will continue to be among the most open in the entire
world.
In addition foreign publishers such as Time magazine
currently operating in Canada will be exempt from this new bill.
They will be able to maintain their current level of activity.
My colleague was absolutely correct that this bill is fully
consistent with our international trade obligations under GATS,
the agreement on services. Yet culture, as this government has
said many times, cannot be seen as simply another trade issue.
This bill is about preserving a Canadian voice in a country that
shares the world's largest bilateral trading relationship with
the United States.
This bill does not affect the content of magazines. Publishers
will continue to produce editorial content that they consider
attractive to Canadians. Nor does Bill C-55 affect the price of
magazines. Canadians will continue to enjoy access to foreign
and domestic magazines that are competitively priced.
Bill C-55 provides a mechanism to promote and support Canadian
culture with no new cost to taxpayers. Bill C-55 has also
received strong support from the Canadian Magazine Publishers
Association and the Canadian Business Press, which together
represent some 450 consumer magazines from across the country.
For over 40 years measures have been in place to prevent
split-run editions of foreign magazines. New measures have been
announced, not new policy. This law is in keeping with
longstanding cultural policies. It ensures that Canadian
magazine publishers have access to the funds that they need to
survive.
This bill takes nothing away from Canadian advertisers.
Advertisers will continue to have all the advertising
opportunities they had in the past, including the right to
purchase advertising services from foreign publishers, as long as
the advertising service is not directed primarily at the Canadian
market.
In closing, Bill C-55 will guarantee that Canadians continue to
have access to stories about Canada, written by and for Canadians
and confirms this government's commitment to, and investment in
Canadian culture.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member mentioned a minute ago that magazines such as
Time will be grandfathered in this legislation and
therefore will not have to comply with these new rules that the
government would propose to push through. I wonder if the member
can explain why, if the principle of having American magazines in
Canada not being allowed to pick up Canadian advertisers, she
thinks that principle of allowing them to have Canadian
advertising is wrong.
1045
How in the world can she justify grandfathering in a magazine
like Time which obviously would pick up a tremendous amount
of Canadian advertising? How can she justify the double
standard? If it is wrong, it is wrong.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, the legislation is
aimed at split-run magazines like Sports Illustrated which
basically takes Canadian advertising dollars with no Canadian
content. Time is an exception. Time has been in
Canada for years. Time has Canadian content. Time is
not a split-run edition. Time cares about Canadians.
Time continues to tell Canadian stories.
This is aimed at split-run magazines that are beamed in by
satellite without any need, any want or any desire to speak to
Canadians about themselves.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask a question about the member's comment that there
would be no new cost to taxpayers.
I checked with the heritage department about the removal of
postal subsidies. It made the point that as a result of the
changes required by the WTO, Canada Post would eliminate the
international publication rate which was higher than the domestic
rate. Foreign publishers would therefore benefit from reduced
postal rates to a tune of an estimated $18 million.
Where does the mailing cost come from if not from the taxpayer?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
correct that there will now be a level playing field between
foreign magazines and Canadian magazines.
I do not believe there will be additional tax costs for the
taxpayers of Canada.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member seems to talking about split runs. When
she talks about Time magazine it is more like the splitting
of hairs.
Could the hon. member inform the House if she is in general
support of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or perhaps
the Canadian bill of rights? Does she believe in freedom of
expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association or the
right to deal in property?
Does the hon. member take seriously, agree with or support any
of these principles or concepts?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, yes, I do.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if the hon. member believes in free speech, why are they
putting up protective barriers on a split-run issue in Bill C-55?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, we are not putting up
protective measures. Let us stop talking about protection. Let
us talk about what we are doing.
We are promoting and investing in Canadian culture. We are not
protectionists. Where is protectionism when 95% of our films are
American and 80% of our magazines are American? It is not
protectionism. It is investment and it is promotion of Canada's
cultural industry and arts.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-55. I am a bit familiar
with the bill. It first came into being three or four years ago
in a different version. At that time I was critic of the
Department of Canadian Heritage so I had the chance to explore
what the government was up to at that point. As the Reform Party
predicted, that legislation was ultimately defeated at the WTO.
1050
I will go out on a limb and say that this will be pounded down
again by the WTO, which will leave Canada wide open to
retaliation on all kinds of trade fronts. I cannot believe the
government is so imprudent that it would allow the legislation to
go through and threaten in many cases other industries that are
already in great peril. For instance, I point to the farm
industry which is important in my riding. I will get to that in
more detail later.
I want to address a couple of remarks made by my colleague who
just finished speaking a minute ago. She mentioned that
Time cares about Canada. I point out that it is the Time
Warner corporation of the United States. I do not think anyone
really believes that Time Warner Inc., a huge media conglomerate,
cares about Canada. It cares about making money for its
shareholders.
Incidentally that is exactly the same thing that drives Ted
Rogers and the Canadian Magazine Publishers Association that are
naturally in support of the bill. They do not care about Canada.
They want to make a profit. If the government ensures that they
can make a profit by protecting them with huge fines, contrary to
what the member said we should not be very surprised. They do
not care about Canada. They want to make a lot of money. That
is their right and we understand it. We do not think there
should be government intervention that allows them to do it. Let
us see some real competition in this country.
I want to expand on that point for a moment. Recently the
National Post was launched in Canada. It will be Canada's
second daily national newspaper, which means that the Globe
and Mail, an excellent newspaper, has some tough competition.
The Globe and Mail has improved a lot over the last
several months as it has geared up for this launch. The
National Post is producing an excellent newspaper. What we
are seeing are the benefits of competition.
When we have competition, we have better newspapers all of a
sudden. It is amazing but it happens over and over again.
Everyone has to get better. I see the same thing happening on
TV. We had News 1 launched on CTV and all of a sudden we see
Newsworld is improving its set and changing its hosts. What
would happen in Canada if we had wide open competition in our
magazine industry? Canadian magazines would improve.
My hon. colleagues across the way know this is true. Otherwise
they would not have reversed their stand on NAFTA. They know
that real competition makes everyone stronger. They completely
changed their stripes on NAFTA because they know that is true.
Now they want to have their cake and eat it too with
protectionism of an industry as my colleague from Swift Current
pointed out. They can cloak it in language about our sacred
culture all they want, but this is about making money and my
colleagues across the way know it.
I want to expand on a point I made at the outset. Under the WTO
rules if a piece of legislation is struck down, goes back for a
second time and is struck down, the field will be wide open for
retaliation from the country which was the target of the
legislation. In this case it is the United States.
My colleagues across the way have had some experience in dealing
with the United States and trade problems in the past. It was
not very long ago when we saw Canada get into some trouble with
the U.S. over protection for poultry and dairy. As a result what
did the United States do? It capped exports for durum in the
west. It did not go after the industry it was concerned about.
It picked another weak spot, one that it knew was politically
sensitive.
What will happen when this is ultimately defeated again at the
WTO? Will the Americans say they will ban our magazines coming
into the United States? I do not think so. That would not be
very much. They will go after wheat exports, cattle or something
that has a profound impact on Canada. The government knows that.
It has been warned about it for the last four or five years.
The government is going ahead anyway because the minister is so
stubborn. Because she cannot spend a bunch of money any more on
Canadian heritage she has to justify her existence somehow.
She is going into this area willy-nilly, not caring one bit about
the damage it will ultimately do to the rest of the country. She
knows exactly what the outcome will be but she does not care.
1055
When I go back to my home town of Brooks and sit in the coffee
shop, in Aces Cafe; when I go to Bow Island and sit in Grandma's
Kitchen; or when I go to Medicine Hat and sit in the co-op, I sit
around the table with my constituents. We do not talk about the
horrible tragedy of Sports Illustrated coming into Canada
with Canadian advertising. They talk about the fact that they
will not be able to make their payments for fertilizer, fuel and
such things.
They understand what the government does not understand, that
people have to make a living. When they see legislation like
this which threatens their existence at a time when they are
already in tremendous danger, they wonder what goes on in Ottawa.
They call it the puzzle patch. I do not blame them because I am
pretty puzzled about what the government is up to.
It is beyond absurd that the Liberals are preparing to endanger
trade with the United States, a billion dollars a day, at a time
when according to the finance minister we are facing an economic
meltdown, an apocalypse of some kind. On the other hand they are
endangering trade with the one partner we can count on.
Eighty-five per cent of our trade is with the United States. Yet
the government is setting us up for a trade war with the United
States. How ridiculous can that be?
I wonder if my friends across the way, who are laughing right
now, would like to come back to Brooks, Alberta, to Bow Island or
to Vauxhall and sit and laugh when my constituents tell me they
will not make it through the winter or be able to sow their grain
in the spring. It is not a laughing matter; it is deadly
serious.
The Liberals across the way had better wake up and understand
that the bill has implications far beyond magazines. It does not
make sense to subsidize Ted Rogers. He already has enough
millions in the bank. We do not need to subsidize Philippe de
Gaspé Beaubien. He already has enough money.
It is ridiculous that the government has to try to justify its
existence as a player in Canadian culture by putting in place a
foolhardy piece of legislation like this one. It is absurd. It
is no wonder Canadians are so cynical about this place.
I encourage government members to wake up, especially rural
members who know how much this can damage their own constituents.
I see the industry minister here. In the past he has had some
knock-down, drag-'em-outs with the cultural minister on this
issue because as a businessman he knows that this is bad
business.
I encourage members across the way to wake up, defeat the
legislation and ask the minister not to pursue it because it will
damage Canada a lot more than it could ever help it.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to point out
some of the contradictions the member across does not shy away
from. He claimed at one point that people have to make a living.
We all agree with that. However he would discard, out of hand,
without a second thought, the 6,000-plus Canadians who work in
this field. He does not seem to care about that field.
We care. A government has to be responsible and take a balanced
approach. The government has an incredible reputation worldwide
as a trading nation. We have participated in international
treaties to allow free trade. We have respected those treaties.
We have been consistent in saying that cultural matters are not
to be included. We protect, enhance and promote Canadian
cultural industries.
There does not seem to be a problem over there with people
making money except when it comes to people working in the
cultural fields. There are 6,000 people working in those fields.
What about the people working in the film industry, the TV
industry, the book publishing industry and the music industry?
They would discard them out of hand. They say that they cannot
make money. They say it is okay for others to make money but not
for people in the film industry, the publication field or in
periodicals.
1100
Such inconsistencies speak exactly of the attitude of this
party. It cowers in front of the Americans. The Americans say
boo, it sheepishly says it cannot do this.
This government is standing up for Canadian cultural industries
and will continue to do so.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I do not know what to
say to that other than that is absolute rubbish.
If the government really is as brave as the member suggests, why
is it putting up huge protection barriers around the magazine
publishing industry in Canada? He just said we were cowering.
It is his government that is putting up the barriers. It is
going to impose huge fines on Sports Illustrated or
whatever because the government would dare to allow Canadian
advertisers in advertise in those magazines.
It is ridiculous. The member argues on the one hand that the
government is going to protect Canadians. On the other hand it
is denying Canadian advertisers a vehicle by which to promote
their goods and services. He cannot have it both ways. We want
these people to make money too. We do not make money by giving
them a subsidy and protecting them from competition. That is how
we kill industry. My friend should know that.
We had protectionism in this country for years. As an example,
we had textile producers in southern Quebec. What happened to
them? Ultimately they could not compete when the barriers came
down. We need to get rid of those protectionist walls. We want
Canadian cultural industries to make money.
I encourage the government to take some of its own advice and
allow them to make money by allowing free competition so they can
export around the world. What we want is to see lower taxes so
they can compete. We want to see those people succeed like they
have already done in other areas of Canadian culture where there
is no protectionism.
I point out to my friend that we have many great Canadian
novelists. They send their products far afield. They do
extraordinarily well. We do not have protectionism for them.
When they produce a novel they sell it around the world and those
novels come back here. That is not what the government is
proposing for the magazine industry. It wants to create a
problem not only for the magazine industry by allowing it to
atrophy because it does not have competition but ultimately it
will cause all kinds of problems for the rest of the country by
creating a trade war with our biggest trading partner. It is
ridiculous that the government would do that.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat will know where I am
coming from when I talk about one of the cultural things on the
prairies, weekly newspapers.
Everybody looks forward to a weekly newspaper. Because of the
sparse population one of the biggest cost factors this cultural
avenue has is the high cost of Canada Post. The hon. member in
the NDP asked a question about this. Now we are going to give
special reductions to some newspapers coming into the country. I
cannot wait until my weekly newspapers that have been fighting
with Canada Post forever about special rates to get their
cultural piece of information out find out about a special Canada
Post regulation to bring magazines into Canada. Every small paper
struggling to survive is going to damn this government if this
proposal goes through.
I would like the hon. member for Medicine Hat to comment on our
cultural activities.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his question.
This government thinks Canadian culture is what a lot of people
might call high culture. Most people today make connections with
their neighbours around their province and around the country
through weekly newspapers and little publications like that. One
of the things that works against them is the exorbitant prices
they have to pay for postage today. The member is absolutely
right.
The other point is that these companies are just like any other
company. They struggle to make it with crippling payroll taxes.
In many case they have a lot of employees. It is labour
intensive.
1105
They sit and they stuff flyers in newspapers. I have a good
friend who is the publisher of the Brooks Bulletin. They
have a big staff. This publisher would love to see EI premiums
go down by $500 per employee. Those employees would like to see
their premiums go down by $350 which is entirely within this
government's ability to do if it would obey the law.
But sadly this government thinks the answer is to protect these
business by putting up these high protective walls which
ultimately are going to be challenged and defeated at the WTO. We
are going to pay a huge price for it when we are retaliated
against. Unfortunately the retaliation will not be in magazines.
We will be hit where it hurts, in the big industries such as
agriculture and lumber. My colleague shakes his head but I will
bet him $20 that is exactly what is going to happen.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have heard about political interference today and it bothers me
greatly. I challenge the member for Medicine Hat.
He talked about political interference and about retribution.
Indeed that goes on. He talked about regulation and
protectionism and the Liberals in this country being wall
builders. But the thing the member did not touch on, the thing
the member left out of his speech, was the type of corporate
welfare we have in this country, the type of corporate welfare
the Liberals have been engaging in. The Liberals cut health care
and education and they give billions of dollars to their friends
such as Bombardier.
I would like the hon. member for Medicine Hat to touch on what
goes on in this country in terms of corporate welfare and
subsidies.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, the member threw me a
hardball but let me see what I can do.
I have noted that Bombardier gets a little help from this
government. I also noted that Bombardier made a profit last year
in the range of $235 million. But we also know, thanks to the
Canadian Taxpayers Federation, that but several aerospace
concerns have received not hundreds of millions but over $1
billion in subsidies. To me that is unbelievable.
How much of these repayable loans have been paid back? I see
the minister of industry is in the House. A fraction get paid
back, 2% or 3%. I think it is unbelievable that this government
will slash health care, attack all the programs that are
extraordinarily important to Canadians but still pump billions of
dollars into corporate welfare for companies such as Bombardier
and many others.
I hope I have adequately answered the question from my colleague
for Calgary West.
An hon. member: Tell us about Ted Rogers.
Mr. Monte Solberg: The member mentions Ted Rogers. I am
glad he pointed that out because under this legislation what this
government is doing is pumping more money into the pocket of Ted
Rogers, a media mogul in this country, a multimillionaire who
hardly needs the help.
I wonder why it is that when the chips are down this government
has to help out its billionaire friends? I think it is
unbelievable.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, as my
party's critic for culture and communications I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak to the contents of Bill C-55, an
act representing advertising services supplied by foreign
periodical publishers.
I was not able to be in the House to speak on this bill on first
reading last Thursday but our member for Winnipeg—Transcona with
his usual eloquence and clarity spoke to the bill so I will, in
my own fashion, try to add to that.
To refresh members on the contents, Bill C-55 will make it an
offence for a publisher to provide advertising services aimed at
the Canadian market to be placed in foreign periodic publications
except for those currently receiving Canadian advertising.
The offence is enforceable by a Canadian court after an
investigation ordered by the Minister of Canadian Heritage using
powers of investigation borrowed from the Criminal Code. The
penalties range anywhere from $20,000 to $250,000 for a corporate
offender on indictment.
The offences that take place outside of Canada by foreign
individuals or corporations are deemed to have taken place in
Canada for the purposes of endorsement of the act.
What we have here in effect and without doubt with Bill C-55 is
an eleventh hour effort to protect the Canadian magazine industry
from being truly swamped and I would say possibly sunk by the
thousands of shiny, glossy, glitzy, sexy American magazines which
we all see row by row, bicep by bicep, cleavage by cleavage in
our airport bookstores and in the chains of American bookstores
we now have all over our country.
1110
It is not that I do not like American magazines. I like them a
great deal and I have a tremendous admiration for American
writers, the political commentators, the satirists, the sports
writers, the poets and the playwrights. I like a whole lot about
the United States and its talent and its spirit. But it is the
volume and the velocity of the American product and the
unrelenting manner with which it floods the Canadian shores which
concerns me. It obviously concerns the Minister of Canadian
Heritage as well or she would not be putting forward Bill C-55.
It is not the first effort and I doubt it will be the last
effort to protect the Canadian magazine industry from the
American tidal wave of publications. Nor is it the last effort
probably to keep Canadian advertising dollars in Canadian
publications.
In 1976 passage in parliament of Bill C-58, a statute which
disallowed tax deductions by Canadian companies for their
advertising expenditures in foreign periodicals and broadcasting
outlets, obviously enhanced the attractiveness of advertising in
Canadian media.
In 1982 postal subsidies instituted for Canadian magazines
helped to stabilize Canadian periodical competitive position
vis-a-vis American magazines whose overrun copies were simply
dumped in the Canadian market.
In 1982 the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association termed
the postal subsidy not only the oldest but in some ways the most
effective of all the many kinds of cultural assistance created by
the taxpayers of Canada. Postal subsidies were considered a true
grant in the public interest.
Now it is 1998 and a lot of water has gone under the bridge. Now
we have Bill C-55 and it is a direct result of a GATT panel
overturning the Canadian policy on split run magazines, magazines
which contain mostly American content but run in separate
editions for Canada containing Canadian ads. Sports
Illustrated, Readers' Digest and Time magazine are
the best known examples.
Eighteen months ago a Canadian conference for the arts report on
this ruling on the GATT case said: “World trade organization
decision on magazines advances the cultural sovereignty doomsday
clock”. What an ominous concept. The CCA strongly recommended
immediate action in a number of areas and it is still very
relevant to today and I am going to quote some. Number one is,
not surprisingly, fix the magazine industry policy.
Second, Canada must aggressively promote and secure an effective
and durable cultural exemption in all existing and proposed
international agreements. Third, develop a systematic
understanding of the constraints and challenges in cultural
sovereignty posed by existing trade agreements.
It is clear that the federal government understands the impact
of international trade agreements on culture as poorly as the
rest of us. Who can forget the assurances that the former
minister of Canadian heritage, the Hon. Michael Dupuy, gave to
the Senate that officials in his and other departments assured
him that C-103, the split-run legislation, was fully consistent
with our international trade obligations. This has proven to be
far from the truth.
The nature of the case made by the international trade officials
at the WTO appears to provide abundant evidence that the
situation has not improved. The government must move with
dispatch to ensure that we have a clear and solid appreciation of
the constraints and opportunities presented in the full network
of international trade agreements and their impact on cultural
sovereignty. We must develop a solid base of knowledge and
talent in foreign affairs and international trade as well as
within all government departments active in this area and the
cultural sector itself.
1115
Those were some comments from the CCA bulletin, the Canadian
Conference of the Arts bulletin, of July 1997.
Eighteen months later I look at those cautionary remarks and I
would say that we still have not gained the kind of understanding
and self-knowledge that we need to pull this critical cultural
issue out of the fire.
Instead, with Bill C-55 we see the failure of the Liberals to
adequately protect the Canadian magazine industry under
international trade agreements or admit, more to the point, where
the problem lies.
Since the panel has proclaimed that Canadian policy cannot
discriminate against foreign-owned goods, such as the product on
paper of split-run magazines, the government will now try it
under the definition of services such as the placing of
advertising.
Will it work? Will it save the Canadian magazine industry? I
am afraid this bill will likely be challenged as well, possibly
under the NAFTA or under the FTA. I might add that it would
definitely have been disallowed under the MAI which the Canadian
government fought to keep alive until the end, which came last
week.
With Bill C-55 we see the disappearance of the postal subsidies
for Canadian magazines which were described in 1982 as a true
grant in the public interest. As a result of the changes
required by the WTO, Canada Post will eliminate the international
publication rate which was higher than the domestic rate.
Foreign publishers will therefore benefit from reduced postal
rates. There will be an estimated $18 million reduction in
mailing costs.
The last section of the bill, section 24, the grandfather
clause, is a legal surrender to American magazines which have
already broken into the Canadian market. The NDP will closely
examine that exemption in committee with a view to opening up new
opportunities for Canadian publications.
In effect, this bill entrenches the status quo. There is
nothing in the bill to promote Canadian content, to encourage
more community periodicals or to bring forward new Canadian or
regional voices. But it is an effort by the government and any
effort cannot be spurned.
However, I would like to reiterate the central point made by my
colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona that this is an effort to
please, to kowtow to trade agreements and not, first and
foremost, to protect and nurture our culture.
I would also like to reiterate his point that government members
are not critical enough of the agreements in which they find
themselves. I am talking particularly about the WTO.
There is a fundamental contradiction between the ideology, the
world view embodied in the WTO, and the whole notion of
protection of culture.
There is the fundamental contradiction between culture and free
trade as it is understood by the WTO and the NAFTA. The fact is
that our previous policy has been tested against the ideology and
the world view of the WTO and has been shot down.
It is important for our government and our Minister of Canadian
Heritage to admit to the fact that there are fundamental problems
with these trade agreements. It is important that they recognize
that their hands are tied by the rules of trade agreements which
they were deeply involved in formulating.
The Liberals are in a box right now. The country and our
culture is now in a box which is of our own government's making.
Now we have Bill C-55, a quick fix which will likely be
challenged as well by the trade agreements which the Liberals and
Tories before them were intricately involved in formulating.
The government is trying to provide a quick fix for a much
larger problem which it had a hand in creating, the sacrificing
of culture at trade negotiation tables.
Bill C-55, inadequate as it is, does represent a small effort on
behalf of the government to protect our magazine industry, an
industry that supports thousands of cultural workers, writers,
publishers, copy editors, photographers and many others.
It is an industry that continues to go a long way, despite the
onslaught of American magazines, to tell Canadian stories to
Canadian people.
In conclusion, the NDP will support the principles of the bill
and we will be voting in favour of it at second reading.
1120
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the member
for Dartmouth for her comments. I welcome some of the
criticisms, some of which may not be as accurate as one would
like. However, I welcome the constructive approach and I look
forward to looking at this legislation in greater detail with her
at committee.
I will correct one of the slight inaccuracies. The member was
essentially saying that this government was insisting that
cultural matters be within the MAI. I not only have to disagree,
but the minister who was spearheading the Canadian efforts
vis-à-vis the MAI was quite explicit a number of times in this
House that culture was to be excluded from it. It would
preferably be a sector exclusion and it would certainly be a
Canadian exclusion. To say that the government was trying to put
culture on the table with the MAI is not quite accurate. I hope
the member will accept that.
I will return to comments made by Reform about postal subsidies
for small newspapers. This government supports that. We support
small newspapers, in some cases to the tune of 75% of the cost of
their postal rates. Postal subsidization is one of the ways the
Government of Canada supports the periodical industry.
Would the members of the Reform Party have us continue in one
case and not in the other? Surely to goodness they do not
support such double standards.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary for his comments. I agree that the minister of
heritage has a real commitment to preserving culture. I believe
she was carrying the flame in that respect with regard to the MAI
negotiations.
However, I asked the Minister for International Trade twice in
this House to be very specific about the wording around “Would
you guarantee a complete cultural carve-out?” One day the
answer was yes and then two days later, when I read the script of
a dinner speech made by the minister, the wording was quite
different. It had sort of backed down on cultural exemption.
I think that the devil is in the wording. That is what has been
confounding this whole issue all along. Whether we are talking
carve-out or exemption, at the 11th hour at these tables what
exactly is given away? I do not believe for a minute that the
spirit of the MAI is dead, but I am still not convinced that if
the MAI had continued on in the present realm of negotiations
that we would have had what we wanted at the end of the day in
terms of real cultural protection.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, many more people in Canada subscribe to the weekly
newspaper industry than they do to magazines. I want to make
that clear. I am talking in particular about my province, but no
matter what province people live in, most get their culture from
the weekly newspaper.
The hon. member mentioned that Canada Post was going to
relinquish something in the order of $18 million to drop the rate
of postage for items coming into Canada. Because of Canada Post
some weekly newspapers have to drive or truck their papers to
different locations. Through Canada Post it would take a week or
so before the papers reached their destination. Those sending
items to Canada have to pay the same rate as if they were mailing
it at a local post office. Why? There is an inconsistency in
losing $18 million. The answer was that it will not cost the
Canadian taxpayers. Canada Post is losing $18 million and there
will be no cost to the Canadian taxpayers?
1125
Where does the hon. member think they are going to find this $18
million? Will it be done by putting a higher postage rate on our
weeklies?
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I too have some concerns
about where the $18 million will come from. I will turn that
question back to my hon. colleague opposite.
I am still not clear. That $18 million will not come out of the
air. It obviously will come out of Canada Post, and we know who
pays for Canada Post. Maybe the parliamentary secretary could
answer that question.
Mr. Roy Bailey: They cannot answer it.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, what I find
interesting in this debate is that the Reform Party, on the one
hand, is saying that we have to respect our international trade
obligations and, on the other hand, is saying that we cannot do
that. This is indeed the result of a decision made at the WTO.
The postal rate on foreign magazines will reflect the WTO
decision.
The point is that the government is respecting all foreign
decisions of the WTO, which is why Bill C-55 is before us. Will
it have an impact? Of course it will have an impact. Of course
there will have to be adjustments made.
Will it be done on the backs of small newspapers? I think not.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I am worried about the
word “adjustments”. That is a word that usually means job
losses. It means money being taken from places that are not
immediately evident.
With respect to this whole bill, I must say that it still looks
to me like a quick fix and an effort in some respect to save the
magazine industry. In many ways it is still in denial of the
root causes of the problem that we are now facing, which has to
do with our engaging in trade agreements without sufficiently
understanding the impact they are going to have on our cultural
industries.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, in response to the
comments from the member, it is indeed a difficult situation.
There is one country that is essentially dominating in many
areas, such as the movie industry, magazines, television and so
forth. The government is perfectly aware of that. As a matter
of fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage as early as last
June—and the member might recall because she attended some of
the functions—welcomed a delegation from some 20 countries to
discuss this very difficult situation. It is not unique to
Canada. It is a situation that is also of concern to France,
Greece, Mexico, Italy and a number of countries around the world.
This monoculturalism, if you will, is a reflection of the
strength of American cultural products which are swamping, in
some areas, certain countries' attempts to have their own culture
reflected in their own vehicles. The Government of Canada,
through the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is tackling that. It
is very difficult and it will be a drawn out effort which we will
not be able to achieve alone as a country.
Other countries which have that same preoccupation are now
joining hands to make sure that indeed their cultural
sovereignty, which in some cases is seriously threatened, is
protected, encouraged, defended and promoted. This government
fully intends to be intrinsically involved in that effort.
We welcome comments from the member opposite, who is perfectly
aware of the difficulties that this kind of effort involves. We
will welcome her continued support and the continued support of
her party in attempting to resolve, in perhaps a larger fashion,
this whole difficulty.
1130
Ms. Wendy Lill: Madam Speaker, I would have to say that
our party is on record as not being in favour at all of the MAI
in its present configuration. When I say I am in support of
cultural carve outs in terms of international trade agreements, I
would have to say that this is in terms of a new kind of
international trade agreement which in fact supports
environmental concerns, labour concerns and social concerns, as
well as cultural concerns.
I wish that our government had been right in front of the
Government of France in pulling out of the MAI negotiations and
killing that particularly egregious trade agreement.
Unfortunately that was not the case, but I wish it had been.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
In giving an historic overview of the issue before us today, we
should point out that, since 1965, the Canadian magazine
industry has always enjoyed the support of the federal
government.
Indeed, the Royal Commission on Publications, set up in 1961
under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, recommended that measures
be taken to protect the Canadian magazine industry against
dumping.
To that end, measures prohibiting the import of split run
magazines were finally implemented in 1965.
Measures were also taken to provide reduced postal rates for
Canadian magazines, thus helping them lower their shipping
costs.
I should point out that the Progressive Conservative government
promoted strong growth for the Canadian owned magazine industry.
Indeed, during the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement, we
made sure that an exemption provision would be included for the
cultural industry as a whole. A similar provision was also
included in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
However, in 1993, the magazine Sports Illustrated managed to
circumvent the ban on imports by electronically transmitting a
split run edition to a Canadian printer.
The Progressive Conservative government took speedy action,
forming a task force to bring policy into line with the
electronic era.
In response to the recommendations contained in the task force's
interim report, the Hon. Jean Charest, then the minister
responsible for Investment Canada, issued ministerial directives
under the Investment Canada Act that eliminated the loophole by
which Time Warner had introduced a split run of Sports
Illustrated into Canada.
The final report of the task force led, in 1995, to Bill C-3,
the purpose of which was to strengthen the position of the
Canadian periodical industry by means of measures to discourage
split run editions of periodicals, particularly American ones,
in Canada.
These measures included an excise tax of 80% on the total value
of advertising space in split run editions, and a customs tariff
making it illegal to import split run periodicals.
Unfortunately, in October 1997, the World Trade Organization
ruled that levying customs and excise taxes on split run
periodicals went against international free trade agreements.
Canada was given until the end of October 1998 to bring its
policy into line with the provisions of the General Agreement on
Trade in Services, failing which the United States would take
retaliatory measures.
Publishers of Canadian periodicals maintain that American
publishers, who cover their costs in the United States, can
offer lower advertising rates to Canadian business.
Canadian periodicals depend heavily on advertising revenue,
which is estimated at $350 million.
The government has therefore introduced this bill as a response
to this request, taking care to protect Canadians' ability to
express themselves through Canadian cultural vehicles, such as
those offered by this country's periodical industry.
Incidentally, the World Trade Organization's decision did not
challenge the ability of member countries to take action to
protect their cultural identify.
1135
The proposed measures provide among other things that only
Canadian periodical publishers will be able to sell advertising
services aimed primarily at the Canadian market and that stiff
fines as high as $250,000 will be imposed on foreign publishers
who contravene this legislation.
The bill before us also specifies that both the customs tariff
preventing split runs magazines from entering the country and
the excise tax on the distribution of such magazines in Canada
are removed. From now on, foreign publishers will have access to
the postal subsidy program, and commercial postage rates for
Canadian and foreign publications will be harmonized
accordingly.
This concludes the historical overview. Now I would like to
remind the hon. members that the party I have the honour to
represent in this House has always been committed to ensuring
future of the Canadian publishing industry, which is closely
tied to advertizing income. It is indeed essential that this
industry be promoted and protected.
That having been said, the government must give Canadian
publishers the assurance that the new measures will not result
in another trade crisis. Canada cannot afford another fiasco
like the one caused recently by the flip-flop over MMT.
Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Aside from
providing much needed support to our Canadian magazine
publishers, it shows publicly that we are intent on protecting
and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of
ever-increasing pressures from global forces.
Protecting our cultural integrity in Canada has always been a
major priority of any trade discussion Canada participated in.
Just think that plans for the multilateral investment agreement
are being wrecked in part by the fact that both Canada and
France refuse to put cultural industries on the table.
The previous Progressive Conservative government was deeply
committed to the protection of cultural industries. In
negotiating the Free Trade Agreement, we ensured all cultural
industries were excluded from the operation of the FTA, an
exclusion that was carried over into NAFTA.
It is very important to note that the WTO in its decision was
not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural
industries; it objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S.
magazines.
So, rather than specifically target U.S. magazines, Bill C-55
seeks to put restraints on advertising services.
Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising
directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications. It
should be noted that U.S. magazines will still be able to sell
advertising aimed at the Canadian market. However, these
advertisements will have to appear in all North American
publications. They cannot appear solely in magazines aimed at
the Canadian market.
Some people may wonder why we should impose measures to protect
our Canadian magazine industry. There are very important reasons
for us to do that. The Canadian magazine industry employs
thousands of Canadians and pumps millions of dollars into our
economy.
Many distinguished Canadian writers publish in our magazines
insightful and interesting articles on people, places and things
that reflect our unique culture.
