36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 27
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 4, 1997
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1010
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-273. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-274. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| PETITIONS
|
| Labelling of alcoholic beverages
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Public Safety Officers
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1015
| SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Second reading
|
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1125
1130
1135
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1140
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1145
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1150
| Mr. André Harvey |
1155
1200
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1205
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1210
1215
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1220
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1225
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1245
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1250
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1255
1300
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1305
1310
| Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1315
1320
1325
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-17. Second reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| COUNCILLOR FRANK MCKECHNIE
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1400
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| RABBI GUNTER PLAUT
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| PARISH OF PRINCEVILLE
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1405
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| PEACEKEEPING
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| STATUS OF YOUNG PEOPLE
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1410
| MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN VERDUN
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| QUEBEC
|
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
| MERCHANT NAVY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| SPACEBRIDGE
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1420
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| DRINKING WATER
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1425
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| RCMP INVESTIGATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| DRINKING WATER
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
| AIRPORTS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| BC MINE
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| PEARSON AIRPORT
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1445
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1450
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Hon. John Manley |
| KREVER INQUIRY
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1500
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-17. Second reading
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1505
1510
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1555
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1600
1605
| Mr. Ted White |
1610
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1615
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1620
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1625
| Mr. David Price |
1630
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1635
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1640
1645
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1650
1655
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1720
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1725
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1730
| DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Consideration resumed of motion
|
1800
(Division 22)
| Mr. John Duncan |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1805
| EUTHANASIA
|
| Motion No. 123
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1810
1815
1820
1825
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1830
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1835
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1840
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1845
| Amendment
|
1850
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1855
1900
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Mefloquine
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
1905
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1910
| Foreign Aid
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1915
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1920
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Program for Older Workers Adjustment
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1925
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
1930
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 27
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 4, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations.
* * *
1010
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(political activities by charities receiving public funds).
He said: Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill would ensure that
charities that have charitable status and therefore are able to
issue tax receipts would have their charitable status revoked if
they use any of the money for political activities, since the act
concerned with charitable status specifically prohibits those
charities from so doing. It is time to put some teeth into the
act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-274, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(electronic voting).
He said: Mr. Speaker, back in 1994 I ran an electronic
referendum in my riding using electronic touch tone voting. It
came in for a lot of criticism at the time. However, in 1996 the
Harris government wrote electronic voting into the elections act
for Ontario and subsequently the city of North York carried out
an electronic referendum in March of this year in which 152,000
people voted by touch tone telephone in five languages.
The time has come to amend the Canada Elections Act to permit
Elections Canada to carry out some experiments with electronic
voting.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first one has to do with health warning labels. The
petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that
the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems
and that fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth defects
are 100% preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during
pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to mandate
the labelling of alcoholic products to warn expectant mothers and
others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition has to do with the family.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the
House that managing the family home and caring for preschool
children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society and that the Income Tax
Act discriminates against families who choose to provide care in
the home to preschool children.
The petitioners, therefore, call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition has to do with everyday heroes, our police
officers and firefighters on the front lines.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis and that the public mourns the
loss when one of them loses his or her life in the line of duty.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers, our police
officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 8 and 10.
.[Text]
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
With respect to Captain John MacKinnon of Chilliwack, B.C., (a)
when will compensation be given to him in accordance with
the recommandation of the summary investigation into alleged professional
misconduct, (DND Document #1080-3TD 9307 dated
November 29, 1993), and (b) when will the minister consider the
alleged injustices of his inappropriate postings and final
discharge from the military?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
The various complaints of Captain (Ret'd) Mackinnon are now
before the courts. This matter is being reviewed by the
Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces, and
Captain (Ret'd) MacKinnon will be advised shortly through his
lawyers of the position of the Canadian forces in respect of his
most recent request.
Mr. Ted White:
What percentage of those who claim to be self-employed did not
pay any taxes, or declared losses, during the 1996 taxation year,
and what percentage of those people who claim to be self-employed
did not pay taxes, or declared losses, for every year from 1993
to 1995 inclusive?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Statistics for the 1996 taxation year are not yet
available as processing of tax returns related to the 1996
taxation year is not yet complete. Shown below are the requested
data for taxation years 1993 to 1995 inclusive for those
individuals whose major source of income in the taxation year was
self-employment:
(Link to table)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1015
[Translation]
SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-7, an Act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another Act,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting the
bill to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park at second
reading.
Everyone will agree that our parks and national historical
monuments are viewed as treasures both here and abroad.
In fact, yesterday I attended a meeting of heritage ministers
from across Canada in St. John's, Newfoundland, and we were in
unanimous agreement, including the Government of Quebec, that
Canada's heritage is a great treasure as far as tourism is
concerned, and benefits our economy, as well as nature.
I would like to show you just how much of a collaborative
effort this bill has been for the people of the Saguenay. Even MPs
who were not from our party were involved in creating the idea of
having the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park as the first marine
park created by Canadians.
The member for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean himself was the one who
conceived this idea and proposed it to the then Minister of the
Environment, Lucien Bouchard.
That hon. member, André Harvey—my apologies, Mr. Speaker, I
know we are not supposed to name MPs, but I feel this is important.
Why? Because it shows that a Liberal member is now putting the
finishing touches to a fantastic bill that started out with a
Conservative minister and has the support of the Parti Quebecois
government in Quebec.
This shows how this country can function when we want it to,
and how we can work together.
Why did this happen in the Saguenay? Why did we create the
first marine park in Canada? We Canadians are often the first to
do things.
We were the first country to set up a parks department, which is
now more than a century old.
We were the first in the world to sign an international treaty
on the environment, the International Transboundary Waters Act,
which dates, I believe, from 1909. We have worked with the
Americans on major environmental matters. All Canadians in their
heart feel a bond with the land they live in because of its size
and because of its complexity.
[English]
We have how many time zones, how many climate zones? A small
group of people spread out over a very vast territory, and what
does that give us? It gives us a very unique feeling of how we
and the land are partners together. That is why we were the
first country in the world to establish a national parks agency,
the first country in the world to establish a transboundary
agreement on the environment back in 1909. Now today we have
another first.
We are establishing the first marine park which started off more
than 10 years ago. It was the dream of a member of Parliament
who was not of my persuasion. He happened to be the local member
of Parliament for the area. He proposed the idea to the then
minister who happened to be a member of the Conservative Party
but who subsequently joined another party. Now we see it all
coming to fruition in a way that I hope and believe every
Canadian can support.
1020
[Translation]
I think we are justified in being proud of our efforts,
generation after generation, in hanging on to the jewels of our
natural and historical heritage. This is in fact the thrust of the
resolution passed unanimously in Newfoundland yesterday, in which
all the ministers, regardless of political party said “It is our
responsibility to preserve our heritage and to improve it for our
children”.
This same vision and commitment has led us to establish parks
and historical sites. Today, they underlie our efforts to create
a new network of national parks and of marine conservation areas
comprising 29 natural marine areas within Canada.
The federal government has a role, but it is really the people
of Canada who are determined to establish legislation to protect
this extraordinary and vital marine wealth.
[English]
Together we are fulfilling a vision for parks and marine areas
that is truly pan-Canadian in nature.
In the past two years alone we have made tremendous progress
with the signing of agreements to establish Wapusk and Tuktut
Nogait national parks. We have also proceeded with the
withdrawal of lands for future Canadian parks at Wager Bay and on
Bathurst Island.
In total we have set aside a land mass of over 60,000 square
kilometres, an area larger than the entire country of
Switzerland, and we have done that in the past two years alone.
As we work toward completion of our Canadian parks system by the
millennium we anticipate establishing new parks and conservation
areas on Baffin Island, in Lake Superior, in Bonavista Bay and
hopefully in the Torngat Mountains, to name just a few.
[Translation]
The bill before us today is the result of a joint project and
the fruit of a real partnership, proof that Canadians are quite
capable of producing grand visions together, when they pool their
efforts to achieve a common goal.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is a reality today
because of co-operation between members of Parliament, various
levels of government, the communities involved and the native
peoples of the region, who played a very important role.
I would also like to point out the great diversity of
individuals, organizations and governments involved in this great
vision.
The lesson learned was that nothing is impossible and anything is
possible when people put politics aside and work together for the
good of the planet.
[English]
This principle is what the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is
all about. It is about working together. It is about setting
aside our political differences and uniting around a common goal,
that of preserving the ecosystem. Of course it is what Canada
and Canadians are all about, people working together in the
spirit of shared vision and co-operation; people coming together
as we did during the Saguenay and Red River floods with the
spirit of co-operation and vision; people from diverse
communities with various political backgrounds, different levels
of government, different ideas and interests coming together to
protect a unique marine environment, to establish a unique marine
park and to preserve this magnificent part of Canada's national
heritage.
Through today's legislation we are following through on our
shared goal of protecting and preserving the natural environment
contained in the park. Most significantly, we are ensuring
better protection for the beluga whale, a threatened species that
is native to this region.
The beluga whale grows up to six metres in length. With its
distinctly white coloration, high rounded forehead and lack of a
dorsal fin, it is one of the world's most extraordinary
creatures. For years they have been known for their remarkably
varied vocal repertoire. Canadians have listened to their voices
calling out from the sea for marine protection.
More than 500 beluga whales live within the park's boundaries.
The vast majority of Canadians have never seen a beluga whale,
but they want to save the habitat for their children and for the
children of the whales.
1025
In creating this new marine park we are making sure that our
efforts are working in harmony with our strategy for sustainable
development and biodiversity. Together Canadians are moving
toward that goal.
[Translation]
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park will be a meeting place for
Canadian and foreign tourists, as well as the main attraction of a
region that is unique, given its incomparable natural beauty.
Over a five-year period, the marine park will result in over $11
million being invested in the local, regional and national economy, and
in the creation of 350 jobs in the region. So far, the federal
government has invested more than $15 million and we are planning to put
in another $15 million before the beginning of the new millennium.
The purpose of this initiative is to increase the level of protection of
the marine ecosystems and to promote public appreciation for the park.
Our natural heritage is an important element that distinguishes us
as a people and a country. The establishment of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park will allow us to reinforce Canada's identity and
values, and to become even more responsible as regards nature and our
common future.
The bill before us today has the support of environmental
organizations, aboriginal people and local businesses, which have
already contributed $30 million toward the creation of the park. The
park is a unique natural treasure in a prime location, not only in the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence region, but in the hearts of all Canadians.
The park is also unique in that it is the first federal-provincial
salt water park.
Canadians are proud to live in a beautiful, vast and very
diversified country, with coasts that cannot be found anywhere else in
the world.
We can stop environmental degradation in this particular region of
Canada and we can protect our natural heritage thanks to the efforts and
the will of all concerned.
[English]
I had a privilege and a thrill this summer which probably most
people would never have in a lifetime. I had the privilege of
sailing a boat from Newfoundland to Boston. We started from
Newfoundland and as we came out of the St. John's harbour, within
a quarter of a mile of the harbour, I was able to pull the boat
beside an iceberg which towered over us by about 300 feet. What
you do not see is about 90% of the iceberg below.
Not only did we see this iceberg but as we sat beside it and
marvelled at its intense beauty as a part of an ecosystem which
has been there for 20,000 years, a whale jumped out.
Within the graph of a quarter of a mile of our land, we had
mother nature of 20,000 years and mother nature in the form not
of a beluga whale but a less endangered species of a whale.
There are times when the battles of the workforce in politics or
otherwise can make you lose site of the bigger picture. When I
was there in the boat watching the whales from the pod jump, I
had to say this is the nature of the land which we have inherited
from our ancestors.
It is the nature of a land that we have a responsibility to give
to our children. That is why I was so proud last night when our
prime minister in his address in Ottawa underscored the
environmental challenges we face in the future. We cannot just
think of today. We cannot just think of tomorrow. We have to
think of future generations.
In the establishment of the first federal-provincial marine park
in salt water, we are setting a framework to keep this park
forever, into infinity, not just so we can sail, if we have the
means—and not everybody does—but so generations of young
Canadians in the future can see what it is that drew people
inexorably to this fantastic country called Canada.
1030
[Translation]
When people like Radisson and Desgroseillers travelled through
Hamilton on their trips to find furs, they experienced a feeling for
their country that was shared with aboriginal people. We have somewhat
forgotten the true nature of this country called Canada. This country is
winter and winter is our country. I believe that with the small step we
are taking today by establishing the first marine park, we are
recreating—
[English]
A magnet brought people to this fantastic country, whether it
was several hundred years ago, thousands of years ago over the
Bering Strait, or as late as this year when thousands of people
chose to call Canada home. I think the bill is one of the
reasons we will continue to preserve a way of life that people
around the world see as a magnet for their hopes and their
aspirations.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this being my first formal speech in the House of Commons in this
session, I wish to congratulate you on your position in the chair
and the Speaker of the House on the democratic process that we
went through a couple of weeks ago. I know all of you are
working very hard to make sure that parliament is conducted in a
way that we can have our political differences but at the same
time in a way that all decisions by the Chair are fair.
Another thing I would like to do obviously is to thank the
people of Kootenay—Columbia for vesting their confidence in me.
I had a vote of 62% and certainly I thank those people for their
vote, but I also feel a tremendous responsibility to the other
38% who chose to vote for someone else, that they would see me as
representing them in the Kootenay—Columbia constituency and be
worthy of the trust the people have given me.
I was very interested in the comments of the heritage minister
about her personal experience on the Atlantic. Of all the
divisions within the heritage department probably parks are
closest to my own heart. I have been very fortunate. My wife
and I have reared three children on a lake in the Rocky
Mountains. It is not unusual on my way home either to see
muskrat, elk or deer. We have white swan. We have loons. We
have everything constantly around us. I have a tremendous
appreciation for nature.
Probably the difference—this is perhaps a personal difference
and a political difference—is the vision I have of parks in
Canada as creating more of a balance. There is a tension between
the side of preservation of what we have in Canada and the access
citizens and visitors to Canada should have to parks. Perhaps
that is where we would end up with a difference of opinion.
Because of the time I have spent at my home and in our own area
I have personally seen and smelled grizzly bear, seen the caribou
and the moose.
About 15 years ago in the fall during the rut I was rather
chagrined. I was driving a TransAm. That car rode very close to
the road. As I was driving between two centres in my
constituency a moose walked out very slowly. I had just finished
passing a Greyhound bus and I slowed down to a stop. The moose
was absolutely a gigantic, magnificent animal. He kind of looked
at the front of the car with that great big thunderbird on it. I
was wondering if he saw it as something he wanted to mangle or
attack. I was particularly concerned about the bus coming up
behind me, that somebody might honk the horn in which case this
animal might do something unexpected.
That is the kind of country I come from and I am very proud to
represent. I have a strong feeling about nature and what we have
in Canada.
It is with that vision that I speak to the bill before us. My
understanding is that this is federally enabling legislation for
an agreement between Canada and Quebec, signed in 1990, to create
a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fiord and the St.
Lawrence estuary and to conserve and manage its marine resources.
Bill C-7 does not involve any transfer of land. The Government
of Quebec retains ownership of the seabed and subsoil resources.
The Government of Canada continues to exercise its responsibility
over navigation and fisheries. Existing laws remain applicable
in the park.
1035
The legislative process that we enter into in the House is very
important. All steps in the process are very important. In this
case the committee work will be a very valuable part of putting
this important legislation in place.
There is collaboration in the involvement of local and regional
organizations in protecting the site. It suggests that there is
support for this 1,138 square kilometre protected zone.
It will be very important for the committee to hear from people
about the issue so that we clearly understand we have
representation from people and, if there are two sides to this
issue, so that we clearly understand where the local people are
coming from.
Funding was provided for in the February 1995 federal budget and
the federal contributions toward development and operating costs
totalled $20.7 million over three years. Additional funding from
the federal government has been $6 million between 1989 and 1993
and $4 million for green plan funding between 1993 and 1995.
I am a little confused with the funding. It will also be an
important part of the job of the committee to take a look at the
issue of funding. I have the numbers for 1989-90, 1990-91, and
so on and so forth all the way up to 1996-97, where I see a total
of $16.3 million in federal money went into the park.
I have two figures in front of me that I find a little
confusing, $20.7 million and $30.7 million. I heard the minister
in her speech talk about the figure of $30.7 million. I am
trying to portray the issue of the dollars and cents.
The Reform Party is noted for looking after the financial
affairs of Canada and calling the government to account for the
way it spends its dollars. The dollars that have been spent to
this point do not appear to have been exorbitant or out of line.
However there does seem to be some confusion about them. I would
look to the committee to examine expenditures.
Parliament must approve all new parks and all changes to
existing parks. This should ensure some accountability to
parliament and ultimately to the public. Our national parks are
owned by all Canadians and purportedly managed on their behalf.
The legislation attempts to put in place a federal-provincial
management regime that is already operational.
I also had the good fortune, as the minister just indicated, to
visit Newfoundland this summer. I was on the opposite side of
the island. I was at Gros Morne National Park. I cite this by
way of example of the kind of work we must do in committee. I
cite Gros Morne as a template. If we take a look at it we should
be able to see the kinds of questions we should be asking in
committee.
Gros Morne is 20 to 25 years old. It is still in the formation
stages and is working under an agreement between the federal and
provincial governments. The applicable laws and their
enforcement come under the provincial government because enabling
legislation has not been brought through the House to bring it
under Parks Canada.
One of the good things I saw in Gros Morne Park was the
relationship of the services being provided either to the park or
to the visitors of the park. They were very simple.
In Jasper National Park, Banff, or Riding Mountain National Park
in Manitoba people constantly run into conflict between
commercial interests providing services to the park and its
visitors because of an overlay, duplication, and many years of
trying to jig and redo leases.
1040
The beauty of Gros Morne is that the leases that have been
negotiated have been done on the basis of a percentage of gross
revenue. That is something we could take a look at for any
leases in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Park. We should be looking
at simplifying leases, particularly for people who provide boat
services and things of that nature.
Another very good thing about Gros Morne is that the towns,
although geographically within the park, are nonetheless not
contained within the actual park boundary. This has tremendously
simplified the relationship of the towns to the park and to the
park administration.
This is something we could learn about, for example, when we
take a look at the conflict we are currently undergoing in the
town of Banff. Jasper certainly is not far behind, as are the
other towns within park boundaries.
We have a very interesting situation in Gros Morne. We are
talking about the moose and land animals there. They do relate
to Beluga whales and to the marine life in this marine park. The
problem with moose in Gros Morne is that they are literally
eating the park to death. I can see a situation forthcoming
where there may even have to be a cull of moose because the park
could actually be killed by the overgrazing of moose.
One interesting thing about moose in Newfoundland is that they
are not actually natural to Newfoundland. They were imported at
the turn of the century. I believe the year was 1906. As a
consequence they have adapted to an absolutely ideal territory
but unfortunately are eating the park to death.
Another interesting point is that we can learn from the Gros
Morne template relative to this act and what happened with
respect to the agreement on snowmobiles in Gros Morne. When the
agreement was negotiated some 20 years ago there was no vision,
nor could we have had a vision, of how the capability and
capacity of snowmobiles could be increased to extreme heights in
terms of speed and carrying people.
As a result the agreement negotiated with the people in the area
at the time is now called into question. With access to the high
plateau areas in Gros Morne Park there is actually what I call
shoulder season problems. In other words, if the snowmobiles are
out too soon, or particularly in the spring when the snowmobiles
are out too late, they are actually causing damage.
That is why I am suggesting to the House and to the committee
that we must take a look at flexibility in anything to do with
the legislation so that we do not end up finding ourselves in a
box with respect to people who are running boats in this area.
We cannot possibly foresee the technological capacity of boats
that will be in this area. As a consequence we must ensure we
have flexibility within any legislation and within regulations so
that we do not end up with the same kind of problems with boats
at Saguenay that we are currently experiencing with snowmobiles
at Gros Morne.
As I indicated at the outset of my comments, I believe that the
majority of people in the Reform Party and I have a different
vision of Parks Canada than the minister and certainly the
Liberal government. We see parks as being areas that must be
properly confined and protected for the benefit of our children
and our grandchildren and for the benefit of all people in the
world, which is why Banff is designated a heritage site. We
understand that.
However, we have a lot of difficulty when we try to apply
preservation techniques and policies on an area where people are
already coming into the parks.
1045
I believe there has to be a better balance and a better approach
to parks and preserves. My vision of this in committee would be
to look at it more from the perspective of the people who are
presently going into this area. As the minister indicated, it is
important to protect the beluga and its environment. At the same
time we have to take into account that one of the major reasons
for this park is for all Canadians and all visitors to have the
potential for the same kind of experience the minister had with
the whale and the iceberg.
I have one criticism that could be considered partisan. Once
again the Liberal government is using the House as a rubber
stamp. And it is not just the Liberal government. Between the
Liberals and Conservatives who have bounced back and forth across
this Chamber frequently there has been the implication that
because one has a majority government, it will simply bring in
the legislation in due course, in due time.
When the minister talked about “putting the final touches” on
this legislation, she also indicated there was a Conservative
initiative to this. Why does the legislation come at the very
tag end? Why is it that when these parties are in government
they consistently use the House as a rubber stamp?
All the details were worked out with the province of Quebec long
before it was brought to the House for any kind of discussion.
That is really unfortunate and takes me back to the first item on
my shopping list for committee. The people in the area and all
concerned parties must be heard relative to their support for
this park. We have some documentation to back it up but let us
hear the people in place.
What are the implications for commercial and sports fisheries on
the St. Lawrence? What are the implications for other uses of
the river? It is absolutely essential that the people who are
presently using that area for its marine life be taken into
account.
I cite by way of example a situation in my constituency. We in
Kootenay—Columbia are part of one of the major flyways for
waterfowl that come from northern Canada and head south to the
U.S. and further. On the Columbia River are very delicate
nesting areas. We have to be very conscious of power boats being
used in specific locations on the Columbia River, otherwise we
would be really fouling up the waterfowl.
However, last summer in particular several idiots on personal
watercraft roared through some of these areas. I cannot imagine
what if anything was going through their heads. The net result
of these few people who chose not to use their brains, who were
acting in a reckless and irresponsible way—there was only a
handful of them—was that the B.C. ministry of environment
suddenly slapped a 10-horsepower limit on an 80-mile stretch of
the river.
That really flies in the teeth of the people in my constituency,
the vast majority of whom are very responsible, the vast majority
of whom choose to live there, as I do, because we respect the
area and we respect nature. Those people use the river
responsibly. Now, all of a sudden out of the clear blue sky,
boom, a 10-horsepower motor limit.
That kind of knee-jerk reaction by bureaucracy not only does not
solve the problem but actually ends up seriously irritating
responsible people.
1050
Why do I say that it does not really solve the problem? If you
could put a 10-horsepower motor on something like a canoe—which
you could not do because you would sink it—and ran it full bore
up the river, you would create as much damage as these personal
watercraft are creating in these nesting areas. The
10-horsepower limit means nothing.
With that in mind, what are the implications for commercial and
sports fisheries on the St. Lawrence as a result of this bill and
particularly as a result of the overlay of park regulations? That
is another question we must answer to our satisfaction to ensure
that we do not end up doing things unnecessarily and making
people angry.
This 10 horsepower limit is seen by myself and many others like
trying to kill a mosquito with a 10 pound sledgehammer. It is
unnecessary and would probably create more damage than was
intended in the first place.
There is another issue. Unfortunately because of the separatist
aspirations of the BQ and PQ we must take into account what kind
of implications this bill may have. We cannot just say “It is
all drafted and it looks fine”. We must seriously examine what
this bill means, what its implications could conceivably be
relative to the relationship between the federal government and
the government of the province of Quebec, particularly as long as
the province of Quebec is represented by people who would break
up this country. We must be very careful with this bill.
Finally, what precedents does this bill establish for future
parks? Probably more important, what precedents does it set for
the establishment of other marine parks in Canada?
Legislation does not happen in a vacuum. Legislation works
almost like an onion, layer upon layer. For the people in the
rest of Canada who may have a marine park brought forward in
their area, we must be very careful to determine what precedents
this bill establishes. We cannot see the establishment of this
park and the marine control in isolation.
The minister has already said there is a movement
afoot—probably a good movement—to establish a full park system.
If we do not take into account what happens on the west and
north coasts as it relates to marine life and the use of that
water by existing and potential future users, we would be making
a mistake.
We are concerned about a number of things. We insist the
committee go through these questions and other questions that
will be raised by other members. This will not be a committee
rubber stamp process, nor do I expect it to be. The
parliamentary secretary, the secretary of state and the chairman
of the heritage committee are fine gentlemen who will see to it
that this is not a rubber stamp process and that we will have the
opportunity, in a totally non-partisan way, to establish answers
to some of the questions I have posed and hopefully some of the
questions that other members will pose.
However, because we do believe this is a good bill in principle,
the Reform Party will support it at second reading.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak on Bill C-7, the short title of which is the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act.
1055
I am pleased to announce at the outset—and this will not come as
a surprise either—that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
On December 12, 1996, the governments of Quebec and Canada
announced they were tabling a bill on the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park before the Quebec National Assembly and the House of Commons
respectively, to implement the April 1990 agreement between the two
governments.
At that time, the two ministers responsible for the bill, that is
to say Canada's Minister of Canadian Heritage and Quebec's environment
and wildlife minister, stressed how important their two bills were.
While identical in many respects, these bills take into account each
government's jurisdictions.
These bills were Bill 86 in Quebec and Bill C-78 in Canada. They
are aimed at enhancing the level of protection of the ecosystems in part
of the Saguenay River fjord and the northern St. Lawrence estuary to
ensure conservation, while at the same time promoting its use for
educational, recreational and scientific purposes, for the benefit of
present and future generations.
At the time these two bills were tabled, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage described the legislation as, and I quote:
As for the hon. David Cliche, then Quebec's environment and
wildlife minister, he stated:
We are proud of the positive result of our consultations and are
convinced we have met the expectations of the public and of the
many partners who will be associated with a project of this
magnitude.
What therefore was the purpose of the agreement that led to
the establishment of this marine park, which is located in an
internationally recognized tourist sector and which will boost an
already strong and lasting tourist industry?
The marine park project was apparently launched in 1985. On
June 3, 1988, Canada and Quebec agreed that they should sit down
together and talk about establishing a marine park in the Saguenay.
The parties recognized, and I quote:
The importance and the urgency of protecting and preserving
for the present and for future generations the exceptional
flora and fauna of the marine territory at the confluence of
the Saguenay River and the northern half of the St. Lawrence
estuary and of developing said flora and fauna.
It was to be almost another two years before the two
governments worked out an agreement, which they signed on April 6,
1990. Under this agreement, both governments undertook, within the
limits of their constitutional authority, to cause to be passed
legislative or regulatory measures for the purpose of, and I quote:
[...]
(a) establishing a marine park to be known as the Saguenay
Marine Park located at the confluence of the Saguenay River
and the northern half of the St. Lawrence estuary;
(b) preserving the aquatic flora and fauna, and maintaining
the integrity of ecosystems in this territory;
(c) protecting the territory and other resources;
(d) developing these resources for the benefit of present and
future generations;
(e) creating public awareness of these resources.
In addition, this agreement created a joint committee that was
to report to each government within six months of the signing of
the agreement, in other words around October 1990, regarding the
legislative or regulatory measures they should pass.
In article 2, the agreement set out the provisional boundaries
of the Saguenay Marine Park and both governments gave themselves
four months to agree on a detailed description of the park's
provisional boundaries, and a maximum of nine months within which
both governments would carry out a public consultation prior to
defining the permanent boundaries of the park.
Article 3 of the agreement confirmed the rights and
authorities of each of the governments, which became, as it were,
co-owners of the park.
Thus, under this agreement, the Quebec government maintains ownership of
the sea floor and of surface and subsurface resources, whereas the
federal government continues to exercise its jurisdiction in matters
including navigation and fisheries.
1100
This is in fact a first in Canada, since this park will be under
joint federal-provincial management, and neither party will have to
relinquish anything to the other.
With an increasing willingness to co-operate in the best interests
of taxpayers who are always seeking an end to useless duplication and
overlap, the two governments have agreed to harmonize their initiatives
and the initiatives of their respective departments and agencies. They
have even agreed, under article 4 of the agreement, to share present and
future infrastructures, facilities and equipment in the marine park,
provided that one of the governments makes such a request to the other.
In addition, the two governments have created a committee with two
representatives from each of the governments, whose task will be to find
ways to further harmonize efforts.
The committee's mandate is to harmonize initiatives by Canada and
Quebec, especially in the areas of planning, research, management plan
development and programming activities, consultation with concerned
individuals and groups, integration of development efforts, arrangements
for sharing existing and planned infrastructures, facilities, and
equipment, scheduling, personnel exchanges, communications and
organization of seminars, symposiums and exhibits, marine fauna and
flora and public security.
This proposed marine park innovates in three main areas. To begin
with, it is the first time in Quebec that a park is given the mission of
protecting a marine environment. Furthermore, it is the first time that
the governments of Canada and Quebec work together to establish a park.
And finally, there has never before been such an innovative consultation
process.
In this regard, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the
fact that this project originated at the grassroots level and evolved to
finally reach Parliament, contrary to numerous projects that are of a
centralizing nature and that originate with the government and are
imposed on the population. The Reform Party must be very pleased with
this, because the establishment of this park reflects exactly what the
population of this region wants.
I would like to give a broad outline of the consultation process.
In December 1990, the two governments held joint public hearings to
determine the park's boundaries. Following that, they set up an advisory
committee including representatives from the regional county
municipalities affected by the project, from the scientific community,
from the Quebec union for the conservation of nature and from the
coalition for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The mandate of the committee was to advise planners on, first, the
way the park project was perceived in the area and, second, the content
of a development proposal. The committee and the representatives of the
ministers concerned were able to bring to the fore the issues involved
and to show the interest the people had for a marine park.
In April 1993, both governments made public the boundaries of the
park and announced at the same time public consultations on the
development proposal. Two months later, at the end of the
consultations, the governments had received 63 submissions which were
thoroughly reviewed. A report was submitted in December 1993.
1105
The governments had everything they needed to prepare the master
plan for the marine park, which was released at the beginning of 1996.
This major consultation effort produced at least two changes: the name
was changed from Saguenay Marine Park to Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park and the area covered went from 746 square kilometres to 1,138
square kilometres, almost double the original area.
After more than 10 years of talks and negotiations between the
governments in Ottawa and Quebec, the National Assembly made the project
official on June 5, 1997, by passing Bill 86 which had been introduced
on December 12, 1996. However, the Quebec legislation will only come
into force once Bill C-7 receives royal assent.
However, Bill C-78, which was introduced in the House of Commons in
December 1996 at the same time as the bill in Quebec City, met with a
very different fate. Last April, during the 35th Parliament, the Bloc
Quebecois, which at the time was the official opposition, feeling it was
becoming increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister was going to ask
the Governor General to prorogue the House and call a general election,
made representations on several occasions to the government to speed up
the process and pass the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act as
quickly as possible before the general election. Instead, the government
chose to let it die on the Order Paper.
The long awaited Bill C-7 before the House today at second reading
is the result of many years of joint efforts on the part of the
governments of Quebec and Canada.
The establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park provided
for in this bill is also the result of the co-operation between the many
organizations already active in surrounding areas, local and regional
communities, environmental groups, native peoples and the scientific
community. Thanks to this co-operation, they were able to set joint
objectives for the management and protection of the area's rich and
diverse marine resources, particularly to better protect an endangered
species, the beluga.
The management plan tabled in February 1996, after extensive public
consultation, mentions the existence of a consensus on the conservation
of marine ecosystems and the development of the park. The Canadian and
Quebec acts creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park are mirror
images. Both pieces of legislation have the same objectives, namely the
conservation and development of the marine environment.
The two bills complement each other, without losing sight of the
constitutional jurisdiction of each level of government.
Without going into detail, I will recall the main elements of the
bill as outlined in the summary. This bill creates the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park. It will be the first federal-provincial salt water
marine park.
It sets out the role the federal government will have to play,
mainly with respect to managing the park in conjunction with the
Government of Quebec.
However, a provision in the bill allows the minister responsible for
Parks Canada to enter into agreements with the other levels of
government or with organizations, if this is necessary to insure maximum
effectiveness in establishing innovative partnerships that will help
achieve management objectives for the future.
It implements the 1990 federal-provincial agreement.
It deals with the water column within the park boundaries.
The bill provides for joint management of the parks and the
creation of committees for that purpose. Among other things, the
governments will jointly establish a harmonization committee to
coordinate their respective planning and management activities.
The legislation also provides for the creation of a co-ordinating
committee, which will give members of the community the opportunity to
participate in the improvement of the protection measures and the
promotional activities for the park. That co-ordinating structure
involves both levels of governments, the regional stakeholders and the
band council of the Essipit Montagnais.
1110
Furthermore, the management framework included in the management
plan published jointly by both governments under the title “Crossroads
of Life, Site of Exchanges, Wellspring of Riches” states that this plan
has created a co-ordination zone. The document defines that zone as
follows:
The marine park territory and the surrounding regions form the
co-ordination zone.
Besides the territory of the park itself, the zone stretches from
Chicoutimi to Tadoussac and includes all municipalities bordering
the fjord. Along the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the co-ordination
zone stretches from Saint-Fidèle-de-Mont-Murray to Les
Escoumins and includes the territory of the Essipit aboriginal
community. On the south shore, municipalities along the estuary
from Kamouraska to Trois-Pistoles are part of the zone.
The co-ordinating committee will be composed as follows: one
representative for each of the north shore regional county
municipalities adjacent to the marine park, that is Charlevoix-Est,
Fjord-du-Saguenay and Haute-Côte-Nord; one representative only for the
three south shore regional county municipalities concerned by the park,
that is Kamouraska, Les Basques and Rivière-du-Loup; one representative
of the scientific community; one representative of the groups concerned
with resource conservation and preservation as well as with education in
natural environment and its interpretation; one representative of the
Department of Canadian Heritage; and one representative of the Quebec
Department of Environment and Wildlife.
The bill requires that management plans be prepared and laid before
Parliament. It provides that a management plan shall be laid before
Parliament within one year after the establishment of the park.
Afterwards, the management plan will have to be reviewed at least once
every seven years and laid before Parliament.
The bill creates a procedure for changing park boundaries. As
presently provided, its territory contains 1,138 square kilometres and
covers a representative part of the marine environment of the fjord and
the estuary. This territory includes the Saguenay River from the mouth
of the river up to Cap de l'Est, located about 40 kilometres east of
Chicoutimi, as well as the north estuary of the St. Lawrence River from
Gros Cap à l'Aigle, located about 10 kilometres east of the town of the
same name, up to Pointe Rouge or Les Escoumins.
