36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 91
CONTENTS
Friday, May 5, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1010
1015
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| NATIONAL COMPOSTING WEEK
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1100
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| GREATER NAPANEE
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN MANITOBA
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| RIVERWALK 1999
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1105
| TAXATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| DRINKING WATER
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| BATTLE OF THE ALTLANTIC
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| THE PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| THE NETHERLANDS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1110
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Ivan Grose |
| SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1120
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1125
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1130
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. John Manley |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1135
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1140
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1145
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1150
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1155
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| DISASTER ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1200
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| LIBERAL PARTY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Use of Parliamentary Supplies
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1205
| The Speaker |
1210
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Canadian Alliance
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1215
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Transgenic Foods
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| National Highways
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1220
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1225
1230
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1250
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1255
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1300
1305
1310
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1315
| LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion
|
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1335
1340
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1345
1350
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1355
1400
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1405
1410
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 91
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 5, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks
of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will take the next
few minutes to give an overview of Bill C-27, in the hope that
members of the House will decide today to refer it to committee
for further consideration.
[English]
Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act, in its short title,
will provide enabling authorities to legislate the boundaries of
the park communities, to define the commercial zones within them,
and to set caps on commercial development. The scale of such
actions will depend on the nature of the communities as they
range from the towns of Banff and Jasper to the small summer
community of Waskesiu in Prince Albert National Park. These
actions recognize that commercial development in national park
communities must always be tempered in the interests of
ecological integrity.
The seven communities will remain as special places. We will
work to ensure their continued sustainability. Residents are
part of the equation and the communities must provide for
economic opportunities and services along with strong cultural
and social services.
Everyone will recognize that these are not average communities.
These are federal lands and part of the national parks and
parliament has a duty to see that they are managed accordingly.
Therefore, under the provisions of Bill C-27, the community plans
would be guided by the principles of no net environmental impact,
responsible environmental stewardship and heritage conservation.
Legislation can do little to create a culture of respect and
caring for wildlife but it can create a deterrence to the wilful
destruction of wildlife. Accordingly, the bill proposes to
increase the penalties for poaching rare, endangered or trophy
species of wildlife. Such offences would be punishable by fines
of up to $50,000 and five years imprisonment. The penalties are
appropriate it seems, given that the trophy head of a Dall sheep,
for instance, can reach up to $150,000 on the black market.
Multiple offences would be counted separately so that the taking
of two grizzly bears, for example, would double the penalty.
In addition, a particularly gruesome type of poaching is aimed
at feeding the international trade in wildlife parts and organs
for exotic medicine. For example, bears have been slaughtered
solely for their gallbladders, and elk for their antler velvet.
This will be fought by a new provision against trafficking.
[Translation]
Bill C-27 proposes a number of important measures related to the
seven communities located within national parks. In order to
understand these provisions, we should examine the history of
the communities and the prospects for their future.
1010
All seven communities have their origins in the last part of the
19th century and the earlier part of the 20th century. In the
Rocky Mountain parks of Banff, Jasper and Yoho, the development
of communities is tightly linked to the development of our
national railway and road transportation corridors.
I note these facts in order to underscore the context within
which the communities were established. It was at a time in
Canada's history when we looked upon our nation as having
unlimited wilderness. The extraction of natural resources was
not perceived as being in conflict with that belief.
Consequently, forestry and mining were allowed within some
national parks and communities were established to serve those
particular interests.
For example, Anthracite and Bankhead were coal mining towns
established in Banff National Park of Canada. And Oil City—the
name says it all—, in Waterton Lakes National Park of Canada
served the first of our oil drilling operations. Although these
extractive activities and the communities of Bankhead,
Anthracite and Oil City have long since vanished, they remind us
of an era when such activities were deemed appropriate within
national parks.
Today, we know that our wilderness is limited and we understand
the need to preserve representative areas within our national
park system. We no longer allow the commercial exploitation of
natural resources within national parks. Moreover, we
understand that any development within a national park should be
carefully limited so as to avoid impairment to its ecological
integrity.
We understand too that high quality environmental conditions are
the foundation for the tourism industry and the very reason
millions of people from all over the world, and primarily from
Canada, visit our parks annually. Therefore, no new communities
will be located within national park boundaries and the existing
communities will be managed in ways that support park values.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage has put great effort and
thought into the drafting of the community provisions in the
bill before us. She has been diligent in analysing the key
studies which identified problems and solutions within the
national park system. The reports of the Bow Valley Study and
the Ecological Integrity Panel contained wide-ranging
recommendations which have served as the basis for making
ecological integrity the first priority in national parks.
Given that the Government of Canada is responsible for the
conservation of national parks for all Canadians, it is
important that parliament retain an overview of the communities'
role and development. To that effect, Bill C-27 proposes that
community plans be tabled in each House as soon as possible
after proclamation of the new Canada National Parks Act.