The Canadian market is one of the most open markets in the world
for imported magazines. According to the Canadian Magazine
Publishers Association, imports account for 50% of magazine
sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space. Despite this
intense competition from foreign magazines, Canadian magazines
continue to attract their share of readers, allowing them to
hold their own in a very competitive industry.
The Canadian magazine industry plays an important cultural role
in helping to define who we are as a people and where we stand
as a nation. Culture defines our beliefs and our values. We are
not automatically born with a culture.
We may be born into a culture, but it is something we learn. We
need Canada's magazine industry, so that future generations have
the opportunity to learn and appreciate this culture that
distinguishes us and that is the envy of the rest of the world.
1140
As I mentioned earlier, for some thirty years now, government
after government in Canada has passed laws designed to help
Canadian publishers earn enough in advertising revenues to
remain competitive on the Canadian market.
When Sports Illustrated managed to circumvent import
restrictions by electronically sending its publication to a
printer in Canada, it basically opened the door to unfair
business practices by American publishers, who began to produce
their magazines with split runs and to reap the benefits of
bundling the editorial content of their American editions with
Canadian advertising, which they could sell at a much better
price than their Canadian competitors.
Canadian publishers count on advertising to generate 65% of
their revenues. It is therefore urgent to act to protect them
against the possibility of unfair business practices by their
American competitors.
Advertising has not just recently become a powerful influence on
the course of our society. Before printing was invented, criers
were hired to announce upcoming events.
I know of a member of government who would have made an
excellent one had he been born a few centuries ago.
Prior to the advent of radio and television, magazines drew most
of their revenues from advertising. Since then, they struggle
to create their own niche and ensure their survival.
Advertising has changed more in the past 10 years than in the
past 60 years because of new technologies and market
developments.
Advertising revenues amount to over $350 million annually.
Canadian publishers depend on these revenues to survive. A stop
must be put to any threat of unfair and grasping practices.
Canadian publishers need our support in order to remain
competitive in the new world economy.
This bill is far from perfect. Even after a full year to consult
with international trade experts, countless legal advisers and
representatives from Canada's publishing industry, a number of
issues still need to be clarified.
First, as I mentioned earlier, the postal rate changes could
have adverse effects on small community based publications.
Legion branches, which previously enjoyed postal rate subsidies,
could be in danger of losing this assistance.
The same could be said for church organizations that provide
their congregations with regular updates of church activities.
Because these organizations are not charging their members for
their materials, they are no longer entitled to preferential
postal rates as are other Canadian magazine publishers.
This issue must be addressed by the minister either through
amendments or regulations.
The last section of the bill, which relates to the
grandfathering clause, must be more clearly defined. As it
stands, the bill appears to restrict important contributors to
our Canadian magazine industry, such as Reader's Digest and Time
Warner, from expanding their present interests, including future
investment possibilities. While I realize that was not the
intent of the bill, the wording could lead to such an
interpretation.
I am afraid the bill might not survive another WTO challenge. I
also wonder about a possible challenge under the Canadian
charter of rights by the advertising industry.
Even though I was told by Heritage Canada officials that all
possible avenues had been properly explored, I simply cannot
forget the government's incompetence in the MMT issue, the
gasoline additive, which is now costing Canadian taxpayers $13
million U.S. Canadian taxpayers cannot afford another costly
mistake by the government.
In conclusion, even though Bill C-55 is far from perfect, we
should support it at second reading, so that it can be
immediately referred to a committee for further review.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Shefford for her comments. She covered the issue and its
background very well. She has raised legitimate concerns and I
hope that the committee will be able to shed some light on them.
That having been said, I urge the House to return the bill to
committee after passing it, in principle, at second reading, so
that specific aspects can be considered in greater depth. I am
looking forward to some good discussions with her colleague from
West Nova in committee. Again, I thank her for her comments.
1145
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member.
We have something here that goes beyond what this bill attempts
to do. If my figures are correct, 80% of all Canadians live
closer to the United States than they do their neighbouring
province. As a result of that population to the south, we have
always been in a war with our struggle to prevent the sellout of
Canadian culture. To many Canadians, culture means different
things.
This bill needs total re-examination. Just as sure as what
happened a few months ago in a retaliatory measure by the U.S.
farmers against allegations that this government dumped wheat
illegally into the United States all of which took place within
my constituency, and as sure as I am standing here, the World
Trade Organization is going to strike this bill down. In doing
so, some Canadian industry somewhere is going to pay the price. I
am getting tired of this.
We produce commodities which are superior in every detail; we
produce better wheat; we produce better durum; we produce better
hogs; we produce better cattle. All of those things are in my
area of the country. The retaliation will probably not fall
against anyone but western Canada and we will pay the price.
Let us put this back. Let us see if we cannot come up with
something in negotiations before passing legislation that
irritates the World Trade Organization and we in western Canada
take it on the nose again.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
comments. I note that, like us, he is concerned about certain
aspects of the bill.
We would like to see it passed at second reading and referred to
committee for further consideration.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to set off my comments I would like to read an article that
appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen. It is by Terence
Corcoran, the editor of the Financial Post under the
headline that the minister's bill kills magazines:
During the next 48 hours, (the minister) will charge about
Ottawa executing her duties as Minister of Illegal Protectionism.
To meet a world trade deadline Friday, she will formally
announce the end of Ottawa's illegal 80 per cent excise tax on
advertising in split-run magazines.
Then she will redirect Ottawa's illegal $50 million annual
magazine postal subsidy so that it falls right into the hands of
Ted Rogers, Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien and other needy Canadian
magazine publishers. Simultaneously, (the minister) will be
pushing Bill C-55, her illegal ban on Canadian advertising in
foreign magazines, through second reading tonight in the Commons.
It's a lot of lawlessness for one minister to handle, but if any
minister is up to the challenge of breaking constitutional and
trade law, it's (this minister). In the course of making a hash
of her stint as environment minister, (the minister) orchestrated
Ottawa's illegal ban on the export of PCBs for incineration. The
sole purpose of the export ban was to force Canadians to destroy
PCBs at high cost in Canada rather than cheaply in the United
States.
Another adventure (of the minister) in trade protectionism was
an attempt to ban the use of the gasoline additive MMT. In the
MMT case, (the minister) was in the pocket of the big auto firms,
on whose behalf she parroted the claim that failure to ban MMT
would add $3,000 to the price of new cars sold in Canada. No
such price increase materialized. In the end, the illegal MMT
ban cost Canadian taxpayers $13 million, money Ottawa had to pay
in compensation to Ethyl Corp., the U.S. maker of MMT.
The Minister of Illegal Protectionism is in the pocket of
Canada's two major magazine publishers, Ted Rogers' Maclean
Hunter and Philippe de Gaspé Beaubien's Telemedia. Their
magazines—Maclean's, Chatelaine, TV Guide—and
the publications of a couple of other companies account for an
estimated 50 per cent of the $350 million Canadian magazine
advertising market.
The bill (the minister) is pushing through second reading today
is the latest in a string of mostly unlawful federal measures to
restrict the freedom of Canadian advertisers to use and
journalists to produce magazines, and of readers to read more
Canadian content. The (minister's) bill, however, is the most
Draconian. It gives the minister power to send out magazine
police to seize documents and make sure Canadians are not placing
ads in foreign publications.
To justify the magazine laws, Heritage Canada spins a
contradictory story. On the one hand, it claims the years of
protectionism have been hugely successful, with the proportion of
Canadian magazines rising from 25 per cent of sales and
circulation in the 1950s to 65 per cent today. Then it claims
that the industry is still being swamped with foreign magazines
and needs more protection and subsidy.
But what the government's own studies actually show is that the
Canadian magazine industry has been crippled by the magazine
laws. Growth in magazine advertising has been stagnant for years
compared with other markets and other countries, mainly because
there are not enough Canadian magazines or magazine advertising
opportunities. A government-sponsored study conducted by outside
consultants concluded that if Ottawa allowed U.S. magazines to
develop Canadian versions, or split-runs, the total volume of
advertising dollars going to the English magazine market would
jump 60 per cent from $212 million to $342 million.
In other words, if Ottawa lifted the ban on split-runs, magazine
advertising by Canadian firms would jump 60 per cent. Where
would the money go? The government study said most of it would
probably go to U.S. magazines, although that's debatable. But
even so, the split-runs would generate more Canadian journalism,
more work for writers, more Canadian content, and more business
for Canadian ad creators.
It is also far from certain that all the money would end up in
the hands of U.S. publishers. The real crimp in the Canadian
magazine market has been a failure to develop Canadian magazines
in key growth fields. The government study (by Harrison Young
Pesonen and Newell Inc.) identified four key magazine
sectors—men's, sports, fashion and youth—that Canadian
publishers have ignored. Why? Because the advertising flow is
cut off by Ottawa, and because the existing Canadian
giants—Maclean Hunter and Telemedia—have a stranglehold on most
of the existing ad market. They and others have no competitive
incentive to develop new Canadian magazines. And foreign
magazines are banned from actually serving Canadian interests.
Magazine protectionism has killed growth in the Canadian
magazine advertising market, and thereby has hampered magazine
growth. What is supposed to be saving magazines in Canada is
actually crippling the industry. This new law (by the minister)
the Commons is expected to vote on tonight will continue to
prevent growth in the industry.
1150
So says Mr. Corcoran. Quite frankly it is pretty obvious the
reason why I have read the article is that I happen to agree
completely with the content of what Mr. Corcoran has said.
I had the privilege of being on the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage in the last parliament. I was involved in what
became the copyright war. I can mention one of the poorly thought
out sections of copyright law that was perhaps sold to the
Liberal members, although I expect that they would have voted
according to the minister's wishes in any event. It was sold to
them and sold to Canadians on one level and it turns out that it
is totally different.
I refer to the blank tape levy under copyright law. The blank
tape levy was designed to say that Canadians who purchase blank
tapes will in all likelihood be using them for illegal purposes.
Rather than being innocent until proven guilty, a fee is going to
be charged on these blank tapes because naughty Canadian people
are going to be using them to illegally copy things that are
subject to copyright. This goes completely and totally against
anything in Canadian law. We should be deemed to be innocent
until found guilty.
1155
The minister attempted to sell this on the basis that it was
only going to be 25 cents. Perhaps members can help me here. Was
it 25 cents or 35 cents? Now it turns out it is going to be
dollars per tape, not 25 cents per tape. This is fairly typical
for the minister; $1 billion here, $1 billion there might add up,
but a dollar here, a dollar there does not really make any
difference.
Let us look at this specific legislation. I know in terms of
relevance the Speaker would want me to do that. The redefinition
of advertising as a service instead of a good is contrived.
My background is in sales and marketing. I am very well aware
of the fact that one may purchase some plastic and put some
lights behind it and that is called an illuminated sign. One may
go to a magazine or a newspaper publisher and purchase a certain
amount of blank space and then go to an advertising agency which
will perform the service of actually creating what is going to be
going on that piece of paper. To suggest that it is a service to
provide a piece of blank paper that will appear with whatever one
chooses to put on it is such a stretch, that the bill falls on
its nose right there.
Most onerous though in this bill is the fact that it creates a
new class of investigator. The province of Quebec has language
police. I guess the minister has learned something from the
province of Quebec because now under this legislation we are
going to have a magazine police force. This is really beyond the
pale.
As I mentioned with respect to the blank tape levy, the
legislation the minister managed to push through did say that all
Canadians who purchased blank tapes obviously were going to be
doing something illegal and therefore they were guilty and should
pay a fee. In this particular case the minister goes one step
further and actually creates a magazine police force.
Into the hands of this minister, providing she does not get her
UNESCO appointment before this comes through, we find that the
minister will also be able to make trade law by order in council.
That is a direction the Liberals absolutely love. The Liberals do
not like the inconvenience of the democratic process which takes
place in this House. The Liberals like to pass legislation so
that they will be able to go behind cabinet doors, behind closed
doors, with advice from nameless bureaucrats and concoct whatever
laws they want without having to come back to this place where
the people of Canada through their elected representatives such
as myself and the other 300 members in this House, have a say in
the democratic process.
In addition this bill puts print media under federal
jurisdiction. It is ultra vires of parliament. We cannot just
simply say that in 1867 we happened to forget that what we wanted
to do was to put print media under the control of parliament so
therefore we are going to arbitrarily do that with this
particular law.
This law, if it was not so serious, would be funny. This law is
ultra vires of the fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, sections 2, 7 and 8 and the Canadian Bill
of Rights 1960, section 1. This law violates especially the
freedoms of expression, the press and association provided for in
both statutes and the enjoyment of property provisions in the
Canadian Bill of Rights 1960 and common law.
1200
It also violates charter security rights under sections 7 and 8.
The freeze on business in clause 21 deprives affected
corporations of future property and the effect of the entire bill
is to hobble publishers' ability to enter into contracts.
The minister really enjoys her version of Canadiana. She
certainly comes across as a very sincere and earnest person. With
a feeling of generosity I am prepared to give that the minister
actually believes in what she is doing. I think she really does
believe in what she is doing.
The difficulty is that we are not in 1867. The last time I
looked the date on the calendar was 1998. This government and
its predecessor the Conservatives have entered into international
trading agreements that impact my friend's wheat, the auto pact
and the entire trade we do around the world.
It should be noted that we trade on a daily basis with the
United States alone over $1 billion a day back and forth. What
is the size of the cultural trade? The size of the cultural
export in Canada is slightly under $1 billion. I am not talking
about only magazines. I am talking about television, recordings,
publishings, our authors and everything in the entire cultural
component. By taking this one tiny section, $350 million of
revenue, what this minister is doing is throwing it to the wind.
As I understand it, not if but when this bill is trashed by the
World Trade Organization because it is so flawed, we will end up
with the situation that we will have punitive action against us
by our most significant trading partner. It will be able to take
that punitive action in whatever field it so chooses. It could
be against steel from Hamilton. It could be against computers
from Kanata. It could be against wheat from the west. It could
be against softwood lumber from British Columbia. It could be
against nickel in Newfoundland if it every gets going.
The point is that this bill is so egregiously flawed. There can
be no question that this bill will be struck down. What we are
doing is inviting retaliation against the entire package of
imports and exports that Canada is involved in. For what? For a
misguided attempt on the part of the heritage minister to protect
something that cannot be protected in this way.
I reflect back on Mr. Corcoran's column. If we take a look at
what has happened historically in Canada, when we have permitted
true free trade we have ended up seeing what Canadians are
capable of doing which is to rise to the top to become the best
in the world.
As an example, the revenue minister might recall that in the
Okanagan Valley there was subsidy on subsidy and protection for
the wine industry. Some of our friends from Niagara will also
remember that. At that time under the North American Free Trade
Agreement or the FTA we ended up with having to trash those
subsidies. The sky was going to fall. Everything was going to
fall apart. Canadians are so good at anything we set our mind,
hand and resources to that we now have quality wine in Canada
that will compete with any wine anywhere in the world.
1205
Why? Because we were forced away from the subsidies. We were
forced away from the protection and we gave Canadians the
opportunity to rise to the occasion and create the very best in
the world.
It is this kind of protectionism by the Liberals who say my
goodness, if we are not protecting, if we are not making sure
there are subsidies or the government can have some control
because after all the government knows best, it is this kind of
smother love that creates mediocrity.
We have a very fundamental difference. The Reform Party of
Canada believes in the excellence and the superiority of
Canadians in anything they set their hands to. Just get the
government out of their face. Get the government out of trying
to smother, control and protect them.
Given the document the minister has brought forward, how in the
world can that happen? First, she has come forward with
legislation that is fundamentally flawed because she calls
advertising a service instead of a good. The bill should fail on
that one right off the bat. Second, she is coming forward with a
magazine police force. I cannot imagine anything worse than
having a bunch of cops around.
The minister may make trade law by order in council. She can go
behind closed doors and make those laws. I hope she does get her
UNESCO appointment before that happens. It is ultra vires of
parliament. Nothing in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867
or case law puts print media under federal jurisdiction. She is
reaching beyond the power of parliament. She is reaching beyond
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I cannot imagine any right thinking person who would come to
this House, unless they happened to be taking lessons from the
animals that were grazing in the front yard of this building
yesterday, who would end up voting in favour of this legislation.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's most excellent
speech.
Earlier we heard from the parliamentary secretary that there was
nothing in this legislation which would inhibit Canada from
fulfilling its international trade obligations.
Does my colleague agree or disagree with what the parliamentary
secretary said earlier on whether this bill does in fact affect
Canada's opportunity to meet its international trade obligations?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a result of the
World Trade Organization's striking down previous legislation.
The bill does not fill the bill of being able to get around the
restrictions of the World Trade Organization in any way, shape or
form.
There can be no other answer than the bill will be struck down
as being outside the control or ability of Canada to act in this
way. The problem with that, in my limited knowledge of the World
Trade Organization and the way these activities happen, is that
if a bill or legislation is struck down and the affected country
comes back with another piece of legislation that is also deemed
to be inappropriate then the complainant, in this case the United
States, would be able to pick off Hamilton steel, wheat, softwood
lumber or be able to interfere with the auto pact.
Considering the severity of that, the challenge from the United
States in the face of this unbelievably weak legislation leads me
to a very deep level of concern.
1210
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of
fallacies we just heard that I think ought to be corrected.
First, it should be noted by all members that even the WTO
recognizes that advertising is a service and is to be treated as
such. It falls under that agreement. To say otherwise is simply
inaccurate.
Second, it was rather interesting that the member would mention
the article that appeared in one of the dailies today. The author
uses a government study and accepts one of its conclusions that
such a scenario would generate so much more revenue. The same
study reaches a conclusion that he does not share, therefore he
does not agree with it. He cannot have it both ways.
Someone either accepts what a study says, all of it, or not. The
person cannot pick and choose, which is what the author was doing
to justify his premise. The member shares the premise that if
foreign magazines were allowed to purchase advertising services
in the country they could not or would not offer deeply
discounted service. Therefore they would essentially skim that
industry and cripple the Canadian periodical industry which is
exactly what this bill intends to prevent.
I found it rather interesting that he would bring up the
copyright matter. The matter of tape levy has not been decided
by the copyright board. The member should be aware of that. To
say otherwise is just not accurate.
What I found most fascinating about his raising the copyright
legislation, Bill C-32 at the time, as he will remember from
committee, is that what happened then is happening again here
today.
The Reform Party of Canada, as he was talking about smother
love, is so enamoured with things American that it builds a
bogeyman and says if we do this, they will do that. They will
quash us here and they will do this and that to other industries.
It is prepared to treat cultural industries as second class
industries in favour of others. We are not prepared to do that.
As government, we will stand for Canadian values and Canadian
culture with respect to our trade agreements.
The most fascinating thing about the member's bringing up the
copyright debate is that the Reform Party, as today, was then
isolated. It could not see beyond its blinkers that there are
industries that have to be protected and promoted in this
country.
When the crunch came, it was not even at the table. It left the
table. It was isolated then. I suspect we will see through the
committee studies of this bill it will be isolated then as well.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party was right
on the split-run bill before it. We opposed the split-run bill
and we were right, therefore we may be isolated but that does not
stop us from speaking about what is the truth and what are the
facts.
Second, with respect to the study, every study goes through a
certain number of processes but a study arrives at a conclusion.
It does not mean that a person cannot take a section of the study
that is a valid exploration of certain detail and report on that
exploration of detail and not arrive at the same conclusion as
the authors of the study. The member's point is not well taken.
With respect to the issue of copyright and being isolated, I can
report to this House very clearly that what occurred in that
instance, because of the support of the Bloc Quebecois as the
official opposition for the government of the day, it was in a
position of having a hammer.
There was a collusion between the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of the day and the lead hand for the Bloc Quebecois
where there were meetings. This member will recall that there
were informal meetings occurring in the hallway What are we
going to do now? They came back to the table. They would then
go through a little tap dance and then they would go back into
the hall again.
I reached the point of absolute frustration because of the
collusion between the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois to see that
bill go through. It was one of the low points of my time in
parliamentary life.
They did not even have the decency to go around the corner. They
just went out of earshot to concoct what was going on.
1215
Fortunately for the House the constituents of both those former
members saw fit not to return them to the Chamber. I do not know
whether it had anything to do with the kind of activity that was
going on in the hallway, but the point is that I was not going to
be part of that process. It was slanted in favour of the
minister jamming Bill C-32 through the House.
The bill before us is cut out of exactly the same piece of
cloth. The minister will see her backbenchers acting like
grazing animals to make sure she gets the bill through.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately Bill C-55 is all about regulation. It is about
Canadian content “Copps”. It saddens me to think that a fine
Canadian performer like Bryan Adams, due to Canadian content
rules brought down by the minister of heritage, is not considered
a Canadian artist because he has produced in the United States.
Shame on the minister. The government does not have the decency
to recognize Canadian artists who are well known around the world
because they produce in the United States or some other such
thing. Enough of the Canadian content “Copps”. No more
regulation. It does not help Canadian artists.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I will state again, as I did
in my speech, that the Reform Party is absolutely committed to
the fundamental concept that Canadians as a nation and as
individuals are the greatest nation and the greatest people in
the world. Given a challenge, Canadians will always rise to the
top. Canadians will always be superior. Canadians will always
perform at a level far beyond what they even imagine.
All we need is for the Liberals to get out of smothering the
initiative of Canadians with all sorts of unnecessary protection.
We should be given freedom so that we can get on with the job of
being the great people and the great nation we are.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to address Bill C-55 which reminds me of eating too
much spicy sausage. It keeps coming back again and again. Just
when we think cooler heads have prevailed and the Pepto-Bismol of
the World Trade Organization has soothed the savage lining of the
Liberal tummy, we find that it regurgitated. It comes back up
from the bowels of somebody's desk. Here we are again in
parliament debating a bill with new a number and a bit different
tangent, Bill C-55 which was formerly Bill C-32.
We must do something. We must protect something. If we are
honest about it, we all know in our hearts that Canadian culture
does not need protection. It needs promotion. In this case we
are discussing Canadian magazines but not just them. It is a
broad cultural issue.
We need to understand that Canadian culture is worth promoting.
It is worth unshackling from government regulation. This great
country with its multitude of cultural facets is worth selling to
the world. It is worth bragging about. It is worth telling
others in the world that if they want a cultural experience par
excellence Canada is a good place to find it.
Instead of a Canadian cultural minister admitting that she does
not even know what Canadian culture is, Liberal members need to
say that we have great Canadian culture. It has much variety.
It goes from bagpipes to traditional dances, to native
ceremonies, to opera, to whatever. We have the whole
smorgasbord. It does not scare us on this side of the House to
think that a smorgasbord is hard to digest. We think it is a
wonderful thing. Canadians and others in the world think it is
something to be proud of. It is a good thing. It does not give
me indigestion and the rest of the world finds it very palatable.
1220
I am in support of the Canadian cultural industry. It is a
wonderful industry. It produces lots of jobs with a good future.
They are not just hewers of wood or carriers of water. It is an
expanding market. It has huge potential.
Whether it is in the computer industry, the animation industry,
the newspaper industry as we are seeing on the front pages of our
papers today, or the magazine industry, people want to come here
and invest their money not because of protection but because they
see it as a viable growing industry with a Canadian flavour that
sells not only in Canada but around the world. My hat is off to
this industry. Good for it. It is doing its job and I
appreciate it.
We want to see this industry blossom and thrive, but what is the
government's response? A press release of the minister
indicated that only Canadian periodical publishers would be able
to sell advertising services aimed primarily at the Canadian
market to Canadian advertisers. In other words, any split-run
magazines like Time or Sports Illustrated whose
editorial content is similar to their foreign original will not
be able to bring their wares into Canada and solicit advertising
space to Canadian companies. That is pretty ironic.
I will leaf through the latest edition of Maclean's
magazine. Let me just crack it open. This is supposedly our
national magazine. On the first full page is a Jaguar
commercial, one of those great Canadian corporations, I guess.
Then there is the next one, a full page Toyota ad. That is good.
I do not mind that. There is one from Sheridan, a good Canadian
company. Then there is one from Continental Airlines Express and
a full page for Scotch whiskey. That is good. Anyway on and on
and on it goes.
The magazine attracts international advertisers with
headquarters that may be in other countries. Why? It is not
because they are forced to advertise. They are not forced to
advertise. If they want to address Canadians they had better
speak to Canadians and use Canadian magazines to do it. Nobody
could tell Jaguar that if it wants to sell Jaguars to Canadians
it should advertise in the Los Angeles Times or a Los
Angeles daily newspaper.
People advertise in Canadian products because they think that
somebody will read it and that somebody will be Canadian. They
do not need to be told about that. It is just a natural business
decision and that is what they are doing.
If we want to help Maclean's or any other magazine, we
should make it so attractive to advertise and do business in
Canada that no on in their right mind would consider not spending
a portion of their international dollars on Canadian run
magazines. We want to be able to convince them that doing
business in Canada is good. That is the way to help the Canadian
cultural industry.
A committee has been travelling around and meeting for months.
It is wringing its collective hands about the future of
professional hockey in Canada. We could argue it is a sporting
event which is sort of cultural. I have always thought it was
pretty much a part of the Canadian mosaic. I love Canadian
hockey.
If we wanted to hurt Canadian hockey how would we do it? Over
the last 25 years through successive free spending governments we
have managed to drive the value of the Canadian dollar down to 64
cents. I use the royal we here. I am including myself only
because, I guess, I was a voter at that time. As much as many
Canadians were upset about it, the spiral of debt and deficit
financing for years and years and years created an atmosphere in
Canada that has driven our dollar down to 64 cents.
Guess what? Some Canadian businesses are in trouble over that.
A hockey player has to be paid in American currency. What will
happen? Canadian hockey teams, the ones situated in Canada,
cannot hang on to their best players. They are paid in American
dollars. Our dollar is in the toilet. Their dollar is sky high
because of differing policies.
1225
In this sense our cultural activity is heading south. What a
shame. One after the other Canadian markets are being shut down.
We cannot compete primarily because of the dollar. Our arenas
are full. Hockey programs are full. Television networks are
willing to sell it. The bottom line is we cannot compete because
our business structure is so out of whack in Canada that people
cannot refuse a much better offer in the States.
Earlier we talked about the wine industry in my province. It
wins awards around the world, not because it is subsidized. In
fact it did not happen until the subsidy was removed. It tore
out all the old grapes. It tore out all the old orchards that
were heavily subsidized. It planted a market driven grape, if we
want to call it that, which I am told produces a wine that
is—and I am not a wine drinker—one of the best in the world.
British Columbia is sold and touted around the world as one of
the finest places to grow wine. That is not a cultural activity
but it is another example of people going where the good product
is, not necessarily where the subsidies are.
Again and again when Canadians are allowed to trade freely and
are unencumbered by government they do pretty well. We are not
going to win all the battles. It is not like 100% of the game is
always won 100% of the time by Canadians.
Another prime example is the softwood lumber agreement. The
parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier that the Reform Party
was isolated on the softwood lumber agreement. We were the only
party in the House that stood and said “Warning, if you follow
through on this you are going to put hundreds and thousands of
people out of work”. Nobody listened. We were told we were all
by ourselves over here and asked if we understood that the
magnanimous government was to put together some trading, not free
trade but an agreement that restricts trade to a few quota
holders and so on. The government was to manage it and tell us
what could be sold.
In my riding every innovative softwood mill will be shut down.
Most of them are shut down now and they will all be shut down
within a year. It is a sad prediction. Every time they create a
new value added product they are told “Sorry, you cannot sell it
because of the softwood lumber agreement”, no matter what they
do or how inventive they are.
They have even tried to saw boards into boards for little
retaining walls to hold landscaping in place. There is a huge
market for them in the United States. Even though it is a new
product and a value added product, because they are joined
together and treated, guess what? “Park it in your warehouse as
you are not allowed to sell it”. Why? Because the government
tells them what they can do.
It is not free trade. It is not access to a market with 300
million people. It is a market that says the government knows
best. The mills in my riding have been told one after another
“So, you have millions of dollars invested. So, you are opening
markets in new value added products. We will shut all that
down”.
What we end up with is a guy who saws 2x4s and ships them in
bulk. He gets to keep shipping. However, the fellow that is
putting energy and creativity into the value added product and
doing what we have been told is the future, the right thing to
do, has been told to shut down his business down and lose his
investment. That is what happens when there is interference.
To get back to the example on the cultural side, the federal
government is saying that to promote Canadian culture and to make
it stronger it has to use its legislative muscle to keep Canadian
magazines from international competition, which we believe Canada
can and has met in the past and will again in the future.
I would argue that Bill C-55 is not needed. I cannot in my
wildest imagination think that because of some advertising
content or a split-run edition I am going to rush off and change
my subscription to Canada's national magazine because somebody
from Los Angeles has a magazine with Wayne Gretzky on the cover.
1230
Do Canadians not have enough grey matter to understand the
difference between advertising and what they want to read? When
I look at the table of contents I want to read how things affect
Canadians. I am not going to find an American magazine that
states “Canada, the high stakes tug of war on the environment.
Nova Scotia's Liberals on shaky ground”. I kind of like that
one. I read it twice because it was a good one.
Canada's involvement in Kosovo, what is our future in Kosovo?
What is going to happen to businesses like Northern Telecom and
Nortel? Those are Canadian questions I would like to have
answered. What is happening in health care with the waiting
lists and so on, which was largely caused by this government? I
would like to read about that.
I would like to read book reviews about Canadian authors and
Canadian subjects. The reason I get that magazine is it deals
with Canadian issues. I do not dial up CNN on my television
because I think it would be great to listen to some announcer
from Chicago tell me about the weather patterns in Florida. I
dial in Canadian programming because I want to listen to Canadian
stuff that affects me as a Canadian. I do not need advertising
dollars to make me do that. I do it because it is the right
thing to watch.
As I mentioned earlier, guess what happens in this magazine?
International organizations repeatedly advertise in a Canadian
magazine with Canadian content not because they are told they
have to but because the realize that Canadians read it. If it is
garbage it should not be subsidized or protected. It basically
can put out the same magazine 12 months of the year because
nobody reads it anyway. If that what we have here it does not
matter how much regulation is put on it because it will not sell.
Canadians will not buy it and advertisers will not advertise in
it. Nobody will care because the magazine is not worth reading.
However, if the magazine deals with Canadian issues the
advertisers will advertise. If you build it, they will come,
culturally speaking. That is what will happen. They are looking
for good quality magazines so they can say show us the product
and we will advertise in it. Anybody who thinks differently has
not looked at the latest Maclean's magazine. They are
certainly not thinking on a whole realm of things, why, for
example, Canadian Gardener might be of more interest to the
latest gardening schemes in southern Florida.
Since that stuff does not grow in my garden I will not buy that
magazine because I want the magazine to deal with Canadian stuff.
Most Canadians understand the difference between reading about
the latest adobe styles in southern California and the fact that
west coast architecture is a little different. They understand
it and gravitate to it because it is what they want to read. It
is not because it is supported by advertisers.
One wonders why the federal government is putting so much energy
and resources into this kind of initiative, an initiative that
unfortunately may backfire again at the World Trade Organization
as it did last time. One wonders why this government thinks that
putting this misplaced energy into protecting the split-run
magazines is a vote getter or whatever.
We have a $1.4 billion a day trade deal with the Americans and
it has been growing rapidly since NAFTA and the free trade
agreement and now expanded to the WTO. They are our best trading
partners. Contrary to what the Liberals tried to sell us in
1993, they realized as soon as they were in power, within about
two weeks they signed an agreement saying that Canada's economic
well-being was based on access to the 300 million person U.S.
market. They signed the agreement, as we knew they would and as
we said they would in 1993 when we campaigned against them.
I remember the Liberals standing at an all-candidates meeting
and saying—in our case it was article 2(c) of the World Trade
Organization agreement which dealt with supply management—“we
will never sign that without a strengthened article 2(c), you can
count on it”.
1235
The Liberal candidate I was running against said “I would
lay on the railroad tracks and stop the trains before we would
sign that”.
Two weeks after the Liberals were elected in 1993 guess what?
The Liberals signed the agreement. Guess what? Article 11
(2)(c) is just the way it was when the Conservatives negotiated
it. I warned our farmers not to trust these guys. As it turned
out I was absolutely right. This government did exactly as I knew
it would and it signed the agreement.
Why? Because we live in an international rules based trading
economy. The government is half way there, half pregnant. The
government sort of wants to go but does not know what the
gestation period is. This government wants to do it but does not
want to admit it. It is sort of free trade but it cannot simply
come out and say it.
It is like the reciprocity campaign of 1911. Interestingly the
Liberals at that time said the future lies in reciprocity. The
future lies in free trade because Canadians can take on the
Americans at their game and can win our share and more. We have
enough assets to pull it off, human and otherwise.
