36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 71
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 11, 1998
1400
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RED DEER CONSTITUENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CAMBRIAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOME CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUG LICENSING
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-368. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Ianno |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLIDAYS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-369. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOLIDAYS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-370. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RECALL ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-371. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSTITUTION ACT, 1997 (REPRESENTATION)
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-372. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat O'Brien |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gulf War
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1515
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réginald Bélair |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1520
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline Prices
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-8. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
1525
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1530
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1545
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1625
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1630
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-6. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Raymond Chan |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BROADCASTING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-288
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1755
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1800
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1815
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1820
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1825
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Infrastructure
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1830
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sable Island Natural Gas
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1835
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Self-government
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1840
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1845
![V](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 71
![](/web/20061116182357im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 11, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
1400
[English]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now
sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Halifax.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to stand in the House today to join Canadians and
the world in marking March 8 to 14 as International Women's Week.
The theme for this year's celebration is: The Evolution of
Women's Rights: A Lifelong Commitment. This theme highlights the
importance of women's human rights while emphasizing the long
term commitment necessary to further women's equality.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre we celebrated the contributions
of women to Canadian society by holding the first annual
International Women's Day breakfast featuring two women who have
demonstrated vision in their fields.
As we honour International Women's Week, let us reaffirm our
dedication to the challenge of promoting fairness, equity and
respect for human rights here in Canada and around the world.
* * *
RED DEER CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like so many
MPs, I toured around my riding last week to find out what the
people thought. The people of the riding of Red Deer gave me
four messages to bring back to this house.
The first one was to demand lower taxes. They do not accept the
finance minister's glib comments about tax cuts and how he is
helping people.
Second, unlike the Liberals they understand that debt and taxes
kill jobs. They expect the national debt to be paid off.
Third, the people of central Alberta demand an elected Senate.
It is obvious the days of patronage are quickly coming to an end
in the upper chamber.
Finally, the people of the Red Deer constituency are proud
Canadians. They are proud of their two Olympic athletes who
competed in Japan and they are proud of the Canadian flag. Their
message echoes across this country that they want to see the flag
honoured in this place.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA-FRANCE INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the 28th annual meeting of the Canada-France
InterParliamentary Association was held last week in France.
Nine of our parliamentarians from both Houses attended this
meeting.
Discussions focused on our health services, the Kyoto agreement,
women and politics, the proposed multilateral agreement on
investment, the building of the European Union and the role
played by the Canadian Armed Forces during the second world war.
Our two countries share many concerns and interests: efforts to
restore fiscal health through deficit reduction of course, but
also through strategic social investments; the realization that
some so-called national problems can only be addressed within the
context of strengthened international co-operation, particularly
as regards the environment; common values and interests to uphold
in negotiating the multilateral agreement, with respect to the
cultural exemption in particular.
Finally, we noted our French counterparts' conviction that the
future of our societies is dependent on the strengthening—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Liberals saw the light. The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine recognized that the sovereignists were
doing a fine job of managing Quebec's finances, since investments
there will grow by 8.4% in 1998, as compared with 6.2% in Canada
and 5% in Ontario.
The Bloc Quebecois applauds both these pieces of good news:
investments for Quebec and the Bouchard government receiving
acclaim from the Liberals.
After discovering that there is water on the moon, it is very
encouraging to see that members across the floor are waking up.
1405
I have also noticed that the Liberals admitted this week that
sovereignists are doing a good job in Quebec, and they also
support a Conservative to lead the Quebec Liberal Party.
Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the members across the way
have finally realized that behind every problem in Quebec there
is a Liberal?
* * *
[English]
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the 150th anniversary of responsible
government in Canada.
In marking it, we must remind ourselves that our role in this
House, our ability to represent our constituents in this great
democracy, has its roots in the work in 1848 of those who fought
for the principles of representative government.
[Translation]
Today, it is our duty to salute the efforts of three men: Joseph
Howe, of Nova Scotia, as well as Robert Baldwin and Louis
Hippolyte Lafontaine, of the United Canada.
When we reflect on the achievements of these men it reminds us
of our role as members of Parliament. And when we reflect on the
efforts of Baldwin and Lafontaine, two friends united in their
fight for democracy, we realize that this country was built
through the joint, hard work of francophones and anglophones.
I respect their memory and I believe the best way to celebrate
their democratic victory is to make sure the country they loved
so much remains strong and united.
* * *
[English]
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
National Research Council's successful industrial research
assistance program is one of the most important mechanisms for
supporting innovation and helping small business create and adopt
new technologies.
Every year IRAP provides technical advice to more than 10,000
companies and provides financial assistance in support of
research and development to more than 3,000 companies.
The industrial research assistance program supports a national
technology network that involves 150 public and private sector
organizations.
It is for this reason that this government will increase this
successful program by an additional $34 million to $130 million
this year, an increase of 35% from 1997.
IRAP will provide greater support to small businesses in
adopting new technologies and developing new products for
commercial markets.
This new investment, along with other initiatives such as
technology partnerships Canada and the Canadian foundation for
innovation, complements this government's continuing commitment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kelowna.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent appointment of Ross Fitzpatrick of Kelowna to the Senate
of Canada is an excellent example of why the Senate should be
reformed.
Mr. Fitzpatrick is a very successful businessman. He has been a
friend of the Prime Minister for many years. They are golfing
buddies. They are political buddies. Mr. Fitzpatrick was
influential in the Prime Minister's leadership campaign. The
Prime Minister comes to Kelowna and stays at his friend's house.
Mr. Fitzpatrick was not elected. He is in the Senate because of
his friendship with the Prime Minister. He is not accountable to
the people of B.C. He is accountable only to the Prime Minister
who appointed him without consultation of the people. This is
not a voice of the people of B.C. It is a voice of the Prime
Minister in the Senate. Enough of such patronage.
Yes, the time has come to elect senators and establish
accountability to the people, not the Prime Minister.
* * *
CAMBRIAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Tuesday I was pleased to announce a $2.28 million investment
by technology partnerships Canada in a Cambrian Systems
Corporation project. The project will create up to 220 jobs
directly in the Ottawa region and approximately 71 indirect jobs
across Canada by 2001.
This repayable TPC investment means that the Government of
Canada is partnering with Cambrian Systems Corporation of Kanata
in the design, manufacturing and marketing of fibre optic
communications transport equipment which will revolutionize
information highway connectivity.
As the need grows for networks to carry more information,
Cambrian will act as a catalyst in the development of a new
system using individual colours of light to transmit information
over fibre optics. Known as DWDM based photonics networking, this
technology is expected to become an important means of
communicating in the next millennium.
This investment by Industry Canada will ensure that this
important communications system will reach the marketplace
sooner, to the benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, the
government wishes to commemorate the inception, in 1848, of the
first responsible government in the United Canada.
The government is right in saying that the victory of the
Lafontaine-Baldwin coalition is an important step in the
evolution of democracy in Canada, and that this coalition is an
example of co-operation between francophones and anglophones.
1410
But what this federal government does not tell us is that the
very foundation of the alliance between Lafontaine and Baldwin
was their willingness to recognize as equals and partners the two
peoples living side by side in a united Canada. In other words,
when Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin joined
forces, what moved them was a recognition of, and respect for,
the two founding peoples.
Since the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the
federal government has denied that reality. Since then, it has
ridden roughshod over the principles of 1848. It seeks to deny
the very existence of the Quebec people.
It prefers arrogance and confrontation to the recognition and
respect that prevailed at the time.
For this reason, we shall not be participating today in this
commemoration of 1848.
* * *
[English]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the last several years this government has put in place key
building blocks for renewing Canada's innovation system.
In 1996 we announced technology partnerships Canada, a program
to promote technological development and to make Canadian firms
more competitive. In 1997 we announced the Canada foundation for
innovation, aimed at investing in infrastructure for research and
development in universities, colleges and hospitals. We also
stabilized funding for the networks of centres of excellence.
In the budget just a few weeks ago we increased funding to the
granting councils. This new funding will increase support to
graduate students engaged in research through scholarships,
post-doctoral fellowships and project grants. This new funding
will also help the granting councils expand partnerships between
university researchers and the private sector.
I am proud that this government is committed to making Canada
more innovative by supporting science, technology and the
creation of knowledge.
* * *
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the 150th anniversary of responsible
government in Canada. On March 11, 1848 the great ministry of
Baldwin and Lafontaine was sworn in, forming Canada's first
elected and accountable cabinet.
Who were Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine? They were not
members of the autocratic, top down family compacts who thought
it was their God given right to govern Canada forever. No, they
were the leaders of the Reform Parties of Upper and Lower Canada.
What united these people, one a francophone and one an
anglophone? Not expediency. Not love of patronage. But a deep
commitment to reforming the outmoded government system of their
day to make it more democratic and accountable.
[Translation]
Long live the memory of Lafontaine. Long live the memory of
Baldwin. Long live the spirit of reform.
* * *
CANADA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 2, the body known as the Federal Office of Regional
Development—Quebec became the Economic Development Agency of
Canada for Regions of Quebec, or simply Canada Economic
Development.
This new title will better reflect its mission and our
government's strategy for ensuring the growth of Quebec's
businesses and regions.
Today's economic context offers businesses in the regions of
Quebec the possibility of expanding their influence throughout
the entire world. Canada Economic Development will therefore
devote itself fully to supporting their efforts to develop their
potential and gain their fair share of the world economy.
This is one more example of an excellent initiative by our
government to create employment, enhance collective wealth and
ensure the economic development of the regions of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
are increasingly concerned about the multilateral agreement on
investment being negotiated by this government.
The MAI was hatched in secrecy. It could deal away our
sovereignty. Canadians do not believe they are getting straight
answers.
In the face of government evasion, citizens are taking matters
into their own hands and educating themselves. For example, a
group in Regina is organizing a conference to be held in 10 days
time.
A member of that group, Dr. Joseph Kos, has been trying for five
months to get some answers from this government or to have
somebody from the government participate in the conference. So
far Dr. Kos and his fellow citizens have come up empty handed.
The federal government has been unwilling to provide a speaker,
despite letters to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for
International Trade and to the Minister of Natural Resources in
whose constituency this conference will take place. They do not
have any answers.
This kind of stonewalling is not an isolated occurrence. It is
occurring in other jurisdictions as well.
We urge the government to begin taking its responsibilities
seriously and to provide a speaker for this conference.
* * *
1415
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in September 1995 the federal Minister of Transport signed a
contract to pay $16.2 million to build a highway in New Brunswick
between Moncton and River Glade on the one condition that the
provincial government also contribute $16.2 million to the
highway.
Both the province and the federal government paid their $16.2
million, but immediately the provincial government took its share
back out. Now tolls will be charged to make up for the missing
money. The result will be that one truck making one trip per day
for a year from Fredericton to Truro will pay over $27,000 a year
in tolls.
I have received almost 1,000 letters from people from the
affected area. They request that the Minister of Transport
demand the Government of New Brunswick to restore its share of
the money and honour the terms of the contract it signed.
I will deliver these letters to the minister today, which
reflect the outrage of the people in the area, and demand that
the minister provide the same treatment for the people of New
Brunswick as for the rest of the country.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government presented the budget a few weeks
ago, many Canadians suspected that the finance minister had used
creative accounting to avoid showing a surplus. That way the
government could say there was no money for major debt reduction
or tax relief.
Now the auditor general has confirmed those suspicions. He is
threatening not to sign off on the budget because of serious
breaches in accounting practices.
Why is the Prime Minister not following proper public sector
accounting principles in the preparation of the budget? What is
the government trying to hide?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office in 1993 we discovered to our
amazement that there were a number of obligations of the
government that had not been accounted for. There were
commitments looking ahead which had not been booked into the
numbers. In fact a fair amount of clean-up had to be done. I
wish the auditor general at that point had insisted on a far
greater degree of transparency.
We took the decision at that point that the books of this
government would be more transparent than anybody else's books
and that Canadians would understand exactly the financial
situation of the country, and that we would not hide numbers.
That is what we have done in this particular case.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is unwise to criticize the auditor
general. The auditor general says the Prime Minister is breaking
the government's own accounting rules. This is the third time he
has said it. If the auditor general cannot trust the budget, how
can the public or this House trust the budget?
Here are the facts. If the Prime Minister had followed
acceptable accounting rules, there would have been a $2.5 billion
surplus. But the books were cooked to show no surplus, meaning
less tax relief and debt reduction for Canadians.
Is not the real reason the books were cooked so that there would
be no surplus left for real tax relief or real debt reduction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud that because of the good management of
this government and the Minister of Finance, we were able to take
$2.5 billion and put it aside to make sure that the millennium
project will mean scholarships for 100,000 Canadians over 10
years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this explanation does not wash with the auditor general.
When the number one watchdog for the budget starts to bark, this
House had better listen.
The auditor general said he cannot approve the federal budget
without a major disclaimer. He says the government is guilty of
“serious breaches” of accounting rules. This is a very serious
charge and it demands an explanation from the Prime Minister.
Were the books cooked to hide the surplus from tax weary
Canadians? Is that not the real reason?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the first time in my public life that I have
been accused of telling everything ahead of time, and telling too
much of the truth by telling the people that we are putting $2.5
billion aside in a special account to give to a special group
100,000 scholarships a year.
I will accept the blame that I am too open with the Canadian
public, but I think it was the right thing to do under the
circumstances.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's chief accountant, the auditor general, says the finance
minister is cooking the books. That is a fact. This is so
serious that the auditor general is now saying that he is very
reluctant to sign off on these books, an action which he says
“waves a red flag that the government is misrepresenting or
distorting its financial position”.
I ask the finance minister again why he has decided that his
own political agenda is more important than the integrity of the
public finances.
1420
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the Reform Party advocating hiding the
government's clearly committed obligations? What does the Reform
Party have against transparency?
The fact is that accounting principles evolve. In the private
sector if you incur an obligation you book it right away. It may
be that the private sector's accounting principles evolved faster
than the government's in the fact that we are always ahead.
We are with the private sector. We are with openness. We are
with transparency.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is that $2.5 billion have been removed from taxpayers'
pockets. The surplus belongs to them. They want tax relief.
The auditor general says that he will not sign off on the
government's books because the finance minister's accounting
cannot be trusted, $2.5 billion for the millennium scholarship
fund.
Why will the finance minister not admit the real reason he has
done this is that he is preparing for his leadership run and he
needs this for a slush fund?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, finally the truth comes out. It is not the accounting
that bothers members of the Reform Party; it is the millennium fund.
They are against 100,000 Canadian students getting $3,000 a
year. That is what they are against. They are against
recognizing that jobs come from education. That is what they are
against. They are against us spending money on the future of young
Canadians. That is what they are against.
If they are against young Canadians, why do they not admit it
and not hide behind a bunch of accountants?
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on January 8, the auditor general asked for additional information
from Heritage Canada on the $4.8 million funding for Option Canada.
The office of the auditor general wrote “We consider it vital
to obtain specific information on what in fact was done, produced
and obtained with the funding provided by Heritage Canada”.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she
acted on this request and what exactly the funds given Option
Canada were used for?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have written the chairman of Option Canada, and I expect
an answer soon.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I imagine the minister has some responsibility in the
administration of budgets, and I would like her to confirm that
this money was in fact paid out according to the objectives of the
Heritage Canada program and not according to the referendum
objectives of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to two internal reports by the Department of Canadian
Heritage, the first signed by Bill Coleman on March 31, 1997, and
the second signed by Ann Scotton on August 22, 1997, the grant
applications submitted in 1995 by Option Canada met only two of the
22 conditions necessary in the circumstances.
On November 5, the minister told us that everything had been
done according to the rules. How, then, does she explain that
Option Canada's application was approved, when it met only two of
the 22 grant criteria?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given that the letters mentioned by the member opposite
were personally forwarded by me to the opposition, she should know
that, when the analysis was done, our department's audit bureau
made all the necessary changes in the current system.
Right now, the criteria are consistent with Treasury Board
requirements. She should know, because it says so in her own
documents.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not
only did the grant application not meet the criteria, but we have
learned that $2 million of this grant went out to Option Canada 12
days before the application was submitted.
1425
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the documents, including the date payments were made,
were supplied to the opposition in January and they contain all
this information. I have already explained to the member and her
colleagues that, once we saw that the criteria had not been met, we
did the necessary follow-up.
There is nothing else in the file, given that we were the ones
who supplied them with the information they are now supposedly
bringing to light here in the House.
* * *
[English]
HOME CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are sick and tired of waiting for home care. Yet the
health minister told home care delegates in Halifax that
Canadians may have to wait up to two more years. That is not
good enough, not for the sick, not for family caregivers and not
for health care providers.
Will the health minister accelerate the introduction of
comprehensive home care by establishing in partnership with the
provinces a 90 day emergency task force to get on with home care
once and for all?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has said that it will work with provincial
partners toward the creation of a national approach to home and
community care to fill the gaps that are now evident in the
health care system, to meet unmet needs and to ensure Canadians
wherever they may live in the country can rely on a standard of
care at any point in their lives which is equivalent to the
principles we hold dear.
Four hundred Canadians from across the country met in Halifax
this week. The meeting just ended yesterday. From that meeting
it became clear that in the months ahead we must work to prepare
this plan so that we get it right.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this week the minister acknowledged that inadequate home care was
causing health care crises across the country each and every day.
He avoided mention of the $3.5 billion that his government hacked
out of health care and the pain and suffering it is causing
Canadians.
Will the minister sit down with the provinces and health care
partners to work co-operatively? Will he accept the conference
recommendation to begin significant funding and set standards for
home care no later than 1999, no later than next year's budget?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the process of collaboration, of forming partnerships with
provincial governments and others, has already begun. We have
already begun to identify specific concrete steps that can be
taken to move on the principles I have described.
The answer is not as the NDP would have us do, simply to throw
dollars at the issue. The answer surely is to come to understand
where the effort is needed most and to work with partners to
prepare the proper response. That is exactly what the government
is committed to do.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, thousands
of Canadians are suffering from hepatitis C which they contracted
through no fault of their own.
Yesterday victims who contracted the disease before 1986 and
after 1990 filed a class action lawsuit. This issue is about
people who have been suffering since the early 1980s and have
waited long enough.
When will the Minister of Health start to show some compassion
and treat all these victims equally? A lengthy and costly court
case is not in any party's interest.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has been saying since before the delivery of the
Krever report that a lengthy litigation is not in the interest of
anyone. We have been anxious to find a way to resolve these
tragic errors of the past in a humane and fair way. We remain
committed to just that process.
I should tell the hon. member that in my judgment it is in the
best interest of the victims and the federal and provincial
governments to take a co-ordinated approach in this regard. I
have been working toward that result. I hope that within a very
short while I will be able to announce with my provincial
partners a resolution that will meet the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Justice
Krever stated in his report “compensating some needy sufferers
and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. This is
exactly what the victims are saying.
These are people who are suffering through no fault of their own
and people are dying.
1430
The government appointed Justice Krever and now it does not want
to listen to him? Where is the leadership on the other side?
Will the minister treat all victims equally, in the same manner,
the way Justice Krever suggests?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have told the member and the House, the government intends
to act. It is our hope that we can act in concert with the
provinces in the interest of the victims.
However, one can search the record and one's memory and not find
a trace of any action taken on behalf of these victims by the
hon. member's party when it was in power over the period of 1993.
It has been left to us to act and we will accept our
responsibility.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, picture
this. A civilian employee, a maintenance worker of the defence
department, gave testimony before the defence committee in Cold
Lake in January.
Shortly after she received a letter from the office of the judge
advocate general warning her that it would be in her best
interest not to speak out against the department.