The boundaries could be changed by order in council, provided that
the Government of Quebec has given its approval and that both ministers
of both levels of government have jointly consulted the public on this
issue.
It is interesting to note that, in this bill, the public is
directly involved in the management of the park, since both the federal
and the provincial minister must encourage the people to take part in
the development of the park's policies and management plan and in the
examination of all major related issues.
The bill reaffirms the protection of natural and cultural resources
and of the park's ecosystems. Is also includes measures to protect the
health and safety of all visitors inside the park.
The bill also stipulates the offences and penalties for every
person who contravenes this legislation or its regulations. It gives the
park wardens the same powers of arrest granted peace officers in the
Criminal Code.
1115
Anyone found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
is liable in the case of a natural person, to a fine not exceeding
$10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to
both, and in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding
$100,000.
Anyone found guilty of an indictable offence is liable in the case
of a natural person, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding five years, or to both.
In the case of a corporation, the maximum fine is $500,000.
The bill will complement existing federal legislation that could be
affected by its provisions, such as the Fisheries Act, the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994,
and the Canada Shipping Act.
The bill is quite clear. All resource exploration and development
activities in mining and energy production will be prohibited within the
park's boundaries. Oil and gas pipelines and power lines will also be
prohibited.
The bill describes clearly all the management and planning
activities that will be necessary for proper operation of the park. The
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will benefit the whole area. Local
residents will be provided with the means to conserve this area, and its
flora and fauna.
The park will generate jobs in the areas of nature conservation, site
development, territory protection and tourist industry.
During the development phase, there will be jobs in infrastructure
construction and site development. Scientists will certainly contribute
to the supervision of environmental aspects of this work. In the longer
term, there will be job creation for conservation officers involved in
the protection of the park and the security of visitors, for employees
in charge of the maintenance of the park and its various sites, and
interpreters to help visitors enjoy the park.
The marine park will be a new attraction that will bring new
tourists in this area and keep those who had already been going there
for a longer period. These tourists will generate new benefits for the
accommodation industry, restaurants, and cultural and leisure
activities.
The establishment of this park will especially help preserve, for
future generations, a precious and unique regional ecosystem that is
found nowhere else in Quebec or in Canada. It is Heritage Canada's job,
through Parks Canada, to assign resources to the protection of the
environment, just as Quebec's environment and wildlife department does
in Quebec.
Quebec has always been protective of its territory and has always
reluctantly accepted to let Canada settle on its land. Today, the
Department of Canadian Heritage has given Parks Canada the mandate to
manage two national parks in Quebec, Forillon and la Mauricie; a
national park reserve, the Mingan Islands; four navigable historic
canals; 21 historic sites; and a development program of approximately a
hundred commemorative plaques.
Through its environment and wildlife department, the Government of
Quebec already manages 50 ecological reserves and 17 parks, and it has
reserved 18 territories in the north with the intention of turning them
into parks.
In the issue before the House today, the Government of Quebec has
worked in good faith with the Government of Canada because it wanted to
establish this park, because it did not want to give up any rights—the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park does fall under the jurisdiction
of both governments—and, consequently, the government could not act
alone. It had to act in co-operation with the Government of Canada.
Of course, if Quebec were a sovereign state, the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park would probably have been established by now.
The establishment of a new partnership with the Government of Canada
meant that the Government of Quebec had to initiate a whole process of
discussion, of consultation, of co-ordination and of planning before
going ahead with this marine park.
If Quebec had acted alone in creating this park, there would certainly
have been less discussion, less compromise, no jurisdictional problems
and, most of all, no need to wait for Ottawa to pass this legislation.
1120
But, for now, Quebec is still part of Canada. The adoption of this
bill will allow Quebec to go ahead with the joint project to create a
marine park and to recover some of the tax money it pays each year to
the federal government.
I call upon my colleagues from all parties to co-operate in order
to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park Act.
In closing, I would like to read another excerpt from the
management plan to which I was referring earlier.
I quote:
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is a product of the richness and
diversity of its natural and cultural components as well as the interest
expressed by the public in their increased protection—. Today, our
society is looking to renew its interest in the marine environment and
all the memories it holds. Like yesterday's explorers and hunters,
today's visitors relive the excitement of an encounter with marine
mammals; they become image hunters. A good look at the long-term human
intervention in the area of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will
reveal the importance of the marine ecosystem in humanity's heritage.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am very proud today to rise on behalf of my
constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore to declare the New
Democratic Party's support in principle for Bill C-7, an act to
establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
In my riding the significance of our natural surroundings
affects our very lives and livelihood. Our streams, rivers,
lakes, forests and agricultural lands provide sustenance to all
who reside there. Whether it is the citizens in the north or the
citizens in the south, the need to maintain and preserve the
ecosystem is a belief shared by everyone.
I commend the Liberal government's effort to fulfil at least one
election promise made to Canadians. I am pleased that the
proposed legislation will enable all Canadians the opportunity to
visit and enjoy another jewel in our country's natural heritage.
Bill C-7 is the reincarnation of Bill C-78 tabled late in the
35th Parliament which died on the Order Paper with the
dissolution of Parliament. Its reintroduction is a continuation
of the effort which began in the 1970s when the need for marine
life protection along the St. Lawrence achieved national
attention.
The disgraceful state of the river at the time was best
signified by the dead and dying St. Lawrence beluga whales
washing ashore. Toxic contaminants from upriver sources have
been identified as the primary culprit. The establishment of a
marine park it is hoped will assist in the recovery of this
endangered species.
The rich diversity of marine life found at the confluence of the
Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence River supports many species
and is visited each summer by blue whales, fin whales, minke
whales and on occasion by humpback and sperm whales. The whales
represent the top of the park's marine food chain and efforts to
correct the damage to this area inflicted by man deserve our
support.
There is another fact which may be overlooked. Millions of
people depend upon the waters of the St. Lawrence for drinking
water, recreational and employment purposes. Given the
endangered state of the St. Lawrence beluga, a victim of outdated
practices and environmental impacts, the risk to people is
acknowledged. The requirement for the protection of this
ecosystem becomes an absolute necessity.
The significance of the establishment of the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park goes beyond the benefits of this ecosystem.
It is a hallmark in intergovernmental co-operation. The process
to guarantee the conversion of an acknowledged jewel involved the
active participation and conciliation between the governments of
Canada and Quebec. Both levels agreed upon a need to correct the
errors of the past and to proceed with a common purpose to
achieve a noble end, the protection and preservation of this
marine ecosystem.
Both levels agreed to honour their respective jurisdictions.
Throughout the years which followed, they discussed, consulted
and overcame adversity. On June 5, 1997 the proposed legislation
received Quebec legislature assent.
The degree of public participation and input must also be
recognized.
The communities were consulted. Aboriginal participation was
ensured. We hope that the co-ordinating committee, a key
component toward the park's success, will continue the spirit of
goodwill to provide input and direction that is both productive
and proactive.
1125
A fine example of how the public consultation principle can be
incorporated into a decision making process occurred when all
parties agreed to expand the park boundaries from 746 square
kilometres to 1,138 square kilometres. Environmental groups and
marine scientists for the most part were acknowledged and
listened to beyond political agendas or preferences of the day.
The process will not end with Parliament's assent. A new stage
begins: the definition and implementation of the management
plan. The management plan will define the ability for the
ecosystem to survive, to thrive and to provide a sustainable use
of the natural resources. There are several concerns that
various stakeholders have expressed on proposed management plans,
parameters and restrictions. I look forward to raising these
important considerations at committee.
I am confident that the co-operation shown throughout the years
can continue at committee and the matters related to a
successful, sustainable marine park management plan specific to
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence area will be included for final
reading.
There is agreement between all proponents that it is imperative
to establish the park for the belugas, for the hundreds of marine
species, for the preservation and enjoyment of future
generations. There is agreement between many proponents that to
ensure this principle's success, several basic standards are
absent from the proposed legislation as written today.
There is very little language in Bill C-7 referring to the
conservation mandate of the park and Parks Canada. A suggestion
from the World Wildlife Fund, active proponents and contributors
to this process, is the strengthening of the language in the
preamble and the purpose of the bill. The park is being created
not just to protect but to conserve and maintain the integrity of
the natural ecosystems within the park's boundaries.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the initial
impetus to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park came
out of the efforts to protect and recover the beluga whale
population living in that region. Perhaps we should ask why
there is no mention of species at risk. Through the years this
can be interpreted as a basic oversight easily corrected by
committee.
I believe that a second sentence can be added to the purpose of
the bill or to the preamble to the effect that “this will be
done by preserving and maintaining the natural ecosystems within
the park boundaries, and in particular by protecting and aiding
the recovery of species and populations designated as at risk”.
Fine words written by our friends and a principal tenet I am
proud to refer to the House.
Proponents have requested that the bill should include the Parks
Canada guiding principles to be used as the definitive reference
to guide park operations. Proponents have requested that some of
the zone one areas, those areas deemed as vital for integral
preservation, be expanded. Concerns on a complete ban on bottom
trawling to prevent the disturbance of contaminated sediments
which will cause further ecological damage is proposed also.
The cornerstone to this park's sustainable success will be
restrictions on recreational and commercial impacts upon breeding
areas and other areas in this region deemed as critical for
marine life preservation. We believe a balance can be struck to
ensure the economic benefits gained by the surrounding
communities through ecotourism initiatives. We believe that the
environment and jobs are not inconsistent when managed wisely in
a sustainable manner.
This process has evolved over many years. I am confident that
any conflicts or differing views in management plan procedures
can be addressed at committee. A national marine conservation
areas policy is in its infancy. Although a national marine parks
policy was produced over a decade ago, a lack of practical
experience has led to a continuing study and consultation period.
Parks Canada is recognized internationally for its professional
standards, its high degree of determination to ensure the
conservation and preservation of Canada's national parks. It is
truly to be congratulated.
The protection of our wilderness areas is often thought of in
terrestrial terms, semi-closed ecosystems which have defined
components based on specific locations and limited outside
impacts. There are Jasper, Gros Morne, Wood Buffalo, Fundy,
Kluane, La Mauricie, Grasslands, Prince Albert, Cape Breton
Highlands and over 20 other national parks in this fine country.
Banff, the original jewel, was established in 1885.
Today we refer to committee another effort to preserve a part of
our national heritage for future generations. There is a
significant difference between the proposed Saguenay—St. Lawrence
marine park and this country's efforts across the past century.
However, I must explain to my colleagues the responsibilities we
accept today are on behalf of all Canadians.
1130
The proposed legislation recognizes the respect for alternate
jurisdictions and I join my colleagues to commend the fine degree
of co-operation demonstrated by the federal and Quebec
governments toward this noble cause.
The federal government's responsibilities will include the
overlying water column and exercising its legislative jurisdiction
over marine resources and maritime transportation activities in
this territory. The Quebec government retains administration for
the seabed and subsoil resources.
The water column is the fundamental component for this park's
success. The water column is a transportation medium for the
pollutants which contribute to the near demise of the St.
Lawrence belugas. The water column is a fluid highway that
delivers the outfalls and ecosystem degradation from a distant
point to impact upon our best intentions and efforts which will
determine a recovery or loss.
The establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park will
require close co-operation and collaboration across many
jurisdictional boundaries. There will be a new era of scientific
and educational unity which cannot be destroyed by political
interference or self-serving agendas of the day.
The water column has the capacity to transport the nutrients and
support requirements for the regeneration of this area. Through
conscious efforts to conserve and maintain the integrity of the
marine ecosystems within the park's boundaries we have the
opportunity to improve and contribute to the betterment of
adjacent and distant regions.
The protection of the proposed park will require an effective
management plan and I agree with the concerns raised by my
colleagues on behalf of concerned Canadians and international
organizations. In addition to the aforementioned concerns and
comments we must accept the responsibility which is this and
future governments' duty to ensure.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must commit to a
comprehensive monitoring program in the park. The department
must commit to acting in a responsible and co-operative manner.
This responsibility will include the budget allocation for
adequate personnel and sufficient equipment to fulfil
jurisdiction requirements. This responsibility will include a
comprehensive emergency spill contingency plan and a capability
for effective implementation. This responsibility will include
swift response and acceptable enforcement measures on those
occasions when deleterious and detrimental impacts from beyond
park boundaries are identified. This responsibility will include
first and foremost the capacity and sincerity to act within park
boundaries to ensure the park's success to maintain and preserve
the marine ecosystem.
I believe a balance can be struck to ensure the economic
benefits which can be attained through ecotourism initiatives. I
believe that jobs and the environment are not inconsistent when
managed in a wise and sustainable manner. However, the pursuit
of one must not damage the effort of another.
Parks Canada has stated that an integral component for the
success and sustainability of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park is the expected tourist income from whale watching
operations. The first test of this government's sincerity for
marine protection will arise during the definition and
restriction phase of management plan parameters.
Again, a balance can be struck to affirm long term recovery and
park viability. However, the concerns raised by the scientific
community cannot be ignored or misrepresented as has been done in
the recent past.
The Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park can succeed if it is
memories and photographs which are harvested, not the marine
inhabitants. Without conscientious efforts to balance tourism
and the protection and perhaps the expansion of zone 1 areas
within the park we will end up without marine inhabitants to
present to tourists.
In the words of one marine scientist we must avoid the project
becoming “Disney does Beluga”. I am confident that such
concerns will be presented at committee and acted upon with
foresight and objective considerations. I am pleased to join my
colleagues across both sides of the House in support to refer
this bill in principle to committee for final review.
For our children's future I encourage all my colleagues on both
sides of this House and in the Quebec legislature to support not
only this bill but other environmental initiatives that protect
the future for our children. On behalf of the New Democratic
caucus I am pleased to offer my support to referring this bill to
committee for final review.
1135
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
just listened to the previous speaker and I am very pleased that he
approves of Bill C-7, since it is a bill that has its roots in an
enhanced community consciousness.
I have also listened to my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis, who
explained the mechanisms that will enable local and regional
authorities to remain actively involved in this matter.
I have already said, and will repeat it here in this House,
for it is a statement that comes from the heart: my roots are in
the Bas-du-Fleuve, the lower St. Lawrence, Kamouraska to be
precise. This bill touches me particularly, therefore, in some
ways.
There has been much reference to the beluga, but there is also
much to be said for the beauty of the whales that frequent this
region, to the delight of visitors. Obviously the population
density is such that, as there is as yet no recognized park, we
have visitors who are passing through. But once the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park has been established, I imagine still more
will come to enjoy the beauty, dare I say the ecstacy, of this
environment.
There has been reference to the beluga and it must also be
pointed out in this context that the presence of visitors must be
properly managed if we want to still have these animals around and
to be able to observe them. In the past, and this may be what has
raised people's awareness, there has been abuse, or at least there
have been problems in regulating who would show visitors around.
Now I believe this is a thing of the past, and we will no longer
have such abuse, once there is a regulated park.
The need for environmental standards was also mentioned in the
speeches. I think we have no choice but to tighten environmental
standards if we are to keep and increase marine animal populations.
On this subject, people speak of the mouth of the Saguenay.
However, there is an extraordinary population of marine animals and
birds along the shore, by Kamouraska. They have already been
studied by professors from Laval University and must be preserved.
This area too has hardly been touched and is largely unknown by the
public, but interest has been shown in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence
Marine Park in developing this aspect and making it more widely
known. The Kamouraska archipelago is populated by wild migratory
birds.
One final point has not been raised. I am speaking of the
culture of algae, which is part of the ecosystem and perhaps a part
of the future.
On the coasts of Norway and of Europe, people have come to live on,
use and speak of marine algae. These people, who enjoy working
with algae, are delighted by the number and variety of algae on the
rocks of the Kamouraska archipelago.
For all these reasons, which are partly emotional, I admit,
and partly for the pleasure of tourists, I am delighted at the co-operation
between the governments of Quebec and Canada on Bill C-7,
and I invite all members of this House to support it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, again I echo the
comments of my colleague from Quebec. I reiterate that Bill C-7
is an example of what can happen when federal and provincial
jurisdictions get together to work with a co-operative nature,
not just for the marine park for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence but
also in areas off the coasts of Nova Scotia, Îles de la
Madeleine, British Columbia and in our various Great Lakes. It
is an example of what we can do when we have a vision of the
future, of what we can do not only to protect other species but
to protect ourselves as well.
A true testament of man is not what we have left for our
children in terms of finances and the type of homes they live in.
If we see species in our realm today will our children be able
to witness them as well? I know my great grandparents read about
things like the passenger pigeon which is no longer available.
We in our lifetimes in this House will never get to see such a
beautiful creature.
1140
We are hoping that this bill will protect the beluga whale so
that our children may go to the shores of the St. Lawrence and
one day witness those belugas.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi who, I am
proud to say, has been involved with this project since its
inception.
Although this is not the first time I rise to speak in this
House, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters
of West Nova for having placed their faith in me. I will do my
utmost to bring their concerns forward during this 36th
Parliament and beyond.
[Translation]
It is also an honour for me to be sitting in this House with
members from all regions of the country. After only two months in this
House, I have a deeper appreciation for this great country and a new
respect for the diversity of our fellow citizens.
As an Acadian from St. Marys Bay, I am very proud to represent a
riding where anglophones and francophones have been living together for
hundreds of years, and where the sea always played a key role in the
lives of its inhabitants.
Our ancestors, whether English, French, Scottish, Irish or German, all
lived off the fisheries in one way or another.
[English]
Having two distinct or unique marine areas in our backyard, it
is difficult to think of a marine park and not be reminded of
western Nova Scotia. Having grown up on the shores of the
majestic Atlantic Ocean and the world renowned Bay of Fundy, the
preservation of our marine ecosystem is very important to me.
On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, it is an honour
for me to speak in support of Bill C-7, an act to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and to make a consequential
amendment to another act.
As members may be aware, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park
is part of a larger effort to protect Canada's marine
environment.
In 1986 the PC government approved the national marine park's
policy. In 1987 the country's first national marine conservation
area known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay was established.
In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement
with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine
conservation area at Gwaii Haanas in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed
a historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to
create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fiord and
the St. Lawrence estuary.
This federal-provincial agreement represented years of
co-ordinated conservation effort, and for the first time the two
levels of government had jointly agreed to establish a park and
to co-ordinate their park activities.
Bill C-7 is a mirror act to bill 86 which was passed by the
Quebec legislature last year. Our government also called for the
creation of an additional four marine conservation areas by the
year 2000.
As my colleague from Chicoutimi will attest to, there is much
work involved in establishing a marine park. There are various
components that need to be examined. Above and beyond preserving
the marine ecosystem of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence, there are
impacts such as tourism.
We knew that terrestrial parks brought in large numbers of
tourists, and therefore it was safe to assume that there would be
an influx of tourism to this community.
Our government consulted the local residents who would be
impacted, and we are happy to see that this government has
continued this consultative approach.
Two very constructive rounds of public consultations were
conducted. The first took place in December 1990 regarding the
boundaries of the park. This marked the first time the proposed
boundaries of a park had been increased. Local residents wanted
a larger protected area.
The second round of public consultations to be carried out by
the Progressive Conservative government was held in June 1993 to
consider a development plan for the park.
1145
We all know the more people you consult the more ideas are
brought forward. More ideas often bring more changes and it
takes time to make changes to a document. What I find dismaying
is that it took the government this long to finally approve the
management plan for the marine park and to bring forward this
bill.
In 1994 the Canadian heritage minister of the day introduced the
national marine conservation areas policy. This was followed up
by the national marine conservation areas system plan in 1995.
This plan would divide Canada's three oceans and great lakes into
29 distinct marine conservation areas or NMCAs. In typical
Liberal style of environmental one-upmanship, the government set
a goal for itself of establishing 10 such marine parks by the
year 2000. To date there are three marine parks on the Canada
Parks map but only Fathom Five is a legal entity.
In December of 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. The government must have
thought it was moving too quickly on this and called an early
election, effectively killing Bill C-78. Finally, here we are in
November 1997 with Bill C-7, which is essentially identical to
Bill C-78.
The clock is ticking. As we approach the millennium we cannot
afford to waste any more time in this very urgent matter. With
less than three years to go, we have yet to establish a marine
park in each region, let alone the 10 parks promised by the
government.
We must adopt this legislation as soon as possible. I look
forward to dealing with the specifics of the bill when it goes to
committee, as well as examining the feasibility of other NMCAs.
I am very excited by the prospect of establishing other marine
parks, especially in the Bay of Fundy and off the Scotian Shelf.
Aside from the obvious benefits of preserving the ecological
integrity of our marine life, marine parks would increase tourism
and create much needed jobs for the people of my area.
I would like to share with you a small story. In spending some
time in the waters off Nova Scotia, specifically off Briar Island
while doing some sailing, I have had the opportunity of seeing
the majestic whales that many tourists from across the world come
to see. I see this as a perfect opportunity to protect this
environment and make it better than it is at this point.
[Translation]
I look forward to working with this government toward achieving the
main objective of the marine park, which is to preserve our marine
environment for the present and future generations to enjoy.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I have
a question for the member in regard to the establishment of these
marine parks.
There was one plan a number of years ago for my riding of
Charlotte. It was referred to as the Fundy Isles Marine Park. It
was to include areas of Campobello Island, Deer Island, Grand
Manan and the surrounding area. One of the concerns expressed at
the time was the question of the marine park versus the
traditional fisheries and what impact that would have on
traditional fishing areas.
For example, would lobster fishermen be restricted in the areas
they could trap lobster, or scallop draggers restricted? This
collision between the park and the traditional fisheries was
there. It was a major obstacle at that time.
Other matters had to be taken into consideration as well the
debate between fisheries and park officials about the park
concept, somewhat like the debate which is taking place this very
day between the aquaculture fisheries and the traditional
fisheries.
1150
Has consideration been given to that? And is it being debated
at the local level in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Mark Muise: Madam Speaker, the comments I made
regarding looking into a marine park for the areas I described
were on a preliminary basis. The points the hon. member raises
are very important.
A park could not be developed without consultations because it
is another very important aspect of our economy. Without those
consultations there would be dangers. I would say very strongly
that anything of that nature taking place would be as a result of
consultations with all parties.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, let me point out
that my primary reason for rising today is to thank all stakeholders in
this matter.
Today is indeed a wonderful day not only for myself but also for
the people I have the honour of representing. After a dozen years of
efforts, work and consultations, the government finally agreed to
designate land located in the heart of my riding as a national marine
park.
Allow me to thank the majority, if not the vast majority of my
colleagues from all parties, who, so far, have supported this bill to
formalize the establishment of a national marine park.
I also wish to thank the ministers, who, one after the other, have
brought this project to completion. I would like to acknowledge in
particular the contribution of former federal minister McMillan, who, in
1985, launched the co-operative effort with the Quebec government then
in office, including then minister Clifford Lincoln, who is now the
Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
I thank them all for their valuable help in developing and then
selling the project to both levels of government.
I would be remiss if I did not thank all the stakeholders in the
vast region affected by the establishment of the marine park, including
the municipalities that helped promote the idea of this marine park,
which was probably the park that underwent the largest consultation
process ever held in the country.
I also want to thank all the mayors who testified, and also the
representatives of economic and environmental organizations who did the
likewise to help further a project which is a model of co-operation
between the various levels of government and which is the result of the
positive contribution made by all the community organizations that have
helped, during the past 12 years, to build the case for the
establishment of this national marine park.
Many investments have been made in recent years by various research
centres, for analysis and research work on fauna and flora, with a view
to establish the marine park.
I was elected on June 2, 1997 because I told my fellow citizens I
was not going to come here and pretend to be representing them, pretend
to be upset on a daily basis. I am here to promote issues that will
benefit my region, which is severely affected by major economic
problems.
1155
We know that the action plan on the national marine park will be
revealed soon. We hope that specific measures will be announced,
especially to increase as quickly as possible the number of visitors to
the area. We know that the Tadoussac-Baie-Sainte-Catherine area receives
between 200,000 and 300,000 visitors.
We hope that the action plan, which will focus on economic
development and the need to increase tourist traffic, will be sensitive
to the needs of local communities and provide for new facilities that
will accommodate a growing number of visitors to our region, especially
by building in close cooperation with the Quebec government a highway
between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Petit-Saguenay so that visitors will
not have to drive through Saint-Siméon to get to the fjord and the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
In addition, there are sites that need to be promoted and made more
accessible.
I refer in particular to an extraordinary site, which is known
nationally and almost all over the world, namely Cap Trinité, where the
population is aging and where it is becoming increasingly difficult for
people to reach the cape which is located 350 metres above sea level and
which is probably one of the most unique and extraordinary observation
sites in the country.
I am convinced that when the government will reveal its action
plan, it will be possible at that time to provide input and suggestions
for the development of infrastructures that will allow the region to
benefit from increased tourist traffic. An increased number of visitors
will bring more jobs and economic development. So this is important for
the whole region.
A lot of money will be invested over three years, and we are very
pleased with this.
You can rest assured that our regional organizations will follow very
closely the implementation of the action plan by the two levels of
government and that the member from Chicoutimi, as he has always done
since 1984, will play a positive role in improving the action plan so
that the money to be invested will contribute to the economy of the area
and of all the communities along the St. Lawrence.
This is obviously not a good day to engage in partisan politics. I
would like to thank the minister for her kind words for the member from
Chicoutimi who, since 1984, has worked on the development of this
wonderful project. People say that hard work is its own reward. Often
this work is done quietly, not always in front of the cameras, but today
is indeed a great day.
I should like to point out that back then, our government had a
very substantial agenda.
It was substantial environmentally with the acid rain treaty. It
was also substantial from a trade point of view with the free trade
agreement, which enabled us to increase our exports to the U.S. by
140%. In addition, it was substantial with respect to fiscal
reform, particularly with the passage of the GST, the ultimate
purpose of which was to lower taxes.
I hope that the government will also be listening with a view
to finalizing tax reform, so that all our constituents will benefit
and see their taxes go down and their employment insurance premiums
decrease, because back then—I think we must give credit where
credit is due—there were reforms, there were bills introduced by
a government with a vision based on structural measures, which are
now helping us to control the deficit.
I am obviously very happy to take part in the vote today on
this bill that, with the support of my regional constituents, I set
in motion. Several ridings are affected. I thank everyone who
played a role in this wonderful project.
Rest assured that, in the decades to come, we will not regret
having created this national marine park, which enables us to
preserve all living things in our environment, but also to promote
the economic development of a region sorely in need of assistance.
1200
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to speak this morning on Bill C-7, the
Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park Act.
I would like to remind the House that this bill was first
introduced by Mr. Bouchard when he was Minister of the Environment in
this House in 1990, at the time of the “beau risque”.
I would also remind honourable members that it is the premier of
Quebec who sponsored the bill and the recent agreement between the
federal and the provincial governments.
I would like to focus on our parks, particularly those in Quebec
and especially this one.
Quebeckers, like all other Canadians, love the outdoors. This park will
be an important tool for tourism development in our region and an
essential facility for learning about marine life in our province and
especially in the beautiful Saguenay River, which is almost comparable
in terms of size and water flow to the great St. Lawrence.
One interesting feature of this bill is that it was initiated by
ordinary people. Local people consulted each other in order to develop
this provincial asset. Local people, with the help of the provincial and
federal governments, came together to create an essential facility.
Most interestingly, even today the agreement signed provides that
the marine park will be administered by local people. Naturally, the
committee will also be composed of a federal representative, a
provincial representative, as well as representatives of the surrounding
municipalities and RCMs.
This new marine park—which I invite you to visit—will be not
only a tourist attraction but also a protected area for fish from our
ocean and our river.
Like all my Bloc colleagues, I support Bill C-7.
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out—I
think I mentioned it—that several provincial and federal ministers
worked on this project in succession and that they all did a very good
job.
From 1985 to 1988, federal minister McMillan worked very hard on
this project in cooperation with Mr. Lincoln, who was then Quebec's
Minister of the Environment. Out of this came out the St. Lawrence
action plan and the first millions of dollars to be invested in the
national marine park project. Mr. Bouchard worked on the project in
1990, followed by Mr. Charest.
I think that today, we must pay homage to our Minister of Canadian
Heritage. At the risk of infringing on our rules, I will use her name,
Sheila Copps. She put the final touches on the bill.
Those are the words she used this morning to officially confirm that the
project is now official.
1205
Many people worked very hard on that project and I am glad to be
back in the House, if only to vote in favor of this great bill.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
immediately after my appointment as Quebec's Minister of the
Environment in 1985, I was visited by two young people, a young
woman named Léone Pippard and a young man named Bruce MacKay of
Greenpeace. This was the first time anyone spoke to me of the idea
of having a Saguenay Marine Park. Léone Pippard had been
monitoring and researching the beluga in the St. Lawrence from a
base on Île-aux-Coudres. These two represented a broad range of
people in the community, scientists and politicians who wanted a
marine park in the Saguenay.
In 1988, when the federal-provincial agreement was signed
between the Conservative government of the time and the Government
of Quebec, the preliminary St. Lawrence plan for 1988-93 earmarked
$10 million for the establishment of the Saguenay Marine Park.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate
those who have been involved over the years in this undertaking of
such importance, above and beyond political lines: the member for
Chicoutimi, who gave it its first impetus in many ways, certainly
in the political arena; Minister Tom McMillan, of the
Conservatives, who joined in and who signed the 1988 agreement with
Quebec.
What is interesting about this undertaking is that it started
with the signing of an agreement between a Conservative federal
government and a Liberal provincial government in Quebec, and now
it being finalized by a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Parti
Quebecois government in Quebec. This is, therefore, an undertaking
that goes beyond party lines, that rises far above the political
bickering we see, unfortunately, all too often.
It took a year for this project to come to fruition, to make
the thing a reality soon with Bill C-7.
The Saguenay marine park is an exceptional achievement. It is
one of the first marine parks in Canada, many would say the biggest
to date. It is the result of a unique form of co-operation between
two levels of government—those of Quebec and Canada—which
managed to align and complement their respective, complex
jurisdictions. It took a lot of negotiations to achieve an
agreement that reflects both the integrity of the jurisdictions and
the idea of working together to make them complementary.
This park stands for environmental protection, conservation
and most importantly education and scientific research.
The extraordinary thing, as many of my colleagues have mentioned,
is that this park is the product of co-operation and perhaps the
most extensive consultation done on a project in Canada for a very
long time.
It was a long drawn-out process, a federal-provincial
agreement that established the interdepartmental groups that pulled
the project together.
In 1993, consultation was expanded. All the groups involved
were given the basic ideas to work on in order to improve the
original project, to define the context of the Saguenay marine park
as well as the guidelines, the regulations and the final
legislation.
In addition to the two governments involved, there was a
master plan for the marine park, expressing people's desire to work
together to develop the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence
estuary.
1210
As I said, this park stands for environmental protection, public
education, scientific research, and sustainable and harmonious land use.
[English]
As well the management plan defines the physical boundaries of
the park. Within these boundaries not only are the two levels of
government working together but the aboriginal communities as
well. They have been consulted and have been very much a part of
the project and will continue to be along with the local
communities.
One of the defining elements of the park is the constitution of
a co-ordinating committee. It is the first time in Canada that
two governments have worked very closely together with their
community organizations to form a co-ordinating committee which
will be entrusted with the management of the park. This in
itself represents a tremendous departure from the usual
stereotype where governments decide and run everything. This
will truly be a community project where the government is a
partner willing to share, listen and help when necessary.
The selection of a site is not an accident. As my colleague
from Chicoutimi knows far better than I do, this is one of the
most beautiful and breathtaking sites in Canada or anywhere for
that matter. It is the harbour of 54 species of vertebrates and
248 species of invertebrates.
When consultations were extended in 1993 we decided to look at
the use of that park.
[Translation]
It is much more complicated to draw up a zoning plan for a marine
park than one for land environments. Today, the management plan will
include this zoning plan as well as a tourist route crossing three
marine ecosystems. This in itself is quite a challenge and shows great
promise for the future of a kind of sustainable development that will
make the use of this exceptional marine environment possible, to develop
a tourist attraction that will greatly benefit the local economy, while
at the same time incorporating a fairly strong element of public
education.
This park is a model for the future.
[English]
It is a wonderful model for the future because of its
composition and because of the way various community groups and
interveners of all types have joined in the work in this regard.
[Translation]
In fact, it is in line with the recommendations made by the auditor
general in his report on Canadian parks.
[English]
It follows the thrust of the famous Bow Valley study and the
recommendation of the auditor general's report that the first
requirement for any park is to ensure its ecological integrity.
The ecological integrity is the very essence, the very heart of a
park. Without ecological integrity all the rest dies.
We need education and that depends on the ecological integrity
of a park. We need tourism and that depends on the proper
ecological use of a park.
[Translation]
On June 5, 1997, the Government of Quebec passed Bill 86, which
legislated the establishment of this marine park. We needed to do the
same on our side. Unfortunately, the election delayed things, but today
Bill C-7 is finally before us.
I think a number of conclusions should be drawn from this project.
First, successful co-operation among all stakeholders, starting with a
Conservative federal government and a Liberal government in Quebec,
followed by a Liberal federal government and a PQ government in Quebec.
This instance of co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments certainly was successful, positive and harmonious, with
broader consultation of the public at large, including the first
nations, the local population of course, as well as all sorts of other
stakeholders with various qualifications, academics and scientists.
1215
In conclusion, if we believe that in order to create a lasting
society, a society that the native peoples would describe as a
society composed of seven generations, which will live on long
after we are gone, which will be able to preserve its natural
heritage, its natural resources for more than one generation, for
seven generations and more, then we must change our attitudes, our
behaviours, look at things in a new way, and find new ways of
preserving this natural heritage.
What could be better than a marine park to bring this about, to
rally people around a constructive project, an outstanding
ecological project, to add a dimension of public education,
environmental awareness, particularly for future generations? It
is an exceptional tool for promoting public awareness.
In conclusion, in a House where more often than not, whether
during debate or oral question period, we listen to contradictory
and conflicting arguments on an almost daily basis, how many bills
are there that we all agree on? They can be counted on the fingers
of one hand. In fact, that might be more fingers than we need.
Today we see a bill that goes beyond political disagreements,
that goes beyond social conflict, and that truly unites us.
Whatever our party, whatever our walk of life, we all rejoice in
the creation of this outstanding ecological and tourist project.
It is therefore a unifying bill above all. I myself have felt
for many years now, well before I was even in politics and became
environment minister, that the ecology was one of the most unifying
elements of our society. Along with health, the ecology is
something that affects us all. When it comes to health and the
environment, political partisanship, and religious and
philosophical differences are laid aside. We find our common
ground through the extraordinary medium of the environment.