The plans will respect the provisions in the act. They will be
consistent with the park management plan; accord with guidelines
for appropriate activities; and provide a strategy for growth
management. The shaping of these plans will also be guided by
principles stated in the bill; namely, no net environmental
impact, responsible environmental stewardship and heritage
conservation.
[English]
Growth management will be achieved by describing the boundaries
of the community and its commercial zones, along with the measure
of the maximum commercial floor area permitted within those
zones. Each of these key elements of the community plans, the
boundaries, the commercial zones and the maximum commercial
square footage, will be enshrined within the schedule to the
Canada National Parks Act and thus, become part of the act.
Implementing the provisions of Bill C-27 will ensure a proper
evolution of the communities from the past centuries into the
next one.
1015
We have gone from logging and mining to the prime purpose of
maintaining the ecological integrity of the national parks for
the benefit, education and enjoyment of present and future
generations. The communities have an important role in this and
in serving visitors. They will remain. They will be supported.
We look forward to their becoming models of environmental
stewardship.
[Translation]
It can never be said often enough, ecological integrity will be
the key principle applied in our national parks. I urge members
of the House to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage so that it can be further examined and so that
we may protect our national parks for the future.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House on this beautiful
morning to debate an issue which is of great importance to
Canadians. I am talking about the preservation of our natural
heritage.
I am privileged to have been born in Saskatchewan and even more
privileged to have been able to move to Alberta early in my life.
For many years we lived within four hours of two of Canada's most
pristine and loved national parks, Jasper National Park and Banff
National Park.
We spent time in other national parks, including the park at
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Waterton Lakes National Park.
I was chosen to speak on behalf of my party today because the
name of my riding is derived directly from the national park in
it, Elk Island National Park, which is located just a few miles
outside Edmonton.
Elk Island is a unique park because of the fact that it is
basically a marsh area. Indeed, the word elk implies that there
are elk in the park. There are also bison and many other
different forms of wildlife.
I had the privilege last year of hiking with some of the people
in the park and, as the good song says“Oh, give me a home where
the buffalo roam”, we roamed with the buffalo. We had to be
careful not to interfere with them lest they take exception to us
and attack us because at certain times of the year they can be
dangerous.
My love of the parks extends over the last 40 years. Some of
the best memories I have include visits to the parks, both in
Banff and Jasper. We went camping for a week in Jasper for our
25th wedding anniversary. When asked by my friends how our week
had gone, I told them it was the worst week I had ever spent. I
told them that the problem was, when we entered the park there
was a big sign that said “Do not feed the wild animals”, so my
wife starved me all week. Camping was not as much fun when I got
hungry.
I love the park. Saskatchewan, as members know, has many acres
of flat land. Every time I go to the mountains I am completely
awestruck by their grandeur, their magnificence. I cannot come
up with the words which could adequately describe the mountains.
If there are members of the House who have never visited
Canada's Rockies between Alberta and British Columbia, they owe
it to themselves to see one of the most beautiful parts of
Canada.
1020
Being campers, when we visited these camps we encountered a
number of people from around the world. I remember one couple
who were quite a bit better off than we were because they had
travelled all over the world. One of the things they said was
that they had been everywhere in the world, including the Alps in
Switzerland, but the most beautiful scenery they had encountered
was along the Banff-Jasper highway. Having travelled there
several times I would certainly attest to that.
I agree with the general idea of a national parks system in
Canada. I very profoundly agree with the concept that we must
preserve the pristine character of our parks and our beauty
spots, not only for ourselves and visitors from around the world,
but for future generations; not only for future generations of
Canadians, but also for future generations of people around the
world who come to visit and enjoy the beauties of this country.
I mentioned earlier that when we were a young couple with young
children we spent some time camping in the national parks. Lest
I give the wrong impression, I might as well indict my wife on a
very important issue. I have always loved the outdoors and
camping under the stars. I remember as a young university
student being out near the Rocky Mountain house area. We were
preparing a youth camp for summer activities. I remember going
to sleep that night, which was beautiful, clear and starry. We
did not use the Celsius scale back then, but converting it to the
Celsius scale it was probably about minus five degrees in the
morning and there were about 10 inches of new snow. That is a
picture of beauty which is etched permanently in my mind. I will
never forget it.
As a young family I would have loved to have carried on with
that camping tradition, but my wife was not so much inclined.
She said that she did not really look forward to leaving her nice
home, sleeping on the ground or in a tent and being vulnerable to
wild animals, insects and all of that. Being the kind, loving
husband which I clearly am, I made a concession and we purchased
a travel trailer, one that would keep us off the ground, give us
some protection when it rained and so on. We made that little
compromise. We had wonderful times in our trailer at the
campsites of the different parks.
The reason I am saying this is because those are such wonderful,
warm memories for me; the environment in which it occurred, the
hikes we took and the admiration that we had for the beauty that
was given to us. I feel very strongly that we should preserve
that and preserve its accessibility, which will be one of the
themes of my talk this morning.