Will the minister advise the House whether this lady has been
singled out for intimidation, or is this routine procedure in his
department?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know of the specific case the
hon. member is referring to but I will say one thing. It is our
policy to treat people fairly and humanely and to make sure that
in any of these cases we get to the bottom of the truth and treat
people in a fair fashion.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Ms.
Simone Olafson who works at the base in Cold Lake received this
letter from Major Barber, deputy judge advocate, after her
appearance before the defence committee.
She is chastised for saying negative things about his
department. The letter from the JAG's office concludes with the
warning “govern yourself accordingly”.
Ms. Olafson has been betrayed. When will the minister apologize
to these people for encouraging them to appear before the
committee and then betraying them?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to look at the facts of this
situation, but from the way this member and other hon. members in
the opposition have approached these subjects in the past, they
certainly do not get their facts right. We need to get to the
bottom of this, look at it properly, and not rely upon their kind
of information.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the use of
funds at Option Canada, the minister has just said that she
provided all the necessary details.
I have to say that she and her department have always turned
down our requests for information, and only through access to
information legislation, two and a half years after the fact, did
we get the answers we now have.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage say that the
management of the funds was carefully monitored, when three
internal memos from her own department and two internal reports say
the very opposite?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my reports here in this House were timely.
I would again point out that I personally provided all the
documents the member opposite refers to. We have nothing to hide.
We have monitored the matter and changed procedures to ensure that
the situation will never recur.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone
knows about using the Access to Information Act when information is
being withheld. That is what we had to do.
How could the Minister of Canadian Heritage appear before the
Standing Committee on Heritage on November 5 last year and say that
all expenditures were in compliance with the rules of Treasury
Board, when she had two memos on October 8 and 9 from her
department saying the opposite and especially when that very day,
in her department, a report was submitted to her indicating that
funds were being managed very badly? How does she explain that?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my testimony before the committee, I clearly said, and
the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Moyer, followed it up, that the
procedures in place when the contributions were made were
consistent with the requirements of Treasury Board, and nothing has
changed in this matter.
* * *
1435
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of Indian affairs has conceded that the unauthorized leaking of
Bruce Starlight's letter was wrong. The privacy commissioner
says her department in fact broke the law.
On Monday, after more than two full months, the minister finally
apologized to Mr. Starlight but that will not pay his legal
bills.
The Liberals had no trouble coughing up more than $2 million to
the former prime minister when they leaked one of his
confidential letters.
Will the minister commit here and now to pay Mr. Starlight's
legal fees?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member has been, but indeed one of the first things I did upon
receiving the report of the investigator was to call Mr.
Starlight and indicate that we would pay for his legal fees.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we asked the
minister repeatedly in the House to make that commitment and she
has only made it right now.
In the matter of Bruce Starlight—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have
asked the minister consistently for over a month and this is the
first time we had a commitment to pay those legal fees.
In the matter of this leaked letter the privacy commissioner and
the minister of Indian affairs found that correspondence in her
office was handled in a lax manner. Both investigations
concluded “physical security afforded to sensitive
correspondence was poor and did not comply with government
policy”.
Could the minister tell us who in her office is responsible for
security of sensitive correspondence?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in the
House and as I have explained publicly, the recommendations made
to me by the investigator indicated quite clearly that there were
lax approaches.
We are taking action against the seven recommendations that he
made. Indeed individuals have been named in the department to
deal with confidential information, to classify it appropriately
and to manage it effectively in my department.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In recent years, francophone groups outside Quebec have
suffered some very severe cuts. In Saskatchewan, for example, 43%
of their funding was cut. Preparations are under way for renewal
of these agreements with the francophone communities outside
Quebec.
Can the minister justify not having found any extra funds for
the francophone communities, when the latest census data show just
what a drastic situation these communities are in?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, we are in the process of negotiating, with the
provinces, the renewal of the Canada-communities agreement.
What I find most interesting is that the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois is getting booed during his travels around Saskatchewan.
They have rejected him outright because he does not acknowledge
that there can be francophone Canadians. He wants a francophone
Quebec and an anglophone Saskatchewan.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
Minister has misread the papers again today.
The department she represents has expended huge amounts of
energy to turn up another $10 million in funding, in order to
finance the Council for Canadian Unity and Options Canada.
Could the minister expend the same amount of energy to turn up
additional funding to save the francophones outside Quebec? Or
does she only have energy for flags?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the present time we are, through a number of different
programs, funding education and support for francophone communities
outside Quebec to the tune of $1.2 billion.
I find it absolutely incredible, ridiculous even, that the
same Bloc MPs who want to separate Quebec from Canada, who want to
have a French Quebec and an English Saskatchewan, should pretend to
be demanding rights for minority francophones in Saskatchewan.
This is nothing but crocodile tears, all for show.
* * *
1440
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the problems
in Kosovo have been escalating daily. The minister's answer to
that is that we should impose some sanctions. We know that
sanctions will not work in the short term.
People are dying over there and the minister comes up with this
idea of sanctions, just a token gesture. Does this minister not
have any other ideas that will stop the killings in Kosovo?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to share information with the hon.
member. As he knows, not only did Canada impose a series of
sanctions but the same decision was taken by the United States,
Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany to establish the same
kind of sanctions, to establish a mediator and to meet again in
10 days to determine whether further action should be taken.
Already we have had some responses.
President Milosevic has offered to meet with groups of Albanians
in Kosovo. We are taking very tough and very direct action.
I do not think the hon. member would like to precipitate a major
conflict in that area without making sure that we—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
been there since 1991. We are not part of the contact group and
yet we have been a major part of this issue.
Why will the minister not at least, when negotiating with the
Americans, particularly yesterday with Madam Albright, emphasize
the fact that we should be part of that contact group and part of
the decision making? Sanctions are just not going to be enough.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we made those exact points.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C VICTIMS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government, the Ontario government and the Red Cross are being sued for
nearly $4 billion.
The announcement of the lawsuit coincides with the rumour about the
federal government not planning to compensate those infected with
hepatitis C before 1986 and after 1990.
Does the minister recognize that it would be unfair and
discriminatory to compensate only hepatitis C victims contaminated
between 1986 and 1990, when the people infected with the AIDS virus,
directly or indirectly—
The Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concerning
the whole issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims, we are
currently working with our provincial partners to find a fair and
equitable solution.
Hopefully, we will be able to make an announcement in the coming
weeks, in co-operation with the provinces, about compensation for the
victims.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Natural Resources.
[English]
It has been reported that reducing greenhouse gases in Canada
will cost $100 billion over the next 15 years. With this kind of
huge expenditure, can Canada afford to meet its obligations under
the Kyoto agreement?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the same media reports quoting that figure, the
reports went on to indicate that the costs of not responding to
our Kyoto obligations would be even higher.
With our work on the voluntary registry, our work on energy
efficiency, our work on renewables and alternatives, our work on
co-generation, on new technology, development and diffusion, our
development of international flexibility tools like emissions
trading, indeed we can meet our obligations and we can build the
economy at the same time.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Jason
Gamache was a convicted young sex offender, but the public did
not know this. An unsuspecting mother hired him to babysit her
six year old daughter. He raped and murdered that little girl.
I ask the justice minister if she would commit today to amend
the Young Offenders Act so that the publication of the names of
young offenders who threaten the lives and the safety of members
of society can be published.
1445
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I am
indeed working on a response, and a fulsome response, to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The hon. member
was a member of that committee and I have made it clear to him
and others on a number of occasions that this response will be
forthcoming in a few weeks.
I look forward to the positive contribution of the hon. member
and others as we renew the youth justice system in this country.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
already made our response to the cries from across this land to
do something about that issue in our private member's bill which
was tabled in the House last September.
I want to know why the justice minister has been dragging her
feet for so long on a whole host of issues that not only the
parliamentary report submitted to this House has urged her to
move on but others as well. Why has she dragged her feet so long
on this issue?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that most people
in this honourable House know that the renewal of the youth
justice system in this country is a complex, multifaceted issue.
Therefore, unlike some in this House, I actually want to consult
with those who are key stakeholders in the youth justice system.
I want to reassure the hon. member that our response to the
standing committee report will be forthcoming in a matter of
weeks.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
defence minister is pushing alternative service delivery at
military bases across this country, saying it will save money. He
has failed to produce one single audit to substantiate this
claim.
At 5 Wing base in Labrador the British company SERCO contracted
to run the base will receive bonuses of $1 million annually.
While several hundred civilian employees are condemned to
unemployment and wage reductions, the minister sits idly by as
ex-military brass line their pockets with SERCO.
When will the minister halt this unfair attack on the people of
Goose Bay, Labrador?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the research behind the statement before
the question is wrong. What we are attempting to do is in fact
save the base, save jobs and provide a service to our allies who
use the base for low level flying in an efficient and effective
way in the hopes they will use the base in the future.
We have to cut costs to do that. However, in doing that we are
treating people fairly and humanely. We are giving them options
under the EDI and ERI departure incentives as well as options for
other possible jobs.
As well, the company which is taking over the contract has a
plan to offer most of them a job.
* * *
CANADA PORTS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Ports Corporation is offering former ports police in
Halifax hush money. Cash for silence in Halifax.
The solicitor general indicated on Newsworld yesterday that he
met with the RCMP about these and other matters.
Can the solicitor general assure this House that former ports
police in Halifax who signed the gag orders will face no criminal
or civil liability or repercussions if they voluntarily speak
with the RCMP and co-operate with investigations into Canada
Ports Corporation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no contract, no relationship, can interfere with an RCMP
criminal investigation.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
correct the health minister. In 1991 the government did act
unilaterally to compensate the HIV victims. He is wrong on that.
What we are asking is for him to exercise the same moral
responsibility and political leadership that has to be there to
meet this pressing need.
Will he exercise that moral responsibility and political
leadership and compensate these innocent victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if we want to look at the history, the fact is no effort was made
to come to grips with the hepatitis C victims. It is that about
which I was being asked by the hon. member for Saint John.
I hope we can put the hon. member's political thrust aside and
deal with the interest of the victims because that is where our
interest lies.
Over the past several months I have been working with my
provincial counterparts to find a way to compensate the victims
of the hepatitis C tragedy which is humane and fair and keeps the
issue out of the courts. If we can do that I shall be very
happy. That is my objective.
1450
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the way
we are headed, these innocent victims are going to be in court
for 10 years because of lack of leadership by the health
minister. Most of them will be dead before their families receive
any compensation at all.
Is the health minister going to continue to cave in to the
finance minister or is he going to exercise leadership at the
cabinet table? Last week he acknowledged that Canadians are
going to have to come to his rescue and lobby the government.
What does he want, 65,000 victims marching on Parliament Hill to
get action or will he do it on his own?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is so distracted by his own tiresome rhetoric
that he is not listening to the answer.
The answer is that this government, with one voice, is trying to
find a way in collaboration with provincial governments to
compensate victims. That will remain our priority. I am very
hopeful that in the near future we will be able to announce
progress.
* * *
[Translation]
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Today marks an important milestone in the history of Canada.
On March 11, 1848, the first cabinet of the responsible government
of the time was sworn in in the Province of Canada, now Ontario and
Quebec. It was the achievement of a coalition involving Louis
Hippolyte Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin.
What is the government doing to mark this most important
milestone in the history of Canada, which may serve as a rallying
point for all Canadians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
It was indeed a very important point. The capital of the
united province, or Province of Canada, was Montreal in 1848.
Today, after question period, I invite all members who believe in
responsible democracy to come and join with us. There was Mr.
Lafontaine, who had a seat in Ontario, and Mr. Baldwin, who had a
seat in Quebec. In Canada we can live together whatever language
we speak.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
the induction of the Young Offenders Act in 1984 to today the
crimes committed by young offenders, particularly violent ones,
have escalated to unbelievable proportions. I cannot understand
for a moment why some things are so dense that this cannot get
through, that it is not working.
My question is for the justice minister. The minister is going
to be introducing some white paper regarding the Young Offenders
Act. Apparently her first priority of animal abusers is over
with and now we are going to get serious. My question to the
minister is simple. What is taking so long?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify for the hon.
member that we have no intention of introducing a white paper in
relation to the renewal of the youth justice system.
As I have already pointed out in response to another hon.
member's question, the youth justice system and its renewal is a
complex and important issue. I am going to take the time
required to consult the people most concerned.
* * *
[Translation]
DRUG LICENSING
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
There are 50,000 people living with HIV or AIDS in Canada. However,
six drugs, whose efficiency in the treatment of HIV and AIDS has been
proven, have yet to be approved by the Health Protection Branch, and
this after more than 14 months.
What does the Minister of Health have to say to people with HIV or
AIDS who need these drugs but have to do without because of the
inefficiency of the drug licensing process in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Health has the responsibility to ensure that drugs
submitted for assessment are safe before we approve them.
Last week in Vancouver I met several persons concerned by this
issue. I made the commitment to review once again the process in place
within the department to ensure that we are effectively fulfilling our
responsibilities.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development Canada.
Since the southern part of Albert County and the
Salisbury—Petitcodiac area are rural areas, and are outside the
Moncton Census Agglomeration, since the minister has all the
statistics indicating that these areas have a very high
unemployment rate, and since the federal government excluded the
parish of Dorchester in 1994, in between the five year review,
will the minister immediately exclude the southern part of Albert
County and the Salisbury—Petitcodiac area from the urban
employment insurance zone for New Brunswick?
1455
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has had the
opportunity to meet with some of my officials. I know she
presented her case at that time. I understand that my officials
have asked her to present more information to support her case.
I will be happy to look into it more carefully when she has
provided the information we need.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the Minister of Health to listen to the words of an innocent
hepatitis C victim, a constituent of mine, Connie Lake.
Connie told me: “I just wish they would put an end to the games
they are playing with the compensation. I am so disappointed in
this Liberal government”.
On what date can Connie Lake expect compensation or will she be
forced to sign on to a class action suit as her last resort?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in my judgment the interests of that victim and the interests of
all Canadians affected by the hepatitis C tragedy are best served
by an approach toward compensation involving both levels of
government. That has been our objective.
We could have acted by ourselves but we chose not to. We are
looking for an agreement with provincial governments and I think
we are now close to that agreement. I hope in the weeks ahead to
be in a position to announce co-ordinated action between both
levels of government to deal with the interests of that victim
and others.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As a member who represents a large rural riding I am very
concerned about farm safety. Between 1991 and 1995 there were
502 work related fatalities on the farm. Of those, 10% were
children.
Can he tell this House what this government is doing to promote
safety on our Canadian farms?
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my 27
years of medical practice, I have had the opportunity to see the
tragic consequences of farm accidents.
That is why my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I want
to acknowledge National Farm Safety Week this year. More than 500
Canadians, 10% of whom were children, died in farm accidents between
1991 and 1995, and farm equipment was involved in 70% of these
accidents.
[English]
I want to say to Canadian farmers, take care of your life, take
care of your health and take care of your family.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister as recently as this week has said he is in
favour of a reformed Senate. He has also said he is in favour of
an elected Senate.
This year Albertans will be electing representatives to fill the
Senate vacancies. Will the Prime Minister commit to this House
and to Canadians today that he will appoint those duly elected
Albertans to the Senate when a vacancy arises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we had the occasion to vote for an elected Senate I
remember very well that his party opposed an elected Senate and
rejected the Charlottetown accord.
When there is a reform of the Senate it will apply to all
elements, election, equality and effectiveness. Otherwise there
will be 6 senators from Alberta and 30 from the maritimes
forever. The maritimes, having 30 senators, will never give them
up. They will keep them and I would not blame them.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for regional development.
Two hundred employees of the seafood plant of eastern Quebec
have worked long and hard finalizing plans to buy the plant.
Only the federal government is dragging its feet.
1500
Is the future of 200 families in Matane important to this
minister and to this government? If so, let them give the go-ahead
as quickly as possible.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development—Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you are
well aware, this government plays a role in regional economic
development. It does so through Canada Economic Development, with
the emphasis on assistance to small and medium-size businesses. It
helps regions take advantage of the era of globalization.
The question raised by the opposition member has to do with
the acquisition of businesses or essentially transactions in which
the government cannot intervene, particularly through Canada
Economic Development.
Obviously, we are concerned about the situation, but the fact
remains that Canada Economic Development cannot intervene. We
will, however, be following developments closely.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to ask for unanimous consent of the House to table a copy
of the letter I referred to in question period.
The minister questioned the facts surrounding the case. I want
him to have a look at it so he can deal with it.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Speaker: There is not consent.
* * *
1505
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Department of Health Act (security of the child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and is an
honour to introduce this enactment which removes the
justification in the Criminal Code available to school teachers,
parents and persons standing in the place of parents, of using
force as a means of correction toward a pupil or child under
their care.
It also clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health by
specifying that the power to promote and preserve the physical,
mental and social well-being of the people of Canada, includes
the power to educate Canadians about the health and social risks
associated with the corporal punishment of children, the
alternative to its use, and the health and social benefit of
respecting the right to security of children.
It further clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health
respecting the co-ordination of efforts with provincial
authorities to establish guidelines relating to the protection of
children and law enforcement services for children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-369, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Sir
Wilfrid Laurier Day) and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House
two private members bills, both seconded by the member for
Brossard—La Prairie.
The first one is an act to amend the Holidays Act to declare
November 20 a national holiday recognizing the birthday of a true
nation builder, Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
[Translation]
The purpose is to declare this day as a national holiday, as a
tribute to one of modern Canada's builders.
[English]
Laurier was our first French speaking prime minister. It is
important for Canadians to recognize the contributions that
Laurier made to the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill 370, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Sir John A.
Macdonald Day) and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the second one is an act to amend the
Holidays Act to declare January 11 a national holiday recognizing
the birthday of Sir John A. MacDonald, our first prime minister.
It is important for Canadians to recognize their political
leaders and I so present the bill to the House today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1510
RECALL ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-371, an act to establish the right of electors
to recall members of Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of democratic reform I
am pleased to introduce a bill which when passed will allow for
the recall of a member of Parliament for good reason.
The signature threshold requirement and the general mechanics of
the bill are modelled after recall legislation which has been in
place in some of the United States for more than 75 years and has
been modified to fit our parliamentary system.
Almost three years of research and preparation went into this
bill because of the serious nature of the subject.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1997 (REPRESENTATION)
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-372, an act to amend the Constitution Act,
1867.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I introduced toward the end of the last
parliament a private member's bill, Bill C-385. The election
took place before the bill was called.
Today I keep the commitment I made publicly to my constituents
to reintroduce the bill in the 36th Parliament if re-elected.
The bill is seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for
Victoria—Haliburton.
The purpose of the bill is to cap the size of the House of
Commons at the current 301 members. Obviously redistribution
would still occur but within that cap. The bill would replace
subsection 51(1), rule 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which
would see the size of the House increase indefinitely.
One only has to do the math to realize that if we had a
population the size of the U.S.A., under our current rules some
day we would have 3,000 members of Parliament. Clearly that is
not an acceptable number of MPs.
The bill seeks to cap the size of the House and to respect that
most basic and fundamental rule of representation by population.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
GULF WAR
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition signed by 819
constituents from my riding of West Nova.
The Government of Canada officially refers to the 1991 gulf war
as special duty area Persian Gulf whereas many government
officials including veterans affairs through press releases and
internal memos use the term gulf war when making reference to
this conflict.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada officially
recognize this conflict as the gulf war, thus resolving confusion
leading to the proper recognition of the valiant efforts of its
approximate 4,000 military members who served in this conflict.
1515
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House of Commons today to
present a petition from 35 residents of Williams Lake in the
constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin.
The petitioners request that Parliament impose a moratorium on
ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the
proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians
can have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.
PENSIONS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a
petition on behalf of a number of people from the Toronto area.
The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to
wind down the CPP while protecting the pensions of current
seniors so that Canadians can contribute to mandatory RRSPs of
their own choosing.