The bill before us today gives concrete expression to this
coming together of ideas and the desire to do something together
that will benefit the public, and our young people, that will serve
as a example, that will contribute to sustainable development for
the future, not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
[English]
Indeed the environment is one of the greatest binding threads
among us. This is a concrete example of what it should be.
I rejoice in the support of all the parties in the House that
have spoken warmly about this project. I welcome their support.
I thank them for it.
I congratulate all the parties for their spirit in trying to
bring about Bill C-7. It is a gesture of joining together to
create something which will be unique for Canada, whether we live
in Quebec or beyond. I hope all Canadians and people from around
the world will come to the marine park in the Saguenay to see the
wonderful ecological heritage.
I hope we will all join together to pass Bill C-7 soon. All the
very best for the marine park in the Saguenay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the words of my colleague, who is the
chairman of the heritage committee, by the way. He can count on our full
co-operation for the speedy passage of Bill C-7.
1220
I also heard messages that are quite self-explanatory. He spoke of
successful co-operation between all stakeholders. He stated that this
co-operation, and I noted the three words, was “successful, positive,
harmonious”. I think that what is interesting in this bill is the basic
lesson it is teaching us.
I remember, several years ago, the Government of Quebec wanted to
acquire the Mingan Islands, which belonged to a private firm. At that
time, Mr. Trudeau, who was Prime Minister of Canada and for whom
politics was always “The sky is the limit”, had put $5 million on the
table et we lost our bid.
On our side, we had the impression that the federal government had just
robbed us of a part of our territory that was dear to us, the Mingan
Islands.
Quebec is one of the provinces with the least number of national
parks managed by Parks Canada, although we do have many things that are
managed by Parks Canada, because we are rather protective of our
territory. I think that the lesson to be learned from this joint project
that we are about to implement is that from the very beginning, the
federal government and the Quebec government have respected one another
and have also respected each other's jurisdictions under the
Constitution.
At no time did the Canadian government attempt to expropriate land,
and at no time did the Quebec government attempt to take over an area
that is the responsibility of the Canadian government.
I believe that this is the basic lesson that we should draw from this
project. When there is mutual respect for areas of responsibility,
Quebec is capable of working within the framework of existing
arrangements.
But if we look back on history, each time that Quebec is
rejected for what it is, as a founding nation, that it is rejected for
its identity and its culture, or that an attempt is made to invade its
areas of responsibility, each time that the federal government goes
beyond that limit, that there is a lack of basic respect for areas of
responsibility, whatever the reasons for the federal government wanting
to take over a provincial area of responsibility, it is always in such
a situation that Quebec reels back, jumps on the defensive and adopts a
rather adversarial approach.
I would like to ask a question to my colleague. Does he not find
important that the lesson we are learning here, or the experiment we are
trying with Bill C-7, could be applied also to every area of
responsibility, and that the federal government could learn to keep
within its own jurisdiction?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I can only agree that each level
of government must stick to its own areas of jurisdiction and that we
must co-operate in the greatest possible mutual respect.
I have always believed that, in any federal-provincial project, in
any policy change, the two sides, that is the federal government and the
Quebec government, must respect each other.
I too find that Bill C-7 is a unifying initiative. It should serve
as a model and I hope it will for all the bills that will come before us
in the future. I fully agree with the hon. member.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question or,
rather, a comment for the Liberal member.
We are willing to work together to achieve such results. We want
the federal and provincial governments, for example the Quebec
government, to work together. If we are to co-operate, as you pointed
out, a feeling of mutual respect must prevail between the two
governments.
It seems to me that seeking separation is not the way of showing we want
to work together. It is by co-operating, not by walking away, that we
will achieve something.
1225
You are welcome to comment if you wish.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Madam Speaker, it is by working together that
we realize that we can succeed. This bill shows that Canada is a country
where people can work together, where we can have a successful
partnership and where federalism can be constructive, positive and
harmonious. Therefore, in this regard, I believe that Bill C-7 is an
striking example of what Canada must be, and I believe that whatever
side one is on, this shows that when there is co-operation, it can work
very well.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity as the
Secretary of State for Parks to address this important piece of
legislation.
This is my first opportunity as secretary to have legislation in
this House. I believe that when this is passed it will form an
important step, an important part of what we are trying to do in
this country to protect our special places.
Bill C-7, the establishment of this park, represents some
important initiatives, some important achievements. This is the
first time ever that we will have a federal-provincial marine
park established in legislation and I think that is a good
milestone. It is a good accomplishment and it is something
excellent that this House is moving toward.
It is moving on a broader sense to completing and working on
what we hope to have one day, a national group or national plan
of marine conservation areas. We recently published some
material. We indicated there are some 29 specific marine
ecosystems, marine environments that we want to protect and this
represents one of the steps along that way.
I think it is an important step in protecting a very critical
ecosystem in that part of the country where the St. Lawrence and
the Saguenay meet and in particular, as some other members have
mentioned, the protection of the beluga whale.
As was mentioned by the previous speaker, it is a good example
of this government's working with its provincial counterparts to
achieve some important objectives in this country.
As I said, this represents our achieving some very broad
principles which we are dedicated to as a government. We believe
it is important that we work toward protecting our built and
natural heritage, that we ensure that we can pass on, unimpaired,
to future generations these special places we have in Canada.
This legislation is one step toward that important objective.
What we will be doing is honouring what happened over 100 years
ago when people had the foresight to establish the first national
park in Banff. We look back to that over 100 years ago and we
see how much foresight those people had when they undertook that.
I hope with the actions we are taking in this House today that
100 years from now generations will be able to look back to us
and say that we shared the same foresight as the people did over
100 years ago who first began the national parks in western
Canada.
It is important to note as well that we are doing this, we are
providing this protection as a public trust in this country under
a public mandate and to be answerable for all Canadians from
coast to coast.
Bill C-7, which establishes this marine park, is one part of an
overall strategy that we are undertaking as a government, that we
are undertaking as a nation, to protect our special places.
We undertake that in a large number of ways.
1230
As I alluded, we have an extensive national park system. Indeed
today we have 38 national parks. We also protect our national
historic sites. Through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board
we have designated over 700 important areas in Canada as national
historic sites. Parks Canada operates directly almost 130 of
them. We are able to protect and to ensure our heritage for
future generations.
In addition, a number of important canals and waterways are
recognized as historic and come under the mandate of Parks
Canada, waterways such as the Chambly Canal in Quebec, the Rideau
Canada in Ontario and the Trent-Severn Waterway near my own home
riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka.
We have talked about the legislation in terms of co-operation
with the provinces. We also operate with the provinces the
Canadian heritage river system. We have an opportunity to work
with our provincial counterparts on important waterways within
Canada that have been nominated by the provinces that have come
forward to the federal government. Between those nominated and
those designated we have almost 30 such waterways in Canada.
We also work to protect our national heritage railways stations
so that a very important part of our Canadian heritage, our
Canadian history, will be maintained for future generations.
Parks Canada works with other government departments to protect
the built heritage already contained within the federal
government.
I am pleased as the Secretary of State for Parks to have the
opportunity to pursue a number of policies that will help us
continue to do those types of things in the future and continue
to protect those special places.
One commitment we have made is one that I believe is shared as a
good objective by most Canadians. I am referring to the
expansion of our national parks system. As I mentioned earlier
we have 38 national parks. We have designated 39 specific
geographic areas in Canada that we would like to see a park
represented within. We have 38 parks and we are represented in
24 of them.
We are working actively in co-operation with provincial
government, with territorial governments, with first nations,
with other aboriginal groups and with stakeholders to expand the
park system so that early in the next century we will be able to
say we are represented with a national park in all 39 regions.
Good progress has been made. Within the last two years we have
set aside close to 60,000 square kilometres for protection. That
is important progress. I am pleased we have been able to
accomplish it.
Later in this session I hope to be able to table amendments to
the National Parks Act which will provide a legislative framework
to achieve these accomplishments even more efficiently and with a
streamlined process that will allow us to provide protection in
an orderly fashion.
In terms of the work we are doing in protecting our special
places, we are committed to undertake an ecological review of
existing parks. We will be proceeding with that objective in the
near future. It is important not only to look at expanding the
parks system but to make sure those parks within the framework
right now, the ones that exist today, are being correctly managed
and correctly protected.
In terms of protecting our special places we announced in the
1996 budget the movement to a Parks Canada agency.
This will be a public body reporting directly to the minister and
accountable to parliament. It will help to provide new
organizational, financial and human resources tools to the
employees of Parks Canada. It will allow us to apply our
resources such that we can go even further in protecting our
special places.
1235
We hope to build on Bill C-7, on the establishment of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. We have held extensive
consultations with Canadians to move forward with comprehensive
legislation within which other marine conservation areas can be
established.
Our government has aggressive objectives that we hope to put in
place over the next several months so that we as a nation, as
Canadians, can recognize the specialness, the uniqueness of what
we have. When we had the opportunity to travel around the
country we learned very quickly that we have some of the most
beautiful places in the world right here in Canada. Part of our
parks system is to ensure those special places are not only for
the enjoyment of this generation of Canadians. The
responsibility we intend to live up to is to ensure those special
places are there unimpaired for future generations to enjoy.
That is our dual mandate. That is what we wish to accomplish
and that is why we are bringing forward this type of legislation
and the other tools I mentioned that will give us the ability to
protect those areas for today as well as for the future.
Some important principles in establishing this park with Bill
C-7 can be applied as we move forward in the future. This is the
product of an agreement between different levels of government.
It is important to see that kind of co-operation. We in Parks
Canada ensure that we work with our partners, with the provincial
and territorial governments, with the first nations, aboriginal
groups and stakeholders, to make sure we have a consensus and an
understanding of where we want to go.
In my time as a secretary of state and in talking to Canadians
from coast to coast to coast I have noticed a deep desire among
Canadians to see us move forward with these programs, to see us
move forward with the protection of our special places.
The establishment of this park and the establishment of other
parks and other historic sites should represent an expression of
public will and not government working in isolation. That is why
we took so much time, and I think appropriately so, on the
consultative process. We wanted to make sure various components
within the community, such as the public at large, the commercial
components or the business components, understood, appreciated
and bought into the types of objectives we were trying to
achieve.
The bill helps to protect a very important and fragile marine
ecosystem in that part of the country. That is the genesis of
the bill. That is why we have moved forward. That is why we
have co-operation between governments and the buy in of the
public. They see the importance of protecting the ecosystem for
conservation purposes and for the benefit of future and present
Canadians.
As we operate our existing parks and historic sites, and as we
move forward to create more, it is important to ensure that we
have an opportunity through these facilities to educate
Canadians; that we have an opportunity to provide them with
recreational opportunities; and that we an opportunity to allow
Canadians to celebrate the specialness of our unique land and to
celebrate the specialness of what we are. That is important and
that is part of what we do.
1240
In conclusion, I urge the House to support the legislation, to
allow it to move forward, to be passed and to come into law so we
will have accomplished one more important step in protecting the
nation's special places.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was very interested in the comments of the Secretary of State
for Parks about this issue. He will know it is the Reform Party
position to support the bill in principle at second reading,
although we have some serious concerns we want to have addressed
at committee.
I wonder if it might be instructive to take a look at the
current practices of Parks Canada with respect to existing parks
to try to get a feeling of how this park will be treated.
If we take a look at Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba,
we have a situation where people entered into leases with Parks
Canada. The leases very clearly and specifically say they are
renewable and will go on forever. Now Parks Canada is suddenly
coming along and saying “No, I do not think so”. They are
trying to force negotiation when there is no place for
negotiation.
Let us take a look at the situation in Field, British Columbia,
where there has been a decision to remove the trailer park which
is very important as low income housing to people delivering
services as parks employees or working in the parks. On one side
of the coin we have Parks Canada saying “We will leave you
alone, but if you want to move out of the park and you want to
sell your trailer to someone else, we will not give you an
occupancy permit. We will not stop you. We will not dismantle
the trailer park. We just will not give an occupancy permit
should you decide to opt out”.
There is the whole situation of the Trans-Canada Highway through
the Yoho area and the movement of the maintenance facility there.
I have repeatedly asked for a cost justification from Parks
Canada not only as the parks critic but also as the member of
Parliament for the area. The department has not responded to me.
Probably the most flagrant one—and there are hundreds of
examples—has to be the issue of the landing strip in Banff where
there is a court injunction that clearly and specifically states
there shall be no action on the part of Parks Canada, its
employees or agents which in any way would equate to shutting
down the strip.
In answer to a question from my colleague from Yellowhead the
other day the secretary of state had the audacity to say that
they are not really shutting it down, but he did admit that they
are ticketing pilots when they land there.
This is an issue of safety. This strip happens to be at the
confluence of three valleys. When they fly in from Calgary past
the airstrip and head up toward Lake Louise, there is another
valley and very frequently a wall of weather comes down there. I
have flown to that airstrip with a pilot from Invermere who has
had to land on that airstrip twice in his career because of
weather conditions. He had gone as far as Lake Louise and had to
turn back rather than being able to reach Springbank, the closest
airport, because the weather had closed in behind him.
Would the secretary of state tell Canadians how in the world he
can countenance his employees flagrantly going against a court
injunction and taking action by way of ticketing and overly
aggressive inspections, the equivalent of shutting down that
airstrip, when the court in fact has said no?
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
across, the critic responsible for heritage and Parks Canada.
From discussions with him I know he has a deep commitment to our
national parks system and to the various other things I have
talked about in terms of protecting our special places.
1245
I am going to get to the specific point on the airstrip in a
second. However, speaking in general on the original comments
made, it goes back to what I said in my speech about the fact
that there are two major components that the national parks
system is trying to accomplish.
Yes, parks are established for the use of Canadians and we
encourage that use. Over the past 100 years we have seen the
traditional use built up, but there is another very important
component to our mandate. That is our obligation to pass those
special places on to future generations unimpaired. That is an
important mandate and stewardship which we must ensure is
fulfilled. It means that we need to find a balance between the
uses that are allowed today and the uses which will ensure those
facilities will be there in the future. Many of the situations
the member brought forward have to do with that balance.
He mentioned cost justification and wanting to get the
information. I will undertake to get that information to the
member as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today at second reading of Bill C-7, an act to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The Saguenay region, the Charlevoix region is undoubtedly the
loveliest region of Quebec, but personally I would say the second
loveliest region after the Mauricie region. A great number of Quebeckers
are familiar with that region, which is known in Quebec as Little
Switzerland, with its majestic landscapes, its remarkable vistas, and
also as the area where salt water reaches up to the Saguenay, where the
St. Lawrence's freshwater ends.
It is also a region that shares many characteristics with the
Mauricie, because of its river, the Saguenay River, which is a bit
bigger, a bit more imposing than the Saint-Maurice River. The
Saint-Maurice River, which today is free from the logs that once
cluttered it, has also become very majestic.
Recently, I heard the member from Saint-Maurice in the National
Assembly, who is the Deputy Speaker there, speak proudly of the
attributes of the Saint-Maurice River, which can be compared to a
certain extent to the wonders of the Saguenay River.
I have a question for our colleague. We know that because of its
beauty, the site that will be included in the marine park should attract
numerous international visitors. I would like to know what the input
from the federal government will be.
There is one small point I would like to make, however. All this
may have been done in harmony, but the federal government's financial
co-operation should not be referred to today as a gift.
Quebeckers will be paying $30 billion in taxes to Ottawa, to be
redistributed, and this is part of good management.
I would like to know what part the federal government will play in
attracting international visitors to enjoy this lovely site that will be
developed by the whole community.
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows
from the work we have done together in the House, tourism as an
economic generator is important for the area from which I come.
In my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka almost 50% of the jobs
depend on tourism.
Obviously the establishment of the marine park in and by itself
will help to attract individuals to that part of the country. In
so doing it will create economic activity which will assist the
population as a whole. It will help with job creation. It will
help the small business community and it will help to build
tourism.
This federal government has made tourism one of its priorities.
We have established the Canadian Tourism Commission which works
with partners such as provincial governments and tourism
associations to help develop and market particular areas. I am
sure there will be opportunities through that.
There is also a regional development agency which operates in the
province of Quebec which looks for partners from the local
community and from the provincial government.
1250
I am sure that with the establishment of this park we will see
that type of activity take place, while always remembering the
other side of that balance which is to ensure we do it in a way
which protects the ecosystem and makes sure it will be there for
future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to rise today to participate in the debate on second
reading of Bill C-7.
This morning the Minister of Canadian Heritage talked about her
experience with the wonders of nature in Newfoundland. My
colleague from British Columbia talked about his experience in
the Rockies. I want to add that I grew up close to national parks
in east Africa. As such I am a very strong supporter of
preserving our environment and its unique habitants. One can
proudly call them national treasures. These treasures also belong
to the citizens of the world. Nations fortunate enough to be
custodians of these treasures must fulfill their obligations to
preserve this heritage for present and future generations.
The purpose of Bill C-7 is to create a marine park at the
confluence of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence estuary,
and to conserve and manage its marine resources.
This bill represents the culmination of an agreement which was
signed by the federal government and the Quebec provincial
government in April 1990. The Quebec national assembly ratified
its commitment to the establishment and maintenance of this park
earlier this year in June. Its bill will come into force once the
federal legislation has been enacted.
This bill is a first. Not only is this the first
federal-provincial salt water marine park, it also represents the
first time these two governments jointly agreed to establish a
park and to co-ordinate their park activities. Under the
agreement made in 1990, the Quebec government retains the
ownership over the seabed and the sub-soil resources. The
federal government maintains responsibility over matters such as
navigation and fisheries.
Since the agreement was signed in 1990, the two governments have
worked together on legislative mandates respecting the park,
compliance strategies, emergency plans and on research and
education programs to ensure the protection of the area
designated for the marine park.
The level of involvement by the regional and local organizations
in this whole process has shown the general support for the
creation of such a park. There has been no transfer of land in
creating this park as both governments are responsible for their
own jurisdiction in creating and protecting this park.
This park comprises a marine environment exclusively and
measures 1,138 square kilometres. The boundaries may be changed
if both governments agree on such changes and only after the
public has been consulted.
A park management plan must be tabled in Parliament within one
year of the park being established. The plan is to be reviewed
every seven years and must be tabled in Parliament. I will speak
on these points later.
Funding for the park was provided for in the 1995 federal
budget. The federal contribution toward the development and
operating costs is to total $20.7 million over five years.
Additional funding from the federal government over 1989-93 was
in the range of $6 million. Between 1993-95 an additional $4
million had been set aside from the green plan for the funding of
this park.
Parliament must approve all new parks and any changes to
existing parks. Although the auditor general feels that this is
a cumbersome process, we welcome the fact that we have to debate
such changes.
Our national parks system is a great source of pride for all of
us. I do not think there are too many people who have yet to
visit our magnificent parks.
They provide us with a connection to nature and also give us a
glimpse of our past and even our future.
1255
National parks are owned by all Canadians and are supposedly
managed on their behalf. By debating changes to the national
parks system in Parliament, the government is held more
accountable for how these parks are managed. The official
opposition welcomes this debate and the opportunity to see that
the government is held accountable for its actions dealing with
our national parks.
That being said, there is some concern about the way in which
this bill came before Parliament. By the time we as
parliamentarians were given the opportunity to debate this bill,
the agreement to establish the park had already been in place for
several years. Should there not have been some consultation with
Parliament before such an agreement was entered into?
I know that this is somewhat of a special case and that there
were extensive consultations with local and regional groups in
the area in which the park is to be established, but I wonder
about future cases. Will the government do the same thing the
next time? Are we nothing more than a rubber stamp?
This is the first of many future national marine conservation
areas which the government set out in 1995 with its sea to sea
strategy. At present studies are under way to judge the
feasibility of establishing 15 more NMCAs and another six within
the next two years. To date four areas have already been
established. What guidelines are in place to ensure that there is
adequate consultation with Parliament and with the areas
involved?
Even though I have some concerns with this legislation, most of
them dealing with the manner in which the government approached
Parliament, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I believe it is
important to live up to the agreement made at the beginning of
the decade to conserve our environment, in this case our marine
environment.
I would like to take a few moments to go over some of the
specifics of the bill and deal with the concerns which I have.
This bill outlines four zones for managing parks resources. Zone
one deals with the rare, unique, natural and cultural features
that are sensitive to any type of land use. Zone two is similar
to the previous zone, however some form of use can occur. Zone
three deals with recreational activities. Zone four deals with
land which will be accessible to many human use activities, such
as commercial shipping and fishing, and natural resource
harvesting.
There are no specific levels of protection described in this
bill. They are more clearly outlined in the 1995 management
plan. Fortunately this plan goes into much greater detail
concerning how these regions will be protected and available for
use. However as it is only a plan, it is subject to change quite
easily.
As I alluded to earlier, a new management plan is to be tabled
in Parliament a year after the park is established and is subject
to review every seven years by the respective provincial and
federal ministers responsible. My concern is that the government
of the day, either due to pressures from certain groups on either
side of the issue or from economic pressures, may decide to make
changes in the plan which may be detrimental to the park and to
the organisms that the act is to protect.
Another concern relates to governor in council appointments
concerning the administration of federal activities within the
marine park. The minister can under the powers outlined in Bill
C-7 conduct activities to advance ecosystem knowledge and to
enter into intergovernmental agreements. The minister would have
to allow for public participation and could cancel and issue
permits. If it is not the minister currently responsible, namely
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, then it will be up to the
cabinet to choose who is in control of this park.
On a related note, some concern also exists with respect to the
regulations.
1300
Currently the two governments are working to harmonize the
activities of both levels of government in this park. This
harmonization committee currently is comprised of representatives
from the federal, provincial and four regional governments, the
affected band council, the scientific community and a
conservation group.
At present they are ensuring the goals of the management plan
established in 1995 are put into place and are serving as a
consultant to the respective federal and provincial minister
responsible for ensuring that the strategies and methods outlined
in the plan are attained.
The main concern here comes with the minister's power to
determine the composition of this committee. Although the 1995
management plan has already established the composition, it is at
the minister's discretion to change this composition.
My main concern deals with the accountability of the minister.
Will such changes be announced or will there be some consultation
with Parliament before any changes are made?
A good portion of the bill deals with compliance issues and
enforcement officers powers to control unsanctioned activities in
the park, including their authority to conduct searches with and
without warrants and to make arrests.
Fines for individuals range from an undetermined amount for
minor fines and anywhere from $10,000 and/or and six month jail
sentence for summary convictions to $20,000 and/or a maximum five
year jail term for indictable offences.
For corporations, the fines range from $100,000 to $500,000 for
more serious infractions. Courts are also given the authority to
order compensation for any remedial action necessary.
I support the general principle of this bill. Both the federal
and provincial governments over the past several years have
indicated that there is at the time a strong commitment to
conserving this unique area.
The regulations and management plan that have been put in place
appear to give this bill its teeth. While I can understand why
these two governments have proceeded this way, as it is much
easier to amend management plans and regulations when not
legislated into law, I do hope this practice is maintained by
future governments and that adequate public consultation takes
place before any changes are made.
As I said already, national parks such as the one proposed here
are national treasures for all Canadians to enjoy. It would be a
shame if actions were taken which would not reflect the sense of
immense pride we take in our national parks.
I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the House in
supporting this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, once
again I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence Marine Park Act.
As I have already said, this is one of the most beautiful
regions of Quebec, and what is more, this bill is the result of a
special collaborative effort by the community concerned. In other
words, the people themselves decided to do something, and have very
ably moved this bill along for several years, so that today we find
ourselves considering it with a view to enabling the federal
government to move into this fine project which, as I have said,
encompasses both shores of the St. Lawrence.
We need to realize that this bill involves three regional
municipalities, two on the north shore and the other on the south.
It also concerns a very particular part of the St. Lawrence, as I
have said, the point at the mouth of the Saguenay where the fresh
water stops and the salt water starts. This project is even more
valuable because its intent is to protect the ecosystem in place
there, particularly the beluga, the focus of world wide attention,
and the whales, which attract thousands upon thousands of tourists:
Quebeckers, Canadians, Europeans, and increasing numbers of Asians.
1305
It is a region set apart by its beauty, offering some very
attractive places. There is, for example, the Manoir Richelieu,
which has had a casino for a few years now. There is also the
Manoir Tadoussac, in Tadoussac, which is really beautiful. In
terms of nature itself, all along the Saguenay there are mountains,
known as the Trois Soeurs, with La Trinité, L'Éternité and another
whose name I forget.
It is worth a visit, and I invite those of our viewers who
have yet to visit this beautiful part of Quebec to do so, whether
they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. It is, without
bragging, an area of international calibre.
For this reason, I was questioning the secretary of state earlier
on the government's efforts to encourage international tourism,
since its responsibility is to draw foreign visitors to Canada and
hopefully to Quebec.
I do not consider the answer particularly clear, but we are
counting on the past activities of Canada's embassies and
consulates to promote the merits of Quebec abroad. Everyone knows
that 80% of the diplomatic corps coming from Canada and not
Quebec—as I heard it put recently by an industrial commissioner—does
not speak French. I think we must insist that the Canadian
government, with the money that comes from Quebec pockets, make a
creditable and basic effort to promote this unique location as a
site for international tourism.
As previously mentioned, one should point to the collective effort
implied in such a project, which found its genesis locally, was the
subject of public hearings, is already largely supported by the Quebec
government and can now count on the co-operation of the federal
government to go ahead even more efficiently.
This naturally beautiful area deserves to be encouraged. It
marks the beginning of the St. Lawrence estuary. There is now a
road along the North Shore, which goes all the way up to
Natashquan, the birth place of Gilles Vigneault, who composed
“Gens du pays”, the closest thing we have to a national anthem.
From Tadoussac a very pleasant road leads to Chicoutimi along the
Saguenay river, through very picturesque villages—I went there
over 10 years ago—like the very nice village of Sacré-Coeur.
The village of Tableau also comes to mind; you come to this place where
the mountain looks like a blackboard and you almost feel like writing
something on it.
This area is well worth a visit. I hope this will entice people who
are listening today. It is one of the very beautiful areas in Quebec
and, for the time being in Canada; it is aptly dubbed the Quebec
Switzerland.
I would like to ask my colleague who spoke before me, if he is not
gone yet—if he is not here, one must conclude he is gone—what his idea
of the Canadian government's effort was.
We know how hard the Canadian government tries to promote the
Rockies, and rightly so, it is one of the most spectacular areas in
Canada, if not the world.
I would have liked to ask my colleague what efforts if any, in his view,
according to the information he has, if he has more than us, the
Canadian government intends to make to promote internationally this
gorgeous site called the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I encourage the
government to really promote this unique national park around the
world. I agree with the hon. member, as I mentioned in my
speech, that national parks are a treasure for Canada but they
are also a treasure for all human races.
1310
We should promote this national park all across the world,
through all the means that we have from our Canadian embassies,
brochures and tourism listings to promote this unique heritage.
We are the custodians of this great national park for all the
world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This bill holds a special interest
for me as I represent the 70,000 people of the riding of Jonquière,
which is adjacent to this unique park.
As my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis said, the Bloc Quebecois
supports this bill.
Indeed, more than seven years after the Government of Canada and the
Government of Quebec signed an agreement to establish a marine park
where the Saguenay river enters the St. Lawrence estuary, the time has
finally come to pass legislation establishing that park.
I remind you that this park will include a unique feature of Quebec
geography, the Saguenay fjord, where a mighty river flows. As you know,
this fjord opens onto the largest estuary in the world. This is a place
blessed with a large variety of living organisms. There are several
species of plankton and many species of fish, both fresh and salt water
fish. This area offers excellent conditions for breeding and feeding,
and it is also a staging and wintering area for a number of water fowls.
As you can see, this is a special environment that should be
protected.
This is the most beautiful site in our country to be.
The time to pass the marine park legislation has finally arrived.
I say “finally” because the agreement was signed on April 6, 1990 and
the local and regional communities, the environmental groups, the native
peoples and the scientific community, who are all committed to improving
the management and protection of the rich and varied marine resources of
the area, had to wait seven years, I repeat seven years, before that
agreement finally translated into something concrete.
We will recall that under this agreement both governments are
committed, within their constitutional jurisdictions, to passing
legislative or regulatory measures for the purpose of, and I quote:
(a) the creation of a marine park called “Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park” and located at the confluence of the Saguenay River and the
northern half of the St. Lawrence Estuary;
(b) the conservation of the marine fauna and flora, as well as
maintaining the integrity of ecosystems on this territory;
(c) the protection of the territory and its other resources;
(d) the development of these resources for present and future
generations; and
(e) the appreciation of these resources by the public.
And I am not talking about the strong pressures exerted since the
1970s by local people—despite those in this House who would like to
take the credit—for action to be taken in order to preserve the rich
and diverse marine life in the Saguenay region.
It did take the Canadian government some time to respond to the will
that had been unanimously expressed for a long time by the local people.
The least we can say is that this project, which required several
years of discussions and negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec City
before coming to a successful conclusion, is hardly the best example of
an efficient federalist system because of the long negotiations, even
though the local people have agreed on this since the 1970s.
1315
That being said, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some
features of Bill C-7 which give it a unique character and which should
be used as a model by the Canadian government in its future relations
with the Government of Quebec.
So, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will be the first salt
water federal-provincial park, the first park created jointly by the two
levels of government and for which Ottawa and Quebec agreed on their
respective management roles.
This is a unique agreement between the two governments and it was made
possible because the federal government agreed to recognize the rights
and jurisdiction of each level of government—and I insist on those
words “agreed to recognize the rights and jurisdiction of each level of
government”—without trying to make its own rights prevail over those
of the Government of Quebec and the people it represents, which rights
are just as legitimate.
This is an example the present government, its Prime Minister and
its ministers would be well advised to follow in many other sensitive
matters concerning the future of Quebec and Canada.
I have to stress another feature of Bill C-7 that reinforces its
uniqueness: for the first time, the Government of Canada has agreed to
participate in the establishment of a marine park without claiming in
return the ownership on the seabed and the sub-soil and ground
resources. Indeed, the Government of Quebec keeps its property right,
but this right does not prevent the federal government from continuing
to exercise its jurisdiction over navigation and fishing.
This is another fine example from which the Liberal government
should draw inspiration in its relations with Quebec, and a model of
respect for Quebec's territorial integrity that should guide the federal
government in other discussions.
The federal government would have been really ill-advised to claim
a greater jurisdiction than that recognized in the bill establishing the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
Indeed, is it necessary to recall that, for 61 years, up until 1983,
Quebec had assumed responsibility for the administration of the whole
fishing sector?
That is a jurisdiction the federal government has encroached upon
under the pretext that it would be easier to protect the resources of
the Atlantic region from Ottawa. In the last 10 years, there has been
little evidence to support the federal government's claim to be in a
better position than Quebec to protect resources. Besides, the general
collapse of the groundfish stocks is a direct consequence of the federal
government's inability to assume its mandate to protect resources.
Another important part of this bill that is worth mentioning is the
involvement of local representatives in the management of this new
marine park. This bill confirms the mandate of the existing joint
Canada-Quebec management committee and gives an important role to local
stakeholders who, as members of the coordinating committee, will be in
a position to monitor the implementation of the management plan.
The composition of the coordinating committee will be as follows:
one representative from each of the three RCMs concerned on the north
shore, namely Charlevoix-Est, the Saguenay Fjord and Haute-Côte-Nord;
only one representative for the three RCMs concerned on the south shore,
namely Kamouraska, Les Basques and Rivière-du-Loup; one representative
from the scientific community; one for the groups dedicated to the
conservation and preservation of resources, environmental education and
nature interpretation; one from the Canadian heritage department; and
one from the Quebec ministry of environment and wildlife.
1320
These local representatives will have a very important role to
play, for this bill is admittedly rather sketchy concerning the
conservation ethics to be observed in managing the park. We have to
refer to the management plan to learn more about the protection
strategies that will be implemented.
Unfortunately, we must admit this is a flaw because it is always
much easier to amend a management master plan than a law. So this master
plan could be changed at any time in order to increase or reduce the
protection of marine resources, in spite of all the good will expressed
here today.
Moreover, clause 17 of this bill authorizes the governor in council
to make regulations for the protection of marine resources, for the
control of activities, for the issuance of permits and for prescribing
the fines for offences.
As a consequence, I believe that the stakeholders will have to be
very vigilant—I repeat, very vigilant—to ensure that the
application of the management master plan is consistent with the spirit
of Bill C-7, which we are about to pass.
There is one last point I wish to highlight, once again, as a
source of inspiration for the federal government. It is the accord
concluded by Quebec and Ottawa on how to finance the creation of the
marine park and its annual operating costs.
The Sagueney-St. Lawrence Marine Park is already an internationally
renowned tourist destination with an enormous tourist development
potential that, if properly exploited, will contribute to the
establishment of a sustainable tourist industry in our region, the
Saguenay.
I am pleased to see that, in this matter, the federal government is
getting involved in regional development in Quebec without bypassing the
provincial government, which is very much to its credit.
It is indeed worth mentioning since, during its first term, this
Liberal government had shown us another kind of approach which was a lot
less respectful of the Quebec governement's jurisdiction in the area of
regional development.
When the Liberals took office in 1993, 62% of federal funding for
regional development came under various agreements with the Quebec
government. Now, four years later, that percentage has gone down to 33%.
This means that in more than two thirds of regional development
matters in which the federal government is involved, it bypasses the
Quebec government, often duplicating what is already being done.
Need I remind the members that, since the creation of the Federal
Office of Regional Development, the Liberal government has been using
this agency almost exclusively as a propaganda tool to increase its
visibility in Quebec, hiding behind that agency to get directly involved
in regional development in that province. And, unfortunately, it has
been doing so without giving any consideration to the effectiveness of
its interventions.
As a matter of fact, 90% of the Federal Office of Regional
Development activities duplicate the Quebec government's activities and,
according to some estimates, this duplication is costing taxpayers $20.7
million.
The fact that for once the government respected Quebec's
jurisdiction over regional development, by signing an agreement with the
province, can only be cause for rejoicing. But let us also hope that
this approach will become the rule in future federal interventions in
regional development in Quebec.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to cooperate so that Bill C-7,
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, can be adopted as soon as
possible.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion carried.
This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred
to a committee)
* * *
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the
Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the government's agenda as outlined in
the speech from the throne sets out the course it intends to take
to ensure that Canada succeeds in the global knowledge economy of
the 21st century.
The agenda sets out clearly the actions to be taken and the
partnerships to be forged to ensure that Canada realizes its
potential in this new economy.
One of the first priorities is to connect Canadians. The goal
is to make Canada the most connected nation in the world, making
sure that all Canadians can have access to the electronic highway
and the information economy by the year 2000. This is perhaps the
single most important action that government can take to ensure
success in the knowledge based economy.