There is $1.4 billion of trade between Canada and the U.S. and
what are we doing? In one minute we are poking the Americans in
the eye. We are saying “oh yeah, watch this”. We are telling
the Americans let's go, let's go. We are taking on our best
trading partner and saying let's go to the WTO. They are going to
win again. The Americans will come back and kick our sorry
economy all over the map because of this.
When the Americans win this the second time, the second time
means they come back and the softwood lumber industry in my
riding could be affected. It could be grain shipments into the
States. It might just be magazines and cultural activities. But
it could be anything.
I can imagine the American negotiators saying “Oh boy, the
election is coming up. Get a little presidential butt kicking
going here. Let us see what we can do to those Canadians because
we won it again. Let us pick our spot. What is the best vote
getter? Let's knock the snot out of those Canadians for being
lippy again for the second time when they knew full well and they
were warned by the official opposition that this was going to
happen”.
Some American presidential candidate is going to use the
opportunity of a WTO ruling on this bill and they are going to
come back and hurt Canada bad for political reasons. That is a
shame. It is unnecessary and should not be happening. This bill
should not pass.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know my colleague was getting to a very important part
of his speech regarding what might happen in retaliation to this
law which will obviously be struck down.
The member mentioned the softwood lumber industry. I know there
are other industries as well. I and the official opposition are
concerned about that as well. We are on record as forewarning
the government it is venturing out on very dangerous ground by
proceeding with this bill.
I and members of the opposition cannot understand why it is that
the government would take this measure. I am wondering if my
colleague might comment on some of the other industries as well
as the softwood industry that he feels might be affected by this
agreement if it is defeated again, and it likely will be.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, one needs a crystal ball
to know what the WTO might rule. The WTO might say it has had a
complete change of heart. All the rationale it used before will
just be thrown out and suddenly it will have an epiphany, a
change, a road to Damascus experience. The WTO might but I do
not think so.
The WTO body has said argue as you might, folks in Canada. It
is unfair to treat people differently on your trade laws.
1240
It is not an industry that needs protection. It is going to
rule the same way again.
It is interesting how we want to have our cake and eat it too.
There is a reciprocity agreement over there. They want a free
trade agreement except they do not want a free trade agreement.
One Canadian publisher, the proprietor of Saturday Night,
said this about Bill C-55: “I have been a relentless opponent of
these restrictive rules all the time. I have been in business
nearly 30 years. I am opposed to the restrictions that
representatives of the magazine are advancing on American
publications. We have been well received in those foreign
countries, the U.K., the U.S.A. and Israel, where we do business.
Canada should behave as those other countries do”.
Other countries say to Canada “If our guys want to advertise in
your magazines and you want to sell into our markets go ahead. It
is not a bad magazine and you are going to penetrate our market a
bit, but some of our people like to read about Canadian stuff.
Some of them are transplanted Canadians. Some of them want to go
to Canada”. There is a market. Sell into that market. What an
opportunity.
We have 30 million people, a little country by world standards.
Somebody says to us that in their country there are 200 million,
300 million or a billion people like in India and they will let
us sell into their market. What we should be saying is thanks
for the opportunity to expand our business. Thank you for
letting us sell into their market. Let us hope for a .5% market
penetration. All of a sudden the circulation on the Canadian
magazine goes through the roof. With a free trade access like
that there is access to billions of people.
Instead, Canada wants to keep Canadian magazines in Canada and
get a 10% market penetration on 30 million people. There will be
three million people who have ever seen the magazine. It will
never be more than that. The business is restricted. It cannot
expand. We will not let it expand. It is the tit for tat thing
in international trade. If they will not let us go into their
markets we will not let them come into ours. That is the deal.
Worse than that, under the WTO arrangement it understands that
other countries may choose to retaliate, but not on the magazine.
They might say they were willing to let the magazine come in. It
is not that big of a deal and there will be some market
penetration. But may the best magazine win. They are willing to
try that. They are willing to offer that. They may come back
and say they have had trouble with our textile industry because
it takes them on and beats them half the time. So they get back
at the Canadian government for its intransigence by
countervailing on textiles. Or they might come back to the
softwood lumber agreement that has already put thousands of
people out of jobs in my province and expand it a little. They
might put another tariff on top of all of that.
Because the Asian market has gone into decline, our primary
market is in America right now for software lumber and a lot of
our grains. What if they came up and said that the wheat does not
go south of that border, that imaginary 49th parallel on the
map? They tell us to keep our wheat. They give their subsidies
to their farmers, pump them up and get them in business. But
that industry is going to suffer because of a magazine bill.
What kind of a strained logic on that side over there would say
they are going to take this to the WTO, poke the people in the
eyes until they get them nice and mad like boiled owls. They are
going to be all claws, beaks, feathers and scratches. They are
going to come out of there like a broken helicopter. They will
come out of there mad. They will say “did we not deal with the
split-run issue once already?”. A similar panel is going to get
this. It will not have an epiphany, a road to Damascus
experience.
1245
It is going to wake up with the same logic that was brought into
that next one. It is going to crack open the magazine and say
“Guess what folks, the rules are the same as the last time and
will be the same the next time, but there will not be a next time
because we ruled in favour of the plaintiff”.
Instead of creating jobs in Canada and encouraging diversity and
saying to the world “Come on world, we are ready. We can take
you on, on our terms”, we will catch it in the ear in an
industry that is innocent of what the government is doing.
Industry will take the retaliation. What a shame. If it comes on
one of the industries in my riding, I do not know what it will do
to the federal buildings in my riding as there are not many left
in my riding anyway because they have all been transferred to
Liberal ridings elsewhere. They will be some upset and I
understand why.
Maybe the minister of culture figures she has not had enough of
the spotlight lately. Maybe she wants to by all stretches of the
imagination make a run at the Liberal leadership one day or maybe
she is trying to get her name in the paper, who knows?
An hon. member: This is as good as the MMT legislation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. It
reminds me of another time when the official opposition was
isolated. It had to do with the MMT legislation.
We sat on this side of the House and begged the government not
to put restrictive legislation on that octane enhancer for those
who are not familiar with the issue. We said that if the
government did that, the government would be taken to court and
would have to pay because it had not tabled the evidence in this
place which showed that it should be restricted. What did the
government do? It thumbed its nose at the official opposition.
That is fine.
Liberals do not agree with us because they like to be wrong a
good part of the time. They did not agree with us and what
happened? I wonder if the Liberal caucus even had a discussion
about this. Guess what happened. Back it came. It did not go to
court though. We settled out of court. Tens of millions of
dollars were given to the Ethyl Corporation, an American
corporation.
The government said that for whatever these dollars were worth,
and the dollar is not worth that much, it being down to 64 cents,
as much as we can gather together we will throw at Ethyl
Corporation. Why? Because members over there do not believe in
free trade. They mouth the words when it suits them and the rest
of the time they restrict business; they put them under their
thumb. Business that could be thriving and adding value is told
it is not welcome in Canada.
Tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars went to pay Ethyl
Corporation in an out of court settlement. I wonder if the
Liberal caucus had a little talk about that with their minister.
I wonder if they said that the Reform Party was right, again.
Yes, we were isolated on that and we were right again.
On Bill C-55 and the split-run magazine issue, we will be proven
right again. The Liberals will come whining back into this
House. The favourite whine on the Liberal side is “I want to
tax and put on some more red tape”.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to enter into this debate on this piece of
legislation which has been so clearly illustrated by the official
opposition as lacking in so many ways and so many areas. I will
focus my comments on a few points. There are so many comments I
would like to get on the record that I am afraid I might not have
a chance to get them all on but I will try.
Some particular portions of Bill C-55 should be very alarming
for everybody in this place, particularly the section which goes
into establishing an investigative branch that can explore people
who violate this law. That violation would be Canadian
advertisers selling advertisements to American magazines and
things of that sort.
1250
There are a lot of problems in our country. There are a lot of
things happening. I know that this government wants to address
the serious issues in our country. We would think and hope that.
After all, it is the Government of Canada.
Instead what we see is a bill being presented which simply
addresses one issue of magazines. We can only imagine that it
might be because the minister of heritage is not getting into the
spotlight very much in the last little while and needs, as one of
my colleagues pointed out earlier, a reason to justify her
department and what she is doing there. Perhaps that is why she
has created this bill.
I know that in Vancouver there are some serious problems going
on. This bill would introduce some police force powers to
individuals to investigate the selling of advertising in
magazines. I do not think that is an issue that is resonating
across the country. I am not getting calls in my office about
this issue. I am getting calls about a lot of other issues. I am
getting calls in my office about a serious drug problem happening
in Vancouver, about problems with the immigration system and the
government's refusal to address those kinds of problems. I am
getting calls in my office about cuts to the RCMP budgets in
British Columbia and how that is having a profound impact on
every citizen in British Columbia and across the country.
Yet this government sees fit to introduce a bill that was
defeated once already by the WTO ruling. This government knows
that, yet it is proceeding with this. It does not make any sense
as to why the government would clearly go ahead again with this
type of bill which cannot stand on its own merits. That has been
proven and it is going to happen again.
If a government brings forward a bill, we would expect it would
check into what might be the ramifications of enacting the
legislation. The government knows that a similar bill was
defeated once before. It knows what the ramifications were when
it was defeated, when it was appealed and lost at the WTO. Yet
the government has gone ahead again. We would think the
government might have caught on that this is not a bill that is
going to be able to do what it is intended to do.
The government says that we need to protect Canadian culture. We
say we need to promote Canadian culture. We have heard
government members who want it both ways.
Members of the Liberal government who were in opposition at the
time spoke long and hard against free trade. Yet when they
formed the government in 1993 they rapidly signed that agreement.
We see here with this bill the true colours of where the Liberals
stand on trade. They are not really supportive of a free trade
agreement that would allow for the movement of goods and services
across the border to our biggest trading partner and we are
trading over $1 billion per day. In this bill the minister of
heritage is putting forth a protectionist act.
It is very clear and it has been demonstrated before. We have
been pointing it out all day long and in past days as well. We
will continue to say it and forewarn the government of what might
happen by the actions of this bill. The government has to get
the message on this.
If the heritage minister really wanted to do something for
Canadian magazines she would listen to one of her colleagues. The
minister of defence said in a speech on January 27, 1997,
“Perhaps in the new digital world policies of cultural promotion
make more sense than traditional policies of protection”. What
a surprise. One of the minister's own colleagues gave some good
advice which she obviously has not heeded.
Perhaps there is quite a stir going on in cabinet. We can only
imagine what is happening. The Minister for International Trade,
the Minister of Industry and perhaps the Minister of Finance in
talking to the Minister of Canadian Heritage might be saying
“What in the world are you doing with this? We lost it once
before. We are going to lose it again and there are some pretty
serious ramifications”. But no, she is going ahead with the bill
in the face of its obvious inadequacies.
1255
The minister is putting at risk industries in our country,
people in our country, workers in our country who face possible
retaliation when this is struck down once again by the WTO. We
heard the parliamentary secretary say that this will go through
the WTO, that we have met all the obligations, that everything is
fine and not to worry about it. I would disagree.
I will mention a few remarks in response to this bill when it
was introduced. These remarks were released in Geneva by the
U.S. trade representative in response to Bill C-55, the bill we
are debating today which was introduced by the minister of
heritage. He said:
On October 8, the Canadian government introduced a bill in
parliament that, if enacted, would ban foreign-owned publishers
from using the magazines they publish to carry any advertisement
aimed primarily at Canadian consumers.
Unfortunately, it leaves foreign-produced split-run periodicals
precisely where they have been for the past 30 years—shut out of
the Canadian market.
What is also disturbing about the bill is that it apparently
represents Canada's idea of compliance with the panel and
Appellate Body reports on this subject.
Canada seems to believe that while it may violate the GATT for a
government to confiscate 80 percent of the advertising revenues
generated by imported split-run magazines, it is perfectly
acceptable to ban those advertisements altogether.
That was the trade representative for the United States. We are
not looking into a crystal ball and saying that we think this
might happen, that the Americans might voice opposition to this
bill. One of their senior people is saying what they are going
to do, yet this government still proceeds with this bill. I will
continue to quote this representative:
Canadian officials are justifying their new bill on the grounds
that it is governed by the anti-discrimination provisions of the
GATS rather than the GATT. Conveniently, Canada has made no
commitments regarding advertising under the GATS.
It is surprising that Canada would believe its GATT v GATS
argument which the panel and the Appellate Body so soundly
rejected in 1997 has taken on credibility in 1998.
Why are the same arguments which were defeated previously now
being put forward as valid? The U.S. trade representative
mentioned this. He continued:
The clear and intended effect of Canada's proposed legislation is
to prevent imported magazines from being used to carry
advertisements aimed at the Canadian market.
This is precisely what Canada's 80 percent tax prevents as well.
Taken together, the bill introduced on October 8, and the
perpetuation of Canada's postal subsidy scheme, which the
Canadian Government has also announced, send a very troubling
signal regarding Canada's seriousness in abiding by its
international obligations and, in particular, in observing both
the letter and spirit of the WTO's dispute settlement rules.
For well over a year Canada steadfastly refused to disclose any
of the alternatives it was considering or to consult with
interested governments regarding its compliance.
Then, after dragging out its response for almost 15 months, the
Canadian Government has suddenly announced proposed replacement
measures that are still discriminatory and protectionist.
We strongly urge Canada to reconsider the course it has chosen.
the United States intends to react vigorously if that is not the
case.
If this government will not listen to members of the opposition,
perhaps it will listen to the American representatives who have
the power and the ability to go ahead and challenge the WTO
agreement. They have announced—
An hon. member: Phone the ambassador.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, members opposite are not
interested in listening. They do not want to listen to advice.
They want to heckle; they want to read papers. They are not
interested. They are not interested in the concerns of
Canadians. They do not want to listen to any advice because they
think they have it all worked out. They say “Everything is fine,
throw us the keys, we will drive the bus, do not worry about
it”.
We on this side of the House are not going to do that.
We are not going to toss them the keys and let them drive the car
off the road as they have done the last 30 years, with a few
intermissions. No, we are going to point out the deficiencies in
their bills.
1300
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Go ahead.
Mr. Grant McNally: The member says “Go ahead”. If he
had put his paper down long enough he might have heard some of
the earlier comments.
There are obviously problems with this bill. They have been
pointed out by members of the opposition, and not just by the
official opposition but by other parties as well. U.S. trade
representatives have said that there are problems with this bill.
They have clearly signalled their intention to challenge it.
When they challenge this and win is when the trouble will start
for the industries across this country. We do not know where the
retaliation will take place, whether it will be western Canadian
grain producers or an industry in Ontario.
There are over 100 members of the Liberal caucus representing
Ontario. I would have thought they would have some concerns
about this. I do not see members standing on the opposite side
voicing their concerns. They will have to pay the price when
this legislation goes through, when the challenge is made and
this bill is soundly defeated in the World Trade Organization as
being unfair, discriminatory and protectionist, as it most
obviously is.
It is the members opposite who will be responsible. They will
have to answer. They have been forewarned, as they have been
forewarned on many things before but have not taken the advice.
Unfortunately, they do not like to take advice from members of
the official opposition. We know that.
However, we would hope that in the interests of Canada, in the
interests of their constituents, in the interests of all of our
industries across this country that they would have a plan of
action before putting something in place. We would hope that
they would take a look at the legislation they are bringing
forward to see how it will impact the people of this country and
the economy of this country.
I might add that we are seeing the Canadian dollar dropping.
The government is responsible in a large way for providing an
economic climate to allow industries to grow.
We see this government introducing this type of bill rather than
dealing with some other major priorities that we have been asking
it to address.
I have to remind my colleagues opposite that this bill is badly
flawed. I think members opposite know that.
It is one thing to proceed on a course of action, whatever it
might be, if we truly believe something to be so, and to proceed
on that course of action that will provide some benefit in the
future. It is another thing to proceed on a course of action
when we know full well that that course of action is not a good
course of action, that there are obstacles in the way, that it
will not be of benefit. There are other terms to describe that
way of thinking.
I cannot understand why the government is proceeding in this
manner, with this legislation, in a way that will imperil
Canadians working in many other fields across the country. We do
not know what the retaliation is going to be.
I simply do not understand why it is that we would proceed to
try to disrupt, maybe unintentionally—and I will give the
government the benefit of the doubt—and to aggravate our biggest
trading partner on this issue. They can obviously retaliate in a
number of ways. It could affect the softwood lumber industry in
my province of British Columbia. It could affect those involved
in farming, in the prairies in particular.
My father-in-law is a former farmer. These are the people who
are talking about what it is we are dealing with in this place.
What are the government's priorities? That is what I hear from
people when I talk to them about what is happening in this place.
They do not ask me about the minister of heritage and Bill C-55,
and what a great impact that will have on their daily lives.
They are not raising those concerns.
1305
It is just unbelievable that in the face of good advice somebody
would proceed in a way that would not benefit the country. The
governing party is responsible for setting out a course for the
country. I do not see that happening in this piece of
legislation. What I see is exactly the opposite.
I can only encourage the members of the government who are here
today and the government in general to re-look this piece of
legislation to see the potential damage that it could cause. They
should do the right thing and not proceed with it, but proceed in
other areas of priority across this land.
We hope that members of the government will reconsider moving on
this bill and not stubbornly move ahead on a piece of legislation
that is doomed for failure.
I hear loud heckling from members opposite. I am sad to say
that, once again, it looks as though a few of the members are not
even willing to listen. That is upsetting, not to me because I
am used to it, but it is upsetting to the people of Canada, their
constituents.
This bill is just not going to work.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Grant McNally: The members continue to heckle. They
seem to have no interest in wanting to listen to good advice, but
that is their prerogative. They laugh at good advice. They laugh
at a serious issue that is going to affect a lot of industries,
not just in my riding but in their ridings right across this
country. What do they do? They sit in their seats and laugh. We
must surmise that they are laughing at Canadians because this
bill will impact Canadians across the country.
I would hope that instead of laughter we might hear intelligent
debate in this place from members on the other side, because we
know it is coming from this side. We would like to hear some
other ideas from members opposite because this one is simply not
a good idea.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to
start. That was one single argument, repeated 1,500 times. I
guess repetition does not necessarily make an argument any
better, but we will leave that for another day.
I want to comment a bit on some of the comments made by the
member for Fraser Valley. He was touting a magazine and quoting
from it, telling us that he liked to read Canadian stories in
Canadian magazines. We all agree. He then made a statement to
the effect that he does not need advertising. We all know that,
but that is the point of the bill.
For him to be able to read those Canadian magazines and read
those Canadian stories, those magazines need advertising dollars.
That is the point of this legislation. I think he might be
starting to understand.
One of the longstanding policies of the Government of Canada has
been to help the magazine industry in securing enough advertising
dollars by not helping split runs. If we allow foreign magazines
without any Canadian content, without any expenses on that side,
to come and skim advertising dollars and services, then we will
indeed cripple our Canadian magazine industry.
It is rather heartening to see that one of the members of the
Reform Party understands that somebody might need advertising
dollars in order to put out these magazines. That is the purpose
of the bill. We hope to get it through second reading and to
committee and, with the help of the opposition parties, we will
move on.
I have listened to all of the speeches from Reform members and
there is a theme coming out. I thought initially it might have
been sheepishness on their part in that they were raising these
bogeymen. They say that we are poking our American neighbours in
the eye and they are going to retaliate. They say that we should
not aggravate them because they will then come around and kill
our wheat industry, the hog industry and softwood lumber. They
threw in hockey and a lot of other things.
1310
Maybe I was not accurate about them being sheepish, because the
more I listened the more things came out, such as “We should
listen more to the American trade secretary saying this and that.
We will not win. We will go to the WTO and they will quash it”.
It seems that members of the Reform Party are not here to defend
Canadian interests. They seem to be here to defend American
interests. They seem to be defending anything that is foreign,
but not Canadian.
We want to help an industry that has grown over the past 30
years, an industry which consists of 1,000 small businesses and
employs over 6,000 Canadians.
Reform members are giving me the impression that they may not be
sheepish, but they seem to be Americans in sheep's clothing.
The Speaker: I know with all of those sheep in there that
there was a question. I am going to give the hon. member a
chance to comment.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I was trying hard to
detect a question, as I know you were.
The hon. member mentioned that I repeated things several times.
I must admit that I did repeat things several times because I was
hoping that the message would get through. Obviously it has not.
What we are talking about here is a protectionist measure that
the government is putting in place. The parliamentary secretary,
and I think he knows it, tries to paint Reform in a light that is
just simply not accurate.
With respect to my comments about the American trade
representative, in fact this is something that he stated will
happen. This is a high ranking official saying that they are
going to go ahead and challenge this. It was defeated once
before. To not address that, to not give that some weight in
their considerations before moving ahead I think is just unwise.
That is why I made the comment. It was made to let the
government know that this is a weak piece of legislation. It is
going to be challenged. The government is going to lose. It
lost once before. That is the reason I mentioned it.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, very quickly, Canadians value freedom of contract. This
bill authorizes the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make trade
law without going through regulation.
I am looking at this from the standpoint of an advertiser. An
advertiser wants certainty in terms of planning their advertising
dollars. There is no certainty when we have a ministerial
prerogative such as that. Besides not liking it as a
parliamentarian, I am thinking of it as an advertiser.
I would like my colleague to comment on that aspect of the bill.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, that is a concern. This
bill of course limits who Canadian advertisers are going to be
able to put their advertising dollars with. I do not understand
that principle. That is a principle that seems contrary to other
government policy, particularly in light of free trade. So I
simply do not understand.
I mentioned that the bill is weak in a number of areas. The
area that my colleague points out I did not mention. Absolutely
it is a problem. There should be freedom of the press and
freedom of individuals to go ahead and advertise with whomever
they like.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if I may, I will just make a few comments and ask a short
question to conclude this debate.
This debate really is about democracy, freedom of speech and
freedom of expression. On the opposition benches it is about
trying to keep the government out of trouble. We have heard the
arguments that were aired in terms of retaliation.
1315
The reality of North American society is that we depend on the
Americans for a healthy economy. There are two things we agree
on. One is that Canadians love Canadian content in whatever they
hear, read or watch. I am sure all sides of the House agree to
that. The other statement I can make is that our economy depends
on that of the United States. We are fortunate with the Asian
flu that the American economy probably shelters us from a greater
impact in light of the weak dollar in this country. Those are
the two points that I am sure we all agree on.
On the issue of freedom of speech I believe that when the bill
becomes law it will be subject to the courts' judgment. As soon
as it becomes law the private sector will take it to the courts.
There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on the important points made
by my colleague. I hope the government is listening to them.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill is weak and my colleague has
pointed out another weakness. I know he is the critic for the
area. He has studied the legislation in depth. He has tried to
make interventions with the minister to advise her that this is
not a good way to proceed. It was not for his own gain but
because he sees this piece of legislation as flawed. This is
another flaw.
There will be problems with the legislation. There will be some
court challenges because the bill limits the rights of Canadian
advertisers to advertise where they would like to advertise. That
is clearly infringing on people's freedoms. We hope the
government will listen to the points that we make before
proceeding on this course.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the last hour or so I have been somewhat appalled by
the cavalier attitude of the parliamentary secretary and some of
his yappy cohorts toward the well-being and the opportunities
that may be lost to earn a living by tens of thousands of
Canadians who will be affected if we get ourselves into a trade
war over this stupid piece of legislation. This is not a joke.
People are frightened as to what may happen if this position is
overturned by the WTO, and I think it probably will be. We will
be vulnerable. We will be open. To use a certain amount of care
is not, with due respect, being sheepish. It is being sane and
sensible. The bill can really hurt.
The parliamentary secretary says that 6,000 people will be
directly affected by the legislation. I question that. There
are 6,000 people working in the industry. There are not 6,000
people who will be directly affected by the legislation because
we are dealing with a rather small segment of the magazine
market. This is not as big an issue as the parliamentary
secretary would like to make out. The potential for damage from
this unimportant piece of legislation is enormous.
It behooves the parliamentary secretary to be a little more
thoughtful and respectful of the hundreds of thousands of people
employed in basic industries such as the agricultural industry.
They are vulnerable. They have been attacked before by the
Americans under trade rules. In some cases those who study this
sort of thing are quivering in their shoes.
I used to have a very large German shepherd—this is a true
story by the way, not a parable—that I kept fenced in my
backyard. There was a little boy in the neighbourhood, who was
not a bad kid, who could not resist tormenting my dog.
He would go down the ally on his bicycle, run a stick along the
fence and rattle the boards. Then he would get off his bicycle,
look through the fence and torment my dog. One day he did that
but did not realize that the back gate was open. This big dog
ran out, grabbed the poor kid by the leg and gave him a pretty
serious bite.
1320
The United States is a very mean big dog. We should not torment
this beast, unless we see some real benefit or some potential
advantage in doing so, because he will bite. He has bitten us
before and he will bite us again. We should not mess around for
a trivial reason and endanger something which is terribly
important to ordinary working people in this country. We can
make light of this problem as much as we want, but it is not
something to be taken lightly. These are very serious concerns.
We have walked down this road before on the split-run issue. We
lost. If we lose a second time, the game is over and we are
vulnerable for retaliation. Those guys play rough. I think a
bit of common sense should be used.
Apart from the practicalities of the question, I get a little
tired of members opposite who seem to believe that Canadians are
children, that Canadians are incapable of managing their own
affairs, that Canadians left to their own devices will buy out
all the Playboy magazines in the cornerstore but will not
read Saturday Night. This is rather a low view of our
population but it seems to be what drives the government.
The hon. member beside me made a comment a little earlier about
smother love. This is a typical example of smother love, trying
to control what people read and what people hear. It is thought
control. Nineteen Eighty-Four may not be very long behind
us, but we still seem to have some of the ideas Mr. Orwell
brought forward in his book.
Free speech, freedom to do business with whom we wish, freedom
to own property and control it any way we like, free press by all
means and freedom of contract, do these things not matter at all?
Why are we throwing out these important aspects of our culture
ostensibly to protect our culture? It is a contradiction of
terms and I will not accept it.
I noticed earlier the hon. member for Brampton Centre, while my
colleague was speaking, was very busily reading a newspaper. I
did not notice what newspaper it was. However it occurred to me
that hon. member probably would not be too happy if the media
police or “Copps” cops were to say to him that he could not
read that paper any more because it was published in the wrong
city, never mind country. If they said they wanted him to read
the Toronto Star whether or not he liked it and would pass
legislation which would make, for example, the Ottawa
Citizen sit up and take notice because it is not always
very nice to the government, how would he feel?
I would like people to think about such things. Sure, it is a
stretch but not a very long one because this is the sort of thing
the government is proposing to do. It is telling Canadians what
they may or may not read by using the big economic hammer on
advertisers.
This is shameful.
1325
Extraterritorial legislation, which is what this is if we look
at it closely, has a very bad smell in this country. Do members
remember the Helms—Burton bill and how everyone from all parties
was up in arms about it? Now we are coming up with our very own
version of extraterritorial legislation and it is okay in the
eyes of the Liberals.
Where are they coming from? Where is the consistency? Where is
the basic concept of free trade which members of the government,
having had their epiphany, claim now to support? They support it
when it is convenient to them, but when it interferes with some
of their elitist ideas they say “None of this free trade
stuff”. That is bad.
I would like to relinquish the rest of my time to hear a little
more from the hon. parliamentary secretary. I hope he will rise
to the bait and debate.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was deeply affected by the story the member told about the little
boy and the dog, but he left us dangling. My question to the
member is very simple. What happened to the dog?
An hon. member: He shot the dog.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, actually I did not put the
dog down. The parents of the boy were very understanding. They
realized that the boy had been doing something he should not have
been doing. He had been tempting fate so they said “It
happened, it happened”. The dog lived to a ripe old age.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question for my colleague deals with the way in which
the bill changes how we look at split runs as opposed to the
previous legislation.
The crux of the way the bill is different from the previous one
in many respects is the changing of a definition by legislation.
Indeed this is a very weak way to redefine something and
ultimately very challengeable.
The bill has the effect of changing advertising from a service
to a good. It is very construed and artificial. Would the
member like to comment on that in an intellectual spirit?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, we talked a few minutes
ago about stretching things. I would submit that calling
advertising a service rather than a good is an extremely long
stretch.
I have purchased a lot of advertising and I never thought of it
as a service. I was buying space in a piece of paper. That is a
good. That is the principal reason that the legislation will be
thrown out when it is challenged as it unquestionably will be
challenged by the WTO.
We are trying to rewrite the English language by legislation. We
cannot do that. Language is something fluid, but we cannot
change the rules. We cannot change the language. Advertising is
not a service. Advertising is a good. It is something we buy.
We can touch it on the printed page. I am sorry, but I would
have to say to my hon. colleague that this is the biggest weak
point in the bill. This is why it is subject to challenge.
1330
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple
question for the member opposite. Is he aware that the WTO
recognizes that advertising is a service?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the WTO recognizes that
advertising agencies provide a service. The WTO does not
recognize an advertisement, which is what we are talking about.
That is what we buy. We buy an advertisement in a magazine. That
is not a service. That is a good. The hon. member is
equivocating.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under subclause 20(c) of this bill the minister is authorized to
make regulations respecting “criteria to determine whether
advertising services are directed at the Canadian market”. This
amounts to authorizing the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make
trade laws without passing them through parliament. Will this
undermine the authority of the House?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, my response to my
colleague is, what else is new?
When in living memory has this government ever passed any
legislation that could not be abused in that way? Passing
legislation with clauses that allow bureaucrats or people in the
minister's department to step in and do whatever they please is
the Liberal way.
I would not even answer my colleague's question directly except
to say that the principle of what he is describing is despicable.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion that the
question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been discussions with representatives of all parties.
I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded
division requested on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Canadian Heritage concerning second reading of
Bill C-55 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, November
3, 1998.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
Hon. John Manley (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved that Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation
areas, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the motto “from sea to sea” is a fitting description
of the country's geography. We are bounded by three of the great
oceans of the world, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic.
Much of our southern border is demarcated by the world's largest
freshwater inland lake system, the Great Lakes.
1335
With 243,000 kilometres of ocean coastline and an additional
9,500 kilometres along the Great Lakes, Canada has the longest
coastline of any country in the world. This coastline includes
some of the most spectacular scenery in the world.
Along the west coast there are endless miles of long, deep
wilderness fiords. The bays and coves of the Atlantic shelter
the fishing outports and villages of the maritimes. The Arctic
although cold, barren and windswept is nonetheless strikingly
beautiful. It includes some of the least visited and unspoiled
natural areas in the world.
The clear waters and rugged inland strewn shores of Canada's
Great Lakes attract recreational sailors from around the globe.
They have also served as a backdrop for the famous paintings of
the group of seven. Dramatic cliffs, the highest tides,
spectacular icebergs, majestic fiords and the overall timeless
essence of the sea are ours to enjoy as Canadians.
Canada's oceans and Great Lakes have played a large role in
shaping the country's economy, culture and identity. They
contribute not only to our economic prosperity but also to our
spiritual well-being.
An act respecting marine conservation areas fulfils two
commitments made by the government.
The first commitment was made by the Prime Minister to the 1996
congress of the World Conservation Union which was held in
Montreal. The Prime Minister stated “Our government will
introduce legislation for the creation of a national marine
conservation system, the marine equivalent of our land based
national parks system”.
In “Securing Our Future Together” which set out this
government's plans for this mandate, the government made the
commitment “to establish new marine conservation areas and
develop legislation and policies for a marine conservation
system”.
The marine conservation areas act will protect and conserve for
all time marine areas that are representative of Canada's Arctic,
Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Great Lakes. It will also
encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of our
marine heritage.
I wish to highlight some of the reasons why it is important for
Canada and indeed for the world that we move forward as quickly
as possible with the establishment of a system of marine
protected areas and how we are responding to that challenge.
We are, after all, a maritime nation. The vast marine
ecosystems off Canada's coasts are precious, varied and highly
productive. Given this rich diversity, Canada has a
responsibility both nationally and internationally to protect
examples of this marine heritage for present and future
generations.
There is growing concern about the health of the planet's oceans
and inland seas. There is concern that our efforts to protect
and conserve marine environments are out of step with our
dependence on them. There is concern that these waters remain
largely out of sight and out of mind, and for too long a
convenient place to dispose of our wastes.
Marine conservation areas have a role to play in striking a
better balance between the protection and use of our marine
environment. Equally important, they have a role to play in
increasing public understanding and appreciation of the
importance of maintaining healthy lakes and oceans for the
well-being of the entire planet.