[Translation]
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure of submitting three petitions, two of which are from
several constituents of mine who oppose public nudity.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is to oppose nuclear weapons in Canada and anywhere in
the world.
[English]
CRTC
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to rise to present the
following petition which comes from concerned citizens in my
riding of Lethbridge and contains 364 signatures.
These citizens and many more have expressed their concern and
questioned the CRTC granting rights to a pornographic television
channel while refusing religious television broadcasters.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to review the mandate of
the CRTC and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which
will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition deals with public nudity.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray and request
that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion
by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set
out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition on behalf of a few hundred of my constituents from
Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the
government's plans to radically change the retirement income
system of Canada, the seniors' benefit package.
They have heard all kinds of rumours and they are asking the
Government of Canada to ensure that sufficient hearings are held
across the country to ensure that all Canadians have an
opportunity to indicate their response to the recommendations.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition which deals with our unfair tax system.
The petitioners point out that our tax system is biased, unfair
and unjust, that it is biased in favour of large corporations
over small businesses and that it is biased in favour of upper
income earners as opposed to average working Canadians.
They are asking the Government of Canada to undertake fair tax
reform in such a fashion that every tax exemption is considered
under a cost benefit to Canada and that those which clearly do
not benefit Canada and Canadians should be eliminated.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of
Canadians, including many from my riding of Kitchener Centre.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that as we near the 21st century it is ever more important that
Canada take advantage of the inspiring recommendations made in
the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
released in the fall of 1996, to further the process of
reconciliation between Canada and its aboriginal inhabitants.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to continue its
political dialogue in a negotiation process with First Nations to
address the royal commission's report and recommendations in a
spirit of goodwill, with justice and fairness as its guide.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to table a petition from the right-minded
constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The petitioners urge the federal government and, in particular,
the Minister of Justice to bring about necessary changes to the
Young Offenders Act that would include lowering the age of
identifying perpetrators and seeing that perpetrators who are
deserving of transfer to adult court are transferred.
1520
This petition contains hundreds of names and I table it on
behalf of those people in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including those from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and
that if they lose their lives while on duty the employment
benefits often do not provide sufficient compensation to their
families. The petitioners note that public mourns the loss of
police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of
duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families
in their time of need.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to
establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in
the line of duty.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present a petition signed by 496 people from Saskatchewan
who want the Young Offenders Act to be repealed and replaced with
measures that hold young criminals accountable for their actions.
CRTC
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition which is signed by 275 people who express
a very deep concern about the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission showing a very decided bias against
Christian broadcasters by licensing the pornographic Playboy
channel while on the same day, July 22, 1997, refusing to license
four religious television broadcasters, including the
International Catholic Broadcast and three multi-denominational
applicants.
They view as hostile to them the CRTC's systematic refusal to
license Christian broadcasters while at the same time
consistently licensing sexually explicit and violent programming.
These petitioners state their constitutional right to freedom of
religion, conscience and expression. They appeal to Parliament
to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct the CRTC to
administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of
religious broadcasters.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure this afternoon to present petitions regarding the
ongoing gasoline price saga.
The petitioners are calling upon the Parliament of Canada to
adopt legislation which would require gasoline companies to give
30 days' written notice to the Minister of Natural Resources of
an impending significant increase in the price of gasoline, that
is, an increase of over 1% of the current pump price per litre,
and that such notice should also contain the reason or reasons
for the increase and when it will take effect.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that
all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nunziata): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nunziata): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I was looking over the agenda of the House for
the next little while. Could you give some indication of when we
will start to deal with some really serious issues of importance
to Canadians?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nunziata): That is not an
appropriate point of order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA-YUKON OIL AND GAS ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, an act
respecting an accord between the Governments of Canada and the
Yukon Territory relating to the administration and control of and
legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nunziata): When shall the bill be
read the third time? By leave now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Jane Stewart moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
1525
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to address the House on Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon Oil and
Gas Accord Implementation Act.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of this
legislation which promotes the historic changes that are
occurring in Yukon.
Hon. members have heard how Bill C-8 will provide for the
transfer of the administration and control of onshore oil and gas
from Canada to the Yukon government. It will also give the
territorial government the authority to legislate all aspects of
oil and gas.
Passage of this proposed act is a necessary and logical step in
the Yukon's political evolution.
For too long Ottawa has been making decisions for Whitehorse and
for Yukoners. The time has come to turn control over to those
who live in Yukon so that they may deal with the issues on a
daily basis. That is why the devolution of all remaining
provincial-type powers and programs of the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development in Yukon to the Yukon government
continues to be a priority for this government.
Canada and Yukon have worked together for more than a decade to
respond to northerners' desire for more control over their lives.
The process of placing responsibility where it belongs, at the
local level, is well under way. We are providing the platform
for northerners to find solutions to northern concerns.
[Translation]
For several years now, Yukon has drawn certain advantages from
the transfer of responsibilities. At the present time, it delivers
provincial-type programs in such areas as education, health and
economic development.
The federal government, however, still administers Crown
lands, forestry, water, environmental issues, mines and minerals,
and of course oil and gas.
This current undertaking to transfer oil and gas jurisdiction
shows the government's constant determination to give
provincial-type jurisdictions to the territories. The
administration and control of oil and gas resources constitute
significant and obvious provincial-type functions.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of transferring this
role to the people of the Yukon. Natural resources lie at the very
heart of the Yukon economy. Natural resource development is
essential to the territory's prosperity in the 21st century, as
well as to its residents' survival.
The present government is agreeable to Yukon administration
and control of oil and gas resources. Transfer of this program
represents an important step in the political and economic
evolution of Yukon.
Subsequently, of course, there will have to be a transfer to
the Yukon government of other provincial-type powers and programs
on its territory.
To that end, in January 1997 the federal government announced a
proposal for making such transfers.
I will give a brief explanation of what the transfer of
responsibilities for oil and gas means to the Yukon and its
economy.
[English]
For too long Yukon has had to watch its oil and gas resources go
untapped because of uncertainty over land and resource ownership.
That is changing. Our ongoing negotiations with Yukon First
Nations and efforts to finalize the remaining land claims in the
near future will soon set the stage for a renewal of oil and gas
activities.
The move to transfer onshore oil and gas resources to Yukon will
strengthen northern independence and provide stable, predictable
revenue to the territorial government and Yukon First Nations who
have signed land claims agreements.
Once Canada transfers responsibility, it will no longer be
directly involved in managing oil and gas resources in Yukon.
Canada will, however, maintain jurisdiction over offshore areas.
With the transfer the federal government will pay Yukon the
moneys it has collected in onshore petroleum revenues.
1530
Once the transfer is complete, Yukon will collect the annual
revenues from the Kotaneelee project which are valued at
approximately $1.5 million per year. These revenues will be
shared with the six Yukon First Nations that have land claims
agreements in effect.
The Yukon will enact new territorial legislation that will allow
it to address exploration, development, conservation and
environmental and safety issues. This new territorial
legislation will provide for a management and regulatory regime
that is generally modelled after existing regimes in Canada.
Bill C-8 would allow the governor in council to transfer the
legislative powers to Yukon once the territorial legislation is
in place.
[Translation]
The bill before us today and the transfer process have the
wholehearted support of the Yukon government. Setting the pace of the
transfer, the territorial government said the time had now come for it
to take control of its own oil and gas resources.
The Yukon First Nations also support the bill. Once passed, it will
provide them stable and predictable revenues, as well as signed land
claims agreements, which will help them move toward self-sufficiency and
financial independence.
I would like to congratulate representatives of the Yukon First
Nations and the Yukon government who have been working together to
develop a system to jointly manage oil and gas resources in the Yukon.
This is a historical alliance which bodes well for the development
of the Yukon and further transfers of powers to the territory. This
close co-operation has become even closer as a result of consultations
held by the federal government and the Yukon over the past few years,
which led to the transfer of responsibilities for oil and gas resources
as proposed in the bill before us.
The bill has also the support of the industry. Bill C-8 will help
create a stable and predictable environment, which in turn will attract
new ventures and open up new opportunities to the area.
Passage of the bill will send a clear signal to Yukoners that
Canada is committed to fostering economic development in their
territory.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that all those involved in
the work of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development support this bill and approved its decision to send it back
to the House without amendments.
In view of the widespread support for this major initiative, I urge
my distinguished colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased at long last to rise and speak to Bill C-8, the
Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord implementation act.
This bill has been around for a long time. It was allowed to
die at the end of the last Parliament only to return in this
Parliament to be bounced on and off the Order Paper again
and again. I can only assume that the hesitancy of the
government to deal with this bill has something to do with the
dismal progress being made in finalizing the Yukon land claims
that are before the government and that in fact were passed in
the last Parliament.
Generally, I and my party support this bill and the principles
involved simply because all the stakeholders involved in this
process generally support the bill. The principles of the bill
are to be applauded. However we certainly do have some concerns
with this bill, as we do with so many other bills that the
government introduces and deals with in this House. The bill
goes part way toward achieving its objectives but unfortunately
not all the way.
This bill reflects the government's recognition of the important
role of northern oil and gas exploration in the political
evolution of the Yukon Territory. Canada's territories are the
site of one-quarter of Canada's remaining discovered petroleum
and half of Canada's estimated potential oil and gas resources.
Control over oil and gas exploration and development is the key
to the economic well-being of the territories.
1535
This bill is important to the economic future of the Yukon and
is in fact in accordance with many of Reform's positions on
issues.
First of all the bill calls for the devolution of province-like
powers to the Yukon Territory. By transferring administrative
and legislative control over oil and gas to the Yukon Territory,
the federal government is demonstrating some degree of commitment
to the Yukon Territory's political evolution. We support any
effort that increases provincial or territorial control and
decreases federal control over natural resources, including oil
and gas.
Second, this bill concurs with Reform's belief in the equality
of all provinces. While Reform supports increased power for the
Yukon government, the powers held by the territory should not
exceed those held by the provinces.
This bill does not transfer any powers greater than those held
by the provinces under sections 92, 92(a) and 95 of the
Constitution Act, 1867. As has been reiterated, this equality
among provinces is absolutely essential to the equal treatment of
all Canadians.
While Reform is supportive of this legislation, certain aspects
of the legislation raise important questions. It appears that
through the devolution of province-like powers, the federal
government intends to move the Yukon Territory toward provincial
status. If this is true, it is important that the federal
government start treating the territory as a province. This means
that like other provinces the Yukon government should have some
negotiating power in the settlement of aboriginal land claims.
Instead of giving the Yukon government the opportunity to
participate in the negotiating process however, the government is
retaining the authority to override any territorial government
objections to the way in which land claims are settled. The
federal government is doing this by retaining the right to take
back control of Yukon lands for the settlement and implementation
of land claims.
In recognition of the unique situation in the north, I would
agree it is important that this legislation respect aboriginal
land claims and settlement rights. It is also important that the
legislation not diminish aboriginal treaty rights nor conflict
with existing wildlife, environmental and land management
legislation under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The issue here is not so much the protection of aboriginal
rights as it is an issue of heavy-handed control by the federal
government. If the government were to settle a land claim in any
one of the 10 provinces, one can be certain that a provincial
government would be very active in the negotiating process. Why
then would the government withhold that same negotiating power
from the Yukon government?
While the federal government protects the interests of First
Nations peoples in the Yukon, the territorial government should
have the opportunity to protect the interests of all residents of
the Yukon Territory, native and non-native alike.
This provision also hinders future oil and gas exploration
development. Oil and gas companies may be slow to invest in
exploration and development projects that at a later date may be
affected by the settlement and implementation of land claims.
It had previously been anticipated that negotiations for all of
the Yukon First Nations would have concluded by February 1997.
This anticipated date was then extended to July 1997. As of
today, only half of the Yukon First Nations have reached
agreements while the remaining seven agreements are still being
negotiated.
In order to instil confidence in potential investors, the
government must develop and adhere to a strict time line for land
claim resolution. I would therefore urge the government to
resolve these land claims as expeditiously as possible with the
full participation of the Yukon government so that potential
investors can confidently proceed with oil and gas development in
the Yukon Territory.
There are also concerns regarding the government's retention of
the right to take measures in the event of a sudden oil supply
shortfall. This would be in compliance with Canada's
international obligations as outlined in the International Energy
Agency oil sharing agreement.
The same international obligations were responsible for the
introduction and implementation of the national energy program.
Westerners need not be reminded of the disastrous impact the
national energy program had on Alberta's economy during the last
so-called energy crisis.
Because of the very nature of the north, the Yukon economy is
extremely dependent on oil and gas revenues. It will therefore
suffer even greater hardship should the federal government deem
it necessary to implement controls like those espoused during the
last energy crisis.
There must be some commitment by the government to consider the
impact of its actions on the Yukon economy and on the social and
economic well-being of the Yukon peoples in the event of an oil
supply shortfall or energy crisis.
1540
The legislation affecting the Yukon in this respect should set
the precedent for other provinces, resulting in amendments to the
existing legislation that would protect all provinces from
economic disasters like that brought upon Alberta by the national
energy program. If the political evolution of the Yukon
territory is to proceed, the federal government must commit to
consultations with the Yukon government to find a co-operative
solution to any energy shortfall.
The most positive aspect of this legislation is the economic
power it confers upon the Yukon Territory. Not only will the
Yukon government have jurisdiction over exploration, development,
conservation and management of oil and gas, but over resource
revenues.
This legislation allows the territory to raise revenues by any
mode or system of taxation in respect of oil and gas in the
territory. It also gives the territorial government control over
the export of oil and gas from that territory. This bill will
reduce the Yukon Territory's economic dependence on the federal
government, allowing it to develop its own economy like the
Canadian provinces.
However, there are concerns regarding the sharing of resource
revenues with the federal government. The federal government
still intends to collect a portion of the annual oil and gas
revenues beyond an initial amount of $3 million to offset
transfer payments to the territory which differs from the process
of equalization in the provinces.
Also, I might add that this same provision does not apply in the
First Nations land claims settlements in the Yukon. The First
Nations collect all of the oil and gas resource revenue from oil
and gas development within their territory.
The government's share of the Yukon Territory's revenues after
the initial $3 million could go as high as 80% of those revenues.
I doubt that this level of revenue sharing would ever be
tolerated by the existing provinces.
Despite its shortcomings, this legislation represents an
important first step in the political evolution of the north and
has received support from all the concerned parties. This
legislation is part of a greater process that involves the
devolution of control not only over oil and gas but over
education, health care and economic development in the Yukon
Territory.
This legislation has the potential to lead the Yukon government
down the road of political evolution, but only if the federal
government is committed to treating the Yukon as a developing
province and not some second class political entity.
For these reasons we support this legislation but with some
reservations about the method of implementation.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today at third reading of the bill to implement the
agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of
the Yukon on oil and gas.
If the House will permit me, I want to digress a little to
begin with. The other day, I listened to a Reform member tell us
that the Bloc Quebecois was concerned only about Quebec and that
anything outside of it was of no interest at all to them. I
promised myself that I would respond to that allegation the next
time I spoke. Not only is the Bloc speaking today on the bill, but
I wish to point out that I have in fact visited the Yukon on a
number of occasions.
It is important the Bloc assume some responsibility toward
native nations outside Quebec as well. As the trustee of the
native peoples, the federal government can make decisions in
British Columbia that affect Quebec. I think we are acting
responsibly by giving serious consideration to the type of
legislation before us and by focussing on the priorities of the
native peoples first and foremost.
We have before us today a bill providing for decision making
to be transferred from the central government to a territorial one,
however within the Yukon Territory, there are 14 native nations.
I think it important to look carefully at the native issue in bills
such as this one.
1545
Today, at third reading, we are looking at a bill to implement
provisions of the Canada-Yukon accord signed on May 28, 1993. At
that time, the government undertook to introduce a bill, which it
first did in the last Parliament and which we are now going to
enact in this one.
We are, of course, talking about control of oil and gas
resources. The Yukon will be able to administer and control
exploitation of oil and gas resources on its territory. These are
new legislative powers that are being given to the Yukon. They are
similar to those that have been given to other provinces in their
respective areas of jurisdiction.
It will therefore be up to the Government of Quebec—my
colleagues mentioned jurisdictions earlier—and to the Yukon
government to regulate and manage oil and gas activities. When we
talk about the exploitation of resources, we are talking about
ordinary, concrete concepts, no surprises. We are talking about
gas and oil exploration, naturally, about about their marketing,
production, and preservation as well, because we know that this is
the kind of enterprise where vigilance is required with respect to
the environment and the preservation of natural resources.
These are the kinds of jurisdiction that have now devolved to
the Yukon government: the environment, exports, security and, of
course, the establishment and collection of revenue.
Whereas the federal government was the one to do so, now it is up
to the Yukon government to set the tax base and collect revenue.
The Yukon government must enact legislation based on the
legislation existing elsewhere in the country. And, naturally,
like the federal, the Yukon must not enact legislation that exceeds
other provinces' jurisdictions. In other words, we do not want it
to have special status that goes beyond the jurisdictions and
concessions made to other provinces with respect to the
decentralization of oil and gas resources.
I also think it important to tell people, as I do each time,
where the Yukon is on the map. Our viewers and those listening
know that it is in the western part of the country. In fact, it is
5,000 kilometres from here.
But I think it is also important to put it in the context of the native
issue, which is very important in Western Canada.
To the north of the Yukon is Alaska, which is an American state, as
everyone knows. However, animals that are important to native hunting
and fishing, the wildlife and the fish, do not necessarily respect
borders. There are typical examples of that, with the Porcupine caribou
herd, among others, whose calving grounds are in Alaska but whose
migrations take it to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Therefore, it is important to know there is to the north an
American state that does not belong to Canada. However, the wildlife
roaming the continent does not necessarily respect borders.
It must be remembered that natives attach great importance to this. This
is why there are often agreements between countries on jurisdiction over
wildlife, the environment and the caribou herd migration.
To the east are the Northwest Territories. In fact, there is a bill
that might be before us this afternoon and that will affect the
Gwich'in, the Dene, the Metis, the Dogrib nations, and those from the
Deh Cho regions. These are all Northwest Territories regions located in
the Mackenzie Valley. It is rather interesting that we are talking this
afternoon about the far west and that we will be dealing in a few
minutes with their neighbours, for quite another reason, but let us say
it is important to indicate where the Yukon is.
To the south lies British Columbia, with an extremely rich native
culture, where almost 220 native communities live, with all the
resulting problems and benefits.
I have been to British Columbia several times. It is nice to see
how the native culture has influenced the white culture and how the
different cultures interact.
1550
There were also disadvantages. Federally and provincially, there
are enormous problems with land claims. Everyone is aware of the debate
on the Nisga'a issue and the recent Delgamuukw decision.
Many decisions have been made by courts in that part of the
country, and it seemed important to me to put them in perspective.
Incidentally, representatives of the aboriginal peoples of the Yukon are
probably listening in this afternoon and I take this opportunity to
salute them.
I remember they were here when we passed the bill on
self-government and claims settlement. These people fought long
and hard and finally won after having negotiated for 21 years.
I remember very clearly that they were up there in the public
gallery and they were very pleased. I think that the security service
had made an exception and allowed the representatives of the aboriginal
nations to stand up and applaud with us all this great victory regarding
their land claims and self-government.
I would like to salute them and, for fear of missing one, I will
name them all: there are 14 nations. The first nations of Little
Salmon-Carmacks, Selkirk, Tr'on dek Hwech'in, the Ross River Dena
Council, the Liards, the first nation of Carcross-Tagish, the
aboriginal people of White River, the first nations of Kluane,
Kwanlin Dun, Champagne and Aïshihik, the aboriginal people of
Nacho Nyak Dun, the Tlingits from the Teslin area and the
Gwitch'in Vuntut first nation.
