36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 35
CONTENTS
Friday, November 21, 1997
1000
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-17. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1010
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1015
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1020
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1025
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1040
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1045
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1050
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-7. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1055
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCOUTING
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1100
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MATAPÉDIA RCM
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STORNOWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1105
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WYE MARSH WILDLIFE CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1110
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL COMMISSION ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1115
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PEACEKEEPING
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1120
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPTION CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1125
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MARINE ATLANTIC
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1130
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INMATE SECURITY RATING
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KREVER INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1135
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1140
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1145
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1150
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1155
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TELEMARKETING
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIDA
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXPORTS OF DEFENCE GOODS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1200
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Class of 1988
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
1205
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Presence in Gallery
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Presence in Gallery
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DIVORCE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-285. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1210
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Flag
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Donkin Mine
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andrew Mitchell |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-7. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1215
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1230
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1235
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1240
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1255
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
1300
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DONKIN MINE
|
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1305
1310
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1325
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1340
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1355
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1400
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 35
![](/web/20061116184604im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 21, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would ask for
unanimous consent that we might table a committee report on Bill
C-7.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and
the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing
my time with the hon. member for Thornhill.
By November 30, of this year, Canada will have deposited an
Instrument of Acceptance in Geneva signifying Canada's commitment
to one of the most important trade agreements of the 21st
century, the agreement on basic telecommunications.
As of January 1, 1998 this agreement will open a global market
of $880 billion to Canadian telecommunications companies.
Canadian telecom service providers and Canadian telecom
manufacturers are the best in the world. Now they will have the
opportunity to connect the world and build a new global
information society by bringing Canadian ingenuity to the world.
Canada was a key participant in the drive to liberalize the
world's telecommunication markets. At the end of the Uruguay
round of multilateral trade negotiations that established the
World Trade Organization, it was recognized that there were
serious gaps in the services component of the WTO and the General
Agreement on Trade and Services covered many service sectors but
did not cover some fundamental business enablers such as
financial services or basic telecommunications.
After two years of negotiations an agreement was reached on
February 15, 1997. On that date, 69 countries with over 90% of
the world's telecom revenues agreed to liberalize their markets
for the provision of telecommunication services.
As a result of the agreement on basic telecommunications, the
ABT, there will now be multilateral rules for trade and
investment in basic telecommunication services. Local and long
distance telephone, cellular, data transmission and satellite
services will be open to competition. Furthermore, Canada will
now be able to resort to the WTO dispute settlement process
should Canada's trading partners not implement their obligations
to open their markets to Canadian companies.
Each of the countries participating in the agreement has made
specific commitments, setting out the terms and conditions under
which foreigners are permitted to supply basic telecommunication
services in their market. For example, Canadian firms will now
have full access to the U.S. market for the provision of basic
telecommunication services. The use of reciprocity tests by the
U.S. Federal Communications Commission will be severely
curtailed. Canadian companies will be able to provide local
telephone services in the member states of the European Union and
in Japan. All of Canada's major developing country trading
partners have committed to allowing foreign competition into
their markets and to allowing foreign investment of between 25%
and 49%.
Besides making market access commitments, the countries
participating in the agreement on basic telecommunications have
committed to follow the GATS most favoured nation national
treatment and transparency provisions. Countries will no longer
be able to treat one country's telecommunication services
providers better than another. This means that Canadian companies
will be able to compete on a level playing field with other
foreign companies in international markets.
For telecommunication services where countries have made market
access commitments, countries will have to treat foreign
companies in exactly the same way as they treat local companies.
So, a Canadian company in the European market will be treated the
same way as a European company.
Finally, any relevant changes to government policies,
regulations or administrative guidelines must be notified to the
WTO. As well, countries must respond promptly to requests for
information on telecommunications policies and regulations. No
longer will Canadian companies be stymied by walls of obscure
foreign red tape when trying to enter telecommunications markets
abroad.
Furthermore, in order to ensure that as countries move from
monopolies to competitive markets, the local telecommunications
companies do not abuse their dominant position. The agreement
includes a reference paper on regulatory principles.
1010
This means that measures affecting trade in telecommunications
services must be administered in a reasonable, objective and
impartial manner. Licensing requirements and technical standards
must be based on objective and transparent criteria and must not
be more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the
service.
Canadian telecom companies will be able to obtain
interconnection with local telephone companies in foreign markets
under non-discriminatory rates, terms and conditions. Perhaps
most important, all participating countries must establish
independent regulatory bodies which are separate from and not
accountable to the local telephone company.
In addition to opening foreign markets to Canadian
telecommunications service providers, the agreement on basic
telecoms will result in the world-wide market of $800 billion,
which means the market will double or triple in size over the
next 10 years. This will generate a new demand for the products
of Canadian telecommunications manufacturers as telecom operators
around the world prepare for a new global environment of open
markets and competition.
Companies such as Nortel and Newbridge as well as dozens of
small and medium size companies from Newfoundland to British
Columbia have carried the Canadian reputation for high quality,
competitively priced telecommunications equipment. Now this
reputation should earn them a healthy share of this dynamic and
expanding market.
Canadian manufacturers will also benefit from the recently
concluded information technology agreement. Under the provisions
of the ITA, tariffs on information technology products including
computers semiconductors and telecommunications equipment will be
eliminated by the year 2000. This means that a market of $500
billion will become tariff free and will allow Canadian
manufacturers to compete abroad on the basis of their products
and their prices. They will be free from the market distorting
effects of tariffs.
This government has promised to create jobs for Canadians and to
make Canada a cornerstone of the global information society. In
successfully negotiating the GATS agreement on basic
telecommunications, we have done both. Canadian telecom service
providers will launch into newly opened markets and Canadian
telecom manufacturers will find that the demand for their
products will double or triple over the next 10 years.
New opportunity translates into jobs for Canadians and a chance
for Canadians to make their mark on the global information
society of tomorrow.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of this bill. I believe it is good
for Canadian businesses and consumers, including those in
Thornhill. This bill opens the world telecommunications market
to Canadian companies with two important impacts. It will
provide a source of jobs in the knowledge based
telecommunications industries and the competition will lead to
better rates for consumers. Those worthy objectives warrant
support of this bill.
The overwhelming goal of this government is to connect
Canadians, to make Canadians and Canada the most connected
country in the world and to ensure that Canadians have access to
the information highway and the new economy it supports. Many
steps have been taken. This legislation brings forward the
General Agreement on Trade and Services, GATS, which is the
Agreement on Basic Telecommunications, ABT. The legislation
before us implements the terms and the provisions of those
agreements.
I met recently with the the economic development officer for the
town of Markham. He told me that Markham considers itself a high
tech capital of Canada.
The critical mass of companies in knowledge based industries is
unsurpassed in this country. The critical mass is some
700 companies.
1015
I believe, on further exploration, people would find that many
of those companies are involved in or are supporting the
telecommunications industry which is finding its hub, its strong
base, not only in Thornhill but throughout Ontario.
I can also say that I have met with the director of education
for the York region board of education. As well, I have met with
the chair and the director of education of the York region
separate school board. I am pleased to report on the interest
that students and their boards of education have shown in the
government's SchoolNet program. In fact, not only is there
interest in ensuring that all the schools in Thornhill are
connected, the program of having computers in schools is already
firmly connected in the York separate school boards.
They have established a centre where old computers are
refurbished. To date over 400 computers have been distributed
through the York region separate school board system as a result
of the program of the Ministry of Industry which assists schools
to participate in the program and the students to have access to
the computers.
I know that the York region board of education is also very
interested in participating in this program.
There is a heightened awareness of the need to be connected.
There is a heightened awareness of the need to have access and
skills to use these technologies. There is a need for our
students to be educated and have those skills which will lead
them to the jobs of the future.
This legislation will give Canadian business access to an $880
billion industry worldwide. Canada is at the forefront. We are
leaders in this technology. I believe that opening competition
in telecommunications services is not only an important part of
the strategy which this bill provides, but we know that it is the
best and the fastest way to build the infrastructure for a
knowledge based economy. The way to do that is through open
competition. We know that Canadians can compete and can also
lead the world.
Canada will be hosting the high level OECD conference on
electronic commerce in the fall of 1998. Electronic commerce is
not only central to the knowledge based economy, it is also the
foundation for future growth and job creation. By creating the
best environment for electronic commerce Canada can and will
continue to be a world leader in this emerging field, generating
increased investment in electronic networks and growth in such
areas as electronic transmission, multimedia products and on-line
services.
The OECD conference will be an excellent opportunity for
Canadians to learn more about what Canada is doing, what
opportunities there are for them and also about the impact on
consumers.
The legislation before us today is a necessary step toward
giving our telecommunications service companies the keys they
need to the world market. It is my hope that this bill will be
received and unanimously supported by everyone in this House. I
believe it is in the interests of Canadian businesses, it is in
the interests of Canadian consumers, it is in the interests of
all in Canada who have an interest in economic prosperity and job
creation. I know that the people of Thornhill would want to see
this bill passed expeditiously and implemented.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member and certainly
there are parts of this bill which we can support. Perhaps
overall it will improve the system. However, one of the things
that really concerns us is something which has confounded
Canadian business, especially the telecommunications business,
and that is that this bill confers additional powers of
jurisdiction to the CRTC.
1020
Canadian business is asking the government to get out of its
face and let it do business. We see sections of this bill which
enable the government, via the CRTC, to get more into the face of
Canadian business.
In view of the fact that Canadian business basically wants to
say leave it alone to just do business in this country, create
jobs and a healthy economy, this bill gives the CRTC more
dictatorial powers which may serve to further confound the
efforts of Canadian business.
I would like the hon. member to comment on this, please.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that
this bill actually in the specific agreement excludes is
broadcasting. One of the reasons for that was the concern of
this government to ensure the protection of Canadian culture. In
all agreements that have dealt with trade, we have made sure that
culture was off the table and excluded, and the CRTC has been an
important instrument in ensuring that Canadian culture has been
protected and that industries know the rules.
While the CRTC, like any other institution, is imperfect,
certainly we always must remain vigilant to ensure that Canadian
culture is protected at the same time as our industries are
encouraged to participate in a competitive environment and play
on the world stage in a way that will create jobs and prosperity
for Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the comments from the hon. member from the
Liberal party. The unfortunate aspect of it is that in Nova
Scotia we saw recently the provincial government giving $12
million to AT&T; to compete head on with our local phone company,
MT&T.;
I know my colleagues in the Reform Party do not like the idea of
people on welfare and people collecting EI, but I am sure they
would be quite adamant that huge rich multinational companies
come into areas of the maritimes and literally coerce the
provincial government into giving them money in order to set up
shop to the detriment of workers and the company and management
already there.
Can she give assurances to this House today that this bill, or
the agreements to these bills after the OECD, will not add to the
detriment of working people already in those communities? As
well, at the same time she talks about education for children,
need I remind this House that it was this government that cut
education funding to the Atlantic provinces and across this
country to the tune of billions of dollars.
On one hand she says this is good for the future of people and
children. On the other hand they are taking money away that aids
the children of our future.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond
to the member. I believe that Canada and Canadians will benefit.
We will benefit in two very specific ways. The agreement opens
up a world market of $880 billion to Canadian telecom companies
which are among the best in the world and which can compete. That
will mean more jobs and better jobs for people right across this
country. I believe that is what competition will do. I believe
we will see that right across this country and hopefully every
region will see those benefits.
Canadian telecom services providers will also benefit from new
markets on an equal footing with local and foreign competitors
and Canadian telecom manufacturers will find a new demand for
their state of the art products as new and exciting telecom
operators around the world prepare for global markets which are
open and competitive.
This will foster innovation and I believe that will be good for
Canadians because not only will the competition foster
innovation, bring forth the new ideas that our very well educated
Canadian population will benefit from in the way of new jobs and
better jobs, but also I think we will see better prices for
Canadian consumers.
On the answer to the question on students, I made the point that
this government is doing what it can in a very positive way to
ensure the students have access to computer technology,
supporting provinces in their local initiatives, and working
directly with school boards to ensure the students have access to
computers and the skills they need so that they will be able to
take advantage of those new jobs in the future.
1025
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I take part in this debate on Bill C-17, an act
to amend the Telecommunications Act and the Teleglobe Canada
Reorganization and Divestiture Act.
Telecommunications in Canada are in constant evolution. The
standard communication networks are giving way to new technologies.
Obviously, these new means of transmission through technological
development also contribute to the globalization of trade.
In fact, state of the art communication services and
technologies are leading to multiplication of trade outside the
country.
This new context presents a daunting challenge for Canada, that of
maintaining its international competitiveness, despite the threats
to its traditional industry share of investments.
The disappearance of technologies associated with natural
monopolies and the restructuring of telecommunications and
broadcasting activities to meet global, rather than national,
requirements, calls for a reform of government policies. These
must now set out new ground rules for telecommunications and
broadcasting corporations.
The disappearance of the traditional boundaries between
telecommunications, cable television and informatics heralds the
convergence of information transmission services on a single
information highway.
We are witnessing the disappearance of the natural monopoly with
the introduction of indirect competition, which has come about
primarily through the new transmission technologies; direct
competition will require complete deregulation.
In 1993, international communications traffic reached 47.7
billion minutes. This represents barely nine more minutes per
person on a global scale, but 46 minutes if high income earning
nations alone are considered.
The impact of this bill on the everyday lives of citizens will
take the form of new job creation, since our industry is strong and
can easily compete internationally.
According to the Federal Communication Commission, another
advantage will be an 80% drop in international telephone rates in
a few years. This bill therefore has two objectives.
The first is to bring Canadian legislation into line with
Canada's international undertakings as a signatory to the February
1997 World Trade Organization's services agreement, commonly known
as GATT. The agreement takes effect January 1, 1998. The bill's
second objective is to bring Canadian legislation into line with
the new competitive context in the telecommunications industry.
By signing the telecommunications agreement, Canada undertook
to eliminate the remaining monopolies, those held by Teleglobe and
Telesat. It undertook to liberalize international call handling.
It undertook to completely liberalize the regime for ownership of
mobile communications satellite systems and, finally, to lift the
restrictions on increased foreign ownership in Teleglobe Canada.
In addition, ownership of international submarine cable landings in
Canada was liberalized and a reference document setting out
regulatory principles for all signatory countries was approved.
1030
With this bill, the government is giving more powers to the CRTC,
as can be seen in sections 1, 2, 3 and 7. Among its many powers, the
CRTC will be able to issue telecommunications licences and to suspend or
revoke a licence for non-compliance with the act.
As for section 46.6, it provides for the implementation by the CRTC
of a contribution mechanism, because the CRTC itself recognizes that a
contribution fund must be created to provide services in regions where
it is more expensive to do so. This provision gives the CRTC legal
authority to do this. The fund will compensate the companies offering
basic services for their actual costs.
The Bloc Quebecois believes there is an urgent requirement to design a
reliable and transparent mechanism for supporting companies and their
customers in regions where costs are higher.
With the new powers provided the CRTC under this bill, the
government is ensuring that practices in Canada are in line with those
abroad so that a clear and consistent process can be created to identify
the players in the industry. We hope that the CRTC will now be able to
implement rules that guarantee a level playing field for everyone.
As for the Minister of Industry, he now has authority under
sections 4 and 5 of this bill to issue licences for international
submarine cables, and, under section 8, to certify that
telecommunications equipment is in compliance with Canadian standards.
It is also important to note that the government is responsible for the
full implementation of Canada's telecommunications policy.
It must ensure that all Quebeckers and all Canadians have equal access
to telecommunications services. That is why the Minister of Industry has
the power to issue directives to the CRTC.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with this bill,
which flows naturally from the telecommunications agreement. However, a
number of questions arise: What will be the real benefits of these new
initiatives for taxpayers? The Bloc Quebecois believes that hearings are
urgently required to define what is meant by basic telecommunications
services.
What does the “affordability” of a basic service mean? For
some, affordability is determined on the basis of the subscriber
penetration rate, but this is not a significant measurement because it
does not take the fall in the standard of living into account.
The telephone has become an essential commodity. Many people are
prepared to cut elsewhere, for example in the food budget, to have this
commodity. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois thinks there is an urgent need
to determine what low income customers can afford to pay for this basic
telecommunications service.
Despite the liberalization of telecommunications, it is essential
that these services remain affordable for everyone.
There is also another question that we consider critical: What
about privacy? There is great public concern, and rightly so, about the
impact of this on the release of personal information. This bill opens
the door to globalization in the area of communications, and the
government has still not fulfilled its commitment regarding a law to
protect personal information in the private sector and at the networking
level.