[Translation]
A national strategy designed to give access to the information and
knowledge infrastructure will enable individuals, rural communities, and
small and medium size businesses to find new opportunities to learn,
communicate, trade and develop their economic and social potential.
Bill C-17 marks a major step in our strategy to connect Canadians
to the information highway.
It is also a milestone in this government's strategy to encourage
competition, innovation and growth in Canada's telecommunications
industry, which plays a vital role in the knowledge economy and greatly
contributes to the information infrastructure.
Today, the telecommunications industry accounts for 115,000 quality
jobs and 3.36% of GDP.
We believe it will be one of the key growth areas in the 21th century
economy.
The purpose of Bill C-17 is to pursue the liberalization of
Canadian telecommunications, which started more than 10 years ago and
has already greatly benefited Canadians and Canadian telecommunications
companies.
[English]
That liberalization began with the licensing of competitive
cellular telephone service and moved forward with the
privatization of Teleglobe and Telesat, the introduction of
competition to long distance telephone service and the passage of
the new Telecommunications Act.
Over the last two years, this process has been continued with
the licensing of suppliers of new services, including personal
communications services and local multi-point communication
services.
We have also been pursuing this liberalization agenda at the
international level to promote global competition and new
opportunities for Canada's telecommunications sector.
1330
The bill before us today paves the way to implement an
international agreement that Canada concluded last February.
Members may remember that the Uruguay round of the GATT trade
negotiations developed new trade rules for the services sector.
These are known as the general agreements for trade and services,
GATS.
Last February agreement was reached to extend the GATS to cover
basic telecommunications. Following successful negotiations
under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, 69 countries
including Canada concluded an agreement to liberalize basic
telecommunications services. These countries account for more
than 90% of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market.
The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications covers basic
telecommunication services, including voice and data but not
broadcasting.
One of our key objectives during the negotiations was to gain
access to foreign markets for Canadian telecommunications
companies. This we have achieved. As a result, our
telecommunications companies will have more secure access to
major markets such as the United States, the European Union and
Japan, as well as the developing markets of Asia and Latin
America. The agreement also establishes a clear set of
multilateral rules in a sector that previously had no rules. The
dispute settlement process provides the necessary safeguards to
ensure that countries respect their commitments.
[Translation]
Under the agreement, we will be making a few changes here, in
Canada.
First of all, we will lift all restrictions on mobile services
provided to Canadians worldwide using satellites belonging to foreign
concerns.
We will put an end to Telesat's monopoly on fixed satellite
services.
Our transparent and independent regulatory and competition regimes
will be maintained.
We will also put an end to Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on
international traffic and eliminate the special ownership restrictions
imposed on this company, which prohibit any investment by foreign
telecommunications companies.
We will authorize foreign concerns to have full ownership of
international submarine cable landing facilities in Canada.
We will, however, maintain our general foreign investment
regulations to ensure that the industry remain in the hands of Canadian
interests.
Many of the changes we promised can be implemented by
administrative means, while others require that legislation be passed.
This bill provides the legislative framework required to make these
changes.
[English]
Perhaps more important than these details is the overall
objective to foster competition both domestically and
internationally. Competition fosters innovation and innovation
sparks the development of new products and services, more choice
for consumers, job creation and economic growth.
Over the last 10 years Canada has made major strides in
liberalizing its telecommunications industry, and the benefits to
consumers and businesses have been impressive. For example, a
study by the international consulting firm KPMG estimates that
long distance telephone rates today are 55% below and traffic is
67% above what they would have been in the absence of competition
in that market. Savings to consumers are in the billions of
dollars. And the benefit is not just in services. Investment in
switches and related hardware is estimated to be more than $2
billion higher than it would have been under monopoly conditions.
Our objective is to free Canada's telecommunications and
information technology sectors to be more competitive and dynamic
both at home and abroad. It was to further this objective that
we became parties to the information technology agreement last
year. About 40 economies with 90% of the world's trade in
information technology have endorsed that agreement.
1335
They have agreed to eliminate tariffs on some 300 information
technology products by the turn of the century. Together these
two agreements have significantly opened up the global
marketplace in telecommunications services and equipment,
creating new opportunities for all countries. As a result,
Canadian telecommunications companies will be able to capture a
larger share of the global market in telecommunications services
and equipment.
The bill we are considering today will also strengthen our
ability to keep pace with a rapidly changing telecommunications
environment. We will be empowering the CRTC to introduce a
licensing regime to ensure that all providers of international
services play by the same rules. We are also strengthening our
ability to enforce standards for telecommunications equipment.
[Translation]
We must pass this bill as rapidly as possible. The agreement
on basic telecommunications services takes effect January 1, 1998.
A good number of the amendments to our regulations do not take
effect before October 1, 1998, but the new regime must be in place
before then.
One of the amendments proposed in this bill will enable the
CRTC to establish a licensing regime for telecommunications service
providers.
The CRTC will ensure that Canadian and foreign telecommunications
providers hold licences consistent with WTO rules and Canadian
regulations.
The CRTC has held public hearings on licensing and the whole
issue of international services. If the CRTC is to be able to wrap
up this process and introduce the new regulations by October 1,
1998, the bill must be passed without delay.
The bill also amends the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and
Divestiture Act so as to repeal the provisions concerning the
special ownership and other regimes related to ending Teleglobe's
monopoly. I wish to point out that Teleglobe approves of this
initiative.
[English]
Changes to the Telecommunications Act are necessary for us to
meet our commitments in the area of satellites, undersea cables
and international services, and also to ensure observance of
other Canadian telecommunications policies.
The benefits flowing from the GATS agreement are significant. We
anticipate that Canadian businesses and consumers will gain
access to a wide variety of world class telecommunications
services at competitive prices. Canadian telecom service
providers will be able to penetrate new markets on an equal
footing with local companies and foreign competitors. Canadian
telecom manufacturers will find a huge new demand for their state
of the art products as telecom operators around the world prepare
for a new global environment of open markets and competition.
Canadians want us to move quickly to realize the economic,
social and cultural benefits of the knowledge based society.
International agreements like the GATS agreement lay the
groundwork for us to construct this society.
We are working on a number of fronts to build. For example, I
have invited my OECD counterparts to come to Canada in the fall
of 1998 for discussions to develop a global framework for
electronic commerce. Electronic commerce means using advanced
communications and computer technologies to do business. Its uses
range from selling consumer products and services electronically
to managing investments over computer networks, to transactions
between major banks that involve large amounts of money and other
assets.
Electronic commerce is not only central to a modern knowledge
based economy, it is also the foundation for future growth and
job creation. Given our small domestic market and dependence on
foreign trade, we must foster a domestic and international
environment that is friendly to electronic commerce if we are to
reap the significant trade and investment benefits it offers to
Canadian firms and citizens.
The OECD Canada conference is an important step in this
direction.
It ensures that we can support, participate in and influence the
creation of an open, transparent, multilateral electronic
commerce regime.
1340
Our hope is that this conference will set out the policy
framework and implementation timetable needed to establish a
stable, open and transparent environment favourable to the
development of worldwide electronic commerce. An integrated
approach would allow all countries and regions to enjoy the
benefits of electronic commerce while avoiding duplication of
effort and the creation of new international trade barriers.
We need to do more if Canada is to be a leader in electronic
commerce. That is why the government is also working toward
using electronic commerce when doing business with its own
clients. By being a model user we can encourage the private
sector and other levels of government to adopt the new
technologies.
Advances in information technologies are transforming industrial
economies such as our own. Canada has the opportunity to be
among the first rank of the new knowledge based economies.
As these new technologies eliminate distance they are taking us
ever closer to the global village envisioned by Marshall McLuhan.
They are also creating a world in which knowledge is our most
important commodity and the key to our economic performance.
By overcoming the barriers of distance these technologies are
creating great opportunities for people, communities and
countries that were once on the periphery, from the developing
nations of Asia, Latin America and Africa to Canada's own rural
and remote communities.
[Translation]
Over the last four years, we have defined and implemented a
information highway strategy, so that Canada can take full
advantage of these technologies and so that all Canadians can have
access to the information based economy.
This information highway will be Canadian and will offer
Canadian products and services, but it will be open to the entire
world. It will encourage innovation, economic growth, job creation
and communication throughout Canada.
Our government's priority is to create the conditions
necessary to encourage the private sector to build this information
highway.
Hardware and software suppliers, and designers of related contents
and services are now among the fastest growing sectors in Canada.
Opening up competition in the telecommunications services
sector represents an important component of the Canadian strategy.
We know that the best, as well as the fastest, way to build an
information based economy infrastructure is to institute an open
competition policy.
[English]
We have the best overall communications infrastructure among the
G-7 nations. We are among the leaders in terms of penetration,
quality, market development and rates. For example, Canada tops
the G-7 in proportion of households with personal computers. We
have the lowest residential telephone and Internet access charges
in the G-7. We have the highest rate of cable television
subscribers in the G-7.
As we build the world's best communications infrastructure we
have also built industries that sell knowledge based goods and
services around the world. Our information and communications
technology industries export to more than 90 countries. The
sector is a leader in research and development, accounting for
one-third of total industrial R and D in Canada.
These industries hold enormous potential for jobs and growth.
Now that we have cleared the way for them to compete
internationally that potential is growing even greater.
This legislation is a necessary step toward the continuing
process of liberalizing telecommunications trade worldwide. I
urge the House to act on it quickly and to secure for Canadians
their entry into the global telecommunications marketplace.
1345
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be speaking today to Bill C-17 which amends two acts, the
Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization
and Divestiture Act.
I will preface my remarks with the encouragement I personally
take that the minister recognizes the importance of this sector
and has continually put it forward as a priority for Canada. I
and my party may differ with the process to take us there but we
certainly concur with the priority he places on it.
Prior to my time in this House I served and worked in the
telecommunications sector for many years. I do concur that we
have one of the finest communications infrastructures that we
will find anywhere in the world. I take personal pride in being
a part of having shaped that in Canada today.
Our telecommunications policy in Canada and that infrastructure
has largely been born out of an inward looking approach to our
telecommunications industry. We have to some degree limited
ownership in the past to Canadian players and Canadian content.
We have had a monopolistic approach to the development of the
industry. In the past it has served Canadians and did the job
and allowed for the creation of some infrastructure, but the day
we are in today is certainly different from what has been in the
past.
Today we are facing a greater degree of globalization and
competitiveness as we have never seen before. To continue with
an approach of inward looking, restrictive type policies will
only serve to restrict Canadians' full participation in the
global marketplace.
We have much to gain as Canadians. We have equipment and
competencies in Canada that are second to none. We are well
equipped right now to compete in the global marketplace, a
marketplace which offers an $880 billion industry in which
Canadians are eager to participate.
The global network that is evolving around the world today has
changed the way we relate. Time and distance no longer are the
factors they were in the past. Our world is changing.
New agreements need to be put in place to reduce the
restrictions on trade and to promote investment in this critical
industry if we are to capitalize on the benefits that are
available for Canadians.
Speaking to this particular bill, there are some encouraging
points to this bill that we have long awaited. The reduction in
foreign ownership and control requirements and the lifting of
some of these requirements on submarine cables, earth stations
and technologies that carry long distance telecommunications
services outside of Canada are good and positive signs and things
we personally endorse.
The Teleglobe monopoly wind down and the Telesat monopoly
divestiture are good signs. They are things that have been
called for for some time. As the minister has alluded to, even
the entities themselves, such as Teleglobe, embrace the
opportunity to participate in the global telecommunications
industry.
There are some changes required if we are to meet our trade
commitments and adapt to these new realities and move away from
the restrictive approach of the past. We need stronger
legislative controls which are inherent in this bill around
technical standards for telecommunications equipment, both that
which leaves Canada and that which comes into Canada, provided
those controls are applied to telecommunications equipment and
not to other equipment that may not be pertinent to the
telecommunications industry.
1350
Generally we are supportive of the components within this bill
that call for the elimination of the monopolies, the relaxation
of foreign ownership restrictions and greater access to
international markets. However we have some concerns with this
bill and I would like to speak to three of those concerns.
Unfortunately these concerns are of such a grave nature that the
positive aspects of the bill, which the industry and this party
have been calling for for some time, are almost negated by these
more detrimental aspects of the bill.
The first concern is the expansive new authority which has been
given to the CRTC under this legislation, brand new licensing
powers over telecommunications service providers. The process
around this licensing and how it is applied is undefined in the
legislation. There is no mention of costs or fees which may be
involved in obtaining a licence. This is another opportunity to
potentially extract new revenues for the government and to
further diminish the success of entrepreneurial interests in this
area.
Is the process impartial? We have no way of knowing from this
legislation. There is a clear indication that entities which
exist in Canada today but do not require a licence will require
one once this legislation is in place. There is no criteria
outlined for granting of licences.
Some may think this is an over concern, but when we look at the
CRTC's track record in other industries and in other areas, there
is justification for concern. It has a track record of picking
winners and losers. Often those picks are justified by a
nebulous public interest statement rather than clear guidelines.
This significantly greater power given to the CRTC seems to be
in exactly the opposite direction of what we see in the
divestiture of the monopolies and the wind down of the monopolies
of Teleglobe and Telesat. It is a trade off which is very
unfortunate in the packaging of this particular bill.
We prefer a more clearly defined process if in fact licensing is
even necessary, protecting impartiality in free market forces
with less potential for abuse and political interference. It may
be that none of this is intended, but define the process. Build
in the safeguards so that accusations cannot be made. If that is
there, it stimulates investor confidence and business
development.
The second point which gives us concern about this legislation
is the brand new administrative powers granted to the CRTC. In
the short term the justification for these powers is targeted at
the administration of the North American numbering sequence for
long distance calling. On the surface it might seem reasonable
but I suggest that in the past this work was actually done by
industry. Does the CRTC have the skills to manage and administer
an operational process such as this?
I know there is a clause in the legislation for the CRTC to be
able to appoint a third party to administer this activity. Our
concern is that this is an operational type of administrative
duty which is new to the CRTC. I would suggest the skill sets
are not there to effectively manage this and it may not be the
best place to carry this on.
1355
Even beyond that, a greater concern on this same theme is the
open ended administrative power on a go forward basis granted to
the CRTC by this legislation which it can impose or as the
legislation itself says, prescribe for any activity related to
the provision of telecommunications services by Canadian
carriers.
The CRTC can further delegate powers to a chosen third party,
including one created by the commission itself. This means that
any area of the industry that the CRTC feels needs to have its
administrative oversight can be subject to a third party
management that the CRTC puts in place.
These two areas of undefined and extensive administrative power
go far beyond what is required for increased participation by
Canadians in the global communications marketplace.
Our concern is that what Canadians have gained in the removal of
the monopolies and greater access to international markets is
more than offset by the much greater controlling powers given to
the regulator here at home. These are very serious precedents in
the wrong direction, especially given the CRTC's track record of
an expensive application process and weakly defendable subjective
public interest arguments for the chosen winners and losers in
the industry.
My third and final concern relates to what we believe to be the
very short term nature and short sightedness of this bill. We
see within this bill the continued attempt to separate
broadcasting from telecommunications but the reality is that
these two technologies are undergoing a convergence at a very
rapid rate.
In Canada today, broadcast information through digitization is
being carried by telecom carriers. As voice data and broadcast
material is increasingly carried by telecom infrastructures, the
attempt to partition broadcasting from telecommunications
regulation will become increasingly cumbersome and increasingly
difficult.
I believe that this attempt to continue to embrace the
Broadcasting Act is really driven more by a desire to regulate
what Canadians watch rather than any efficiencies in the actual
distribution. It is again CRTC censorship regarding what
Canadians will have exposure to.
However because of convergence and the attempt to strip out
broadcast from telecommunications within the industry, I would
suggest to the minister and to the government that is going to be
effectively impossible in the days ahead as these technologies
move together. There is a better approach.
The Speaker: My colleague, of course you have quite a bit
of time left in your speech but it is almost 2 o'clock and I
thought perhaps we could start with statements by members. You
will have the floor when we return to the debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
COUNCILLOR FRANK MCKECHNIE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past summer the city of Mississauga lost a good friend and a
former colleague of mine, councillor Frank McKechnie.
Frank immigrated to Canada from Glasgow, Scotland in 1950. First
elected in 1958 to the former Toronto township council, he served
as a Peel county councillor, town of Mississauga councillor and a
member of the city of Mississauga council and region of Peel
council. Widely known as the mayor of Malton, Frank was
Mississauga's longest serving councillor and one of Canada's
longest serving municipal politicians.
In addition to politics he was extremely active in the community,
volunteering his time with a large number of organizations.
1400
Frank was a kind and gentle man whose vision helped Mississauga
grow into this country's ninth largest city and whose years of
dedicated service to his constituents serve as inspiration to all
of us.
The municipal election on November 10 will be the first time in
39 years without Frank McKechnie's name on the ballot. He will
truly be missed.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in less than one month the government will commit Canada to
legally binding targets regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This
will be done despite the following.
First, the scientific community remains divided on whether
greenhouse gases do indeed cause global warming.
Second, the government has failed to receive the agreement of
the provinces before it goes to Kyoto. The provinces that will
enforce the emission standards must be on side before Kyoto, not
after.
Third, developing countries such as China, India and Mexico that
will be the big contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the
future are not part of the Kyoto agreement. Clearly this is a
global concern that requires all countries to be involved.
The government has had four years to prepare for Kyoto. Yet
here we are less than one month away and our government still has
not tabled the Canadian position or provided any documentation on
the implications.
Where is the leadership?
* * *
RABBI GUNTER PLAUT
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow evening I will have the honour of attending the
inauguration of the W. Gunter Plaut Humanitarian Award at Holy
Blossom Temple.
Rabbi Plaut will be the first recipient of this award which
recognizes community leadership and commitment to human rights.
He has worked tirelessly to promote social justice in the
community.
This occasion will also mark the launch of Rabbi Plaut's new
book More Unfinished Business and his 85th birthday.
Rabbi Plaut is a world renowned theologian and the esteemed
senior scholar at Holy Blossom Temple in my riding. Holy Blossom
Temple is the oldest and the largest Jewish reform congregation
in Canada.
Rabbi Plaut has made significant contributions to Holy Blossom
and our broader community for the past 36 years.
I thank Rabbi Plaut for his dedication and work in our
community, congratulate him on receiving this well deserved award
and wish him a happy 85th birthday.
* * *
[Translation]
PARISH OF PRINCEVILLE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the parish of
Princeville is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its foundation this
year.
In addition to generating numerous activities, this event is a
perfect opportunity to become more familiar with our roots and to
rediscover Quebec's traditional values.
As the member for Lobtinière, I wish these people some happy
celebrations and I take this opportunity to congratulate the organizing
committee chaired by Roger Bilodeau.
One of the highlights of the festivities was the launching of a
history book.
I also congratulate the author, Claude Raymond, who did not hesitate to
show his attachment to Quebec by entitling his book Dis-moi comment on
a bâti mon pays.
* * *
PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to tell the House and all Canadians that November 3 to 9 is
Pharmacy Awareness Week.
Various activities will take place in communities across Canada to
promote the fact that pharmacists are experts on the use of medications.
This year's theme is “A healthy partnership—You and your
pharmacist. Finding solutions together” stresses the idea that health is
a shared responsibility. Pharmacists and the public are key partners in
Canadian health care services.
Pharmacists can also be partners with other health care groups in
finding solutions to health care problems.
This week is an opportunity for all Canadians to learn how their
pharmacist can help them improve their health.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the temperature has been rising in the Chamber lately and the
cause is the hot air emitting from the Reform Party. It is
confusing fact with fiction and lobbying for narrow special
interest groups instead of the public good.
This is not an east-west issue. Over 90% of Albertans support
meeting our greenhouse gas commitments.
1405
Here is what one Albertan had to say in the Edmonton
Journal:
I am enraged by the stupidity, self-centredness and
shortsightedness of our so-called leaders who are opposed to
measures being taken by the federal government to curb the
emission of greenhouse gases.
The dinosaurs did not die out four million years ago. They are
still huffing, puffing and snorting on the other side of the
Chamber.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for several years I have been watching with fascination
and disgust the transformation of the theory of human induced
global warming from an interesting scientific hypothesis to
widely accepted doctrine. This has been accomplished without the
addition of significant new data by mere constant repetition of
unproven claims.
When science becomes entangled with anti-technological ideology
it takes real courage for a researcher to remain loyal to
scientific principles and the scientific method of investigation.
Mediocrities and charlatans need only parrot appropriate
politically correct slogans about rising oceans and parched farm
lands to receive grants and to have their egos massaged by
gullible mass media.
A medieval culture of hostility to objective scholarship is
emerging—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Whitby—Ajax.
* * *
PEACEKEEPING
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when it comes to serving the cause of fighting for freedom and
justice in time of war, Canada has taken a back seat to no
nation. This week as we celebrate the contributions made by our
servicemen and women during times of conflict we should also
remember their heroic efforts throughout the past half century in
keeping the peace. I am of course referring to our peacekeepers.
With its origins going back to the late 1940s, the term
peacekeeper has become synonymous with the word Canadian. From
Suez to Cypress to Yugoslavia and at times and places in between
the United Nations has called on Canadians to help out, and help
out they have.
Tens of thousands have served in more than 40 separate
peacekeeping missions around the world. More than a hundred have
lost their lives and hundreds more have been wounded. They
continue to serve as we speak.
Canada and the nations around the world remain in their debt for
their protection—
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, year
after year, throne speech after election campaign, we hear the same
promise: jobs for the young workers and a better quality of life for the
next generation. But what are the facts?
The unemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 24 is close to
17% and, in Quebec, it is close to 20%. The dropout rate for 18 year
old students is 15%. The average student loan has increased by 42%
between 1989 and 1996 as a direct result of cuts in transfer payments to
provinces.
At the same time, the Liberal government insists on duplicating
about a dozen programs for young people initiated by the Quebec
government, even if it admits services should be rendered by the most
appropriate level of government level, which is certainly not the
federal level.
Mr. Denis Coderre: You are not angry enough. Get real mad.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Even if the member for Bourassa thinks this
is unimportant, this government's action should be entitled “Vicious
circle” or “How the Liberals have our young people going around in
circles”.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition is prone to creating confusion and even
fearmongering on climate change and the reduction of greenhouse
gases.
In reality, greenhouse gas reduction means good business. One
of the first steps is to stabilize emissions in Canada by
cancelling costly and perverse subsidies, by switching to natural
gas wherever possible, by capping industrial emissions and
putting in place a system of tradable emissions permits, by
improving fuel efficiency for new vehicles, and by launching a
national program aimed at energy efficiency.
These steps will make Canada a world leader in energy
efficiency. These steps will also create jobs, increase revenues
and reduce costs.
* * *
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of
preventable birth defects in Canada. Among other things it
causes devastating neurological damage. With an average IQ of 68
most of these children cannot function in school. Many run afoul
of the law and it is estimated that half the people in jail have
FAS or FAE.
Yesterday the justice minister glibly suggested that this was
Manitoba's problem. This is everybody's problem.
1410
Today I challenge the Minister of Justice to meet with her
provincial counterparts to amend the Mental Health Act so that a
woman can be placed in a treatment facility if she wilfully
consumes substances that will damage her unborn child.
This is not an abortion bill. This is a bill to prevent
children from being poisoned so that they too can have a fair
chance in life.
* * *
[Translation]
MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN VERDUN
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Sunday was municipal election day in Verdun—Saint-Henri. I would like
to congratulate those who won and praise their courage in running for
jobs that are so very challenging.
I particularly want to congratulate our mayor, Georges Bossé, who
was re-elected by a wide margin as mayor of Verdun, and I would like to
take this opportunity to wish him a very happy birthday one day early.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Reform Party says that he is not convinced of
the link between emissions and global warming. I remember when I
was a member of the special committee on acid rain in the 1980s.
Scientists were trying to educate another captive of the captains
of industry, former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, about acid
rain.
Perhaps the Reform Party leader also thinks that acid rain comes
from ducks or trees, that smoking does not cause cancer, or that
global warming is somehow related to not having an elected
Senate. Would the Reform Party be happier with the greenhouse
issue if it were proposed that we hang or whip people caught
polluting? Would that get its attention?
As for the Liberals, they continue to show contempt for
Canadians and for parliament by having more to say at a $350 a
plate fund-raising dinner about their emission reduction plans
than they have been willing to divulge in question period. Do we
have to attach donations to our questions to get answers about
Liberal policy?
* * *
QUEBEC
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
allow me to explain the difference between real and false
humiliation.
False humiliation is that claimed by separatist leaders when
Jacques Villeneuve proudly displayed the Canadian flag after his
racing victory.
False humiliation is what Quebeckers are told they feel when
Canada's ambassador to France, Jacques Roy, is dubbed a political
commando because he toured Quebec and spoke of the world's high
regard for the way Canadians of all backgrounds work together to
continue to build our great country.
False humiliation is what they are supposed to feel when Mr. Roy
argues that Quebec has maintained a strong independent voice in
this federation, which is quite different from the situation
faced by many countries in the European Union.
Now let me talk about real humiliation. That is what Quebeckers
are subjected to when their mean spirited leaders make them a
laughing stock with small petty words.
Real humiliation is when we forget why we fought as Canadians on
many occasions to defend principles of tolerance and peace.
I ask the leaders of the separatist movement how the people of
Quebec can be humiliated by showing—
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, two weeks
ago merchant navy veterans received a very special recognition
from my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick. During Naval Week,
the city invited the merchant navy veteran's association to fly
its flag on the official city flagpole.
Saint John is the only city in Canada to permit this. Its
actions go a long way to recognizing the efforts and the
important role the merchant navy played in the second world war.
The merchant navy has been fighting to receive equal status in
relation to other veterans. Some merchant navy veterans still
cannot qualify for benefits.
Today members of the merchant navy coalition held a press
conference on the Hill, urging the government to honour its
obligations to these veterans.
As we embark upon Remembrance Week and as we get closer to
Remembrance Day, I urge the government to remember the role
members of the merchant navy played in bringing peace around the
world and finally provide them with equal access to equal
benefits.
* * *
SPACEBRIDGE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time and
again we hear from members across the floor how Canadians do not
care about Quebec. Let me give an example of a company in my
riding that cares.
Recently COM DEV International of Cambridge, a world leader in
satellite technology, together with Newbridge Networks of Kanata,
announced the opening of a new company in Quebec called
Spacebridge.
1415
Located in Hull, Spacebridge will create more than 200 new
high tech jobs. COM DEV's success and the bold vision of its
CEO, Val O'Donovan, shows that Canadians outside of Quebec not
only care about the province but are willing to invest in Quebec,
creating good jobs for present and future generations of
Quebeckers as well as for all Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when Canadians heard about the prime minister's speech
last night they were more interested in what he did not say than
what he did say. When the prime minister spoke about the Kyoto
deal he did not rule out a gasoline tax to pay for it.
My question is very straightforward. Will the prime minister
rule out any jump at the pump?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the opposition is always trying to find something to
attack that does not exist. It was all excited about a carbon
tax. We said a year ago that there was no such plan. The
minister of energy of the day, the Minister of Justice, made many
statements about it. Having nothing to complain about, the
opposition invents an issue and tries to make hay out of it.
I said there would be no carbon tax. Should we have an income
tax increase—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a difference between carbon taxes and gasoline
taxes. My question was not that difficult. Either the prime
minister knows how he is going to pay for this Kyoto deal and he
is keeping it as a Christmas present for Canadians or he does not
know. And if he does not know, he should say so.
Economists have said the Kyoto deal, only 27 days away, could
add up to 10 cents, 20 cents or 30 cents for a litre of gasoline.
Here it is again. Do not run away, do not make excuses and do
not change the subject. Will there be a jump at the pump to pay
for the Kyoto deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first we have to have a deal. That is the first point.
We are going there because Canadians want us to do something
about climate changes. The Reform Party is against it. It does
not give a damn about the environment but we do on this side of
the House.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is responsible is going and signing a treaty when
you do not what is in it, you do not know what it will cost and
you do not know how you will pay for it.
The Liberal political minister for Alberta was very quiet in the
House yesterday but outside in the lobby she was quite talkative.
She told reporters that the Liberals have not ruled out a gasoline
tax. She even reminded Canadians that Liberals increased the
gasoline tax 1.5 cents a litre several years ago.
I ask the prime minister—
An hon. member: Bingo.
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I think we should go and play bingo. They really
do not know what we have said on that. They attacked the
Minister of Justice when they knew very well that the rules of
this House did not allow her to get up in the House of Commons.
She replied to them later.
We are responsible on this side. They are irresponsible on the
other side.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
so far the only government officials who have publicly stated the
costs of the Kyoto deal are the finance minister's own people.
They have been quoted in the Globe and Mail that the Kyoto
deal could consume any hope for budget surplus.
Is the finance minister willing to run up a deficit to pay for
the Kyoto deal?
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is nonsensical to speculate on a
deal that has not taken place. It is nonsensical to speculate on
a series of commitments to be negotiated with a multitude of
countries around the world. It is nonsensical to speculate on
negotiations which have not begun. It is nonsensical to
speculate on fundamental changes that are going to take place
over great number of years in a negotiation with a great number
of countries.
That is our position. The prime minister has expressed it well.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the prime minister has stated it well. They do not have a
position.
We can read in the newspaper where the Americans are coming
from. We can read in the newspaper where the European community
is coming from. We cannot find out in this House where this
government is coming from.
The finance minister's department has stated that the Kyoto deal
is going to eat up the surplus of the budget. Where is the
finance minister going to get the money to finance the Kyoto
deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is this very member of Parliament who is the one who
has proposed a tax increase to settle the problem of the Kyoto
deal. He is the only one who spoke about it.
As the Minister of Finance said, we have a responsibility for
the protection of the environment and climate change.
These people on the other side do not feel that the world is
changing or that we have international obligations. They are
still at the stage where they think the planet is flat.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government has just interfered in another area under provincial
jurisdiction, drinking water.
In reading Bill C-14, we see that the government, under the
guise of setting national standards, is trying to take complete
control over drinking water.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under the guise of
setting national standards, he is going to assume complete control
over the selling of drinking water, over its quality and over all
related products?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that of course is quite untrue.
What the bill does is regulate a matter entirely within federal
jurisdiction; that is to say, standards for the manufacture, sale
and use of mechanisms and equipment used in connection with the
transporting of drinking water.
[Translation]
Provincial jurisdiction is being fully respected. Our sole
intent is to respect federal responsibilities.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister has indeed just confirmed that this involves all
products related to drinking water. That is in the bill, moreover.
They always have good intentions but, is it not the bottom
line that, having figured out that drinking water is going to
become a major economic issue, a strategic issue in the years to
come, the federal government is trying to grab control of drinking
water, as it has already done with telecommunications and oil?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
position expressed by the hon. member is a somewhat odd one. Is he
opposed to Canadians having safe water? Is he opposed to health
standards for Canadians?
It is very odd to find a constitutional question in all this.
I am extremely surprised and disappointed. It is our intention to
act in order to protect the health of all Canadians.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government will get involved in the area of drinking water through its
health department, on the grounds that it must protect public health in
Canada.
Is this not an excuse for the federal government to take complete
control over drinking water, thus taking over responsibilities which
Quebec already exercises and which come under provincial jurisdiction?
1425
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our
actions, we have respected the jurisdiction of Quebec and of all the
other provinces.
In fact, we discussed the details of this legislation with my
provincial counterparts and their officials, and it is widely recognized
that we took action to meet a challenge faced by every jurisdiction in
Canada. It is a federal responsibility, but we are respecting provincial
jurisdiction.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister
of Health not once again trying to pull a fast one, as in the case of
raw milk cheese, by suddenly and clumsily getting involved in an area
where no one in Quebec thinks he has any business, using public health
as an excuse?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should check with her colleagues in Quebec City, because we have
the support of all the provinces to introduce this legislation.
We intend to proceed to protect the health of all Canadians.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the prime minister. At a $350 a plate dinner
last night the prime minister nixed carbon taxes as a way to
reduce greenhouse gases.
Unfortunately dinner goers and Canadians alike still did not get
their money's worth. We still do not know what positive position
the government will put forward at Kyoto.
Economic and scientific experts agree that solid leadership on
greenhouse gas emissions can be win-win for Canada economically
and environmentally.
Why then will Canada not go to Kyoto prepared to provide
leadership?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will provide leadership and that is what we are
talking about at this time. As members can see, there is no
agreement.
There is the Reform Party which does not want to do anything
about the protection of the environment and the NDP which does
not think a minute about what the cost might be.
At this moment my ministers are speaking with provincial
governments because for the implementation of the Kyoto
commitment which will come eventually we need the collaboration
of the provinces. The ministers will be meeting on November 16.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister, the heritage minister and the prime minister
are all on public record in support of a 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005.
In fact, this promise was front and centre in the Liberal red
book, page 70, right up there with the promise to scrap the GST.
When the government broke the GST promise, the member for
Hamilton East was forced to resign. Who is going to resign over
this broken promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will finish what I was saying. There will be a
meeting in a few days, actually the 12th of this month, and we
want to have discussions with the provinces because in Canada the
federal government is not like the NDP. We do not tell the
provinces to do exactly what we want.
We want to have discussions with them to develop a consensus and
have a position that will represent the interests of every part
of Canada.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
night at this fund-raising dinner the prime minister made the
whopping statement that he wants Canada to get credit for selling
nuclear reactors to China because he says that a country like
Canada should get some recognition for helping a developing
country reduce its emissions and get some credit for it.
Since the prime minister holds that position, could he table in
the House of Commons today the environmental assessment on which
he bases that statement?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not need to table anything. It is obvious that if the Chinese can use
electricity produced by atomic energy, they will not have to burn coal.
One does not have to be a genius to understand that it is better to use
electricity that does not pollute than electricity produced by burning
coal.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, genius is a
rare commodity on the government benches.
1430
[English]
The Minister of Finance said on the weekend in an interview that
when he was Liberal environment critic he was tremendously
“deceived” by Rio because governments did not live up to their
commitments. I know this is a concept with which he is familiar,
being the minister responsible for the GST.
The finance minister is part of a government that has held
office for four of the five years since Rio. I would like to know
what his government has done to live up to those commitments.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that when a number of us from this
side of the House and, in fact, the current head of the Suzuki
Foundation went to Rio, we put a great deal of faith in this
member when he was the minister of the environment.
However, a number of promises were made that were not kept. When
we came into office we found that nothing had been done. In fact,
they had engaged in anti-rhetoric. Everything this member said
he did not mean.