I will not be surprised, when I go back to my office later, to
get a call from Hansard editors asking me about the meaning
and, particularly, the spelling of the names I just mentioned. I
felt important to name these nations, and I will get back to them
later on—perhaps much to the despair of those responsible for
publishing the Hansard—when I will give you an idea of the
progress made in the negotiations to achieve self-government for
each of these nations.
It is very important in the current debate to know where these
nations are in terms of their claims to achieve self-government status.
They are looking at how oil and gas will be developed on their lands.
They are directly concerned, because they will soon have agreements on
their lands and their self-government.
The Yukon is a region of the country that has a rich history.
Everyone knows about the Klondike gold rush. I went there several times,
including Dawson City, and it is really sad to see how the landscape was
almost totally destroyed by mining operations. This shows how important
it is for aboriginal people to at least have a say in legislation such
as the bill before us.
That part of the country was also severely affected by the
development of natural resources other than gold, lumber for instance.
The landscape was destroyed and there was no sharing of wealth. This is
why now, as we approach a new millennium, aboriginal people are getting
together and truly want to play an active role in the decision-making
process.
At the time, their landscape was totally changed, along with the
lives of these people. Their hunting and fishing traditions were greatly
affected. We only left them piles of rocks, we did not share any wealth
with them.
Explorers and companies came. They developed the landscape, but they
also exploited the people, the first inhabitants of this place, the
aboriginals. Then they left, leaving the landscape in a deplorable
state, while taking all the resources with them.
I met the people of these 14 aboriginal nations in Dawson City. I
also met them in Whitehorse. These are not rich people. Like all
Canadian and Quebec aboriginal communities, they have social and
economic problems. This is why they are paying particular attention to
the legislation before us today.
Those who spoke before me said it: land claims and the sharing of
natural resources are means to achieve full self-government, full
financial autonomy, which is also very important for these people.
1555
Let me remind the House of the social contract we had at the time.
People were told: “We will take your resources, we will sign treaties
and set up reserves on which we will exercise complete control and take
our fiduciary responsibilities towards you. We will take care of
you”.
This is what happened with the results we all know about.
People often question this social contract. We often hear
ill-informed people say that natives have everything they need,
that the government sets aside $5 billion for them in its annual
budget. These people say that natives get an average of around
$15,000 to $16,000 per capita and wonder what they are
complaining about.
We have to realize that this is what the social contract agreed
upon at the time is all about. We told them: “We will take over the
land, develop the resources and we will see to your health, education
and economic development”.
Nowadays, it is important to keep on reminding people of that. What
we handed the natives in the past and what we keep giving them are not
gifts. It is part of the social contract we negotiated at the time.
After seeing what natives have gone through, especially after reading
the royal commission report, I am not sure they ended up on the winning
side with this social contract.
As I said earlier, through self-government, land claims settlement
and a better sharing of the resources, natives will not only regain
their pride but also an economy which is crucial to their sense of pride
and which is lacking today, since they are confined in a state of
dependency vis-à-vis the government.
I want to give you an overview of the progress in negotiations. I
highlighted the negotiations carried out so far. Several communities
have signed a deal. Some of them did it in 1994, others have been
successful since then, but other native communities have yet to sign a
self-government agreement or to settle their land claims. I think it is
important to give the House an update.
The Little Salmon-Carmacks and Selkirk first nations both signed
self-government agreements on July 21.
That is not long ago. These people may have been on the sidelines in
1994, but they have now signed their own self government agreement.
This agreement came into force on October 1, 1997. Thus, two more
First Nations have managed to settle their self government and land
claims problems.
The Tr'on dek Hwech'in First Nation of Dawson City concluded its
negotiations on self government on May 24, 1997. The agreement is to be
ratified early in 1998; it has not yet been done, but apparently, it
should be done soon.
Negotiations on a final settlement on land claims and self
government with the White River Nation were concluded just last week.
This nation is the latest to be involved in self government and land
claims negotiations.
It is the last community that got such an agreement.
Negotiations with the Dena council of Ross River are at a
preliminary stage. Its territory straddles B.C. and the Yukon. Problems
in negotiations have existed for a long time. The council recently
tabled a 120% selection of lands. I imagine it is asking that much, but
would be content with a little less. Apparently, the federal government
expects that this selection will include numerous areas with a high
mineral potential. This is in a mineral rich part of southern Yukon.
That may be the reason why negotiations are taking a little longer.
Negotiations with the Liard First Nation are currently under way;
they deal with the selection of rural lands with a high oil, gas and
forestry potential.
This is a case where negotiations on self government and land
claims are moving ahead swiftly. But the First Nations are also closely
following devolution of federal powers to the Yukon. This is a typical
example of the special monitoring by a first nation that is closely
related to decisions that will flow from the bill before us.
1600
As for the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, meetings took place last
fall. Negotiations are focusing on rural lands as well. Agreements have
been signed on a number of claims. The First Nation should soon submit
claims regarding specific sites. It was anticipated that negotiations
with respect to self-government would be concluded right about now. The
final agreement should be signed by March 1998. So we are getting near
a final agreement in this case as well.
The Kluane First Nation has submitted land claims. The final
agreement, including land claims, is 62% complete, and the
agreement with respect to self-government is 85% settled. So,
once again, agreements are forthcoming. As I said, work is 62%
complete on land claims and 85% complete on self-government.
Therefore, we can assume that a final agreement will be reached
in the coming months.
Negotiations with the Ta'an Kwach'an Council have, to all intents
and purposes, been concluded. They cannot be finalized, however, until
the problem of the band's separation from the Kwanlin Dun First Nation
is resolved. This reserve has decided that it should be divided into two
communities. Therefore, before going any further and concluding
agreements with regard to self-government and land claims, we must
resolve the problem of how this reserve will be divided.
As for the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, there have been no
negotiations since June 1996, because last June the First Nation
submitted a proposal that falls outside the frame of reference
established under the final umbrella agreement. When the federal
government started to negotiate, it set up a legislative and negotiation
framework. This particular community wants out. There are some
adjustment problems so this could take a little longer.
The aboriginal communities which have not yet signed agreements are
the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, the Nacho Nyak Dun First
Nation, the Teslin Tlingit Council and the Gwitch'in Vuntut First
Nation. We still have not reached final agreements with these groups.
I felt it was important to give a progress report.
As my colleague pointed out, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill
because we are the only sovereignist party in this Chamber and we stand
behind any decentralization initiative.
We are rather opposed to centralization. When the government
launches a campaign to encroach on a provincial jurisdiction, like
education through the millennium fund, or when the Minister of Health
tries to infiltrate home care, our party is against it.
Why are we not opposed to this bill? Precisely because it is about
decentralization and we believe in decentralization. We believe in
devolution to the provinces and territories, to smaller communities, for
several reasons.
The main one, in my opinion, is that devolution of these
jurisdictions brings government closer to the people, who are then in a
better position to exercise control and to adjust their demands to the
real needs in the field. If decisions are made in Ottawa for Yukon, for
the Gaspé region in Quebec, or for the Matapedia Valley—and I see here
my colleague who is supporting me this afternoon—it is more difficult
and we are quite opposed to that. We like to see the devolution of
powers to the regions and the provinces.
If the government insists on encroaching on some areas of
jurisdiction, it should at least respect the provinces by transferring
tax points or funds to those not wishing to participate.
We believe that this money would be better used if jurisdiction was
transferred together with the corresponding tax points or compensation,
should a province or region not wish to participate in the program.
The political scene in the Yukon has also changed. The last time I
was there, there was no NDP government in power as is now the
case.
1605
The NDP is not the same political party as the Bloc Quebecois, and
I know its members are not necessarily sovereignists. However, if I look
at the political spectrum between the left and the right, I think there
is a good balance in the House. Like the NDP, we lean toward the left;
our fundamental values include assistance to communities, immigrants and
aboriginals.
That is why we consider these issues with special care and
sensitivity, unlike the present right wing in this House, where the
Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party are often much more
conservative on such matters and pay much more attention to economic
interests than to the interests of aboriginal people.
So the election of a new NDP government in the Yukon is important
for aboriginal people, because they will be able to make sure—and they
have already received assurances from the Yukon NDP government to that
effect—that the government will not take advantage of the fact that
self-government and land claims agreements have yet to be reached in
some territories, for example by issuing development licenses.
I felt it was an important issue to raise, and it is reassuring not
only for us but also for the native communities, since they mentioned it
to us, and if they took the trouble to mention it, it must be true,
because they might have experienced a little more difficulty with the
previous Yukon government.
We expressed some reservations at the second reading stage about
the granting of development licences in lands claimed by the First
Nations. We were not comfortable with the idea that Yukon might be
allowed to legislate on the whole issue of oil and gas development,
including, as I mentioned earlier, conservation, development, export and
revenues.
We were reluctant because we feared the government might take
advantage of the nations that had not yet reached a settlement by
issuing development licenses even before negotiations on land claims
were concluded.
This issue has been partly settled. Department officials appeared
before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development before second reading, at the report stage. We finally
reached an agreement on some issues, and department officials made
certain amendments to the bill which satisfied not only the Bloc but
also the First Nations. Clause 6 in particular restricts the granting of
oil and gas interests on certain types of lands, including those under
negotiation. So the bill contains a provision that deals with our
concerns.
As for clause 8, it allows the Governor in Council, on the
recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs, to take back the
administration and control of any oil and gas in public lands so that
negotiation or implementation of land claims agreements can continue
with the native people.
That is one clause. As a fiduciary, the federal government can tell
the Yukon government that, under section 8, it is issuing development
licences on lands claimed by the First Nations without their agreement.
So, as fiduciaries, we included a provision in the bill to take back
this jurisdiction.
We in committee fulfilled our mandate. We asked for adjustments and
these adjustments were made. Public officials came and explained the
impact of the clauses to our satisfaction. And, when consulted,
aboriginal people said they too were satisfied.
In conclusion, as my colleagues mentioned, who supports this bill?
The territorial government, naturally, most community groups and
organizations in Yukon, as well as the Council for Yukon First Nations,
since the 14 nations I mentioned earlier are grouped under a council
that supports the bill, as long as the aboriginal and land claims remain
valid. I spoke at length about this.
Since the First Nations consider that clauses 6 and 8 satisfy their
concerns, we support decentralization, the importance of which I
explained earlier. It must be done in a thoughtful and orderly manner in
the interest of the whole population, including of course native people,
who form the majority in these territories.
1610
Everyone should benefit from the small bill before the House today.
Consultations seem to show that will be the case.
I also took the liberty to add another difficulty not only for
Hansard, but also for our interpreters. I would like to reassure them.
I will say a few words in Gwitch'in. I will give you the translation.
Otherwise, I believe the interpreter now on duty would probably have a
hard time translating exactly what I will be saying in Gwitch'in.
For now, I will not speak of the meaning. I will speak in
Gwitch'in, and after I will tell you what it means. Rest assured, I will
say nothing nasty.
Everybody will be happy.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Gwitch'in and provided the
following translation:]
I would like to salute the 14 First Nations of Yukon, and I hope
they will be the first to benefit from Bill C-8.
[Translation]
The translation was done by Mary Janc Kunnizzi, a specialist of the
Gwitch'in language at the Native Language Centre of the Yukon.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
particularly pleased to rise and support Bill C-8, especially
this year as it is quite symbolic. It is the 100th anniversary
of the creation of Yukon, which was in 1898. Yukon was
originally designated as a postal region. After the gold rush we
were worthy enough to become a territory.
This legislation does what it ought to do. After a hundred
years it is the beginning of putting power back in the hands of
the people who live there. It puts power where it belongs, with
the people of Yukon.
This act will implement an accord between the Government of
Canada and the Yukon Territory relating the administration,
control and legislative jurisdiction in respect of oil and gas.
It is an important act for the people of Yukon as it will
transfer to Yukon additional legislative powers necessary to
undertake, through Yukon legislation, all aspects of the
management and administration of onshore oil and gas resources.
This legislation will give the Yukon government province like
authority to regulate and manage Yukon gas and oil resources in
the public's interest. For those who live in provinces that have
provincial powers, the term might not have the same affect on
you. But coming from Yukon where we are always winding our way
through a maze of asking permission to do this or that, this is
really significant. It is a huge difference in how we will
function as a people and as a legislature.
The devolution of province like powers will not affect any
settlement of an aboriginal land claim because the federal
government will retain the capacity of regaining the authority
transferred to the Yukon government if it is necessary to settle
an aboriginal land claim. This is also important because of the
14 first nations, all of them are not settled. Although it is
very close, it is not done yet.
Bill C-8 is necessary legislation to transfer authority for oil
and gas resources to the Yukon government. It is a significant
event because it confirms Canada's commitment, as set out in the
northern oil and gas accord signed in May 1993. It must be
viewed as a commitment from Canada to the political evolution of
Yukon and to the concept of devolution to Yukon and it should be
linked to an orderly transition of the transfers of other
remaining resources like forestry and mining. We await eagerly
to see how this works out so that we can bring down the power
over forestry and mining to us.
The composition of the government in power in Yukon is six
people in the cabinet, two ministers are First Nations and our
Speaker is a First Nation. The composition of our territory is
reflected in the government. As well, first nations people have
a very strong representation on the council for Yukon first
nations.
All of the 14 do not belong but most of them do. They are a very
integral part of everyday life. Never are our first nations an
afterthought. They are represented in all our levels of
government.
1615
We expect that the federal government will complete the
devolution of all remaining provincial-like powers and programs
to the Yukon government. That will make the people of Yukon far
more responsible for their own well-being.
Devolution is a transfer process through which the federal
government will transfer all the northern affairs programs of the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to the Yukon
government. In effect this will end a century of colonialism in
Yukon.
As I said, in 1898 a separate territory was created. It had a
commissioner who was all powerful. In 1948 the territory
suspended its right to income tax collection in exchange for the
annual transfer of federal funds. In 1979 the federal government
effectively signed over decision making powers to elected
territorial representatives. Again, this was a huge change
because the commissioner was always appointed.
In 1993 the umbrella final agreement for first nations
self-government was signed. On May 28, 1993 the federal
government and the Government of the Yukon Territory entered into
the Canada-Yukon oil and gas accord. That is what is in front of
us to be ratified.
Devolution is an issue of fundamental importance for Yukon
people. It will signal the end of a quasi-colonial attitude
toward the north and the beginning of a process to gain greater
economic self-reliance. It will reinforce participatory
democracy because it will give northerners a meaningful
democratic say in the development of their own region. It is an
essential part of aboriginal self-determination.
With the continuing settlement of Yukon land claims and
self-government agreements, Yukoners on the basis of a
relationship based on partnerships can look to the future as
citizens of Canada and not possessions of the crown.
Devolution is good governance for Yukon, but it will create new
employment and economic opportunities, which are desperately
needed in the north, and will increase respect for the
environment.
Federal and territorial legislation dealing with the transfer of
province-like powers to Yukon and the development of a Yukon oil
and gas act and regulations is demonstration of a successfully
working relationship with first nations and the beginning of a
new era of relationships between the people of Yukon and the
central government of our confederation.
Devolution opens new opportunities of economic development for
Yukoners. After the completion of transfers, Yukon through its
own legislation will manage and regulate oil and gas activities
including exploration, development, production and conservation,
environmental and safety regulations, and the determination and
collection of resource revenues.
The Yukon Act is being amended to transfer to northerners new
responsibilities and new legislative powers in relation to the
exploration of oil and gas; the development, conservative and
management of oil and gas, including the rate of primary
production; oil and gas pipelines; the raising of money in
respect of oil and gas in the territories; and the export of oil
and gas.
The amendments will include provisions to allow the federal
government to continue to exercise its other responsibilities,
including taking back administration and control of oil and gas
on any lands in order to settle or implement aboriginal land
claims.
It is fully consistent with legislation implementing aboriginal
treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,
including legislation establishing wildlife land management and
and environmental regimes.
In addition, the Yukon government has actively involved the
Yukon first nations in the process, including the development of
the Yukon oil and gas legislation and management process.
The working relationship and close co-operation of the three
parties, the federal government, the Yukon government and the
Yukon first nations government, have been very successful. The
three parties are now committed to completing the remaining land
claims and self-government agreements hopefully by the fall of
1998.
Devolution is about partnerships and the assumption of new
responsibilities and obligations. The Yukon government and the
first nations government established a working partnership on
devolution and signed a number of accords. In addition, they have
made arrangements concerning their working relationship during
the implementation of specific devolution or transfers,
particularly an arrangement concerning the transfer of oil and
gas responsibilities.
1620
It will give the Yukon government, a local government with
locally elected representatives and locally accountable
officials, effective control over land and resource management.
The territorial government will be in a better position to
integrate decisions over resources and will be able to serve more
effectively the people of Yukon.
With this transfer of federal resources to the territorial
government, financial capital and human resources must at that
level guarantee the provision of adequate services and levels of
funding. There must be assurances that the resources transferred
are enough to provide for the delivery of the mandated
responsibilities of the transferred programs.
We expect that the federal government will not withdraw any
funding from the programs considered for transfer to the
territorial government. It is not in effect a hollow shell
handed over to us with all of the responsibility but not the
power we need to deal with it.
This negotiated agreement is an historical agreement for the
Yukon territory, the Yukon government, first nations of the Yukon
and everyone who lives in Yukon. It fully protects the interests
of first nations and we are confident it is in compliance with
land claims and self-government agreements.
This agreement bodes well for the future of Yukon. In the
continuing spirit of co-operation among the federal, territorial
and first nations governments, I urge the House to proceed
quickly with the bill. It is long awaited and will be much
celebrated in this year of our hundredth anniversary.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to pose a question to the previous speaker,
particularly because she is the member for Yukon.
I listened carefully to her speech and did not hear any
reference to a number of issues I raised in my speech. Would the
member indicate her response on behalf of Yukoners to the cap on
resource revenue? The Yukon is being capped at $3 million.
Anything above that, up to 80%, will be going back to the federal
government.
Another provision I also raised was that the federal government
retains the power to unilaterally take back control of oil and
gas under certain circumstances.
I wonder if the member would respond to those two issues.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Madam Speaker, on it being capped at $3
million, I would rather that had not happened and there were no
cap. However that was the way it was negotiated, I think in part
because a territory is in a very difficult negotiating position
and has to make the best of going from a difficult position to a
better position. This agreement was arrived at by the parties
involved. I would prefer that there was no cap but there is and
we will live with it.
On having the power taken away, again that is part of being a
territory. I do not think anyone living in a province would
accept that power can be given and power can be taken away. That
is how life has been in the territories. As I understand it,
under the circumstances of making sure land claims are settled
that is important.
All first nations groups should know that they can negotiate
without pressure their agreements. After that point I would
prefer if the federal government had nothing to do with giving or
taking away power. Eventually Yukon will be recognized as a
province and will not have to face this kind of withholding.
Mr. David Chatters: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the
member's response when she says that eventually the Yukon
territory will become a province. I support that idea
wholeheartedly.
However, under the terms and conditions of the bill and the
direction it is headed, Yukon will forevermore be some kind of
second class province. It will not have the jurisdiction or the
power of other provinces. I am amazed the member representing
Yukon who sits in opposition to the government does not seem to
raise that issue or does not seem to be concerned about it.
1625
I would have expected, both being a member for Yukon and being
in opposition, that she would have demanded of the government
that the bill allow Yukon to become a province with the same kind
of status as Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and all
other provinces.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Madam Speaker, when Yukon becomes a
province all of this would be renegotiated. It is for the people
of Yukon to decide when they want to take on provincehood.
It cannot be forced on anybody. Perhaps at this point we are
not ready or prepared to do that, but we are to build toward that
position.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-8, the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord
Implementation Act.