The population is still waiting, and there may be very serious incidents
if the government waits too long.
1035
As far as privacy is concerned, both for the private and the
public sector, and where linkage is concerned as well, Quebec is
proud to have been both a laboratory and a model for this. I am
therefore suggesting, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, that the
federal government do its homework and follow the example of the
Quebec legislation which protects both privacy and linkage.
Particularly after passage of this bill, data linkage must be
protected by legislation.
In April 1997, the parliamentary human rights committee called
for adoption of legislation, but we are still waiting. On
September 18, 1996, the Minister of Justice promised it by the year
2000, but we are still waiting.
The Minister of Industry made a commitment to establish a
legislative framework to protect personal data in his Canadian
strategy for the information era, recognizing that voluntary
compliance with a framework was not enough, but we are still
waiting. This leaves us with the impression that the minister is
bowing to the business lobby, which would like to have a more
flexible framework.
Also related to privacy, it appears that the new technologies
will develop telephone communications between individuals and not
places. These new satellite technologies will be able to locate
individuals wherever they are. Thus this becomes a control over
individuals and society. We must go beyond the industrial aspect
and an analysis of profitability, for it is appropriate as well to
question the values our society wishes to preserve.
In the field of telecommunications, the public is often left
out of the debate, given the complexity of the subject, and I can
understand this. That is why the advisory committee on the
information highway suggested, not all that long ago, that the
federal government strike a national advisory committee on access
reporting to the Ministers of Industry and Heritage and mandated to
give advice on the new requirements relating to access and services
deemed essential in a knowledge-based society. This advisory
committee should be composed of equal numbers of members from
industry and the non-profit sector.
In closing, this bill is an opening toward the liberalization
of communications, something which is universally applauded.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois will ensure that these questions
receive clear and formal responses, as well as lead to precise,
concrete and immediate actions.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments that concern us about
this bill. I get back to the point that business has been
wanting government to get out of its face and just let it do its
business.
This bill in fact will give the CRTC, pertaining particularly to
the telecommunications and communications business, more powers
to restrict or issue licences based on what the CRTC believes it
should be doing with its businesses, for example, how much
Canadian content, how much Canadian culture and how their
philosophy might fit with the applicant.
I find this particularly offensive when appointed bureaucrats
are going to have such powers to wield over free enterprise
business. Our party supports free enterprise.
The other comment I have is on the financial fund that is being
set up. This is another opportunity for the government to expand
its patronage program.
1040
It is going to give Liberal MPs simply another avenue to dole
out government grants to Liberal-friendly businesses in their
ridings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, there
are a number of members who have indicated that they would like
to respond in questions and comments. If there are a number of
people who indicate an expression of interest to comment, I would
ask all hon. members to keep their questions and their responses
short so that we can get a bit more debate. Response.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, naturally there are questions,
but we are here in this House to follow the debate, to follow
events and to ensure that the bill covers as many aspects as
possible.
We cannot liberalize unless there is an organization with a
set of rules. This means we have to keep an eye out, because there
are things to monitor.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Hébert on her
speech this morning.
All the questions she raised on this bill are topical. Those
interested parties we met and the public all said so. Her
questioning meets the expectations of the general public. I hope
the Minister of Industry listened attentively to the questions
raised by the member for Louis-Hébert.
I would like to ask her about the importance and the scope of
this institution in her opinion.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, first, this is an area where
we have a significant, even comfortable, lead over other countries.
A third of research and development is done in
telecommunications and information. In this area, we are in a good
position. There are, however, minor effects that are sometimes not
mentioned in this House.
I recently visited a school for severely handicapped children
where the children have access to the Internet. The children said
“Because we are hooked up to the Internet, people do not know we
are sick, they do not know we have problems. The world is at our
fingertips”. This is one instance of what a bill such as this can
do for us, if we have an information highway across the country.
Rural communities that sometimes lack services because of
their remoteness and because of the cost will no longer be
isolated.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hear
talk in the House today about liberalizing trade, liberalizing
this, liberalizing that.
When I hear the word liberalizing, I hear bigger government.
When I hear the word liberalizing, I hear steroids for the CRTC.
When I hear the word liberalizing, I hear more patronage pork,
just like the bigger government resulting from the GST. That is
called liberalizing too, just like the more patronage pork on top
of the 50 patronage appointments that the Prime Minister made
during this year alone, never mind the Senate.
When I hear liberalizing, once again I hear bigger government
and I hear more pork.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, in response to the concerns my
colleague expressed, I say that they and we will ensure that
everything is done as transparently and as fairly as possible.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. What
my hon. member has just said, the word liberalizing really
strikes terror in the hearts of fiscally conservative free
enterprise reformers in this House.
Whenever they hear the words financial fund put forward in a
bill by the Liberals, they just shudder at the thought that the
Liberals are going to establish another lever to pull and use to
pay off their Liberal friends, in particular in the
communications business under this bill.
I did not see the numbers on the fund, but given the history of
the Liberal Party we can imagine that it is not pocket change.
1045
We want to be sure that the Reform Party is on record as saying
that we have always opposed grants and handouts to business, as
the business council and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and
every major business organization in the country have opposed
grants and handouts to business. However, the Liberals choose to
ignore this and establish yet another fund to use in a
patronizing way to friends of the Liberal Party.
That is a comment which I think is quite in order in this debate
today.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, from what I have read, and I
do not have any figures either, the purpose of the fund is to
correct the differences between remote populations and small rural
communities, on the one hand, and more developed centres, on the
other hand, and equalize the price to some extent so they can all
enjoy the same benefits.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, November 24,
1997 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order.
Following the request for a recorded division, I believe that
you would find consent to further defer the recorded division on
second reading of Bill C-17 until the expiry of Government
Orders, Tuesday, November 25, 1997.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the proposal of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to
waive the 48 hour notice to proceed to report stage of Bill C-7,
an Act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. When you read the numbers off, I
assumed it was with regard to a previous bill. I do apologize.
I do give unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For the sake of
clarification, the Chair would ask that we back up and start over
again.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to tell members on both sides of the House that there have
been discussions among all the parties, but I still must request
that the House be asked for its unanimous consent to waive the 48
hour notice to proceed to report stage of Bill C-7, an Act to
establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the chief government whip.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1050
SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act to
establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a
consequential amendment to another act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. chief
government whip on a point of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again, there has been a sharing of information with all the
parties, but I would ask you to seek unanimous consent so that
the Secretary of State for Parks Canada might table a technical
amendment to Bill C-7.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to move a technical amendment. Essentially
we are making sure that both the French and the English versions
are consistent. I move:
That Bill C-7, in the preamble, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 6 on page 1 with the following:
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill at report
stage. We will support the amendment.
Establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is an idea that
originated in the Saguenay area. Its purpose is to give heritage status
to one of Quebec's most spectacular regions—the whole Saguenay
River—while also promoting tourism.
The consultation process which then took place resulted in the
project being expanded to include the St. Lawrence. Those who worked on
this initiative deserve to be congratulated. A major consultation
process was properly conducted before the project went ahead.
Several years went by between the time the idea first came up, in the
early nineties, and the time when the House finally votes on the
legislation.
The bill includes new and interesting points which had not been
raised before and which do not all reflect ideas put forward by those
behind the project. It should also be noted that the then federal
environment minister, who is now the premier of Quebec, had managed to
get the federal government to be receptive to the idea, which has since
followed its course.
Let us not forget that the park will be jointly managed by the
federal and provincial governments, through a committee on which both
will be represented. For the first time, Quebec will maintain ownership
of the seabed.
In the sixties and seventies, there were epic battles concerning
Forillon national park, among others, where the issue of ownership
generated problems. In the case of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park, the two levels of government have come to an agreement whereby
Quebec will maintain ownership of the seabed. This is a good step and a
good result.
As a member of Parliament, I took part in the consultation process
and a great of representations had to be made.
1055
The final form this is taking allows our tourist industry on the
south shore of the St. Lawrence River to have critical points of contact
with the park through—and we make no secret of this—the special
efforts made by firms like Duvetnord, which have turned the river into
a major tourist area worthy of preservation.
I think there are significant elements in the whole Lower St.
Lawrence region, from Trois-Pistoles to Île aux Basques, which
incidentally is one the far extremities that will not be directly
included in the park but could be considered as part of a whole system.
I think that, in the future, we should take advantage of the fact that
the federal government has not yet met its targets for the year 2000 and
may have a hard time meeting them as far as marine areas are concerned.
Perhaps thought should be given to finding a way to include the south
shore even more, somehow.
However, I feel it is important to understand that the amendment be
positive. It is also important to know that consultations were conducted
properly and that, in the end, we will have a park that, in my
estimation, stands to become a world renowned tourist attraction at a
time when adventure tourism is so popular. We will have everything we
need to let the world know about this outstanding region to attract
tourists from abroad. I think that the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park will be a fantastic tourist attraction.
What is interesting about this legislation is that, if passed, it
will make it possible to develop the necessary infrastructures and for
centres on both sides of the St. Lawrence River and the Saguenay River
to have a really significant tourist accommodation capacity. For the
Lower St. Lawrence region at least, this will help give it a stronger
position as a tourist region. In that sense, this is very desirable.
Before I conclude I would like to remind the federal government
that it is essential to have a logical plan of action.
If on the one hand, a Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is established
but, on the other hand, no effort is made to implement sufficiently
stringent environmental standards regarding, for instance, greenhouse
gases and everything having to do with climate, as beautiful as the
marine park may look, if there is not a drop of water left in the St.
Lawrence and an environmental disaster is caused, the result will not be
very satisfactory.
So, we should promote an equally open attitude at the international
level and take on an advocacy and a leadership role in promoting strict
and stringent environmental rules to ensure that our part of North
America is at the forefront and can provide this product. There is
nothing worse in the tourist industry than to offer a product that loses
its appeal. When a park like this one is established, it should be for
10, 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years, and that is what we are trying to
negotiate. That is what will be happening in Kyoto for instance and
in the ongoing negotiation process regarding environmental rules. This
has to be the basis for the federal government's position.
I will conclude by saying that establishing this park is a good
thing, it is the result of an innovative approach that leaves the
ownership of the seabed to Quebec, it was made possible by the
participation of the people of the Saguenay and was spearheaded by a
person who believed that joint management from a position of equality
was possible in Canada. Having Quebec and Canada deal on an equal
footing can give interesting results and today we have this bill to
prove it.
Hooray for the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine
park.
Let us now look at adding to Canada's marine areas as well as setting a
goal for the year 2000, and I am sure you will find on the south shore
of the St. Lawrence River all the support necessary to add to this
beautiful new park.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is time for
Statements by Members, but I am almost hesitant on such a
positive note to cut off debate. However, we will proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SCOUTING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning the governor general and the chief scout of
Canada conferred scouting's highest awards on 20 members of the
scout family of Canada.
1100
I know my colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in
congratulating the recipients of these awards. As the member of
Prince George—Bulkley Valley I want to pay special tribute to my
constituent Tyler Douglas Edward Mauro, age 11, who was awarded
the Jack Cornwell decoration.
This award is given to individuals who have undergone great
suffering in a heroic manner. Well done, Tyler. You have shown
great courage and determination in the face of physical
challenges. You have truly lived up to the Scout promise and the
Scout law.
* * *
RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I had the honour of hosting the visit of
presidents and managers for Ronald McDonald homes across Canada
as they met in Ottawa. I also had the pleasure of welcoming them
in the House of Commons.
Canadians are thankful for such an organization which provides a
home away from home to families of children being treated in
hospital for cancer and other life threatening illnesses.
[Translation]
These establishments make it possible for seriously ill
children to have their families with them at a critical time in
their lives. Staying in a Ronald McDonald House also gives
families an opportunity to talk with other parents going through
similar experiences.
I extend heartfelt thanks to all volunteers, employees and
managers of Ronald McDonald Houses in Canada. Your compassion and
devotion are a big help in times of trouble.
* * *
MATAPÉDIA RCM
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over 250
people from the Matapédia RCM got together at a forum on economic
recovery and job creation.
I wish to congratulate Claude Jacques, the forum's president,
for targeting economic problems and encouraging 13 workshop leaders
to present concrete solutions to job creation.
In the Matapédia RCM, gloom is giving way to action.
The residents of the Matapédia valley have decided to rely on
ingenuity, inventiveness and steadfast solidarity.
Many young entrepreneurs are urging us to focus on the year
2000, on new challenges.
The future belongs to the bold.
The people of the Matapédia valley are taking the challenge.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, global
warming is a problem that every person, every country and every
level of government in the world must deal with.
I rise in the House today to tell of a success story. Toronto's
outstanding progress in reducing greenhouse emissions is a model
for the world and something that the House should be aware of.
According to the UN affiliated International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, metropolitan Toronto is the world's
leader in fighting global warming. It tops the list of 150
cities in cutting carbon dioxide output between 1990 and 1996.
Toronto and its surrounding suburbs achieved cumulative
reductions of 7.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1990
and 1996. That is a 6% cent reduction.
The reductions were achieved using a variety of measures
including landfill gas recovery, recycling initiatives, energy
efficient street and land lighting and community water
conservation programs.
This experience should serve as model for other cities in Canada
and the rest of the world, showing that we can cut harmful
greenhouse gas emissions, save money and create jobs—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi.
* * *
[Translation]
STORNOWAY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an article
today in the Ottawa Citizen by Bruce Ward announcing that the Reform
Party has sent out invitations to a posh open house at Stornoway between
3 p.m. and 5 p.m., on November 30, 1997.
The great bingo caller at Stornoway invites the people of Ottawa to
541 Acacia Avenue. For reservations, dial 996-6740.
Come see the new drapes, the new paint job, the new wallpaper and
the fine linen imported directly from China. Come see the new bingo
reform.
* * *
[English]
AIRPORTS
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is downloading small regional airports
throughout the country. Two airports have already been turned
over in my riding and now a third is on the federal hit list.
Some of the biggest users of the Fort Nelson airport are the
federal and provincial governments, forestry workers, water
bombers and American tourists on their way to Alaska.
1105
Fort Nelson is in the northeast corner of B.C. next to the Yukon
border and hundreds of kilometres from any other towns. The
people of Fort Nelson are going to referendum December 6 to vote
on whether they can afford to take over the local airport. The
population is only 4,500, a small town with a big heart. Yet the
federal government wants the town to pick up the tab for an
airport that runs a $400,000 annual deficit.
Why is Fort Nelson being forced to assume the cost of operating
its airport but other northern communities like Whitehorse,
Watson Lake and Yellowknife are not?
* * *
WYE MARSH WILDLIFE CENTRE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Bob
Whittam, retired executive director of the Wye Marsh Wildlife
Centre. The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre located in my riding is a
non-profit organization committed to promoting an understanding
of the vital role wetlands play within the environment.
Mr. Whittam, affectionately known as Mr. Wye Marsh, was recently
honoured at a banquet attended by more than 300 family, friends
and dignitaries. He has been the driving force behind the Wye
Marsh Wildlife Centre through good and bad times. Were it not
for Mr. Whittam's leadership, it is quite doubtful that the Wye
Marsh Wildlife Centre would have survived a cut in federal
funding in 1984.
I again thank Bob Whittam on behalf of all citizens of Simcoe
North for his tireless dedication and commitment in contributing
to the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre's success. Have a good
retirement, Bob.
* * *
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce that tomorrow, November 22, the
Minister of Industry will be opening in Ottawa West—Nepean the
first youth employment info fair at Algonquin College. All day
young people will be able to see displays by government
departments, non-governmental agencies and post-secondary
institutions. Even one of our own pages, Mr. Craig O'Brien, will
help us out by talking about the pages program.
I hope young people will take the opportunity to turn out so
they can find out what government, the community and business are
doing to improve their chances of getting a good job. They can
see what we are doing to improve their opportunities for
post-secondary education and get the information they need to
create a better future for themselves.
* * *
APEC
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to inform the House of an APEC success story in my own
riding. On Wednesday, November 26 officials from Dongcheng
district of Beijing City in China together with Maple Ridge
entrepreneur Bill Stelmaschuk will sign an agreement to open a
reciprocal trade office between the city of Maple Ridge in my
riding and Dongcheng.