The Canadian people were tremendously deceived and I was too.
When the hon. member was in Rio he should have set commitments—
Some hon. members: More, more.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
RCMP INVESTIGATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the Liberal's top Quebec fundraiser, Pierre Corbeil,
appeared in court to answer charges of criminal influence
peddling.
However, questions remain for the government. Who actually
leaked the government documents and lists so that Mr. Corbeil
could have them? When we asked this question of the Prime
Minister on October 9, he said he was going to have a chat with
his ethics counsellor and get him to look into it. It is now
nearly a month later.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what the ethics counsellor had
to say about this deal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I talked with the ethics counsellor and he said that no
minister had broken any of the guidelines.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that may be comforting for the Prime Minister, but I do not think
Canadians are going to be happy with that answer. There are
still some questions unresolved.
Canadians want to know how those confidential lists got into
Pierre Corbeil's hands. The Prime Minister says that the ethics
counsellor said everything is okay. Surely there should be a
report available. The ethics counsellor must report to
Parliament, not just to the Prime Minister over coffee.
Will the Prime Minister release a copy of the ethics
counsellor's remarks or are we going to have to find out about
the government's ethics at a criminal trial?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is making an attack which is based on
information that is not available.
She should know that when something is in front of the courts,
no minister can reply until the court has disposed of it. It is
elementary.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The federal government's intrusion in the matter of drinking
water leaves us scratching our heads and points to a new source of
potential confrontation with Quebec. Once again, Ottawa is
trespassing on the established jurisdiction of the Government of
Quebec.
Just as Quebec is setting up a water policy, is the federal
government not opening the door to confrontation through its
intervention by promoting duplication and overlap, when it is not
needed in the area?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member is completely mistaken. We prepared the bill with
a view to honouring areas of provincial jurisdiction and to acting
only within federal jurisdiction to achieve a national priority.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
water policy has not yet been drawn up, and the minister is already
defining priorities.
By getting involved in the matter of drinking water, is the
federal government not taking over what Quebeckers quite rightly
consider a natural resource that belongs to them?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member would care to read the bill, he would see that
it is clear we have dealt only with matters of federal
jurisdiction.
1435
The details of the bill are clear. Provincial jurisdiction is
respected. It is up to the provinces to deal with the other
matters, and I hope they will.
* * *
[English]
AIRPORTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has revealed that more than a dozen ground handlers at
Pearson airport are in the pay of Colombian drug lords to unload
smuggled cocaine.
When we asked the revenue minister last month if drug inspection
officers were being pulled away from planes to fast track certain
shipments, he did not answer and he did not act.
Can the minister assure us today that not a single plane
containing smuggled drugs has gone uninspected at Pearson
airport?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
opportunity to speak on two situations.
I want to congratulate customs. Just in the last five weeks
Canada Customs officers have seized about $10 million in smuggled
cocaine from Trinidad.
On Friday, as a result of the good work of customs officers, a
man with two false passports and a grenade was detained and
subsequently turned over to police. This speaks to the good work
that our customs officers are doing at our airports and our
borders.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let the record show that I asked the minister if any planes were
not inspected. He did not answer the question.
Last month Dennis Coffey, a senior customs officer blew the
whistle on lax inspection practices at Pearson airport. Instead
of acting on these allegations, the minister's department
intimidated Mr. Coffey.
While his bureaucrats were bullying Mr. Coffey, how many plane
loads of cocaine were allowed to land and go uninspected at
Pearson airport?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member does not know
the facts at all. He should look at the facts and the stories
that have come out about the good work that customs do.
If the member is saying that we should inspect every piece of
goods that comes through the border, he should be aware that
Canada does over $1 billion of trade. I would need a lot of money
from the finance minister to inspect every piece of goods. We do
an excellent job. We have some of the best customs officers in
the world and I am proud of the work they do.
* * *
[Translation]
BC MINE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In the BC mine issue, everyone is calling for an improved POWA
to help older workers who have just lost their jobs. Only this
Liberal government is turning a deaf ear.
Is the minister, who has had since last week to give this
matter some thought, ready to change his position and allow this
request?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is completely wrong to say that
this government is turning a deaf ear.
Our government was the first to react to the situation of the
workers who lost their jobs at the mine, the first, in late
September, to put an offer of a package of up to $3 million in
active job measures for workers on the table.
There was excellent news in the region yesterday. There was
talk of Noranda creating 350 jobs in Asbestos. Clearly, things are
happening. Our government wants to help these people re-enter the
job market.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister does not know Quebec. The Asbestos region is not the
same as the Thetford region.
Will the minister admit that, at least in the case of these
older workers, what is needed is not active measures, but a form of
income support that will see them through to retirement with
dignity at the age of 65? Jean Dupéré and Louise Harel have
already stated their position. It is now up to the minister.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each government is free to decide
on its course of action. In the past, the Government of Quebec
decided to intervene in the shipbuilding and clothing industries.
It did so in its capacity as the Government of Quebec and is
perfectly free to do so again.
I have responsibility for certain active measure funds and
that is what I am offering them. The POWA was phased out one year
ago and the workers themselves said it did not interest them unless
it was improved, which would mean it was no longer the same
program.
* * *
1440
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
appointment of Judge Advocate General Brigadier-General Boutet
expired on November 2, after having been extended last spring.
Boutet was the Judge Advocate General who oversaw the worst
abuses in military history in Canada. Will the defence minister
confirm whether Boutet's contract as Judge Advocate General has
been extended?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of the Judge Advocate
General has been extended for three months.
The military justice system is going through changes and we are
looking at what we want to do in the future. We need an extra
three months to do that, so an extension has been made for a
three-month period.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Judge Advocate General is responsible for the military justice
system.
It was reported earlier this week that dozens of military
personnel stationed at CFS Leitrim were suspected of being
cocaine users and drug traffickers.
The JAG's investigation into these allegations was dropped
because it was so badly botched. In light of the newly leaked
evidence, which the minister must have known about, why on earth
has he extended the contract of the Judge Advocate General?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the research of the hon.
member opposite is not very good. It is not the Judge Advocate
General who investigates these matters, it is the military
police.
The military police have had the matter under investigation.
They have not closed the file but they have suspended it because
of insufficient evidence on which to lay charges. If further
evidence is brought forward, then charges will be laid.
Meanwhile, we are extending the position of the Judge Advocate
General—a separate issue altogether—because of the major
changes being made.
We want to have a look at who is the best person to occupy that
position and an additional three months is a wise move to make.
* * *
[Translation]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
After benefiting from rate increases three times the rate of
inflation, major telephone companies are yet again asking the CRTC to
approve 100% to 200% increases, thereby jeopardizing the very concept of
basic public telephone service.
The Telecommunications Act states that affordable basic service
should be available across Canada. Does the government intend to remind
the CRTC that—
The Speaker: The Minister of Industry has the floor.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could
not hear the whole question. The hon. member should know that here, in
Canada, we have the lowest telecommunications rates in the world, for
both local and long distance calls.
I believe we have instructed the CRTC to support universal service,
and this process is under way as we speak. We will see what the CRTC's
decision will be.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
This morning in this building the Merchant Navy Coalition showed
how for 52 years its members have been denied housing, have been
denied education and service benefits given to other veterans.
Is the minister prepared to give all wartime merchant marine
veterans the same benefits as other veterans?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very timely question.
A little more than five years ago Bill C-84 was passed which
made merchant seamen fully eligible for all veterans benefits.
With the passage of this bill there was finally tangible
recognition of the key contribution merchant seamen made to the
success of the Allied victory and the freedom which we enjoy and
celebrate today.
* * *
PEARSON AIRPORT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport said in the House earlier this year that
the full cost of settling the Pearson airport fiasco would be $60
million, which appears in the public accounts.
We now find another $97.6 million buried in the supplementary
estimates for adjustments to the Toronto airport lease.
Will the minister come clean, or is he just padding the Pearson
payoff?
1445
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when the original announcement was made by my
predecessor, it was always envisaged that there would be
adjustments to that payment. That is what is reflected in the
estimates.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport this spring was quite categorical in saying
that $60 million was all there would be to pay off the Pearson
airport fiasco.
I again ask the minister, is it just another $97.6 million, or
how much will we have to pay next year to cover this Liberal
boondoggle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the question initially.
The fact is that this was a rather complicated agreement, a
complicated deal and not all of the costs were in at the time of
the announcement.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
countries around the world began initiating energy efficiency
measures after Rio, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Other
countries have used higher standards and proactive regulations to
increase employment and protect the environment at the same time,
a win-win situation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Since coming to power in
1993 what has this government done to increase energy efficiency
and meet global commitments beyond a voluntary registry program
and a weak federal building standards program?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a variety of initiatives are under way. There are the
self-starting initiatives that we are supporting and encouraging
in the private sector, the strengthening of efficiency
regulations, certain incentives to encourage greater energy
efficiency in the use of renewables, the encouragement of
co-generation projects, the promotion of science and technology,
the fostering of a whole range of alternatives in terms of
energy.
We believe that in properly dealing with the climate change
challenge we can develop a truly win-win situation for Canada.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
protecting the environment and creating jobs are important to
Canadians. The issue of climate change was even ratified by a
great country like China.
Will the Minister of Finance commit today that after Kyoto he
will establish a national commission consisting of an investment
fund and asking leadership from governments and health, community
and labour groups to recommend measures to maximize jobs and
economic benefits for all Canadians?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that we have
to enlist the involvement and the creativity of a broad
cross-section of Canadians, indeed a broad cross-section of
people around the world, to come to grips with the problem of
climate change.
I know the hon. gentleman's motivation is sincere. I would
encourage him to direct at least part of his enthusiasm for this
issue to the province of Saskatchewan to encourage constructive
solutions there too.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, Atlantic
fishermen are being subjected to an unbearable number of fees:
licence fees, inspection fees, wharfage fees and monitoring fees
to name just a few. Some of these have gone from $30 to $7,000
in a single year.
My question is for the minister of fisheries. Is it the intent
of the department to put these small fishermen out of business
and will the minister review some of these owners' fees with an
aim to providing some relief to the fishermen in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the direct question is no.
The answer to the second part of the question is we are trying
very hard to make sure we have a viable fishery in Atlantic
Canada and indeed on the Pacific and Arctic coasts as well.
It is very important to recognize that as part of the viability
some fishermen who have in fact quite substantial incomes pay a
legitimate fee for the product that they use. For others who are
smaller fishermen such as the ones referred to by the hon.
member, we are constantly examining the fee impact. There is a
three year study which will start next year on the impact of it.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure the minister's response is going to offer much encouragement
to the fishermen back home.
As we speak, fishermen are being subjected to electronic black
box monitoring and on-board video surveillance. This is akin to
the electronic bracelets worn by prisoners, but at least the
prisoners had a fair trial before being subjected to this
humiliating and patronizing process.
What are the limits of intrusiveness and again, will the
minister review some of these costs and the purposes of some of
these practices?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the important factors both
internationally and domestically with the fishing fleet is to get
accurate information on the stocks that are being fished in
particular with respect to bycatch and other destructive
practices that may be taking place. It is therefore important to
have information on catch.
Whether the black box the gentleman is talking about is in fact
a two way radio which keeps the fishermen in touch with shore so
they can report catch I am not sure. However where it is
possible to use technology instead of having a human observer,
generally speaking costs are saved and the fishermen are
dramatically advantaged as a result.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development regarding the First Nations Land Management Act
tabled in the last Parliament which did not address the concerns
of aboriginal women. Married women living on reserve cannot get
an order for a share in the matrimonial home and the land it is
on and they cannot get an order for exclusive occupancy of that
home when their marriage ends.
What is the minister doing to address the concerns and the
rights of aboriginal women who want to protect their homes when
their marriages end?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the First Nations Land
Management Act is an important initiative that could provide more
control for First Nations over their lands. Concerns have been
raised over the issue and the need for a process to manage
matrimonial property. We take these concerns very seriously.
It would be my hope that we could find a solution out of court
through positive discussions with all the parties. We certainly
respect the right of the B.C. Native Women's Society to pursue
its concerns through the courts.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the immigration minister reappointed Stéphane Handfield
to an $85,000 a year patronage plum with the IRB. Mr. Handfield
was originally appointed to the IRB right out of law school but
surprise, surprise, surprise. His mother just happens to be a
key Liberal organizer and fundraiser.
Was it Handfield's years of experience in immigration law or was
it his mother's long term service to the Liberal Party that won
him his $85,000 a year patronage position? Canadians want to
know.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can see that the hon. member from the Reform Party
is not at all aware of the procedure for making appointments to the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
There is a selection committee that assesses candidates and makes
recommendations on appointments to the government. In this case, in
accordance with the procedure, the selection committee recommended the
person be reappointed because he was qualified.
* * *
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question if for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Despite years of austerity and cuts, the propaganda budget for
Canada Day and heritage celebrations has increased by 1,000% in two
years.
Can the minister explain to us why she has served Quebec so well
this time by giving it 56% of the Canada Day budget? Is it because
Quebec is a distinct society, a unique society, or because it is
sovereignist?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the heritage critic
for the Bloc Quebecois for her first question.
I will just point out to her that I recently read in La Presse, I
think, that the budget for the Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations was
higher than the Canada Day budget.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the health care community in Canada, including the
Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Public Health
Association and I might point out to members on my far right in
the Reform Party, the Alberta Medical Association, all agree that
global climate change presents serious health, environmental,
economic and social risks.
To protect the health of Canadians and in support of health care
professionals all across the country, will the Minister of Health
support a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year
2005?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government recognizes that health is indeed one of the
considerations that should figure in the development of
environmental policy. It is for that reason that my colleague
the Minister of the Environment has engaged me along with all of
our colleagues in cabinet and caucus in developing the
government's position.
The hon. member can rest assured that when this government
announces the position, it will reflect not only the best
interests of Canada but health considerations as well.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. When the current Minister
for International Trade was Minister of the Environment, he
mismanaged Bill C-29 resulting in the $350 million Ethyl
Corporation lawsuit against the Canadian government. This is one
of three lawsuits against the government under chapter 11
provisions of NAFTA.
MAI expands on the scope and definition of the investor
provisions of NAFTA as well as geographically expanding it to 29
OECD countries. This exponentially increases the ability for
foreign investors to sue the Canadian government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Essex.
Ms. Susan Whelan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know
that this government—
The Speaker: Excuse me, I did not see the parliamentary
secretary rise. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons for pursuing MAI is to strengthen Canada's
position in world trade. We are going to go to the bargaining
table in January and we will not back away and fight for those
things that the hon. member is most concerned about. MAI has a
great future, if we can get 29 countries together singing from
the same hymn book.
* * *
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
want to know that this government is building a modern,
innovative economy. What steps has the Minister of Industry
taken to encourage support for innovation and risk taking in the
science and technology industry in Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could hear the end of that question.
Clearly innovation and knowledge are the keys to Canada's
participation in a knowledge based economy of the 21st century.
Therefore we have invested in supporting research and development
in the universities through the extension of the networks of
centres of excellence and the $800 million Canada Foundation for
Innovation. We have supported research in the private sector
through the Technology Partnerships Canada program.
There have been 11,000 jobs created and maintained through the
extension of the industrial research and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
* * *
KREVER INQUIRY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Judge Horace
Krever is about to make his report on November 21 and he will
surely say that the federal government shares the blame in the
tainted blood tragedy.
Will the health minister commit that he will also share the
compensation package with those victims who got hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think instead of anticipating the recommendations the judge
will make, it is best to await the delivery of the report. It
will be in our hands within a few weeks. We will make it public
and then we can all have a look at it and go from there.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Prime Minister.
We all know that the Canadian government wishes to exclude culture
from the multilateral agreement on investment. To achieve this, however,
the negotiators must agree on the wording of a clause whereby cultural
industries will be exempted.
Is the Prime Minister willing to make a commitment to the cultural
industries that their recommendations will be considered for adoption
and that a clause worthy of the name providing for a general exception
for cultural industries will be negotiated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes,
whatever the forum we have been involved in. We have always acted to
protect Canada's cultural industries. We did this when NAFTA was signed
and we have always done this in our multilateral negotiations, always.
* * *
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is to
the Minister of Justice, who was kind enough to reply to my question
yesterday, even if it was directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
Bill C-41 authorizes Cabinet to establish guidelines on child
support payments.
The courts refer to these when making child support orders, for instance
to determine the amount to be paid to the parent with custody.
1500
If the government has authority to establish guidelines governing
orders, why are judges awarding today smaller benefits than those that
were awarded after taxes under the old law? How can the government
accept and justify such practices?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon.
member yesterday in response to her question, the support
guidelines were enacted by the government. In fact we believe
those support guidelines will ensure that the children of
divorced couples will be better off.
If the hon. member has any indication that these guidelines in
any part of their application are not working well, I would be
very happy to discuss it with her.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw members' attention to the
presence in our gallery of Marc Fischbach, the minister of justice,
minister of the budget and minister of parliamentary relations for
Luxembourg.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an
act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate with
the hon. member for Calgary Centre who has approximately 15
minutes remaining.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just to recap from where I left off, I was speaking to Bill C-17
and our concerns about some of the changes the bill is bringing
about.
There were two changes to the broadened powers of the CRTC
linked to the bill which sadly limit the benefit of the bill. We
are very concerned about the extensive increase to the powers of
the CRTC.
I was also beginning to address a third concern related to the
bill in that it has a very short term nature. It is somewhat
shortsighted in its application of a greater degree of
competition within the industry.
The reason I say that is the bill continues to attempt to
separate broadcasting regulation from telecommunications
regulation. In Canada today we are facing an increasing
convergence within technology where voice, data and broadcast are
all being carried over telecommunications facilities.
1505
It is increasingly difficult to try to separate the broadcast
component from the telecommunications component because of the
convergence of the technologies. As the convergence continues it
will be increasingly difficult to keep these two acts separate.
Therefore this piece of legislation will have a very short
lifespan.
A better approach would be to allow and promote the Canadian
cultural industry to produce a package of broadcast content that
Canadians actually want. This would allow Canadians to select
the kind of material they want to view rather than what the CRTC
decides they need to see.
In this way we would be able to reduce the requirement of the
Broadcast Act to control content. Then the Broadcast Act and the
Telecommunications Act could be combined so that we would be
controlling the transmission media rather than the actual content
through a combined simplified Telecommunications Act.
Rather than delay the inevitable and hold up the industry from
being able to capture some of the gains in the telecommunications
market through simplified regulation, we recommend the government
take a leadership role and amalgamate the Broadcast Act and the
Telecommunications Act. It should harmonize and relax the
regulations. It should reduce rather than expand the CRTC
protectionist role.
We encourage a strong Canadian product that will compete well
locally and internationally. We are not in a protectionist age.
We are in a very competitive age. We need regulations which will
allow Canadian telecommunications interests to compete.
Broadcasters must be able to provide the products Canadians wish
to see rather than the products the CRTC deems we should be able
to see.
If we move in this direction we will see a much greater interest
by investors to step into the telecommunications marketplace. It
will also generate a substantial amount of business confidence.
In summary I will deal with some of the positive measures of the
bill. We are encouraged because several of the measures are ones
the Reform Party has long been calling for such as the removal of
monopoly interests and allowing for Canadian interests to fully
participate in international carrier services.
Another positive is the opportunity for greater competition at
home when accessing long distance services within the
international marketplace. This should lead to lower rates for
Canadians.
Unfortunately these positives are coupled with some very
significant concerns that we have. I will list them briefly. We
are concerned that more power will be given to the CRTC, beyond
what is called for by the legislation. We are concerned about
very expansive CRTC administrative power over operational
concerns, which it is not equipped to manage and never has been.
We are also concerned that there is no recognition of convergence
between the broadcast and the telecommunications technologies.
It is not a forward looking bill. It is a reactive bill. It is
reactive to industry and technological pressure. It does not
take us into the information age as the minister so clearly likes
to tell us it does. It continues to attempt to strip out
broadcasting and the regulations associated with broadcasting. It
is getting increasingly difficult to do this.
We encourage the government to address these concerns before the
next reading of the bill. Then we as a House can take what is
the good part and the good start that we see in the bill, improve
it, keep it on track and allow the Canadian industry to become a
world leader.
1510
If members opposite and the minister will entertain these
changes to the bill and will allow the increase in the controls
they are calling for within the greater powers to the CRTC to be
uncoupled and removed from the bill, it will strengthen the
entire package. It will also strengthen the opportunity for
Canadian interests to participate fully in the global information
age.
We ask the government to entertain that. I know it would be
endorsed by many of members of this party and by many other
members of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary West on a question or comment.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I have a tough question for
the member for Calgary Centre.
I wonder if he could enlighten the House with regard to the
CRTC—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair has made a
mistake in that there are no questions or comments following the
first three speakers.
However, the Chair having done that, recognizes that the Bloc
member who is supposed to be speaking at this time will have to
be brought back into the House. Therefore the Chair is at a loss
as to exactly what the Chair should be doing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
surprised by the fact that 40-minute speeches can be followed by
questions and comments. That is why I have rushed back to my seat.
First of all, I am pleased to indicate that I agree in
principle with Bill C-17, which eliminates the two remaining
monopolies in the telecommunications field, that is Teleglobe
Canada and Telesat.
On the other hand, the government is using this bill to give
additional regulatory powers to the CRTC, and supplementary
legislative powers to the minister and the governor in council.
This second aspect is indispensable because it must be clearly
understood that this liberalization of telecommunications in Canada
makes Canada and Quebec—and I stress the latter, because as a
result Quebec has been stripped of all power in this area—two of
the countries most open to competition. And that competition is
being carried out right under the nose of a giant. That giant is
the United States, a country which makes massive use of
international communications and one in which giant production
companies with networks have a very strong presence.
This is why, in addition to these provisions, Quebec has
supported—and the Bloc is also pleased about—the fact that, in
negotiating the basic telecommunications agreement with the World
Trade Organization, Canada insisted on preserving Canadian majority
ownership and limiting direct and indirect foreign ownership to
46.7%.
1515
This then is support for the underlying principles. However,
this bill also provides an opportunity to express three major
concerns, questions and proposals.
Naturally, this liberalization comes with promises for
business. Teleglobe had five years to prepare to face the
international competition, and the loss of its market in Canada is
amply compensated by an increase in its market share in the United
States, first, and then in Europe and no doubt in developing
countries. We will come back to this, if time permits. This
liberalization is therefore favourable and suits business.
As for the two other benefits that are supposed to result,
namely access to WTO regulatory mechanisms—which has at times
proven to be an advantage, albeit a less certain one—and
promises to consumers that rates will drop as competition
increases, recent events in the telephone and satellite
telecommunications sectors show that this is not a sure thing. So
we invite the minister and the CRTC, who have given themselves new
powers, to exercise them to ensure this liberalization, this
globalization, not only benefits business, but also takes consumer
interests into account. This is the only condition that will
ensure the government has the support it needs.
We are seeing a sort of revolution in the telecommunications
field of the sort they went through at the end of the 19th century
with the industrial revolution.
Without a minimum of targeted and well-thought-out regulation, this
revolution will take place at the expense of those who can afford it the
least. Fortunately, this is not the 19th century; therefore, while
creating a favourable environment for business, the government and the
CRTC will have to protect consumers and ensure access to services at
affordable rates.
This is not the only question we want to raise, effectively I hope.
There is also the question of privacy. I would like to point out right
off that there is a great deal of documentation on the subject. I will
conclude with a comment, by saying that government ministers across the
way have promised to introduce legislation on privacy.
But we are continuing to build this information highway that creates
extreme risk conditions without giving ourselves the legislation
required to ensure people's privacy, which may result in Canada becoming
a country with which the European Union for example will not exchange
confidential information, especially since it already feels that Canada
does not properly protect this kind of information.
1520
I will try to read in the most lively fashion possible excerpts
from a few documents. Rather than paraphrasing, I will quote directly
what Paul-André Comeau, Quebec's privacy commissioner, said on this
issue.
He said: “In Canada, the federal government and some provincial
governments have established legislative frameworks setting out the
principles that define the protection of personal information held by
government institutions.
But, he said, the main designers and owners of the new information
systems are currently consortia largely made up of private businesses.
It is these businesses which will soon—this was in 1994, so we are
there now—with the implementation of the information highway, be in
possession of all sorts of information on people. This information will
circulate, it will be disseminated and spread in such a way that it may
be difficult for people to protect the data relating to them”.
He goes on to say: “To protect privacy, voluntary codes of ethics
are often suggested. Such codes are less restrictive than the regulatory
framework, especially for businesses. Yet, as interesting and useful as
they are, these codes have flaws, a major one being that businesses
refusing to comply with the code leave people totally
unprotected”.
Paul-André Comeau then cites the Quebec legislation: “In this
respect, Quebec serves as a model and a beacon in North America.
The Quebec experience, still in its early stages at the time—which is
no longer the case, although Quebec continues to be proud of this
legislation—shows that it is possible to protect people's privacy and
their personal information in the private sector, without adversely
affecting the competitiveness of businesses and creating obligations
that would prevent them from operating”.
Paul-André Comeau is certainly not the only one who spoke highly of
the Quebec law and who stressed the need for Canada to adopt similar
legislation. In their report, the Fédération nationale des associations
de consommateurs du Québec and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in
Canada state that Canadians are quite concerned about the collection and
use of personal information. People feel there is less control over
personal information.
Canadians are particularly concerned by the transmission of personal
information between various organizations, especially private
businesses.
Consumers want to know and control how their personal information
is being used. The technological changes must not impose a new burden on
individuals seeking to protect their privacy.
Why am I raising this issue in the context of the legislation on
Teleglobe and Telesat?
Because it is precisely through this information highway, through
the Internet and the Intranet, through old-fashioned telephone
lines and numerous new means of telecommunications, that
information about people's private lives may be collected in the
form of data banks that, if not protected, can seriously compromise
people's privacy.
Naturally, businessmen are doing business and are concerned
with maximizing their companies' competitiveness.
But the role of the Quebec National Assembly and of the House of
Commons of Canada is to take account of these concerns, to have a
vision, to know to what extent this information highway is
transmitting data in Canada through Quebec and towards other
countries, to what extent this electronic highway, this series of
networks requires that a way be found to protect confidential
information.
1525
I would like to add that at the level of the OECD, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, there is a great
concern for another related issue, and that is to ensure that Internet
can be used to safely conduct business.
It is of course extremely important to find means to ensure
reliability. Otherwise, Internet will not develop to meet all the
expectations it is giving rise to today. But the same thing can be said
about the protection of personal information. It must be remembered that
when the Internet is used, there are always traces of these operations.
These traces are numerous and varied on all existing systems.
It should be noted that the hon. member for Mount Royal was chair
of a committee that submitted a report dated April 1997 and entitled
“Privacy: where do we draw the line?”.
This report stated, last spring:
Throughout the country, people are calling for a
comprehensive and uniform package of rules to protect personal
information. The scope of this legislation should be as wide
as possible. Therefore, this committee believes that it should
apply to Parliament and also all federal government
departments, agencies, crown corporations, boards, commissions
and government institutions and to the federally regulated
private sector.
The participants at our public discussions stated repeatedly
that the voluntary application of codes of practice for the
protection of personal information does not work.
The committee recommended that the Government of Canada introduce
new legislation that would replace the current act. This legislation
would comply with the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Privacy
Rights and would apply to all departments and also to all the industries
and companies subject to the act. This legislation should be enacted by
the year 2000.
I would like to add this little part that I find very important:
As we are advancing on the information highway, most of
our daily activities leave an electronic trail that many data
banks can register.
It is obvious that current legislation in Canada is inadequate and
that this situation also affects Quebec citizens in their international
relations. An important player also added his voice to all these
concerns, and this is the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, who,
in his 1996-97 annual report, reminded us of the promise made by the
then Minister of Justice that legislation would be introduced to protect
privacy in a concrete and binding manner in the private sector.
He stated “The Commission has been calling for such an initiative
for a long time”, and he added, referring to the report by the hon.
member for Mount Royal, “that the committee devoted almost a full year
to the review of the impacts on privacy of new technologies”.
I could continue, but I believe that this act provides the
opportunity to state clearly that further development of the information
highway can only be welcomed if we succeed in implementing ways to
protect privacy.
1530
As I said, the introduction of this bill affords an occasion
not only to rejoice that a number of businesses are being given the
opportunity to be competitive not only in Canada but on the world
market as well, but also—and I will word it this way—the market
and the competition alone, I repeat, the market and the competition
alone, are not sufficient to ensure access for all at a reasonable
price, as two recent examples have shown: the telephone situation
and the bankruptcy of Alphastar.
The minister, the government, the CRTC, cannot do otherwise
than to listen to businesses. I understand this, because we are
aware that, on the world scale, the biggest Quebec companies are
only middle-sized or sometimes even smaller.
So, yes, businesses need to grow and this brings considerable
challenges.
It is impossible, however, to believe that our businesses'
competitiveness comes solely from the pockets of consumers, and
often from the most disadvantaged among them. We must therefore
continue to make telecommunications services available, and to
increase access to them. This bears repeating.
International services, and all other telecommunications
services, must be not only accessible, but also affordable. They
must be affordable. The minister, the CRTC, the government and the
governor in council must face up to their responsibility for
issuing operating licences to businesses that could not be
economically viable. You will realize I am referring to the
experience with Alphastar, which I shall return to in a moment.
It is true that the bill contains good news, but if the
minister intends to exercise the powers he is giving himself, as
set out in clause 6, there will be an amendment to the
Telecommunications Act to permit increased charges to set up a fund
to promote uninterrupted telecommunications services. We should
note clause 8 too. It gives the bill teeth, if the minister or the
CRTC or the government so want, to enact new statutory or
regulatory provisions. My understanding is that these provisions
will prevent a repeat of something like Alphastar.
I will take the liberty of pointing out that telephone
companies denied by the CRTC the increased revenues resulting from
the rate increases they sought won their case with the government,
which, rather than doing what the CRTC asked, that is, reducing
long distance rates, let them keep the whole amount. We might
think there was talk of investments.
1535
However, it is to be noted that they used it to increase dividends
to 12.5%. All this is complicated. We know that telephone rates have
increased tremendously. In the Montreal region, they have gone from a
little over $12 in 1992 up to $21 now, and if the government agrees with
the applications being made the rate will climb to $27. I am talking
about Montreal.
The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis made strong representations to
ensure that, in northern Quebec, telephone companies, which used to be
managed by the Quebec company, would no longer be able to significantly
raise telephone rates and keep the resulting profits.
What the hon. member asked, and this is absolutely indispensable, is
that while a competitive market should be allowed, companies interested
in providing services should all be subject to the same regulations and
requirements.
Companies are once again before the CRTC. There is a movement in
Quebec and across Canada asking that this new application be rejected by
the CRTC. The minister has the authority to tell the CRTC that it is
better for basic services to continue to mean something and that,
consequently, their costs should not be increased.
In the spring, our former critic who will have the floor after me,
was already saying that telephone costs should not be increased until it
was demonstrated that such a measure would not change the meaning of
basic telephone services. Current rates are taking us away from the
basic rate.
The government claims that the number of telephone users has not
diminished, that there have not been a large number of cancellations.
What I am about to say is true in the case of small and medium size
businesses, which won their case but could still be subject to rate
increases, but it is even more true for low and very low income people.
The telephone can be considered as something so indispensable that if
people's income is reduced, some will go so far as to deprive their
children of food to keep their telephone. So, when considering what a
basic telephone service is, it is not possible to keep talking about
increases strictly in the context of national and international
competition.
Yes, it is important for businesses to have conditions that will
help them, but this is impossible.
We must look at the overall picture, and it cannot be done. As I said
earlier, I am pleased to see that the government wants to create a fund
to subsidize, if need be, regions where costs would be greater, so that
a basic communication service, including not only telephone but also
basic telecommunications services, would be maintained.
1540
It is essential, again, so that the population will know, that such
“economic modernization” not be undertaken at their expense. Why should
we want to compete in Europe? Why should the government say “I am
allowing businesses to compete in the United States and Europe”, if this
results in penalizing the average consumer or the consumer with a small
income?
This is the issue that parliamentarians, the House of Commons, the
National Assembly must address.
Also, when things like the Alphastar case are involved, the
government cannot stand idly by and let the market make the rules.
Satellite communications today are still considered important because
there are areas in Quebec that do not have access to cable and where
there are no digital telephone lines. Therefore, they do not have access
to Internet and cannot rely on communications that elsewhere are basic
commodities. There are self-employed workers and also small businesses
who depend on these. It is always possible for them to be connected, but
then they have to pay long distance charges, and this makes no sense.
So satellite communications for access to television are important,
but the minister has instructed the CRTC by an order in council not to
consider economic viability when awarding licences to businesses. The
result was, as observers had foreseen, that Alphastar, which had 6,000
subscribers in Canada, went bankrupt.
People were left with lovely dishes with which they could decorate their
gardens, but which had cost them hundreds of dollars, and also with
subscriptions that also cost them hundred of dollars and which are now
useless.
The market cannot ensure fairness in all cases, and in this case,
consumer protection required that there be basic safeguards.
With this bill, the government is creating appropriate mechanisms
and we sincerely hope that it will use them.
Finally, there is another grave concern that I would like to
address in relation to this bill. I just spoke about the lack of powers
in Quebec in the area of broadcasting and telecommunications.
I think it is worthwhile to take a few minutes of my colleague's
precious time to go over this.
We are always well advised to ensure that our colleagues better
understand Quebec, of which they often get tired, but whose demands are
always based on the fact that Quebec is a people and a nation.
Binational countries are rare in this world, and many of them have not
succeeded in holding together—binational or trinational if we consider
first nations, as we should.
I would like to remind you that communications are a field that
Quebec claimed very early, I would say from the very beginning, when it
first appeared, and it was not a bad separatist who did so, at the time.
1545
Way back in February 1929, Alexandre Taschereau, the Liberal
premier of Quebec, introduced a bill to give Quebec exclusive
jurisdiction over the emerging broadcasting industry. Those were the
days, before the CBC, when broadcasts were often drowned out by all
sorts of interference. Liberal premier Taschereau, who was no doubt a
federalist, a staunch federalist, claimed exclusive jurisdiction over
broadcasting and wanted Quebec to operate its own radio stations. This
eventually lead to the creation of Radio Quebec.
Around the same time, in Canada, there was a royal commission on
radio broadcasting, the Aird Commission. It tabled its report in the
fall of 1929 and recommended that exclusive jurisdiction over radio
broadcasting be given to the central government.
Its model was based on the BBC, a publicly owned network.