The bill represents the first bill I have had the opportunity to
work on both at the parliamentary level and the committee level
in the Indian affairs and northern development portfolio. I feel
it represents a step in the right direction. It is not perfect
but it is a step in the right direction.
The bill transfers authority to the Yukon territorial government
regarding exploration, development, conservation and management
of onshore oil and gas resources, oil and gas pipelines, the
raising of money in respect of oil and gas in the territory and
the export of oil and gas.
At the same time the bill allows the federal government to
regain control and administration of oil and gas on Yukon lands
in order to settle or implement land claims for aboriginal
groups.
The bill was formerly known as Bill C-50 but died on the order
paper with the call for the election in April 1997. It
incorporates some changes to the original Bill C-50 in order to
address concerns raised by aboriginal groups, specifically the
effect of the bill on their land claims agreements and
self-government. I will speak in more detail on this matter
later.
Bill C-8 is the implementation process for the Canada-Yukon oil
and gas accord. The accord was the product of a process begun in
1987 under the minister at that time, William Hunter McKnight. It
was a beginning of a process to devolve responsibility from the
federal government to the government of Yukon with the intention
of conferring powers analogous to those held by provinces.
Currently all oil and gas management authority in Yukon is
controlled by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development in its energy policy area for the territories. With
Bill C-8 control over oil and gas passes to the Yukon government
with the application for onshore resources and an area adjacent
to the northern coast, including Shoalwater Bay and Philips Bay.
The area referred to as the north slope was of special concern
to the aboriginal peoples, and in particular the Inuvialuit
Regional Council. The council representing the signatories to
the Inuvialuit final agreement in the Northwest Territories
expresses reservations about the extent of protection for this
area in the bill.
Shoalwater Bay is an area of significant importance to the
Inuvialuit for the harvesting of beluga whales. As such it
wanted reassurance from the federal government that this area
should be protected from development so the traditional hunt
would not be jeopardized.
The Inuvialuit was assured by the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development that the area would be protected with
part of the area being a national park. This is explicitly
removed from the development in Bill C-8.
At the same time the federal government informed the Inuvialuit
that Shoalwater Bay would not be developed but did not include
this area specifically in the legislation. Instead it is
protected by implicit understanding outside the bill. It will be
imperative for the federal government to honour this commitment
to the Inuvialuit.
Of the 14 aboriginal groups in the Yukon area eight have yet to
settle land claim agreements with the federal government but are
presently involved in negotiations. This was another area of
concern for first nations, specifically how the bill would affect
land claim negotiations.
These concerns were expressed during consultation with Yukon
first nations, especially the eight bands who are signatories to
the Inuvialuit final agreement but have not yet settled land
claims.
1630
To alleviate uncertainty clause 8 was added to the legislation
allowing for the administration and control of oil and gas to
revert to the governor in council for the settlement of land
claims. With this addition, the rights of aboriginal groups are
preserved while ensuring that future land claims will be resolved
and implemented properly. Nothing in the legislation is to
abrogate or derogate existing aboriginal and treaty rights. This
is to protect aboriginal rights under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
While the transfer of authority is to the Yukon government, the
federal government will disperse an amount equivalent to revenues
from all onshore resources since April 1, 1993. With the oil and
gas revenues in Yukon currently valued at $2 million, this
represents a significant amount of money that would be accruing
to the territorial government. Following the transfer, onshore
resources will be collected by the Yukon government with offshore
resource revenues divided according to a formula for revenue
sharing.
Under the royalty sharing formula Yukon first nations will
receive 50% of the first $2 million collected by Yukon. For any
amounts greater than $2 million the reparation falls to 10%. The
average per capita amount received by the first nations cannot
exceed the average Canadian per capita income.
This is a bill the Progressive Conservatives started and we
continue to support it. The one weakness or complaint that
should be raised in this House is the inadequate job the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did in
involving public participation in this process.
When I visited Whitehorse after this bill had received first
reading in the House and after we had already had a video
conference with Yukon region representatives, I met with many
groups who would have appeared before the committee but were not
given an opportunity by the present government.
With that said I will still support this bill because in the end
it helps Yukon. It recognizes aboriginal rights and moves the
Yukon government closer to self-sufficiency and hopefully one day
to provincial status.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Sable Island Natural Gas; the
hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Employment Insurance; the
hon. member for Halifax West, Self-Government; the hon. member
for Cumberland—Colchester, Infrastructure; the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Bankruptcies.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am honoured to speak to this bill which is an important piece of
legislation particularly to the development of the Yukon
Territory and its people. It is also a pleasure to have a piece
of legislation before the House that we can support and not have
to amend greatly.
I will explain why the Reform Party is supporting this bill and
the few flaws we see with it. Although we support the general
direction of this bill, it remains far from what really needs to
be done in the territories.
As we know, northern Canada and Yukon are areas of our land
where there is high unemployment and poverty which is a big
problem not only there but to Canada as a whole. For these
regions control over oil and gas exploration is the key to
economic well-being. Therefore Bill C-8 is important for the
economic future of the Yukon Territory.
Bill C-8 gives the Yukon Territory administrative and
legislative control over oil and gas in the Yukon Territory. In
other words, this is a devolution of powers from the federal
government to the Yukon government, and that is a good thing.
The Reform Party believes those powers are best exercised in the
hands of the government nearest to the people instead of in the
hands of some bureaucrats in Ottawa who are far removed from the
consequences of the decisions they make.
1635
We can generally say that the Reform Party believes that any
move toward devolution of powers from the federal government to
the provinces or territories is a positive development.
We are opposed to big, heavy bureaucratic central government and
would eventually like to see the territories as full participants
in Confederation with province like status.
The Reform Party also believes that the territories should have
the same powers as the provinces and that all provinces should
have equal powers with no special status for any.
We all know this is clearly not the case at this time, but we
are committed to this important and fundamental principle of
equality.
Therefore on the grounds of devolution of power which brings the
government closer to the people and moving toward giving Yukon
the right to achieve full province status, we are supporting this
bill.
We also support Bill C-8 because it has the support of the
people of Yukon. Consultation on the bill was done and Yukoners
stated they wanted control of their oil and gas.
Because of those consultations and the universal support for
devolution of powers expressed we are in support. The people of
the Yukon Territory have made an important step forward in the
development into a province with this bill. The Reform Party
supports them in this effort.
While we are supportive of this legislation, there are a few
provisions in the bill that we remain concerned with. First of
all, in this bill the government has the right to take back
administrative and legislative powers that it gives to Yukon in
the event of a national emergency or in the case of an aboriginal
land claim settlement.
This House hardly needs to be reminded of what occurred in the
west the last time there was a so-called national emergency with
respect to natural gas and petroleum. We had the national energy
program and the petroleum gas and revenue tax.
These types of things should not happen again in this country
where one part of the country is expected to subsidize the rest
of the nation over some situation like that. That seems somewhat
counterproductive. Needless to say, it seems really
counterproductive to have that in there.
There are still many first nations in Yukon that have not
settled their land claim agreements yet, even though the
government has been promising rapid conclusion of these land
claims for years.
An investor planning to set up shop in Yukon knows that from one
day to the next they could suffer a loss because this federal
government might have to settle a land claim or take back
resources, or that type of thing. How anxious would they be to
make an investment there? I doubt whether they would be willing
to put very much money in, certainly not the millions of dollars
it takes to begin oil and gas exploration. They want guarantees
of stability when they make investments.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to
resolve land claims as quickly as possible and to obtain the full
and meaningful participation by the Yukon government. Do not
exclude it. Get this done with so that there will be stability in
Yukon.
In recognition of the unique situation in the north, I agree
that it is important that this legislation respect aboriginal
land claims and settlement rights. It is also important that the
legislation does not diminish aboriginal treaty rights or
conflict with existing wildlife, environmental and land
management legislation under the Constitution Act, 1982.
The issue, however, is not so much the protection of aboriginal
rights as it is an issue of heavy handed control by the federal
government. If the government were to settle a land claim in any
of the 10 provinces, the provincial government would certainly
take an active role in the negotiating process.
If the government is committed to giving Yukon province like
powers, as it seems to be attempting in this bill, it should also
give the territory the same negotiating powers in the settlement
of aboriginal land claims as the provinces have.
Why would the government withhold the same negotiating power
from the Yukon government? It is a question to be considered by
the government and by all members of this House.
While the federal government protects the interests of
aboriginal people in Yukon, the territorial government would have
the opportunity to protect the interests of all residents in the
Yukon Territory, regardless of whether they were native or
non-native.
On that note I would like to reiterate the Reform Party's
commitment to equality. In order for Canada to function as a
nation, the territories should have similar powers to the
provinces and the provinces should have access to powers
available to all others.
This Liberal government should be decreasing federal powers not
only over Yukon oil and gas but also in other areas to work
toward empowering territories.
1640
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: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to
provide for an integrated system of land and water management in
the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that
purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended,
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise to address the House on third and final reading
on Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley resource management act.
I want to say again how pleased I am to be sponsoring this
proposed legislation.
Bill C-6 will have important ramifications for the people and
the environment of the Mackenzie Valley and I am delighted to
have played a role in bringing it before the House.
I am also delighted that we have finally come to this point in
the legislative process.
Although Bill C-6 was tabled in the House only a month ago, this
legislation has been five years in the making. It previously
died on the order paper as Bill C-80 when the election was
called.
It has been the subject of one of the most extensive
consultation processes I have ever witnessed in government, with
35 drafts of the bill developed and distributed for comments and
review.
An information package on the proposed resource management
regime was widely distributed across the Mackenzie Valley.
Federal officials have held literally dozens of meetings with
aboriginal leaders, the territorial government, the resource
industries and the public.
As a result of this exhaustive process we have before us today a
better bill. This is a lengthy, complex and technical piece of
legislation but it is also a solid bill that will withstand the
test of time.
1645
I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the many
groups and individuals who have contributed to Bill C-6 which, as
hon. members know, will establish an integrated resource
co-management regime and environmental assessment process for the
Mackenzie Valley.
[Translation]
I want to begin with the leaders of the Gwich'in, and the Sahtu
Denes and Metis of Northern Mackenzie Valley. Bill C-6 is the logical
step following the land claim settlements signed by these native groups
in 1992 and 1994.
Despite a three year delay in the adoption of this legislation, the
leaders of these communities showed remarkable patience. They understood
the need to proceed with wide consultations, to accommodate various
interests and to make sure the legislation is fair.
The Northwest Territories administration also deserves special
recognition for its role in establishing a resource management system
which allows for a decision-making process involving both regional and
valley-wide levels. The territorial administration helped make sure that
the new system reflects today's realities and needs while respecting the
close relationships the native peoples have with the lands and the
waters of the Mackenzie Valley as a whole.
Resource industries also made a big contribution to the proposed
bill. They recognize that it is necessary to evolve with time in the
Mackenzie Valley, and to adapt to new ways of doing business and
managing the environment.
Bill C-6 will provide them with the certainty and coherence they need to
realize their investments in the valley, investments that will create
jobs, increase government revenues and make Northerners economically
more independent.
I also wish to commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Affairs and her predecessor for having developed a bill which will
provide a just balance between the numerous different interests in the
Mackenzie Valley. Thanks to their perseverance, Bill C-6 will reach its
main goal, which is to protect the fragile environment of the Mackenzie
Valley, while at the same time allowing the government to fulfil its
constitutional obligation towards the Gwich'in, the Metis and the Sahtu
Dene.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not commend my colleagues of
the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
for the important work they carried out.
As my distinguished colleagues know, the committee undertook a
comprehensive study of Bill C-6 before Christmas recess. Several
witnesses offered convincing testimony and the committee was able to
benefit from different point of views and discussions between its
members.
Again, we have before us a better bill than the initial version.
Thanks to the amendments proposed by the government and the standing
committee, and to the support of the territorial government, the mining
industry and some native groups, Bill C-6 has been improved and made
more precise.
These amendments have improved the clauses of the bill dealing with
consultations, bringing greater openness and transparency.
These amendments will increase the participation of natives,
including the first nations which have not already signed territorial
land agreements, in the joint resource management regime.
The amendments will facilitate the transition process to the new
regime by providing an additional protection to the present users of
lands and water.
The amendments have also allowed us to include in the bill some
guarantees that its implementation will cause no prejudice to future
negotiations on land claims and self government.
[English]
I would like to quickly recap the key elements of Bill C-6 so
that hon. members can appreciate the importance of this
legislation to the people and the environment of the Mackenzie
Valley.
Hon. members will recall that Bill C-6 will establish six boards
of public government to administer the new resource management
and environmental assessment regime.
Two of these boards, the Mackenzie Valley land and water board
and the environmental impact review board, will have jurisdiction
throughout the valley. The other four will be regional
institutions responsible for land use planning and land and water
issues in the two settlement areas.
1650
Bill C-6 also provides for the establishment of additional
regional boards by order in council as land claims agreements are
finalized with other aboriginal groups in the Mackenzie Valley.
The need for a co-ordinated and integrated approach is an
underlying principle of Bill C-6. The Mackenzie Valley must be
viewed as a single ecosystem, not just a collection of political
or demographic regions. Activities that take place upstream can
and do affect communities downstream. Decision making processes
must take into account what is right for the entire ecosystem and
all its communities and residents.
Even First Nations that stand in opposition to Bill C-6 have not
disputed the need for a single valley wide system. There is
essentially unanimous agreement that we cannot have several
different resource management systems in place in the valley. It
simply will not work.
The question is not whether to proceed with an integrated
approach, but when. Some First Nations that have not yet signed
land claims agreements would like us to wait. The government's
view is that further delays are not only unwarranted but could
put Mackenzie Valley's environment at undue risk. Clearly the
time to act is now.
A single integrated system is also the best way to proceed in
terms of cost and efficiency. Bill C-6 will ensure regulatory
consistency between the settlement areas and adjacent lands.
Virtually all lands in the Mackenzie Valley will be subject to
the same environmental review requirements in keeping with this
government's commitment to streamline environmental processes,
avoid duplication of effort and reduce costs to industry and
others.
[Translation]
One of the main features of the new system is that native peoples
are assured they will have a role to play. The first nations get to
designate half the members of the new resource management boards, with
the federal and provincial governments designating the other half.
Therefore, the various native groups living in the Mackenzie Valley
area have the assurance that their traditional activities and lifestyles
will be able to coexist with other forms of economic development.
At the same time, non-native valley residents will have the opportunity
to voice their concerns through the management boards and the hearing
and public consultation process provided for in Bill C-6.
I am also glad to point out that the legislation follows up on a
recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
promoting the implementation of a co-management system in the Mackenzie
Valley. Such an approach would be impossible without high levels of
respect, recognition and mutual responsibility, all principles on which
is based Gathering Strength, a native action plan the government
announced recently.
From a different perspective, Bill C-6 is another step towards the
transfer of federal responsibilities and programs to the territorial
government.
The Northwest Territories Water Board, which is currently administered
by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, will be integrated
into the new Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.
As for the new Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board,
it will take over from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in
co-ordinating and conducting environmental assessments. Once Bill C-6 is
passed, the department will no longer be involved in issuing land use
permits.
In other words, Bill C-6 will put in the hands of northerners the
decision making process for issues directly affecting the Mackenzie
Valley lands and waters. The new system shows a high degree of
sensitivity and accountability to northerners and reflects both good
planning and sound public management.
In spite of the major changes that will result from Bill C-6, the
proposed legislation will not cause any disruption in the valley. It is
based on existing regulations, with which industry is familiar.
1655
It neither extinguishes nor overrides any right that aboriginal
people of the Mackenzie Valley have. It will not take precedence over
constitutionally protected land claims settlements or the Indian Act.
Under the new system, aboriginal people will have a much greater
say in the decision making process than they do now.
In addition, it provides for land and water use applications to be
processed quickly and fairly. It will also ensure that clearly defined
procedures are used for the purposes of environmental assessment and
protection throughout the Mackenzie Valley.
[English]
In closing, I would ask hon. members to consider the words of
Richard Nerysoo, president of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. When
he gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Nerysoo said “Bill C-6
sets up a state of the art framework for land and water
management in the north that is second to none in the Canadian
north and for that matter in the world”. A state of the art
framework that is second to none in the world. These are not the
words of a government spokesperson. They are the words of a
respected aboriginal leader whose people will live with Bill C-6
on a day to day basis. They are words of pride, hope and
confidence.
I urge hon. members on all sides of the House to recognize that
Bill C-6 is a necessary, practical and responsible approach to
resource management in the Mackenzie Valley. It has widespread
support in the valley because it is a balanced and workable
regime and because it will achieve its stated goal. It deserves
the same level of support from this House.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to once again speak on Bill C-6 which is
of course the Mackenzie Valley land and water management act.
I would like to give a little illustration about how things are
sometimes seen. A farmer observed two trains coming down one
track and they ran head on into one another. It was a mighty
train wreck. The investigator came out and asked him what he did
about it. The farmer said that he could not do a thing about it
but that he had thought about it. The investigator asked him what
he had thought about. The farmer said he thought that it was a
heck of a way to run a railroad.
It seems to me we have had this bill here before from the Tories
and from the Liberals. It died on the Order Paper both times
because it just did not seem to get the support it needed.
To state that the bill is called for everywhere and by everyone
is to overstate the case. In committee we heard a lot of
objections to this bill particularly from aboriginal groups who
have not yet settled their land claims. The concern of the
people I spoke with in the Yellowknife area was not one of water
management but one of land claims negotiations. Therefore it
really is not all that it seems to be.
We are opposed to the bill and have been since the beginning,
even going back to its Mulroney Tory roots when it took the form
of Bill C-16. We were concerned then about a growing and
unaccountable bureaucracy which it creates and the set of
regulations that would have arisen under it. We also planned to
oppose it as Bill C-80 in the last Parliament. It was basically
the same bill but it died on the Order Paper before the election.
Today more than any other reason, and there are a lot of
reasons, there is one thing we disagree with. More than the big
bureaucracy, which is making business developers in the north
wary of investing there; more than the duplication of services
that this bill would create; more than the possibility for
interjurisdictional confusion; more than the opposition by the
aboriginals who are still in the process of negotiating their
land claims; more than the increase in the cost of compliance;
more than the referral loop which many businesses are concerned
they are going to get into, where it will be sent from the left
side to the right side of the building, to across the street, to
Ottawa, to everywhere else for referral, there is one thing we
fundamentally disagree with.
What really gives us grounds to oppose the bill is that the
simple amendments that were moved in committee to bring democracy
into the bill were defeated by the government.
We were not really asking for a great deal. We wanted to see a
little democracy and accountability in the bill rather than the
same old patronage system of which the old line parties are so
fond.
1700
The amendments we proposed were to provide for an election
system to be put in place based on current election models to
determine who would sit on the boards. In our view this was
preferable to the board members being determined by the minister
of Indian affairs based on criteria that are unknown and
unspecified in the bill. It is interesting that many believe the
unspoken criteria are linked to one's contribution, whether
financial or other, to the government party.
Bill C-6 creates three new board levels: a five-member land use
planning board in the Gwich'in and Sahtu settlement areas; a
Mackenzie Valley land and water board, subject to the creation of
additional panels which will have up to 17 members, including a
five-member permanent regional panel in each of the settlement
areas; and an eleven-member environmental impact review board for
the entire Mackenzie Valley. Could it be any more simple and
could it be any more bureaucratic?
The problem with these boards is that although the bill clearly
establishes them, it fails to spell out criteria to be used in
determining who actually sits on the boards. The whole process
is closed to the people of the Mackenzie Valley which creates a
big problem. When we tried to solve this problem with the
democratic amendments put forward to the committee by the Reform
Party they were defeated. This is unbelievable. This is a
democracy. How can anybody stand up in this House and speak
against any form of democracy?