These offices will be the headquarters of China International
Investment Ltd. of North America, a partnership between
government and the private sector. It will open up multimillion
dollar investment opportunities for Canadian and Chinese
entrepreneurs. Initial joint ventures include the construction
of an indoor family entertainment complex, shipping container
sales and leasing, computer sales and vehicle and heavy leasing
equipment.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating Bill Stelmaschuk
and the people of Dongcheng for demonstrating through their
actions that the entrepreneurial spirit is indeed alive and well
in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
VETERANS
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is no coincidence that the interest for Remembrance Day is
increasing everywhere in Canada and that there are more and more people
at the ceremonies.
It must be pointed out that Veterans Affairs Canada has decided to
go modern and has developed an excellent web site. The number of hits
this year increased by 238%.
During a two-week period, 23,000 Canadians had more than a million
hits on the Veterans Affairs Canada web site and accessed various items
such as the Books of Remembrance and Veterans Remember, a collection of
stories and radio interviews with veterans. This site seeks to promote
young Canadians' interest in our country's military history.
Furthermore, last Tuesday, young people hired by STEM-Net in
Newfoundland and Labrador launched a new digital series by SchoolNet on
Canada at war.
It is most fitting that the House acknowledge all Canadians, young
and old, who continue to help us pay tribute to Canada's veterans and
recognize their achievements and sacrifices.
* * *
1110
[English]
ABORIGINAL YOUTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
historic systematic abuse of aboriginal youth by residential
schools goes unanswered by this government. An apology is due.
It appears that lawyers run the department, as this Liberal
government has yet to say two simple words: “we're sorry”.
Every day this government remains content to allow the full
weight of this horror to burn in the minds and hearts of the
countless victims is another day this government shares
responsibility for this acts of ritualized abuse.
Aboriginal youth were torn from their families and communities.
Their language, culture, customs and values were suppressed. The
wounds of this abuse are still open and now is the time for
healing.
The royal commission clearly states that recognizing our mistake
is the first step toward a new relationship based on mutual
respect. An apology from this government would be one small
remedy that would begin the healing. Anything less is
unconscionable, unforgivable and unacceptable.
* * *
ROYAL COMMISSION ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the first anniversary of the release of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. The report recommended
several actions the government should take in addressing the
concerns of many aboriginal communities.
I am pleased that the federal government will respond to this
report in the new year and equally pleased to be on the committee
that will look at the government's response.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
There is no doubt that the work of the commission will influence
aboriginal policy and I thank all those who participated in
preparing this report for their valuable work.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
where have all the scarecrows gone?
Until last May, the members opposite were constantly making
inflammatory statements on the economic consequences of political
uncertainty in Quebec. This fall, however, our scarecrows have stayed
out of sight, strangely enough. It is true that there is a lot of good
news.
With the socioeconomic summit launched by Premier Bouchard, there
is a tremendous rise in new investments all over Quebec.
It is said that economic growth will be greater than in France, Germany,
the United States, Italy and Japan.
In spite of the economic disaster handed down by the provincial
Liberals and of enormous federal cuts, the Parti Quebecois government is
continuing to put Quebec's economy and finances back on track. This has
sent our economic scarecrows into hiding.
Could it be that they have decided to do like the birds and fly
South? If that is the case, good for them, they can stay there. We wish
them a good holiday.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is restorative justice week. True justice
makes things right rather than lamenting what is wrong. True
justice cultivates strength rather than perpetuating failure. I
believe restorative justice could be a great part of the solution
for our justice system in Canada.
Restorative justice views crime as a violation of the victim in
the community, not solely a violation of the state. As a result,
the offender becomes accountable to the victim and the community.
Under our existing justice system, offenders seldom are required
to realize the harm they have caused. Restorative justice
confronts the perpetrators with the personal harm they have
caused and requires them to pay reparation and make real amends
to victims and the community.
Restorative justice offers victims the opportunity to regain
personal powers and allows them the time to become more involved
with the justice system. It also gives them the power that was
taken away when the crime was committed.
In one word, restorative justice puts victims at the centre of
the justice system where they should always have been.
Restorative justice should be studied by this House as an
alternative to the current way of thinking about crime and
criminal justice in Canada.
* * *
INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES INSTITUTE
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry recently celebrated the opening of the
National Research Council's newest research facility, the
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute. This institute
will eventually house 140 scientists, engineers, technicians and
support staff and will further enhance London, Ontario's
reputation as a leading centre of research and development in
Canada.
Research programs at IMTI will be aimed at keeping Canadian
manufacturers at the forefront of technological innovation and
advances needed in our highly competitive global economy. These
programs will continue to position Canada as a world leader in
our future knowledge based areas of concern.
I congratulate the NRC on over 80 years of improving the lives
of Canadians by performing and supporting relevant research
and development. I also applaud the diverse team of stakeholders from the
University of Western Ontario, industry, levels of government and
the local business community in attracting this high valued added
institute to our city.
Congratulations. Félicitations.
* * *
1115
PEACEKEEPING
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is enormously proud of its international
contribution to peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Today 15 police
officers from several forces are leaving on a peacekeeping
mission to Bosnia. The officers are from the RCMP,
Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police, Waterloo Regional Police,
Durham Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to wish these officers
well on their journey. The officers leaving today will replace a
contingent of 15 other officers who will be returning to Canada
from Bosnia in a few days. We are grateful that the officers
returning have safely accomplished their mission. They can be
proud of their work with the United Nations.
I would like to officially recognize the humanitarian efforts of
these officers who have worked hard to restore peace and order in
Bosnia, with a respect for internationally recognized human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
We know we can count on the professionalism of these Canadian
police officers to continue to serve the UN well and support
responsible police forces in Bosnia.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it used to
be said that nothing could stop the mail, neither rain nor snow,
nor sleet nor hail, but this Liberal government has stopped the
mail. This minister will not take a stand and the postal strike
is paralyzing the country at the absolute worst time of year.
Canadians want to get out their holiday parcels. It is the
busiest time of the year for many businesses and charities are
suffering because the mail is not moving.
How many more days, how many more weeks or how many more months
is this government willing to allow this strike to paralyze our
country?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am amazed that a party that indicates it wants less
government now wants government to get involved and interfere in
the collective bargaining process.
I ask the opposition party to let the collective bargaining
system work for Canadians and have no government interference.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government has this unflagging trust in this collective
bargaining process, the process which has brought our post office
four strikes in ten years and has not brought a resolution to
this current dispute for seven months. Why not let them bargain
while the mail is still being delivered or is the Canadian
government going to hold Canadians hostage right through
Christmas?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am amazed that the opposition, a party that wants less
government, wants government to move in right away and interfere
with the collective bargaining process.
Let the system work. Let both parties do what they are doing,
sit down and come up with an agreement.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, charities
are being hurt the worst. Take, for example, the Old Brewery
Mission in Montreal, a homeless shelter. It has had a $700,000
mail campaign for fund-raising stopped dead in its tracks by this
strike. They are facing debt and they are struggling to pay for
the 1,200 meals that they deliver to the homeless each day. This
charity and the homeless that depend on it are paying the price
for this government's inaction.
How many such causes is this Liberal government ready to
sacrifice while it keeps making these lame excuses?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to imagine this party criticizing the
Minister of Labour for protecting the collective bargaining
system in an attempt to gain short-term political gain. Shame on
the opposition.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
small and medium size businesses are the engine of this economy.
For weeks the effects of a mail strike have been looming over
their heads. Now we are into the third day of a full-blown
strike costing the economy hundreds of millions of dollars a day.
How many more millions of dollars will small businesses have to
lose before this government legislates the post office back to
work?
1120
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the collective bargaining system the parties have
the right to strike. It is unfortunate when we get to this
point, but it is the right under part I of the Canada Labour Code
and we must adhere to the laws of the land.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister continues to defend a system that history shows has
failed. Four strikes in ten years. There have been seven months
of failed negotiations.
Meanwhile, small and medium size businesses are losing millions
of dollars during their busiest season, not to mention the
collateral damage of lay-offs and lost jobs.
I will ask the minister again, when will the government come to
its senses and order back to work legislation?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are going through a process, a process that has
worked well for this country.
My colleague mentions the process and the number of strikes that
have taken place. Over the last year, 94.5% of the companies
under the federal jurisdiction have been settled without a work
stoppage.
In the seven months of this year, there have been fewer days
lost than that.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the acting Prime Minister.
The bad odour surrounding the Option Canada affair is getting
worse. This organization had nothing but a fake headquarters, its
financial statements and minutes are mysteriously unlocatable, and
its administrators mere figureheads. All that we do know about
this organization is that it is a creation of the Council for
Canadian Unity.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us how, under such
conditions, Option Canada was able to receive $4.2 million in
funding from the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this hon. member and hon. members from that party have
asked this question over and over again in the House.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has provided clear and concise
explanations. If the hon. member has something new to add, I
suggest that she bring it forward in the House today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Junior Acting Prime Minister is not very well informed about the
responses by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, because they are
far from clear.
The Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
the administrators of Option Canada, and those on the Council for
Canadian Unity are unable to tell us why and how the money was
used.
Can we have an explanation of how it can be that all of these
people involved to varying degrees with Option Canada have suddenly
been struck with collective amnesia?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, two years ago during the referendum in Quebec, the
citizens of Quebec voted to stay in Canada.
This party has never been able to accept that verdict. They
continue to fight a battle of two years ago. They are stuck in
the past. They have no vision for the future and this clearly
demonstrates that.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canada's ambassador in environmental matters, John Fraser,
added his voice to that of all environmental groups in denouncing
the minor Regina agreement on greenhouse gases. He calls on the
federal government to honour its earlier agreements.
Is the government committed to reviewing its position and
agreeing to that proposed by the Quebec government, as its own
ambassador of the environment is suggesting?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the Minister of the Environment said here in the House of Commons,
the government is currently consulting all interested parties in
order to prepare Canada's position for the conference coming up in
a few weeks.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we want
to know on this side of the House is whether the government is
prepared to set the example, as it did in the case of the anti-
personnel mines, and to sign the Kyoto agreement even though the
United States and other countries might refuse?
1125
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the minister said in this House, we intend to propose a position
for Canada that reflects the best interest of the people of Canada
and elsewhere. This is what we will do at the conference in a few
weeks.
* * *
[English]
TAGS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government appears to be sticking by its decision to end the
TAGS program in Atlantic Canada by May 1998.
I want to ask the minister of human resources why the government
persists in doing something that it knows will create a veritable
explosion of legitimate and justifiable anger in so many Atlantic
Canadian communities.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are conducting right now
an important review of the post-TAGS situation. I have asked one
of my very senior and trusted officials to look into the
situation. This gentleman is meeting with the provinces, the
fishermen, the associations and the communities. We will be
looking very carefully into the post-TAGS situation and the
government will behave appropriately.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, talking about appropriate behaviour, I wonder if the
minister could tell us why we have been able to access a document
that shows that the human resources department, in collaboration
with the RCMP, the PCO and Treasury Board, has hired a
consultant, Stonehaven Productions, to train senior managers on
how to deal with, and I quote: “life threatening, explosive,
dangerous situations after the end of the TAGS program”.
Why is the government conspiring against the legitimate anger of
its citizens and planning to end the TAGS program while going
through the sham of this review, instead of changing its mind and
doing the right thing?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to look at this
very bizarre way of addressing the situation. We are well aware
of the situation in Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces
and in Quebec as well. I can say one thing. We are well aware
of the very difficult situation in which these people live.
This is why we have brought forward this important program for
crisis and emergency situations. We are conducting an important
review of the post-TAGS situation and we will take the
appropriate decisions.
* * *
MARINE ATLANTIC
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Marine Atlantic is presently phasing out its headquarters
operation in Moncton, New Brunswick.
I would like to ask the government what guidelines or
instructions it has given Mr. Morrison of Marine Atlantic in
carrying out the relocation process and if indeed he has been
instructed to relocate Marine Atlantic headquarters in
Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
Marine Atlantic is an important vestiture within the Atlantic
community and Marine Atlantic serves our country well on the east
coast.
I want to inform the hon. member that the file on Marine
Atlantic is presently being examined by the Minister of Transport
to look at all the permutations and possibilities for Marine
Atlantic's location in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure that the parliamentary secretary must realize
that the only purpose for Marine Atlantic now is to provide a
very important and essential service to Newfoundland and
Labrador. There are no other operations for Marine Atlantic.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, has Mr.
Morrison of Marine Atlantic been instructed to locate Marine
Atlantic headquarters in Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, the
centre of Marine Atlantic operations in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member can
appreciate that no one is going to be directing anyone to do
anything until all the discussion takes place, all the input is
made from the various stakeholders and all the concerned entities
who are affected by the Marine Atlantic organization are
consulted so that a decision will be made in the best interests
of east coast Canada, in the best interests of Marine Atlantic
and the people it serves.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we now know, courtesy of Premiers Klein and Tobin, the
government's position on fossil fuel emissions that it is going
to take to Kyoto. It will be 1990 levels by the year 2007.
Why did the Prime Minister choose to whisper this to the
premiers instead of informing the House?
We cannot get the government's position in this House. Is it
because there is going to be an economic hit of $33 billion?
1130
Who is going to pay for this?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is important that instead of relying on speculation
and piecemeal press reports we await the development of a
position that takes into account all the points of view on this
issue.
I hope the hon. member is not surprised that the Prime Minister
and the Minister of the Environment are consulting with
provincial premiers on these issues. I hope the hon. member
favours consultation with provincial partners because they are
very much involved.
The effort has been to develop a position which reflects all
interests, and that is what we will do.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is rather humourous and absurd that our prime minister's sole
position is to produce less gas than President Clinton. That is
their whole goal over there.
However, it is tragic that in doing so they are prepared to
accept the loss of 40,000 jobs, a lower standard of living and
the destruction of some economic sectors.
Again, who is going to pay for this position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of the Environment has made it very clear that our
intention is to bring to Kyoto a position which reflects Canadian
interests in general. We are consulting with all stakeholders.
The provinces are very much involved in this process. At
Regina, just 10 days ago, a conference was held to ensure that
the position reflects their interests as well. That is what we
are going to do.
* * *
[Translation]
INMATE SECURITY RATING
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General.
On October 31, 1997, in a letter to the president of the Conseil
des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec, Quebec's Solicitor
General Jacques Chamberland indicated that a new inmate security rating
scale was under development.
Since we know that a process to review security ratings was
initiated more than two years ago, can the minister tell us when the new
policy will come into effect?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact I have met with the president of the union on
questions of safety very often. We will be acting on those
recommendations shortly.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the same
letter, the minister said that there was a level of danger and risk
attached to working in Quebec's penal institutions.
How can the Solicitor General justify the fact that, in Donnacona,
from December to March, outer towers may be unmanned after 8 p.m., which
means there will be no supervision outside?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are penitentiaries and there is a safety question
because they are facilities designed to deal with that. That is
the reason we have introduced a number of safety features, very
successfully, having to do with ion scanners, detectors, two-way
radios. Any number of safety features have been introduced
lately and it is very important for the protection of our
employees.
* * *
KREVER INQUIRY
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today Canada's foremost expert on the tainted blood scandal,
Justice Horace Krever, submits his final report on this, the
worst public health tragedy in Canadian history.
The current health minister is the very same minister who
blocked Krever in the courts, withheld vital documents from
Krever and obstructed Krever at every turn.
Given the deplorable record of the Minister of Health in
obstructing the Krever commission, how can Canadians have any
faith that this minister will heed the recommendations in
Krever's report?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is profoundly wrong. The Government of Canada
went to the federal court at first instance in order to assert
important principles having to do with findings of wrongdoing
against former federal officials.
Our position prevailed. We were found to be right. We then
dropped out of the litigation and it went to the Federal Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada without our involvement.
The hon. member is wrong.
As to the Krever report, we have been awaiting it a long time
and we look forward to receiving it today.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
forgive me for my scepticism on this matter. Two days ago on the
floor of the House this minister could not even keep a straight
face when he postured about keeping commitments with respect to
Canadian health.
Randy Conners and a number of others have died. These are
precious people who have died while this minister obstructed
Justice Krever.
Given this health minister's obstructionist record, how can
Canadians have any faith that he will implement Krever's
recommendations?
1135
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how will Canadians who are watching this performance have any
respect for a political process when a member of Parliament
refuses to accept fact and insists on trafficking in fiction?
That is nonsense. We did anything but obstruct the Krever
commission.
We look forward to the report and as soon as we get it we will
continue with his recommendations in our work of ensuring that
the blood system is the best blood system in the world.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. members that it is
useful for the Chair to be able to hear the questions and the
answers.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Post
Corporation.