Canada with its extensive coastline and the second largest
continental shelf has much to gain from a comprehensive system of
marine protected areas.
Marine conservation areas will join our cherished national
parks, historic sites, canals and rivers in representing our rich
collective history and culture. They will add to our sense of
national identity.
The creation of marine conservation areas responds directly to
several national and international calls for action. For
example, the establishment of marine protected areas is an
important strategic direction in the 1995 Canadian biodiversity
strategy. This strategy, endorsed by federal and provincial
governments, will guide the implementation of the 1992 United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
A resolution of the 1994 general assembly of the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and its action plan call on
coastal nations to establish representative systems of marine
protected areas under national legislation.
1340
The establishment of marine conservation areas will make a
significant contribution to implementing the sustainable
development strategy of the Department of Canadian Heritage. That
strategy, “Sustaining our Heritage”, was tabled in the House of
Commons in December 1997.
Marine conservation areas established in Canada's exclusive
economic zone will help to fulfil Canada's obligation in
international law to take steps to protect and to preserve our
marine environment.
Let me now explain how Canada is meeting these calls to action.
Canada is committed to the establishment of a system of marine
conservation areas that will provide a representative sampling of
the full range of marine environments found in Canada's Pacific,
Arctic, and Atlantic oceans and in the Great Lakes. To accomplish
this, Parks Canada has classified Canada's marine environment
into 29 distinctive regions. The long term goal is to establish
a system of marine conservation areas that represent each one of
these regions.
Parks Canada through its programs and in partnership with others
will ensure that high quality marine interpretive programs and
visitor facilities are provided to the public.
The establishment of these areas will signal to Canadians and
international visitors alike that these sites are the best that
Canada has to offer, world class ecotourism destinations for
those who wish to experience firsthand our unique marine natural
and cultural heritage.
Bill C-48 includes strong protection measures. These are in
keeping with international standards to ensure that marine
ecosystems remain healthy and intact while at the same time
allowing for the sustainable use of renewable resources.
There will be places where through collaborative research
programs special efforts will be made to understand the nature of
marine ecosystems and the effects of human activity on them. The
research results, together with the traditional knowledge of
local people, will be used to better manage our use of marine
resources both within marine conservation areas and elsewhere. In
this way, it is expected that marine conservation areas will
serve an important function as models of ecologically sustainable
use of marine resources.
Parks Canada is the ideal organization to play the lead role in
establishing and managing a national system of marine
conservation areas in which all Canadians can take enormous
pride.
Parks Canada already manages a wide range of national parks and
historic sites including 19 national parks on our coasts. Parks
Canada is an organization with considerable knowledge and
expertise to apply to the protection and presentation of Canada's
natural and cultural heritages. Just think of our national parks
so admired around the world.
However, Parks Canada cannot plan and manage these areas alone.
To ensure success, Parks Canada must work with many government
and non-government agencies that have responsibilities or
interests in the planning or management of these areas.
Let me assure Canadians that the shared stewardship in the
planning and management of marine conservation areas has been a
key consideration in drafting the legislation before the House
today. Extensive public consultation has been central to the
approach taken by Parks Canada for years.
For instance, the first policy on the planning and management of
these areas was tabled in this House in 1986, more than 12 years
ago after much public discussion. Similarly, current policy
direction contained in the “Parks Canada Guiding Principles and
Operational Policies” benefited from public input. These were
tabled in the House in March 1994.
Parks Canada also held wide ranging discussions with
stakeholders prior to the implementation of Bill C-48. In
February 1997 “Charting the Course Towards a Marine Conservation
Area Act” was released and invited public comments and
suggestions from a variety of stakeholders.
1345
Taking a proactive approach, this discussion paper was sent to
more than 3,000 stakeholders. Those consulted included
provincial governments, aboriginal organizations, environmental
groups, fishing and shipping associations, unions and the oil,
gas and mining sectors.
In addition, Parks Canada held a number of public meetings, as
well as meetings with provincial governments and stakeholders.
Drafting of the legislation benefited greatly from the
presentations made at these meetings and the written briefs which
we received.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that this government is
firmly committed to the establishment of new marine conservation
areas. The passage of Bill C-48 is essential for us to fulfil
this commitment. Establishing a system of marine protected areas
is central to the achievement of several national and
international obligations of this government.
The marine conservation area program is a new and challenging
initiative for us and for all Canadians. It was through a
process of extensive consultation with Canadians that we were
able to develop this legislation.
I therefore urge all hon. members to support this bill. I urge
all hon. members to work with us on the government side to ensure
passage of this bill, to work toward ensuring that what we have
been able to accomplish with our terrestrial parks, beginning
over 100 years ago with Banff, the tradition of protection, the
tradition of foresight, the tradition of presenting Canadians
with the very best that we have to offer can be brought forward
in terms of our marine conservation areas.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my privilege to intervene as critic for Canadian heritage
on behalf of the official opposition on Bill C-48, the marine
conservation act at second reading.
I will begin by saying that we oppose this bill.
The secretary of state has certainly painted a beautiful picture
of a country called Canada which all of us in this House love and
hold dear.
We in the opposition agree with the principle of ecosystem
protection. That is not the issue and not the problem. What we
disagree with is the process and how it is being done. This bill
is poorly written.
The secretary of state has indicated that he feels this bill
belongs to parks, but there really is no connection between land,
parks and water and marine conservation districts or areas. When
most people hear about parks they think about places they can go
to and experience with their families. They think about
protected areas that will be around for centuries so that all
future generations will benefit from them.
What we have here is a marine conservation act that is really
about the conservation of marine areas. In other words, it
really should be in the hands of the environment minister.
This bill is also about fulfilling, in a rushed manner, the
obligations this country has in terms of United Nations
initiatives on ecosystem protection. Australia has quite a
comprehensive program and plan, but it spent a lot of years doing
extensive consultation, study and research. This government, I
believe, is rushing it this time to fulfil a requirement on its
part.
The biggest reason we object to this bill is that it is really a
grab for power again. We find that a lot of bills that come
before this House, after reading them, have too many places where
the minister has the power by order in council to change the
bill. This bill is another one.
I will debate this a little later, but I am surprised that there
is no schedule in terms of the areas that the government wishes
to establish.
In other words, we need to be more definitive in terms of what
will happen if this bill becomes law. There is no doubt that
this is another bill that will leave Canadians with the short end
of the stick while the government will end up with most of the
stick.
1350
Consultation is another problem. Consultation is quite a word.
Everybody has a different definition of consultation. The
secretary of state indicated that they sent out 3,000 pieces of
mail to various groups in the country. It would be interesting
to see the types of responses they received. It is all right to
consult people, but let the people you are consulting with know
what the results are. If this is the same kind of consultation
that the former justice minister had with Bill C-68, I am afraid
I do not have a lot of faith in this government's consultation
process.
I travelled extensively throughout the summer. I talked to
people from different parts of the country. I was asking them
about this government's consultation process. Lo and behold I
found out that people are invited to meetings, but they get
responses like “Sorry you cannot make it in the middle of the
week because you have a job” or “It is too bad it is snowing.
There is a storm, but the meeting has to take place anyway”. A
lot of questions were raised over the summer that made me believe
people do not have a lot of faith in the consultative process of
this government.
We appreciate the amount of work done by the Secretary of State
for Parks, his officials and staff in preparing this bill. The
senior minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, really cares
about parks. Banff is probably a good example. She makes
comments here and there in her travels. She has travelled
extensively on the issue. I assume that is why she travels all
over the world. During the first six months of this year she
must have been preparing herself and her department. The
minister must have thought it so important that she and her staff
used one of the Department of National Defence Challenger jets.
On February 6 and February 7 the heritage minister travelled by
Challenger corporate jet from Ottawa to Charlottetown and back at
a cited cost of $7,439 and at an extended cost of $31,933. The
cited cost is what National Defence gives as a cost apart from
all the overhead and capital costs of maintaining the jet. The
extended cost takes into account maintenance, salaries, overhead
and other expenses.
On February 12 and February 13 the heritage minister travelled
by Challenger jet from Ottawa to Winnipeg and back at a cited
cost of $26,000 and at an extended cost of about $54,474.
On March 25 and March 26 the heritage minister, or should I say
the minister of Challenger jets, travelled from Ottawa to that
great national park of Toronto at a cited cost of $4,157 and at
an extended cost of $17,845.
On May 1 through May 4 the Challenger jet minister travelled
from Ottawa to Hamilton to see the hockey coliseum of the famous
name. She went on to Barbados, to Recife in Brazil, back to
Barbados and back to Ottawa. This little fact finding tour set
taxpayers back a cited cost of $45,510 and an extended cost of
$195,354.
I am doing this to show that we need more accountability and
more credibility from the minister of heritage.
On May 9 the minister travelled from Ottawa to Yarmouth, to
Greenwood and back at a cited cost of $7,658 and at an extended
cost of—
1355
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if the Chair feels that the words being
expressed now by the hon. member have anything to do with the
topic of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. member for
Dauphin—Swan River will want to ensure that his remarks are
relevant to the bill. I think he is attempting to draw them into
the bill and I am sure he will do that in the course of his
remarks. I would invite him to do that as he proceeds.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I am
trying to connect the bill with the minister. We are talking
about credibility. We are talking about the government side
wanting the opposition benches to believe in the information
presented in the bill. I am saying, let us first look at the
credibility of the department before I lead into the bill. I
certainly will be addressing the bill as soon as I go through
this short exercise.
From May 14 to May 17 the minister travelled, the jet set again,
from Ottawa to Cork, on to Tunis and Santa Maria and then back to
Ottawa. That jaunt around the neighbourhood cost Canadians a
cited cost of about $43,979 and an extended cost of $188,779.
Ironically, the parks are crying about funds. They cannot find
enough funds to operate our national parks. Here we have a
minister basically travelling around the world.
On June 5 the minister winged her way to St. Catharines at a
cited cost of $3,720 and at an extended cost of $15,966.
On June 7 and June 8 the minister found her way to Calgary by
Challenger, the western hub of air travel, at a cited cost of
$16,629 and at an extended cost of $71,379.
On June 18 the Challenger minister found her way to Winnipeg, in
the best province of Canada, at a cited cost of $10,940 and at an
extended cost of $46,960.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but I believe it is time to proceed with Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the good
work of the Alberta provincial government and Canada's rail
industry.
Premier Ralph Klein and transportation minister Walter
Paszkowski have helped to make Alberta the railroad nerve centre
of North America. Balanced budgets, low taxes and skilled
labour, that is the Alberta advantage and it is working for the
rail industry.
Canadian National announced today the opening of its new network
operation centre in Edmonton, building on its long and proud
history in the city I call home. Canadian Pacific continues to
provide quality national railroad services from its headquarters
in Calgary. RaiLink is Canada's third largest and fastest
growing short railroad with its operations based in my riding of
Edmonton—Strathcona.
With the Alberta advantage and competitive and innovative rail
industry, it is time for the federal government to do its part so
Canada can be on track for the future.
* * *
PARLIAMENTARIANS ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on
Population and Development celebrated its first anniversary with
a forum focused on adolescent reproductive health and children's
nutrition.
The purpose of the forum was to raise the awareness of
parliamentarians on this important issue. Panellists from CIDA,
UNFPA, UNICEF and others shared their expertise on the subject.
Young people will account for one billion of the world's
population by mid-1999. These teenagers will be of reproductive
age, yet many will not learn about sexual health. Without
information they are at risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases such as HIV-AIDS. Every year over 7.5
million children around the world die due to poor maternal health
and inadequate nutrition.
I call upon all of my colleagues to support the principles of
the ICPD, an advocate for education on adolescent reproductive
health.
* * *
1400
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
month of October is a month of recognition and education. It is
Women's History Month in Canada, a time to celebrate the
accomplishments of women throughout Canadian history.
It is an opportunity to learn from the past and to encourage
women of the present and future to get involved in the
development of Canadian society. The federal theme for Women's
History Month has ranged over the past seven years from women's
education to women in technology and their role in history. This
year the theme focuses on the business of women and their ever
evolving role.
In 1882 E. Cora Hind taught herself how to type. She then
entered a male dominated profession and made a place for herself
in the journalistic world.
In the 1920s Dr. Elsie MacGill was the first woman to get a
degree at the University of Toronto and at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. She was also the first woman to design,
patent and test an airplane and was a friend of my mother's.
They are just two Canadian women who faced these challenges and
overcame them. I am proud to rise and express the government's
commitment in celebrating their achievements and the achievements
of all women.
* * *
SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I spoke with Dr. Kevin Forkheim from Mission Control
in Cape Canaveral who was anxiously awaiting the launch of the
space shuttle Discovery.
Dr. Forkheim, a resident of Saanich—Gulf Islands, is a 27 year
old graduate student at UBC who has had his research project
chosen by NASA to be part of the shuttle mission. Dr. Forkheim's
research will prove invaluable in the fight against osteoporosis,
a degenerative bone disease common in the aging population.
The occasion also marks the first ever joint space project
between Canada and Israel. Dr. Forkheim is very excited about
his rare and prestigious honour. Canada can be proud of Dr.
Forkheim's achievements and his continuing goal to counteract the
negative effects of aging.
It is my pleasure to salute Dr. Forkheim and to wish him well in
this and future achievements, whether they be deep in the
vastness of space or at home in British Columbia.
Canada can stand proud today.
* * *
THEATRE COLLINGWOOD
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Theatre Collingwood is a non-profit organization dedicated to the
performing arts.
Since its incorporation in 1984, Theatre Collingwood has been a
major contributor to the arts community in my riding of
Simcoe—Grey. The performing arts have long been recognized as
an important industry in Canada.
As a non-profit organization Theatre Collingwood relies on the
revenue from ticket sales, fundraising and corporate support to
reach its financial and artistic goals. One of its fundraising
efforts is scheduled for tomorrow evening as it will be hosting a
masquerade ball. The evening is going to be filled with fun and
revelry.
Theatre Collingwood is thriving. Over 4,000 seats were filled
by enthusiastic patrons during the 21 performances produced this
summer. Next summer's productions will be even more successful.
On behalf of the participants I would like to invite the Prime
Minister, my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, to attend a great
evening in Collingwood either tomorrow night or next year.
The Speaker: I am going to book that.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois leader came out with quite a comment yesterday “A
vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum”. His boss in Quebec
must be very proud of him.
For weeks now, Premier Bouchard has been wriggling out of saying
that his government will hold a referendum during a future term
of office.
What a momentous statement by the Bloc Quebecois. The
sovereignists can now thank the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for
finally letting the cat out of the bag.
Because of his sincerity and sense of direction, everyone is now
on the same wavelength.
A vote for the PQ is a vote for a referendum, and therefore a
vote to throw Quebec into uncertainty once more.
* * *
[English]
SPACE SHUTTLE DISCOVERY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
students from the city of Calgary will share an historic
experience with U.S. Senator John Glenn when the famous astronaut
is launched into space today. The signatures of 500 Calgary
students will accompany Senator Glenn on the space shuttle
Discovery.
Today students from G. W. Skene Community School, James Short
Memorial Elementary School and Saint Peter Elementary School are
thrilled to be part of space history. These young Calgarians are
taking part in the Student Signatures in Space Program. It is
not inconceivable that some of the students watching today will
find themselves on a space mission one day.
I would like to thank the Penbrooke Community Association and
the Penbrooke Boys and Girls Club for their support of this
initiative and congratulate the students of Calgary for being
part of this historic event. I say well done to those boys and
girls.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are nervous these
days. Since yesterday, we know where the sovereignists stand. If
the Parti Quebecois is reelected, there will be a referendum on
the future of Quebec.
That is what it boils down to, despite the Quebec premier's
hesitations and backtracking on whether or not he would hold a
referendum. The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, for his part,
could not have made it clearer. Yes, if a sovereignist
government is elected, Quebeckers will once again be called upon
to decide their future in a referendum.
Now we know, and so do the people of Quebec: a vote for the PQ
is a vote for a referendum.
* * *
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois enlightened us: a vote for the PQ
is a vote for a referendum. Finally, Quebeckers now know what
to expect. A vote for the PQ is a vote for the separation of
Quebec.
The people of Quebec will have a golden opportunity, on November
30, to make clear their support for a united Canada and a
stronger Quebec. Quebec will choose the real priorities when it
opts in favour of continuing its dialogue with Canada. It will
have an opportunity to vote in support of its values of
belonging, of sharing and of openness, elements of its Canadian
and Quebec identity.
We thank the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who brought the real
issue of the upcoming election to light. On November 30, let's
vote for a stronger Quebec.
Let's vote Liberal.
* * *
SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by reducing
Quebec's traditional demands to a shopping list and by claiming
they can be met in his general store, the senior manager has
shown his utter scorn for Quebec.
I would remind the Prime Minister that his government continues
to reject the legitimate demands of Quebec, which wants to
withdraw with full compensation from the national child tax
benefit program. This same government continues to refuse to
allow Quebec to use the money allocated for parental leave.
The senior manager heaps further scorn by preparing to sell off
products he has no license to sell, in family matters, for
example, by sponsoring a conference on childhood related
problems in an area of jurisdiction that is Quebec's alone.
Out of concern for Quebeckers, the Bloc rejects the moves by
this senior manager, who is using parents and children to defeat
family policy in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, during Women's History Month we are paying tribute to
women who have worked to improve the lives of women and of all
Canadians, women who have been pioneers in their fields and who
opened doors for the women who came after them.
At a women's career day at Malcolm Munroe Junior High School in
Sydney River I was reminded of the progress women have made. The
women who spoke ranged from an archaeologist to an RCMP officer,
jobs which not so long ago were closed to women.
These victories have come through the efforts of millions of
faceless women who have stayed at home in their roles as wives
and mothers. We are removing some of the barriers which used to
restrict women. Seventeen years ago women and labour activists
had to strike for maternity leave. Today it is becoming our
right.
Women's History Month is a time to recognize those who have kept
up the fight for equality in the face of tremendous odds. For 14
years the federal government has done everything it can to delay
or prevent a fair pay equity settlement. Women in the public
service have refused to give up.
* * *
[Translation]
GROUP OF PARLIAMENTARY FRIENDS OF UNESCO
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at an organization meeting held yesterday, 75 Canadian
parliamentarians from all the political parties represented in
both Houses set up a group of parliamentary friends of UNESCO.
This main objectives of this new parliamentary friendship group
are to provide its members with more information on UNESCO
programs throughout the world, particularly those that relate to
North American realities, and to support Canada's participation
in UNESCO, which includes taking part in the activities of the
Canadian Commission for UNESCO.
The parliamentary group appointed an executive made up of eight
members of Parliament and three senators.
As chair of this new parliamentary friendship group, I am
pleased to see the strong interest generated among our
colleagues by this UNESCO contact group. We will now develop a
plan of action to support UNESCO's major commitments in the
areas of education, culture and science.
* * *
1410
[English]
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
April 23 I was present with Premier Tobin and other dignitaries
celebrating the start-up of the St. John's Harbour clean-up. At
that time $4.5 million had been committed, one-third each by the
municipal, provincial and federal governments involved. At that
ceremony Premier Tobin announced the commitment of the provincial
and municipal shares to the next phase of the project.
Noticeably missing on the platform that day was the minister of
the federal cabinet. Also missing from the speeches was a
further federal commitment to the project which, when completed,
will have cost in excess of $140 million.
St. John's is one of Canada's 11 capital cities. If the federal
government can spend $78 million a year keeping Ottawa beautiful,
surely it can also help keep the other capitals clean and
beautiful.
Today I call upon the federal government and the minister for
Newfoundland to make funding available for the St. John's Harbour
clean-up.
* * *
SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
October 25 to 31 is Small Business Week in Canada. Small
business represents one of our most important areas of economic
activity. In fact small business is responsible for 43% of
private sector output.
Small business is also a major job creator. More than 50% of
private sector employment comes from small business. In the past
year 430,000 new jobs have been created. Over 70% of these jobs
were created by small business.
The federal government has an important role to play in
supporting small business in Canada. Across the country we have
set up Canada community investment plans, held local small
business info fairs, opened one stop shop business service
centres and supported projects under the industrial research
assistance program.
These programs support the small business people and
entrepreneurs who create economic growth and jobs in Canada. I
salute them for their efforts.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to tell the House and the
Canadian people about the beginnings of a new grassroots
organization. The purpose of this organization is to enhance
democracy, the cornerstone of any society where all members are
treated equitably.
These people see their elected officials abusing their
authority, conducting elections with serious irregularities and
becoming wealthy on moneys that were meant to be equally shared
in the community. I am talking about the First Nations
Accountability Coalition of Manitoba which is associated with
like organizations in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
On October 31 the coalition will be holding its first national
grassroots accountability summit in Winnipeg, Manitoba. As host
of this summit I invite everyone who is interested in aboriginal
affairs to attend.
If this group is successful in effecting change, today's
generation of aboriginal children along with future generations
will be the main beneficiaries.
* * *
[Translation]
CAMILLE LAURIN
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great personal emotion, and from a historical perspective, that
I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Camille Laurin, who just
announced that he was leaving public life for health reasons.
A page of history was written by the one who was called the
“father of Bill 101”, or Quebec's charter of the French
language.
We can never truly measure the energy, perseverance,
receptiveness and generosity displayed by Dr. Laurin in
achieving this resounding success in spite of numerous efforts
made to downplay, if not destroy, his achievement.
Quebeckers of all political stripes recognize the courage—motivated
by a deep love for his people—of this humanist, who
always managed to maintain very good relations with his fellow
citizens.
As editorial writer Murray Maltais points out in today's edition
of Le Droit, “Today's Quebec society owes 101 thanks to Dr.
Laurin”.
* * *
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today over 100 railway industry representatives have
been meeting with MPs, senators and officials to discuss issues
vital to the Canadian economy.
Canada's railways play a vital role in the country's economy.
Some 40% of the nation's efforts depend on safe and efficient
rail transportation.
Today Canada's railways represent a combined investment of more
than $12 billion in track, roadway, facilities and equipment. In
addition to 46,000 railway employees, some 30,000 workers in
communities across Canada are employed directly or indirectly by
those companies which supply the rail industry.
1415
I would encourage all members to meet with the representatives
at a reception this afternoon in room 200 in the West Block
beginning a 5 p.m.
* * *
FRED GILLIES
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding volunteer
efforts of Mr. Fred Gillies.
Mr. Gillies lives in Minden, Ontario which is located in the
beautiful riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. Fred was part
of the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business organization.
This organization is part of Canada's effort to stimulate
development in disadvantaged economies. Last year this
organization provided almost 23,000 days of service valued at $8
million.
Fred, accompanied by his wife Goldie, spent 12 weeks in
Georgetown, Guyana assisting proprietors of a specialty food
processing company. Fred trained quality control personnel in
microbiology and employees in sanitation procedures and
processing techniques.
Thanks to Fred Gillies, disadvantaged countries can gain the
tools needed to be successful. Great job, Fred.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister would have Canadians bow and scrape before him
because he has tinkered over the last while with employment
insurance premiums.
However, he knows that insurance premiums are still way too high
and the average Canadian worker is paying $350 per worker per
year too much. The average business is paying $500 a year too
much every single year.
The Prime Minister knows it is against the law to use this in
general revenue. The Employment Insurance Act states this.
Canadians and I want to know from the Prime Minister why he is
planning to skim the employment insurance fund when the law
states that he is not allowed to do it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since our first budget, our policy has been to reduce
the EI premium. We did not follow the advice of Reform Party
members who were telling us at that time to use the surplus to
reduce the deficit.
Despite our deficit, we reduced EI premiums every year in a
systematic, reasonable and responsible way.
The EI surpluses have come into the government's consolidated
revenue fund since the time the auditor general asked—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am certainly glad the Prime Minister wants to listen to the
auditor general. The auditor general says that it is illegal,
and he will report to parliament that it is illegal, to use the
employment insurance funds for general revenue. He says that
money has to be used for insurance reasons and if it is not he
will report it as illegal.
The auditor for the EI fund says that it is wrong to use the
funds this way. The auditor general says it is illegal to use
the funds this way. Why is the Prime Minister going to use the
EI funds illegally when Canadians deserve a break and deserve it
today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised to hear the auditor general say that it
is illegal to do what his predecessor asked the previous
government to do. We will wait for the report.
We have a policy of not listening to Reform members because they
always change their policy. When we first used the money to
reduce the premiums, they wanted us to use the surplus to reduce
the deficit.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what the Reform Party has said is that those premiums and those
benefits belong to Canadian workers and Canadian businesses and
that the Prime Minister should keep his claws off them. Every
single paycheque workers have EI reductions which amount to $350
a year. This is too much taken from their paycheques. Every year
businesses have $500 in deductions. This is too much taken off
those paycheques.
Organized labour and the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business want a cut in employment insurance premiums.
Why does the Prime Minister not quit breaking the law and give a
break to businesses and Canadian workers who deserve a break
today?
The Speaker: Colleagues, the word “illegal” was a bit
close but “breaking the law” I think is over the line. I would
prefer that we not use it anymore.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the other hand, we have BCNI and other business
organizations telling us that rather than reducing the EI
premiums we should give a tax reduction to the public. They are
telling us that rather than deducting money for corporations, it
would be better deduct money for the employees.
1420
We are listening to representations from everybody. One thing is
for sure. In the last five years we did not follow the advice of
the Reform Party. We did not use the EI surplus to reduce the
deficit. We have used it to reduce the premiums.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Prime Minister, this man of great deception—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw those last
few words.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw with respect.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the fact is no matter what
the Prime Minister says and no matter what kind of rosy picture
he paints, workers are being looted $350 a year out of their
pockets.
Why does the Prime Minister rank spending almost $3 billion for
a personal millennium monument higher than giving workers $350 a
year to buy school supplies and snow boots for their kids?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think there will be a lot, of the 100,000
students, who will be receiving in the next 10 years a bursary
from this government because of the millennium scholarship
program who will think that we have not acted in the best
interests of preparing the young people of Canada to be best
equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, 5% of Canadian post-secondary students are far more
important than millions of Canadian children.
Canadian workers need a break. The Liberals have taxed away
155% of any wage gains they have had in the last five years.
Now they want to take another $350 a year from their EI surplus.
Will the Prime Minister give Canadian workers a raise by letting
them keep their money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said and I repeat the Reform Party was asking us not
to reduce the premiums but use the money to reduce the deficit
and eventually the debt.
As usual it has changed its position. What is unbelievable is
that when we are preoccupied with making sure the young people of
tomorrow will be able to earn a good living because of good
education, I note with pleasure the Reform Party is opposed to
that.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN QUEBEC
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend, the Prime Minister said that he had met all Quebec's
traditional demands.
Then, the day before yesterday, he did a complete about-face,
opened up the door to the general store and said that, if
Quebeckers voted for Jean Charest, he might have some
constitutional amendments to offer them.
How does the Prime Minister explain that his recent message of
support for Quebec's Liberal Party has apparently not reached
Jean Charest, who this morning was calling for the Prime
Minister to change his attitude or quit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I like is that, since yesterday, when the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and I said we had made changes, the
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the Leader of the Parti
Quebecois have been taking the credit. The same people who say
we are not making any changes are now taking the credit.
What is good about this election campaign is that finally the
truth is coming out. Yesterday, the Leader of the Bloc
Quebecois said that a vote for the PQ was a vote for a future
referendum in Quebec. Quebeckers are glad to see that the old
tricks are over and the truth is coming to light.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
said that there would be a winning referendum because there will
be winning conditions and because the PQ will win the election.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1425
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois has the
floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, after the election, Canadians
will realize that the Prime Minister is once again deluding
himself with his predictions that sovereignty is headed nowhere.
It is not the old tricks that will disappear, it is this Prime
Minister.
The Prime Minister may well brag about everything he has done
for Quebec, yet even his ally, Jean Charest, is calling for him
to quit. He has had enough too. What does the Prime Minister
make of that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad that an election has been called, because now the truth
will begin to come out. Yesterday, he talked about a
referendum, but now he says only if the conditions are right.
If Quebeckers truly want to have winning conditions in order to
have the wishes they have expressed in the last two referendums
respected, in order to bring about real changes, they should
vote for a Liberal government that wants to remain in Canada and
not for a party that wants Quebec to separate.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has a serious problem.
His ally in Quebec, his protégé
Jean Charest, the one all the ministers want to canvas for, the
one the Prime Minister again yesterday described as reasonable,
wants him to adapt or leave. What has he to say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the Prime Minister has to say is that he, in this House,
had a resolution passed on distinct society, which the members
of the Bloc Quebecois opposed.
We had a law passed in parliament giving a veto to all the
regions in Canada, including Quebec, and the Bloc Quebecois
opposed it.
Each time we have made changes in order to improve things for
all Quebeckers who want to remain Canadian, the Parti Quebecois
has opposed a true presence for Quebeckers within Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's memory is fragile. Not even Jean Charest came to
vote for his empty resolution.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: We have a Prime Minister who says he has
met Quebec's demands. He has just said so again. Then we have
Jean Charest, his ally, who says, on the front page of the Globe
and Mail, that if the Prime Minister blocks change, he must
leave. The two of them are contradicting each other.
Who is really speaking for the federalists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are the ones making the changes. For 30 years we had
problems with manpower in Canada. Who managed to resolve this
problem? Our government.
An hon. member: It was the PQ.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Quebec, for 30 years, wanted to
resolve the problem in education, which required a
constitutional amendment. Who helped Quebec resolve this
problem by changing the Constitution? It was the federal
Liberal Party, here, in parliament.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadian farmers are in crisis. Prices are down, input costs
are up and droughts are taking their toll. U.S. farmers have
just received $6 billion in additional farm aid. European
farmers are getting twice the support of Canadian farmers but
this government has cut agricultural support by two thirds.
Lloyd Pletz, a Saskatchewan farmer, says “I'm finished in the
spring. I've got no way to hang on”. Has the Prime Minister
nothing to say to Lloyd Pletz and other farm families like his?
1430
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had continuing discussions with
the farm leaders over the years and the provincial governments.
We have put in place a very thorough safety net system in the
country.
At the present time we are reviewing that. I have called a
meeting of the key farm leaders and the provincial agriculture
ministers for next week to discuss where we are and the
management tools that are there and how we might better use them
to address this serious situation of the Canadian farm income.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is
a crisis. We are talking about a crisis and in a crisis
Americans do not just talk, they put their money where their
mouths are. Congress has just approved $6 billion more for
emergency farm aid while this government says to Canadian farmers
“You are on your own”.
When will this government ensure a level playing field for
Canadian farmers? When will this government begin to respond to
the serious crisis on Canadian farms?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working with Canadian
farmers to get prepared for this unfortunate circumstance that
happens periodically in commodity prices throughout the world.
It is interesting and I might inform the hon. member that the
United States Department of Agriculture has been and continues to
be in Canada to look at the system we have put in place for our
farmers so that they would not have to do what they are doing now
when the situation gets like it is.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister says that pilots who are not comfortable flying
Labradors have been told they do not have to. But retired
Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Hopping, a former Labrador pilot and
CFB Greenwood base commander, said “It is very difficult as a
member of an air crew team to say no, I won't launch an
operational mission to save someone's life. What a terrible
position to put a professional pilot in”.
How can the minister put these pilots in that position? If one
of them gets hurt flying the aging Labradors before the final
report comes in as to what happened with that Labrador crash in
Quebec, will he accept full responsibility for it?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety of our
aircraft and our crews as well as the safety of Canadians is our
utmost concern.
We will not fly unsafe aircraft. Air crews will not be forced
to fly the Labrador. We are sensitive to their concerns. If
personnel are not comfortable with flying the Labrador
helicopters, they will not be forced to do so.
We are developing plans to bring in substitute crews if
necessary to conduct the missions of any search and rescue
squadrons whose crews are anxious about flying the Labrador.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, they are
going to put substitute crews in but you are not bringing in the
new helicopters. You are not bringing in the helicopters that
were offered to you from the United States.
The Speaker: The member must direct her question through
the Speaker.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Colonel Mike
Dorey, the current base commander at CFB Greenwood says “There
is still the perception that everybody else is flying. There is a
perceived pressure to get back flying”.
The defence minister said on Tuesday that Canada has other
aircraft to do search and rescue. Why then is the minister
willing to put lives at risk by returning the Labradors to active
duty when the cause of that crash is not yet known?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, even if the cause of
the crash is not known, there is no positive evidence to support
a finding of any systematic failure in the Labrador fleet.
The responsibility to provide Canadians with effective search
and rescue and the need for our air crews to maintain their
skills is at a safe level.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Defence Policy Review magazine is reporting that
Brigadier General Walter Holmes, the military's central area land
forces commander, told a meeting last weekend that the army is
running a budgetary shortfall of $170 million. It is impossible
for the military to operate even on the budget it has been given.