Consider that time and time again we have seen problems that
come out of such a system. I am not talking about democracy. I
am talking about its antithesis, one person making appointments.
We do not need to look very far from this Chamber to find a great
example of how flawed this patronage system is. Everyone here
knows what I am referring to. A supreme example of patronage in
this country is the Senate.
Last June the people of Canada went to the polls after they
heard what the candidates for Parliament had to say. They went
to the polls and elected members to this House, which constitutes
half of the Government of Canada, just half. Millions of
Canadians exercise their democratic right to elect just half of
Parliament. In contrast, there is one man, the Prime Minister,
who appoints the entire other half. We just saw that happen.
Who gets there and what has been the result? With respect to
those senators who do serve with good motives and intentions, how
well have Canadians been represented by our non-elected friends
such as Andrew Thompson? These people vote the party line
because they are appointed by one man, the head of the governing
party. How dedicated to the people do you have to be when you
are not accountable to the electorate but are only accountable to
the person who appointed you? It must be quite something. I do
not think any of us here could imagine such a thing, since we are
not accountable to one person, we are accountable to our
constituents.
Why do we allow it to go on? Why do we implement new ways of
promoting this old and ineffective way of doing things as we are
doing with Bill C-6? That is what I would like to know. I am
sure that is what Canadians would like to know and I am sure that
is what many people in the Northwest Territories still want to
know. The way I see it, the boards being created under Bill C-6
are nothing but mini senates, except that these boards are
appointed by the minister of Indian affairs instead of the Prime
Minister.
The other negative effect that comes out of this system is that
it may create racial tensions in the Mackenzie Valley. Will the
members the minister appoints to the board fit into specific
categories of people? It seems they would either have to be
natives or government officials.
What about the other residents of the Mackenzie Valley? Will
they not have a say? We think this is wrong and that it could
have been solved through free elections for these boards.
We are not opposed to the goals of this legislation. On the
contrary, we think the intentions of Bill C-6 are good. We do
need to protect the environment. It is just that this is such an
awkward way to try to achieve it. Bill C-6 was originally
supposed to simplify a land claim settlement agreement. It was
not a land and water management act. That is why there is such a
concern.
In light of what I have said here today and in light of the
understanding of myself and the Reform Party of democratic
accountability, I am opposed to this legislation.
1705
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
aboriginal question is a very popular one among the Bloc
Quebecois, and I must thank my two colleagues here who always
make it their duty to support me in caucus when an aboriginal
project, or one with an aboriginal dimension, comes up. My
colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Lévis are always first
in line to support aboriginal issues and I congratulate them for
it.
I am pleased, therefore, to speak today on Bill C-6.
It is not often that bills concerning aboriginal people come before
the House, but today we have had two in succession and dealing with
adjoining regions. As I have already pointed out, the previous
bill, Bill C-8, concerned the Yukon, while this one has to do with
the Northwest Territories, the region right next to it. I will be
pleased to offer a brief geographical overview of the part of the
territory at issue today, the Mackenzie Valley.
The bill before us is aimed at creating boards. We know there
were agreements prior to this bill. There was an agreement with
the Gwich'in, signed April 22, 1992, and another with the Sahtu
Dene and Metis, signed September 6, 1993.
I also recall that one of the first bills in the last
Parliament concerned the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
That bill concerned comprehensive land claims. I recall that at
that time I was a bit muddled about the Sahtu, the Northwest
Territories, the Yukon, the Gwich'in and so on. Now, with four
years of experience under my belt, I think I could dare claim a
little more knowledge, even though I know that a person could spend
years getting to know everything about it, even if he or she had
studied the aboriginal question thoroughly.
Today we have a bill that arises out of those agreements. I
will permit myself a little aside, as I did a bit earlier,
concerning our Reform Party friends, because I have made a promise
to myself that I would take every opportunity to point this out.
The other day, I heard one of them claiming that the Bloc Quebecois
is concerned only with Quebec, that the Bloc Quebecois has no
interest whatsoever in what goes on east or west of Quebec.
Members should remember what I said earlier, when speaking on Bill
C-8, about the aboriginal issue. We feel very concerned about this
issue, and Bloc Quebecois members—as seen today, spoke about the Yukon
less than an hour ago and are now discussing the Northwest Territories.
The aboriginal issue is important to Quebeckers, and we are aware that
it could have consequences.
The federal acts passed in this House and then by the Senate can
have an impact on aboriginal people in Quebec, and we are looking after
their interests. This is why we always take part in discussions dealing
with aboriginal people, even if they are not from Quebec. I say to
Reformers that we do not only defend Quebec's interests, particularly
when it comes to aboriginal issues.
Let me say a few words about how the boards will operate. There
are three boards: the land use planning board, the Mackenzie Valley land
and water board and the environmental impact review board. As members
know, the bill before us is the result of two agreements for the entire
District of Mackenzie. These agreements provided that implementing
legislation would be passed here, precisely to implement the accords,
and this is what we are doing today.
I will briefly describe the board memberships, but first I want to
tell the House that these boards will essentially function like
government organizations.
They will have their own staff and budgets, in accordance with
government approval and funding procedures. Therefore, discussions will
take place with the government to determine the funding of these boards.
However, as my colleague mentioned earlier, some provisions will no
longer come under federal jurisdiction. This means that, under Bill C-6,
some budgets which, until now, were controlled by certain departments
under certain acts of Parliament, are being transferred to these boards.
As was the case earlier with the bill on the Yukon, we agree with
this decentralization measure. Indeed, we can only agree with the
transfer of money or tax points to regions of the country.
1710
I think that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot totally
agrees. Any decentralization exercise must involve federal tax points.
Decentralization must not be done only on paper. It must involve
funding, because money is really important. I thought it was worth
mentioning.
The first agency I want to talk about is the land use planning
boards.
There will be two of them, one in each region, namely the one where
there is an agreement with the Gwich'in and the one where there is an
agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis. Both regions are part of the
District of Mackenzie. These two boards will consist of five members,
including two members designated by the first nations, one by the
federal government and one by the provincial or territorial government,
and these four members will appoint a chairperson.
If we look at the bills currently before us and those that will
come before us, there is always a certain parity between the first
nations and the government. We can see a decentralization that gives
more power to the first nations. That is reflected in the membership of
the various boards. This is reflected here, and it will also be
reflected in other bills that we will consider later on regarding
Nunavut or other regions.
This parity is important, and I think it is time to start
sharing, not only powers and jurisdictions, but the related tax
points and funds. That is an expression of trust in the first
nations. There will be certain problems in the bill. I will of
explain it later, but, as a preamble, I thought I should describe
the composition of the boards and their mandate.
There are therefore two boards, as I said earlier, one for the
Gwich'in and one for the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. They will be
able to develop, consider and propose changes to the plan for the
use of all lands in the District of Mackenzie. So when a land use
plan is approved by a first nation and by the government, it will
be used as a reference to develop of the region.
There is a problem I can describe right away.
The problem is that a number of nations and several regions of the
Mackenzie have yet to sign an agreement, as we saw earlier on the
claims and the establishment of a system to manage lands and water.
With the two agreements discussed earlier, we are finally applying
it to the entire Mackenzie region. That is where the problem lies.
The first nations that have not yet signed an agreement will have
their approach to managing the land and water within their
territory dictated by the bill. This is a rather odd approach,
which we oppose.
I will describe later the way we tried in committee to correct
the situation. Unfortunately, the government majority did not
support us. And this is why the Bloc will oppose the bill. I just
wanted to describe the dynamics of the problem.
I will now deal with the issue of boards. Earlier, I mentioned the
Land Use Planning Board. I will now talk about the Land and Water Board.
It will consist of 17 members. Five members will come from each of the
Gwitch'in and Sahtu Dene and Metis settlement areas. In addition, seven
members will be appointed by the government and by the first nations of
the three areas located outside these settlement areas.
Here is the problem. Seven persons not covered by a settlement
agreement are to be appointed in order to include the whole area, all
the way to the Beaufort Sea, under a single management system, even
though some First Nations in the Mackenzie Valley have not signed a land
claim agreement yet.
This is a problem, and several aboriginals said so to the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The Land and
Water Board has the authority to grant land and water use licences, thus
fostering development in the Mackenzie Valley.
1715
It will issue licences involving some aboriginal peoples or some
areas in the Mackenzie Valley not yet covered by an agreement. As I
said, it is rather strange. In fact, this is the main reason why the
Bloc Quebecois will not support this bill.
There is another board, the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact
Review Board. When this issue was discussed in committee it was agreed,
for practical reasons, to reduce its membership from 11 to 7; but its
composition is similar to that of the other boards I mentioned earlier.
One will represent the Gwich'in, who have already signed an agreement,
another will represent the Sahtu Dene and Metis, who signed an
agreement, two will represent the appropriate department within the
Government of the Northwest Territories, and two will represent those
who do not have an agreement yet.
Once again, this board is not, I would say, taking hostages, but
going over the heads of people who have not yet signed an agreement and
it is applying to the five Mackenzie regions a decision that affects two
regions, and this is somewhat deplorable.
With the scope of the valley environmental impact review board, all
development activities on the lands and waters of the valley, including
proposals affecting Indian reserves or lands governed by a settlement
with a first nation, will be subject to the environmental impact review
and assessment process.
I mentioned earlier the huge environmental problems experienced by
the Yukon Territory. The same is true for the Northwest Territories. I
have been to Yellowknife often and there has been shameless exploitation
of the environment in these areas. Once again, the wealth created from
these lands has not benefited the natives. Often, the only legacy
snatives got was a devastated landscape, a landscape that has been
exploited and left to natives in a dismal condition.
This has harmed natives not only economically, but also culturally.
I remind the House that their culture is based on hunting, fishing,
trapping and fruit gathering. These are all things that were disrupted.
Therefore, it is important to have a board that will properly examine
any projects submitted, to ensure that the environment will be preserved
and to avoid repeating past errors.
Unfortunately, there are some regions not covered by
agreements on which this will now be imposed. I repeat that this
is one of the reasons the Bloc will vote against the bill.
The boards will replace land and water settlements by the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. People often say to us:
“Why is the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs responsible
for oil, gas and natural resources in the far north? That should
not be its mandate”.
I remind the House that the name of the department is the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, meaning that anything
north of 60 falls squarely within its jurisdiction, including
several aboriginal nations. So it makes some sense that it comes
under the department's jurisdiction.
The legislation provides for a method of overseeing the
cumulative effect of land and water use on the environment.
Earlier, I mentioned devastated landscapes. When companies need
river water or use land, it will be important to look not just at
the short-term impact, but also at the cumulative repercussions.
Sometimes, on the face of it, this might sound reasonable.
The activity goes on for one or two years. But, in the long run,
it can have a dramatic impact on the environment and these boards
will allow oversight.
Periodic, independent environmental assessments will be done
and made public. Increasingly, the departments involved will have
to pull out, in accordance with the bill before us.
There is also another board, the Northwest Territories Water
Board.
This board was created under the present legislation. It will
gradually be phased out in favour of the boards I have just
described.
1720
Also, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will gradually lose
some of its impact, and let the boards take on a greater role.
After the short geographic description of the Yukon I have just
given, I think it would be important for me to do the same for the
District of Mackenzie.
The Mackenzie River originates in the Great Slave Lake and flows
into the Beaufort Sea. It is a major system in the Northwest
Territories. Everybody talks about the Mackenzie Valley.
Everybody knows the great contribution this river makes to the district,
and that is why it deserves a great deal of attention.
What are the geographical borders of this area? To the west, we
have the Yukon, where the native peoples have a very rich culture, as I
said earlier. The Northwest Territories are no different. They also have
a very rich native culture. Natives were undoubtedly the first
inhabitants of that area. Exploration, the gold rush, natural resource
development all came after the Gwich'in, the Metis and the Denes were
already there.
These peoples have been living there since time immemorial. It is
important not to ignore them in our discussions.
To the west, we have the Yukon, with its rich native culture. The
immediate neighbours are the Gwich'in and all those peoples I have just
mentioned.
To the north is Inuvialuit, a Canadian territory where a
self-government agreement has been concluded with the Inuit.
There are four regions: Inuvialuit is located completely on the
west coast and is right next to the territory we are talking
about today; there is also Nunavut, a region located a little
more to the east where the Inuit from the northern part of
central Canada will have complete jurisdiction starting in 1999.
Discussions are under way in Quebec as well because there is an
Inuit part of Quebec called Nunavik. Discussions are going well in
Nunavik with the Quebec government which, as we all know, is very open
minded with regard to aboriginal nations. As a matter of fact,
statistics provide tangible proof of what I just said, whether it be for
language retention, social and economic advantages, and so on. Quebec is
in a much better position than the rest of Canada in this regard.
I can personally vouch for that, having made frequent visits to
aboriginal communities both in Quebec and in Canada.
Quebeckers are very proud of their record with regard to aboriginal
nations. I must tell you that I will seize every opportunity to say so.
I am a Quebecker, I am proud of being a Quebecker, I am a sovereignist and
we are happy with the way we treat aboriginal nations in Quebec.
I will now get back to my description of the Mackenzie. To the east
is Nunavut, which I talked about earlier. It is one of the four regions
that will become self-governing on April 1, 1999. Its population is 90%
Inuit.
To the south is the 60th parallel, south of which are the provinces
of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
As is the case with all major waterways, we find various
settlements along the Mackenzie.
On the shores of the Mackenzie River are the towns of Fort Norman, Fort
Franklin, Norman Wells, which is extremely rich in oil, Fort Wrigley,
and Fort Simpson.
All these towns are former trading posts. Back then, oil was not
what it has become today. During the 18th century, oil was not the
reason people went up there, because nobody knew what oil was. In order
to move from place to another, sheer physical effort was more important
than oil. People used snowshoes and canoes.
The fur trade was the reason people went up there. All these towns
developed because of the fur trade. Later on, their development was
spurred by gas and oil exploration, and also, lately, by diamond
exploration.
This is a history rich region. The Hudson's Bay Company had a
trading post at Fort Franklin between 1945 and 1950. That is not so long
ago.
1725
During the sixties, the Dene settled permanently in Fort Franklin,
which they called Deline.
Fort Norman was also called Slavey Tulit's by the natives. There
are many native connotations. Slavey Tulit's means mouth of two rivers.
We have 50 native languages in Canada, and aboriginal names often refer
to natural features, as in this case. At the mouth of two rivers, there
was probably an abundance of fish and game. Explorers and traders set up
a trading post there in 1810. There is a lot of history there.
As I have already said, several other bills concern Norman
Wells oil. In 1919 Imperial Oil made a very big oil strike in this
oil-rich area. During the second world war, Norman Wells gained a
great deal of importance because the allied war machine required
this essential fuel.
So, unfortunately, the war machine's demand for fuel was
profitable for those involved with this black gold. Norman Wells
thus became a major centre at that time, but unfortunately declined
in 1947 with the post-war slump in demand.
The demand for oil has continued to grow since then. The city,
with its economy centred on oil, is gaining in importance.
Norman Wells is located on the Canol pipeline. This pipeline
was built during World War II so that the community could ship its
top quality light crude to the Alaska highway and to centres a
little further south for the war industry.
I hardly need point out that Northern Wells is also at the
northern end of an oil pipeline from the Northwest Territories to
Zama, Alberta.
This is a region which is rich in natural resources: oil, gas,
diamonds, gold. It is an extremely rich region, and one which has
made many oil companies rich as well.
I also remind people every time of the social contract between the
natives and the white people. The white people said at the time they
would take over the territories, develop them and confine the natives to
reserves.
It is not the natives who came out as winners in this economic war.
It is Canadians who accumulated some fortunes and who left the natives
faced with devastated landscapes and deplorable social and economic
conditions. In the end, they did not benefit from this wealth.
One of the sources of conflict between the white people and the
natives is how they perceive the land. When we, the white people, go
into business, when we want to build a house, when we want to acquire
some real estate, we go to our lawyer, we do a lot a measuring and we
try to stake out our land as accurately as possible. We do some
surveying.
In our opinion, the land belongs to us. It must be staked out, and it
belongs to us.
The native philosophy is quite different. For the natives, the land
belongs to everyone. This was the philosophy that they had and that
guided them when the white people came. For them, it was quite normal to
share the territory. But, as we will see, the issue and the approach
were quite different for the white people. Unfortunately, as I said
earlier, this was not done quite to the benefit of the natives.
We also have very little information about their culture.
Anthropologists have not examined these issues very much. However, we
got some data from merchants and explorers, who divided the natives into
three groups. The eastern group, which includes some bands such as the
Yellow Knives, the Dog Ribs—
1730
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. It being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting
policy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be the first person
to speak in support of this piece of private member's
legislation, Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. In
my allotted time I would like to speak to three basic points or
principles.
I should point out this is not a new piece of legislation either
to this House or to the Senate. In fact, this is the same piece
of legislation which in the last Parliament was called Bill C-216
and which passed this House as amended by the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage and passed the Senate as amended there and
is now back before us as Bill C-288 in the same words. But there
is one slight shift. This has not been deemed votable by the
committee charged with making such determinations.
To those members of other parties and to new members I have to
point out that this bill has been studied by a House committee,
it has been studied by a Senate committee and it passed the
House, passed the Senate and came back here as amended.
This bill received more press coverage in the last Parliament
than any other private member's bill by far. It received
editorial endorsements and it taught the Senate of Canada that it
cannot sit idly by and ignore private members' legislation passed
by this House.
Some members may recall the call a senator campaign which was
launched last winter and should know that the Senate of Canada
was forced to hire extra telephone operators to deal with the
thousands of calls made into that place telling the senators to
get on with their business and to pass this bill.
Clearly if thousands of Canadians would pick up the phone to
call the toll free line at the Senate, one must conclude that
this bill had and continues to have wide scale public support.
It is equally important to note that the bill has also been
endorsed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the
Consumers Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre and was endorsed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on
April 9, 1997 in this House.
Finally, because there were concerns expressed in the other
place about the effect of this bill on French language services,
when it cleared the other place it was noted in debates there
that even the French language specialty service approved of this
bill.
Furthermore, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail,
the Montreal Gazette, the Financial Post and other
papers carried editorials calling for the passage of this bill.
The Financial Post in an editorial said that despite the
cable industry's promise not to employ negative option billing
again, it was time to drive a stake through the heart of it so
that marketers within the cable industry did not find a new
variation.
This evening is perhaps the last chance the House will have to
deal with this issue.
The second point I want to make deals with the substance of this
bill. What this legislation does for the first time is give
Canadian consumers a modicum of control over what they will pay
for services offered by cable, telephone and satellite companies
on to television screens. It is not a radical idea. It is a
pretty simple concept that Canadian consumers should agree to the
provision of services and that in agreeing they should know what
they are receiving and what the cost will be.
Of course this is the normal practice in most marketplaces save
and except, and I say this sadly, in matters of Canadian
telecommunication. In this realm we have said that Canadians
should not have the right to select what they receive and how
much they will pay for it.
This is a pathetic commentary on how specialty television
services are provided in this country and goes a long way to say
how we as legislators have allowed the exploitation of the
Canadian public by large corporate interests all in the name of
culture.
1735
Yet this bill affects only specialty channels. It in no way
impairs or impedes the ability of the government to declare
certain channels to be mandatory and therefore to be carried on
basic cable.
This bill simply deals with specialty channels, those specific
interest channels that to some are entertaining and to others are
of no interest. These channels are simply diversionary
entertainment. They are of no consequence to anyone, cultural or
otherwise.
The present chair of the CRTC, Madam Bertrand, stated before a
Senate committee last spring that this bill really was not
necessary because of competition in the marketplace, and
additionally that cable companies would not employ deceptive
marketing techniques again.