In spite of the minister's untimely statements that special
legislation would be passed in case of a strike, it seems that the two
sides are still negotiating and might reach a settlement in the next few
days.
Can the minister tell us about the progress made and will he
reaffirm his commitment not to get involved in the postal conflict and
let the two sides negotiate in good faith?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the hon.
member and the House that negotiations are continuing.
We hope they will continue through the weekend and that a
negotiated settlement will be reached, so that by Monday all Canadians
will get their mail.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
threat of privatization is hanging over Canada Post like a dark cloud.
If the government has nothing to hide regarding this issue, will
the minister tell us when he will release the full report prepared by TD
Securities on Canada Post, in April?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, my predecessor,
myself and other members of the government have clearly said that the
government has no intention of privatizing the Canada Post Corporation.
As far as we are concerned, all necessary documents have been made
public, as required.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the prime minister has showed that he has finally had
enough. He raised the attendance bar for senators to 2.2%, and
Senator Thompson tripped over it. Does he have any intention of
raising the Senate attendance bar even higher, say to 5%, to 10%
or how about a mind boggling 20%?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I see the Reform Party is endorsing the position taken
with respect to Senator Thompson. We appreciate its support.
However, the question he has asked deals with matters involving
the commission of internal economy of the Senate and I am sure
that the senators will take note of his very interesting
question.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, getting kicked out of the Liberal caucus is more of a
reward than a punishment. Now the senator does not need to fight
any feelings of guilt for missing the caucus meetings while he is
wasting away in Margaritaville.
The prime minister claims the right of appointing senators. Will
he do Canadian taxpayers a favour and give senators who collect
their salary but do not show up for work a dis-appoint?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is asking for an amendment to the
Constitution. It is a very interesting suggestion. I would say
that hopefully if some day we have an elected Senate it will not
be, as Reform requests, election for life but will also
involve the potential of unelection through the decision of the
public.
At least we know now that the hon. member has confirmed the
position of another colleague of his when it came to policy. The
member for Athabasca said on another matter, and this applies
here: “Our position is unimportant”. That is the Reform
position on everything.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Everyone agrees that EI premium rates are much too high, and
that a large percentage of premiums is diverted away from its
primary purpose, which is the protection of unemployed workers.
What is the government waiting for to announce a significant
reduction in EI premium rates?
1140
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met the Minister of Finance
several times this week.
I am very pleased to tell the House that rates will be reduced
from $2.90 in 1997 to $2.70 on January 1, 1998, meaning that we are
going to accelerate the process in order to introduce on January 1,
1998 the rate we had forecast for 1999.
This is the fourth year in a row that this government has
lowered EI premium rates.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.9% in the second quarter
of this year. Interests rates are at 30 year lows. The economy
is creating jobs at twice its normal rate. Yet not all Canadians
are participating in this economic recovery. The unemployment
rate remains stubbornly high at 9.1%
Would the finance minister tell Canadians why this rate is so
high while other parts of the economy are prospering.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the unemployment rate has come down substantially since
we have taken office. There is no doubt that the Canadian
economy continues to feel the trauma of the recession of the
early 1990s.
Given the kind of news the minister of human resources has just
announced, every single year since we have taken office
unemployment insurance rates have come down. This represents a
tax cut of $1.4 billion.
At the same time the unprecedented clean-up of the ballot sheet
has led to a lowering—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca.
* * *
APEC
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, British Columbia is very happy to host the APEC summit,
but Canadians are not happy when trade is done at the expense of
human rights.
Some of the worst abusers of human rights are coming to British
Columbia. This issue has been swept under the red carpet.
We want to know whether the prime minister is going to publicly
bring up the issue of human rights at the APEC Summit.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, human rights are very important
to this government, as I hope the member knows.
The summit deals with economic issues. We deal on a bilateral
issue on human rights issues, as the member knows. The
government is helping to sponsor the people's summit which will
be dealing with human rights and other issues of concern to the
member and all Canadians.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member honestly knows, human rights and trade are
two halves of the same whole. They cannot be separated.
Canadians are fed up with human rights being chatted with a
whisper behind closed doors, as the prime minister has done
before. Canadians want this government to stand up to its
convictions and talk about human rights publicly.
Again, will the prime minister publicly debate and call for a
public discussion on humans rights at the APEC summit?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will probably know
that in the case of Indonesia, the leader of the east Timorese
people, Noble Peace prize winner Mr. José Ramos-Horta, last night
on the National said: “Canada should welcome Indonesian
President Suharto with dignity but also take a hard line on human
rights. They can have a face to face dialogue with him, firm but
non-confrontational”.
I would submit that is an indication of what we are trying
to do.
* * *
ABORIGINAL YOUTH
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on the anniversary of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
report to say shame on this Liberal government.
The minister of Indian affairs says they need yet more time to
respond. There has been enough time to read 50 compelling and
damning pages of systematic and ritualized physical, sexual and
emotional abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools.
1145
My question is clear. All else aside, will the government say
two words to begin the healing, two words, we're sorry?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question.
I just want to report to him that there were 440 recommendations
in the RCAP. The report is not on the shelf. Rather it is one
of the most important tools we have at our disposal. What we are
going to do is in the Speech from the Throne and the government
will act as soon as possible.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report recommends that the
Metis people of Canada have the right to be acknowledged under
section 91(21) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Will the Liberal government acknowledge support of this
recommendation?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to remind the hon. member that the government should not
table a response just for the fact of tabling a response. We
want to table the right response. We are working with the
provincial governments and the aboriginal peoples.
I will quote Mr. Phil Fontaine who said in the Calgary
Herald “I am confident at least at this stage that the
government is serious about doing something”.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade.
U.S. customs compliance checks at Canadian borders are costing
Canadians jobs. They are an unfair burden to Canadian Christmas
tree farmers in particular. Several tractor trailer loads of
Canadian Christmas trees have been unloaded and then forcefully
reloaded, with Canadian shippers paying as much as $1,100 for
their trees to be unloaded and reloaded even if they are in
complete compliance.
What will the government do to address the issue?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is
very concerned about activities going on across the border
because trade has actually doubled over the last 10 years. We
are in the process of upgrading all our transporter areas so that
the problem will be corrected.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Having our exporters' products checked for compliance at the
border is a non-tariff trade barrier that has resulted in damaged
products and mixed up orders. Some of the 53-foot drop trailers
have ten to a dozen drops on them. All the products do not
always get reloaded.
Will the minister insist that a U.S. custom official or a USDA
officer check for compliance at the point of delivery rather than
at the border?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love
to. I could only tell my hon. friend we are aware that increased
trade back and forth with the United States has brought on an
additional burden at border crossings, and we are taking measures
to correct it.
* * *
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was National Child Day. Upon reflection this may
explain some of the actions in the House yesterday.
Research clearly shows that early and aggressive intervention to
improve the quality of life of our young people pays huge
dividends for the children, their families and society.
An hon. member: When are you going to stop taxing them?
Mr. Joe Jordan: This may not be important to the Reform
Party but it is important to Liberals.
Could the minister outline to the House and indeed all
Canadians, because I think Canadians care, what programs—
Some hon. members: Sit down.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no question that early intervention is critical to
children. As chair of the national children's agenda—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1150
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is difficult for
the Chair to hear the answer.
There may not have been a question but there was a statement. It
is normal when a member gets cut off before the end of a
statement that the minister gets to answer the statement. I
invite the hon. Minister of Health to resume his answer.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is
obvious early intervention is crucial if we are to provide
children with a future. As the chair of the national children's
agenda I am very much aware of that.
I can tell the hon. member of one initiative that we have in
partnership with provinces and communities that is working very
well. It is called community action program for children. Every
week 30,000 Canadian children in 750 projects in 500 communities
across the country are the direct beneficiaries of volunteer
hours spent with those kids to improve their lives. That is just
one example of what we can do for children.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Greg
Twoyoungmen, chair of the Committee Against Injustice to Natives,
has been scathingly critical of the department of Indian affairs
in Alberta. He has publicly highlighted the absolute failure of
the minister to protect the interests of grassroots aboriginal
people.
Now we find the department of Indian affairs has blatantly tried
to buy Mr. Twoyoungmen's silence by offering him a high paying
job.
Why is the department of Indian affairs engaged in a seedy
underhanded attempt to buy off its critics?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is that we are not doing such a thing.
* * *
[Translation]
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
The Canadian effort in research and development is limited to a
paltry 1.64% of GDP. For a long time, the Bloc Quebecois, in its
platform, and other stakeholders have been calling for the government to
gradually increase granting council budgets.
Is the minister going to act on the requests made by the Canadian
Consortium for Research and increase by 50% his total investment in
granting councils over the next four years in order to reduce the gap
separating us from our main trading partners?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the
member took a look at the previous budgets, she would see that there
were cuts at the very beginning, but that we have since increased the
budgets. If there is enough flexibility, if finances allow it, we intend
to continue along that line.
* * *
[English]
TAGS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. It concerns the government's plans for the end to
the TAGS program.
How could the minister expect Canadians to take him seriously
when he says that the government is working on plans to help out
the affected communities after TAGS is finished and we know he is
telling the RCMP and his own officials they should get ready for
the fact that they will be doing nothing?
The minister now has a copy of the leaked document before him.
Will he explain why the government is making plans for a social
disaster in fishing communities instead of preventing the end of
assistance for fishing communities and the people in those areas?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never asked the RCMP
to do the sorts of things he said in his question. I understand
that some of our officials need some training to be able to cope
with confrontational situations and to handle more difficult
situations on an individual basis. It has happened not only in
relation to TAGS but across Canada. This is the way it works.
Our government is doing the right thing by conducting a review
of the post-TAGS situation. We are not particularly worried
because we trust Canadians and we know Canadians behave properly
all the time.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, during
the finance committee hearings on Bill C-2 departmental officials
informed members that the auditor general agreed he would not
oversee the investment board. The auditor general has now sent a
letter to the committee asking that his position be clarified. He
wants to and should be auditor for that board.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the auditor
general oversee the investment board or not? If not, why did the
minister's officials mislead members of the committee?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the auditor general's position. In any
event, the auditor general's position will be clarified.
* * *
1155
TELEMARKETING
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry.
Canadians have become alarmed at the victimization of vulnerable
people by fraudulent telemarketers. Could the parliamentary
secretary assure the House that the amendments introduced to the
Competition Act will be effective in ending this deplorable
practice?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, telemarketing scams are
estimated to be in the $4 billion mark.
Tough new measures have just been introduced in the House in
Bill C-20. The bill will attack telemarketing scam artists. The
bill will crack down on criminals by amending the misleading
advertising provisions of Canada's Competition Act.
I thank the member for his question. I urge everyone in the
House to take action to inform their constituents of the phone
scam and the seniors busters program.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister in charge of CIDA is mismanaging her department. She
is using budget cuts to absolve herself of her responsibility to
ensure accountability at CIDA.
Now more than ever CIDA needs the Aid Effectiveness Advisory
Committee that it asked for in 1994 to manage CIDA budget cuts.
If she is planning to give her senior officials the tools they
need to ensure accountability at CIDA, why did she refuse to
establish this committee?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since we brought in some very strict and very big cuts
to CIDA we have done a lot of work to streamline the
administration at CIDA.
The hon. member is asking us to put in another layer of
bureaucracy. Somehow it does not seem to sit well with what they
usually tell us.
* * *
[Translation]
EXPORTS OF DEFENCE GOODS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or rather the
Deputy Prime Minister.
Since 1990, it has been standard practice for a detailed
report to be tabled before this House on exports of Canadian
defence goods. This year, the report has still not been tabled,
more than six months after the usual date of publication.
While the government is boasting of being an agent of
moderation and a great pacifier in the international community,
what is it concealing from us by delaying the publication of this
report?
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the tabling
of a report.
[Translation]
If the hon. member informs us that a document has not been
tabled in the House, I will commit to finding out what is going on.
If it must be tabled in the House, it will be, as soon as possible.
* * *
[English]
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Devco's chairman, Mr. Joe Shannon, pretends to be working hard to
modernize Devco.
One of his projects has been to rip up the rail track used to
haul coal away from the mines. In the name of efficiency trucks
are now used instead. I am sure it is the desire to modernize
that has led Mr. Shannon to pursue this project.
I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Shannon is
the owner of one of the largest trucking companies on Cape Breton
Island.
While the House has heard many stories about Liberal patronage,
it is rare to find an example this blatant—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
made a very specific allegation but in a very roundabout way.
The chairman and the entire board of directors of Devco are
actively pursuing the revitalization of this crown corporation. I
am pleased with the work they are doing under difficult
circumstances.
Facing an international environment for these types of markets
is a difficult process. They are doing a very good job. We
support them fully and I encourage the hon. member to do the same
instead of making silly accusations.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is deaf to his colleague's
admission the other day that the Liberals are “very familiar
with the fact that our income taxes are very high”.
Will the government do the responsible thing and bring tax
relief to millions of working Canadians who have been
impoverished by bracket creep, or the one million small business
owners whose small business deduction remains unchanged for 15
years?
Where is the tax relief for all Canadians from the government's
insatiable tax appetite?
1200
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the hon. member missed the announcement by my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development. Let me
repeat it.
As a result of his announcement that the employment insurance
premiums will drop from $2.90 to $2.70, we have just provided
Canadians with a tax cut of $1.4 billion.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. That will bring to a close the
question period for today.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention
of members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Xiao
Yang, Minister of Justice of the People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
CLASS OF 1988
The Deputy Speaker: While I am on my feet, I would like
to remind members of a very important anniversary. Nine years
ago today, the brilliant and very distinguished class of 1988 was
elected for the first time to this House. I want to congratulate
all my colleagues on this very happy anniversary occasion.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order.
I was just wondering about your comment. Were you talking about
the brilliant class of 1988 including the 211 Conservatives who
were elected at that time?
The Deputy Speaker: I was talking about the brilliant
members of the class of 1988 who are here in the House
celebrating the anniversary. I am sure the hon. member would not
to confuse the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I have notice of a question of
privilege.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of privilege concerning a press release issued by the
member for Dauphin—Swan River, dated November 19, 1997.
Beauchesne, citations 64 through 70, make it clear that
reflections on a member of Parliament that make it impossible for
that member to fulfil their duties properly comprise a breach of
privilege.
On November 18, at the Standing Committee on Transportation I
introduced an amendment that would ensure the employees of the
Canadian ports that they would not be subjected to undue hardship
as a result of changes to Bill C-9.
Reform did not introduce an amendment that would protect these
employees. Yet the member for Dauphin—Swan River did a press
release which he inaccurately headlined “Liberals and NDP oppose
protection for ports employees.”
Such misrepresentations make it impossible for me to fulfil my
duties as a member of Parliament. The actions that I took at a
committee of this House, actions which are a matter of record, are
deliberately misrepresented to the public by a fellow member of
that committee. This is not a matter for debate or question of
interpretation or of nuance. It is a case where I am accused of
not doing something that the records show I did.
I move that the—
The Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon.
member's comments which strike me as being in the nature of a
complaint. I understand that sometimes in either debates in the
House or press releases or in statements outside the House,
members may say things about one another that are considered by
the other to be inaccurate or a misrepresentation.
The normal method of dealing with such things is through either
making a speech in the House, as the hon. member has done on this
occasion, or by sending out another press release or whatever
steps the member may think appropriate.
However, I do not believe this constitutes a question of
privilege and I certainly do not believe that the statements
made, however offensive the hon. member may have found them, are
in any way impeding her ability to carry on her duties as a
member of this place. That is the test of a question of
privilege.
I will consider the matter closed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order.
Yesterday, in response to a statement by the member for Edmonton
North that I took to be an accusation about my staff who were not
here to defend themselves, I still feel very strongly about that.
As a result of subsequent discussions with the member, I am
convinced that it was not her intention to give that impression
and I would like to withdraw my comments from yesterday.
1205
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how can
we be asked to rise and stand for a man who represents justice in
a country like China when he was the butcher of Tiananmen Square?
How can we do that?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member has the right
to remain at his seat, should he wish to do so. It is entirely
appropriate, when a foreign guest is here in our gallery, that
the fact of his presence be recognized. That is what the Chair
did and I think that is entirely appropriate.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on the same point of order. I do not know how we can
actually stand up in this House—
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think this is a point of
order. Hon. members are free to stand, or sit in their seats, as
they wish. There is no obligation on members to stand or do
whatever. I think the matter is closed. The guest is here and I
do not believe there is any point of order arising out of it.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 36.8 I have the honour of tabling in both official
languages the government's response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, pursuant to the
order of reference of Wednesday, October 8, 1977.