Who was asked to settle the issue? The supreme court, in 1931. What
do you think it decided? Naturally, it decided this was an exclusive
jurisdiction of Canada, but the Government of Quebec, not satisfied with
this ruling, submitted the matter to the Privy Council, which upheld the
supreme court's decision in 1932. The first Canadian Radio Broadcasting
Act was passed in May 1932, and, in 1936, the CBC was born.
In 1945, after the war, Maurice Duplessis, the premier of Quebec,
in the middle of a fight against university subsidization—at the
time, Duplessis did not want Quebec universities to receive federal
subsidies—contended this was an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Duplessis then proceeded to legislate, to introduce a bill, to establish
a provincial radio broadcasting service. Radio Quebec was born.
In September 1973, Robert Bourassa, a Liberal premier, and more of
a federalist than Duplessis, said shortly after being elected:
In cultural matters, the decision making centres we need
for our own cultural security will have to be transferred,
particularly in the telecommunications sector. Here again, it
is a simple matter of common sense, because we cannot leave it
to an anglophone majority to ensure the cultural security of
a francophone minority.
That was what Robert Bourassa said. Jean-Paul L'Allier, his
Minister of Communications, said:
It is up to Quebec in the first instance to develop a
global communications policy.
This policy is indissociable from the development of its
education system, its culture and everything that comes under
Quebec's domain.
There was nothing in Meech or Charlottetown on this issue, but
it continued to be discussed. In 1994, we know that the supreme
court ruled against Quebec with respect to telephone services and
the Régie des télécommunications du Québec ceased to exist.
I mention this today because the information highway, this
telecommunications revolution, is drawing the highway ever closer
to its contents. If the medium is the message, what can we say
about the present information highway and the relationship between
the road and what travels on it, roads that are closed and small
roads that are open?
1550
To recap, we agree in principle with this bill, which will end
monopolies. We are all the more in agreement because the
government is giving the CRTC, the governor in council and itself
greater regulatory powers to ensure that there are controls over
how this liberalization takes place.
However, this bill is an opportunity for us to insist, and we
are going to keep coming back to this, that there be legislation to
protect personal information, in order to assure consumers that
this liberalization that is supposed to provide the necessary
conditions for businesses to position themselves on the market does
not come about at the expense of those at the low end of the wage
scale and of outlying regions, or take consumers for a ride, as
happened in the case of Alphastar.
Finally, it is an opportunity for Quebec to say that it will
need this jurisdiction for its culture, and the only way we have
found to advance this to date is by seeking our sovereignty.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
unlike my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP is opposed
to Bill C-17. We do not even favour the bill in principle. We
are flatly opposed to this bill, the intent of which is to
implement the general agreement on trade and services, GATS as it
is known, and the agreement on basic telecommunications.
The reason we are opposed to the bill is that Bill C-17 is
part of the process of completing the free trade agreements and
the implementation of the regulations of free trade.
We oppose this bill because we opposed the negotiated free trade
agreements which were against the interests of ordinary
Canadians. The NDP, unlike other parties that have been all over
the map on this issue, has consistently stood in opposition of
these liberalized trade agreements from the beginning of the
North American Free Trade Agreement to NAFTA and now the MAI. In
1997 we are still speaking in opposition to these trade
agreements.
It is worth taking a few moments to look at the context of Bill
C-17 and the history of these free trade agreements. The trade
agreements of the last decade, if we look at the overall results,
have made it easier for corporations to increase their profits
and harder for workers to keep their wages and benefits.
The impact of this is reflected in Statistics Canada reports.
Corporate profits have increased dramatically, while real family
income has declined and masses of jobs lost in this country. The
reality is that deals like the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and the North American Free Trade Agreement encourage
corporations to go where wages and benefits are lower and where
environmental regulations are weaker.
These agreements are designed to increase the mobility of
capital and goods, making it easier for corporations and the
wealthy to avoid paying taxes. In other words, these deals are
designed to push down Canadian wages and social programs like
medicare, environmental protection, safety and labour standards
and the revenue from taxes to pay for our desperately needed
public services.
Ten years ago when the FTA was signed the Canadian people heard
promises of the jobs that would abound. We heard the promises of
greater prosperity for Canada and for Canadians that would result
from increased trade. We heard promises of better social
programs and unimpaired Canadian sovereignty. All these promises
stand revealed today as nothing but a fraud. We only have to look
at the facts to see what free trade has meant a decade later. It
has been a disaster for Canada and for Canadian families.
Since Canada entered into free trade agreements, we have
experienced the longest period of sustained high unemployment and
the worst social and economic conditions since the 1930s.
That is in stark contrast to the promises and the issues that
were held out as being the things which would change our economy
since the advent of these agreements.
1555
Canadians have experienced 84 straight months of unemployment at
9% or more. What kind of record is that under these free trade
deals? We have seen the disappearance of 100,000 direct jobs in
the public sector. We have seen the decline in labour force
participation, which has fallen from 67.5% prior to the recession
to less than 65% today. That is equivalent to the loss of
700,000 jobs. If we included these discouraged workers in the
official tallies of unemployment, it would bring our unemployment
rate to something around 13%.
More than that, we have had an appalling crisis for young
people, whose participation rate has plummeted from 70% before
the recession to barely 60% today. If we included the young
people who have also been discouraged, then the official
unemployment rate would almost double for young people, going
from 16.5% to 30%.
What we have witnessed is the declining quality of jobs in the
Canadian economy with the NAFTA and a growing emphasis on part
time work and low wage jobs. Even our unemployment benefits,
which used to cover 87% of Canadians who were jobless, are now
going to only about 40% of people who are unemployed, and 25% of
Canada's manufacturing base was wiped out in the first three
years after signing the FTA. That is the real story of—
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
understand that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications
Act and the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act,
is what we are debating this afternoon. I would ask for your
guidance that we debate on that subject.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair was
following the hon. member very closely. The hon. member was
debating telecommunications, its relevance to free trade and the
effect of this bill on the implementation of free trade. The
Chair would consider the debate to be relevant.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, thank you for those words.
In fact, the background of the free trade agreement is very
relevant to the bill before us today. In my discussion I will be
moving right into the bill itself.
The point that we wish to emphasize is that the real story of
the NAFTA, when we look at this bill, has not been a success for
the Canadian people.
Going to the background of the bill before us today, we know
that on February 15 of this year at the World Trade Organization
Canada and 68 other countries concluded a multilateral agreement
to liberalize trade and investment in telecommunications
services.
The GATS agreement on basic telecommunications followed the
conclusion of the information technology agreement which
liberalized trade in information technology equipment.
Under the GATS the federal government has said that it is
committed to eliminating the two remaining areas now closed to
competition, overseas telephone service and fixed satellite
services. As a result, Teleglobe's monopoly will end on October
1, 1998 and Telesat's monopoly will end on March 1, 2000.
Canada, as part of this agreement, has also agreed to remove
foreign ownership restrictions in satellite earth stations and
the landing of international submarine cables.
The key elements of Canada's offer under the GATS agreement on
basic telecommunications are the elimination of the remaining
monopolies of Teleglobe and Telesat, the liberalization of
traffic routing restrictions, the elimination of minimum Canadian
equity requirements for mobile satellite systems, the elimination
of the special foreign ownership limits applicable to Teleglobe
Canada, the elimination of the foreign ownership limits for
international submarine cables and the adoption of a regulatory
reference paper which sets out principles of regulations for all
the signatory countries.
1600
What is the government's position on this? We have been told by
the industry minister that the changes contemplated in the bill
before the House today, along with the GATT agreement, will lead
to increased business opportunities for Canada's
telecommunications industry at home and abroad.
We are told that Canada's telecommunications firms will have
easier access to a more competitive international market and will
capture a larger share of the $880 billion global
telecommunications industry. Those are the same old arguments
that were put before the people of Canada under FTA and under
NAFTA. I would suggest that what we are really experiencing,
instead of the benefits that we have been told that we will get,
is the Americanization of all aspects of Canadian life as a
result of these trade deals and now as a result of this bill if
it is passed by the House.
I would like to spend a moment to look at what that experience
has been for some Canadian companies. Think about the company
CN, the railroad which once linked our country together and
pioneered public broadcasting and our national airline. What
happened to that company? It was sacrificed as a result of free
trade. CN was sold for half of what it was worth and it is now
owned 70% by Americans. It is now busy selling off parts of the
rail network which, I might add, was built at public expense. It
is being sold to other U.S. companies. All of the lines of
northern Manitoba, including the port of Churchill plus two
Saskatchewan lines, have been sold to Omnitrax of Denver, U.S.A.
It is now virtually impossible for Canadians to buy Canadian if
they want to do so because whole sectors of our economy, such as
pulp and paper and advertising, have been taken over by U.S.
corporations. Now we are facing the same thing in the bill that
is before us today. That is the real history of free trade.
Instead of getting out of these agreements and defending
Canadian business interests and public interests, the Liberals
ratified Mulroney's NAFTA and are now currently negotiating to
extend NAFTA's investment section into a large new agreement
called the multilateral agreement on investment. However, they do
not have a public mandate to go ahead with the program under the
MAI.
Regrettably, we all know that unless there is massive opposition
by the public that the Liberals are prepared to sign the
multilateral agreement on investment. They will be egged on to
do so by the Reform and the Conservative parties, pushed and
aided by corporations and their CEOs, to whom these parties are
best friends.
It is absolutely necessary that these trade agreements and the
bill that is before us today be advanced in terms of the public
interest and not just corporate interests. They have to be
advanced in terms of what will benefit Canadians. Trade
liberalization should help improve wages and working conditions,
not drive them down to the levels that exist in developing parts
of the world.
We should be working for trade agreements that will help
Canadian families and will include the introduction of real,
enforceable and progressive social, labour and environmental
standards.
We need to be working for stricter measures to prevent corporate
tax evasion and stronger financial reporting requirements for
large corporations that are not publicly traded.
The government should be working with its trading partners to
develop international standards for taxation of income from
capital to counter tax avoidance and evasion by corporations and
the super wealthy.
That is what the government should be focusing on instead of
opening up the flood gates and saying that under trade
liberalization that we are going to somehow benefit. The
contrary is true.
We also need the introduction of an international tax to control
speculative currency trading. In recent years, such speculation
has undermined some national economies, forcing up interest rates
and throwing people out of work.
1605
The NDP caucus speaks against Bill C-17 because it is part and
parcel of the free trade agreement and the North American Free
Trade Agreement and is now part of the globalization we are
seeing under the multilateral agreement on investment.
I challenge the House of Commons and this Liberal government to
protect the interests of ordinary working Canadians when signing
any further trade agreements. It is time we had agreements that
worked for Canada and Canadians, not against them.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious to anybody who has any understanding at all about how
jobs are created or who has had any contact with business that
deregulating these government monopolies contributes to
tremendous levels of employment and helps people get jobs.
I was in the telecommunications industry prior to becoming a
member of Parliament and experienced the deregulation of the
telephone and telex systems which were partially under the CRTC
and Teleglobe in the early 1980s. The expansion of the
telecommunications industry as a result is phenomenal. Northern
Telecom expanded dramatically and the telecommunications industry
worldwide has grown and created huge numbers of jobs as a result
of deregulation and of NAFTA.
In addition to that, anyone who has been in business or
understands how jobs are created knows it is high taxation that
causes unemployment, that has caused our 83 months of
unemployment, not deregulation of government monopolies. It is
high taxation, over-government regulation and government
overspending.
If government spending could create jobs—it has already
overspent by $600 billion—we should have three jobs each by now.
It is totally ludicrous to blame deregulation for high
unemployment. It does not make sense to anybody who really
thinks about the situation.
If the member thinks that NAFTA is a disaster, what could she
say to the people in my riding like Mr. Hans Gawenda or Mr. Peter
Belding? Like dozens of other small businesspeople, they have
expanded their businesses up to 50 employees and more from just
one or two because NAFTA allowed them to do business in the
United States, to get rid of all the tariffs that prevented them
from assembling products in Canada?
Some old, worn out, tired, oversubsidized industries went out of
action, such as the shipbuilding industry in my riding that never
could compete, but in its place are thousands of new jobs in
these deregulated industries, in these new industries available
through NAFTA.
How does the hon. member rationalize her position with the
facts?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. Clearly we have a strong difference of opinion on the
effect of trade liberalization on Canadians, Canadian jobs and
Canadian companies.
I argue very strongly that deregulation is part of a global
agenda that is driving us in a direction where larger
corporations, multinational corporations, transnational
corporations are gaining greater control. The overall effect of
that has not been to create jobs.
We are in favour of fair competition. We are in favour of
regulation that sets a level playing field. That is not what
NAFTA and FTA are about. That is not what the MAI is about. MAI
and these trade liberalization agreements are about corporate
rule. They are about giving more power to corporations and
driving down wages, ensuring that basically there are no
environmental standards left.
If the member is arguing that is good for his constituents, I
would argue the opposite. Canada has had a long tradition in the
shipbuilding industry in the province of British Columbia, in the
member's riding and in my riding of Vancouver East. We want to
see a government committed to industrial infrastructure and to
manufacturing. We have all kinds of workers with the skills and
knowledge to create a shipbuilding industry who have been dumped
out of work through agreements like NAFTA, the FTA and now the
MAI.
The facts show a different story in terms of what has happened
in our economy.
1610
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder how a tax, as the NDP member has termed it, on currency
trading creates jobs. Investment and growth in the economy are
what creates jobs. But restricting Canada's access to capital
markets and to currency does not. Is she possibly proposing that
Canada move to a gold standard rather than having a free floating
currency? How does the free flow of capital stimulate investment
and create jobs?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
Part of the problem we are witnessing is that with agreements
like NAFTA and now the MAI there will be no rules about the
movement of capital around the world where huge profits are being
made. There is more than enough evidence to show that very large
corporations are making record profits at the expense of jobs.
There needs to be in the context of a globalized economy some
international institutions and structures that have the ability
to ensure that windfall profits are recouped for public benefit.
If the member cannot understand that and understand that we are
talking about a matter of financial and social equity, then I
guess we have a very different view of how things should operate.
We in the NDP see that under the trade liberalization we are
transferring power to very powerful corporations that have
absolutely no accountability. There are some very undemocratic
organizations. Who are they accountable to? Not to governments,
not to the people of Canada or any country. The very real issue
is whether they are creating jobs in the long run. There is a
small percentage of people who are making enormous profits at the
expense of millions of ordinary people, workers who are getting
low wages or people who have been thrown out of work. That is why
we need to have a fair and open system where we can ensure that
windfall profits are properly taxed.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question and,
indeed, a lack of understanding of economics was proven by the
member from the NDP. I have done a fair amount of trading and as
far as I know the markets, if Canada were to go ahead and create
a tax on currency trading unilaterally, we could be guaranteed
there would be a sucking sound which would be the capital leaving
this country. Or capital may never come into the country again.
By proposing that we tax these transactions, the member is
actually encouraging the driving out of capital. I just do not
understand how that would create jobs. Obviously in the member's
fantasy world the economy has orange skies if she believes that
this may work in creating jobs. It will not.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate
that the member would dismiss another point of view and other
arguments as somehow being a fantasy. If the member would listen
closely to what really is now developing as a huge concern for
Canadians about the impact of trade liberalization, then the
member would not be so quick to judge that these concerns are
somehow a fantasy or should not be taken seriously.
Second, if the member had been listening closely he would have
heard that what was being advanced in our comments on the bill
was the need for international institutions that have the ability
to also provide regulations. We are facing globalization.
Therefore, the issue before us is how to ensure that there is a
level playing field and that Canadians do not lose out in the
short run as well as the long run.
The member needs to listen carefully to what is actually being
put forward.
1615
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, if Canada was unilaterally
to go ahead and act against currency trading or if there were to
be a multinational universal agreement in terms of taxing
currency trading, all we would be doing is regulating it to
death. What would be the point of even having a floating
currency?
The hon. member for the NDP should suggest a fixed currency in
terms of a gold standard, for example, rather than suggest that
somehow the multilateral agreement should end it. It is not that
I support it necessarily but then at least it could be credibly
argued from her point of view.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I think it
comes down to a question of priorities. The priority for the NDP
is to ensure that Canadians have good jobs. We have seen a
drastic decline in that regard under the Liberal government.
What the Reform Party has offered in that regard has been no
different from that offered by the Liberal Party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond, Mefloquine;
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Foreign Aid; the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris, Fisheries; and the hon. member for
Frontenac—Megantic, Program for Older Worker Adjustment.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to say that the PC caucus will be supporting the
legislation. We see it as a way to prove to the rest of the
world that we can be competitive, can create jobs and can do it
through a free trade agreement.
I am amazed that the NDP caucus still fights against the free
trade agreement. I guess it is not as changeable as the Liberal
Party and the Government of Canada are today. All parties fought
against the free trade agreement when we brought it in back in
1988. Basically it was a big issue. It was to be terrible for
Canada. At least the Liberals had sense enough to realize that
it was good for Canada. They have been building on it ever
since. The NDP is consistent in its opposition even when it is a
good idea.
I will be sharing my brief time with the member for
Compton—Stanstead.
Bill C-17 amends the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe
Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act in keeping with our
obligations to liberalize basic international telecommunications
services under the GATS, an agreement which Canada signed this
past February.
Under the terms of the GATS, Canada agreed to end monopolies
held in the area of overseas telephone services and fixed
satellite services. Canada also agreed to eliminate restrictions
on foreign ownership in satellite earth stations and the laying
of international submarine cables. Bill C-17 ensures that Canada
fulfils these obligations.
Bill C-17 amends the Telecommunications Act by establishing a
licensing regime for international service providers to be
administered by the CRTC. This is a similar system to that of
many other countries.
Bill C-17 empowers the CRTC to contract out the need for a
telecommunications numbering service and overseeing the
collection and distribution of local subsidies.
Bill C-17 also clarifies the Telecommunications Act with respect
to the role of Industry Canada in the certification and
inspection of telecommunications equipment for use in Canada.
In order to protect the integrity of our telecommunications
system under the bill non-certified equipment cannot be used in
Canada. The bill also gives Industry Canada powers to set
technical standards, inspect equipment and enforce penalties for
those selling non-standard equipment within Canada.
The Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act is
amended by repealing the provisions that create a monopoly
environment in Teleglobe Canada. It opens up the
telecommunications market between Canada and the rest of the
world, allowing other providers the opportunity to provide
services within Canada. This is expected to result in cheaper
long distance rates due to increased competition.
The opening up of the telecommunications industry is a policy of
the Progressive Conservative Party which began in 1987 when we
privatized Teleglobe Canada. After a few years of functioning as
a private sector business Teleglobe's management decided to
expand its operations.
In 1995 it recognized that its future was in servicing foreign
markets and it proceeded to do so. Now two years later it has
increased its share of telecommunications carrier services
between several non-Canadian destinations by over threefold.
1620
When the PC Party began privatizing many crown corporations
federal Liberal Party members in particular fought against the
plans. They believed we would lose our identity in the process
but are now expanding on the achievements of our party by further
opening up markets and allowing non-Canadian carriers access to
our telecommunications sector. Is it not odd how they have
changed?
When we privatized Telesat Canada the official opposition of the
day also fought against our plans, stating that it needed all the
government support it could muster to challenge the world in the
face of global competition. Reformers have gone now from
advocating interference to opting for a freer marketplace. With
the FTA and the North American Free Trade Agreement the PC Party
further liberalized trade in telecommunications for Canadian
businesses. The official opposition of the day also fought
against these.
They now stand as avid free traders, signing the GATS and
extending the North American Free Trade Agreement. Our
obligations under the GATS mean that Teleglobe Canada will
relinquish its exclusive access to the Canadian market as of
October 1, 1998. Telesat's monopoly will end on March 1, 2000.
Therefore current ownership restrictions have to be removed from
the Telecommunications Act.
Our caucus supports the GATS because it is a free trade
agreement. We continue to support the principle of free trade.
The relinquishing of Teleglobe Canada's exclusive rights to the
Canadian market has led the U.S. to open up access to its market,
which is what we thought would happen in the beginning.
Canada also benefits from greater access to European and other
developing nations. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the
consumer will be rewarded with the possibility of cheaper long
distance rates due to increased competition in the marketplace.
When the Telesat divestiture act was being debated it was argued
that the 10-year monopoly was not enough; it had to be longer.
The government now realizes the 10 years was more than enough.
After 8 years we are debating the opening of the marketplace.
Industry wants less control in exchange for open access to the
rest of the world. That is really the principle of the free trade
agreement. It will not grow without these changes and the
government has finally recognized it.
The PC Party is supporting the legislation because it continues
the process we started of enhancing the competitiveness of
Canadian firms. It is because of our initiatives that Canadians
enjoy the great degree of prosperity we have today.
Our evolutionary approach has produced well positioned Canadian
companies that are today strong enough to compete globally. We
support them in their continued efforts.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to make some comments with regard to the Tory member
who just spoke.
Those oh so avid free trading Tories are the ones who brought us
the GST, the ones who did not eliminate the interprovincial
barriers to trade or make significant steps to that effect. My
comments are not strictly reserved for them. They are also
directed to the Liberals across the way. I will say in the NDP's
defence that it was against free trade then and is against free
trade now.
The Liberals have flip flopped all over on the issue. They were
against it. Now they are for it. Now they are continuing it,
promoting it and extending it.
Those Tories, those free marketeers, what a joke. If they had
been free marketeers, if they had actually believed in freer
trade, in smaller government and less regulation, they would have
balanced the budget in the nine years they had in power. They
failed to do so. Shame on them.
Why do the Tories across the way not talk about their record in
terms of regulation and spending?
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, oh those righteous
Reformers. They stand and criticize the Liberals. They
criticize NDP members for opposing the free trade legislation
because they think they will build fences around Canada. The
Tories opened up Canada to the world. We showed the world we
could compete in telecommunications and in many other sectors,
but now the only people who know anything about managing Canada's
economy are the righteous Reformers.
They have a long way to go before they can do some of the good
things the Conservative Party did for Canada. Free trade was one
of them and the GST was another.
1625
Today the country is in decent financial shape because of the
GST. Nobody liked it. Nobody liked free trade. However,
anybody who looks back in an historical unbiased way will say
that both those actions of the Conservative Party were very good
for Canada.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, years after their government
fell from 177 seats down to two, lo and behold in 1997 the Tories
are still proud of their record of introducing the goods and
services tax. Nothing ceases to amaze me.
In terms of regulation, these free marketeers kept the CRTC
around through thick and thin during Tory governments, Brian
Mulroney governments. As part of its mandate some time after the
turn of the millennium 100% of all programming in Canada was to
be Canadian content. There would not be anything allowed outside
Canadian content.
We may be proud of some of the programs we produce in Canada,
but shame on those Tories who supported the idea that people
should not be able to watch anything other than Canadian content.
Mr. Charlie Power: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member
with respect to deregulation. It is something we all have to do.
Today a piece of legislation is being presented that deregulates
and opens up a Canadian industry so that more jobs can be created
through deregulation. I cannot understand how the Reformers say
in one case it is good and in the next case it is bad. They have
to be consistent. In our case we are consistent.
We believe in free trade. It creates jobs in Canada and we are
proud of our record on that accomplishment.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Bill C-17, introduced last week by
the Minister of Industry.
The Telecommunications Act and Teleglobe Canada Reorganization
and Divestiture Act follow in the path of removing monopolies and
trade barriers in the service sector to allow Canadian firms to
capitalize on their strong reputation in the international
marketplace.
Canada's $18 billion telecommunications industry provides over a
145,000 direct and indirect jobs to the Canadian economy. The
international telecommunications sector stood at $770 billion in
value in 1995 and is expected to grow to $1.2 trillion in 2002.
The bill allows our Canadian telecommunications sector to serve
the international community and increase its overall value by
gaining valuable market access not only to the world's largest
telecommunications nation, the United States, but also in 65
other markets.
Canada held extensive negotiations with the United States at the
World Trade Organization last February where 67 countries were
involved in trade services agreement negotiations. Canada
coupled with the United States are important players in the
international telecommunications industry because we have the
largest volume of bilateral telephone traffic in the world. We
obviously love to talk.
Since the days of Alexander Graham Bell and Marconi Canada,
Canada has been a major in telecommunications. As with any trade
objective certain aspects of the bill before us should be given
serious consideration. Before I outline these portions of the
bill I would like to examine the importance of Canada's overall
trade competitiveness today.
It is important to note several factors that seem to surround
our trade partnerships today. Since the signing of the free
trade agreement and the subsequent NAFTA negotiations, Canada has
become a prominent player on the international trade scene.
Thanks to the foresight of a previous government, Canada has
recognized the importance of free trade in today's global
economy.
Without the original free trade agreement Canada's ability to
secure its place in the vast North American marketplace could
have been lost forever. Thankfully the once hotly debated issue
of free trade has even been accepted by many groups and
individuals adamantly opposed to it in 1998.
1630
Because of a previous government's initiative Canada's main
objective of having secure access to the American market is now a
reality and this bill increases that access. With it comes
certain consequences.
Since the American economy is considerably larger than our own,
we have found ourselves at times willing to trade away reasonable
access to the American market in return for little or limited
access. This has caused some to decry that free trade with the
U.S. is really only a form of managed trade.
There are examples where the government has failed in this area.
The reason lies in the tentative nature in which Canada
approaches invoking trade remedies and the lack of progress in
negotiations surrounding this topic. Granted, this can create
difficulty for certain industry sectors. However it is part and
parcel of holding such open access to the American market, a
position which many other countries would certainly relish.
The facts are undeniable. Canada's exports have grown from $105
billion before free trade to $245 billion last year. American
imports have also grown substantially, from $92 billion to $210
billion. Overall, Canada's trade surplus has grown considerably,
reaching the $40 billion level last year. Furthermore, free trade
has catalysed significant growth in productivity and has promoted
economies of scale. The result has yielded greater Canadian
competitiveness in export merchandise.
This bill though deals with the service sector and follows the
World Trade Agreement reached last February in Geneva. When one
studies a bill like this, it is useful to know the context in
which it was signed. The World Trade Organization agreement saw
Europe and the United States allow greater foreign control of
telephone service companies thereby catalysing competition and
construction of the international networks, thereby following the
philosophy of the federal trade agreement and ensuring that
Canadian firms have market access to the larger international
markets like the United States.
In turn, the government has had to end monopolies held by two
Canadian companies in key sectors. Teleglobe Canada's monopoly
on overseas telecommunications will end in October 1998 while
Telesat Canada, which now controls all domestic long distance
satellite phone service, will see its monopoly end in March 2000.
Private sector industry officials state that these types of
concessions were necessary, given that the North American market
is heading in the direction of open access enabling Canadian
firms to partner with others to offer international services.
Furthermore the increase in international market access will also
benefit telecommunications equipment manufacturers in Canada,
some being in my own riding.
I find it interesting that the government is willing to advocate
the privatization by the previous Conservative government of
Teleglobe and Telesat Canada. At the time the former opposition
party argued that we would lose our identity if the privatization
process continued. This is another example of the Liberal
government's ability to read public opinion polls and change
sides on an issue depending on how it will play with the public.
Given the fact that the government is now supporting and
furthering the policy of the previous government, our party will
support Bill C-17. I look forward to having further discussions
on this bill in committee.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again I cannot resist commenting.
We have had Tories standing in the House today talking about how
they do not like monopolies and how they are encouraged by these
liberalizing trade initiatives. However, they still have people
out and about in my province who are in favour of monopolies.
As a matter of fact, Harvey Andre, who used to be the government
House whip and was also in charge of Canada Post, still believes
in Canada Post and to this day writes letters to Calgary
publications. He said that Canada Post should have an exclusive
monopoly and that nobody else should be able to deliver mail in
the country, that if there is a courier within a city that can
deliver mail overnight for 19¢, they should not be allowed to do
it. As a result, Harvey Andre was in support of disallowing the
city of Calgary to deliver bills more cheaply than Canada Post
could do it. As well, Harvey Andre supports Canada Post using
Purolator Courier to subsidize its competition against United
Parcel Service and Federal Express as private couriers.
1635
I wonder whether or not the Tory members in this House today
support the monopolies that Canada Post enjoys and uses to
subsidize, driving its private competitors out of its industry.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, if the member looks a
little bit further than that, we are looking a little further
down the road as we always have done.
One thing is a little scary. We have come a long way. The hon.
member is sitting in the House here. Luckily he is not the
government. That would really be a scary thought.
The bottom line of the whole thing is that it was the Tory
government that did start the process toward privatization. I do
not think anything else need be said on it.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to say that unlike my other colleague in the Reform
Party, I do not really have any PCs running around writing
letters to the newspaper and so on in my riding, not to say that
there might not be at some stage but there is certainly not right
now.
I am pleased to see that at least those PCs who are here in this
House are talking more and more about taking away these
monopolies.
I mentioned earlier that I was in the telecommunications
industry prior to becoming a member of Parliament and was
directly involved with the CRTC and Teleglobe. Anyone who was
directly involved in that industry can see the tremendous
benefits that have occurred from deregulation.
The prices of telephone calls for example. We see
advertisements now on television where calls can be made to
anywhere in the country on Sunday for 10¢ or 5¢, or whatever it
is. Certainly in the early 1980s it would be something like $1.60
a minute. When we go back those 15 years or more we can see that
it was really a tremendously expensive exercise.
These deregulations benefit ordinary people, the average wage
earner tremendously. I was very pleased to hear from the content
of the speech that at least the Tories are starting to see that
taking monopolies out of existence is a good idea.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, this is a scary thought in
that I am having to agree with Reform, but I guess there again
the bottom line is that we did start the process.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my
time with the hon. member for London West in the discussion on
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and the
Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
We have heard the legislation before the House is a necessary
step toward implementing the GATS agreement on basic
telecommunications and liberalizing global telecommunications.
That agreement covers more than 69 countries with more than 90%
of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market. It
liberalizes basic telecommunications services which includes
voice and data but not broadcasting.
It is a good deal for Canada. It will dramatically expand the
$880 billion world market in telecommunications services,
creating a demand for Canadian products and services. That will
lead to more high quality jobs and economic growth.
Telecommunications are vital to Canada and have always been,
ever since Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.
Canadians have gone on to become leaders in the
telecommunications industry.
In Canada we already have in place the world's first coast to
coast commercial microwave network, the world's longest fibre
optic communications network, the world's two longest competitive
cellular networks, the world's first national digital microwave
network, and the world's first domestic geostationary satellite
telecommunications network.
It is easy to see why the telecommunications industry is an
essential component of the Canadian economy. It employs some
115,000 people and accounts for 3.36% of our GDP. These are high
wage jobs with average weekly earnings that are 44% higher than
in all industries combined. Telecommunications is also a pivotal
enabling technology that is increasingly an integral part of all
types of businesses and public sector agencies.
1640
The bill now before the House continues the liberalization of
Canada's telecommunications market begun more than 10 years ago.
We have already seen the benefits of that domestic liberalization
for Canadians and Canadian telecommunications companies. Now we
will see them in the international arena.
One of the government's key objectives during the GATS
negotiations was to gain more access to foreign markets for
Canadian telecommunications companies. That goal was achieved.
These companies will now have more secure access to markets like
the United States, the European Union, Japan, and the developing
markets of Asia and Latin America.
As part of the deal Canada will make a number of changes to its
domestic regime. We have made the following undertakings.
We will remove all restrictions on the use of foreign controlled
global mobile satellites that provide services to Canadians.
We will end the Telesat monopoly on fixed satellite services.
We will maintain our transparent and independent regulatory and
competition regimes.
We will end Teleglobe Canada's monopoly on overseas traffic and
its special ownership restrictions which prohibit investment by
foreign telecommunications carriers.
We will allow 100% foreign ownership and control of
international submarine cable landings in Canada.
We will however continue our overall foreign investments rules
to ensure that our industry remains Canadian owned and
controlled.
The agreement on basic telecommunications is also an
international milestone. GATS which came into effect on January
1, 1995 is the first ever multilateral set of rules for trade in
services. It covers almost all the service sectors, including
with this agreement basic telecommunications services. The new
agreement establishes a clear set of multilateral rules in a
sector that previously had no rules. Licensing processes will be
governed by clear rules and disputes will be resolved in a timely
manner through the WTO dispute settlement process.
The WTO dispute settlement understanding, or DSU, provides a
number of mechanisms to resolve disagreements, including
consultations, panels and reports. The objective of this process
is to arrange either the withdrawal of the offending measure or
if that is impractical, compensation to the injured third party.
This dispute settlement process provides the safeguards needed
to ensure that countries respect their commitments. It is this
mechanism that underpins the entire agreement. Without it no
participating nation could have confidence that the terms of the
agreement would be respected. And without it no
telecommunications company could have the confidence necessary to
make investments.
The dispute settlement process also provides Canada with a
guarantee that the improved access we have won to the U.S. market
is secure. Under the agreement, reciprocity tests in the FCC
licensing process will be severely restrained.
Canada has one of the most open telecommunications markets in
the world but the government believes strongly that an open
market is not just about ownership. It requires a commitment to
clear, transparent and consistently applied ground rules that
ensure access and fair treatment.
With this agreement Canada has secured the commitment and the
many benefits the agreement will bring to Canadians. Canadian
businesses and consumers will benefit from enhanced services
provided by an emerging global telephone system by establishing a
transparent and predictable framework for trade and investment in
telecommunications services.
The agreement will create a demand for Canadian products and
services as it opens the doors to foreign markets. This will
support a strong domestic communications industry and ensure that
Canadians will continue to enjoy excellent communications
services at competitive prices.
Given our many accomplishments in information and communications
technology, there can be no doubt that Canada is poised to take
full advantage of the newly expanded global markets in
telecommunications services.
Technologies that are Canadian specialties are already creating
whole new industries. Knowledge based industries are growing
faster than any other sector in the Canadian economy.
As one of the most wired countries in the world, Canada has the
communications and network infrastructure necessary to take full
advantage of the information technologies such as electronic
commerce.
The government consulted extensively with the telecommunications
industry and with consumer groups before signing the agreement
and found strong support for it. Now it will be up to Canadian
industry to move forward in the global arena and take full
advantage of the opportunities presented by this agreement.
In conclusion I urge the House to act quickly in passing this
bill.
1645
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. parliamentary secretary for those comments.
I think it is great that we have a gentleman who was a senior
executive with one of the larger automobile manufacturing
enterprises here in Canada.
I would like to ask him if he could articulate for us exactly
how the new licensing regime will help the establishment,
development and growth of small businesses rather than big
businesses.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, the act specifies that
the controlling of the licensing is there to have an even playing
field. As we change from a monopoly organization into a freer
licensing factor it allows more people to get licences and have
the same rules.