My question for the defence minister is, how much of this
shortfall is a result of excessive government cutbacks?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of
National Defence, like all other government departments, has
experienced significant budget reductions throughout this decade
as a result of the government's commitment to fiscal restraint.
1435
These reductions have had an impact on all budgets within the
department, including that of land forces. This has meant that
all elements of the Canadian forces and the department have faced
significant funding pressures and have been required to reduce
expenditures to match available funding.
As part of the overall resource planning process within the
department, we aim to achieve a better balance between programs
and resources.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem gets worse. Brigadier General Holmes also said that
the overall national defence budgetary shortfall for the next
fiscal year will amount to $1 billion.
In my way of thinking, the minister has a choice to make. He
can commit the necessary resources for a combat capable defence
force, or he can tear the heart out of the Canadian military even
further with manpower cuts. Which is it going to be?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the
comments from the member across the way. Everybody knows we
tabled our report yesterday in the House of Commons. The—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, in the report tabled yesterday
in the House, we made a lot of recommendations in order to
improve the living conditions of our armed forces.
What I do not understand with the Reform Party is that, in their
famous report, they wanted to cut $1 billion from the national
defence budget and here they are today telling us to increase
spending.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
government's constitutional track record is assessed very
differently depending on who makes the assessment: the Prime
Minister or the Liberal leader in Quebec. One says that all of
Quebec's demands have been met, while the other maintains that
everything remains to be done.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what message his ministers will
convey to Quebec voters when they go door to door: that all of
Quebec's demands have been met or that everything remains to be
done?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear
that, in the past few years, the agent of change in Canada and
Quebec has been the federal government.
Indeed, the federal government passed a resolution recognizing
distinct society and gave back to Quebec the veto the PQ was
responsible for losing. Finally, people in Quebec will have a
real choice: the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois, which plan to hold
yet another referendum that will surely kill investment and
economic growth, or the Quebec Liberal Party, which stands for
economic growth and job creation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that the hon. member believes his own words.
Federalist spokespersons in Quebec say that the Prime Minister
must change or quit. Is it not disturbing to see that even his
federalist allies in Quebec are prepared to let him down?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who
have betrayed Quebeckers' confidence in recent years are clearly
the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ, which would have Quebeckers
believe that they have generated economic growth, when in fact
all they have produced is more unemployment and fewer
investments, precisely by doing what the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois mentioned yesterday.
They have been playing the referendum card. They are losing
their energy. They are misleading Quebeckers and consequently
hampering growth and job creation.
* * *
1440
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let me set the record straight for the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of National Defence. The Reform Party has always
advocated increased defence spending. Now, back to the question.
What choice will the Minister of National Defence make? He can
commit the necessary resources for a combat capable force to
cover the shortfall of $1 billion, or he can tear the heart out
further from the military by cutting back on manpower. What is
it going to be?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, something is not right
here. The Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. member's
boss said on February 25, 1998 that Reform's alternative budget
plan calls for holding the line on government spending for three
years while dedicating the entire budget surplus to lowering the
debt and tax relief. Which is it going to be?
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
should get his facts straight and maybe hire a new researcher.
His man does not know what he is talking about. The parliamentary
secretary is lying.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Calgary
Northeast to withdraw those words.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those words.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his
question.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National
Defence has a choice to make. He can either tear the heart out
of the military further by reducing manpower, or commit the
appropriate resources for a combat capable force. Which is it
going to be?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position
has always been to have a very competent army that was combat
capable. That is what we want and that is what we will continue
to strive for.
* * *
1445
QUEBEC ELECTION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the federalist forces in Quebec noted that the Prime Minister's
one-step-at-a-time strategy is completely unacceptable and
ineffective.
Has the Prime Minister's very credibility not suffered a blow
when the rest of Canada realizes today that even Quebec's
federalists want nothing to do with him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
were successful at having a resolution on distinct society
passed, establishing a veto for the regions, resolving the
manpower problem, resolving the problem of Quebec's school
system by means of a constitutional amendment, and clarifying
the situation with respect to mining, forestry, tourism and
other areas.
We have made much progress. There are far fewer disagreements
between the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party and myself than
there are between the member for Roberval and the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not
think the Prime Minister would drag out the resolutions again.
I remind him that even Jean Charest, a former federal member of
parliament, preferred to be away from the House partying rather
than have to vote on these resolutions the Prime Minister is
boasting about. That is the fact of the matter.
Given the turn events are taking between the Prime Minister and
the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, does the Prime Minister
not find himself in a paradoxical situation promising us four
years of bliss with his friend Mr. Charest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are making considerable progress. That is why I am happy.
We see that Mr. Parizeau, who is back, told Mr. Bouchard that
what was needed was a clear, not an ambiguous, question. That
is what we are calling for.
We want people to know very clearly that the Bloc Quebecois and
the Parti Quebecois want to hold a referendum, whereas two
thirds of Quebeckers are opposed, because they know that a
referendum is bad for economic growth and employment, and means
less revenue to put towards health and education.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are
new allegations about the paper shredders working overtime at the
health protection branch. This time it is over the controversial
milk drug BST. After all of the other foul-ups at Health Canada,
what are they trying to cover up now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am aware that that complaint has been made. I understand that
the information commissioner is looking into the matter. I am
told the deputy minister has instructed the staff of the
department to co-operate in every way. I am sure that the
information commissioner will get to the bottom of it.
I might add that these are serious allegations. If they are
proven to be true, then there will be steps taken that are
appropriate.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it started
with shredded documents over tainted blood. Now we have
allegations about shredded documents over tainted milk.
There is rot in the health protection branch. It is
interesting, is it not?
What is it about this health minister that wherever he goes, in
justice or in health, incompetence just seems to follow him
around?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the public into
thinking that BST has been approved in Canada. It has not been
approved in Canada. It may have been approved in the United
States, but in this country we take our time to examine an
application for approval. BST will not be approved in this
country unless and until it is proven to be safe. We have been
looking at it for nine years. We are looking at it very
carefully. We will not approve BST in this country unless we are
satisfied it is safe for use.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
DATURA STRAMONIUM
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a potentially
deadly hallucinogenic fruit was recently introduced on the black
market. In the past month, Quebec's poison control centre
recorded about 45 cases where people had to be hospitalized.
Will the Minister of Health act quickly to prohibit the sale of
datura stramonium?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first
want to thank the hon. member and her colleagues for raising
this issue yesterday. I raised the issue with my department and
I can tell you that we are considering measures to prevent this
problem on our city streets. I hope to soon be able to provide a
more detailed reply.
* * *
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canada Post
Corporation.
How does Canada Post use its network of rural post offices to
provide more services to Canadians living in rural areas and to
contribute to the future strength of Canada's rural communities?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is at the crossroads
of our rural communities and it will not only continue to
provide traditional services to the public, but also introduce
government services, thanks to the new technology. For example,
we are currently setting up DHRD employment and training
information booths, in Quebec and in Newfoundland, and we will
soon be announcing other additional services throughout the
country, to serve Canadians wherever they live.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
drug problem in the lower mainland of British Columbia is out of
control.
Crack cocaine pushers have been busted in Vancouver. They have
moved down into Burnaby and now they are in New Westminster and
crossing the Fraser River into my constituency of Surrey North.
The Surrey RCMP tell me that due to underfunding they have
neither the resources nor the manpower to meet this onslaught.
What is this government going to do about the drug pushers; not
the addicts, the pushers?
Will it restore RCMP funding, put the handcuffs on the drug
dealers and take the handcuffs off the RCMP?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.
Very specifically, we are working, as I have said many times, on
organized crime. It is the law enforcement priority of this
government. As it happens, we are meeting with the attorney
general of British Columbia tomorrow on this very subject.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in my riding there is a standoff between
police and drug dealers.
Children as young as 11 years old are selling drugs. The
government says that it is just a police problem, yet the
solicitor general has cut police funding. The evidence of
government failure is right on the streets of my riding.
When will the government act? Will it restore police funding,
stop the drugs and not the police?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps if the member had listened to the previous
answer he would understand that organized crime and drugs are the
law enforcement priorities of this government.
We are meeting tomorrow with the attorney general of British
Columbia and other attorneys general and solicitors general on
this very subject.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The minister will know that in 1993 Canada agreed to reduce its
subsidies under the WTO by 20% over six years, but instead of
doing that we gutted our farm support program by more than 60% in
that period of time.
The result is that U.S. wheat farmers now receive five times
more in subsidies than Canadian farmers, making it impossible for
our farmers to compete.
When is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food going to admit
that there is an honest to goodness crisis on many farms in this
country and announce a new emergency relief program?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that particular member
cannot get his facts straight. He tries to do that in other
areas.
The work that was done on the WTO, the World Trade Organization,
which reduced a number of tariffs to 85%, referred specifically
to our supply managed area. In the other areas we worked in
conjunction with the industry.
1455
As I said earlier today and many times in this House, we worked
with them to put a safety net program in place. There is one.
We are reviewing it at the present time. I am meeting with the
industry. I am meeting with my provincial counterparts. We will
work to get—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government got suckered by Europe and the
Americans at the international trade talks. They raced right
home to chop farm subsidies and the Crow rate while the Europeans
and Americans chopped nothing.
This government's gullibility would be laughable if the
consequences were not so serious for our farmers. European
parliamentarians told me there was no way they were sacrificing
their farmers.
Why is this government sacrificing our farmers? Why is it
hanging Canadian farmers out to dry?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact that is not
right. As a government we have begun consultations with all of
our farmers across the country to make sure that we have a very
strong independent position when we go to the new talks coming
up.
The hon. member should know coming from western Canada that the
Canadian government has well represented the farmers of western
Canada on the trade front.
* * *
HEALTH CANADA
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
only line of defence the health minister has for what has been
going on in the health protection branch is that BST has not yet
been approved. “Don't worry”.
Unfortunately, when the government says “Don't worry” it
always sweeps it under the rug. In this case, the government
swept it into the shredder. The minister obviously misses the
point. The point is about public disclosure.
Why is the minister allowing the approval process to be tainted
with the destruction of information in his department? Or are
those orders coming from the top?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the member did not hear my earlier response when I said
that it is true a complaint has been made. I think in fact it
was a Tory staffer in the Senate who made the complaint to which
the member has referred.
The information commissioner is looking into it. The deputy
minister has instructed the department to co-operate fully.
Therefore, matters will be clarified in due course.
I also stress that this is a very serious allegation. If
indeed it is substantiated, then I assure the House that
appropriate steps will be taken.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this is indeed a very serious matter. It is like shutting the
barn door after the horse has run away when the deputy minister
now suggests that no documents be destroyed.
Monsanto has contacted departmental officials with concerns that
the Senate committee disclosed confidential information. The
company has also commented on leaks of confidential information.
Is the minister taking matters into his own hands and making
sure Monsanto's information turns into dust?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure what that means but I can tell—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock: All the noise coming from the various
parts of the House tends to obscure a simple fact. All the noise
about inappropriate influences and pressures obscures the fact
that BST has been under study for nine years at Health Canada.
It has not been approved. BST will not be approved for use in
this country unless and until we are satisfied that it is safe
and appropriate for use in Canada.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On the recent visit of the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese,
reference was made to the excellent trade relations between
Canada and Ireland.
Can the minister tell us how important these investment and
trade links are to the Canadian economy?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the hon.
member is right. Trade relations between Ireland and Canada are
excellent.
In 1997, over 1996 figures, trade increased some 50%, reaching
$1.1 billion. High tech and other finished products are the
primary trade products, but there is room in many other areas.
I might add that Canada values its historic ties with Ireland
and values Ireland as a very important trading partner.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general's denial of any knowledge of the internal
RCMP report on pending charges is unbelievable. The RCMP
commissioner reports to the deputy solicitor general. Is he
saying his deputy kept him in the dark?
He did say that he had not seen the report. Let me be very
specific. Is he telling us that he had no knowledge of this
report, yes or no?
1500
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can say with great confidence I had no knowledge of
this report.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency,
Mr. Sekiya, Minister of Construction for Japan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as deputy opposition House leader today is my first question to
the government House leader. I am sure he will give me a good
answer and not disappoint me.
What is the agenda of the House for next week and the remainder
of this week that Canadians should be looking forward to?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to answer the question
generally, Canadians will look forward to the entire legislative
package of the government, but more specifically today we hope to
complete the second reading of Bill C-48, the marine parks bill.
If there is any time left this afternoon and continuing Friday
and Monday, we will return to measures on which debate has begun
but is not yet completed. We will take up these items in the
following order: Bill C-54, respecting electronic exchanges of
information; Bill C-48 if it is not completed today; Bill C-49,
the first nations land bill and adding if necessary Bill C-56,
the Manitoba surface rights bill. Next Tuesday shall be an
allotted day.
I will give the business to the conclusion of next week because
the week after we will not be sitting. Here is the order as can
be determined at the present time.
On Wednesday we expect to be in a position to consider the
report stage and third reading of Bill C-51 which amends the
Criminal Code. We shall then resume our list, bearing in mind
that if and when Bill C-37, the Judges Act amendment, is returned
from the other place, we would take up any amendments thereto at
the earliest opportunity.
Similarly, if Bill C-53, the small business bill, were to be
reported from committee, we would also give it priority over
other business listed earlier.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During question period the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence was reading
from two documents when he was answering questions from the
opposition. I would seek to have those documents tabled in the
House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that one of the documents
from which the hon. member was reading was the cabinet briefing
note to which parliamentary secretaries and ministers refer to
and which are not tabled in the House.
There was another document from which he was quoting. It was a
press release from the leader of the Reform Party. I will
endeavour to have that press release tabled forthwith, because I
know that all members will want to see very clearly the cutbacks
the Reform Party wanted to inflict upon the Canadian people.
The Deputy Speaker: I trust that settles the matter.
Given the undertaking of the government House leader, I assume
the point of order has been answered.
1505
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to
determine whether or not that was a briefing note through his
office. I seek to have both those documents on the table because
he was reading directly from both of them.
The Deputy Speaker: I think hon. members know that
documents of this sort are not normally tabled in the House. I
agree that if a member is reading from a document it should be
tabled. The government House leader indicated what the
parliamentary secretary referred to. I suppose it might be
helpful if the parliamentary secretary himself clarified the
position, but we have the word of the minister and I think that
should end the matter for the moment.
We will see what document is tabled as a result of the
undertaking given. If that is not satisfactory to the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast, I am sure he will raise the matter
again and we will hear from him at that time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an
act to respecting marine conservation areas, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prior to being interrupted by question period, I was giving
members of the House examples of irresponsibility on the part of
the minister in terms of how she travelled around the world and
around the country in Challenger jets.
Canada is hurting for financial support. Taxes are being raised
through people who use national parks to make up for the
government's shortfall. We just need to ask park employees about
the cuts in the maintenance schedules, programs and
infrastructure upgrades.
Here we have a minister who spends tonnes of money utilizing
corporate jets that are a lot more expensive than the way most
members in the House travel. I have said enough today about the
minister's travels and would like to move on.
I applaud the Secretary of State for Parks for having spoken to
many users of the parks system this summer. He does a good job,
but the problem is that there is very little linkage between his
efforts and those of the minister and the bureaucracy. I applaud
the secretary of state for doing his best to resolve problems.
The purpose of Bill C-48, the marine conservation areas act, is
to establish marine conservation areas and reserves under the
authority of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister
chiefly responsible for national parks.
I made comment earlier in my debate that the bill had no
business being under the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is
not about parks. It is about conservation areas. In principle
all Canadians believe that our ecosystems need protection on both
land and on water.
I would like to make a number of observations on the bill. It
is not properly a parks bill but an environmental bill. Bill
C-48 seems to be the Government of Canada's response to the
convention on biodiversity. The government signed the convention
on biodiversity in 1994 in the last parliament when the heritage
minister was the minister of the environment.
Although I was not a member in the last parliament, the voters
of Dauphin—Swan River very kindly sent me here in June 1997. I
understand the heritage minister did not have an easy time as
minister of the environment. I even heard that a minister of the
government had to resign because of her government's policy on
the GST.
I understand the minister had trouble getting along with her
counterparts in provincial governments. I heard that when the
heritage minister was the environment minister she got very
little done. I am not against a minister getting very little
done if a minister is trying to do the wrong things. It is
better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing.
I would like to know why the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
pushing a bill on the environment. Where is the current Minister
of the Environment? To paraphrase a great Chinese playwright,
“a rose by any other name is still a rose” and an environment
bill by any other name is still an environment bill, not a parks
bill.
With this bill the heritage minister expands her domain and
encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the
minister of environment, her old portfolio.
1510
The official opposition believes in balance. The official
opposition wants a balance in the management of the environment
to preserve biodiversity and to conserve the environment for the
enjoyment of all Canadians balanced with sustainable development.
The bill has not balanced these priorities in any way, shape or
form. Frankly the bill is preservationist.
The bill takes no account of future needs for development of
resources in a marine environment. The bill would even require
fishermen to seek and get special permission to carry on their
work in areas designated under the bill. The bill controls not
only the water but the air above the water and everything below
the water. The bill would require special licensing for
recreational activities and academic research in designated
areas.
Given that the designated areas would no longer be available for
sustainable resource development and given all the hoops through
which fishermen, recreational users and academic researchers
would have to jump, Canadians might assume that before the
heritage minister designated a marine conservation area the
minister would have to do so by amendment of the act with debate
at all stages in parliament.
A change in the use of marine territory should be fully reviewed
by parliament. However the heritage minister does not want a
full review by parliament. The minister has instructed her
officials to write what is known in legal circles as Henry VIII
clauses.
Henry VIII seems to have so shaped the minister's approach to
parliament that she has included three Henry VIII clauses. I
will have more to say on that if the bill passes second reading.
The heritage minister is already well aware of Henry VIII and his
attitude toward parliament. I am sure some members of parliament
will be interested to hear that. They will not be pleased,
however.
Henry VIII believed in the divine right of kings. His motto was
“God and my right”. Henry VIII did not like parliament since
it tended to get in the way of what he wanted. Whether it was
marrying wife number two, three or four or raising taxes, Henry
VIII did not want to be bothered with parliament and the House of
Commons. He looked for ways to side step parliament and its
authority to pass laws.
The minister has learned a lesson well from old Henry Tudor
about how to side step the proper law making authority of
parliament. We wish she would learn some lessons on democracy.
It is hard to learn anything these days about democratic rights
in the Liberal Party. The minister wants to side step the proper
role of parliament with the insertion of Henry VIII clauses that
allow the cabinet to amend the act more or less at will.
It is bad enough that the heritage minister is still trying to
be the environment minister. The minister's attitude toward
parliament is even worse. What is left? Too much, far too much.
Bill C-48 would shrink the federal crown territory available for
ordinary use or occupation, for resource exploration and for
extraction for dumping any substance. The bill requires specific
authorization by permit for any activity in the areas.
There is an old joke that goes something like this. How many
Canadians does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is one
but she has to have a licence. If there is one thing that makes
Canadians less competitive and lowers their standard of living it
is overregulation. The bill would create yet another layer of
regulation between Canadian resources and the ability of
Canadians to do research, to fish, to create tourist recreation
venues, and to engage in sustainable development of resources.
Bill C-48 seems to make clear there is not a regulation the
minister has seen but does not like. There is one thing I would
like to know. What is the minister telling the steel industry
situated in her riding on the edge of one of the largest marine
environments in North America? What is she telling the
steelworkers will keep their industry from being shut down? One
of her officials or a future heritage minister decided at whim
that the western end of Lake Ontario should become a marine
conservation area.
1515
Yet this is the kind of bill the heritage minister has brought
to this House. In fact, they have not scheduled any areas that
would become effective immediately. They basically took a big
swath of all the coastal areas east, west and north and all the
inland waters as well.
This bill fails to balance preservation of biodiversity with the
principle of sustainable development. This bill sidestepped the
proper role and authority of parliament. Even if there were not
problems with the bill on those counts, this bill is not properly
a parks bill, it is an environment bill.
Let me repeat very slowly for the heritage minister's benefit
she is no longer the minister of the environment. She should
stop trying to enact environmental legislation and should
withdraw this bill.
With that in mind I would like to propose the following reasoned
amendment which I believe you will find completely in order. I
move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, an act
respecting marine conservation areas, because the bill fails not
only to strike a proper balance between the preservation of
`bio-diversity' and sustainable development, but takes no account
of future sustainable development in designated marine
conservation areas.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak to my Reform colleague's amendment to Bill C-48, the
Marine Conservation Areas Act, at second reading.
Earlier in the week, I ran the Bloc Quebecois' draft amendment
by my Reform colleague, who was considering not moving an
amendment if ours suited him. Obviously, he changed his mind,
but our goal is basically the same: that the bill not be debated
at second reading.
The Bloc would have requested that the objectives of the bill be
referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
The Reform Party is taking a different approach by asking that
the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-48 as it does
not take into account a number of fundamental elements that the
Reform Party considers important.
So, let us take a closer look at this bill.
The purpose of the bill is to provide a legal framework for the
establishment and eventual development of 28 marine conservation
areas, including eight in Quebec, representing each of the
ecosystems identified to date in Quebec and Canada.
The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park is the 29th marine
conservation area, but this park is not included in this bill
because it is covered by ad hoc legislation both in Canada and
in Quebec.
1520
The bill before the House today, Bill C-48, is part of a
commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada at the 1996
convention of the World Conservation Union, held in Montreal.
For the benefit of the members of this House, I will digress to
say a few words about this World Conservation Union. It is an
organization representing 74 governments, 105 government
agencies and more than 700 NGOs.
It was founded in France in 1958 and will soon establish its
first permanent secretariat in Montreal, which is already home
to a number of international environmental agencies.
At its annual convention in 1996, as was the case in 1994, the
World Conservation Union passed resolutions asking all coastal
nations to put marine conservation measures in place quickly.
For its part, the UN decreed that 1998 was the year of the
oceans, and so exceptional acts were required in recognition of
this event.
The most significant initiatives—some of them should be
recalled—include, first: the world's fair in Lisbon, Portugal,
held from September 22 to 30, 1998, the last great international
exposition of the 20th century. This celebration coincided with
the 500th anniversary of the voyage to India of the great
Portuguese navigator Vasco de Gama and its theme was “The
Oceans, a heritage for the future”.
Second, we must take note of UNESCO's adoption of the ocean
charter. This charter was presented to the summit on the seas
held in St. John's, Newfoundland, in September 1997. The
document is not legally binding, but as we see in it at the
UNESCO web site, it is a statement of principle, a commitment to
undertake and continue co-operative efforts to preserve the
oceans and coastal regions.
In this context, the creation of marine conservation areas meets
an objective put forward in many international forums and
documents, such as the World Conservation Strategy, which
appeared in 1980, the report entitled “Caring for the Earth”,
which was released in 1991 and drafted by the World Conservation
Union, the UN program for the environment and the Worldwide Fund
for Nature, funded in part by the Government of Quebec.
It should therefore be very clear that the Bloc Quebecois
supports measures to protect the environment. I would remind
you that the Bloc Quebecois did not hesitate to support the
government when it proposed passing mirror legislation to create
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and to establish a legal
framework to ensure co-management by the two levels of government.
Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois knows that the Quebec government is
launching initiatives aimed at protecting the environment,
particularly the marine floor. The Quebec government is also
open to working in co-operation or in partnership with the
federal government, on any project designed to ensure or promote
the protection of the environment, as evidenced by the agreement
signed by the two governments on the third phase of the St.
Lawrence action plan.
However, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-48 for the
following reasons: first, instead of relying on dialogue, as in
the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, the federal
government wants to create marine conservation areas, regardless
of the fact that Quebec has jurisdiction over the protection of
its territory and of the environment.
Second, the Department of Canadian Heritage is proposing the
establishment of a new structure, the marine conservation areas,
that will duplicate the marine protected areas of the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada's protected
offshore areas.
In short, the federal government, which claims to have met all
of Quebec's demands, and which states in its Speech from the
Throne that it is putting an end to overlap and to interference
in areas of provincial jurisdiction, has now found a way to
divide itself into three components and to actually overlap
itself, so as to be absolutely certain to meddle, in one way or
another, in areas that come under the jurisdiction of Quebec and
the other provinces.
1525
Bill C-48 fails to respect the integrity of the territory of
Quebec and the other provinces.
One of the conditions essential to the establishment of a marine
conservation area is federal ownership of the land where the
conservation area will be established.
Subclause 5(2) of the bill provides that the minister can
establish a marine conservation area only if he is satisfied
“that clear title to the lands to be included in the marine
conservation area is vested in Her Majesty in Right of Canada,
excluding any such lands situated within the exclusive economic
zone of Canada”.
Subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, recognizes that
the management and sale of crown land are matters of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec legislation on crown lands, passed by the Quebec National
Assembly, applies to all crown lands in Quebec, including beds
of waterways and lakes and the bed of the St. Lawrence river,
estuary and gulf, which belong to Quebec by sovereign right.
In addition, this legislation provides that Quebec cannot
transfer its lands to the federal government.
The only thing it can do within this legislation is to
authorize, by order, the federal government to use them only in
connection with matters under federal jurisdiction. However, the
protection of habitats and fauna is a matter of joint federal
and provincial jurisdiction, and the Government of Quebec plans
to establish a framework for the protection of marine areas in
the near future.
According to the notes provided us by the Minister of Canadian
Heritage with regard to Bill C-48, marine conservation areas are
planned for the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence estuary and the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. These are three areas in which the ocean
floor is under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Also, co-operative mechanisms already exist to protect ecosystems
in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and in the St. Lawrence
River under the agreement entitled “St. Lawrence action plan,
phase III” which was signed by all federal and provincial
departments concerned, and which provides for an investment of
$250 million, over a period of five years, in various activities
relating to the St. Lawrence River.
Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage acting with such
arrogance this time, by claiming to own the marine floor where
it wants to create marine conservation areas, instead of
resorting to bilateral agreements with the Quebec government and
thus avoiding having Canada once again trample Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction?
The environment is a jurisdiction shared by the two governments.
Under the Constitutional Act of 1867, the governments of Canada
and Quebec share responsibility for the environment.
Under paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of section 91, the federal
government has control over a number of areas.
Under section 91, the exclusive legislative authority of the
Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the
following classes of subjects: navigation and shipping, in
paragraph 10; quarantine and the establishment and maintenance
of marine hospitals, in paragraph 11; sea coast and inland
fisheries, in paragraph 12; and ferries between a province and
any British or foreign country or between two provinces, in
paragraph 13.
Quebec's exclusive powers are also recognized in the British
North America Act, 1967, under sections 92 and 92A.
Section 92 provides that, in each province, the legislature may
exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the
following classes of subjects: the management and sale of the
public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and
wood thereon, in paragraph 5; property and civil rights in the
province, in paragraph 13; and generally all matters of a merely
local or private nature in the province, in paragraph 16.
1530
Section 92A(1) provides that, in each province, the legislature
may exclusively make laws in relation to: (a) exploration for
non-renewable natural resources in the province; (b) development,
conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province, including laws in
relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.
Accordingly, section 2 of the legislation passed by Quebec's
National Assembly with respect to conservation and development
of wildlife sets out the role of the province's minister of the
environment and wildlife, and I quote:
The minister of the environment and wildlife is responsible for
the conservation and management of wildlife and its habitat.
Under Quebec's legislation, the minister also has authority to
appoint conservation officers.
By refusing to follow the example of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence
Marine Park Act and by making ownership of the territory an
essential condition for the creation of marine conservation
areas, the federal government is behaving, as Robert Bourassa
used to say, like a centralizing government that wants control
over everything, regardless of recognized jurisdictions.
Bill C-48 creates overlap within the federal administration
itself.
Let us look at how ridiculous it gets.
Through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the federal
government intends to create marine conservation areas. Through
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has already created
marine protected areas. Through the Department of the
Environment, it wants to create marine wildlife reserves.
It should be noted that a single site could find itself
protected under more than one category. The Department of
Canadian Heritage sets out its reasons for creating marine
conservation areas in the preamble to the bill.
Heritage Canada is establishing marine conservation areas to
protect natural, self-regulating marine ecosystems for the
maintenance of biological diversity; establish a representative
system of marine conservation areas; ensure that Canada
contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a
worldwide network of representative marine areas; provide
opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to
appreciate Canada's natural and cultural marine heritage; and
provide opportunities within marine conservation areas for the
ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting
benefit of coastal communities.
As for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, it proposed the
establishment of marine protected areas. However, in a
discussion paper released by Fisheries and Oceans in January
1997 and entitled “An Approach to the establishment and
Management of Marine Protected Areas under the Oceans Act”, the
purpose of marine conservation areas is describes as follows.
These zones are established to ensure the conservation of:
commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources and their
habitats, endangered or threatened species and their habitats,
unique habitats, productive ecosystems and biodiversity, any
other marine resource.
In both documents, departmental officials indicate that local
people will have a significant involvement in the establishment
of marine protected areas. The Bloc Quebecois wonders how many
information or organization meetings local people will be
invited to, serving bureaucracy instead of democracy.
Following DFO's consultation meetings on marine protection zones
in Quebec in June 1998, federal officials wrote the following in
their minutes of these meetings:
There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders
regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas
(marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas,
wildlife marine preserves, etc.). The departments concerned
should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected
marine areas.
The Bloc Quebecois shares the view of those who participated in
those meetings and feels that this is an abuse of democracy that
will be prejudicial to the public which, incidentally, is not at
all reassured by the existence of an interdepartmental committee
made up of officials from these various departments.
Indeed, we know from experience that having a number of
departments involved in the same project makes it difficult for
them to work together and ends up costing taxpayers a lot of
money.
1535
The government would have been better advised to have a single
department oversee the protection of ecosystems and the
departments concerned conclude a framework agreement delegating
their responsibilities to the one chosen to be accountable in
this matter.
Now, Environment Canada is proposing to establish marine
conservation zones, that could also be called natural marine
reserves, expanding the notion of the national wildlife
sanctuary beyond the territorial sea to the 200 mile limit
within the exclusive economic zone under the Canada Oceans Act.
These zones are also subject to the Canadian Wildlife Act, but
require a different set of regulations.
In short, let us summarize, because the triple federal overlap
at the federal level—setting aside its overlap with provincial
jurisdictions—becomes almost a federal maze where people can get
lost.
Therefore, under the various laws, the Government of Canada is
proposing to create marine conservation areas, marine protection
zones and natural marine reserves. The same territory could,
according to Fisheries and Oceans, be zoned in various ways and
subject to various regulations that could simply confuse users.
All that remains for me to do is extend to the ordinary citizen
a most cordial welcome to the real world of Kafka.
Is even more confusion really possible? The answer,
unfortunately, is yes.
In fact, the bill provides that each federal department retain
jurisdiction over its own marine conservation areas.
However, when Heritage Canada deems it appropriate, it may, in
co-operation with the minister concerned, pass regulations
regarding a marine conservation area that differ from the
existing provisions.
In this case, the amendment agreed to between Heritage Canada
and the minister concerned takes priority over the regulations
under other legislation: the Fisheries Act, the Coastal
Fisheries Protection Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic
Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Navigable Waters Protection
Act, and the Aeronautics Act.
Although this might seen normal in other circumstances, the
difficulties can only increase when Heritage Canada regulations
are enforced in marine protected areas, marine wildlife reserves
and marine conservation areas, each with their own regulations.
Preliminary consultation on the bill was a resounding failure,
but Heritage Canada points to it as proof that it has public
support to go ahead with the bill. Here are a few facts.
In February 1997, Heritage Canada released a consultation
document entitled “Charting the Course—Towards a Marine
Conservation Areas Act”. This document was sent to 3,000 groups
across Canada.
In June 1998, Heritage Canada boasted about its consultation in
the document “Towards a Marine Conservation Areas Act.” It
wrote, and I quote: “The discussion paper was circulated to
over 3000 stakeholders across the country—
Over 300 sheets and briefs were submitted providing comments and
suggestions”.
The Bloc Quebecois requested copies of these 300 sheets, which
really fill only 73 pages that I have right here. The vast
majority of these pages are nothing more than the reply coupon
attached to the discussion paper.
Under the Privacy Act, the names and addresses of respondents
cannot be disclosed, and Heritage Canada rightly withheld this
information. However, of the 62 replies we received from the
department, only one was in French.
1540
Would it be unreasonable to conclude that Quebec did not
participate in the consultations conducted by Heritage Canada?