The committee examined Bill C-2, an act to establish the
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and to amend the Canada
Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts. On Thursday, November 20, 1997 it
decided to report the bill with amendments.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West on a
point of privilege.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, is it
not an insult and a degradation to the decorum of the House to
rise for a man who is the butcher of Tiananmen Square?
The Deputy Speaker: There is no question of privilege.
* * *
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-285, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(joint custody).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to introduce this bill and thank my hon. colleague
from Skeena for seconding it.
Sadly, all too often marriages in Canada end in divorce.
Unfortunately, children are frequently the casualty of these
breaks-ups and they are further hurt when custody is awarded to
only one parent. This bill would provide for automatic joint
custody unless there is proven neglect or abuse.
Joint custody does not mean children are shuffled back and forth
between two homes. It means there is a joint responsibility for
decisions made in the best interest of the child and access
cannot be denied arbitrarily by one of the parents. Children
need the love and support of both parents and our laws should
reflect that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1210
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.) moved:
That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans be authorized to extend their travel throughout
Newfoundland from November 30, 1997 to December 2, 1997, and that
the necessary staff do accompany the members of the committee.
I would like to say to my colleagues on both sides of the House
that consultations have been held with all parties and agreement
has been reached.
(Motion agreed to)
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That the following member be added to the list of associate
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a number of
petitions to the House today.
The first three petitions call for the Prime Minister to declare
Canada indivisible. The 82 petitioners ask that federal
boundaries be modified only by a free, nationwide vote, or
through the amending formula process as stipulated in the
Constitution.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fourth
petition requests that Parliament amend the Criminal Code, the
Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act to reflect society's
abhorrence of violence.
The petitioners ask that the sentencing of violent offenders
adequately protect the victims of crime and society as a whole by
removing the offender from society without early release.
They also request that agents of the crown be held accountable
for their actions in allowing dangerous criminals to walk free
and that the criminal justice system finally recognize the rights
of victims over those of the criminal.
CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the
proud citizens of the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
This petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt an
official pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag after
consulting with Canadians on its wording.
DONKIN MINE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud today to table a petition requesting this Parliament to
support the opening of Donkin Mine as part of the crown-owned,
free mine operation under the jurisdiction of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation.
This petition consists of over 550 names from various
communities on Cape Breton Island, such as Glace Bay, Gabarouse,
Sydney River, New Waterford and the community of Donkin.
THE FAMILY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of the residents of Strathroy and Grand Bend.
My constituents call upon Parliament to amend section 7 of the
charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the rights of
individuals to pursue family life free from state interference
and recognize the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we will answer
Question No. 12.
.[Text]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver):
With regard to phase 3 of the Pacific Rim national Park, which
was to have been proclaimed a national park in or around 1975,
(a) what is the reason or reasons phase 3 has never been
proclaimed a national park; and (b) what is the target date now
for proclaiming phase 3 of the national park a national park?
Hon. Andrew Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): (a)
The proposed Pacific Rim national park lies within areas
currently subject to comprehensive land claim, or treaty
settlement, negotiations. Where proposed national parks are
affected by aboriginal claims, government policy precludes
proclamation of these parks until the claims are settled.
Pending settlement of these claims, however, such parks may be
proclaimed as national park reserves. This allows the proposed
park area to be administered in the interim pursuant to the
National Parks Act.
(b) The treaty claims affecting Pacific Rim are currently in
negotiation and have no specific timeframe for conclusion. When
settlements have been reached, the goverment will move
expeditiously to proclaim all three components of the proposed
Pacific Rim national park, not just phase 3, as a national park.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the other
questions stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SAGUENAY—ST. LAWRENCE MARINE PARK ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act to establish
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Calgary East had some moments left in
his remarks.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker—
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. Earlier today I asked the Minister of
Finance a question and he responded to that question, saying that
I had misquoted the auditor general. I would like to give the
Minister of Finance an opportunity to clarify his position as
quickly as possible—
1215
The Deputy Speaker: I think we are getting into a debate
here. If the hon. member feels that the Minister of Finance
misquoted the auditor general I suggest he send him a copy of the
text. But I do not think it is useful to the House to get into a
debate now, especially when question period has been over for
some 15 minutes, raising this issue at this point in time.
I invite him to raise the matter with the minister. If he is
unable to resolve it satisfactorily he may come back. But it
sounds to me like a point of debate and I invite him to consider
it in that light before he comes back to the House with the
matter.
The hon. member for Calgary East on debate.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to speak on the final reading of Bill C-7, the Saguenay-St.
Lawrence marine park.
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. The hon. chief government
whip on a point of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Very
respectfully to my colleague opposite from the Reform Party who
wishes to speak to I believe the third reading of Bill C-7, I
wonder if he is not a little premature and if we might be able to
conclude the report stage portion of Bill C-7 and then follow
that with the third reading, if we are able to get the consent of
the House, which we trust we have.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House wish to dispose of the
report stage before the hon. member's speech?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. chief government whip on a
point of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
again there have been negotiations and discussions with
representatives of all parties.
[Translation]
In the spirit of co-operation, I would again request unanimous
consent of the House to resume consideration at third reading of
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park
and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I will put that question shortly, but
we have another matter to settle before that.
The question is on the motion for concurrence in Bill C-7. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House heard the proposal of the
chief government whip. When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (for Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
once again address the House on this important piece of
legislation.
First, let me thank all the members of the House for their
support of this bill on second reading, as well as their support
today in expediting the processing of this important piece of
legislation.
I would also be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank the
members of the standing committee on heritage. They have
examined Bill C-7 and gone through an examination clause by
clause. I wish to thank the members of the committee who have
undertaken that and brought this bill back to the House.
I am thoroughly convinced and I know that members as they have
examined this bill understand that it is a critical step, a very
important step in protecting a very critical ecosystem that is in
existence at the confluence of the Saguenay and St. Lawrence
rivers.
As we have seen through the process both in the development of
this piece of legislation in terms of the co-operation of the
various partners, the various levels of government, today we are
demonstrating with the passage of this bill a good level of
co-operation between the federal and provincial governments where
we see a bill where we have an important common objective of
respecting and protecting an important ecosystem.
1220
We see a good example of our ability to work together for the
good of all Canadians.
However, it is also important to remember that the government
cannot, in and of itself, take total credit for this. The
members of the local community have come forward. It was their
original initiative to make this marine conservation area become
a reality. All the various stakeholders and interests in that
area have worked hard with government to structure this marine
park in a way that works not only to protect the ecosystem in
that area but works to enhance the communities there and the
economy is there.
This is a good example of a grassroots, community based
initiative and one that can and should be replicated as we move
forward on other initiatives.
All Canadians can be proud as stewards of their marine
environment. This legislation will give us the opportunity, the
tools and the structure we need in this particular area to make
sure that the protection of the ecosystem takes place. In this
case particularly in terms of the beluga whale.
Marine ecosystems are dynamic, three dimensional and ever
changing and their stewardship requires the collective action and
goodwill of all stakeholders. As I mentioned earlier, we are
seeing this with this legislation.
As members know, a big part of the mandate of Parks Canada is
stewardship. We are required, as an organization on behalf of
all Canadians from coast to coast, to not only ensure that our
special places, be they marine conservation areas, national parks
or historic sites, are available for Canadians today but we have
a very important responsibility to make sure that those special
places remain unimpaired for the enjoyment and use of future
generations.
We have that responsibility to our children and to our
grandchildren, as we have the responsibility to take what was
passed to us by the previous generation, our parents and
grandparents, to ensure that their wise decisions in protecting
national parks from the previous century as we have moved through
the 20th century, are continued and that we continue with that
legacy and that stewardship.
The concept of marine conservation areas which is a relatively
new one is going to be part of that process. We are developing a
system of marine conservation areas across Canada. We have
identified 29 specific ecosystems in all our oceans as well as in
our Great Lakes and we are in the process, as we are with this
piece of legislation, of protecting those areas.
I think it is important to note at this time that we are the
first country in the world proceeding in this manner. We are the
first country that understands and recognizes in a tangible way
our obligations to protect our marine ecosystems. Together we
will all strive to ensure the sustainability of these critical
marine ecosystems.
This legislation and the structure in the park that it is
putting in place will provide many opportunities for local
residents, community and business interests to derive economic
benefits from the establishment of this marine conservation area.
Just as we saw co-operation between the various levels of
governments, the business community and the community at large to
establish this park, so too will we see those types of
partnerships come together to make sure that this park has both
the protection of the ecosystem as well as the generation of new
economic development primarily through tourism in this important
area in the province of Quebec.
We welcome the opportunity, as a federal government, to work
with those partners and to explore the opportunities as they come
forward.
1225
The unprecedented support for this bill in this House
demonstrates clearly the common concern that we all share in the
protection of our natural and cultural heritage. I am pleased to
see that type of support. It represents clearly how deeply
Canadians feel about our special places in this country and what
type of responsibility and expectations they have towards us, as
Parliamentarians, to ensure that we carry out that stewardship in
an appropriate way.
We all feel our own places are special. Today we are able to
protect a particular area, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence. I am
pleased to speak at third reading to see the establishment of the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
I urge my colleagues to continue to support this legislation and
to provide support for this bill at third reading.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on the final reading of Bill C-7,
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
When the Reform Party critic from Kootenay—Columbia spoke on
November 4 on this bill, he raised certain issues of concern. I
quote from the Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia:
The legislative process that we entered into in this House is
very important. All steps in the process are very important. In
this case the committee work will be a very valuable part of
putting this important legislation in place.
It is important for people on both sides of this issue to have
an opportunity to express themselves so that we as members have a
clear understanding as to where their concerns are.
What we suggested is that the committee must take a look at the
flexibility of the legislation and the impact on potential
tenants.
What happened at the committee was there was a briefing from
Parks Canada officials. The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked
that we address concerns and call witnesses. The member
requested recorded votes. The committee members unanimously
defeated the call for witnesses. The Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage effectively gave it the old rubber stamp.
The committee did not do its job. It did not do due diligence.
The rubber stamp was unanimous by all other parties.
As far as the member for Kootenay—Columbia stated on November
4, 1997, once again the Liberal government is using the House as
a rubber stamp. Today we now have the committee acting like a
rubber stamp.
Some of the concerns raised by the Reform critic are, for
example, the implication for commercial and sports fisheries on
the St. Lawrence. What are the implications for other users of
the river? It is absolutely essential that the people who are
using the area for its marine life be consulted. What are the
implications because of the overlay of the park regulations? If
we consult generally speaking we can avoid any confrontations and
avoid taking unnecessary steps.
Most important is what precedent has this bill established for
future parks. Parks cannot be established in isolation or in a
vacuum. Consultation is required in order to ensure that they
work well.
At second reading the member for Kootenay—Columbia said that it
is imperative the committee ask all the questions and ensure
those questions are debated at committee and answered before
coming to a final conclusion. This was not realized.
I reject the rubber stamp process and therefore have some
concerns about the balance of this legislation. It would appear
that all the other parties at the committee are unwilling to do
their jobs. All the same, this would not stop Reform from voting
in favour of the establishment of the park.
Parks are an important issue to the Reform Party. Reluctantly
and in spite of the flawed process I am recommending to my
colleagues that we vote in favour of the park.
In conclusion, on a personal note as a Canadian I am proud to
see that Canada will have the first marine national park in the
world.
1230
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-7 at third reading.
First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues on the heritage
committee for their quick and efficient consideration of this bill. I
would like to thank the Parks Canada and justice department officials
who worked on the drafting and presentation of the bill.
Members will recall that this bill implements an agreement signed
in april 1990 by the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.
The marine park project was launched in 1985, and on June 3, 1988, the
governments of Canada and Quebec agreed to meet to discuss the
establishment of a marine park in the Saguenay region and they finally
agreed on the objectives in 1990.
Both governments conducted public consultations to set the park
boundaries definitively. An advisory committee was then set up, bringing
together representatives from the following organizations: the affected
RCMs, the scientific community, the Union québécoise pour la
conservation de la nature and the Coalition pour le parc marin du
Saguenay—Saint-Laurent.
This committee was to advise planners about how the project was
perceived in the region as well as about the contents of a park
development proposal.
This committee and the officials representing the ministers concerned by
the project were able to bring to light what was involved and the
interest of the local people in creating a marine park.
In April 1993, the governments announced what the boundaries of the
marine park would be and, at the same time, launched the public
consultation process on the development proposal. Within two months, by
the end of this second round of consultations, the governments had
received 63 briefs, which, following a thorough review, were reported on
in December 1993. They had all they needed to draft the marine park
management plan, which was published early in 1996.
The establishment of this park is a first for Canada, to the extent
that it will be jointly managed by the federal and the provincial
governments. The Quebec government will maintain ownership of the seabed
and the subsoil resources, while the federal government will continue to
exercise its jurisdiction, in particular over navigation and fisheries.
The two governments have agreed to harmonize their involvement and
that of their various departments and organizations. They have agreed to
share current and future infrastructures, installations and equipment
for the marine park.
The two governments have established a harmonization committee made
up of four members, that is two for each government.
The committee must harmonize Canada and Quebec's initiatives, primarily
as regards the following: planning; research; management and programming
of activities; consultations with interested individuals and groups;
integration of planning and development efforts; terms for the sharing
of existing or future infrastructures, installations and equipment;
implementation schedule and exchange of personnel; communications and
the organization of seminars, symposiums and fairs; protection of
aquatic fauna and flora; and, finally, public safety.
On December 12, 1996, the two governments announced the
introduction of their respective pieces of legislation on the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, in the Quebec National
Assembly and in the House of Commons. On June 5, 1997, Quebec's
National Assembly passed Bill 86.
However, since the park will be jointly managed by the federal and
provincial governments, the Quebec legislation can only come into effect
once the federal bill has been given royal assent. This is why I ask
hon. members to pass the bill at third reading today, so as to establish
a marine park that will increase the level of protection afforded to
ecosystems in part of the Saguenay fjord and in the northern estuary of
the St. Lawrence River, for conservation purposes, while also promoting
its use for educational, recreational and scientific purposes by current
and future generations.
1235
The bill will also help promote local tourism, attract
infrastructure spending and result in the creation of permanent jobs in
the park.
I am delighted to see that the process is about to be completed.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Burin—St. George's would like to speak on the bill. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I thank members for their consent. It must be Friday.
It is a great pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park. I would like to add my congratulations and gratitude to
all those who have worked tirelessly to bring this project to
fruition.
On behalf of my colleague from Chicoutimi, I would especially
like to congratulate all the stakeholders in the vast region
affected by the establishment of this marine park, including the
municipalities that have promoted the idea of the marine park.
Congratulations on making the park a success.
This process involved in the establishment of the Saguenay St.
Lawrence Marine Park will be a model for the development of other
marine conservation areas for years to come. This marks the
first time two governments acting within their respective
jurisdictions jointly established a park.
It is probably the park that underwent the largest consultation
process ever held in this country. The process led to increasing
the proposed boundaries of the park by approximately 40%. This
consultative process also allowed the people who will be affected
by the park to share their views, concerns and ideas.
Throughout the debate we have heard about maintaining the
ecological integrity of our ecosystems. This party believes that
the project goes a long in doing just that. The Progressive
Conservative Party has always played a leading role in the
protection of our environment and the development of both
terrestrial and marine parks. I am happy to state that we will
continue to do that.
This marine park is an excellent illustration of Canadians
becoming stewards of their marine heritage and working together
toward the common goal of maintaining the area's ecological
integrity and ensuring its long term sustainability.
When we were in government, we recognized the importance of
conserving our national marine areas. Many members will know
that there are four natural regions for national marine
conservation, the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic
Ocean and the Great Lakes.
This is also the first marine conservation area on the east
coast and I look forward to the development of the remaining nine
marine parks in the Atlantic region.
Too often people think that conservation means no development,
or in the case of fisheries, no fishing. Conservation and
development should not be seen as being working at cross
purposes, but working together hand in hand. National marine
conservation areas are meant to, and I quote: “represent the
diversity of our nation's marine ecosystems, facilitate and
encourage marine research and ecological monitoring, protect
depleted of endangered species and populations and preserve
habitats considered critical to the survival of these species,
protect and maintain areas critical to the life cycles of the
economically important species and provide interpretation of
marine areas for the purposes of conservation, education and
tourism”.