We all remember the declarations of the Canadian Cable
Television Association which assured us of its new found,
straight up marketing techniques in dealing with Canadian
consumers.
Yet is it not interesting that these born again straight
shooters of last spring and January 1998 again used manipulative
marketing practices to try to trap subscribers to taking
additional channels?
We saw a month and a half ago that the public statements of Mr.
Richard Stursberg, the spokesperson for that organization, were
made with a number of qualifiers which he failed to mention
originally, that is that negative option marketing continues to
exist across this country. This was noted by the Toronto
Star in an editorial on January 30, 1998: “It is time for
consumers to raise their voices again”.
The only way consumers can raise their voices is through us in
this place who can legislate to give them the protection they
want and deserve.
I have asked members present to think about it, to think back to
the consumer revolts of 1995 on this subject, to think back to
the sanctimonious statements by the industry that it had learned
a lesson and would not use manipulative marketing practice, to
think about it, to look to the practices of recent weeks.
It is clear that only one conclusion can be drawn, that no
lesson was learned by the industry. Once again the consumer is
forced to pay. Again the Canadian consumer is the loser while we
in this place refuse to do anything. What a pathetic commentary
on our ability to help those we allegedly serve here.
The third point deals with the role of the CRTC in all this. As
I noted earlier, the CRTC appeared before the House committee on
Canadian heritage when this bill was before this House and five
months later before the committee in the other place when it was
there.
When it was here before the committee Mr. Keith Spicer, the then
chair of that commission, stated to members present they ought to
go ahead and pass this bill.
Five months later his successor, the present chairman, Madam
Bertrand, said it is not necessary. Eight months later the cable
industry is back to its old tricks.
There is one party that is extremely culpable in all of this
besides the cable industry, the CRTC. It has turned its back on
Canadian consumers and has co-operated every step of the way with
the industry to the gross detriment of our constituents, Canadian
consumers.
How it could, in a period of five months, flip-flop from
endorsing and calling for the passage of legislation to a point
where it could conclude that it was not necessary is beyond me.
It is evident the CRTC has no policy on this. It is fine for it
to tell people to go back to basic cable, but it fails to realize
that 90 per cent of Canadian consumers have something greater
than basic cable. Telling people to go back to basic cable is
really destroying the specialty channels that it says it is there
to encourage in growth. What does the CRTC do in this instance?
What does it do for Canadians? The answer is still nothing.
In a letter I forwarded to the chair of that commission on
January 22, 1998, I asked what action in the name of consumers
will the CRTC take to review unacceptable steps taken by Rogers
Cable. I should point out that subsequently virtually all cable
companies in this country took the same step.
In a reply I received from the chair one month and five days
later I was told: “A competitive broadcasting marketplace
offering Canadians a greater array of program and cost options is
beginning to appear”.
This is the justification apparently for Madam Bertrand and her
commissioners to allow their industry to run over consumers.
She went on to further note that she is sending a copy of my
letter to Rogers and asking that it respond to me directly about
my concerns within three weeks and to send a copy of its response
to her.
1740
This is clearly ridiculous. The CRTC has become a post office
box for people with complaints, Canadian consumers, the people it
allegedly serves. We have set up this body to protect Canadians.
I must say I am very comforted by Madam Bertrand's assurance
that the commission is now following this issue and that I along
with many other Canadians have brought this to her attention. I
have to wonder somewhat facetiously if one must bring this issue
to the attention of Madam Bertrand with a ball peen hammer to get
some action.
While the CRTC hides behind this wall that all is well and the
marketplace will take care of any problems, she writes letters
talking about how the CRTC works to establish fair and affordable
basic monthly rates and programming options for cable
subscribers. Clearly she is out of her realm. Clearly she is
out of touch. Even the television reporter for the Toronto
Star, the person who works full time covering the
television and communications beat for the largest newspaper in
Canada, on January 23 of this year, less than two months ago,
wrote that he hated the monopoly and hated having no choice.
If a person who works and is imbued in this industry is unaware
of the competition then where does the chair of the CRTC get off
in believing there is competition in the marketplace? It is no
wonder or surprise to us here that we continually hear from
constituents who have no use for that body known as the CRTC,
that the time has arrived for us to seriously look at its
continued existence, that the time is now to take action and put
an end to this silly charade where Canadians, our constituents,
are always ending up being the people who pay. They are the
victims in this case.
The time is now. It is the last chance for members in this
place to do something for Canadian consumers in the face of an
indifferent regulatory body which has no interest in them.
I would therefore seek the unanimous consent of this House for
the following motion. I move:
That Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, be deemed
to have been chosen a votable item.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent
in the House to put this bill to a vote?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this bill, seconded by me, is a learning experience in Parliament
and parliamentary procedure. This bill is one that passed this
House of Commons, went to the Senate and after a rocky ride
arrived back in the House of Commons. Indeed it was the Bloc
Quebecois at the time that also took parliamentary procedure to
make sure that the prior bill did not ever get through the House
of Commons.
It is really regrettable because I have in my hand a news release
from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa dated
Wednesday, March 11, today. I would like to read the news
release:
MPs urged to support negative option bill.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre today urged MPs to support
Bill C-288, which will outlaw negative option marketing by the
cable industry. This bill is, word for word, identical to Bill
C-216 which was introduced in the last Parliament, but killed
after being passed by the Senate.
“Contrary to promises by the industry, consumers are not only
still faced with negative option billing, but, in addition,
negative reaction marketing”, said Michael Janigan, Executive
Director of PIAC. “Now they're using a variation of this same
old trick for the introduction of new services”, he continued.
The practice of negative option marketing occurs when a
subscriber automatically receives a service for which they are
billed, unless the cable company is notified to the contrary.
Negative reaction marketing has developed with the introduction
of new specialty channels. Consumers who subscribe to existing
packages (beyond basic cable) face a massive rate hike unless
they agree to take the new specialty package.
1745
The news release goes on.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is interested in this as an
advocate for the ordinary consumer. The position I am taking as
the Reform Party heritage critic and the reason I seconded this
bill is that I too have the interest of the Canadian consumer at
heart. It is not just the Bloc Quebecois members who for reasons
best known to themselves, and perhaps they will describe to us
later, have refused to give unanimous consent that this bill be
votable. It is the heritage minister in particular and the CRTC
that have come out against this and have been working against it
underground in the background behind the scenes. The Canadian
public should really understand this.
I said that this was a learning experience and it truly was. In
the last Parliament when the sponsoring member brought this bill
forward, it went through the House with only 25 members voting
against it at second reading. The heritage minister at that
point said that she was in favour of this bill and its passage.
Someone over at the CRTC took the time to read the bill and came
to the false conclusion that this would limit specialty channels
in the French language. It is a totally false conclusion. It has
been proven to be a false conclusion in the Senate hearings that
took place.
All sorts of things took place between the first and second
reading stages. The bill went to committee. It was examined in
committee. It was refined in committee. When it came back to the
House for third reading, some very interesting things took place.
By then the heritage minister became aware of the fact that her
officials at the CRTC had arrived at this false conclusion and
therefore was bending arms behind the scenes with the Liberal
backbenchers.
We know the Prime Minister has said that Liberal backbenchers
may vote how they wish on a private member's bill. Therefore the
heritage minister was faced with a problem. She started some arm
twisting. We have actual documentation still on file of her
recommendations to the members aggressively recommending that
they vote against it.
On Monday, the day of the vote, the minister chose to absent
herself from the House of Commons when the vote would be taking
place. My office followed the procedure. The minister actually
chose to go to a public event that was taking place at the
convention centre in Toronto. She thereby had an excuse not to
come to the House. She previously said that she was going to
vote in favour of the bill but all of a sudden—
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I believe my hon. colleague may not refer to a division in the
House or to the absence or presence of someone here. I do not
think that is proper.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member for Kootenay—Columbia to try to stay within the framework
of the debate before us.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, the bottom line to the
exercise is that this bill has gone through a very convoluted
process.
In spite of the aggressive arm twisting of the heritage
minister, the heritage ministry and the officials at the CRTC,
not only with the members in the House of Commons but also with
the members of the Senate, it did arrive back.
It was through action by the Bloc Quebecois that the bill ended
up being rejected.
1750
This is my thesis. At exactly the same time this was taking
place, there was the copyright bill which the heritage minister
wanted to get through. She ended up with the full co-operation
of the Bloc Quebecois in certain procedures that took place in
committee. It is my thesis that the payback the Bloc Quebecois
gave to the minister for achieving certain objectives for Quebec
artists in the copyright bill was that it would thwart this very
necessary piece of legislation.
Why is it a necessary piece of legislation? It is necessary
because there is a monopoly under the existing broadcast rules
and communications rules. There is a monopoly for cable. It is
opening up, but it is opening up very slowly. Right at this
moment if there was full competition with the cable companies by
telephone and telecommunications companies, if there was not the
significant price differential in getting a dish, or not being
able to put a dish in certain areas of certain cities or on
apartment buildings, cable companies would not get away with
either negative option billing or negative marketing, the new
variation they are presently into.
The Reform Party is noted for saying let us be free of
government rules and regulations, particularly unnecessary rules
and regulations. Therefore one might ask why the Reform Party
heritage critic would have seconded this bill coming to the House
of Commons.
We do not live in a perfect world. I have already described
that the cable companies do not have true competition. Until such
time as they have true competition, to protect the Canadian
consumer we must have this kind of legislation.
I therefore find it exceptionally regrettable that the Bloc
Quebecois would have voiced its rejection of this becoming a
votable item in the House tonight. I note that this rejection
had it not come from the Bloc without a doubt would have come
from the Liberal side of the House. I just do not understand
what is going on here. Why do we have a government—
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It has already been drawn to the Chair's attention that the hon.
member has commented on the voting of a particular member and the
member's presence or absence in the House which is entirely
contrary to the rules of Parliament. He is now choosing to
speculate on how a member might, would or could have voted or
several members might, would or could have voted with absolutely
no basis on which to make such a statement. I would ask that you
call him to order, please, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would remind the
hon. member to keep his remarks within the framework being
debated right now.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, as Shakespeare said, she
doth protest too much.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, on a point of
order.
Again, the issue was not whether the member was addressing the
matter before the House. The issue was the member was commenting
on the voting or potential voting of a member of this House.
That is contrary to the rules. Would you please remind him that
it is contrary to the rules of procedure in this House.
1755
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All reflections on
decisions of the House and of its members must be made
judiciously. I remind all members to please act accordingly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-288 introduced by my Liberal
colleague for Sarnia—Lambton and entitled an act to amend the
Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy).
The bill is motivated by the member's legitimate concerns
about the controversial business practice of negative option
billing followed by certain cable companies, primarily in English
Canada.
My colleague introduced Bill C-216 in the last Parliament, and
the Bloc opposed it because it went well beyond the member's
intentions and could have had a negative impact on the broadcasting
system, in part by threatening the availability of francophone
specialty channels in Quebec and in francophone and Acadian
communities outside Quebec.
Furthermore, we cannot support a bill that represents an
intrusion into areas of billing and consumer protection, both of
which are under provincial jurisdiction.
The bill before us would establish federal regulations on the
billing for cable services, when business relations between a
consumer and a vendor are a provincial matter. I would invite my
federalist colleague to look at section 92(3) of the Constitution
in this regard.
I also point out that, in 1995, the heritage minister recognized this
areas as an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.
In fact, in Quebec we have an organization looking after this: the
consumer protection bureau. Jurisprudence confirms that the Quebec
consumer protection legislation applies to all businesses, even those
under federal jurisdiction, such as broadcasting corporations, as far as
the consumer, commercial practices and advertising are concerned.
The Quebec consumer protection legislation outlaws negative option
billing. Paragraph 230(a) of this act provides that no merchant can
demand any money for goods or services provided to a consumer, when the
consumer has not agreed to receive such goods or services.
The 1995 consumer revolt in English Canada was sparked when Rogers
Communications took advantage of the introduction of six new specialty
channels, English speaking channels, on cable television to take out of
its basic service package channels that subscribers liked, asking them
to pay extra to get them back.
In Quebec, the situation was different. Vidéotron simply added new
specialty channels to its basic service at no extra cost. COGECO and CF
Cable, on the other hand, reached with the consumer protection bureau an
agreement providing for the maintenance of certain practices, as long as
flexible arrangements were in place to avoid penalizing consumers who
may not have understood that it was up to them to cancel or opt out.
In addition, one of the reasons the Quebec consumers association
opposed this bill was the fact that the CRTC and the consumer protection
bureau already had appropriate powers to correct abuse.
1800
The Association gave four reasons it was opposed to this bill.
First, it would prevent the broadcasting of new services and would
reduce francophones' access to a wider range of programming in
their own language. Second, it would reduce the number of
francophone listeners with access to these services because the
cost would allow only the more affluent to subscribe. Third, in
the absence of affordable French language services, francophone
consumers would have to fall back on English language specialty
services. Fourth, in the absence of reasonably priced viable
services in Quebec, it would be impossible to extend these services
to francophone and Acadian communities in the country.
The Association des consommateurs du Québec summed up the other
major reason for which we are opposing this bill very well: it
would very likely hamper the development of new French language
services in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada spoke out strongly against the bill, because it would
prevent francophones living in a minority situation from having
access to specialty services in their own language.
Bill C-288 of the 36th Parliament is identical to Bill C-216
of the 35th Parliament. If this bill were passed, cable companies
would have to obtain the agreement of each subscriber before adding
a specialized service to the basic service and then raising the
price. The odds are that, where francophones were in the minority,
the anglophone majority would not agree to a rate hike in return
for a French language service, thus preventing broadcasting of this
service.
In addition, this bill would make it possible to choose which
specialty services would be optional. It would not be surprising
if anglophones did not wish to pay for French language specialty
services and did not order them. These services would therefore no
longer make money for cable companies and would rapidly disappear.
The objections and fears of the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne with respect to this bill were entirely
justified, and we share its view that it is up to lawmakers to
ensure that the statutes of Canada make it possible to preserve a
space in which francophone and Acadian communities can identify
themselves and flourish. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has
a history of appearing not to be very sensitive to the francophone
fact.
In conclusion, I wish to say that, from the point of view of
consumers, the ideal situation would be to be able to select the
specific channels they wished and to pay for those alone.
Unfortunately, current technology does not yet allow cable companies to
provide that option. Pay per view television allows consumers to pay for
one program at a time by decoding the signal, but this system is still
costly.
Moreover, in a small market such as Quebec, few specialized French
language channels would have enough listeners to survive in a pay per
view system. The current system allows people to have specialty
services in their own language, and these services reflect what goes on
in their community, as well as their preferences and interests.
I can only conclude that the member who introduced this bill, and
those who support it, show once again that they care little about the
cultural reality of Quebec and of French speaking communities outside
our province.
By trying to regulate at the national level an area of provincial
jurisdiction—this in an attempt to solve a problem that is not very
serious in Quebec—they are showing that there are two different
realities: the Canadian reality and the Quebec reality.
This bill would probably be useful to the rest of Canada, but it
would be harmful to Quebec and to francophones outside Quebec. This bill
is yet another example of how our two realities, our two ways of living,
the Canadian way and the Quebec way, would thrive a lot more if we had
two different countries united in a new partnership.
Members will understand that the Bloc Quebecois absolutely cannot
support such a bill.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-288, moved by my
hon. friend, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
I want to begin by congratulating him for all the work he has
done on this issue on behalf of the millions of Canadian
consumers of cable television.
1805
He is of course quite right to point out the source of the
desire to essentially outlaw negative billing, which came from
the reaction of what I think might be properly called a consumer
revolt against cable companies in January 1995 as they responded
to negative billing by their cable companies.
The vast majority of us, certainly those of us living in urban
areas and even in smaller communities, receive our television
service through cable companies. Of course because of the
monopoly situation those cable companies are in we are faced with
difficult questions when presented with a practice such as
negative billing. It is only to be expected that consumers would
respond in this way.
Were it the case that this practice and this general approach to
customers by cable companies was over, perhaps we would not need
to pursue the matter so vigorously. However, there are consumers
not only in Quebec but in other provinces who are being faced
with this particular practice and the problem continues.
I think, on the whole, Canadian consumers have lined up in
favour of the legislation. They are in favour of protecting
consumers and putting consumers first.
As well, a number of organizations which are generally
supportive of consumers' interests are in favour of the
legislation, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, the
Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Canadian Association of
Broadcasters.
I would also point out that the vast majority of members of this
House are supportive of this measure. Indeed, when the House was
last faced with responding to this question, when the member for
Sarnia—Lambton moved this piece of legislation in the last
Parliament, I think that the vote was 84 to 68 in favour of the
legislation. Had there not been an election called last year
this legislation would have been passed into law and Canadian
consumers would indeed be protected.
We heard the Bloc Quebecois speak today against the interests of
Canadian consumers. Rather than leave the matter to consumers in
Quebec and outside Quebec to make decisions as to what services
might be provided, the Bloc is opposing this legislation which
would be in the interests of the vast majority of Canadian
consumers of cable television.
We have had what at best could be described as a luke warm
response from the Liberal government. We certainly saw the
Minister for Canadian Heritage dragged screaming and kicking in
support of this legislation and, as has been indicated, not
standing up for Canadian consumers on this point.
We have the CRTC, as the member for Sarnia—Lambton indicated,
which is also not performing its role on behalf of Canadian
consumers. As well, there are a number of cable companies which
would like to continue this practice in the face of all the
opposition which has been voiced.
It is rather odd, in that context, with the overwhelming support
of Canadians for this bill which would essentially outlaw
negative billing, that the Sub-committee on Private Members'
Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
would not recognize that overwhelming support and deem this bill
votable.
There are a number of forces lodged against the interests of
consumers with regard to banning negative billing.
It is a nefarious practice because, as I mentioned, Canadians
have no choice, if they are to receive cable services, but to
respond to the terms of payment offered by their cable companies.
I think it is only right, in the context of that monopoly
situation, that this House respond appropriately to resolve the
question in the interests of Canadian consumers.
1810
Whatever difficulties there may be—and I would not want to
underestimate them—with the delivery of services in French, we
should not respond to this legislation in a way which is contrary
to the interests of millions and millions of other Canadians. We
must therefore respond to those concerns in a different way and
seek other approaches to the problem without undermining the
interests of all other Canadian consumers.
I would end on one final point with regard to whether or not
this House is going to have the opportunity to vote on this piece
of legislation again at some stage. As I mentioned, had there
not been an election called last year this would now be in effect
and Canadian consumers would be protected. I think that is
fairly clear.
If we continue to deny members of this House the opportunity to
have this bill voted on, then it challenges the government's
commitment to addressing this particular concern. If indeed the
members from the Bloc continue to refuse unanimous consent for
this bill to be votable, then the matter falls fairly squarely on
the Minister of Canadian Heritage and we can then watch as she
decides what she will do; whether she will respond on behalf of
Canadian consumers or whether she will respond on behalf of the
number of cable companies that are supportive of this practice
which is contrary to the interests of Canadians.
On that note, I would ask that this House grant unanimous
consent for this bill to be deemed votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent that
the bill be made votable as suggested by the hon. member?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak in favour of Bill C-288. Much has been said on this
very important subject by my other colleagues so I will be brief
in my remarks.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton brought forward a similar bill,
known then as Bill C-216, in the last Parliament. I want to take
this opportunity to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for
having brought back this private member's bill. It is
unfortunate, however, that his efforts and those of many in this
House and in the other place will not reach fruition again.
[Translation]
This bill provides for the necessary changes to the Broadcasting
Act in order to prevent negative option billing for new specialty
services. This bill is the only way the House can respond to the
consumers who are asking for a decision on this issue. Unfortunately,
this bill is not a votable item.