This is very important in this agreement. There are a number of
things in this agreement which are trying to put forward an even
playing field. By having an even playing field this allows other
entrants into the marketplace.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, in principle I suppose
one would agree but I am asking myself the question that the bill
does not in any way suggest how these licences will be granted,
what the parameters will be and how the actual way in which these
licences will be given. How could this then create a level
playing field when nobody knows exactly what the licences will be
or what the guidelines will be as to who gets licences and what
the conditions of the licences will be?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, one must understand that
once the act is passed there will be total consultation on this
subject. Licensing is not unique to Canada. In fact, the U.S.,
the UK and the European Union have licensing agreements today and
they apply them.
Therefore under the CRTC we would be consulting with the
stakeholders and coming forth with the most effective licensing
arrangement at the lowest costs. That is always an item which is
close to everybody's heart, to make sure that fees are very low
and only for the implementation of the licensing. Those
consultations will follow and the licensing rules will be
established.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this is the first
occasion in this Parliament that I have had a chance to speak, I
wish to congratulate the Speakers and to say that I will
co-operate and respect this office and this Parliament.
I also take the opportunity to thank very strongly the voters in
my riding of London West. I appreciate their support and I will
continue to work with the dedication and the integrity and I hope
the intelligence that they so richly deserve.
I would also like to point out that as we work in this capacity
as parliamentarians there is a price in our families. I want to
thank my husband and my children and also say to my colleagues
across the floor of the House that I hope that throughout this
Parliament I can continue to treat them with the respect and
courtesy that any member of Parliament deserves.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill C-17 which supports
the government's strategy to make Canada a leader in the
knowledge economy of the 21st century. Our overarching goal is
to connect Canadians, to make Canada the most connected country
in the world and to ensure that all Canadians have access to the
information highway and the new economy which it supports.
The Minister of Industry has correctly identified this as
perhaps the single most important action that the government can
take to ensure our success in the knowledge based economy and I
believe we all know that in our own ridings.
Underpinning any strategy to connect Canadians to this new
economy is a competitive dynamic telecommunications industry.
This is a very vital sector to the Canadian economy. It produces
already 115,000 high wage jobs, high intelligence jobs, jobs that
are in all our sectors across this country. It accounts for
3.36% of our gross domestic product and I see this growing.
1650
If we take these necessary steps to encourage this industry's
growth, we can take on the world. If we do not, we can sit back
and watch international competitors take our share. There will
be no more high quality jobs, no enhanced communications
services, no new economy. I know that is not where Canada wants
to be.
We are not sitting back. As a government we have moved
decisively over the last four years to continue the
liberalization of Canada's telecommunications sector. I want to
review some of the steps we have taken.
The liberalization began in 1984 with the licensing of
competitive cellular telephone service. It moved forward with
the privatization of Teleglobe in 1987 and Telesat in 1992, and
still it advanced further with the introduction of long distance
competition in 1992 and the passage in 1993 of a new
telecommunications act.
The process has continued over the last two years with the
licensing of competitive personal communications services in 1995
and local multipoint communications services in 1996. Further in
1996 the government set out its policy and principles for the
convergence of cable and telephone services, creating one of the
most competition driven policy regimes in the world.
This legislation marks the latest stage of this liberalization
and clears the way for Canada's participation in the GATS
agreement on basic telecommunications which was concluded last
February. The agreement covers 69 countries with more than 90%
of the world's $880 billion telecommunications market. It covers
basic telecommunications services, voice and data, but not
broadcasting.
The immediate purpose of the legislation is to implement those
changes to Canada's regulatory regime that are necessary. The
longer term objective is to foster competition, one of the
government's top priorities in this area. We are already a world
leader in this sector and we will get more of that market share
when we widen it up with very visible rules.
Competition is not an end in itself. We need competition
because it fosters innovation and innovation leads to the
development of new products and services, more choice at cheaper
cost for consumers, Canadians, voters, the people in this country
who deserve this, and it creates jobs and economic growth. Still
a longer term objective of fostering competition is to ensure
Canadians have the advanced technologies they need to gain access
to the knowledge economy.
Over the past four years we have developed and initiated a plan
to ensure that Canada does take full advantage of these
technologies. We are building an information highway where all
Canadians can connect at a reasonable cost. We have created
those conditions needed to encourage the private sector to build
this information highway. Hardware and software developers and
suppliers and content developers are now among the fastest
growing industries in this nation.
Opening competition in telecommunications services is an
important part of our strategy as a government. We know the best
and fastest way to build the infrastructure for the knowledge
based economy is through open competition. By developing a
national strategy for the development of this infrastructure, the
government will enable all Canadians to find new opportunities
for business, learning and communicating with one another. This
can only be good.
Canadians want us to move forward quickly to secure for them
the benefits of a new economy. The government is working on a
number of fronts to do this. For example, we will have high
level talks at the OECD conference on electronic commerce coming
up in the fall of 1998. Electronic commerce is not only central
to a modern knowledge based economy, it is also the foundation
for future growth and job creation.
By creating the best environment for electronic commerce, Canada
will become the world leader in this emerging field, generating
increased investment in electronic networks and growth in areas
such as electronic transactions, multimedia products and online
services. The OECD Canada conference ensures we can support,
participate in and influence the creation of an open, transparent
multilateral electronic commerce regime. The government is also
working toward using electronic commerce when doing business with
its own clients.
By being a model user the federal government can encourage the
private sector and other levels of government to adopt the
technology. But it does not stop there.
1655
As part of our national strategy, the government initiated a
number of programs to ensure that Canadians acquire the tools and
skills from the earliest age that they need to prosper in this
new economy. These include computers for schools programs
through which government departments, businesses and institutions
donate surplus computer equipment and software to schools. It
includes the student connection program which enables university
and college students to help small businesses learn to use the
Internet, as my colleague suggested. The community access program
connects and will connect every rural Canadian community with
more than 400 people to the Internet by the year 2000. And how
could we forget the SchoolNet program which connects all our
16,500 schools and 3,400 public libraries in Canada to the
Internet.
Across this country students, teachers, professionals, business
people and just Canadians are using these facilities because we
have to ensure Internet literacy and move forward into the next
century which will be different than the last century. The
government is going online itself making government services
accessible to people wherever they are, 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. This is being done in every department and agency
in this country.
None of this would be possible without telecommunications
infrastructure and those supports for it. We cannot have that
infrastructure without a strong, dynamic telecommunications
industry. This bill before us today is a necessary step toward
giving our telecommunications sector service companies the keys
they need to open the doors to the new world, the world market of
vast proportions. Once that door is open we can rely on Canadian
expertise, Canadian entrepreneurship in all our ridings to do the
rest.
The result will be better telecommunications services. An
infrastructure will support us in the next century. I suggest we
are on the information highway and we will move forward on that
highway together.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been both exhilarated and disappointed today. We have before us
a bill that on the one hand is being exalted as the greatest
development that will advance the causes of technology and
communication that has ever hit the floor of this House. It has
given members of the government the opportunity to brag, to extol
the virtues of how much they are doing to get Canadians on to the
information highway and to make sure that all communities and all
Canadians everywhere will be connected to this information
highway.
At the same time these very same people recognize that there is
not the capacity in Canada to do that right now. It is a noble
goal, we all agree, and I support that, but the interesting thing
with regard to this bill is that it has brought together two
things that I submit do not belong together in the same bill.
Whatever connection there is is tenuous at best.
We have one bill with two parts. The first part deals with
amendments to the Telecommunications Act and the other part of
the bill deals with amendments to the the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act. Those two things are
completely separate. I submit that it would have been very much
better if the government had submitted two bills, one which dealt
with amendments to the Telecommunications Act, the other which
dealt with amendments to the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and
Divestiture Act. It would have been far more successful and far
more logical.
The issue behind this bill is to recognize the principle
involved. There is not much doubt or argument about the basic
principles of increasing competition, expanding the ownership
possibilities of telecommunications vehicles and ending
monopolies.
It is rather encouraging that the Liberals, who tend to govern
from the top down and intrude into business, have seen this as a
major principle.
1700
It is about time that Canadians recognized that government does
not have all the answers. Yet within this very bill, we are
reverting to government regulation and control of business.
I want to hearken back to the Information Highway Advisory
Committee. This committee started with one set of
recommendations in its first volume and then it came up with a
second volume in which it began to implement things. One of the
principles which the committee stated very unequivocally in the
first report which it presented to the Minister of Industry was
that the origin of the capital of a particular business,
particularly a business in telecommunications, ought not to be so
much the concern of the government, but rather the concern should
be how that capital is applied. Is the capital applied in such a
way that meets the economic and social goals of Canada? If the
capital does those things it does not matter where it originated.
We need to focus very carefully and clearly on what it is we
want to achieve in any legislation, particularly in legislation
that deals with such a pervasive issue as telecommunications, the
linking of people talking with one another through electronic
means.
Two parliamentary secretaries expressed great pride in how broad
the consultation had been on this bill. I do not know with whom
they spoke. I have a report from an Internet service provider
which arrived about five minutes ago. In fact, the report is from
the legal counsel to the Internet service provider. He makes
this observation:
I am concerned that this bill empowers the CRTC to declare that
something is a basic telecommunications service, without any
criteria to define “basic”, and then subject the service
provider to a licensing regime. This licensing regime overturns
the previous scheme of the Telecommunications Act in a
fundamental way. The previous act—the one now in force—says
that anyone may operate as a Canadian carrier who satisfies
ownership criteria. The new one subjects every service that the
CRTC wishes to regulate to a comprehensive scheme of licensing.
The key phrase is whatever service the CRTC wishes to regulate.
This is a major departure. It is an intrusion into the operation
of telecommunications such as we have never seen before. It was
never a part of the Telecommunications Act.
When the Minister of Industry gave his speech in defence of Bill
C-17 we were all enamoured by his commitment, by his seriousness
and by his total support for the development of
telecommunications and the whole business of innovation, science
and technology developments and the application and
commercialization of new ideas. He used the telecommunications
business as an example of how this could be done. I congratulate
the minister for doing that.
However, the minister failed to comment on one aspect of the
bill which is an intrusion into the affairs of business. We have
to get serious about that.
I want to refer directly to the mandate of the CRTC. The CRTC
is a body with administrative and quasi-judicial authority. This
is no itsy-bitsy committee whose members get together every once
in a while to talk to one another and have a good time, go out
for a beer or a coffee or whatever.
This is a quasi-judicial body that can bind businesses or
individuals and can determine how much you and I pay for our
telephone rates. It can determine who will be the supplier of
the pipe or the line or the fibre optic or satellite
communication or wireless. It has the right to determine these
kinds of things.
1705
The CRTC has been given a brand new mandate and authority it did
not have before. It has been given the authority, in clause 3,
the new section 16, for new powers of licensing.
It is very interesting what these powers actually are. These
powers establish classes of licences. That is one thing it does.
It establishes the classes of services that would require a
licence. Now we are hitting on two sides. First, it tells us
the kinds of licences we will have. Second, it tell us these are
the service providers who will be required to have a licence.
They may be the same but they may also be different. The act is
completely ambiguous in declaring exactly what is going to happen
in this area.
I would like to make several observations with regard to this
ambiguity. What does this ambiguity permit? First, it allows
the establishment of many or few classes. The more classes there
are the more administration, the more distributors, the more ways
in which you find the CRTC getting into various areas. It
decides how many of these classes there will be.
Second, it allows the CRTC to establish classes on an arbitrary
basis. It does not provide any indication of the conditions and
guidelines to be used before a particular class of licence is
established. This is a figment of somebody's imagination first
and then it is how much can fit here.
It sounds like someone who is getting ready for a Ph.D.
dissertation. He takes a particular position and says this is my
hypothesis. Then he draws a conclusion and says that this is my
conclusion. He wonders around until he finds enough evidence to
prove his conclusion given the hypothesis, rather than deciding
on the hypothesis and looking for the evidence.
This is very serious. That is the kind of thing that could
happen here. Far worse than that, the classes of licences could
perpetuate obsolescence. It puts into a straitjacket the
conditions that qualify a business or service provider getting a
licence in the first place. That is terrible.
We would not have the advancement in telecommunications if we
had had these kinds of constraints placed on new service
providers, with new ideas and new ways of applying the
technology. We should look at this very carefully.
The CRTC may now establish the conditions for the licences. Not
only can it establish the classes of licences, the kinds of
businesses that would be required to have a licence, but now the
conditions. These too have no guidelines.
What will the conditions be? Will a service provider need a
particular financial capability? Does it mean there has to have
a particular concentration of ownership or if the ownership is
too concentrated it will not get a licence? Will it be a
coverage area that is involved or the range of services that will
be provided? Then the question becomes is this a range of
services that relates to the Internet? Will this be a service
that will be on the information highway or could it be something
that is independent of that?
Will it have to do with the number of technical people who are
employed by an organization or will a certain portion of the
profits have to be be placed into R and D? Are these some of the
conditions that are going to be placed on the licensee? We do not
know.
1710
However, we do know that the government is already on record
insisting that in order for a certain kind of business to operate
it must commit a certain proportion of its earnings and revenues
toward research and development. I do not think that is
necessarily a bad requirement. In fact, we need far more
research and development in this country.
Canada is well down the list of OECD countries in spending on R
and D. As an industrial nation it does not fare well in the way
that the government presents R and D. Government does not
provide as much money to research and development as could be the
case. Neither does private enterprise commit to research and
development in the proportion that it should. We need that kind
of commitment. For that to be a possible condition for a licence
is rather difficult.
These are some of the questions on the business of licensing.
However, there is an even more significant part to licensing. It
is not only the people who will get the licences and the
conditions of licences, the bill goes even further and states
that the CRTC may establish conditions relative to circumstances
of the licensee.
This raises all kinds of questions. Does this now escalate the
problem above and beyond direct political and/or commission
arbitrariness. Now we are not only determining the conditions
but the circumstances that would be involved.
It could prevent certain people from entering the market by
making regulations that are so demanding it would be impossible
for them to ever get into the business. It is sort of like
issuing a tender for a motorcycle and setting the specifications
for that motorcycle in such a way that there would only be one
possible manufacturer that could meet those specifications.
These are very serious possibilities.
There is also the possibility of capriciousness, which is to set
different conditions for one class of licence apart from another
class of licence so that in one case it may be on a certain
financial base, while on the other side financial basis will not
matter, but the concentration of ownership will.
It could also bring about that those who would get a licence
would be friends of the government, those who are friends of
management or directors of the CRTC, perhaps people in a
particular management structure. Who knows? This could possibly
create different cost structures for different classes of
licences. We do not know what the circumstances would be.
If we put those four things in the legislative provision of
licences, we would begin to ask ourselves how could anyone truly
and honestly and fairly administer such a system?
If I was a bureaucrat and I wanted to establish myself as a
bureaucratic entrepreneur, that is getting more and more people
to come under my supervision, I would use this kind of a system.
It would mean that I could have the whole world before me. I
could create the types of licences I wanted, the kinds of
services that would get the licences and then I could determine
the conditions and the circumstances. It would be possible to
build an empire that would be so great that it would be
absolutely impossible for anybody to do anything without first of
all coming to me to ask “How will we do this?” It has
tremendous and horrendous implications.
The bottom line question in all of this is that it does not
increase flexibility. It is the very opposite.
1715
Not long ago the CRTC stated in one of its publications that it
wanted local competition, a development I heralded with great
support at the time and still do. I think it is wonderful. A
great thing has happened, and I think the bill moves away from
it.
In 1995-96 the commission initiated four different public
proceedings to put into place conditions for effective
competition in the local telephone market. These proceedings
deal with co-location, local interconnection, network component
unbundling, local number portability and price cap regulation.
Co-location is intended to facilitate competition by providing
competitors with the option of delivering their traffic to local
switches over either leased or owned facilities.
Unbundling refers to the requirement that incumbent local
telephone companies make available at tariffied rates elements of
their facilities to which competitors would require access to
effectively enter the local telephone market. This is a
tremendous policy for the CRTC to develop. It is exactly what
should happen.
Last night I had the opportunity to meet with a couple of
entrepreneurs who were doing exactly that. They have put in the
ground loops of fibre optic cable which now allows them to get
into local telephone market. This will put them in direct
competition with the B.C. Tels and the Bells that have monopolies
in these areas. Finally we have competition. That is absolutely
tremendous and the CRTC ought to be commended for it. The
legislation indicates what the CRTC did over here but gives it
the power to frustrate what it had over there.
The CRTC goes on to say that another major element of the Reform
Party was a series of adjustments to local telephone rates which
stem from the commission's split rate based decision to bring
prices closer to the true cost of providing service. This
adjustment will produce artificial subsidies to residential local
service that complicate the introduction of competition.
Implementation of a price cap regime will also give service
providers more freedom to price individual services and to reap
the benefits of productivity improvements.
This is tremendous stuff. In spite of that concern I have
complete support for the other part of the bill which would
change or amend the reorganization of Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act. That should be moved forward
expeditiously. Tomorrow we should do that if we possibly could.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I thank the member for Kelowna for his remarks. I know his
preparedness as industry critic is always fine tuned.
I am sure that as the industry critic he appreciates the fact
Canadians are becoming more and more connected. More and more
people are using the Internet and programs like Strategis which
has well over 2,000 hits a day. He appreciates the importance of
telecommunications.
I want to ask a number of questions. If we are to deregulate
and have more people in the telecommunications business, does he
believe there should be a level playing field among the
participants and that new participants should be allowed to come
in with a certain approval requirement, or does he believe that
it should be wide open?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I believe the
government's role should be to create an environment in which
innovation and entrepreneurship can express themselves. The
playing field should be level in the sense that an opportunity
exists for all kinds of players to enter.
Let those who are particularly successful and good win the day.
I do not think governments should decide ahead of time who should
be the winner or who should be the loser. That is the difficulty
with the bill.
In a short answer, my position is yes, let us let people go in
and compete.
We would not have the IBMs. We would not have the Apples. We
would not have various other groups that have brought about all
kinds of Internet service projects. We would not have them today
if we had regulations that said they could not come in unless
they met some conditions. They came because they had a service.
They came because the service met the needs of people.
1720
The time has come for government to create the overall broad
framework so that we can succeed in that environment and let the
market decide who will provide the best service for the least
cost.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to
debate this issue with the hon. member for Kelowna.
I want to make sure people understand that the proposed approach
is not intended to restrict the entry of new players into the
market or to exclude players. I understand the CRTC is doing
some advance consultation now with the industry. Its objective
will be to consult with the industry on what is required to have
the rules participants will operate under.
This lesson has been learned in the U.S., in the U.K. and in the
European Union. It is not any different from what we want to
propose in Canada. If we are to have a level playing field we
need the rules of the playing field and to let the industry
decide what the conditions should be.
The government wants to do exactly that. It wants to make sure
the rules are understood and the players can compete. Would the
member for Kelowna disagree with that?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I picked up a key
phrase the hon. member opposite mentioned. He said we should let
the industry determine. That is exactly right. Let the industry
come into it rather than the government. I think he really
believes that and that is why he said it.
That is not what the bill says. I wish the bill would say that.
If he could prove to me that the bill says that I would
wholeheartedly agree with him. The issue he has raised is the
right one.
I would like to mention, because it is brand new, that he said
the lesson has been learned and the CRTC knows it. Let me focus
on what was said in the 1997-98 estimates that we are now working
under. The mission statement reads:
For communication in the public interest we aim to help Canadians
better understand how their values and diversity shape Canada's
unique personality in the world. We do so by regulating our
broadcasting and telecommunications industries in open, flexible
ways to foster creative freedom and strengthen the prosperity of
all our citizens.
Let us now read the mandate of the CRTC and compare the two
statements. The mandate reads:
The CRTC is vested with the authority to license, regulate and
supervise all broadcasting undertakings within Canada and to
regulate telecommunications commentaries that fall under federal
jurisdiction.
It goes on. Is this not interesting? It has made a regulatory
body its mandate but its mission is to help Canadians better
understand their values and diversity and to have open, flexible
ways to foster creative freedom and strengthen the prosperity of
all our citizens.
It looks to me as if the regulation on the one hand and the
mission on the other, if not in contradiction are certainly
running in different directions.
If the lesson has been learned the CRTC should demonstrate it.
It has been known for years that the CRTC has not been the
facilitator of private enterprise and competition but rather the
protector of monopolistic interests.
I am glad to see a shift here. I think it is good. I have
raised the competitive issue before. I have talked about
convergence before. That is a good idea. There are vestiges in
the new provision for licensing ability that move the CRTC back
further into the regulation. I think it is a backward move into
the future.
1725
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for our colleague, the Reform Party telecommunications
critic.
There is much talk in this bill about corporations. We have
mentioned equipment manufacturers, providers of telephone services,
cable distributors. We have also mentioned the consumer, who sees
his bill regularly hiked up, but there is no mention of the person
who is entitled to privacy. We do not mention the protection of
personal information. Yet that is the flip side of the coin.
Only one side of the coin is being talked about now, allowing
the industry to expand worldwide through deregulation. The flip
side of the coin: what are the consequences or the potential ill
effects for citizens whose personal information can be released all
over the planet?
We know that the federal government has no legislation that
really protects personal information once it is in the hands of
private business.
I am therefore asking the Reform Party critic this question.
What does the Reform Party recommend for protecting private
information, identifying information, what does it have in mind for
protecting the public from the misuse by businesses of information
on each and every one of us?
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, it is a superb question,
one that is not addressed in this bill or in any other bill.
If he is asking for my personal opinion, I think that is one of
the crying needs that must be addressed in the House as the
electronics and telecommunications industry develops. We must
guarantee the integrity, the privacy, the security of personal
information and confidential information of a business nature. As
we go to electronic banking, transferring funds from one
organization to another via electronic means, the security of
that information is paramount.
The time is ripe to bring forward that kind of legislation. In
fact we should do it tomorrow morning.
I thank the hon. member for the question. I certainly support
the idea.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I meant to address the
privacy section in an earlier question but unfortunately the
member walked out and I was unable to ask it.
It has been said in the House before that privacy legislation is
something the government is concerned with. We are now studying
it, trying to get a simple, flexible privacy of information
legislation. Work is being done not only with the government but
with the provinces to get as many provinces onside to come up
with simple legislation to recommend to the House.
When the public consultations are completed I hope hon. members
will be able to add to the government's consultations on the
privacy section of the legislation that will be introduced in the
House in due time.
I thank the hon. member for raising it. I am sure we will be
debating it in committee.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, when the government
brings that legislation forward I hope it will have consulted
widely, honestly and with integrity, and listened very much to
the experience of the privacy commissioner over the last number
of years. He has a lot of good advice to give us all.
* * *
1730
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the referral to committee before second reading of
Bill C-3.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 217
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Cummins
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Strahl
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 47
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Chan
| Debien
|
Grose
| Guay
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not here when the
vote was called, but had I been here I would have voted with my
caucus.
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1805
[English]
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved:
That a special committee be appointed, pursuant to Standing
Order 68(4)(b), to review the provisions of the Criminal Code
dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that
the committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in
accordance with Standing Order 68(5).
He said: Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 1994 my friend Sue
Rodriguez died at her home in Sidney, British Columbia. She died
with the assistance of a courageous and understanding doctor who
risked a term of life imprisonment for breaking the law, section
241 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
As many members of this House will know, Sue Rodriguez had
fought with incredible dignity, strength and courage, to the
Supreme Court of Canada ultimately, to change this law. She
appeared before the House of Commons justice committee. She made
a whole nation aware of this profoundly important issue.
While she may have lost ultimately by the narrowest possible
margin of five to four at the Supreme Court of Canada, for many
of us it was the words of dissenting Justice Peter Cory that
resonated most powerfully:
The life of an individual must include dying. Dying is the
final act in the drama of life. The right to die with dignity
should be as well protected as is any other aspect of the right
to life. State prohibitions that would force a dreadful, painful
death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill patient are
an affront to human dignity.
While there may have been division in the Supreme Court of
Canada, there was unanimity on one issue, that it was ultimately
up to the House of Commons, the elected House of the people of
Canada, to make a decision as to what the law should or should
not state on this profoundly important issue. All the judges who
considered this issue were unanimous on that point, the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court of Canada.
I note that prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada, starting in 1991 a number of other members of Parliament
had raised this issue in the House: Bob Wenman, late Conservative
member of Parliament from British Columbia, my former colleague
Ian Waddell and my current colleague from
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Following the death of Sue Rodriguez in February 1994, within
days of her death, both the prime minister and the then justice
minister, currently the Minister of Health, promised that there
would be a free vote in this House on this important issue. Four
days later the justice minister said: “I am sure that doctors
could tell us that a number of people right now are facing
terminal illness who would want to have a clarification”. He
went on to say: “We will have a free vote as soon as we possibly
can”.
[Translation]
The Minister of Justice said, and I quote:
I can assure you that we will find a way to introduce
something in the House that will not be theoretical and that
will be significant. If that means proposing legislative
changes, so be it.
He added:
1810
[English]
Almost four years later we have finally achieved that objective
of ultimately this House's being able to have a free vote on the
issue. In May 1994 it was the national convention of the federal
Liberal Party that passed almost unanimously a resolution urging
the government to allow a free vote on this important issue.
As well in the spring of 1994, again shortly after the death of
Sue Rodriguez, the Senate established a special committee chaired
by a very distinguished former senator, Joan Neiman. The
committee reported in June 1995, after having held extensive
right across the country.
I want to pay tribute to all members of that committee for their
work. It was a very important committee and an excellent report
called “Of Life and Death”.
Today MPs will have an opportunity following three hours of
debate on my motion to vote on this issue and I thank my
colleagues from all parties for the opportunity that we have been
given for this vote, and it will be a free vote.
I want to explain very carefully and very precisely what this
motion seeks to achieve. The motion does not set out the terms
for new legislation. It calls for the establishment of a special
committee of this House. Obviously it could be decided that the
standing committee on justice may be a more appropriate forum,
but in any event it calls for a committee of this House to review
evidence, certainly not to redo all the work of the Senate
committee, to review the findings, the evidence and the
recommendations of that committee and then to make
recommendations back to this House.
Those recommendations could be very broad or very narrow. As I
said, the Senate committee has already done much of the work in
this area. The Senate committee was unanimous on a number of
recommendations, including the importance of support for
palliative care, pain control, and looked at the issue of
sedation practices, the so-called double effect, withholding and
withdrawal of life sustaining treatment and advance directives.
It was able to arrive at unanimous recommendations for changes in
those areas of the law.
Senator Sharon Carstairs, one of the members of that committee,
tabled a bill last year, Bill S-13, which was strongly supported
by Dr. Wilbert Keon, another member of the Senate and one of
Canada's foremost heart surgeons. That bill would have clarified
the Criminal Code with respect to a couple of key elements. What
it would have done was clarify the practice of providing
treatment for the purpose of alleviating suffering that may
shorten life. It would also recognize explicitly and clarify the
circumstances in which withholding and withdrawal of treatment is
legally acceptable.
It may be that is as far as this special committee of the House
is prepared to go. I would hope that the committee would go
further and recommend comprehensive changes to section 241 of the
Criminal Code, those changes that were supported by four of the
nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, three of the seven
senators on the special Senate committee, one of whom was Dr.
Keon, and a substantial majority of Canadians in every region of
Canada who also support these changes.
The Leader of the Opposition has stated that if a government
bill were to be presented to Parliament, and presumably that
would apply to a private member's motion as well, permitting
physician assisted suicide under the conditions which he had set
out in his consultation with his constituents, he would vote for
that bill. That was because when he surveyed his own
constituents he found that something like 82% of those
constituents supported this change.
I want in urging the House to change the law to pay tribute to
the many dedicated groups and individuals working for this change
in the law, including the Right to Die Society and John Hofsess,
Dying with Dignity and Marilyn Seguin, groups like Goodbye, the
Unitarian Church and many others.
1815
I note as well the issue is being debated in other parts of the
world. In fact today we will learn the results of a referendum
in Oregon. Earlier in the Australia Northern Territory Premier
Marshall Perron courageously fought to bring forward a bill, only
to see it ultimately overturned by the national parliament.
Why is it that I believe that the current law is profoundly
cruel and unjust and must be changed? Let me first make it very
clear that this is not a debate about choosing between palliative
care on the one hand and physician assisted suicide on the other.
I strongly support the unanimous recommendations of the Senate
committee on this issue, which talked about far more resources
for palliative care programs, national guidelines and standards,
training of health care professionals, an integrated approach to
palliative care and more research into palliative care,
especially pain control and symptom relief. All of those are
fundamentally important.
The best palliative care in the world cannot respond in all
circumstances to all suffering, indignity and anguish. I note
the Canadian Palliative Care Association has acknowledged that.
It pointed out that in something like 16% of cases of terminal
illness, the patients must be so sedated that they are
“incapable of meaningful interaction with their families”.
There were some patients, some terminally ill people, Sue
Rodriguez among them, who did not want to live or to die that
way. I argue that in those narrow circumstances in which
palliative care cannot respond to the suffering, the pain and the
anguish the issue is one of choice, fundamentally of personal
autonomy, whether we accept the right of competent adults to
decide for themselves how their lives will end.
As it now stands under the current law, the choice is either to
continue that suffering and anguish or to be sedated into a state
of pharmaceutical oblivion, or to find a doctor who is prepared
to break the law and risk life imprisonment, as in the case of
Sue Rodriguez, or if you cannot find a doctor, as we have seen
tragically in some circumstances, to leave your own country. We
saw that with Austin Bastable in 1996. We saw that just recently
with my constituent, Mr. Natverlal Thakore, this year. You should
not have to leave your country and your family to die in peace.
[Translation]
I find it particularly cruel and barbarous that Mr. Tahkore
had to leave his own country and his family to go to die in a motel
room in Michigan with the help of a doctor he had probably never
met. This is not acceptable.
[English]
It is time that we ended the hypocrisy in this area and admitted
that assisted suicides are happening now. They are happening
with no guidelines, with no review, with no safeguards
whatsoever. Tragically, people are ending their own lives,
committing suicide while still wanting to live longer. But they
are doing it because they are afraid that when the moment comes
at which they are totally incapacitated, they will not be able to
seek the assistance they desire.
The B.C. Persons with AIDS Society pointed out that this is a
very serious concern within that community as well. Its
spokesman said in his evidence before the Senate committee that
people with HIV disease choosing assisted death as a medical
option are being forced as a result of current legislation to
seek backstreet euthanasia. He talked about violent methods of
euthanasia such as heroin overdoses, razor blades, guns and
suffocation using plastic bags.
B.C. social worker Russel Ogden has confirmed in his studies the
widespread resort to assisted suicide among people dying of AIDS.
The Ontario chief coroner has confirmed that many people are
assisting in suicide in this province. Dr. Ted Boadway of the
Ontario Medical Association stated at a Canadian Medical
Association convention “Doctors are doing it entirely
underground and entirely unrecognized, in great fear and
anxiety”. One doctor talked about how in his words “you can
make a person comfortable with 50 milligrams of Demerol and you
can make a person very, very dead with 500 milligrams of
Demerol”, and about giving a suffering, terminally ill patient a
prescription for sleeping pills but instead of giving her the
normal 12, he gave her 40 as she requested.
It is happening now but in the shadows, behind closed doors with
no safeguards. When people ask what about the slippery slope,
those dangers are clearly already there.
1820
Of course there must be strict safeguards in place. The
Canadian Medical Association's committee on ethics made a number
of recommendations, as did the Senate committee that studied this
issue. These are some of the safeguards that have been
recommended which I strongly support: the importance of a
person's request; being informed, voluntary, enduring and free of
any coercion; the importance of the physician ensuring the person
is competent and not suffering from any disorder that impairs his
or her ability to make the decision; exploring the reasons in
detail in incurable illness and severe suffering; the physician
not being compelled in any way to participate in euthanasia or
assisted suicide and not in a position to gain in any way.
I will also respond briefly to some of the serious concerns that
have been raised by people with disabilities and organizations
representing people with disabilities, such as the Council of
Canadians with Disabilities. They voiced very eloquently their
fear that if legislation were brought in that in any way
diminished the importance of their lives or devalued their lives,
they would strongly oppose it. They are deeply concerned about
some of the arguments they have heard around the Tracy Latimer
decision.
I emphasize that what is being debated here is fundamentally
different. What is being debated here is the right of a
competent adult who is terminally or incurably ill to make that
decision for himself or herself, not by another person, not by a
doctor, not by relative, not by a parent but for himself or
herself.
I quote from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities that
supports changes to this section of the Criminal Code. It states
in its recommendation to the Senate “we support changes that
would make it legal to assist in the suicide of adults who know
and understand all of the support options available to them and
who are physically unable to take their life without
assistance”. I was pleased that the coalition intervened in
support of Sue Rodriguez in her struggle before the courts.
Some of the most powerful arguments for change in the law come
from the families and friends of those who have lost a loved one
in terribly agonizing circumstances. Following the death of Sue
Rodriguez, I received literally hundreds of incredibly moving
letters. I will share a couple of examples.
[Translation]
I got a letter from the son of Quebec author and actor Doris
Lussier. His son is Pierre Lussier. He said:
Papa, do not let the politicians, barbarians by any other
name, tell me that your horrible cry of mortal pain on the eve
of your death, even unconscious, when we were far from your
room at the other end of the corridor, was a sign of comfort.
I shared in the agony of a charming, joyful, cultivated,
reasonable human being, whom I loved more than anyone in the
world, with no possibility of releasing him from his suffering
as he so often asked of me.
He was a total advocate of civilized death.
[English]
I could read from many other letters. I could read the letter
of a man who wrote to me about his daughter who was in agony most
of the time. He said that her jaw would sometimes dislocate when
she yawned. She could not move her bowels so her sister had to
evacuate her manually every second day. Several huge bed sores
developed which never healed. She tried to kill herself by
refusing to eat. Finally she had a stroke which prevented her
from using her communicator and she spent the last few years of
her life in total isolation wailing dreadfully, pleading for an
end to her suffering. That is no way to die.
One of the most difficult experiences I have had to live with
has been the calls and letters I have received from people who
plead with me to find a doctor to help them.
I cannot respond to that, but what I can do is to plead with this
House to ensure that the law is changed so that we have humanity
and justice.
1825
In closing, I want to appeal to all members of the House.
Palliative care in and of itself is not enough. Sue Rodriguez
had superb palliative care. Let an all-party committee hear from
Canadians on all sides of this issue, review the evidence and
recommendations of the Senate committee and then report back to
the House with legislation to be voted on in a free vote.
It would be a tragic mistake to close the door at this stage to
any further debate. Respected doctors like Dr. Keon, nurses and
other health care workers, and most of all our own constituents,
are asking that the law be, at the very least, clarified and
hopefully changed to reflect humanity and justice.