1240
In closing, I once again want to thank members for their
unanimous consent to allow me to speak and I would like to take
this opportunity to recognize the efforts of our colleague from
Chicoutimi who has worked tirelessly over the last 12 years to
make this park a reality.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak again on Bill C-7, an act to establish the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential
amendment to another Act.
This bill is of particular interest to me, because I come from
the Saguenay and I grew up in this very special environment,
which is the envy of many tourists who come to our beautiful
area.
I look forward to welcoming an increasing number of tourists who
will come visit us once the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is
established.
The establishment of this new park confirms the significance of this
resort area, where people can admire one of the most magnificent
features of Quebec's landscape, the Saguenay fjord, where a mighty river
flows.
We have waited a long time for this bill. The idea of a marine park
was first introduced twelve years ago. In 1988, Canada and Quebec agreed
to join forces to discuss the establishment of a marine park.
Better late than ever, we could all say. Nevertheless, without all
these overlapping areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction, Quebec,
as a sovereign nation, would surely have launched this project in a more
timely manner. Anyway, as good citizens, we must act within the rigid
federal system and make the most of it.
Therefore, I must recognize again, as I did in the speech I gave on
this bill on November 4, that under the agreement concerning the
required legislative or regulatory measures to be passed, both levels of
government, which signed the deal on April 6, 1990, agreed for once to
act within their jurisdiction.
Several members of this House have pointed out the exemplary
character of this co-operation between the Governments of Canada and of
Quebec. I can well understand why the members opposite would stress
this, given the fact that the Liberal government is constantly trying to
control every attempt by the Quebec to assert itself as a nation.
We all remember that this unique project came from the grassroots
and finally made it to our legislative institutions.
For once, useless duplication and overlap are being avoided by sharing
existing and future facilities, infrastructure and equipment in the
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Local and regional communities that have actively cooperated in
creating this marine park are being called upon to become closely
involved in its management. As members of the coordinating committee,
representatives of local and regional communities will be able to
closely follow the implementation of the master plan for the marine
park.
Again, my concern is that this coordinating committee will only be
an advisory committee and as such will not have the impact it should
have on the management of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
I have already expressed this concern, and I call on each of these
representatives to be very careful in ensuring that protection of marine
resources will be in keeping with the spirit of Bill C-7 that we will be
adopting shortly.
1245
In addition, as the member for that beautiful region, I am
especially concerned about the employment situation. I believe that job
creation and environmental protection are not incompatible. There has to
be a balance.
In this respect, I would like to point out that the federal
government has up to now concentrated all its investments in this area
on the sites which it owns, namely wharfs and the shoreline. I believe
that as an extension of this legislation, the federal government should
demonstrate its good faith and provide the necessary funds for the
construction of the highway between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and
Petit-Saguenay, a highway that the population has been demanding for 25
years.
This new highway will be a big help in attracting more visitors to
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. Today, a great number of
tourists follow the river and take the ferry between
Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac without going inland along the
Saguenay fjord.
I therefore call on the Liberal government to take immediate action
to meet this important need for infrastructure so that the park can
become an engine for the development of the tourism industry in our
region.
I do not have to remind you of the record high unemployment rates
in our area over the last several years. This initiative is a way of
returning to the region the taxes paid by the local people and of
alleviating the cuts in employment insurance that have hurt so many of
them.
I would like to add that the situation is the same in the case of
the wharfs at Anse-Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay; these belong to the
federal government and are in urgent need of investments.
You will remember that there was a fire a few years ago at the
wharf in Anse-Saint-Jean. It is in a terrible state.
So the time has come for the government to invest in all this
infrastructure in support of the goodwill expressed with the
passing of Bill C-7.
Before I finish, I would like to take a few minutes to give
you an overview of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and a
sense of the excitement all tourists share when they come to look
at this exceptional site and all its wealth.
The park is part of two major geological formations. The
Saguenay fjord and the north shore of the St. Lawrence belong to
the old basement of the Canadian Shield made up of crystalline
rocks from 600 million to 4 billion years old. Four billion years;
it gives one pause for reflection.
Mankind is pretty insignificant, when all is said and done.
The Logan fault, which more or less follows the St. Lawrence
valley, is a major nonconformity separating the rock formations of
the Canadian Shield and the Appalachians. The Saguenay fjord is a
deep gash in the Canadian Shield, a series of fault lines in the
earth's crust. All these faults and breaks in the earth's crust
led to the breakdown of part of the continental shelf.
A series of glaciations carved out the entire St. Lawrence
River system as we now know it. The Saguenay River has the
peculiarity of being a freshwater river, fed by Lac Saint-Jean, and
a saltwater river, fed by the tide waters of the St. Lawrence. The
uniqueness of this ecosystem has led to the presence, in the
Saguenay River, of species of flora and fauna that may be found
nowhere else.
So it is easy to understand why this region is of such interest to the
scientific community.
In fact, the marine park is in an extremely diversified and rich
environment. The aquatic wildlife found in this park includes several
species of plankton, some of which are plants while others are animals.
This underwater vegetation provide a habitat for many kinds of fish.
And to make things more interesting, we also find two species of
aquatic mammals, the beluga and the common seal.
This explains why so many visitors are overhelmed by the exceptional
beauty of the region and its many assets.
1250
Furthermore, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this is
an extremely significant region in the history of North America, because
it is here that Aboriginal and European civilizations converged. For
thousands of years, the confluence of the Saguenay and St. Lawrence
rivers has been a centre of human activity seeking to benefit from this
exceptional marine environment.
Today, the mouth of the Saguenay is once again becoming a centre
for encountering and discovering marine life.
Like the explorers and hunters of past civilizations, present-day
visitors can experience the great sensations that contact with marine
mammals can provide. In returning to its roots, our society is
rediscovering its love of the sea and retracing its history. This is the
great challenge the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park has in store for
us.
To conclude, I wish to thank the numerous local organizations,
local and regional communities, environmental groups and native peoples
involved and the scientific community for supporting the establishment
of this marine park.
I especially wish to thank Gérard-Raymond Morin, the MNA for Dubuc,
and his predecessor, Hubert Desbien, who have always promoted with
courage and determination this huge tourist project, which will be a
driving force for the economy of our region.
I invite each of you who are about to adopt Bill C-7 to come and
enjoy the beauty of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to
discover its rich fauna.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of
Sackville—Eastern Shore to declare the New Democratic Party's
continuing support in principle for Bill C-7, an act to establish
the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.
I am proud to speak in support of this initiative and to
recommend that the final report be accepted by the House. All
Canadians will benefit from the preservation of this unique
marine ecosystem.
I trust the spirit of co-operation demonstrated by all parties
toward establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will
continue through further efforts to protect Canada's role in this
area throughout the 36th Parliament as we strive to protect our
natural heritage for future generations.
I wish to acknowledge the work undertaken by the House Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage to expedite the passage of Bill
C-7. The wisdom and guidance shown by the committee chair, my
distinguished colleague from Lac St. Louis, deserves recognition
from all members of the House. I congratulate all committee
members and associates for their invaluable insights, comments
and level of co-operation.
As I stated at second reading and as mentioned by my colleagues
at that time, this notable effort has involved the participation
of many Canadians. The communities were consulted. Aboriginal
participation was ensured and input from all stakeholders was
accepted.
The public participation process incorporated throughout the
conception of Bill C-7 and in the evolution to the final report
before us today is a fine example of what can be accomplished
when Canadians agree on a challenge and together strive toward a
common purpose and achieve a just conclusion.
As I sated at second reading and shall mention again, the degree
of intergovernmental co-operation serves as a hallmark which I
hope can be applied to future endeavours between federal and
provincial governments.
I would be remiss if I did not draw attention to several matters
raised in a previous debate regarding Bill C-7, by participants
during the years of marine park development, and through recent
consultations and correspondence received by the New Democratic
Party.
I acknowledge and accept, as mentioned earlier in my speech, the
wisdom and guidance demonstrated by my distinguished colleague
from Lac St. Louis.
His ability to expedite the progress of Bill C-7 and to ensure
implementation without further delay is a credit to the House and
a fine reference to Parliament's ability to serve Canadians in a
positive manner.
1255
I call upon my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Secretary of State for Parks, to acknowledge and
commit to the following requests submitted by concerned
Canadians.
I agree the establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine
Park has involved an admirable public participation process over
many years. To have asked for further consultations, to have
called for numerous amendments and to have requested various
forms of additional review would have resulted in unnecessary and
detrimental delays.
I call upon members of the House to acknowledge and include in
the consideration of further marine park projects the following
language in the preamble and purpose of future bills:
That the preamble shall include such language as to reflect a
desire “to conserve and to maintain the integrity of the natural
ecosystems within the park's boundaries”.
I do not intend to portray Bill C-7 as ignoring this principle.
Nor do I call for an amendment. I wish to convey to my
colleagues an opportunity to strengthen the underlying purpose
for establishing marine parks, which is to conserve and preserve
our natural heritage for this and future generations.
The following addition to the purpose of future marine park
bills will assist in a successful marine parks program and
increase the level of protection of marine ecosystems for the
benefit of present and future generations:
This will be done by preserving and maintaining the integrity of
natural ecosystems within the park boundaries, and in particular
by protecting and aiding the recovery of species and populations
designated at risk.
I ask my colleagues to acknowledge these requests so that they
may be included for consideration in future noble park efforts.
I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on these matters.
I will voice again the support of the New Democratic Party for
the acceptance of the final report, Bill C-7.
On a personal note, I hope that the same co-operation exists
when it comes time to debate park status for Lawler and McNabb
Island in the beautiful harbour of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to have the opportunity to rise in the House of Commons in
support of a bill to establish a new marine park in Quebec within the
marine area conservation network.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank the members of
the House of Commons who are present today as well as those who were
here before for their co-operation which will result in passage of this
major piece of legislation.
Canada can be proud of its vast experience in the vital area of
protection of its heritage resources.
Canadians feel very strongly about preserving the quality of their
natural environment, and this bill to establish the Saguenay—St.
Lawrence marine park was drafted in response to their concerns.
The bill is aimed at improving, for conservation purposes and for
the benefit of present and future generations, the level of protection
given to the ecosystems found in the Saguenay River fjord and in the St.
Lawrence estuary, while promoting their use for educational,
recreational and scientific purposes.
This approach is in line with the government's position with regard
to the protection of ecosystems and sustainable development.
As with the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, this bill shows the government's willingness to work for the
conservation of marine natural resources through the development of
legislative and policy measures that respond to global environmental
concerns.
This bill is also tangible proof of the government's
commitment to sustainable development. It is a positive contribution to
the efforts made to protect Canada's biodiversity and to preserve the
quality of our natural environment for the benefit of present and future
generations.
The establishment of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park is the
result of many years of concerted efforts by the governments of Canada
and Quebec, local and regional communities, environmental groups,
aboriginal peoples and the scientific community in order to enhance the
management and protection of the rich and diversified marine resources
of this great region, and especially to protect the belugas in the St.
Lawrence.
1300
This bill provides for a complete legislative framework for the
management of the federal government's responsibilities. Its purpose is
to complete but not overlap the current federal legislation, including
the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Transportation of Dangerous
Goods Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canada Shipping
Act.
On December 12, 1996, both governments tabled their respective
bills. The federal bill died on the Order Paper when the last federal
election was called. However, the Quebec National Assembly adopted Bill
86 on June 5, 1997.
The provincial legislation will come into force when the federal
legislation is promulgated. Now, it is incumbent upon us to honour our
commitments and to create a great marine park in Quebec.
In closing, I take this opportunity to state that I strongly
support this bill to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park,
which is a basic tool for the protection and enhancement of the most
important marine natural resources of this country.
I wish to thank all members of the House, whether they belong to
the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party of Canada or the Conservative
Party. I urge every member of the House to join me in supporting this
bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Questions and
comments. Debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I ask the consent of the House with your permission to
begin the private members' session, which I believe is slated for
1.30 p.m. Seeing no further business, I ask the consent of this
House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion. Does the House give its unanimous consent to see the
clock as 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 1.30 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]
DONKIN MINE
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
action to develop the Donkin Mine as a Crown Corporation.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank you, the members
of this House, for engaging in debate on my Motion No. 136,
requesting that the Government of Canada take action to see the
Donkin Mine in Cape Breton be developed under crown control,
specifically, that Donkin be opened under the control of Devco,
the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
I ask this House to allow me to briefly give a bit of background
regarding the history of coal mining in Canada.
1305
Many members know that our country's thriving coal industry is a
source of significant benefit to the national economy. Many
industries are involved in the transport and use of coal and all
those which supply services, labour and equipment to mining
operations rely directly on the coal fields for a large part of
their income.
All of these industries and the individuals who work for them
contribute to Canada's tax base. Their wages come from coal and
their wages fuel the economy.
A study by the Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development
Authority demonstrates how Canada's coal industry generates over
$5.8 billion annually, or nearly 1% of Canada's gross domestic
product. Over 73,000 men and women are employed in the coal
industry in Canada today. That is nearly 1% of Canada's total
employment. The direct contributions of coal production to the
GDP and employment are significant and when the ripple effects
from all other sectors are included, the economic impact is
multiplied.
For example, coal is the single largest commodity transported on
Canada's railways and loaded at our ports. The Coal Association
of Canada estimates that ever dollar spent in coal production
generates $2.36 in related industry and from income respending.
Every direct job created in coal production supports an
additional 3.7 jobs in the rest of the economy.
The National Energy Board of Canada predicts that Canada will
generate 46% more electricity in the year 2005 than in 1998 to
meet the demand caused by an expanding population and an
expanding economy. Furthermore, the forecast says that the
amount of electricity generated from the coal will rise by 70%
over current levels.
It is true that Canada has a number of options to meet its power
needs in the next century. Some provinces are looking at energy
conservation measures such as promoting the use of energy
efficient street lighting in order to free up a pool of
electricity that could be used by homes and industry. This will
slow the demand for new energy generating facilities.
There is the potential for hydro development in Newfoundland,
Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta, but the sites are
in remote and environmentally sensitive locations, making them
costly to develop and placing them in conflict with aboriginal
communities which have claims to the land.
Plants that harness ocean tides such as the one opened on the
Annapolis River in Nova Scotia in 1984, one of the first of its
kind in North America, can also be looked to for inspiration when
we consider how our country can meet its changing and expanding
energy needs. But the fact remains that one of Canada's most
abundant economic resources available for the production of
electricity is coal.
Coal mining today is not the industry it used to be. Gone are
the solitary miners working the coal face with pick and shovel.
Gone are miners lamps from paraffin soaked rags ready to spark
off explosions of the firedamp gas leaching from the stone walls
around them. Today, mining is highly mechanized and heavily
regulated. Canada can be proud of an industry with some of the
world's safest mining conditions and progressive environmental
management.
The picks and shovels have been replaced by automated systems
that have dramatically improved the efficiency of mining. One
machine now does what many men used to. Few people make these
connections between the light switch in their bedroom, the
electricity for their TV and the coal mines deep beneath the
bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
If and when people think of coal they think of soot, of miners
with blackened faces, of harmful emissions that would damage our
already fragile environment.
Let us face it, there is a serious question about the pollutants
that are produced from burning coal. But just as today's miners
work in conditions that would have amazed the men who worked
underground in the last 200 years, so too has the way in which
coal was burned being changed and improved.
Clean coal technologies can reduce emissions that would hurt the
environment, especially the gases that dump acids into the
ecosphere, sulphur and nitrogen oxides and carbon residues that
have been linked to global warming. Technology cannot solve all
of our problems, but it can certainly help. Let us not forget
that we are building on a natural resource, naturally occurring
coal, so that there is none of the environmental damage caused by
processing or refining the product before it can be used.
1310
Another sea change in the industry has been the huge reduction
in the number of coal mines across Canada. In the 1930s there
were 400 small coal mines. Today there are only eight companies
operating a total of 29 mines. One of those eight producers is
the crown corporation called Devco, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
I can say with pride that Devco employs the best miners in the
world. They are men who have mining in their blood who belong to
families that have seen grandfathers and fathers and sons go
underground just as my father and grandfather did. They are men
who fought the vicious excesses of the private coal companies and
who were trampled by the horses of the police and the army who
acted as the private security guards for the coal company.
Not many people outside Cape Breton know that we have a unique
holiday. On June 10 every year we remember Davis Day, the day
when a miner was shot by company police after a peaceful
demonstration. We have a long history of struggle, of fighting
for fair wages and safe working conditions, and we will keep on
fighting.