After looking into Heritage Canada's consultations on its draft
bill, the Bloc Quebecois came to the conclusion it was a
miserable failure and it was really too bad that, with all the
resources at its disposal, the department did not see fit to
conduct real consultations, which would have exposed all the
flaws in the bill.
The consultations conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in
Quebec on the establishment of marine protected areas were also
a miserable failure.
According to the report on the working sessions on the marine
protection zones program, prepared by officials of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada in January 1997, the working document was sent to
650 organizations in Quebec. Working sessions were planned in a
variety of cities in Quebec. A number had to be cancelled
because of the considerable tension in the fishing industry at
the moment. In the opinion of the officials, participation at
these sessions was low—5% on the average.
In the fishing sector, nothing is resolved. The Heritage Canada
bill arrived at the moment Fisheries and Oceans and Human
Resources Development Canada raised an outcry over their
streamlining of the fishing industry, which is out of synch with
the needs and the reality of the industry and the communities
affected by the moratorium on fishing.
The industry still does not know the plans of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans for its future and the number of fishers
who will remain active. In addition, the industry claims the
federal government has badly handled the fishing industry and
criticizes it for its part in the collapse of the groundfish
stocks.
So as relations between the coastal communities and the federal
government are strained with respect to the livelihood of these
communities, especially in Quebec, where there is a dispute over
our right to our historical fishing quotas, the Bloc Quebecois
fails to see how the federal government will be able to convince
these people to co-operate in the establishment of marine
conservation zones, marine conservation areas or marine wildlife
reserves.
Since co-operation with coastal communities is essential to
protect ecosystems, the Bloc Quebecois urges the government to
find workable solutions to the economic woes of coastal
communities, if it really wants to eventually co-operate with
them to protect the environment.
What are the Bloc Quebecois' objections to this bill? The
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is a model. In 1997, the
governments of Quebec and Canada agreed on an act to create the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. This resulted in the creation
of Canada's first marine conservation area.
One of the main features of that legislation is that the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is the first marine park to be
created jointly by the federal and Quebec governments, without
any transfer of territory. The two governments will continue to
fulfil their respective responsibilities.
The park includes only marine areas. It covers 1,138 square
kilometres. Its boundaries may be changed through an agreement
between the two governments, provided there is joint public
consultation in that regard.
In order to promote local involvement, the acts passed by the
Quebec and federal governments confirm the creation of a
co-ordinating committee, whose membership is to be determined by
the federal and provincial ministers. The committee's mandate is
to recommend to the ministers responsible measures to achieve
the master plan's objectives. The plan is to be reviewed jointly
by the two governments, at least once every seven years.
Any exploration, utilization or development of resources for
mining or energy related purposes, including the building of oil
lines, gas lines or power lines, is prohibited within park
boundaries.
By means of regulations, the governments of Quebec and of Canada
will be able to determine measures for protecting the park's
ecosystems and resources and for protecting the public. More
specifically, they will be able to define how each category of
area will be used and for how long such use shall apply.
This first partnership initiative should have served as a model
to the federal government for the creation of other marine
conservation areas. Rather than demonstrating open-mindedness
and co-operation, the federal government is still taking an
arrogant, aggressive, invasive approach that overlaps other
jurisdictions and that is hardly calculated to encourage us to
work with them another time.
1545
Phase III of the St. Lawrence action plan could have served as
another model. Let us look at what actually happened.
On June 8, 1998, the environment ministers of Quebec and of
Canada announced phase III of the St. Lawrence development plan,
representing a total bill of $230 million to be shared equally
by both levels of government.
One of the objectives of this action plan is to increase the
area of protected habitats by 100% from 12,000 hectares to
120,000 hectares.
Phase III follows on the first two phases, in which both
governments invested over $300 million.
But the Government of Canada is not happy when everything is
running smoothly.
They prefer to stir up trouble, ill feelings and even discontent
in the population. They do not understand that Quebeckers have
had it with their arrogant policies that cost a fortune, and the
people will let them know unequivocally in a very short time.
Another example of abuse of power is the incredible arrogance
displayed by Heritage Canada in stating in the bill that it will
have a say in the selection of advisors.
Clause 11 provides for the establishment of advisory committees
for each marine conservation area. Subclause 11(3) reads as
follows:
(3) The minister shall consult with such ministers or agencies
of the government of Canada or a province or other persons or
bodies as the minister considers appropriate with respect to the
composition of advisory committees.
Given this government's centralizing view, all these or's do not
sound very good. The minister made sure she could consult
whomever she wishes.
We have a number of concerns about this bill. Clause 11 provides
that the federal government will establish the boundaries of the
marine conservation areas in each region of Canada in
consultation with the local communities. We know what kind of
“consultations” they conduct.
Clause 9 states that “The minister shall, within five years
after a marine conservation area is established,
in consultation with any...parties that the minister considers
appropriate”—I repeat, any parties that the minister considers
appropriate—“prepare a management plan”. This plan is reviewed
every five years.
Clause 9(4) states:
(4) Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing,
aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine
safety are subject to agreement between the minister and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Here, I must point out that, in our experience to date, this
sharing of responsibilities by two ministers has always proved
catastrophic in this government.
Every two years, the heritage minister will table a report on
the state of marine conservation areas. The minister establishes
a management advisory committee for each marine area created.
Since, as it will be recalled, clause 11 allows her to consult
whomever she wishes, the department will, once again, be able to
appoint whomever it wishes to its management committees to suit
its own purposes.
One of the prerequisites for creating a marine conservation area
is ownership of the territory by the federal government.
According to preliminary information we have obtained, the
federal government would own the ocean floor in areas 7, 8 and 9
of the Arctic Ocean and area 1 of the Atlantic Ocean. The
Government of Quebec, however, owns the ocean floor in areas 4,
5, 6 and 7 of the Atlantic Ocean region, that is to say the
region taking in the St. Lawrence Estuary, the Gaspé and the
Magdalen Islands.
The bill gives the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of
the ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, the
right to limit or prohibit activities in commercial zones in
order to protect the resource.
Given the relations that now exist between the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and fishers, there is reason for concern
about the enforcement of this clause of the bill.
The bill also gives the Governor in Council, on the
recommendation of the ministers of Transport and Canadian
Heritage, the right to limit or prohibit transportation in
marine conservation areas.
Given all the pressure to keep airplanes out of certain areas,
there is also reason to be concerned about relations between the
Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Transport
with respect to these marine conservation areas.
The bill also makes provision for orders-in-council regarding
public safety, research activities and so on in these
territories. All government orders-in-council are suspect in
principle.
The bill provides that anyone who pollutes these marine
conservation areas will have to pay clean-up costs.
1550
Obviously, we cannot, in the limited time at our disposal,
mention all the concerns we have regarding this bill.
Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will have to oppose the
amendment proposed by the Reform Party, because it does not deal
with issues we feel are truly important. Our reading of the act,
in fact, leads us to believe that the reasons mentioned by the
Reform Party are not acceptable. In fact, I was even surprised
that the amendment was deemed in order, because it is not
consistent with the legislation.
We will also oppose the bill, primarily because it is an
intrusion into the jurisdictions of Quebec, and of the other
provinces, when they are concerned. Quebec cannot function in
that system.
We were very open with the federal government when we dealt with
managing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and we regret
that the government did not act in a similar fashion this time.
In a way, we are pleased about that, because it gives us yet
another reason to want to leave this intrusive country.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague, the
member for Halifax West.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree.]
[English]
I rise today on behalf of the riding of Churchill River in
Saskatchewan, and the New Democratic caucus, on Bill C-48, an act
respecting marine conservation areas. The bill provides
legislation to establish and manage a system of national marine
conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas in
Canada. The 29 conservation areas represent unique biological and
oceanographic features. These areas include fresh and salt
waters.
A Parks Canada systems approach has identified 29 areas within
Canada's Great Lakes, internal waters which are tidal, and the
territorial sea and also the exclusive economic zone known as the
EEZ 200 mile limit.
The process to establish the conservation areas began in 1986
with ministerial approval to establish national marine parks.
This decision led to a 1987 agreement with Ontario to establish
Fathom Five in Georgian Bay; a 1988 agreement with British
Columbia for a marine park at South Moresby in the Queen
Charlotte Islands, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation
Area. An agreement with Quebec to examine the feasibility of a
federal-provincial marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay
fiord and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence
Marine Park, became Bill C-7. The New Democratic Party supported
this bill which established the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine
Park.
The years of consultation between governments and communities
were successful. Consultation is a major part of creating
conservation areas in the future.
As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore noted, a hallmark
of intergovernmental co-operation took place when Bill C-7 was
under way. The Government of Quebec and the federal government
both looked at their unique responsibilities and jurisdictions in
dealing with the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and came up
with the unique opportunity to have a consultation that looked at
the tourism aspect, the economic aspect and the environmental
aspect of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Bill C-7 was an important step toward fulfilling a commitment to
future generations. Today we mark the next step in the marine
ecosystem protection, Bill C-48. This bill will set the template
for marine conservation areas for future generations.
Several key points that the New Democratic Party has raised
throughout the parks and environment debates and the legislation
are contained in Bill C-48. There are two main parts we can
focus on.
1555
The precautionary principle and ecosystem protection are
specifically defined in this bill. This is an improvement over
previous legislation introduced by the Liberal government, bills
which affect all Canadians in all regions of this great country
where an ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle and
ecological integrity were barely mentioned, if even described at
all. It is nice to see that the precautionary principle and
ecosystem protection are major components of this bill. This
shows progress which we must acknowledge as parliamentarians. We
must ensure the goals of sustainability, conservation and
preservation of Canada's vital marine areas are achieved.
Through Bill C-7 the New Democratic Party raised the issue of
monitoring in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence, monitoring where
necessary the pollution impacts of critical areas and the flow of
the rivers. We must be willing to monitor the pollution impacts
of industries further upstream on the Saguenay and further
upstream on the St. Lawrence. Pollution will impact this
conservation area. The monitoring aspect must not be taken
lightly. These noble conservation objectives can be met but they
must be monitored.
Adequate resources must be defined and committed to pollution
monitoring. The Liberal government's repeated statement to
Canadians that the high standards of environmental protection are
being met is not true. There is continued devolution and
abdication of environmental responsibilities. This government
can sign a piece of paper and have a photo opportunity for the
news. Then the government has a program review and always cuts
the budget and at the same time says that things are going great.
This cannot continue with Bill C-48.
Adequate resources for feasibility studies must be defined and
allocated to the marine sciences, to community consultation and
to education and interpretive programs. All these issues require
adequate resources. Will this government commit to additional
resources? Will this government commit to action on Bill C-48,
or will it sign this bill, establish one or two conservation
areas and rely on skimpy laurels and continue to mislead
Canadians?
Our communities need a future based on sustainable development.
Communities depend on our marine environment for income, for food
sustenance and as a source of our biological diversity. This is
for our physical and spiritual well-being.
Bill C-48 provides the opportunity to reverse the outrageous
decimation and degradation that mismanagement has created.
Unsustainable practices destroy Canadian communities; they do not
build and strengthen them.
The New Democratic Party calls on the Liberal government to
prove that this bill is not simply paper in the next budget.
Proof of the Liberal government's commitment to marine
conservation and preservation and sustainable practices does not
mean continued cuts to a once proud Canadian Coast Guard. It
does not mean continued cuts to the pollution prevention
capabilities of the environment department. These budget cuts
have been cloaked in the auspices of program review.
Commitment is not the continuance of understaffed, overworked
and rarely appreciated departments with the major
responsibilities of the atmosphere and ocean sciences. Commitment
is not continually ignoring advice that is based on scientific
evidence or the precautionary principles in favour of a political
agenda. The DFO is a fine example of this.
The marine conservation areas will be a key component of the
proposed representative system of marine protected areas. Three
departments have been identified as working on the marine
protected areas, the departments of fisheries, environment and
Canadian heritage. This system could be in place along all of
Canada's coasts and the Great Lakes by the year 2010.
We hope this bill is not another noble opportunity lost by lack
of leadership and commitment. Lost but not forgotten, such as
another Liberal promise to complete our national parks system
with 39 representative terrestrial zones by the new millennium.
This is far from being complete. They are big words that create
big hopes but Canadians are used to dashed hopes with this
Liberal government.
1600
Through the committee of the New Democratic Party we will raise
a number of concerns that will improve Bill C-48. Some concerns
are minimum protection standards to include prohibition of fin
fish aquaculture and bottom trawling, ballast water dumping and
recreational artificial reefs, better controls for outfalls of
waste discharge and pollution prevention, and complete
consultation with communities, provincial jurisdictions and
aboriginal territories and communities.
We must define and identify the issue of no take zones within
marine boundaries, critical zone 1 areas to be expanded to reduce
impacts through calving, spawning and nursing periods.
The issue of DFO and parks is a major concern. Both are going
to be participating in conservation areas but one of the worst
histories and a major area of concern is the history of DFO in
terms of mismanagement regarding resources. The NDP will be
raising these and other concerns forwarded by Canadians through
the committee process.
A key question we will also ask is why there was the exclusion
of other great inland Canadian waters such as Great Bear lake,
Great Slave lake, Lake Athabasca and Lake Winnipeg. These are
unique waters and require protection and conservation measures.
I would like to speak on the additional challenges Reform Party
members mentioned but we cannot lend our support to their motion.
I look forward to empowering our youth and look toward
conservation for them.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, in
light of the comments he just made, I want to ask the hon.
member if, as a member from British Columbia, he has consulted
his province, and whether his province agrees with this federal
intrusion in an area that comes exclusively under the
jurisdiction of the provinces and territories.
Does he also agree with the maze that Parks Canada and the
Department of the Environment—another federal department—want
to create? I would appreciate an answer from the member who
spoke just before me.
[English]
Mr. Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak
specifically on British Columbia. My home province is
Saskatchewan.
Reflecting on a federal government initiative, the fisheries
minister announced that the race rocks in Gabriola passage were
on the way to becoming Canada's first marine protected area. All
this was well and good for the federal government to identify but
Chief James Johnny of the Nanaimo First Nations said there was no
consultation through the band which has aboriginal title to the
Gabriola passage.
When we speak about consultation, I believe that is what the
hon. member was alluding to. The federal government has to have
a full consultation process with provincial governments, with
communities and impacted areas along with aboriginal territories
and communities that have title for regions and waterways in this
country.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Halifax
West to speak on an act respecting marine conservation areas.
Halifax West, as we know, is a riding that embodies many coastal
communities, Portuguese Cove, Hatchet Lake, Peggy's Cove, Ketch
Harbour all the way down to Sambro right through to Hubbards.
These coastal communities know full well the importance of
marine conservation. Being a people by the sea, we recognize the
importance of having a pristine environment and keeping it that
way for our children and our children's children.
This bill is designed to provide authority for the establishment
of marine conservation areas with the objective of protecting and
conserving a variety of aquatic environments.
This bill also confers a range of regulatory powers for the
protection of living and non-living marine resources and their
management and use in a sustainable manner.
1605
That is a very important feature for those of us living in the
Atlantic provinces. We realize it is important to have a
sustainable environment.
There are important principles embodied in this bill. The
preamble talks about establishing a representative system of
marine conservation areas that are of sufficient extent and such
configuration as to maintain healthy marine ecosystems.
Halifax where I grew up we have a beautiful harbour. It is a
harbour that is sheltered and does not freeze during the winter.
It is ideally situated for shipping and transporting goods and
yet this beautiful piece of nature is being polluted daily by
many runoffs of raw sewage and effluent being dumped directly
into it. This has gone on for years and years.
It is hard to imagine in this day and age that we would allow
such a thing to continue. There have been studies on the shelf
and off the shelf, back and forth, about how to clean up the
harbour and yet today we still remain with that very serious
problem.
It is important that we look at marine conservation. Anything
that can be done to improve those situations is certainly going
to be welcome in the Atlantic provinces.
The preamble further talks about ensuring that Canada
contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a
worldwide network of representative marine protected areas. It
emphasizes the globalized nature of our society today.
We know that what happens in one part of the world certainly
affects what happens in another part of the world. We have to be
able to share our environment and to look after our environment
in a way that will benefit all.
It talks about considering implications for ecosystems in the
planning and management of marine conservation areas to provide
opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to
appreciate and enjoy Canada's natural and cultural marine
heritage, and provide opportunities, and this is important,
within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable
use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal
communities.
In Atlantic Canada we are a people who live by the sea so I rise
on behalf of Atlantic Canadians because we know full well from
past experiences what can happen from resource exploitation.
We know about the overfishing off the Atlantic coast. We know
how the large trawlers have been allowed to come in and deplete
the fishing stocks. We know about the mismanagement of the
fisheries. We see lost stocks and we see the impact on the
communities in these areas, people who have come to rely on
subsidy programs and so forth, people who are unable to find new
occupations because their livelihood has been destroyed and yet
they know of no other than fishing.
We know full well that the environment must be managed in a
sensible way. The marine conservation areas provide
opportunities for Atlantic Canadians through preservation and
conservation.
If this bill is implemented properly with some of the
improvements that have been mentioned by my hon. colleague, we
know that such things as ecotourism and research will provide
opportunities for Atlantic Canadians. There will be
opportunities in the field of marine biology and the ocean
sciences and so forth. We would welcome those opportunities in
Atlantic Canada.
The Atlantic Ocean has 10 identified marine conservation area
natural regions. These are Hudson Strait, Labrador shelf,
Newfoundland shelf, the north gulf shelf, St. Lawrence estuary,
Magdelan shallows, Laurentian channel, the Grand Banks, Scotian
shelf and the Bay of Fundy.
My hon. colleague has already mentioned the experience of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, Bill C-7, which the NDP
supported last fall. This was indeed a wonderful example of the
possibilities of co-operation between governments and community
consultation.
I can assure my colleagues that the NDP will be encouraging
community participation on this bill because it is very important
that we have true consultation, not just a quick hello, how do
you do with the communities involved but true consultation to
receive the input from the communities that will be affected by
this bill.
1610
The sea is very important for people in Nova Scotia.
I can recall as a young lad going to the sea with my parents and
grandparents and digging clams along the seashore, fishing off
wharfs, that type of activity. We did not worry about whether
fish were contaminated, if we could eat the fish we caught or
whether to be concerned about the clams.
But nowadays the first thing we think about if we go fishing is
whether the area is polluted. It is a shame that our society has
come to that stage. Certainly we want to encourage marine
conservation and do everything possible to present a pristine
environment for people.
I could talk a bit about some of the successes that have taken
place around this issue. We have the Bonavista and Notre Dame
Bay project which requires the participation of 32 diverse and
proud communities with a wealth of experience.
Following the memorandum of understanding signed between the
federal and provincial governments there was a number of
feasibility studies done and there was initially some skepticism
around this. But eventually this was followed by acceptance and
hope. There has been a lot of local input and ideas that are now
being listened to.
It is a remarkable about face on fisheries and ocean matters in
Newfoundland, a region that has been decimated by government
interference and bungling. Indeed the entire Atlantic region has
been interfered with and bungled in terms of the fisheries.
We can see why this initial skepticism in that area was
warranted but now we see that things are starting to turn around
as a result of consultation and community input. Local fishers
in the community came up with an idea related to local lobster.
They started the East Port Lobster Conservation Authority and
designated some of the best lobster areas within the bay as no
take zones. These types of measures are being taken.
We see this type of community co-operation and this community
based program works. Catches are up by 97% through proper
resource management. It is a combination of conservation and
common sense based on science. These successes can be carried
forward through the legislation that is being looked at here.
While this progress is being made in Newfoundland we have to ask
ourselves what is stopping this government from proceeding with
consultation and identification of specific conservation areas
for the remaining natural marine regions.
Comments that have been received by the New Democratic Party on
Bill C-48 carry a common theme, conservation and preservation and
good stewardship of our marine areas. This is a necessity. It
is a requirement for our future generations of Canadians.
As noted by my hon. colleague, this process began 10 years ago
but much more needs to be done as we enter the next century. We
would trust that this legislation will be carefully examined at
committee stage. We trust there will be appropriate improvements
made and that hopefully at that stage there will be more
community input, more opportunity for aboriginal people who may
be affected by these areas, to have their say around what is
happening as well as others who are concerned.
Working together we can come up with something that is going to
make our environment something we will be proud of, something we
will be pleased to leave to succeeding generations.
I call on my colleagues to look at this bill, seriously examine
it, give input to improvements and do not, once it is passed,
allow the government to delay when royal assent is given. Move
quickly. Atlantic Canadians deserve our best efforts.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
to the advice of my colleagues and I examined the bill. I will
speak on two points of it.
First, there is not a lot of collaboration in this Bill C-48.
Worse yet, and I would like my colleague's opinion on this, one
of the prerequisites to the government's establishing a marine
conservation area is its ownership of the land where the
conservation area will be established.
My colleague was talking earlier about a coastal region and
about the regions near the major Atlantic ports. There is
another interesting clause in this bill, which gives the
governor in council as well, on the recommendation of the
transport and heritage ministers, the right to limit or prohibit
transport activities in marine conservation areas.
I do not know whether he looked at that in detail, but near the
ports—even if he and I both would like to see all of us live in
a healthy environment—there may be a problem that needs to be
considered and resolved.
1615
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon.
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois that there are some problems
with the bill. At the outset I said we approved the bill in
principle and went on to explain the kinds of things we want to
see for the Atlantic region.
Certainly there are some obstacles that have to be overcome. The
hon. member has identified some of them as has my hon. colleague.
We hope that these can be worked through at the committee stage
to the point where we are satisfied that what moves forward will
be in the best interest of all.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have to admit I stepped in a bit late and only heard the end of
the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax West.
Just for the record I would like the hon. member to tell me if I
heard correctly that he was actually making a statement in
support of conservation measures taken in the Newfoundland
lobster fishery and that they could be applied perhaps in Nova
Scotia. I would like some clarification of that.
Specifically I would like to know if he is supportive of the
recent conservation measures that have occurred in district 33
and of which he would hopefully be aware. If he is supportive of
those measures I would like to know why.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, the member has asked a
number of questions and I do not know if I will be able to
address all of them.
The point I was making when I spoke about the Newfoundland
experience was co-operation. I was talking about the
consultation process and the process of people working together
to try to find a solution. I was indicating that it must be a
central part of the bill if we are to move forward.
I was not particularly endorsing the specifics of any kind of
agreement, but I was talking about the co-operation principle as
being necessary.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the member for Halifax West for his comments, as well as his
colleague from Saskatchewan, for their constructive approach to
this bill, which is an important one.
Like them, I am eager for this bill to be referred to the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage so we can hear
testimony, continue consultation, examine our colleagues'
suggestions and improve the bill if necessary. If improvements
are needed, we will try to acknowledge this and to make the
required changes.
I hope he will convince our colleagues in the other opposition
parties to refer the bill to committee so we may begin to
examine it.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Speaker, with regard to
influencing members of other parties, I firmly believe that each
individual must decide for himself or herself as to which
direction they go and how they see it in representing their
constituents.
I would certainly put forward any suggestions we receive from
our constituents that might help to improve the bill.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to rise in the House to address Bill C-48, an
act respecting marine conservation areas. I speak to the bill on
behalf of the member for West Nova who like myself represents
many of the coastal communities in Nova Scotia.
The proposed piece of legislation is designed to protect and
conserve representative areas of Canada's marine landscape for
the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the
world.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always maintained a keen
interest in helping protect the environment for future
generations. Having been born and raised in Nova Scotia, I
quickly came to appreciate the importance of our natural
environment and the importance that this environment plays in our
everyday lives.
1620
Many of my constituents depend upon the ocean or natural
resources for their livelihood. Many of our early settlers were
attracted to this great land by the abundance of fish. Our
aboriginal peoples fished these waters long before the arrival of
any European settler.
Nova Scotia promotes itself as being the ocean playground of
Canada. Deriving one's living from the ocean is a cultural way
of life for many of us. We depend upon the preservation of this
large habitat, not only for our survival but for the survival of
the next generation. It is incumbent upon us all that we begin
taking immediate steps toward protecting this ecosystem.
We do not have to look very far to see the devastation that can
be caused when we take our natural resources for granted. The
maritime provinces, in particular Newfoundland, have been
decimated by the serious downturn in the fishery. Tens of
thousands of fishers have been forced out of this industry
because of government mismanagement. Cod stocks have been
destroyed. There can be no telling how long or if they will ever
rebound to previously sustainable levels.
Our marine environment is always under constant use from local
fishers and under constant threat particularly from foreign
fishing. Our efforts to protect our marine ecosystem will prove
fruitless unless we stop foreign overfishing.
Recently our coastal regions have been faced by another menacing
attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have
been pillaging the ocean floor almost unabated by Department of
Fisheries and Oceans officials. In Nova Scotia, specifically in
St. Mary's Bay, this lucrative lobster fishery could be in danger
if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to
this illegal activity. The federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans has an obligation to everyone in Nova Scotia to enforce
its regulations on behalf of conservation and on behalf of the
families which this fishery supports.
The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with
preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the
national marine parks policy. In 1987 the country's first
national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in
Georgian Bay was established. Unfortunately it has yet to be
proclaimed. There are still outstanding issues to be addressed
in this regard.
In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement
with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine
conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands. On April 6,
1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed an historical
and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine
park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary and the St.
Lawrence River.
In December 1996 the government introduced Bill C-78, an act to
establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a
consequential amendment to another act. Finally the agreement
and the legislation were given royal assent, culminating with the
proclamation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park on June 8
of this year.
I gave that little history lesson to try to explain to the House
how long legislation takes and how important it is to begin it
now.
The bill will provide the legislation needed to establish and
manage a system of marine conservation areas representative of
the 29 marine areas in Canada, reflecting the relevant Parks
Canada guiding principles and operating policies for them. The
29 distinct conservation areas identified by the legislation
represent four broad and very distinct areas of Canada's marine
ecosystem.
There are 10 specific areas associated with the Atlantic Ocean
including the Bay of Fundy, Scotia shelf and Labrador shelf. The
Arctic Ocean consists of nine specific regions including Hudson
Bay, Beaufort Sea and Baffin Island shelf. The Pacific Ocean
includes such areas as the Vancouver Island shelf and the Strait
of Georgia. Finally we have Canada's Great Lakes.
It is important to note that although the proposed legislation
is designed to establish and manage a system of marine
conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas, it does
not specifically identify a precise geographic location to be
protected. These sites will have to be chosen through much
consultation with members of the general public, provincial
governments and obviously those individuals who earn their
livelihood from these distinct waters.
I cannot stress the point strong enough that much consultation
must be undertaken before any particular area is singled out for
protection. There must be a balanced approach taken when
exploring any area. The interest of our fishing community must
be protected before any agreements on locations are finalized.
Conservation is vitally important to all of us but particularly
to those who make their living on the water.
1625
We cannot simply target a location without exploring the long
term effect it will have on the fishing industry. Our fishers
must have a direct say in the management of their industry. We
have already witnessed the disaster than can occur when they are
excluded from the decision making process. It is also important
that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be involved within
the consultation process.
Earlier I briefly mentioned our aboriginal people's dependence
on these waters for their food fishery. It is important that the
aboriginal peoples be involved in the negotiations. With many
land claims still to be resolved, it is imperative that they be
consulted on creating any new marine reserve areas.
Under the bill there are restrictions on non-renewable resource
extraction. I believe careful examination of any proposed site
must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration.
Nova Scotia is finally going to receive the economic benefits of
the Sable oil exploration. This economic boom for our province
would not have been possible if the Sable area had been
previously designated as a marine protected area. That is a
thought that all of us in the House should carry with us. That
is why I propose that as much consultation as possible is
undertaken with all those who have a vested interest in our ocean
floors in terms of both renewable and non-renewable resources.
I am encouraged by the fact that the department circulated
discussion papers to over 3,000 stakeholders across the country,
including fishing and shipping associations and unions; the oil,
gas and mining sectors; aboriginal and environmental groups; and
the academic community. This represents a very strong beginning
in the consultation process.
In conclusion, the government had set a goal for itself of
establishing 10 marine parks by the year 2000. The clock is
ticking, but as we approach the new millennium we cannot afford
not to carefully examine this undertaking. If it takes longer
than the year 2000 then so be it. If we put the legislation in
place and we actually go out there and establish some marine
protected areas, let us do it so we do not have to revisit it
again, renew it or change it in 10 years time.
Once we actually make a national park of a marine protected area
it may be very difficult to get out of it. I do not feel there
should be a deadline in this regard. It is something we should
move slowly and carefully but distinctly toward.
It is important to send the bill to committee. Our party
intends to support it. I am sure the committee will want to hear
experts from every sector involved in the process. Hopefully at
the end of the day we can put the bill before the House, have it
voted on, approved, and have a better country because of it.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the remarks my colleague, the member from
the Progressive Conservative Party, just made.
He seems to stand up for the fisheries in his region, but there
is so much duplication in Bill C-48 between Heritage Canada's
marine conservation areas, Fisheries and Oceans' marine
protected areas and Environment Canada's marine and wildlife
reserves that one can wonder who will have the largest
jurisdiction and be able to protect fisheries the best.
He also mentioned the critical situation resulting from the
miscalculation in assessing fish stocks.
Does he feel safe knowing that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is the one who will be selecting the advisors and advisory
committees on the management of the main resource in the
Atlantic region?
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, those questions from the
hon. member are very good ones. On her first question on the
overlap of jurisdiction, I think that is an issue we cannot put
aside and one that requires further study. Her main question was
whether or not it should be the responsibility of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. Because it is a heritage bill I see no other
way to do it.
Certainly our member for West Nova has been very closely
monitoring the bill.
We feel comfortable with it because of his assessment. It would
be incumbent upon each party in the House, all of the oppositions
parties and the government as well, to make sure that they are
comfortable with all of the details of this bill.
1630
In answer to the hon. member's question, I would suggest that it
would be incumbent upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
confer with her colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Minister of the Environment. It would be a very
dangerous precedent, because of the overlapping jurisdictions,
not to confer with those parties.
[Translation]
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 Waterloo—Wellington, Water Exports; the hon.
member for Prince George—Peace River, Royal Canadian Mounted
Police; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Canadian
Coast Guard.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I did earlier for
our colleague from Halifax West, I would like to thank my
colleague from South Shore for his remarks on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party. I thank him for his positive
contribution to this debate at second reading and for supporting
the principle of the bill, so that a full and comprehensive
debate can take place and that we can learn from the experts who
come to testify before the committee.
I too look forward to starting work on this bill as soon as
possible in committee with his colleague from Nova West, and I
thank him for his remarks.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
comments made by the hon. member on the government side.
Certainly that is the type of attitude we have to take toward
this very important piece of legislation. My hon. colleague for
West Nova has been following this legislation very closely and it
is through this type of co-operation and understanding that we
can promote this important type of legislation.
[Translation]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first of
all, I would like to congratulate the government on introducing
this bill regarding marine conservation areas and to express my
particular delight because this is one policy area that all
members of the House agree requires very urgent attention.
[English]
In congratulating the government I would also like to say that
the Secretary of State for Parks earlier today made a very
important reference to the commitment Canada made at the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and also in
signing the biodiversity convention in Rio in 1992. These are
two very important points of reference in our participation and
role in the global community.
The sooner this bill can be moved ahead the better because it
will take time to implement. Today we are discussing legislation
which is enabling, but that is all it does. It sets the
foundation for the creation of the marine protected areas. That
is the extent of the measure. It is the first step on the road
toward a very distant goal.
Also I would like to make a note of caution at this point in
connection with the ecological integrity of existing parks, such
as the case of the Pukaskwa National Park where some threats are
being noticed near the proposed marine park in the form of
forestry companies which are now asking the Government of Ontario
for permission to log closer and closer to the park boundaries.
1635
In other words, the buffer areas around the national parks are
in need of being firmly protected. There is, as we all know, a
strong connection between our land-based parks and our marine
parks. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to protect them both.
It is interesting to note that an agreement signed by Ottawa and
the Government of British Columbia in July 1995 provides for the
initiation of marine conservation area feasibility studies for
two places: the Strait of Georgia and the Queen Charlotte Sound
marine regions. One can see from this how long it takes, even
when there is joint co-operation between two levels of
government. Marine parks cannot be established overnight. This
is an undertaking that is time consuming and complex. Marine
parks cannot be established by the federal government acting
alone, as we all know. It requires the co-operation of
provincial governments and very much the support of local
communities.
We are engaged in an undertaking which is probably the envy of
the whole world. We are moving forward toward the establishment
of a Canadian system in the field of marine conservation areas.
The momentum is there, but we still have to add more pressure to
see real movement.