In closing the debate on my previous bill in September 1994 I
quoted the final words of my friend Sue Rodriguez and I want to
honour her memory by doing so again today. She said:
I hope that my efforts will not have been in vain and that the
Minister of Justice will introduce legislation into Parliament
soon so that terminally ill people will have another option
available, thereby permitting physician assisted suicide for the
terminally ill.
May her courageous struggle and that of others who have made the
same eloquent plea not be in vain.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before the House today in response to the proposal moved by
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas that a special committee be
appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing
with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, and that the
committee be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill.
As my colleagues in the House would no doubt agree, the subjects
referred to in this motion raise very complex legal, moral and
social issues that Canadians are increasingly concerned about,
but remain clearly divided on.
A Montreal woman in a depressed state drowns her six-year-old
son before attempting suicide. A Halifax doctor is charged with
the death of a terminally ill cancer patient under her care.
These are just two examples to illustrate the complexity of this
issue.
The hon. member who moved the motion illustrated the human toll
which this issue has taken on Canadian families. No one in this
House would not be moved by these tragedies.
When we debate this subject we must examine questions ranging
from the quality of medical care available to seriously ill and
dying people to the moral questions involving a person's power to
control his or her own life, and even the value of life itself.
[Translation]
Technological progress in recent decades has considerably
improved our capacity to extend life and, in an aging society, the
issues of care and treatment at the end of life take on ever
greater importance.
Many individuals, professionals, organizations and
associations have clearly expressed their concerns on this over the
16 months of hearings held by the Senate Special Committee on
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. In June 1995, the committee
tabled its report entitled “On Life and Death”.
[English]
The stated goals of the committee were to help the public to
develop a better understanding of this very complex subject and
to set the stage for a full and open national debate. The
committee referred to its report as an initial step in the long
process ahead for Canadians attempting to find solutions to the
problems that it raises.
The issues raised by this motion, that is, euthanasia and
assisted suicide, are profoundly controversial. It is clear that
the special Senate committee was aware of this. I am sure we
would all concur.
The Senate report raised a number of problems which must be
carefully addressed. The committee had little difficulty
reaching consensus on issues regarding medical and health care
practices, such as developing national guidelines to address pain
control and sedation, and the withholding or withdrawal of
treatment. However, there were no such agreements among
committee members when it came to dealing with the more difficult
questions of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.
Even in the case of the less controversial recommendations, I
would suggest a great deal has yet to be done before we take any
steps to consider amendments to the Criminal Code. Let me
illustrate by way of example areas where further work is
required.
Having heard and considered testimony from numerous health care
professionals appearing individually or on behalf of numerous
associations representing doctors, nurses and other
professionals, the Senate committee report was unequivocal in its
recommendations in chapters 3, 4 and 5 that urged the development
and implementation of national guidelines and standards in a
number of areas such as palliative care, pain control, sedation
practices and the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining
treatment.
1830
[Translation]
These guidelines which seemingly have not yet been drafted, should
help those who, every day, must make decisions or help others make
decisions concerning palliative care and treatment.
Moveover, few Canadian provinces and territories have passed
legislation on advance directives, generally known as living wills. Such
legislation is important in order to recognize and support the
participation of patients and their family in the decisions relating to
medical care and treatment when they reach the end of their lives.
At such times, when critical decisions must be made, it is useful
and less stressful for those involved to make these decisions if they
know the patient's wishes.
Until this work is completed, I think it would be premature to look
at how the Criminal Code should deal with these issues.
[English]
Referring to the motion before us, while it is clear that I am
of the opinion we should not be considering any amendments to the
Criminal Code at this time, and I stress at this time, I would
also suggest that attempts to do so are fraught with difficulties
even when one purports to deal with subject matter upon which
there is apparent agreement.
A year ago Bill S-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code,
protection of health care providers, was introduced in the Senate
and was later the subject of second reading debate in that house.
The purpose of that bill as stated by the hon. Senator Sharon
Carstairs who introduced it was to implement the unanimous
recommendations in chapters 4 and 5 of the Senate report dealing
with pain control and the withholding and withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment.
Senator Carstairs took great care to point out that her bill did
not touch the more controversial aspects of the Senate report,
that is, euthanasia or assisted suicide. Yet that bill itself
was the subject of controversy and was not fully supported by the
senator's fellow members of the special committee who had
initially supported the recommendations in the first report.
In conclusion I would argue that it is premature, as moved by
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, to appoint a special
committee when there has been in fact one that has studied the
issue to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide or to consider the
possibility of bringing in a bill when, as the Senate report
demonstrated, Canadians are much too divided on these issues.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to split my time
with the member for Macleod.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, a special Senate
committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide spent over a year,
from February 1994 to June 1995, studying this issue. It
published a 250 page report in June 1995.
The Senate committee held 86 meetings and heard from 242
witnesses representing 92 organizations. It received 24 written
submissions, listened to 12 witnesses by teleconference from
Holland and received literally thousands of letters from
concerned Canadians. The special Senate committee cost taxpayers
more than $250,000 not including the salaries of the senators and
the staff assigned to the project.
The Senate committee recommended no changes to the Criminal Code
offences for voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia and
counselling suicide. The Senate committee only made two
recommendations regarding the Criminal Code: that consideration
be given for creation of a new murder offence called
compassionate homicide; and that the Criminal Code be amended to
explicitly recognize and to clarify the circumstances in which
the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is
legally acceptable.
A special Senate committee has already spent hundreds of hours,
spent more than $250,000 and heard hundreds of witnesses,
received thousands of letters and issued a 250 page report to the
Senate in 1995. There is no need for the House of Commons
committee to repeat this same process. Nor is there a need for
taxpayers to shell out a few more hundred thousand dollars to do
it all over again.
1835
This motion presupposes that the special committee will agree
that amendments to the Criminal Code are needed because the
motion directs the committee to prepare and bring in a bill. If
this motion is passed, it will require the special committee to
introduce legislation even if the special committee's
deliberations and debate and public opinion conclude otherwise.
The Criminal Code as it is currently worded provides crown
prosecutors with a sufficient number of options when laying
charges with respect to homicides. The changes recommended by
the Senate committee are not the highest legislative priority for
the general public. If a special committee is to be struck to
draft any bill, Reformers say it should be a victims bill of
rights. For these reasons, I cannot support this motion.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas
proposes to introduce a bill dealing with a very complex and
emotional issue. Some Reformers feel this is a moral issue and
should be handled using a process employed on issues such as
abortion and capital punishment and on issues of personal
conscience. We as Reform MPs follow a four step process to
clearly state our views publicly and to ask our constituents to
develop, to express and to debate their own views on the matter.
Following that process, we seek the consensus of the constituency
and support that constituency in Parliament.
For the record, here is my personal view on this issue. I
believe in the inherent value of life and the need to protect the
most vulnerable individuals in our society. While I respect
every person's right to refuse medical treatment, I do not
believe that any changes should be made to the Criminal Code
offences of euthanasia, assisted suicide or counselling suicide.
However, I do support designating palliative care as a core
service in the Canada Health Act and developing in co-operation
with the provinces national guidelines to govern the provision of
palliative care services, including research, counselling and
education programs.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to participate in this debate as a clinician, as a GP, as a guy
who dealt with people at the end of their lives, and as someone
who did surgery. This has had a very significant impact on my
life. I do this with humility, recognizing that the ending of a
life is a significant and important issue.
I would like to make sure that those watching understand what
euthanasia is not. Euthanasia is not withholding unwanted
heroics. Euthanasia is not advanced directives. Euthanasia is
not unplugging resuscitation equipment that is unwanted or
useless.
Euthanasia is active help to aid a person commit suicide, or
active aid to end a person's life. Asking a physician to
participate in that goes against everything I was taught in
medical school.
Proponents say, and in fairness I listen to their arguments very
well, that if we had strict guidelines, the process of doctor
assisted suicide would be rare. I do not believe that it is
adequate to just listen to those arguments. A good debater can
make those positions well. I believe it is much more instructive
to look at jurisdictions where this has been tried.
Holland of course is probably the best jurisdiction. I am taking
my information today from a fairly new publication. It is the
Canadian Family Physician for those who would like to
research this for themselves, the February 1997 issue in which
the Dutch experience was looked at scientifically.
Holland has a total population of 15 million, just about half of
Canada's total population. The data that I am discussing today
is from general practitioners just like me, doctors who see a
broad part of family existence. The Dutch experience is as
follows.
I spoke of criteria that would be used by the proponents. In
Holland the criteria are as follows. A request for euthanasia
must be voluntary. It must be well informed. It must be
persistent. It cannot just be casual. There must be intolerable
or hopeless suffering. There must be consultation with a second
doctor so that one doctor would not make the decision in
isolation.
Finally, there must be a report to the authorities, a report to
the coroner.
1840
How rare is euthanasia in Holland? This is just GPs. This is
not palliative care or surgeons that I am talking about. GPs
permit about 2,000 cases of euthanasia per year. The most
interesting thing about this scientific data is how often were
the criteria followed. It is quite remarkable to find that about
180 patients per year were euthanized without their personal
permission. These were individuals who could have given their
permission. It is quite surprising.
If we look at all doctors in Holland, substantially more than
just the GPs, the numbers are even worse. This is from 1990.
For those who would like to research this data themselves, it
comes from the Remelink study done in 1991 by a justice in
Holland.
For all doctors in Holland in 1990, 2,700 people were euthanized
according to the coroners' records. This is following the
criteria. But 1,040 were killed involuntarily by all doctors and
not reported. Even worse, 8,100 were killed by deliberately
using pain medication.
Here we have in a country half as populated as Canada, over
10,000 people euthanized in one year when only 2,700 were
reported.
In Holland doctors have taken over end of life decisions. This
has not become an empowering thing for the patient. I would
conclude by saying giving the power of life to physicians is bad
public policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are dealing here with an extremely serious matter that must be analyzed
in the greatest possible detail. This is an issue that has been
discussed for a long time.
I recall very clearly that during the 35th Parliament, this issue
was raised several times by the member who tabled this motion and also
by Michel Daviault, the Bloc Quebecois member for Ahuntsic. That member
went over the issue in great detail, made observations and addressed
questions to the government on several occasions on this matter.
Just to remind you once again that it is not the first time that we
are dealing with this issue in this House, on June 8, 1995, in a press
release, he stated: “It is important that members examine these issues
that concern all Quebeckers and Canadians and make recommendations
before the House of Commons is called upon to vote on such sensitive
matters”.
At one time or another, the government will have to examine
carefully this whole matter. With medical advances and given what is
acceptable today, which may not have been acceptable yesterday and
evolves over time, a responsible government, a government that wants to
reflect the evolution of society, will have to get its act together and
deal with this area of responsibility, this admittedly difficult issue.
I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the member who
tabled this motion. I know that it is an issue that he has been closely
involved with.
If there is a member in this House that can speak from experience, it is
the member from Burnaby—Douglas. I believe also, however, that this
issue must be considered as objectively as possible.
What I find interesting in his motion is the fact that it gives
parliamentarians an opportunity to study this matter in a non-partisan
manner, with the help of scientists, doctors and families who have lived
through such situations, and also in the light of our respective
convictions. This is an issue that has social, economic, religious and
moral implications.
1845
All sorts of factors come into play, but this motion gives the
government an opportunity to examine the issue and to take a real
look at what could be done to arrive at a situation acceptable to
the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers.
The present context is not an easy one. Some will say that
respect for life is being used as an excuse to outlaw killing. I
think they are right; that the dignity of human beings is not
diminished by suffering. Others, however, will say that the
respect for life and the right to die with dignity are personal
values and that only the individual who is ill may decide.
Legislating euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore poses many
ethical problems. I think a committee could give very serious
consideration to these ethical and medical factors.
Some news stories have advanced our understanding of this new
problem. There was the case of Nancy B., Sue Rodriguez, and the
most recent, which is still in the headlines, the case of Robert
Latimer, a father accused of ending his daughter's life for reasons
everyone has heard about. As we heard on the news, the decision is
now under appeal.
There have been different interpretations in the media.
However, some extremely important issues have been raised. Yes,
the subject must be looked at, but I think it is so important that
a very exhaustive study will be required before a bill can be
introduced.
The issue must be submitted to the House, studied and reported on even
before those who will sit on the committee can draft a bill.
It is a complex task for a committee to study a bill. I
participated in the review of the Young Offenders Act; the issue was not
a heart-wrenching one but I can tell you that after six months, we had
not completed the study and we were still pondering many questions.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are related issues. We can easily
predict that studying these matters will take a long time. I would not
want the committee to be burdened with the task of drafting a bill.
That is why, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will table an
amendment to motion M-123.
I would like to see a committee struck, a committee to examine the
matter, to report to the House, and subsequently, after the public
pressure and the societal debate that it will have triggered in a
still more structured way—because this will be referred to the
justice committee of the House of Commons, with the assistance of
the hon. member who will be able to attend—there will be a report
that the House will examine and study. I believe that the
government across the way, giving it the benefit of the doubt as
far as its responsibility is concerned, will be able to respond
favourably to the report which would be tabled by the House
committee.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by
deleting the word “64(4)(b)” and by substituting the word
“105”, by deleting the words “to prepare and bring in a
bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5)”, and by
adding after the words “and that the Committee be
instructed”, the words “to report to the House”.
1850
All in all, this amendment is very legalistic, very much in
lawyer's jargon, if I can put it that way, but it is aimed at
striking a committee. The committee could examine the entire
question in a very clear way, report back to the House, and then
the government could follow up on it by bringing in a bill, which
would be along the lines of the recommendations made by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member's
amendment has been taken on reservation. We will report back in
due course.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in the debate tonight. This is an example
of the House working at its best, where there is reasoned and
intelligent debate. Certainly we will not all agree with the
hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, but who am I quoting when I say
“We do not argue his right to stand up and debate the issue or
argue his case. We certainly would not deny the member that?”
The debate reminds me of the abortion debate. I know there are
at least a couple of members on this side of the House who were
here during that debate in 1989. I was a member of Parliament at
that time. I often say I am very fashionable because I am a
recycled member of Parliament. I was here in a previous life in
the 34th parliament and I spoke on that issue.
This reminds me of that debate. It was one of those issues that
I do not think the government wanted to bring to the floor of the
House of Commons. That was understandable. Obviously there were
two sides to that debate as there are with this one. I think
that is reflected in the supreme court rulings that have come
down on cases like this one.
One of them is the Sue Rodriguez case the member for
Burnaby—Douglas quoted. He was very much attached to that case
and to Sue Rodriguez herself. I do not always agree with the
member. Nor do you. Nor does the House. He took a very
courageous stand in defence of his position.
Ms. Rodriguez died before that ruling came down but the fact
that they ruled 5:4 on that case indicates that even the supreme
court is divided on the issue.
Canadians are looking for parliament to give them guidance. It
is incumbent on us to do that and to bring this issue before the
House of Commons for intelligent debate. I do not support the
idea of spending money on a committee. The Senate did that. The
Senate struck its committee. A couple of the members have
mentioned the cost of that study. It becomes very expensive.
The secret to the whole process lies right here in the House of
Commons. All members of Parliament are going to be here. They
are paid to be here. They are paid to stand and present their
positions. That is what I think should happen. An intelligent,
reasonable, persuasive debate should take place in the House. At
the end of the day we will have taken our respective positions
and will have had our say.
I want to define euthanasia. I am sure there are people back
home, including myself until I took the time to study the issue,
who are a little confused on what the term means. I will quote
from a fact book that was put together for me and other members a
number of years ago by the Campaign Life Coalition.
1855
This is basically a definition that Canadians should hear. The
original Greek meaning of the term euthanasia is easy or good
death. Over time this meaning has been lost so that today an
acceptable definition of euthanasia would be to act or fail to
act so as to cause the death of a human being for the purpose of
relieving suffering.
The victim is usually though not exclusively a chronically or
terminally ill patient, not necessarily imminently dying. The
person performing the act of euthanasia is usually but not
exclusively a health care professional. The participation of the
medical profession in these acts has led to the use of the term
medicalized killing.
As well as the understanding of the precise definition of
euthanasia it is important to be clear on which medically based
decisions at the end of life should never be classified as
euthanasia. It is important that we listen to this carefully
because allowing a terminally ill person at the last stages of
life to die a natural death is not euthanasia.
Where the situation is medically hopeless, a decision not to
provide or continue extraordinary or heroic measures where such
no longer offer any hope for healing is ethical, legal and
consistent with standard medical practice. It is important to
remember that. More important, it is also consistent with
thousands of years of religious belief and practice.
The purpose is to examine present law to decide whether or not
it should be changed. That is what the member is asking. We do
not disagree with that. It is just a case of bringing debate to
the House of Commons and working through it in an intelligent
fashion.
I am surrounded by members from all parties. To the right I
have a few Liberals, to the left there are Reformers and there
are a few Conservatives as well. The views of the respective
individuals are interesting when we are engaged in discussion.
There are some areas about which we fundamentally agree. There
are some areas about which we fundamentally disagree.
This is the place where that debate has to happen. I urge all
members to go home and do some research. In time hopefully this
issue will come to the floor of the House where it deserves to
be.
Earlier I mentioned the abortion debate which took place in the
House. I remember as a member of Parliament at that time that I
had to do some soul searching on the issue. I remember saying in
the House that according to my definition if life begins at
conception life should be allowed to continue. As a parallel to
that, if we are talking about human life and we have accepted the
fact that life is there, what right do we have as individuals to
determine when that life should end? That goes back to the
fundamentals.
We are talking about the continuation of human life or the
termination of human life. It is no more fundamental than that.
It is about life. It is about the preservation of life. It is
about the continuation of life.
We have all had loved ones who have been terminally ill. I am
sure many times the thought has run through the minds of many
loved ones concerning whether or not there should be euthanasia.
1900
At the end of the day I think most Canadians would say it is an
issue worthy of debate. It is worthy of debate and it is worthy
of consideration. Let us bring it to the floor of the House so
that all concerned members will have a chance to speak on it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment
proposed by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is in order.
Accordingly, the debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, could you tell me if I have three minutes or six minutes
in which to speak. I was told the debate ended at 7.06 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
will begin, we will advise him of when he must end.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me express the
deep respect I feel for my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas. His
involvement in public life is worthy of the admiration of all Canadians.
He defends his positions with the utmost courage and determination, but
also with great respect. I appreciate that very much, as I am sure
members on all sides do.
I think the hon. member represents the views of many Canadians.
But I must say also that, if there is a consensus in our society not to
artificially prolong the suffering of the dying through continued use of
life support equipment, I do not think this consensus extends to
assisted suicide and euthanasia.
[English]
Where I feel we should draw the line and where I disagree
fundamentally with those who believe that assisted suicide and
euthanasia should be a fact of life is with respect to the
deliberate use of whatever means there are to terminate a life.
Who are we to decide that we can terminate a life?
I could cite many cases if I had time. I could cite the case of
my brother who was given up for dead a few years ago and who now
lives a thriving life.
I would like to conclude by quoting from Drs. Herbert Hendin and
Gerald Klerman:
If those advocating legalization of assisted suicide prevail, it
will be a reflection that as a culture we are turning away from
efforts to improve our care of the mentally ill, the infirm, and
the elderly. Instead, we would be licensing the right to abuse
and exploit the fears of the ill and depressed. We would be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the Order Paper. The hon. member will have the
floor when debate resumes.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved
MEFLOQUINE
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian troops in Somalia were administered the
experimental drug mefloquine. Military doctors got the
antimalarial drug because they agreed to participate in a
prelicensing safety monitoring study. They ignored their
commitment.
The Minister of Health was asked on October 20 if any action
under the Food and Drug Act had been taken by his department
against either the manufacturer who was responsible for
supervising the safety monitoring study or the surgeon general
who acted illegally in prescribing the drug.
The minister and his department are responsible for the
administration of the Food and Drug Act. They ignored the fact
that military doctors used an unlicensed drug that commonly has
neuropsychiatric side effects.
It is a drug the World Health Organization has expressed concerns
about, and I quote from a World Health Organization document:
Mefloquine is taken out of recommendations, based mainly on the
concern about the neuropsychiatric side effects of mefloquine.
Such side effects are relatively rare, but were considered a
particular concern in military personnel.
1905
The World Health Organization withdrew its support for the
military use of the drug in April 1992, long before Canadian
troops were sent to Africa. But this is not simply about whether
the World Health Organization withdrew its support for the use of
mefloquine by military personnel before soldiers were ordered to
take it. It is about what the Department of Health did after
learning the law had been broken.
The minister did not explain what action his department took in
1993 when it learned of the problems in Somalia. The minister did
not explain why his department took part in a cover-up of the
illegal use of mefloquine.
Officials in the Department of Health believed in 1993 there was
a direct connection between the use of mefloquine and the death
of Somali teenager Shidane Arone and the attempted suicide of
Master Corporal Clayton Matchee.
The minister's reply to my question on the response of his
department to the illegal use of the unlicensed drug in 1992 and
1993 was to tell the House that the decision to illegally use
mefloquine in Somalia was based on the best evidence available at
the time.
Wrong. DND ignored the law and ignored critical evidence from
reputable source which I would be happy to make available to the
minister. Furthermore, the minister asked the House to await the
outcome of continuing investigations before coming to any
judgment.
Officials at the Department of Health told us on October 20 and
21 that no research is being undertaken by either the Department
of Health or DND. Can the minister tell this House whether his
officials are mistaken or whether he was mistaken when he
informed the House that there were continuing investigations?
A cover-up occurred at DND and in his own department in 1993 and
1994 as to the illegal prescription of mefloquine by the surgeon
general and its possible connection to the attempted suicide in
Somalia of Master Corporal Clayton Matchee in 1993 and the
suicide of Corporal Scott Smith in Rwanda in 1994. These were
Canadian soldiers who deserved better.
I hope this minister is not trying to continue the cover-up of
this illegal use of the unlicensed drug or to protect officials
who had licensed mefloquine in 1993 at about the time the
notorious events in Somalia became public.
The licensing was done based on an incomplete safety monitoring
study. Telling this House there is an investigation under way
into mefloquine when his own officials deny any study is now
under way does not help us get to the truth.
The Minister of Health did not acknowledge the drug was used
illegally. Instead, the minister said there was an ongoing
investigation. Presumably he is talking about an investigation
that has been ongoing since 1993. If so, even the minister's
infamous Airbus investigation did not take that long.
I would ask again whether the minister can tell the House
whether his officials are mistaken or whether he was mistaken
when he informed the House there were continuing investigations.
Furthermore, I would ask that he document for the House what
action his department has taken with regard to the illegal use of
mefloquine by the surgeon general and the failure by the
manufacturer to carry out a proper safety monitoring study.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
hon. member regarding the antimalaria drug lariam mefloquine and
its availability to the Canadian Armed Forces in Somalia.
As he knows, lariam has been and continues to be used and
recognized worldwide as one of the most effective drugs for the
prevention and treatment of a form of malaria resistant to most
other antimalarial drugs. Estimated at over 2 million deaths
each year, malaria is one of the world's greatest killers.
Prior to its marketing approval in 1993, lariam was available to
travelling Canadians through an open access clinical trial,
referred to as a safety monitoring study. The study provided
Canadians with early access to a drug where few alternatives were
available and monitored potential side effects of the drug in the
interests of patient safety.
1910
In 1994 Health Canada took immediate and affirmative action when
media reported claims of several incidents where lariam may have
been involved in Somalia. The Department of Health requested the
sponsor to provide all information and adverse drug reaction
reports as required under the safety monitoring study.
[Translation]
According to Health Canada directives, researchers involved in
clinical studies and attending physicians are bound to report without
any exception any significant adverse reaction to drugs. The results of
the monitoring study on drug safety, combined with recent information in
scientific literature, confirm the prescribing information approved by
Health Canada for Lariam.
The decision to use Lariam as a first choice therapy is a matter of
responsibility for the patient.
It is for the prescribing physician to decide in consultation with the
patient whether a drug's potential benefits outweigh the risks.
[English]
I am sorry I could not answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas.
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on October 21, I asked a question in this House of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the upcoming peoples
summit, specifically the concern that many delegates from APEC
countries who wish to attend the peoples summit to speak on
issues of fundamental human rights, the rights of workers and the
environment were refused any federal government funding.
I asked the foreign minister why it was that this explicit bar
on the peoples summit, using federal funds to assist people from
civil society attending the peoples summit, was in place. I
pointed out the double standard and the fact that the federal
government is spending something in excess of $50 million for the
APEC summit itself for things like security for leaders like
Suharto and Cheung Chi Min and others and it is not prepared to
provide the very minimal funding which has been requested to
assist in the travel of delegates from APEC countries to the
peoples summit.
At the same time I questioned the minister with respect to cuts
in Canada's overseas development aid, shameful cuts which have
led to our being severely criticized by the Canadian Council for
International Co-operation and other international aid bodies. We
have dropped from fifth place to eleventh place in the OECD.
Now that the Minister of Finance has triumphantly proclaimed
that the deficit has been wrestled to the ground, I urged that
the minister responsible for foreign affairs, the Minister for
International Co-operation, cancel the proposed 8% cut, about
$150 million, which is planned for next April in Canada's
overseas development aid.
Unfortunately the response to both those questions was
completely unsatisfactory.
I point out that as well in the context of the upcoming APEC
peoples summit my colleague from Yukon raised very serious
concerns about the failure of the federal government to provide
requested financial assistance to the APEC women's conference,
this despite the commitment that was made by the secretary of
state for women and multiculturalism at the conference in
Beijing. The failure to provide proper funding has also led to
the cancellation of the indigenous peoples forum.
The peoples summit is a tremendous opportunity for Canadians and
for people in APEC countries to raise concerns about human
rights, about workers rights, about the environment, and I want
to pay tribute to the organizers of the upcoming peoples summit
in Vancouver later this month.
I want to again appeal to the Government of Canada to honour its
own policy, the policy of CIDA, which encourages the involvement
of delegates from other countries in important UN conferences and
other key intergovernmental and non-governmental fora. They have
much to witness; workers from Hong Kong, for example, who will
speak about the failure of the Government of China to respect
workers rights. It just cancelled the laws passed by the Hong
Kong legislature to guarantee freedom of association.
It is important that we hear from workers there. It is important
that we hear from workers in Indonesia and from others talking
about the genocidal policies of Suharto in East Timor. Why are
we allowing him to come to Canada when he is guilty of crimes
against humanity?
1915
These are some of the questions that I hope will be addressed at
the People's Summit. I appeal to the government to provide the
funding necessary to those who are coming—
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
People's Summit requested that the Government of Canada pay
$140,000 for the travel of Asia-Pacific NGOs to Vancouver.
After careful review the government decided that the best way to
support the People's Summit is to provide funding support for
policy discussions, not travel. And this is what we did.
The Government of Canada has provided $195,000 to the People's
Summit; $170,000 to help cover in-Canada logistical and
administrative costs related to the organization of the event;
and $25,000 to assist the People's Summit in developing an
interactive Internet-based electronic conference that will
provide a forum for an exchange of views.
The Government of Canada is the People's Summit largest
contributor. It supports the People's Summit because it includes
a broad base group of Canadian and Asia-Pacific NGOs and will
feature discussions on topics such as women, sustainability,
youth and free media.
As chair of APEC in 1997, Canada has done more than any other
member to widen the scope of APEC discussions to include such
questions.
Canada has a longstanding tradition of supporting organizations
involved in promoting human rights—an important Canadian foreign
policy objective—and has always sought to ensure that APEC's
activities are informed by the views of civil society, including
academics and non-governmental representatives. Canada will
continue to so.
CIDA is already supporting several of the organizations involved
in the People's Summit for their ongoing work in developing
countries.
FISHERIES
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
October 28 I had the opportunity to rise in the House and ask a
question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Quite frankly
I thought the question was fairly simple. Obviously the answers
were not quite as simple because they were not forthcoming.
I would like to give the House a little background. What I was
referring to was the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. This
corporation is based in Manitoba. It is fishermen operated and
those people who ply their trade in the Northwest Territories,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northern Ontario are the
stakeholders of this corporation.
The concept is fairly simple. The fishermen catch the fish, the
marketing board markets the fish and sells them throughout the
world and domestically. It has sales in excess of $50 million on
world-wide distribution. It is a typical board. It has a
chairman that is elected. It has a board that is elected. It has
no government subsidies. It works extremely well and it is
self-sufficient.
It also has working for it a chief executive officer and
president. The current president and chief executive officer has
been with the corporation for 16 years. He worked his way up as
controller, vice-president of finance and then became the
president and general manager, which is what we would all like to
do within our corporation. Everything is fine. This is where
the sinister of music comes in because unfortunately the
government has the ability to appoint the CEO under the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.
Previous history showed that this particular CEO had extended to
him contracts of two and three years. Unfortunately, in April
1997, just before the election, an extension of that contract was
issued for only six months, which was a bit strange. After the
June election the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced that
there was going to be a new president and general manager and he
would be Mr. Ron Fewchuk.
I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
it was not that tough. My question was would the minister tell
me what the qualifications of Mr. Fewchuk were. Would he also
tell me if he consulted with the board and the chairman with
respect to that appointment?
1920
Well, I did not get an answer. What I got was some gobbledegook
but let me tell you what the answer is. The fact of the matter
is that the qualifications of Mr. Fewchuk are that he did not run
in that riding because he let another member, a fellow by the
name of Jon Gerrard who is no longer with the Liberal benches,
run in his stead. He retired as a member of Parliament.
Did they ask the board and the chairman? Did they consult with
them? The answer is no, they did not consult with the board or
the chairman. It was simply a matter of a political appointment.
My second question was quite simple as well. Unfortunately, now
that they need a chief executive officer to actually do the work,
they are going to retain the services of their current CEO and
they are now going to have Mr. Fewchuk also as a CEO. They are
now going to have two salaries. My question to the minister was
would he simply tell me that the one salary of patronage would be
paid for out of the budget of the minister of fisheries. Do not
allow those salaries to be paid by the poor fishermen. All they
really want to do is fish and make an honest living. I never got
an answer to that question either and I hope I can get one this
evening.
The problem I have with this is not just simply for the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, but we are dealing with another
bill right now, Bill C-4. The government is fighting to make
sure that it has the ability to appoint the CEO. It makes me
very nervous because quite frankly there were a number of
defeated Liberal members in the last election. I am wondering
which one of those will be appointed the CEO of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might say on Bill
C-4 that what we are trying to do is come up with a bill which
producers have asked for. They continue to want us to be able to
appoint the expertise in marketing that we did under the last
bill.
Is there no depth to the disrespect for a political opponent to
which the member for Brandon—Souris will stoop for cheap
political gain? The member opposite has nothing of substance to
say. He reverts to an attack on the character of the individual
in an effort to belittle the individual Mr. Ron Fewchuk.
Although I am responding to this question on behalf of the
government in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Fewchuk happened to be my
seatmate in the last Parliament.
Mr. Fewchuk as a member of Parliament was not loud nor
bombastic. He did not use malicious comments to attract
headlines like the member opposite is trying to do. He did not
try to manipulate the media like the member opposite is trying to
do. He held a quiet conviction and he did his job.
Mr. Fewchuk brings years of experience to the job of president
and will serve the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation very
well indeed. He is a skilled entrepreneur and former
parliamentarian with diverse experience in business and local
government. He has 18 years ongoing experience as a successful
business owner-operator and 16 years experience as a commercial
bait fisherman and outfitter. He has a long history of local
leadership, including 15 years of elected service as reeve,
deputy reeve and councillor of the rural municipality of St.
Clements. He is well qualified.
[Translation]
PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on October 29 I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
a question in this House.
On October 29, we were three days away from the closure of the
BC asbestos mine at Black Lake, where 300 workers were laid off on
November 1. Their average age is 52. Of the 300 miners, 82% are
over 50 and 36% are over 55.
What the workers, the employer, Jean Dupéré, and Louise Harel
of the Quebec government want is a pre-retirement program for these
older employees.
1925
The minister insists on offering only active measures, namely
the transitional job fund, measures for independent workers and the
purchase of courses. Try asking Edgar Rousseau, 56, of Coleraine
to take a course in electricity or soldering, for example.
Try asking Normand Cloutier, 56, an electrician who knows his
job inside out, Louis-Philippe Roy, 56, or Maurice Grégoire, 54, an
experienced dynamiter, to train for some other type of work. You
will agree with me that, for these people, training would be
totally meaningless.
The minister has no compassion for these workers. On October
27, 1997, I asked him a question in the House and he did not even
dare to come to the defence of his government's treatment of these
workers. Instead, he designated the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs has now replaced the Minister of Human
Resources Development. In a few minutes, we will find out who this
evening's stand-in will be.
Employees of the BC mine met last week with the Minister of
Human Resources Development. André Laliberté, Gaétan Rousseau and
Charles Lacroix from the Thetford region met with him in his
office. They asked him for an improved POWA program. The next
day, in this House, he dared to rise in his place and state that
asbestos workers had told him they did not want the POWA program.
At that point, my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis,
tabled a letter in the House reminding the minister that the
workers wanted an improved POWA program.
This minister has no compassion. Jean Dupéré, I remind the
House, is prepared to do his share, a substantial share, he says.
Louise Harel is also ready. Only the minister is refusing to
budge. He is prepared to go as far as $3 million in active
measures. Does he not understand that forcing workers who are 55,
56, 58 or 59 years old, to sit in a classroom is not only
unrealistic, but stupid coming from a minister who claims to manage
this country's human resources?
It is not surprising—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation.
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
sensitive, open and always willing to listen to Canadians.
The federal government recognizes the difficulties experienced by
Canadians who lose their jobs, particularly those affected by the
closing of the mine in Black Lake, in Quebec. However, these layoffs
cannot be covered by the Program for Older Workers Adjustment, or POWA.
That program was terminated last March because, among other things,
it was not fair and equitable to older workers in Quebec and across
Canada.
[English]
The Department of Human Resources Development Canada has changed
its focus from passive income support to active measures in order
to help workers reintegrate into the workforce. Provinces are
also moving in that direction. Let me point out that the
predecessor to the human resources development minister made a
commitment to helping older workers adapt to the changing labour
market and considered a variety of measures including income
support benefits before concluding that active measures would
best serve his client group.
I assure the member this decision was not taken lightly and we
will continue to help Canadians affected by layoffs in the best
way possible.
[Translation]
With regard to Lab Chrysotile, this is reflected in the generous
offer of close to $3 million made by our government to help the
employees at the BC mine re-enter the workforce.
People will benefit from adequate active measures including
self-employment, targeted wage subsidies and skill development,
which will increase the employability of these people and help
them re-enter the workforce as quickly as possible.
1930
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)