My preamble stresses the important role these men have played in
Canada's history and the important role I hope they will continue
to play in the future. Those Cape Breton miners are today
looking to their crown corporation. They want to continue to do
what Cape Bretoners do best, work hard and work honestly in the
craft that has defined the economy of my island for centuries.
They want to provide the power to run the computers, fax machines
and office buildings that keep the new economy moving forward.
They want to do their fair share.
Devco was founded in 1967 by an act of Parliament and is wholly
owned by the government. All of its $325 million in assets are
located on Cape Breton Island and Devco remains the largest
producer of coal in eastern Canada.
With over 1,300 employees it is also one of the largest
industrial employers in the region. At present, Devco operates
two collieries, Phalen Mine and Prince Mine and all of the
supporting infrastucture that enables Devco to take Cape Breton
coal and sell it around the world.
In 1996-97 Devco sold 2.4 million tonnes of coal which yielded
revenues of $167 million. It is apparent that Devco's
contribution to the national coal industry is significant. Its
contribution to the Cape Breton economy, which sees an extra $200
million a year thanks to Devco, is huge. Devco is one of the
few large employers in industrial Cape Breton and jobs supported
indirectly by the corporation's activities employ thousands more.
When we look at the economic climate on my island it becomes
pretty clear pretty quick that Devco's success and Cape Breton's
success are one and the same.
Four hundred and fifty people work at the Prince Colliery, eight
hundred at Phalen. Imagine the impact on industrial Cape
Breton's already skyrocketing unemployment rate, a rate that is
currently in the range of 35% to 40%, if Devco ceased to exist.
It would take thousands and thousands of jobs with it. Even with
the mines operating there is an expectation that 300 men will
retire from Devco over the next three years, not to be replaced.
Meanwhile all of our young people are leaving, there are no jobs
and even their parents are joining the unemployment line. It
takes time and money to train miners and the will to renew and
rejuvenate the workforce simply is not there.
I will provide the House with a background of Devco's history.
The Cape Breton coal fields were taken under crown control in
1968 when the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, better known as
DOSCO, decided to conclude its decade-long attack upon the people
of Cape Breton by abandoning the island altogether. Realizing
the chaos this would cause, the government stepped in.
Initially Devco was supposed to supervise the slow shutdown of
the coal industry over a 15-year period while it would help the
workforce find new jobs in new fields. Then the oil crisis
loomed and suddenly Canada needed the Cape Breton coal miners
again just as it needed them during the first and second world
wars.
1315
Now, instead of phasing out coal production, Devco was put in
charge of drawing up a 20 to 25 year plan that would promote a
stable industry which would benefit both Cape Breton and the rest
of Canada.
Now 25 years later there are just two mines operating in Cape
Breton and the same Liberals who promised a stable industry when
in government and in opposition are now back making plans on how
they can shut down the coal fields. Despite this, Devco has
become more efficient and more effective. Management and labour
have worked together to make Devco deliver the goods for as
little money as possible. Both the United Mine Workers of America
and Devco's management deserve credit for this.
For example, in Prince mine, the deeps—the main shaft leading
from the surface down to the coal face—have been realigned to
make better use of the coal deposits. Meanwhile, Phalen mine has
been plagued with problems caused by rock and gas outbursts,
heavy roof conditions and flooding. These problems have all
increased the cost of Devco coal, despite the hard work of the
employees who worked overtime to get the mine back into
production.
In many ways we are back to where we started in 1968, but the
reasons Devco should exist are even more valid now than they were
then.
There is hope. There is a contingency plan in case the problems
with the Phalen mine become so severe that it has to be closed
early. The contingency is the Donkin mine.
Donkin is the future of Devco and Devco remains the future of
Cape Breton.
In June 1996 the then minister of natural resources said:
“Donkin is related to hope. Everybody wants and needs hope”.
It is not often that I agree with the Liberal government, but
today I am happy to stand and endorse the then minister's
statement.
Donkin is a huge coal reserve beneath the Atlantic. In 1981
Kilborn Engineering estimated that there were 1.4 billion tonnes
of mineable coal off Cape Perce. The mine itself has already
been built, at taxpayer expense. Two gun barrel smooth tunnels
and engineering studies have been completed by the Government of
Canada. The geology looks good and the quality looks even
better.
An annual production of 3.8 million tonnes is feasible once
Donkin goes into production.
Associated Mining Consultants has endorsed the forecasted
success of the mine. It says that minimal surface facilities
would be needed for a small scale operation at Donkin.
Selective mining could be undertaken during a trial period
with, say, 500,000 tonnes mined annually. That could be expanded
once it is clear that a profit can be made.
Donkin is the gold mine of coal mines. It should be opened by
the same people who built it, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, acting in the interests of the people of Canada.
Our government has made substantial investments into the coal
industry and today, by committing to opening Donkin as part of
Devco, we can start the process that will see Canadians getting a
return on their investment.
Not only have the taxpayers already paid to build Donkin, Devco
also has most of the assets it would need to open the mine
sitting idly at its abandoned site at Lingan. There is $8
million worth of equipment, ready to be used, sitting and
rusting. Canadian taxpayers have already spent $88 million on
Donkin.
While it is true that development has no immediate effect on
production, the fact that it has gone well is a good indicator
that the mine will be a good one.
In 1985 Associated Mining Consultants reported to Devco that the
Donkin mine could be brought onstream at 500,000 or one million
tonnes per year. That would generate $118.7 million and $170.3
million, respectively.
Mining experts from the union today are saying that current
conditions could mean reduced capital requirements, which in turn
would mean increased profits.
Here is a quote from the report “The Donkin-Morien Mine:
Building the Mine of the Future”: “Production of 4.507 million
tonnes per year is considered possible and economically
feasible”.
I repeat that it is the gold mine of coal mines. Devco was
right when it said in 1992 that Donkin mine is a valuable asset
for the long term. The Donkin tunnels give us access to the
great riches of the Sydney coal field, a great Canadian asset as
important as the Alberta tarsands or Newfoundland's Hibernia. As
we once again begin to talk of the new energy sources, be they
the planned Sable pipeline or the nuclear reactors this
government is keen to give China, it is critical that we do not
forget the resources that have always been the backbone of our
energy grid.
In time of war and crisis—
1320
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With regret, I must
inform the hon. member that her time has expired.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
privilege to rise in the House and join my colleague from across
the way.
I rise to address the House on Motion No. 136 which calls on
certain limitations to be put on the development of Donkin mine
in Cape Breton as a crown corporation.
I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Bras D'or
for her interest in the issue and the future of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, also known as Devco. As a member from
Atlantic Canada, I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion.
I believe the hon. member and this government share common
concerns about Cape Breton. We are concerned, for example, about
the high levels of unemployment on the Island, as well as in
other parts of Atlantic Canada. We are concerned about the long
term economic health of Cape Breton and about the future of its
young people. I would also suggest the hon. member and this
government share a common will for Cape Breton, to achieve long
term economic success and social progress across the Island.
That is why our government continues to support the work of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation which the hon. member knows
is a federal crown corporation. The Government of Canada has set
a clear and reasonable goal for Devco. As a coal mining company
that is in the business of providing jobs and other economic
benefits to Cape Breton, we expect Devco to become commercially
viable on its own right. I believe that is a fair and reasonable
expectation and I believe hon. members on both sides of the
House will agree that this is indeed a reasonable expectation.
We believe that commercial viability is the best way to ensure
the tradition of coal mining continues in Cape Breton and that
Devco maintains its position as a major employer within the
region. The need for Devco to succeed cannot be overemphasized.
The corporation continues to contribute more than $150 million to
the Cape Breton economy through wages, pensions and the purchase
of goods and services. It is the largest coal producer and one
of the largest industrial interest in eastern Canada, employing
approximately 1,700 people. The economic spinoffs from Devco's
activities are felt in virtually every community of Cape Breton.
I am pleased to inform the House that Devco has embraced the
government's challenge to become commercially viable. It has
taken steps to overhaul its operations, to introduce new
technologies, to improve productivity and the labour relations
found there and to better manage its business. The corporation's
five year business plan approved by the government in May of 1996
clearly stated Devco's mission which is to become a profitable
coal mining company.
To aid the corporation achieving its goal of profitability and
competitiveness with other energy sources, the government has
provided Devco with a repayable loan of up to $69 million over
three years. I might add this is in addition to other federal
funding that has been provided to the corporation since it was
created in 1967.
I am also pleased to report that Devco made a number of positive
achievements in the one year of its operating business plan.
Although it faced a number of ongoing challenges, particularly at
its Phalen mine, the corporation operated within the $43.5 million
funding level approved by the Government of Canada.
Devco's annual report for the period ending March 31, 1997 shows
a positive development on a number of fronts. I would like to
briefly outline some of the progress that has indeed been made.
For the first time in the history of the corporation, new
contracts were negotiated with bargaining units without the use of
an outside conciliator. This is solid evidence of improved
labour relations and the commitment of its employees, unions and
management to work together.
Also during the past fiscal year Devco's safety results improved
by more than 40%. This was reflected in a 10% improvement in
employee attendance at the workplace. The corporation's emphasis
on safety is good for workers and it is good for Devco.
Devco has also taken further steps to involve its workers in the
decision making process. A quality management program known as
beyond 200 was developed last year to promote continuous
improvement and a commitment to quality across the corporation.
In terms of sales, in 1996 the corporation sold a record 2.8
million tonnes of coal to its primary customer, Nova Scotia Power
Incorporated. Coal sales for the first six months of the current
fiscal year yielded revenues of $86 million.
Devco's coal marketing strategy will continue to focus on
meeting the needs of Nova Scotia power, which is far and away the
corporation's most important customer.
I know hon. members will want to join me in congratulating
Devco's management and workers on their efforts over the past
year and a half.
Their achievements to date have been meaningful and important.
1325
For me personally I would like to congratulate Devco workers who
have gone above and beyond the call of duty and showed the expert
miners they truly are.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that more needs
to be done. The corporation is projecting a funding requirement
of $25.5 million over the next two years which is within the
limit approved by the government. Devco is forecasting that it
will achieve positive cash flows in the year 1999-2000.
To achieve this latter goal, the corporation will have to
continue to improve productivity at its existing facilities.
Devco's short term planning framework which as I noted earlier
has been fully endorsed by this government calls for the
corporation to focus its efforts on addressing the challenges it
faces at its existing mines.
This is not an easy task. Over the next few months the
corporation will explore ways to get around serious geological
problems recently encountered at its Phalen mine. Devco will be
considering all options for the Phalen mine and for its other
coal resources including Donkin coal.
This does not mean the Donkin mine will or will not be
developed. Far from it. In fact, as the hon. member for Bras
D'Or is aware, a private company is in the process of undertaking
a feasibility study to determine whether the mine can be
developed on a commercial basis by a private sector entity.
This analysis, combined with Devco's own studies over the past
few months, will form the basis of its next annual corporate plan
update. This update will be submitted to government in early
1998.
The government has complete confidence in the management of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation and in its workers. We agree
that with the decisions that have to be made we firmly believe in
management and workers ability to make appropriate
recommendations to government for the future of the corporation.
In closing, I want to once again thank the hon. member for Bras
D'Or for bringing this matter before the House. I believe that
the underlying objective of this motion is to ensure employment
and economic security in Cape Breton. I can assure the hon.
member that we will keep the House informed of any developments
relating to Devco that contribute to this important goal.
If I may say, we are very open to assisting in the process of
Cape Breton development and Atlantic Canadian development. This
government is committed to keeping an open channel to any and all
new options.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my speech
today is in response to the motion moved on September 24 by the hon.
member for Bras d'Or, requesting that a crown corporation be established
to develop the Donkin mine in the Cape Breton region of Nova Scotia.
I want to express my strongest opposition to this request, which,
in my opinion, is totally groundless, especially for all Quebeckers, who
are not concerned in any way by this so-called mine.
In fact, with all due respect to some hon. members, I would like to
make an important correction.
Donkin is not a mine per se, but rather vein, or lead, indicating
development could take place on that site during some time.
Establishing a crown corporation is unacceptable mainly because
mines are a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government has no
jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter. Natural resources, including
mines, forests and energy, belong to the provinces.
I think it shows a lack of respect for the taxpayers to mix the
internal affairs of a province with the public funds of another
province. If that is what the renewal of the federation or the
constitution is all about, this is not very convincing to me. And if the
federal government brings up Quebec's special status one more time, I
will have to wonder what its word is worth. One cannot talk about
respect for Quebec the same way as for any other province, mixing all
the provincial cards together.
It should be up to a province's government to manage regional matters
like mines.
Let us now look at the particular issue of Donkin.
To this day, absolutely no one has been able to prove that this coal
mining project could be a profitable venture. Only one private firm
seems to be interested in finding out what the situation is and in
conducting a study at a cost of $400,000, 75 % of which would be paid by
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, the study would only
determine the reserve's potential and would not clearly establish
whether it is possible to develop the Donkin coal mine without sinking
more public funds into it.
1330
In its 1996-97 estimates, the Cape Breton Development Corporation,
which is accountable to the federal government and which is currently
developing the Phalen and Prince mines in Nova Scotia, anticipated
losses of $35 million.
The development of a coal mine in Donkin could cost at least $100
million to $125 million. The federal government has already invested $80
million, and it also holds the lease for that reserve. As for the Nova
Scotia government, it owns the resource and would therefore collect
royalties should the mine be exploited.
How could a government justify spending between $100 million and
$125 million on a project that offers absolutely no guarantee of
success?
In my riding of Manicouagan, as in several other regions, there are
major potential mining opportunities. Since last year, when a geologist
from the Quebec government discovered the Lac Vollant indicator, close
to Sept-Îles, there has truly been a “Lac Vollant rush”.
Some people are going so far as to say that it could be the richest
deposit every discovered.
Never has the federal government gotten involved in or
contributed to the exploration and long term development of such a
large and promising deposit. And yet, ask the hundreds of
prospectors who rushed right out and staked their claims and they
will tell you that they think this is an exceptional opportunity to
discover minerals and then sell them to promoters who want to mine
them. The federal government never took any action.
A mining opportunity the federal government should have gotten
involved in was the Natashquan mineralized sands. Tiomin
Ressource, the company that wants to mine these sands, suspended
operations because of a breakdown in communications with the native
community. The company arrived at the site a year ago, but has not
yet reached agreement with the native community.
What the federal government should have done, through the
Department of Indian Affairs, was to appoint a conciliator at the
very least. If this had not resolved the problem, mediation would
have had to be the next resort.
Why did the federal government do nothing to help work out an
agreement in Natashquan, and thus prevent the loss of several
millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs? We are not asking for a
crown corporation, just for the federal government to assume its
responsibilities. We cannot afford to lose investments like these
in the tens of millions of dollars. No riding can afford to lose
millions of dollars in economic spinoffs from the private sector.
It is time for the federal government to get to work and
resolve the disputes that are hindering development of our regions,
rather than devote its energy to creating government organizations
with no real and attainable financial objectives.
I would like to mention an interesting episode in this
connection. During the last election campaign this past May, my
Liberal opponent made a promise on behalf of the Liberal Party to
settle this matter. According to him, the Liberal government would
be in a position to settle it for once and for all. Campaign
promise made—end of story, nothing more heard of it.
I have been speaking of my riding for the past few minutes,
but I am sure that a number of my colleagues here recognize the
same realities in their regions. That is what happens when an
overly centralized government is at the helm and the regions do not
get their fair share.
1335
As we are already aware, like a number of other fields of
activity, mining must come under provincial jurisdiction. Take the
example of the Société québecoise d'exploration minière. As you
now, this is a government corporation which administers mining
titles, such as the famous 800 square kilometres staked out by a
Quebec government geologist last year near Lac Vollant.
In such a
context, the Government of Quebec administers titles within its
territory, using the funds of its own taxpayers if required.
However in the case of the Donkin mine, I am wondering how our friends
in the other provinces will react when they learn that the federal
government has invested between $100 and $125 million to develop a Nova
Scotia mine with an uncertain future, not to mention the cost of setting
up a fat Crown corporation.
It does not make any sense whatsoever to create a crown corporation
to develop a mine such as the Donkin mine. In politics, you cannot
afford to take a gamble when $100 to $125 million are at stake. This is
inadmissible. If developing this so-called mine was a sure bet, many
private corporations would already have approached the Cape Breton
Development Corporation. But it is not the case.
The government does not have the right to invest public funds in a
more than hazardous venture which comes under provincial jurisdiction
anyway.