The next step and perhaps the most difficult one is developing
the management plans which will take into account the need for
protecting biological diversity, plant and animal, and the need
for ensuring that marine national parks are immune from the
encroachment of various industrial pursuits and activities. In
this way we can ensure that marine conservation areas become
effective in achieving the goals of establishing themselves and,
of course, at the same time preventing pollution.
Members will note that the preamble of Bill C-48 recognizes the
role of the marine ecosystem in maintaining biological diversity.
That is the beauty of such a bill. However, I noticed that the
idea of pollution prevention does not appear in the preamble of
the bill. Perhaps that is something that can be done at the
committee level. I will have some other observations to make to
this effect later on by way of amendments.
We can ask ourselves at this point whether the establishment of
the protected areas proposed in this bill will create small ocean
sanctuaries while the rest of the sea and ocean environment
rapidly deteriorate, or whether we will have a critical mass, the
beginning of marine conservation areas which will set models for
the larger sea and ocean surrounding them. This is something I
would like to deal with at the end, with future generations in
mind.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Churchill River spoke
about the uses of our oceans in a manner consistent with
sustainable development. He is right in doing so. He also spoke
about pollution prevention. These are themes that I would
commend to the parliamentary secretary in the hope that these
themes will guide him and his colleagues in committee when it
comes to the examination of this bill clause by clause.
The preamble provides a guide for the operation of the bill.
1640
There is a definition of the precautionary principle, however,
that is in need of examination because it makes reference to cost
effectiveness as being a measure to prevent environmental
degradation.
The suggestion I would make at second reading is that it would
be desirable to remove the words cost effective because they can
be potentially very damaging. It will not be possible to
establish parks in conservation areas if we are guided only by
cost effectiveness principles. There are many other values that
come into play when proceeding with the purpose and the intent of
Bill C-48.
Looking at the bill more closely, it seems to me that in the
preamble the reference to cost effectiveness ought to be revised
by perhaps just leaving the word “effective”. It is less
limiting in scope and it still has value. It has merit. But the
term “cost” is certainly one that will hamper future
generations of administrators and political decision makers.
In examining the bill further, in subclause 4 of clause 9, I
find that the minister will have to make agreements with the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when establishing a management
plan. This could have some negative effects because the goals of
the minister in charge of Canadian heritage may differ from the
goals of the minister in charge of fisheries and oceans. This
limitation in the powers of the minister of heritage will not be
very helpful and ought to be removed if we are to allow for a
speedy process in the establishment of the conservation areas.
Moving on to prohibitions, on page 7 of the bill, it is a bit
disturbing to read clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15. It seems to me
that a bill establishing conservation areas ought not to envisage
the disposition of dumping. Dumping should not be allowed in
marine conservation areas. It is as basic as that. Dumping
ought to take place in a safe manner on the land and subclause
14(1) ought to be deleted.
I notice also in clause 13 that, while it is desirable that no
person shall explore or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals,
aggregates and other organic matters, there is no reference to
fishing. Therefore, the question arises: Is fishing allowed in
marine conservation areas? If so, under what restrictions, under
what limitations and under which criteria? Obviously fishing in
an unlimited fashion could not be allowed in a conservation area.
Therefore, clause 13 needs to be clarified.
Clause 14 has some positive features to it, namely that the
concurrence of the minister is required before issuing a permit
under section 71 of CEPA, provided that the role of the minister
will be as stringent and as disciplined as the role performed by
the minister in charge of CEPA itself.
1645
When we come to clause 15, permits and authorizations, it seems
to me that the superintendent is given too wide powers. The
powers given to the superintendent ought to be restricted. The
issuing of permits should be examined very closely before the
final decision is made at the higher level because this could
have a serious and negative impact on the quality of the area
that is to be conserved.
Under the regulations, clause 16(1)(a) is a very good one
because it is the first and is very strong for the protection of
ecosystems and the elements of ecosystems. Clause 16(1)(j) is
for the control of the flight of aircraft and so on to prevent
disturbances of wildlife et cetera. We all know the reasons and
it is good to find it spelled out.
When it comes to clause 16(1)(l), authorizing the dumping of
substances and so on, I would say with all due respect that the
minister would be well advised in removing this subclause from
the regulations. We cannot have a conservation area in which we
dump substances. It is almost a contradiction in terms. We have
to be very careful. We all know that there is waste and that
human waste must be handled, be it industrial, commercial and
otherwise, but there must be ways of doing it on the land in a
very well controlled fashion so as to facilitate and enhance the
quality of the conservation area.
In clause 16(4) there is a provision for air navigation that can
only be made on the recommendation of the minister and the
Minister of Transport. Here again it should be a decision by the
minister alone because of the nature and the purpose of the bill.
There has to be some degree of autonomy if we are to pursue this
goal seriously and effectively. The Minister of Transport may
have very important considerations but sometimes they will have
to be modified by the will and intent of the minister himself or
herself.
Clause 17 on page 10 indicates that the governor in council may
exempt from any provision of the regulations a movement of a ship
or aircraft. Why is that necessary? Surely a conservation area
where we want to protect the marine quality ought to be also
protected from the movement of ship or aircraft. These are not
immense areas that cannot be bypassed or circumvented. Surely
there are alternative navigational routes.
Here again I am appealing to the parliamentary secretary to add
some words such as “under exceptional circumstances” to clause
17(a) or (b), to stress the fact that only under specific
conditions the movement of ships and aircraft ought to be
allowed. In other words, it would indicate that the legislators
are giving a strong signal to the administrators that only under
special conditions the movement of ships and aircraft is going to
be tolerated.
I notice clause 29 deals with litigation of environmental
damage. It reads something along the lines that any person who
has management or control of the substance or who causes or
contributes to the discharge or deposit, in other words, that
could injure animals, fish or plants in the area, shall take
reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate such degradation or
injury.
1650
It seems an element of urgency is missing in this clause. The
word immediate ought to be inserted. I do not know how the
courts would interpret the word reasonable in this context,
whether it would mean mild measures or strong measures. Clause
29(1) deserves to be examined in committee. There may be a way to
strengthen this clause by inserting the element of immediacy and
urgency.
The exception on page 16 under clause 29(4) is also a bit
troublesome. It reads that no measures may be directed to be
taken if action is taken under several other acts. Suppose the
action taken under several other acts is weaker than what the
minister would like it to be in order to protect and conserve
these areas. In that case the loser will be the minister and the
conservation areas that are being established.
A qualifier should be included in the exception, that if the
action taken under such acts as the Canada Shipping Act, the
Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, CEPA and so on are
equally as strong, then this exception applies. If not, then a
specific action ought to be identified so as to properly and
effectively protect the affected area. Otherwise by leaving it
to the Canada Shipping Act, the condition of the protected area
would be in serious danger.
I hope what we are doing here today will be the creation not of
sanctuaries under siege, namely of isolated beautiful areas,
while the rest of the marine environment degrades and declines in
quality. I hope Bill C-48 will create models for proper
behaviour in the larger picture of the seas and the oceans.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. He went into a lot of
detail, which sometimes needs to be brought to bear in these
debates.
In terms of the legislation surrounding protected marine areas,
there are three federal departments that can protect marine
areas, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, and this bill will enable Heritage Canada to do the same.
Can the member give me an impression of why he thinks it is that
way?
The member for Davenport is the chair of the environment
committee. He made a lot of detailed comments about this bill
which falls under the heritage department. My colleague from
Dauphin—Swan River and I were saying that this is really an
environment bill and not a parks bill. I am adding to that same
question by making that statement.
The member talked about his concern about navigation and the
question of navigational alternatives. That is a very
interesting question for me and the area I represent. Let us
think about traffic control and some of the big ships that now
utilize the inside passage on the west coast from Vancouver up to
Alaska.
There is a lot of cruise ship traffic, freight traffic and marine
traffic of every size and shape. To control all of that there
are vessel traffic control centres which are similar to the air
traffic control centres.
1655
The problem is twofold. The reality is that we are operating in
two dimensions only when we are operating on the water. In the
air we have three dimensions so things can be a lot more limiting
and in many respects a lot scarier.
Another factor has come into being lately. Federal funding for
the coast guard, federal fisheries and other areas that affect
all of the marine oriented activities has been chopped to the
point where we were not navigating for our freight traffic, our
cruise ships or our large ships for a period of 12 hours just
about a month ago. This was very scary indeed.
If we cannot do that for everything from cruise ships to oil
tankers to major log transports and so on, how in heck are we
going to enforce a new arrangement where we are trying to deal
with navigation in a specifically declared conservation area?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the
member for Vancouver Island North for being so effective in
compressing so many policy statements into one question.
The first one, if I understand it correctly, can perhaps be
easily answered by saying that there is from time to time a
reorganization of government structures and it is conceivable
that one day the Department of Canadian Heritage and the
Department of the Environment will be merged into one. It may
well be that one day the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will
incorporate certain activities or this particular one and become
the promoter of conservation areas. We do not know.
At the present time, the member is quite right in pointing to
this tri-dimensional responsibility. In a way it seems to me
quite positive that we should see a conservation area as part of
our heritage. Let us see whether it works this way. Hopefully
it will, but if it does not, we will have to find a better
administrative arrangement. It is only through trial and error
that this can be established.
On his second question, I am glad to learn that the hon. member
of the Reform Party regrets the cuts in federal funding. I
thought that his party was passionately behind the idea of cuts
in government expenditures. I am not. Perhaps he and I should
have lunch more frequently and go over the kinds of cuts we do
not want to have. Certain damages are being effected. As to what
is the public interest and what are the activities that we would
like to see better protected and better promoted, in that sense,
he made some very good points. I do not have an easy and quick
answer to his concern.
1700
I would imagine that a partial answer would come from his third
question, namely that with the lack of funds we ought to rely
more and more where possible on the education of the public and
all sectors concerned so we get co-operation through the means of
a better understanding of the goal that is being pursued with
this specific type of legislation.
This specific type of legislation has some very strong
provisions for offences and punishment. Under section 24 it is
not minor and therefore if this section is really enforced some
of the recommendations of the hon. member may be met and
satisfied once this legislation becomes operative.
[Translation]
Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment
and a short question.
I find interesting the notion that, when it came time to pass
the bill creating the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park, few
members seemed concerned about a three-party administration or
about any sort of duplication. I hope members are not using
scare tactics in order to impede the bill's progress.
I would also like to congratulate the member for Davenport on
his usual fine work, his suggestions, and his very detailed
recommendations. It will be not only my duty but also my
pleasure to forward them to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage and to the government for consideration.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary
secretary. I must point out that, with respect to the bill as a
whole and to his earlier remarks, I am in complete agreement
with him.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, before I talk about the bill I would like to talk a bit
about the area I come from. Almost half the coastline of British
Columbia would fall into my riding of Vancouver Island North.
That is half the coastline of Vancouver Island and a good portion
of the adjacent mainland coastline.
Within the constraints of all that coastline there is a lot of
activity going on at any given time. There are certainly a lot
of aquaculture operations. There is a lot of fishing activity,
commercial and recreational. There is a lot of under sea
harvesting. There are a lot of transportation activities. I
talked a bit about that during my questioning of the member for
Davenport.
There is a history of oil and gas exploration. There is as much
oil and gas identified without major effort on the B.C. coast
which would exceed the Hibernia area on the east coast.
We have very active waterways. I mentioned cruise ships. When I
am at home I very often see six or seven cruise ships go by on
any given evening.
I think it is important to recognize that we have a somewhat
unique circumstance in British Columbia when it comes to our
ocean area. We have established that the Gulf of Georgia, the
seabed and all that belongs to the province.
1705
That tends to create some new and different wrinkles on things
because generally in Canadian jurisdictions the oceans are
federal.
I have great concerns about the politicization of the protection
of marine areas. That is one of the reasons I brought up this
question about why we have three different federal departments
all involved in one way or another in protecting marine areas.
There are many ways to colour the response to that but if people
really think about it, if they are familiar with the way this
place operates, it probably has a lot more to do with politics
than with protecting the marine environment.
The reason we have three different departments trying to protect
marine areas is that this is a public relations exercise to
various degrees for various ministers.
In the case of this bill, we think it is properly an environment
bill. It is falling under heritage because we know who the
minister of heritage is, what she is all about and what she wants
to promote. She wants to promote the fact that she is out saving
marine resources as well as land resources tied in with her parks
mandate.
I would like to comment a little about my concerns regarding
navigation on our waterways because I asked a question about it
to the previous speaker. In the response it occurred to me that
there is a non-understanding on the government side that when it
comes to monitoring marine traffic we have signed treaties with
our neighbour the United States.
We have signed collective agreements with our employees
regarding how we are going to monitor marine traffic. This
government, this administration chose to break those collective
agreements and chose to break the terms of that treaty because it
has mismanaged the funding for the coast guard and the department
of fisheries for this year.
When it comes to making cuts, the government will make the cuts
at the place where service delivery is hurt. It will not make it
at the place where the comfortable bureaucrat is continued to be
sheltered, protected and coddled. It certainly will not make it
in the minister's office. The spin doctors are all still viably
employed.
There was one other response I elicited to my question regarding
why we cannot have all this legislation fall under one mandate.
Why do there have to be three mandates? What is the difference
between these protected areas? What will the rationale be?
All we got was “We don't know that. Maybe they will not all be
under one mandate. At some point maybe they will all be under
the same department”. Those are all fuzzy, feel good
statements.
We do know what the current situation is. We know what today's
situation is. This is today's legislation. Surely to goodness
we can design legislation that maximizes the current structure of
government in terms of getting results. That is all I am
requesting.
1710
It is useful when discussing this bill to think about how this
came about. I realize it goes back to the early 1990s, but in
October 1996 the Prime Minister gave a speech to the World
Conservation Congress. He announced the federal government's
intent to introduce new legislation to establish and administer a
network of marine conservation areas in the Great Lakes and in
the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.
Where did this great initiative start? Did it start from local
concerns, ideas expressed and generated by the grassroots, by the
communities or by the provinces? No, it started from the need of
the Prime Minister to polish his international stature at an
international conference two years ago. Is that not typical?
Afterward we heard the national parks directorate saying it
wanted to consult with interested groups and individuals as the
first step toward developing the legislation. Should the first
steps not arise from a problem or a perceived need that is
expressed by those who have a problem? Must we always have
legislation imposed on us from above?
Let us look at some of these consultations. When the
legislation package came out I sent out a request for comments
from 22 groups. All those 22 groups are groups that should have
been consulted by the government. These groups found they could
not comment in a meaningful way on the legislative package
because they did not know where the marine conservation areas
were going to be created. It is that simple. How can any local
group get its teeth into a piece of legislation that has a vacant
schedule I and schedule II that are supposed to identify what the
marine conservation areas are? It cannot do it.
We know there are 29 so-called representative areas in Canada
with lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. There would probably be
at least one marine conservation area established in each of
these 29 areas. Where are they within the lines on the map? How
big would they be? No one knows.
From previous so-called consultation processes we do know that
the federal government has preconceived ideas about the process
and about areas it would like to designate that have nothing to
do with consultation and everything to do with special interest
groups and squeaky wheels in the maintenance of bureaucracy.
These are not in keeping with local priorities.
I want to explain something. The recreational sector, which
will be heavily impacted by anything that comes out of this, has
no effective lobby in many cases. For example, in my
constituency fishing is a big thing. The private sector does not
include sport fishermen. This recreational sector is composed
primarily of individuals anglers. If the federal bureaucracy
decides to close a marine area to fishing, this will put a whole
bunch of local anglers out without no means of effectively
protesting the government's action.
Certain marine areas are being targeted in northern Vancouver
Island as sites for marine protection areas because certain
squeaky wheel groups want to exclude activity from that area.
However, these special interest groups do not represent the
general public.
If we invent enabling legislation to create marine conservation
areas and then we do not create the areas, we get a bureaucracy
that becomes increasingly uncomfortable because it wants to
fulfill its minister's agenda for the Prime Minister. So it
creates as many of these areas as it has to.
1715
In effect we create a self-perpetuating machine churning out
regulations that have no business existing in the first place. We
end up with marine conservation areas that have a very weak
rationale which flies in the face of common sense and local
sentiment.
There has to be a better way. We have to make sure local
government is involved in a meaningful way. I am aware of how
local government was involved in the consultations on protected
areas. We are talking about a DFO mandate here, not a heritage
mandate. They are paid lip service but their concerns are not
what drives the process. DFO bureaucracy drives the process in
that case.
There is nothing in the legislation that tells me the
bureaucracy will be held to account in ensuring that the
municipal level of government, the one that is in touch with
local needs, will have any meaningful decision making power.
Indeed that would be contrary to the philosophy of the government
and so it is no surprise.
My own constituency concerns are primarily about fishing at this
point. One thing the legislation does is create a reverse onus,
the opposite of the current circumstance. This means that right
now fishing is always open unless areas are specifically closed.
Bill C-48 will make a marine conservation area a closed area and
the department or minister will have to take steps to open it for
fishing. This is a comfortable place for bureaucrats, but it is
a terrible place for fishermen.
The legislation is very good in appearances. It gives the
minister the ability to say she has created marine conservation
areas. This supports the international speech made by the Prime
Minister in 1996. It probably will not cost the federal
government that much because it is easier to create a water park
than a land based park. The real cost of the exercise will be
the people whose traditional activities have been proven to be
sustainable activities over the decades or over the generations.
These people will have a tendency to be dispossessed.
We can be almost certain that no cost benefit analysis and no
sociological or socioeconomic analysis of the bill has been done
by the government. I would guess the government has no idea what
the program will cost. In any event it probably does not matter
because the government's first order of business will be to
offload any management responsibilities on to everyone but
itself. After having taken credit for starting what it has
brainwashed everyone into believing is the greatest thing, the
federal government will point fingers at everyone but itself.
The U.S. has had similar legislation since 1972. It passed the
marine protection, research and sanctuaries act at a time when
there was a burgeoning global awareness of environmental issues
and a real environmental bandwagon. We were all in the same
category at that time.
Since 1972 the United States has created 12 national marine
sanctuaries. There are five off the east coast, five off the
west coast, one in Hawaii and one in American Samoa. The goal in
creating these 12 areas has been to protect vital pockets of
distinct and threatened ocean in American territorial waters.
The first such sanctuary made in 1975 consisted of less than one
square mile off the North Carolina coast surrounding the wreck of
the Monitor from the Civil War.
The others include the world's third largest barrier reef, unique
waters off California, and coral reefs.
1720
The entire U.S. system of 18,000 square miles of water has an
annual budget of $11.7 million and volunteers are an essential
component of making sure its system works. There is a lot of
buy-in in the U.S. system.
I do not think our government has thought about the cost in
terms of capital outlay, human effort and the cost of people
displaced by the system. We have created 29 zones and no
realistic budget.
When we look at the problems we have had with our fisheries
resource and are continuing to have on both coasts, it is very
clear that we are unable to police effectively overfishing,
poaching and other associated problems. Right now on the B.C.
coast police boats have been taken out of service. Police
airplanes have been grounded. They are under tight budgetary
constraints.
I was in Owikeno, a native village on the mid-coast of British
Columbia. It used to get a once a month visit from the RCMP. It
does not get any visits any more unless it is an absolute
emergency. The police are concerned about drug interdiction.
They have all kinds of concerns. They cannot enforce the
Criminal Code on the water any more, and there are very limited
resources in other departments. I am very concerned about all of
that.
Bill C-48 will not prevent or assist any of this. If the funds
are not provided the legislation cannot be effectively put in
place. I could say a lot more, but possibly in the question and
comment period I will be able to say some of it.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments
on Bill C-48. I have a couple of questions based on some of
them.
One of his suggestions was that this initiative or the whole
idea of marine conservation areas simply began when the Prime
Minister made a speech in 1996. Perhaps he may want to explain
to the House how this could be an idea that only started in 1996
when the first marine conservation area, Fathom Five, was
established in 1988, a full eight years before the time when he
claims that this idea came forward.
The hon. member and others who spoke on this matter referred to
some sort of diabolical plot by the Minister of Heritage to
include this in her portfolio when it should rightfully belong
somewhere else. Maybe he could explain why it is that there are
already marine conservation areas which are administered by parks
and have been administered by parks long before the current
minister assumed her particular position. Perhaps he may want to
address that point.
Most of all I would like to know how the member can blanketly
oppose the legislation, even putting forward an amendment, after
voting for a marine conservation area earlier this year at the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the way
in which we have such disparate departments promoting legislation
that does not seem to hang together or tie together and which
tends to politicize the whole process. I am not blanketly
opposing the protection of marine areas.
1725
In terms of talking about dates and when things happen, I remind
the parliamentary secretary that in 1957 British Columbia created
marine parks. I have been in those marine parks in Montague
Harbour on Galiano Island and at Rebecca Spit in my riding. Some
of these marine parks actually contain no water, but they protect
anchorages and scenic shoreline areas.
There were many activities in the 1960s, the 1970s and the
1980s. Now British Columbia manages—this is the west coast
after all—73 provincial parks and recreation areas and 15
ecological reserves with marine components. Parks Canada manages
155 square kilometres of marine waters in Pacific Rim National
Park. I spent seven years in that area. I am well aware of the
plan to create 3,000 square kilometres of national marine
conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
That is not germane to the exercise. It is not whether we have
protected marine areas. It is how we go about it. I am saying
the legislation is full of holes. There are lots of concerns. If
we are to do it, let us make sure we are locally sensitive and
that the people with the most potential to be displaced have the
most to say, particularly in the beginning, about how they will
either be achieved or even whether it is appropriate to do so.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very short
question for the member opposite. Would he tell the House which
of the 29 areas he or his party do not want to be conservation
areas?
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I never indicated that I
did not want a marine conservation area in any of the 29 areas.
Dividing Canadian waters into 29 slots told me that the federal
government must be targeting a minimum of 29 marine conservation
areas. When we look at the U.S. experience since the 1970s it
has only created 12 areas.
I am questioning whatever rationale went into it, whether or not
it was a realistic rationale. I will be happy to identify which
of those 29 areas I would not want to see designated as marine
conservation areas when the parliamentary secretary tells my
caucus which industry he would like to see targeted if the
split-run publishing bill is found wanting by WTO.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
speech, the member expressed his concern at the overlaps within
the federal administration.
Three departments are in fact involved with the same bill. In
real life, experience has shown that, when a number of
departments are involved, they generally do not readily cohabit,
the exercise is costly and the bureaucracy is extremely
cumbersome.
I can understand the member's observations, because we can end
up with a single area that is zoned in several ways.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the
Bloc for her question. I was trying to point out that the
government has very scarce resources that are already fully
allocated. Indeed it is suffering some obvious shortfalls that
it had not anticipated in the marine field on the west coast.
So I thank the member for pointing this out. Indeed when we
have three different departments we have diffused management and
it is less effective. We have seen that very clearly in the
management of the fishery. When there is one manager we can
attempt to manage the fishery. As soon as there are two or more,
everything falls apart.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
MILITARY MISSIONS BEYOND CANADIAN BOUNDARIES
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we begin debate, the Chair has
received notice from the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour
on Friday, October 30, 1998.
[Translation]
As it was not possible to change positions on the list of
priorities, I ask the clerk to drop this motion to the bottom of
the list.
[English]
Private Members' Business will thus be cancelled and the House
will continue with the business before it prior to Private
Members' Business.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured indeed to rise to speak in support of my colleague's
Motion No. 380. The motion brought forward by the official
opposition's chief critic on foreign affairs, the hon. member for
Red Deer, asks this House to seek majority support through an
official vote in the House before Canadian military personnel are
committed to an active military mission outside the country.
All members of the House should support this motion. This is a
motion that would strengthen our democracy and make the executive
branch of government more accountable to Canadians. This motion
attempts to balance the requirements of ruling with the argument
of accountability. It is a step forward in redefining
responsible government as we enter the 21st century.
It seems only just and right that we should always debate and
vote to support our troops before we agree to send them overseas.
Our troops can then embark on their mission knowing that a
majority of elected representatives from every part of Canada
approve and support that mission as they go off to foreign
destinations to protect freedom and democracy and defend
defenceless people in so many parts of the world.
If passed, this motion will help inform Canadians. This motion
will help make the foreign policy process more transparent and
therefore more legitimate.
In the foreign policy paper “Canada in the World” the
government claims it wants a new and broader process for foreign
policy formulation, but when it comes to practising it the
government fails.
By making decisions to commit our troops without debate in this
House, the government is attempting to prevent itself from being
held accountable for the lack of equipment and the poor grade of
equipment our troops are asked to use despite year after year
defence budget cuts.
Motion No. 380 asks for a debate to take place in the House
every time the Liberals want to risk the lives of those who have
pledged to die for our country so we can compare the capability
of our armed forces to what the Liberals are asking them to do.
This House is the very place where Canadians should be consulted.
Canadians want the days of secret decision making to be gone.
Take note debate takes place only after a decision to dispatch
our troops has already been made by the Prime Minister while on
the telephone with another world leader. That is not democratic.
It is autocratic and shameful.
Recently in the House we debated military action in Kosovo. Did
the Liberal government have any long term plan for dealing with
Kosovo? No. Did we simply have a phony emergency debate to
affirm the knee-jerk decision made by the Prime Minister?
1735
What plan does the government have to prevent a Kosovo type
conflict in the future? What leadership role is this government
willing to play to handle such a situation in the future in a
better, more efficient and visionary manner? The government has
the habit of inappropriately addressing various issues, whether
taxes, the economy, justice, national unity and so on. The take
note debate regarding the Kosovo decision was all the Liberal
government allowed members of parliament and Canadians.
In order to deal with such problems there should be two plans.
According to plan A diplomatic initiatives should be aggressively
pursued at the first signs of a problem. Kosovo was an example
of a too little, too late initiative by this Liberal government
and other world governments. The government did not pursue plan A
aggressively.
When we know plan A has failed we can go to plan B which is
military action. That is where Motion No. 380 kicks in. Before
we prescribe this bitter medicine Canadians will need answers to
many questions. Why are we choosing a military situation over a
diplomatic situation? What are the actions the government has
taken? What other possible solutions can we pursue? What are
the possibilities of finding a long term solution? How are we
dealing with the long term persistent hatred in the minds of
ethnic people? How much involvement are we asking from the other
affected and related countries to deal with an issue that is in
their backyards?
Canadians want to know whether we are creating more victims by
sending troops. They want to know how far we will go, how much
it will cost, who is paying and what share we will pay. Did the
government assess the degree of risk before it committed the men
and women of the Canadian Armed Forces? Do they have enough
equipment and facilities? What strategy do we have to deal with
the original security situation? We look forward to the answers
as do Canadian forces personnel. These decisions are made before
we get the answers to these questions from this government.
Motion No. 380 would make the information available in a timely
fashion before the decision is made.
There have repeatedly been serious situations in the world, in
Rwanda, Somalia, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, and the list goes
on. Such situations will happen again somewhere, someday. We are
not prepared to address international conflict situations in
their infancies. We should be. We should be able to monitor and
perhaps predict when economic, social, cultural, political or
other factors are creating conflict in different parts of the
world and we should address the conflicts before we have to use
costly military force anywhere in the world.
Canadians are proud of their tradition of caring and
intervention for the sake of peace but the world cannot continue
to merely react to these situations. We have sent many
peacekeeping missions around the world. I ask the foreign
minister to look into the possibility of peacemaking missions
rather than peacekeeping missions.
I cannot understand how we can keep peace when it is not even
made yet. How can we keep something that does not exist? Let me
give an analogy. When a pressure cooker is heated, steam is
produced. To contain that steam we put pressure on the pressure
cooker. Suppressing the steam under weight might cause the whole
thing to explode and create another mess. The best thing would
be to remove the heat under the pressure cooker. No steam would
be produced and we would not have to put any pressure on it.
Why do we always use military pressure to contain the steam of
conflict in the world? Have we ever taken action to remove the
heat under the pressure cooker? No. Would it not be easier to
address the root cause of the problem? Why can we not prevent
problems before they happen? That is the key question.
Unfortunately this government has not taken this sort of action.
Our peacekeeping forces were stationed in Cypress for 29 years.
Still peace was not made when we withdrew. We should focus on
peacemaking before peacekeeping.
1740
Conflict resolution is a precursor to peacemaking. Ethnic
tensions in many parts of the world can be resolved by equitable,
democratic and better governance. Pilferage and smuggling of
weapons can be stopped. Child armies can be banned. Foreign aid
should be tied to transparency and accountability of recipient
governments. Corruption, poverty, illiteracy and education needs
can and should be addressed.
The weak Liberal government lacks a proactive leadership role.
It is just reactive because it is used to making knee-jerk
decisions. Often a humanitarian crisis is the consequence of
what is fundamentally a political problem.
For example, in the Palestine and Israel conflict in the Middle
East, to help the refugees we committed $55 million in 1995. But
we had already spent more than $136 million and the refugees were
still be produced the day I was there in 1998. We tried to
resolve political problems with financial solutions through
foreign aid. This was absolutely wrong.
We need to meet these problems head on. We should make educated
and democratic decisions. One of the best things to do is debate
it in the House before the decision is made. I urge all members
of the House to support Motion No. 380.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking about blowing
steam, the hon. member for Surrey Central did a great job of it.
Unfortunately he has not read very much history of the evolution
of peacekeeping in this country, otherwise he would not have
undertaken to say the things he has said.
I remind him that Canada's role in support of the United Nations
is the most proactive and most forward advance that countries
around the world have made. Canada is at the forefront. Canada
moved to the forefront again by obtaining a seat on the security
council.
When the hon. member accuses this government of not being
proactive in peacekeeping, I suggest he reread his history books.
To speak to the motion more directly, the hon. member for Red
Deer has proposed that there be a vote every time there is some
deployment of personnel outside this country. I would just like
to bring up a little history for the edification of the hon.
member for Surrey Central.
In the declaration of war in 1939 the government announced the
approval of the address in reply to the speech from the throne
which stated the government's decision to support Britain and
France would constitute approval of the declaration of war. On
September 9 the address was approved without a recorded vote and
war was declared the following day. This seems to me one of the
most serious undertakings of this country.
When the demand in this modern day and age comes for personnel
to go into other countries the call is quite instantaneous. We
do not want to do anything to undo that which has been
accomplished by the tireless efforts of thousands of courageous
Canadian peacekeepers.
In the era we are in, the era of ethnic cleansing, of internal
genocide and untold human suffering, it is simply unacceptable to
propose that Canada, the world leader in peacekeeping, sit back
and debate endlessly while tragedy unfolds.
1745
To do so would be to relinquish the respect and admiration which
Canada has merited as a peacekeeping nation for over 40 years.
This government, which is proud of Canada's peacekeeping
tradition and respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women
who have worn the blue beret, does not support this motion.
Most Canadian military deployments in recent decades have been
contingents for United Nations peacekeeping operations. But
there are other occasions when Canadian forces personnel are
called upon to serve on active duty outside Canada.
Our alliance commitments in NATO and NORAD are founded on the
promise of immediate action against a threat to any alliance
partner. Such promises do not allow for delays and Canada takes
these promises extremely seriously.
There are also events such as the Persian Gulf crisis when
Canada is asked to play a central role in dealing with threats to
international peace and security.
There are times for debate and deliberation over principles. But
there are also times when Canada must respond rapidly to meet its
commitments and to show its resolve. This is not to say that
this government opposes debate. On the contrary, we recognize
that debate is essential, especially when men and women of the
Canadian forces are put in harm's way.
Debate on important military issues is crucial and the opinion
of this House is highly valued. Since its election by the people
of Canada this government has done much to encourage the debate
of all Canadian contributions to international peacekeeping
operations, both within this House and in the public at large.
Discussion has indeed taken place, not only with regard to
specific operations, but with regard to the principles and
direction of Canada's peacekeeping policy in general.
It is obvious that no area of policy has been more openly
discussed than Canada's contribution to international security.
This openness is not only prevalent in this House. Canadians of
all walks of life have been given the opportunity to comment on
Canada's participation in peacekeeping operations.
As part of a Department of Foreign Affairs initiative to
directly involve the Canadian public in our country's foreign
policy, ordinary Canadians were invited to give their opinions
and comments on Canada's involvement in the UN mission in Haiti.
This was accomplished through an Internet site which allowed
private citizens to become more informed on Canada's involvement
in international peacekeeping and to offer their own thoughts.
The response was extremely positive. The site received over 500
visits and two-thirds of those who responded supported our
involvement in Haiti.
We firmly believe that endeavours such as these go a long way
toward opening up the foreign policy process to every Canadian
much further than the mechanism proposed by this motion.
Given the ability and willingness of the Canadian public to
voice their concerns with any peacekeeping operation and the
quality of the frequent debate which takes place in this very
House, it is clear that this motion is not a step forward. The
only possible result would be the undermining of Canada's
commitment to international security.