During second reading of Bill C-216 in the last Parliament, my
colleagues from the other place defended the French language pay tv and
specialty services.
My party shared its concerns with the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Canadian Cable
Television Association and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes
du Nouveau-Brunswick among others, and then brought forward
amendments to the bill.
The proposed change still aims to protect the consumers, which is
the main purpose of the bill. It also answers the main concerns about
the delivery of French language services, mainly the availability and
cost of specialty services in French. The proposed amendment to the bill
is a compromise which would facilitate the delivery of services to the
French communities.
[English]
We have consulted with the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Canadian Association
of Broadcasters and both were in favour of this amendment.
This bill, as amended by the Senate in the last Parliament,
would have gone a long way in preventing the CRTC from gouging
its consumers. When Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper last
April, when the Liberals called an election after only three and
half years in office, it looked like the CRTC was about to back
off, but it has not.
If we take my own experience in Ottawa, Rogers Cable has been
pushing the ME-TV package for months. It offered a free
subscription for a couple of months and consumers were told that
billing would start for this package after Christmas if they
chose to keep the service.
What Rogers was not saying last fall was that if we chose not to
take the package at $6.95 a month we had to pay $2 more a month.
That does not sound like a very good deal for the consumer. On
the one hand you have to pay $6.95 for 15 channels although you
may only want one. On the other hand if you do not want any, you
get charged $2.00 more per month.
1815
I reiterate my support for this bill. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to protect the rights of consumers.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
join in the debate on Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.
With regard to this bill, we must think first and foremost about
Canadian consumers. The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton deserves our
praises for bringing their concerns to our attention.
When broadcasting started only radio existed. Even then, the
Parliament of Canada saw fit to pass legislation in this area to meet
the needs of consumers.
Indeed, for over 60 years, as the network has been expanding,
successive parliaments have used their powers to ensure that Canadians
have access to quality programming produced by Canadians, as well as to
the best programs from abroad.
This is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian broadcasting,
which has remained the same in spite of the many technical changes we
have witnessed regarding radio, and television where programs were
initially in black and white, then in colour; first programs were
received using a conventional antenna, then came cable TV and other
forms of transmission including direct-to-home satellite broadcasting.
There have been changes not only in transmission techniques, but
also in programming formulas and choice of packages offered.
Traditional television stations and networks are now competing with
a broad range of specialized offerings, as well as the pay TV
channels and pay-for-view TV.
These changes and improvements have not been without their
problems, as this bill shows.
We have, however, always found a way to solve the problems
caused by changes in broadcasting, and to attune the Canadian
broadcast network to the needs and interests of Canadians.
This will continue to be our main focus and we owe thanks to
the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for having brought to our
attention the problems associated with the launching of specialized
television services in Canada.
For the past 30 years, Parliament has entrusted the CRTC, the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, with
the mandate under the Broadcasting Act of regulating and monitoring
the Canadian broadcast network so as to implement the policy
objectives set out in that act.
Generally speaking, this has worked well and I am convinced
the CRTC will continue to take Canadian public opinion into
consideration, and to strike a fair balance in its search for the
means to realize the policy objectives set for it.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has
the floor. His speech will put an end to the debate on this item.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that this is either the first or second day of the
institution of this new rule. If private members are not aware,
the sponsor of the bill or motion gets to speak for the last five
minutes.
I want to thank my colleagues from the Reform Party, the New
Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party for their
support in this matter.
1820
I also want to say how surprised I am by the culture critic for
the Bloc. The member has laid out a number of the same old
stories but has failed to recognize the new paradigm which
occurred.
This bill was endorsed by the specialty services association in
the province of Quebec at the Senate when it was amended there.
It is now amended and is here, yet the member refuses to
recognize that. This bill was endorsed by the association of
francophones and Acadians outside Quebec when it left the other
place and is now here in the same form. She denies that that
occurred.
The hon. critic for the Bloc has said that Quebec law prohibits
negative option billing. If that is the case, then perhaps the
hon. critic can tell us why in the province of Quebec Videotron
is doing it and has been doing it since September 1997.
I was called to do several interviews on this topic. Perhaps
the Bloc can enlighten us and tell us why consumers were
complaining in Quebec and why when they complained to the
provincial consumer office they were told that nothing could be
done because it was federal legislation. Is this the new
realization? Is this the new life of the Bloc?
I would also like to point out that it was said in a speech by
another member from this side of the House that the CRTC has been
doing a good job for the last 30 years. I have to disagree with
that person. I have to suggest that the speech came directly
from the Department of Canadian Heritage and was not a speech of
that member.
The fact is that Canadians are not protected, whether they be in
Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia or Prince Edward Island.
Canadians are tired of this arbitrary treatment. Notwithstanding
what Bloc members might think, they are simply standing in the
way of all Canadians, including their constituents and my
constituents, in this matter for very dogmatic reasons which are
best known to them and quite frankly not understood by anyone
else. This includes the consumers associations in that province.
That being said, as I stated earlier, the time has arrived for
members in this place to do something for the people they
represent. We represent the people who pay the bills. We do not
represent the large corporate interests in cable production which
exist across this country.
That being noted, I would like to move another motion in
conclusion. I seek unanimous consent to move the following
motion:
That the order for second reading be withdrawn and that the
subject matter of this bill be referred to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage.
I would like to make it clear in moving that motion that I am
not referring the bill to the committee. I am not asking that
the bill be declared a votable item. I am simply asking that the
subject matter of this bill be referred to the Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous
consent on that point.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent to propose this motion to the House?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the order
paper.
Is it agreed that we call it 6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
1825
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the parliamentary secretary will be a little familiar with this
question because I have asked it several times and I never get
the right answer.
I urge the parliamentary secretary to listen to the question,
think, and answer for himself, not a canned written answer by the
department. This is not a highway issue. It is not a provincial
issue. It is an issue of government responsibility on behalf of
the federal government.
In September 1995 the federal government signed an agreement to
put $16.2 million into a highway on one condition. That condition
was that the province put $16.2 million into that highway as
well. That is $16.2 of taxpayers' hard earned money. They each
agreed to put $16.2 million into it.
However, as soon as the federal money was in, the province
removed its $16.2 million. All of the government money is
entirely the federal contribution of $16.2 million. Even though
the province agreed to split this 50:50 it does not have one red
cent in this section of highway.
We contend that it is the federal minister's responsibility for
the $16.2 million. He was entrusted by the taxpayers of Canada to
look after that $16.2 million and he cannot look the other way
any longer. He must and he should and I hope he will act.
It is worse than that. It is worse than the fact that the
province of New Brunswick took its $16.2 million out. The New
Brunswick minister of transport recently said it was always the
province's intention to recover the provincial share. Here
Sheldon Lee was signing a contract saying the province was going
to put 50% into this highway but on the side he says it was
always the province's intention to not honour its word and take
its 50% back.
It is even worse than that. Even though the province of New
Brunswick is signing a contract saying it will put in $16.2
million if the federal government puts in $16.2 million, the
minister of finance for the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Edmond
Blanchard, said “We have always intended that the provincial
money we invested in these sections of road would be recovered”.
Here they were, signing a contract saying the province was going
to put 50% in when it had absolutely no intention of doing so.
The minister said yesterday and at other times in this House
that he will never let it happen again anywhere. He even
acknowledged yesterday that there is an issue that has to be
dealt with in future agreements. However, he is obligated to fix
this agreement and not future ones, that they will look after
themselves but this agreement must be fixed.
The $16.2 million of federal taxpayers' money must be accounted
for. The contract is not completed yet. It does not expire
until the end of March. The highway is not finished. The
minister must tell the province of New Brunswick to put the money
back, just like the province agreed to do in September 1995. It
is not complicated. The province agreed to put $16.2 million
into this highway. It has not put in one red cent.
Will the parliamentary secretary now tell the minister to tell
the province of New Brunswick to put the money back and carry on
with enforcing the contract in the same way it always should
have?
The other question is why are the people of New Brunswick being
subjected to this foolishness when no other Canadians will be
subjected to it in the future according to the minister? The
minister said he would not allow this to happen anymore, anywhere
else. Why is New Brunswick being forced to take this treatment?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): I would like to thank members of the
Conservative Party for the applause but maybe they should wait
for the answer.
I want to give the hon. member who is asking the question my
interpretation of the facts as I see them in an answer that he
surely will respect.
New Brunswick has chosen to operate a new Fredericton to Moncton
highway as a public-private partnership using tolls. The
province announced on January 23, 1998 that Maritime Road
Development Corporation was to construct and operate a 195
kilometre four lane controlled access highway from Longs Creek,
west of Fredericton to Magnetic Hill, west of Moncton.
The total capital cost of this project was $887 million. The
cost includes new construction at $584 million plus the payment
to the provinces for work completed or under way on various
sections of $123 million, which does not include the $32 million
federal contribution, plus land costs and construction interest
costs. The overall agreement is for 50 years.
1830
The highway will be open by November 30, 2001, but New Brunswick
plans to start collecting tolls on the existing four lane
Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and River Glade starting
July 1998.
The current provincial highway financing agreements are silent
on tolls as they were never contemplated at the time the programs
were established. The federal government has no legal basis to
prevent provinces from imposing tolls on provincial highways,
including those highways that have received federal
contributions.
The federal government entered into these highway agreements
because it wished to accelerate the construction of safer and
more efficient highways. In this case New Brunswick has advised
that the federal contributions are being deducted against the
cost base that would be used to establish the tolls and the
annual provincial payment for the remaining capital cost.
I hope the hon. member is absorbing all these important facts
because he has hit a dead end on this road—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to advise the
parliamentary secretary that his time has expired.
[Translation]
SABLE ISLAND NATURAL GAS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak, in the four minutes I have, on the important
issue I raised in this House in December, and that is the natural
gas pipeline running from Sable Island to the United States by way
of Moncton.
It is important to speak on this, because, as a representative
of northern New Brunswick, I know we have already asked to have the
pipeline pass through our region.
We would have used it as infrastructure to attract business
and create jobs in the region. At the moment, business people back
home have had studies made demonstrating the importance of it.
I think the government should be interested in what we have to say,
which is that the pipeline should pass through northern New
Brunswick and right on through, even as far as Bernier, Quebec.
That is what you would call a national line, like the national
railway, which goes from the west to the east.
This is one way to develop our region and create jobs there.
More than just viability should be considered. I think it
important to invest in creating jobs in northern New Brunswick.
This is the sort of investment we need. Back home, some 19.6% of
people are on employment insurance, when what we need is investment
to create jobs.
People want to work. That is what they want, and we must take the
necessary measures to give them jobs.
We already have the port of Belledune, which created jobs in our
region. If we had the natural gas pipeline, it would create further
opportunities for us. We must see it this way. I am not opposed to the
natural gas pipeline going through southern New Brunswick only, I am
even happy about that, but any industry coming to New Brunswick will go
where the pipeline is. Once again, the northern part of the province
will not have the opportunity to grow.
If we want northern New Brunswick to grow, we must give it the
necessary tools. And that is one way to invest. We must not only see
this in terms of viability, but as a way of investing in the northern
part of New Brunswick.
The same goes for other areas, like western New Brunswick. We cannot
just turn our backs on them, without taking some kind of initiative to
stimulate employment in the region. This is important. It is especially
important, since fisheries in our part of the country has been all but
shut down. The cod fishery has been shut down, and the crab quotas and
everything else have disappeared. That is why it is so important to
invest in the infrastructure of this region.
That is why I wholeheartedly recommend that the federal government
think about setting up this line in northern New Brunswick. The Liberals
may make jokes but they too are in favour, for they are watching New
Brunswick—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Resources.
1835
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is
aware and pointed out, last December the Minister of Natural
Resources responded to questions about whether the Sable gas
projects would be studied by the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources. I think that was the tone and tenor of the question.
As the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out at that time,
the Sable gas projects had already been studied for 10 months by
an independent federal-provincial review panel.
The joint review panel was created in September 1996 to perform
a single window review of the offshore and onshore Sable gas
projects to satisfy the requirements of the National Energy
Board.
Prior to its formal hearings the joint panel held 20 informal
sessions in communities throughout the maritimes to provide
information on the projects and to seek public input on the scope
of the review to be conducted.
Following this the panel held 56 days of formal public hearings
in Moncton, Antigonish, Fredericton and Halifax from April to
July 1997. Some 125 interveners participated in the discussions.
I wonder if the member opposite participated in the discussions
at that time. I do not think so. I think that actually there
was a certain absence of the member at that session. I
appreciate his raising the comments in the House this evening.
However, probably the time to act as a good member of Parliament
was at those sessions in his own riding.
It behoves us to point out the fact that the upscale benefits,
particularly in terms of northern New Brunswick, are a decision
the company will be taking. Of course laterals are being
prepared for Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia. I think
that is very worth while. Perhaps the member could spend a
little more time in his riding when he actually presents—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax West.
SELF-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
November I raised a question as to whether the federal government
would show leadership concerning aboriginal self-government. The
response by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development was in part that the government introduced a policy
recognizing the inherent right to self-government and is working
in partnership with the first nations.
On the surface this response may appear appropriate, but true
recognition of aboriginal self-government and a true working
partnership of aboriginal peoples must be more than just words.
There must be sincere commitment evidenced by concrete positive
action.
The federal government must not remain silent on important
issues such as land claims and the sharing of natural resources.
These two issues are fundamental to the concept of
self-government.
Governments should be taking the lead in resolving these issues
through negotiation rather than leaving them to costly and
confrontational court action. A true partnership is built not
upon confrontation but upon consultation and mutual respect.
How much consultation was there prior to the government's
statement of reconciliation on January 7, 1998, at which time
four out of five aboriginal leaders expressed disappointment with
the process leading to that statement and with the statement
itself?
Where was the spirit of partnership and mutual respect when
Canada's head of state, the Prime Minister, failed to appear at
what was intended to be a very significant response to the report
of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples argued that the right
of self-determination was vested in all aboriginal peoples of
Canada and that this right entitled aboriginal peoples to
negotiate the terms of their relationship with Canada and to
establish government structures that they considered appropriate
for their needs.
The commission further proposed section 35(1) of the
Constitution Act, recognizing and affirming aboriginal inherent
right to self-government. That right became constitutionally
entrenched, thereby providing a basis for aboriginal governments
to function as one of three distinct orders of government in
Canada.
The commission spoke in favour of negotiations as a means of
developing self-government arrangements and clarifying the
distribution of powers between governments.
Recent court decisions such as the court decision in New
Brunswick concerning the right of aboriginal peoples to harvest
trees on crown lands points to the need for negotiations around
self-government, the distribution of powers and sharing of
natural resources.
The importance of negotiations is also emphasized in one of the
most significant cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, the
Delgamuukw case. This case involved land claims, aboriginal
rights, aboriginal title and self-government.
While reaching many important conclusions around the issue of
aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and the importance of oral
history in determining such issues, the court ordered a new trial
regarding the specific land claims under dispute.
1840
It is important to note that although ordering a new trial the
court was not encouraging the parties to settle their dispute
through the court but rather through negotiations in the spirit
of the self-government principle recognized in the Constitution
Act.
The court stated that the best approach in these types of cases
is a process of negotiation and reconciliation that properly
considers the complex and competing interests at stake.
The court concluded that the crown is under a moral if not a
legal duty to enter into and conduct these negotiations in good
faith. Ultimately, through such negotiation with give and take
on all sides, we will achieve “the reconciliation of the
pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the
crown”. The chief justice concluded “let us face it, we are
all here to stay”.
In the spirit of that statement I call upon the federal
government to negotiate in good faith with aboriginal peoples to
resolve issues around land claims, the sharing of natural
resources and self-government.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, permit me to respond to the
hon. member for Halifax West on behalf of the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
In 1995 the federal government demonstrated considerable
leadership with the announcement of its policy on aboriginal
self-government.
The government is acting on the premise that the inherent right
of self-government is an existing aboriginal right within our
constitution. Our approach sets aside the legal and
constitutional debates that have stymied process toward
aboriginal self-government. Instead we are working to negotiate
practical arrangements that give aboriginal communities the tools
they need to exercise greater control over their lives and to
make tangible improvements in their communities.
Aboriginal self-government will be exercised within the existing
Canadian constitutional framework. This emphasizes that the goal
of self-government is to enhance the participation of aboriginal
people within Canadian society, not place them outside it.
For example, the federal government is committed to the
principle that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to
aboriginal governments just as it does to all other governments
in Canada. It must also be emphasized that the responsibility of
governments to be politically and financially accountable to
their members applies to aboriginal governments no less than to
others.
The issues surrounding self-government are multifaceted and
complex. This was confirmed in the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Government of Canada
agreed and responded with “Gathering Strength—Canada's
Aboriginal Action Plan”. One of the objectives of this plan is
to strengthen aboriginal governance.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
agreed to convene as soon as possible a
federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible
for aboriginal affairs and national aboriginal leaders that will
focus partners on concrete results.
Progress is being made. Self-government initiatives are under
way in almost every province and territory in Canada, whether in
the context of treaty discussions in British Columbia, through
education negotiations in Ontario and Nova Scotia, in
province-wide initiatives in Saskatchewan or other venues. As we
attempt to complete this great unfinished business in our
history, understanding and generosity will be required of all
sides.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
first part of the question I asked on November 24 called on the
government to substantially lower EI premiums.
Since even the EI fund's actuary says that the fund could be
sustained with $2 premiums, I still do not understand why the
government is stubbornly continuing to block job creation with
overly high premiums.
The government is congratulating itself on having lowered EI
premiums by a paltry 10 cents in December.
They are perhaps going to say they have lowered them from $3.30 to
$2.70, but this is 1998. So we will be listening to what my hon.
colleague has to say.
Payroll taxes, however, CPP and EI premiums, were $5.50 when
the Liberals took office. They now stand at $5.90, or 40 cents
more. And that is just the beginning, because with the CPP
amendments, Canadians will be paying $11 billion more over the next
five years.
1845
It is hard to believe that the government could be so arrogant as
to claim that employers and workers who will have to pay these
additional premiums are happy with the situation.
The second part of my question dealt with the auditor general's
mandate regarding the CPP investment board. His access to the board's
books is limited to the information needed to audit the fund's general
accounts.
He is not allowed to conduct value-for-money audits or check if the
board abides by the law, and report his findings to Parliament. This is
of great concern.
A few months ago, the auditor general informed Parliament of abuses
within the Canada Labour Relations Board.
He will not be able to do the same regarding the CPP investment
board, which manages the money of thousands of Canadians. The stakes are
much higher. And yet, as elected representatives, we will not have a
say.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to say to the House and to the nation I am almost shocked that a
Conservative member would stand in this place and criticize the
government about EI and EI premiums.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall because you were elected in 1988,
the same as I was, that during that period between 1988 and 1993
the government under Brian Mulroney, the party that the member
now serves with, raised those premiums higher than any level in
our history. In the middle of a recession no less it raised
those premiums from $2.60 to $3.30, an insurmountable amount for
any employer and employee to deal with. That is why I say to you
and the people out there I cannot believe this member would even
bring this subject matter up.
Let me make it very clear to the member that we are undertaking
to reduce the premiums for employment insurance as rapidly as we
can. In fact, we have reduced premiums in the employment
insurance system four years running, the largest reduction in the
history of the EI premium and EI system as a whole. There has
never been any government that has reduced premiums every year
for four years.
I will give another statistic. The reduction in the last budget
for 1998 is the second largest since 1972. If the member does
not understand that this government is fiscally prudent and if he
does not understand what it means to have a surplus in the EI
account for a rainy day, then he has a long way to go.
Before we are done we will continue to reduce premiums at a rate
we believe is sustainable. We will make sure there is a
surplus—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
parliamentary secretary, but the time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)