This is the reason why the federal government should not set up a
crown corporation to do exploration or to develop the Donkin “gold
mine”. For these obvious reasons, I urge the Liberal government not to
create a corporation to develop mines.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put
forward by my colleague from Bras D'Or. A fellow bluenoser, I
might add, she certainly brings a unique and special perspective
to the House. She faces many challenges from the many
communities which comprise her new federal riding of Bras D'Or.
The motion speaks to the economic future of many of these same
communities. The timing of the debate on the motion is quite
appropriate in light of the recent troubles in the Phalen
colliery.
I would also like to speak to the overall question of the future
of the Cape Breton Development Corporation better known as Devco.
While not a Cape Bretoner, my home in Pictou county shares the
industrial Cape Breton tradition of coal mining.
For many years coal was a staple in the local economy in my
constituency. Our most recent venture into the Westray mine,
which ended in disaster, is certainly a sad reminder of the
dangers associated with this industry in Nova Scotia in
particular.
Coal mining is a tradition that must adjust to the realities of
the 21st century. In my view the development of the Donkin mine
under the auspices of Devco is the best way to ensure successful
adjustment that has long term benefits for Devco, employees,
taxpayers and those who supported Devco operations throughout the
years.
Devco management announced that the corporation's five year plan
last year completely ruled out the development of Donkin,
emphasizing instead the Phalen colliery. Phalen has a history of
instability and yet Devco management in its wisdom placed all of
its mining eggs in one basket.
The Devco corporate plan also ruled out the identification of
export markets despite significant evidence of the economic
prospects of the exports of coal. As my colleague quite
eloquently stated, it is apparent that coal still has a place in
the industrial world. Tying the coal from Donkin to the coal
markets locally in Nova Scotia is a huge mistake in my honest
opinion.
Like all natural resources we have to try to capitalize on the
ever increasing access to world markets that exist. We should
keep in mind that the development of Sable gas in Nova Scotia
could certainly have a significant impact on the local markets as
it pertains to coal.
Last year during the hearings of the Senate committee on the
future of Devco, Devco officials were warned frequently and
consistently about the dangers of focusing solely on the Phalen
mine to the exclusion of Donkin. Many industry analysts urged
Devco to target foreign markets which would in fact require coal
from the Donkin mine. Devco management, again in its wisdom,
refused to do so opting to sell the Phalen coal to a strictly
domestic market.
1340
Devco management then turned around and announced plans to sell
the Donkin mine to a private operator by the name of Donkin
Resources Limited, DRL, for a single dollar. One dollar would be
paid for this mine against a backdrop of millions of dollars that
were put into the development of this site.
It is shocking to think that this could happen. The expense to
taxpayers is something that should certainly make us all sit up
and take notice. It brings to mind the situation that is
happening presently in Hibernia where there have been rumblings
that the federal government may contemplate selling this
resource. It is an industry with perhaps huge potential that
might allow the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia
in particular, in some way, shape or form, to make giant steps
forward toward becoming have provinces. The government is being
very short-sighted if it is contemplating such a move.
The situation appears to be moving rather rapidly. The same
Devco officials reported that the latest series of rock blasts at
the Phalen mine could limit the potential of the mine for future
ventures.
Without the future of Phalen and with the apparent position
taken on the Donkin mine, what does Devco have left? What
remains for Devco? If both of these mines will not be operating
Devco is a dead duck. The answer is nothing.
It slams the door on the livelihood—I believe the number was
given by my colleague in the New Democratic Party—of close to
700 workers. The impact of the loss of 700 jobs in an area like
Cape Breton is difficult to imagine for anybody who does not come
from the maritimes. The economic impact of that has expanded
perhaps tenfold in comparison to the province of Ontario.
In an ideal world private industry would be able to assume
responsibility and risk for developing Donkin, but in the real
world and in private industry we know that private industry is
often very reluctant and unwilling to make commitments to the
future of the workers who would be negatively affected by the
closure of Donkin. This is economic business reality but the
government has a responsibility. The government must see that
the Donkin situation is handled with great care.
Devco management clearly made a mistake in 1996 when it adopted
this corporate plan. Not one of the three official parties in
the House raised an objection at that time; not the Liberals, not
the Reform and not the Bloc. They all gave Devco a free ride and
made short-sighted decisions that were having a drastic effect on
Atlantic Canada, particularly in Cape Breton.
Is it any wonder the Liberals were then wiped off the electoral
map in Nova Scotia on June 2, 1997? Is it any wonder the Reform
Party could not even find candidates to run in Cape Breton?
It was left to the Senate to raise objections, the Senate that
is often so much under attack. It was the Senate that then
brought the matter forward to deal with the issue of Devco's
limited corporate plan.
Thankfully the last election restored some balance to parliament
and Canadians now have voices from all regions, not just from the
west and Quebec.
In conclusion I condone the member for bringing this matter
forward in such a timely manner. The historic significance of
coal mining not only in Cape Breton but throughout the maritimes
is such that we must ensure that we will look at the long term
viability of this industry and that we proceed with caution.
That responsibility must be assumed by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the motion before us today reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
action to develop the Donkin mine as a crown corporation.
I have said before, and I will say it again, that I believe
mining falls under provincial jurisdiction and not under federal
jurisdiction. Government intrudes far too often in provincial
areas and it keeps on doing it.
Let us take a look at what is happening with regard to Devco.
1345
One problem that Devco had was that it was saddled with the
unfunded liabilities of its predecessor, Dominion Coal, including
some $77.5 million for pensions, $117 million to clean up acid
water drainage, reclaim tailings, and workmen compensation
claims.
It went along not too badly, as was mentioned by the member from
the Conservative Party, with regard to the shipment of coal
overseas. This worked out all right until the government
representative for Devco decided to torpedo any exports of coal.
One main reason they had was Phalen was to come on board and
supply coal to Nova Scotia power.
At that time I questioned the feasibility of cancelling any
overseas contracts we had with regard to coal. Once an overseas
contract is cancelled, it is very difficult to get that share of
the marketplace back.
We know that there is a private group which has put forward an
offer for the Donkin mines. It is currently being reviewed by
the Senate. There was some $400,000 spent on a feasibility study
done by John T. Boyd Co. from the United States. Out of that
$300,000 came toward the study from ACOA, and $100,000 was put up
by the company. It makes us wonder what kind of private
development we are really talking about.
Will the taxpayers be left totally holding the bag for the
demise of Devco with no other resources and all the liabilities
for the environmental clean-up and the unfunded pension
liabilities of past employees? These are questions that have to
be asked.
We know that the Senate in its hearings is going through the
offer and the feasibility study. We know that the minister will
be testifying before the Senate, I believe on December 1. We also
know at this time that there is nothing going on at Donkin.
This is a serious question. The taxpayers of this country have
put hundreds of millions of dollars into these projects. It
raises the question of who is better at this. the private sector
or the government. Time after time we have seen the
mismanagement of public funds by government. We have to wonder
how long we can keep on funding corporations such as this to make
decisions like this.
Let us look at this reasonably. Does anyone think a
private company would shut down its export markets? Not a
hope. But what does the government body do? It shuts down the
export market and creates a problem. That alone should tell us
that the government has no business there.
An hon. member: It has no business sense.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: It has no business sense and it
never has had any. I find that rather amusing coming from the
Conservatives. It seems that a lot of these problems started
when the Conservatives were in power.
We come back to the same thing. We know that mining is extremely
important to Canada. It employs a large number of people, not
only in the maritimes but right across Canada.
1350
We know that coal will be under scrutiny here in this Kyoto
agreement this government has decided to go into. So we have
many problems in the coal industry right now due to government
intrusion.
We have to realize that in many instances the private sector is
better at looking after the needs of the people in the
communities. All businesses have to make a profit in order to
survive. It is that simple.
When we have to compete in the world marketplace we have to
understand that. We are competing in a world market, not just
among ourselves. Therefore when I see mismanagement of Canadian
taxpayer dollars to the sums I see in here under Devco I have to
seriously question the sanity of the governments involved. I do
not think I am the only one to question the sanity. I think the
taxpayers question it.
To sum up, I think the mining communities and the taxpayers of
this country are tired of getting the lousy shaft from the
governments which have run this country and it is time to get us
back on the right track of producing and surviving.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I sure hope Hansard got every single word of the
recent comments of my colleague from the Reform Party.
It is amazing that during question period a very passionate plea
came from a Reform member from northern B.C. I lived for nine
years in Watson Lake, Yukon, a town very close to Fort Nelson
which he had mentioned in his question. He made a very passionate
plea “for the federal government not to divest itself of the
Fort Nelson airport. We need the federal government to keep its
hands on Fort Nelson airport”. Not more than two hours later
they turn around and say that the government has to get out of
coal mining.
I would really like to know what side of its mouth the Reform
Party is going to talk from today. One minute the government is
no good and the next minute we need the government. Please, for
the sake of all Canadians and for their constituents, the Reform
Party should make up its mind. It is unbelievable. I find it
amazing that no matter what the subject members on the Reform
benches think the solution is always fire public servants, sell
off public assets and return to some ideal state of nature that
sounds like a cross between Sunday school and the wild west.
I know the hon. member will find this hard to believe but most
people in Canada do not want an American style government which
does nothing for working people but lectures them on morality.
Most Canadians want a government that will stand up for people
and make job creation its number one priority. That is why I am
here, to push this government to help create jobs on Cape Breton
Island.
Yes, crown corporations like Devco have been inefficient. It is
not because of the workers. It is because of a handful of
powerful men who have made themselves rich at taxpayer expense.
The problem is not the crown corporations. The problem is the
people who ride the gravy train.
I have lived in Nova Scotia for nine years and it is a great
honour for me to look in the cameras and face all of Canada and
wholeheartedly support my hon. colleagues from Cape Breton. I
thank them for their wonderful efforts in trying to get this
motion through the House.
I also wish to thank the hon. House leader of the Conservative
Party for his gracious remarks with regard to this motion. After
what the hon. member has had to go through for the last few years
with Westray, and I know I do not need to go into what has
happened with Westray, it is a very emotional time for him to
stand in this House and mention coal mining in his area let alone
Cape Breton. He deserves the kudos from the New Democratic Party
and all Canadians.
The other day I was in Cape Breton and I met three absolutely
wonderful people.
They are miners José Pimentel and Victor Tomecheck and the head
of the UMWA. I wear its pin with pride. They are trying to get
us to move this government in the direction of making Donkin part
of the Devco corporation plan. It is imperative for this to
happen.
1355
I encourage all members of this House and all Canadians to head
up to Cape Breton and take North America's most beautiful scenic
route, the Cabot Trail. Those who choose to do that can stop at
wonderful areas like Chéticamp, Louisburg and Sydney. They will
understand the feeling and the love Cape Bretoners have for the
rest of Canada and they will be able to return that love.
A young woman stood up at a conference the other day and said
“ladies and gentlemen, I am 18, I am a female and I am a Cape
Bretoner”. According to the Reformers that is three strikes
against her, get out of there. That is a scandalous shame. I
find that hard to believe. I would have loved it if the
Reformers could have been at that conference in Centennial hall
to tell her “there is no future for you here, out you go.
Government is no good, we can't help you. Let the dogs eat
you”. I get really mad when I get on this subject.
The hon. Liberal member from Newfoundland did not give us an
answer on whether he supports this motion or not. I would really
like an answer before we recess today. Is the Liberal Party in
favour of this motion or not? No political answer, just a yes or
no. It would be greatly appreciated by those miners in Cape
Breton.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate, and we have about seven or eight minutes left, it is
customary for the House to give the member who moved the motion a
few minutes to finish. Before we resume debate, we will ask
members to please keep their interventions short and then we will
get at it.
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Motion No. 136 which
calls on the government to develop the Donkin mine in Cape Breton
as a crown corporation.
I join the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources in thanking the hon. member for Bras d'Or for bringing
this matter before the House. There has been a great deal of
debate in Cape Breton about the future of the Donkin mine. The
government appreciates the opportunity to address this issue and
to advise the hon. member and all Canadians of its position on
this matter.
As the parliamentary secretary has noted, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, better known as Devco, is a coal mining
company that currently operates not one but two coal mines as
well as support facilities that include a railway, a port
facility and a coal washing plant.
Devco is headquartered in Sydney which is a wonderful community.
It had a great race track at one time. It holds all the
coal leases for Cape Breton, including the Donkin mine on the
island's east side.
The corporation is a major employer in Cape Breton and must
continue to play a vital role in the long term viability of Nova
Scotia's great coal mining industry. In order to do this Devco
must become commercially viable. As hon. members have been
informed, the corporation is continuing to lose money. By the
way, that is exactly what my horses did when I raced them at
Sydney, lost money.
Progress is being made but Devco still has a long way to go
before it can meet the government's objective of being a
commercially viable crown corporation.
Hon. members know Devco believes the key to economic
profitability in the short term is not to play bingo at Stornoway
but to get its current business right, to reverse the trend of
annual losses by the fiscal year 1999-2000. With that in mind,
this wonderful corporation has focused on achieving productivity
improvements and introducing new technologies and promoting
increased co-operation between management and labour and I hope
between all members in this esteemed House of Commons.
1400
As the parliamentary secretary has very clearly and
unequivocally indicated, Devco will be looking at all options to
get around the existing geological problem at its Phalen mine.
An hon. member: It is pronounced Phalen.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: There is a difference of opinion on
the pronunciation of Phalen. I am from the upper Ottawa valley
and I believe it is pronounced Phalen. I knew a Phalen who he
was kind of an incorrigible person and Sister Mary Florence made
him stand in detention.
Notwithstanding that the corporation will also look at the
potential contribution of its full resources including Donkin
coal prior to submitting its annual corporate plan update earlier
next year.
An hon. member: You are digging yourself in pretty deep.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: If I were on the other side I would
really be in deep or out of it. We are on the government side,
are we not?
An hon. member: Yes, we are on the leadership side.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: The leadership side, the side that
ultimately makes decisions in consultation with all members of
the House.
As the parliamentary secretary has made clear Devco's mandate is
still commercial viability. We expect projects to go forward on
the basis of commercial viability. In other words, if the Donkin
mine is to be developed it will have to be on a commercial basis.
The word true has a certain air of quality about it in this
hallowed Chamber. It is a versatile word. This is particularly
true given the government's record of fiscal responsibility to
all Canadians.
In his magnificent, magnanimous, munificent budget last
February, the Minister of Finance indicated that the government
would stay the course on its effort to eliminate that terrible
and dreadful thing called the deficit.
Canadians recognize and appreciate that progress has been made
in this regard. Far be it for me to pre-empt our fantastic
Minister of Finance, but deficit elimination will more than
likely be achieved in fiscal year 1998-99, but that does not mean
the government can abandon its policies of fiscal restraint and
accountability.
Hon. members will recall that the previous minister of natural
resources, during an appearance before a special Senate committee
this past March, indicated that she would entertain private
sector proposals to study the feasibility of developing the
Donkin mine. The government fully supports Devco's decision to
allow the private sector to explore development of the Donkin
mine on a commercial basis.
As hon. members have been informed, a private company, Donkin
Resources Ltd., is currently conducting a feasibility study to
examine the availability and quality of the coal deposit, the
market opportunities and the technical details associated with
opening the mine. The study was financially supported by the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency through a contribution to
the Cape Breton County Economic Development Authority. This
contribution—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All hon. members
share with the Chair the disappointment that the time provided
for private members' hour has expired. However, with unanimous
consent of the members present, perhaps the mover of the motion,
the hon. member for Bras D'Or, could have three minutes to sum
up.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
still have not received an answer to the question of whether or
not members on the government side support the motion.
1405
One of the topics he just discussed was the feasibility study
which is going to be done with federal funds. He talked about
the agencies which have approved this funding, ACOA and ECBC.
What I have to tell this member is that there was one group that
was not asked what it cared about or what it thought about this
situation, and that group was the people of Cape Breton Island.
They were not asked.
Where else could this situation exist? In a country that is
supposed to be so prosperous we have an island which has the
highest rate of unemployment in the country. There is the
possibility of a major employer and it is being sold for a
loonie. I ask the member, where? Under this Liberal government
that is how it happened.
As I said in my speech, the Donkin mine is the future of Devco
and Devco is the future of Cape Breton Island. I will continue,
day after day, to remind this government when it talks about
deficit reduction how it accomplished that deficit reduction. It
accomplished it on the backs of the people of Cape Breton Island.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 2.06 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at
11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.06 p.m.)