In this era when events unfold rapidly, leaving little time for
reaction, a motion such as this is simply not viable. The
government recognizes the need for the international community
and Canada as one of its leaders to react quickly in times of
crisis.
As the Canadian study toward a rapid reaction capability for the
United Nations pointed out, the nations of the world must respond
quickly. Having urged the international community to react
promptly through this study, Canada has a responsibility to lead
the way. That is precisely what this government intends to do.
As countless surveys and opinion polls have shown, Canadians
support our country's role as the world leader in peacekeeping.
1750
To suggest that a vote in the House is necessary to ascertain
whether or not the Canadian public supports our leadership role
is, quite simply, inaccurate.
Canadians support and have confidence in the government's choice
to keep Canada at the forefront of international peacekeeping and
security efforts.
In a recent study documenting Canadian opinions on foreign and
defence policy, 79% of those polled considered peacekeeping
important for Canada.
A 1998 study showed that 68% of Canadians want our current
commitment to international peace and security to be maintained
or increased and a similar number regard peacekeeping as being a
very positive source of Canada's international reputation.
Clearly the Canadian people support this country's efforts at
peacekeeping and international security. To support this motion
one would have to ignore several very important realities of the
world around us. First and foremost, events today unfold rapidly
and often with tragic consequences. It is important for
Canadians, for Canada and for the world to be able to act
quickly. Therefore, this motion cannot be supported.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in turn
to speak to Motion No. M-380 presented by my Reform colleague,
the member for Red Deer.
The aim of this motion is, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek
majority support through an official vote in the House of
Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of
Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond
the boundaries of Canada.
There have, on several occasions, been emergency debates to
support, after the fact, a decision to send Canadian troops to
take part in peacekeeping missions.
We have noted that the Government of Canada has consulted the
various opposition parties about these missions on several
occasions, but after the decision was already made. Today's
motion calls for one step further.
As we know, the Bloc Quebecois has already spoken on the matter
in its dissenting report at the time of the release of the
government's foreign policy statement in 1994. The Bloc
Quebecois felt that one of the primary roles of Canadian forces
on the international scene is to support peacekeeping missions
by taking part in them. This is undoubtedly a Canadian talent
and a flower, as we put it, in its international reputation.
However, we wanted Canada's future interventions to be subject
to more specific criteria, and that is the gist of today's
motion.
The motion before us seeks to ensure greater parliamentary
control over the participation of Canadian military personnel to
peacekeeping missions.
It goes without saying that members from our party are delighted
to have this opportunity to discuss proposed changes to the
Canadian Forces' activities abroad, during peacekeeping
missions. We thank the hon. member for Red Deer for providing us
with this opportunity to show the timeliness of our dissenting
report.
Motion M-380 is consistent with the concerns expressed by the
Bloc Quebecois during the various debates held in the House on
this issue. Let me briefly mention the position adopted by our
party regarding the issue before us today.
First, we think that the Canadian Forces play a major role on
the international scene, and that they must support and actively
participate in peacekeeping operations. However, we believe that
the criteria used to determine Canada's future participation
must be tightened.
As we know, recent peacekeeping missions have experienced
problems, and Canada must take note of that. The missions to
Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Haiti, for instance, have
reminded us that we need to base our interventions on democratic
legitimacy and rigorous planning.
1755
We also pointed out in our report that:
The costs and complexity of intervention will require a new
attitude on the part of the international community. The events
in Rwanda and Bosnia are eloquent evidence of this. Canada must
learn from the experience of all these peacekeeping missions. In
the future, mission objectives and orders will have to be
carefully established, under the aegis of the United Nations.
The conflicts to which I just alluded have clearly demonstrated
the importance of first defining a more explicit framework for
our interventions.
The Bloc Quebecois also recognized the need to give the Canadian
Forces a special configuration to maintain the credibility of
our intervention.
At this stage, I would like to comment on a remark the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs made
earlier. He said that, while the motion calls for a vote to be
taken in the House of Commons every time Canada is asked to send
troops to restore, monitor or maintain peace, this would not be
possible and that the urgency of the request would not allow us
to summon the House and to make decisions in a timely fashion.
I would just like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the
crises he gave as examples, which would require a timely
response, never happen overnight. They usually develop over a
long time.
Canada has a duty not only to act in times of crisis, but also
to prepare for crises that, as I just said, do not happen
overnight.
At the same time, we believe Canada should review its existing
military alliances. Let me quote, once again, from the 1994
dissenting report:
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to spell out the direction that Canada
should take in this area. First, we think—and we still do—that
Canada should rethink its current military alliances with NATO
and NORAD so that their strategic missions reflect the UN's
needs.
This approach would inject new life into these organizations and
would make them more effective in protecting safety and in
resolving conflicts. It would also make it possible for Canada
to meet its public security objectives, which are crucial to its
own domestic security.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois considers that Canada should
encourage the setting up of a permanent contingent available to
the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad.
We are talking about thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers
engaged in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions. Of course,
these soldiers being generally sent on a mission for six months
or so, there is a rotation. However, since many human lives are
at stake, we think the motion by the member for Red Deer should
say something about determining the size of the contingent as
well as the costs and the objective of the mission.
Even though Motion M-380 is silent on these issues, it has the
merit of putting the debate in the proper context.
Finally, as we have said many times in previous debates, we
think Canada should submit any decision to participate in
peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as
rapidly as possible, where time allows. I would like to point
out that we are being realistic, here.
We are happy to see this proposal being echoed in the motion
before us today. Since the Bloc Quebecois supports the
fundamental principles outlined in this motion, we will vote in
favour of it.
1800
In conclusion, I would like to remind the House of the great
importance the Bloc Quebecois accords to this debate on the
democratization of government decisions with respect to foreign
affairs.
The globalization of exchanges we are now seeing, whatever their
nature, makes the need for control of these activities by the
people's elected representatives, and therefore by this House,
all the more pressing.
The increased importance of international organizations such as
the UN and the European Union, our participation in NORAD and
NATO, the globalization of social movements, population
movements, human rights issues, problems related to drug
trafficking, and environmental abuse, to name just a few
factors, all have a direct impact on both global security and on
the sovereignty of nations.
With this motion, the government has an opportunity to take a
first step and meet the challenge of transparency by involving
Parliament in decisions about whether to send Canadian military
personnel abroad.
[English]
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me on behalf of all
constituents in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke
to speak to this motion and highlight this government's
commitment to enhancing the role of parliament in the
consideration of Canadian defence and foreign policy issues.
A similar motion was debated in October 1996. At that time the
government noted that any additional steps in the deployment
process would seriously undermine Canada's ability to respond
rapidly and effectively to international crises. The government's
view remains unchanged as the nature of international crises does
not make this motion a viable option for Canada.
However, a comprehensive public discussion of any major Canadian
forces overseas deployment is a healthy and important activity
that must be encouraged. Thus the government has continued its
active engagement in consultation with parliament on Canadian
forces troop deployments wherever possible and necessary.
Recent history shows us that these are not empty words or
vacuous rhetoric that on occasion is the mantra for some members
opposite. I am excluding the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore
but I could be including the member for Lakeland when I say this.
Earlier this month the House debated the evolving situation in
Kosovo and the prospect of Canadian involvement. All parties
agreed that this was a serious humanitarian crisis and supported
action if no diplomatic solution could be reached. We all agreed
that air strikes may be necessary to quell the violence there.
In April of this year the House was consulted on two highly
visible international developments. A special joint meeting of
the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs committees
attended by both ministers came to the unanimous conclusion that
Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force to the Central
African Republic was necessary. It is worth noting that the
peacekeeping force was deployed in record time. Later that month
a House debate led to unanimous House approval of continued
Canadian participation in the NATO led stabilization force in
Bosnia. There are many more examples of the government's
commitment to open debate.
In addition to consulting parliament on troop deployments, many
major foreign policy issues have been discussed in parliament.
The Dayton peace agreement, cruise missile testing, NATO
enlargement and NORAD renewal have all received consideration by
parliament. Few areas of public policy receive more open
discussion than do Canada's contribution to international
security.
Indeed, it has been the policy of this government from the
beginning that major defence and foreign policy issues be brought
to the House. We have kept our word.
In addition the government called on the House for a
comprehensive review of Canadian defence and foreign policies
prior to the government reaching decisions on these matters.
Parliament's recommendations were highly influential in defining
Canadian policy for the 1990s and beyond.
1805
My hon. friend's motion might be interpreted by some to imply
that this government's decision on troop deployments rarely if
ever involve parliament, that these decisions go against the
democratic grain in this country. This is simply not the case.
We should all recall that Mackenzie King, a champion of full
parliamentary sovereignty over Canadian policy, called parliament
back from recess for an emergency debate on Canadian
participation in the second world war. This government also
strongly believes in parliamentary involvement. Earlier this
year our Prime Minister called upon the House for urgent debate
regarding Canadian involvement in the Persian Gulf, regarding
Kosovo, and the Central African Republic and SFOR. Mackenzie
King's democratic tradition continues.
It is also suggested that this motion will lend parliamentary
support, approval and legitimacy to the deployment of Canadian
forces abroad, as if these qualities were somehow absent today.
The fact of the matter is that parliament is consulted on troop
deployments whenever possible and necessary, and that these
discussions are taken seriously by the government. The views of
this House are taken into consideration when decisions are taken
by the government.
And what of the international environment? The new
international security environment is unstable. Crucial
developments occur at astonishing speeds. It has been suggested
that predicting international crises is relatively easy, that
nothing comes up overnight.
Collapsing states and ethnic violence are not overnight
developments but decisions on multinational intervention are.
These actions, be they through the UN or NATO, are not often
afforded the luxury of time. In this era of ethnic cleansing, of
genocide and of untold human suffering, a few days delay could
cost hundreds of thousands of lives. This happened in Rwanda.
Our ability to deploy rapidly has even more significant
implications for Canada. Our NATO and NORAD commitments are
founded on the promise of immediate action against a threat to
any alliance partner. Canada takes these promises extremely
seriously. If ever the need to defend our allies arose and our
troops remained waiting idly by because of undue delay, our
international reputation would be severely damaged. Hence the
need for speed.
The international community's pursuit of a fully functional
rapid reaction force especially at the UN is well documented.
Canada has and will continue to build an important role in the
development of such a force.
Canada's 1995 study “Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the
United Nations” was a highly influential examination of how the
UN and individual countries could improve their ability to
respond to international crises. This initiative spawned an
agreement in principle to develop a rapidly deployable mission
headquarters. This headquarters will increase the UN's ability to
get operations under way in a far shorter time. Also related to
this is the United Nations multinational standby high readiness
brigade, or SHIRBRIG, a co-operative effort between Canada and
many European states. We hope that this brigade will be
available to the UN by January 1999.
To address humanitarian disasters, national defence maintains
the innovative Canadian forces disaster assistance response team
under the acronym DART, which is not to be misconstrued with
another DART, the acronym for Draconian arrant reform truculence.
The Canadian forces DART is composed of 180 personnel who can be
deployed for humanitarian and disaster relief within 48 hours.
Canada's commitment to developing rapid reaction capabilities is
unparalleled. But Canada also tries to lead by example. Our
quick contribution to address the recent crisis in the Central
African Republic and the deployment of troops and equipment to
help Italian regions devastated by mudslides are cases in point.
Our well earned reputation has been won in part by our
willingness and our ability to act quickly. We must do nothing
that threatens this. In fact we must do the exact opposite. It
would not be wise to add any step in the approval process that
could hamper our ability to respond.
Requiring a vote on the deployment of Canadian forces abroad
could in some circumstances impose delay and the cost of such
delay would be measured in human suffering.
1810
The record of the last five years shows that where a mission is
about to be launched or the government is considering the renewal
of an existing commitment, parliament will normally be involved.
This can take the form of debate in the House or the appearance
of ministers before standing committees.
Matters related to the overseas deployment of Canadian forces
personnel are usually brought before this House for debate. I see
no sign that the government will stop taking advantage of the
opportunities to do so.
It is vitally important that the government retain the ability
to act quickly. To limit its ability to do so in the manner
proposed in this motion would be incompatible with Canadian
values and interests. Given the government's record in
consulting parliament regarding these matters, I also see little
practical advantage to be gained by imposing such a requirement.
To support this motion, one would not only have to ignore a
well-established and consistent record of consultation, one would
have to ignore the reality of the world around us. Events today
are unfolding rapidly and often with tragic consequences. Rapid
response is necessary.
The now well-established practice of consulting parliament has
served this House, this government and Canadians very well. The
government will continue to consult parliament on major defence
and foreign policy issues.
In the final analysis, the Liberal government's commitment is to
be strong. The Liberal government's commitment is to safety. The
Liberal government's commitment is to save lives.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say it is never really fair to follow the
member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. He mentioned speed. I
know about his love for horses and he knows a lot about speed.
Speaking of speed the member talked about the lives that could
be lost if we brought this motion to parliament. The fact is
that lives are being lost now, even without this motion. Many
lives have been lost in Kosovo, in Asia and other parts of the
world because of bureaucratic bungling.
Yesterday in this House the Indian affairs and northern
development minister stated “This government must be accountable
and transparent”. Truer words could not be spoken. The
unfortunate part is that this government is not acting on what
she said.
There are 301 elected members of parliament in the House of
Commons. Probably each and every single riding has military
personnel serving in the country, very proudly and very well. It
only stands to reason that members elected from those ridings
should have a vote or a say on where we deploy these brave men
and women around the world.
I wish to digress and mention my family background. My father
was in the Dutch resistance during the war, was captured by the
Germans and put in a prison camp. He and other members of the
camp were rescued by the Canadians. The Canadians valiantly
liberated the south of Holland and moved north through the rest
of the country.
In 1956 my parents decided to immigrate to Canada. I was eight
months old. My father said the only place to move in the world
would be to Canada because it had a brave military and absolutely
wonderful people. He said it would be a great opportunity for
his children to grow up there.
Forty years later I stand in this House as a member of
parliament. I came from the country of Holland and am now in
Canada because my mother and father gave me and my eight brothers
and sisters that opportunity. That is what this country has
done. This country is based on fundamental democratic policies,
policies that this motion reflects.
Our current military is under attack through underutilized
resources. The media heavily attacks military concerns.
1815
Everyone here has seen the tapes. Everyone here has read the
media articles about our military men and women around the world.
The unfortunate part is that those articles do not reflect the
true essence of our military today.
In my riding of Sackville—Eastern Shore there is a town called
Eastern Passage which has the military base of Shearwater.
Shearwater has been there for 80 years, serving this country
proud. I might note that 80 years has passed since World War I.
The men and women of Shearwater do an outstanding job. The
problem is that they do that job, literally, on a shoestring.
They are under attack by their own personal wages, they are under
attack by the equipment they have and they are under attack by
their deployment. Yet the motto of all military people,
especially those in the navy, is “Ready, aye ready”.
The previous speaker from the Liberal Party indicated that this
motion would risk or delay their capability of being ready. I
would like to remind him and all of his colleagues in the Liberal
Party that our military stands to be ready at a moment's notice.
They are proud people.
The member from the Bloc indicated quite rightly that we are now
in a globalized world. There is global uncertainty in other
parts of the world. Our forces are traditionally put under UN
forces to merge with other western nations to assist nations that
are in conflict. Many times members of this House, especially in
opposition and even those in the Liberal government, do not
really know where the troops are being deployed or whose
directions they are following.
All this motion is asking is that all elected members of
parliament should at least understand where the troops are going
and what they are doing. Members should have a say in that
movement. I do not believe for a second that in the event of a
crisis the opposition would purposely delay action.
Regardless of the suffering that our military personnel are
going through on a domestic level, they do an outstanding job. On
November 11 all of us in the country will honour the sacrifices
of our military personnel, who are buried in over 60 countries
around the world. We will remember all of the conflicts which
they have encountered.
I will be very proud to lay a wreath in my riding on November 11
on behalf of the people of Canada. Wreaths will be laid by
veterans at eight other cenotaphs in my riding on behalf of the
people of Canada.
All the Reform Party is asking for in this motion, which I
support, is the chance to have a say. We just want to have an
opportunity to speak before we send men and women into areas of
the world where they may run into conflict. An ill-fated
decision which is made too quickly may cause the lives of our
military men and women.
In the 1990s military action means more than just the deployment
of troops. It is about families. It is about the women and
children left behind or the men and children left behind.
We have a right as members of parliament to decide their
respective partner's future. I do not believe that it should be
just the government that decides. If the government is fully
confident in this House of Commons and fully confident in other
members of parliament, it would bring it to the House for debate.
It could be a very quick debate if need be, but it should be one
in which every member of parliament can debate and vote upon the
situation. That is all we ask.
In speaking about veterans, the Liberal government talks about
the work it has done, yet when it comes to the merchant marines
it is very slow to react. We recently had three merchant marines
on the steps of Parliament Hill, on a hunger strike, fighting for
compensation for something that should have been dealt with right
after the war. But this government waited and waited, and it
still has not acted.
The fact is that merchant marines also died in the war. They
were abandoned by the government after the war and that situation
continues today. I pray to God that this government does not
abandon them and fulfils its promise to speak with them and deal
with their concerns.
1820
If we are to continue to have a proud and honoured military
tradition in this country, we need to have an open and
transparent debate. That is true democracy. That is why I
support the motion put forward by the member for Red Deer.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great regret that an opposition member, with very good
intentions, has proposed a motion to this House that is extremely
counterproductive, redundant and does not serve the debate,
democracy or the country as a whole. It does not serve the
country that our armed forces personnel go to. It does not serve
humanity. It does not serve any purpose.
On October 7 of this year the House had a debate. Members on
all sides had a chance to speak out on behalf of their
constituents and on behalf of Canadians. A motion was put before
parliament that would allow the House of Commons to give guidance
to the government in dealing with a crisis.
At that time the government clearly stated its intention to work
in co-operation with the international community, in conjunction
with the United Nations, our friends and allies, in order to put
a stop to the tragedy in the Balkans.
It is high time that we put partisanship behind us and worked
collectively, not only as a parliament, not only as a community
and as a nation, but as a world. We live in one world. It is a
global village. It is a small world.
If any of us had flown as far above the earth as Bondar did and
looked down, we would not have been able to see a border. We
would not have been able to see the colour of people or know
their religion. We would not have been able to see a town or a
city. We would only have seen the world as one unit.
What we have to do as a parliament, as a community and as a
country is to promote the kind of feeling that we are all one. We
live in one small environment, in one small global community.
We have to put a stop to the horrible things that are taking
place around the world. We have to be proactive and vigilant.
We have to seek venues, such as the United Nations community and
other venues, to establish a mechanism so that we can begin to
resolve international disputes and problems through dialogue and
discussion rather than resorting to violence, attacks and
torture.
The world cannot take it any more. Our resources are
evaporating at an incredible rate. One of the most expensive
resources on this planet is the human resource and we must
protect it. We have done damage to our environment. We have
burned forests all over the place. We have eliminated fish
stocks from different parts of the ocean. We have created toxic
waste all over the place.
Now we have wars all over the place because of borders and other
things that may have happened 500, 1,000 or 5,000 years ago.
None of us owns any part of this world. This world belongs to
all of us collectively. We are the trustees of this world, as my
colleague would say. We have a responsibility collectively to
work in harmony to improve the relationship that exists between
people.
This government has been a very proactive government.
1825
I would say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has set an
example by getting this country to take the lead on the land
mines issue, on the engagement process, trying to engage the
other side and trying to enter into dialogue with the other side.
The previous minister of foreign affairs as well as the
Department of Foreign Affairs and every officer who works in it
have been very proactive in trying to encourage the United
Nations to establish a United Nations peace service mechanism, a
peace force in order to resolve disputes around the world. We
have been very proactive.
I say to my colleagues in opposition, including those in the New
Democratic Party, that they should be on board with what this
government is doing. They should be supporting what the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs are
trying to do on behalf of all us as public servants to get this
country to be proactive.
We are trusted. We are a middle power. We do not have any
colonial interests anywhere. We are not interested in annexing
territories. We are a peaceful nation. There is confidence in
our nation. There is confidence in our people.
We have to use that confidence around the globe in order to
promote peace, prosperity and the resolution of problems through
the mechanism we have spoken about, dialogue. Let us work
together in unity. Let us not use it for a political purpose.
I have been here for almost ten years. It hurts me to see a
motion like this trivializing the difficult times of the people
in that part of the world who need us. Those on both sides need
us. They need us to go in there and create an environment of
engagement in that part of the world. The motion says that, in
the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority
support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior
to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military
personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of
Canada.
We are already in that part of the world. We have been in
different parts of the world for over 40 years now. We have
people who have been engaged pretty well in the vast majority of
peacekeeping forces that exist in the different parts of the
world.
There is nothing new here. Parliament has consistently been
engaged in debate. Parliament has consistently debated issues
affecting Canada's presence around the world, the peacekeeping
presence around the world, the United Nations presence around the
world.
Having a motion like this now is extremely counterproductive and
not serving the democratic process the way it should be.
In light of what is taking place at this moment, if I were my
colleague I would withdraw this motion and do the honourable
thing and endorse what this government and this nation have been
doing for the past 50 years or so.
To that extent, what we have to do as a House is say we have not
only four walls and the floor and the ceiling but we have a
nation. We have to take care of the business of the nation.
When we know the government has already made decisions on issues
like this, when we know the government has international
obligations, when we know the government has a role to play on
the international scene as a member of the United Nations, as a
member of NATO and as a member of the international community, we
should say collectively that the government is doing the right
thing. We should endorse what it is doing.
At the same time, as individual members of parliament we must
continue to call on our friends everywhere, in our constituencies
and around the globe, to pull aside the valance and come together
as one people to start dialogue. This is the only way we can
come to a conclusion so that we have a better community, a better
nation and a better globe.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you very much because you have
been a model here and in your constituency. Many members of the
armed forces live there. You know firsthand the importance of
supporting our armed forces.
1830
I take offence that members of the opposition sometimes try to
undermine the credibility of one of the finest police forces, one
of the finest armies and some of the finest personnel around the
globe. We have to support them. We have to do everything we can
to ensure that they can continue to do their duty, not only in
this country but around the world.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 1 of this year I asked a question of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs about the export of water from Canada.
Earlier this year Nova Group, a Sault Ste. Marie firm, won a
permit from the Ontario government allowing it to export 600
million litres of water a year from Lake Superior to certain
Asian countries. Not long after, Nova Group saw its permit
revoked amidst a national debate on the environmental and
international aspects of allowing the export of our freshwater.
In July of this year, two months after the initial permit was
given to Nova Group, the Ontario government passed new
legislation that banned the bulk export of freshwater, which is a
reason for Nova Group's licence having been taken away.
The problem lies in the fact that Nova Group is now approaching
the Environmental Appeal Board fighting to reinstate its permit.
The environmental minister has already stated that if the
provinces agree Ottawa would get involved and do something about
the situation. Furthermore, the foreign affairs minister has
asked the United States to agree to refer the situation to the
international joint committee responsible for boundary waters
since the water in question is coming from Lake Superior which
borders both countries.
The Ontario environmental minister, having realized the mistake
made by giving Nova Group the permit, thinks that the federal
government should get involved in this very important issue.
This past weekend the United States Great Lakes Commission, an
American environmental group, joined in the efforts against Nova
Group. It stated that if we begin letting one company export our
freshwater it will turn a trickle into a flood. During the
hearings for this case beginning on December 7 of this year, the
Great Lakes commission will be officially demonstrating support
for the opposition of selling this natural resource. According
to the commission this single permit, if it is returned to the
Nova Group, would inevitably have a significant impact on the
future of North America's freshwater.
Our natural resources are very precious. We need to think of
our children and of generations to come. We need to control this
very precious resource which is a staple of life and is a very
serious problem for all Canadians present and future. The issue
of water exports needs to be examined and discussed at the
federal government level.
Once again I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what is his
position on this matter.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government
is opposed to bulk water exports.
Let me clarify that there are no bulk ocean tanker shipments of
Canadian water taking place now. The company, Nova Group, hoped
to export to Asian markets, but the permit issued by the
Government of Ontario was revoked. Nova Group has appealed the
decision to the Ontario Environmental Appeal Board. That board
has set its hearings early in the new year.
Federal officials consulted all provinces on options to deal
with bulk freshwater export proposals. Considerable progress has
been made in these discussions which were completed late last
September.
The government will layout its strategy for a comprehensive
approach to water exports before the end of the year, after
ministers have had an opportunity to consider the results of
these consultations with the provinces.
The U.S. has agreed to a joint reference to the International
Joint Commission to investigate the issue of exports from
boundary waters.
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I first raised this issue during question period on
October 5, 1998 and subsequently raised it with the solicitor
general on October 19, some two weeks ago.
1835
In the four short minutes I have to express my feelings on such
a tragic issue as the totally inadequate funding of our Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, the best route I could go is to read
from a recent newspaper column I wrote on this very subject. What
follows is my weekly column which ran in three dailies and seven
weeklies in my huge riding of Prince George—Peace River just
last week. This column was entitled “Policing Liberal
Priorities”:
It's been almost three weeks since it was revealed that a serious
“financial crisis” within the RCMP has forced senior Mounties
to issue drastic orders. All RCMP boats remain tied up at the
docks, all aircraft have been grounded and there is a ban on
overtime and all training.
A couple of weeks ago I discussed how this shortage of funds
will jeopardize the safety of Canadians, particularly those in
rural British Columbia. The Mounties must make up a $14 million
deficit—$8.5 million of that here in B.C. This has been good
news for organized crime—there is no risk of being caught by
surveillance boats and aircraft—and bad news for small towns who
normally must rely on overtime to provide 24-hour policing.
As safety and security are considered a priority—even a
right—in our society, filling this gap in policing is our
government's top priority. Right? Apparently not, but it should
be. The Solicitor General and the Prime Minister's government
have had plenty of time to search the federal coffers for $14
million to fulfil an obligation to provide Canadians with
adequate law enforcement. The trouble is, they are simply not
interested.
So where do the Liberal interests and priorities lie? In the
past several days, myself and fellow deputy Justice Critic, the
member for Langley—Abbotsford, have been able to identify plenty
of places in which to scrounge up enough cash to restore the
essential services of the RCMP. While there are too many to list
here, I've managed to narrow it down to the—
“Top Ten Reasons Why the Liberals Can't Pay for Policing in
Canada”:
10. A $145 million spending spree designed to tell Canadians
that the end of the Millennium is approaching just in case we
hadn't heard. That includes $700,000 to build a replica of a
tall ship in service during the War of 1812-14.
9. “Other plans” for spending the $3.5 billion surplus the
government had this year.
8. A $10,000 grant for the International Conference on Visual
Poetry.
7. $473,000 to reintegrate Malayan soldiers back into their
society.
6. $2 million to promote the use of electrical energy in
Brazil.
5. $15.5 million for the heritage minister's free flag handout.
4. $120,000 for the Prisoners Support Action Network.
3. $49,216 for the Prison Art Foundation.
2. A $14.6 million windfall to the Prime Minister's own
Shawinigan riding to replace an armoury that the Defence
Department originally said they don't need for another seventeen
years! What a coincidence—it just happens to be the exact
amount needed.
And, the Number One reason why the Liberals can't pay for
policing in Canada—
$1.3 million for the development of a more disease resistant
banana in Honduras!
Is it any wonder that Canadians are truly questioning the
“screwed-up” priorities of this government? These are just
some of the ridiculous places where our tax dollars are spent.
Tax dollars are supposed to provide us with basic services such
as police protection and the enforcement of laws designed to
guarantee a safe and orderly society. In total, my colleague
from Langley—Abbotsford offered up $60 million in questionable
funding priorities in a letter to the Solicitor General to help
him “find” the $14 million for the RCMP.
(That) week during Question Period, I informed the House
frontline Mounties in Prince George—Peace River (had) told me
there will indeed be an increased safety risk to British
Columbians, and to the officers themselves, because of these
drastic budget cutbacks—
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will leave the
grandstanding and political posturing to my colleague across the
floor and concentrate on facts.
The RCMP is a government funded agency. Like all government
entities it is expected to live within its established budgets.
Decisions concerning the manner in which money is spent by the
RCMP are operational questions appropriately left to the
professional management of the RCMP. As is the case in several
provinces, the RCMP is a provincial police force in British
Columbia under contract with the provincial government.
1840
First, as of December 1, 1998, 4,284 of the 4,286 authorized
police contract positions in B.C. were filled. That is an
average of 99.9%. It is not a bad batting average. Second,
there have been no layoffs of RCMP members. Third, overtime is
allowed for critical operational situations. Fourth, RCMP boats
and aircraft are being maintained and are available for emergency
use.
I would like to quote a letter from the RCMP commanding officer
in British Columbia to the RCMP men and women in a division. It
indicated that public safety remained its number one priority and
would not be compromised.
Let me say as parliamentary secretary that I share the priority
of public safety, not politicking the way the members across are
doing.
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the Liberal Party talk
about public safety. The member for Ottawa Centre actually
admitted in the House of Commons that they were responsible for
the depletion of the fish stocks. The member said “we destroyed
the fish stocks”. A Liberal member said that. I wanted to
reiterate it for the record.
My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans will be on the coast guard. The
parliamentary secretary was in the meeting of the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when we asked the acting
commander at that time, Michael Turner, of the coast guard a few
pointed questions about the serious cuts and erosion of morale at
the coast guard. Referring to the coast guard Mr. Turner said:
We are undergoing a period right now where we're having to
re-examine some of our present operations. We are under
considerable pressure funding wise, the whole department is. It
is true that yes we have transferred a fair amount of money over
the last few years from the coast guard to the rest of DFO.
That figure is $200 million of coast guard money which was sent
to DFO. As we all know the DFO does not have a good track record
when it comes to handling money. He continued:
There will be some additional changes in the maritimes but I can
confirm the $55 million figure mentioned mentioned in yesterday's
paper is not correct. Not at all, nowhere near correct. We are
simply looking at a few percent that have to be adjusted.
I will speed up the clock a bit. Neil Bellefontaine, regional
director of DFO in Atlantic Canada, said that his department was
forced to cut its national operating budget by 5% or $45 million.
We are almost there. We are almost reaching the cuts.
After the Swissair disaster off Peggy's Cove the brave men and
women of the Mary Hichens, the first coast guard ship that
arrived, received a letter weeks later from the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans indicating how proud he was. I give the
minister credit for indicating how proud he and the government
were that these people went through their own private little
torture chambers after seeing what they saw in the waters that
night and throughout the following weeks. However, it is an
absolute disgrace that in the same envelope they received from
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was another letter saying
that the ship they were on would be tied up and they would be
laid off.
We cannot say to these people that they did a great job under
horrific circumstances and then turn around in another letter and
say they are to be laid off. What a wonderful Christmas present
that was. It was a major slap in the face.
The Daily News, a great paper in my riding in Nova Scotia,
asked a question the other day of their readers saying “Given
the importance of the service to the Atlantic region, should the
federal government have left the coast guard alone and found the
money from another source?” Seventy-one out of seventy-two
callers said absolutely yes. The people in Atlantic Canada know
the value of a good coast guard.
Who will guard the coast? Who will look after our three
coastlines from coast to coast to coast and our inland waters of
Lake Winnipeg and the Great Lakes, for example?
The cuts to the coast guard have been absolutely devastating. We
heard recently here about the cuts to the RCMP. We heard
recently about the cuts to the military. Yet government members
stand up and say that public safety will not be compromised. It
will be compromised.
1845
I would just love for the parliamentary secretary to come back
with an answer to those remarks.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
answer the member. I was preoccupied with how wrong the member
for Sackville—Eastern Shore was in starting his remarks when he
talked about the cause of the decline of the fishery. All along
he has been saying it has been the foreign fishery and he comes
up with a new line tonight. The member is eventually going to
have to get his line straight.
Let me speak directly to the concerns of the member regarding
the work of the Canadian Coast Guard. He is apparently under the
impression from our session in committee that the coast guard had
transferred up to $200 million to other parts of DFO and that
this would impede it from fulfilling its marine safety
responsibilities.
In this regard I am very pleased to advise the member that he is
quite mistaken. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is
also responsible for the coast guard, has made it very clear on
several occasions that safety at sea is and will remain a top
priority of the department. So is conservation. It is the coast
guard which provides the vital at-sea capability necessary to
meet both these objectives.
As the minister has confirmed on a number of occasions, the
coast guard is an arm of government that by its very existence
and its visible presence represents the obligations and authority
of the nation in our waters, our ports, our territorial seas and
our fishing zones. Those opposite need have no fear that the
Canadian Coast Guard is about to wither away and disappear.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.)