When we were a young couple, believe it or not, we could afford
to go to Banff for a week. I was not a well paid person. Very
early in our marriage we made the decision that my wife would be
a full time mom. We have always lived on my income and will
retire on my non-pension, since I am one of the members of the
House who has opted out of the lucrative MP pension plan. We
made the decisions on principle and I do not regret that, but we
have never been well off.
I truly am a member of the House of Commons in the sense that I
am a commoner. As a young family we were actually able to go
into the parks of Banff and Jasper. Those were the ones that
attracted us because of their proximity to where we lived. We
were able to enjoy them. At that time the fees for camping and
for using the amenities were within our budget.
1025
I regret to say that the policies of the federal government over
the last number of years have become, really, a case for the
elites. It probably dates back to the end of the Liberal era
before the Conservatives took over for nine years. It is now
really only for the very rich.
We were at the campground not very long ago. I was rather
saddened to see that most of the people there were the ones with
the big motor homes. Obviously those who were independently
wealthy could afford to spend time there, but there were not many
people who came from what I would call the rank and file,
ordinary middle income Canadians. That is a policy which is very
regrettable.
For us as a family it was a wonderful experience.
I regret that the new generation, the moms and dads of today,
the young couples, cannot really afford to go to Banff and to
Jasper because the daily costs are so high. Many of them are
spending time in the area just outside the parks. In southern
Alberta we have a couple of areas which are really expanding very
quickly. Canmore is probably the best example. It is a large
area which is five or six kilometres outside the boundary of the
park. That is where people are going because they can enjoy the
beauty there. Perhaps they can take a day trip into the park,
but they cannot stay in the park because this government and the
government before it chose to set an entry fee structure that is
beyond the reach of ordinary, overtaxed Canadian families.
That is a mistake as far as I am concerned. I think it is a
very large error which I would like to see corrected.
We are talking today about national parks. I have no interest
whatsoever in arguing against the desires of the people in Parks
Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage to preserve both
plant and animal life, to see that it remains undisturbed as much
as possible. However, we used to say in Saskatchewan when I was
growing up that if someone overdid something they were swatting a
fly with a shotgun. It was a huge exaggeration.
I want to be very careful because I do not want to be
misunderstood, but I believe that to some degree the ecologists,
the biologists and the people at Heritage Canada and others are
greatly overstating the degree to which the area needs to be
protected.
I believe that we need to respect the land. I believe that we
need to respect the parks. We have taught our children to obey
rules like staying on the paths in order not to harm the
vegetable life that is off the path. We have always done our
part to keep the campgrounds clean. Our motto was: when a
camper leaves he should leave nothing but the sound of his
footsteps. I think that is important. It is a matter of
individual responsibility.
Some of the extreme measures that are being taken by the people
who claim they are protecting the parks are making them
inaccessible to ordinary rank and file Canadians. I have already
mentioned the fee structure which they are using to keep ordinary
folk out. That is an error.
There are other things as well.
1030
I think of the considerable number of letters and presentations
I and my colleagues have received because of Heritage Canada's
insistence on closing down the little grass strips for private
airplanes in Banff and Jasper. It is impossible to defend the
closing of those airstrips if we look at it in balance.
It can be said that the elk used to go across the field and now
there is an airstrip and of necessity, there is a big 10 foot
fence around it to protect the airstrip so the animals cannot go
on the airstrip. Sure, but I have had the occasion to fly over
those parks in a jet plane at 25,000 or 30,000 feet. When I
looked down I really had to strain my eyes to see the little
thread down there that is the Trans-Canada Highway. The towns of
Banff and Jasper can hardly be seen from that height simply
because there are as many trees in the towns as there are outside
them. People live there and tourists come from all over the world
to visit there.
To me when I look at it in balance there is a little pin spot
which is a town, a little thread which represents a highway and
perhaps a railway in the middle of miles and miles and miles of
wilderness. Some people are concerned about one more little pin
stripe just one-tenth of a millimetre long in the perspective of
looking at it from that height. They say, “We do not care if a
person in a small airplane gets into trouble. We will not have
an emergency airstrip. Let him fly into the mountain”. I think
it was the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself who said to let
them land wherever they can. People in a small airplane cannot
just land it anywhere on the side of a mountain without killing
themselves.
That is a totally misdirected set of priorities. When it is
more important for the elk and the deer to have a path to walk
along than to preserve a human life which may be in danger, that
is misplaced priorities. I simply say to the government that
there is nothing lost by keeping open a small airstrip. There is
nothing lost by that; there is only gain in terms of safety and
accessibility to Canadians.
I have talked about the airstrip. I have talked about the fact
that there are miles and miles of wilderness available for the
wildlife and we as humans are surely able to also enjoy a part of
it.
I would like to come back just for a second to the almost
sacredness of the space in our parks. It is not a great secret
that I am a person who believes in God. One of the songs I have
sung many times is “How Great Thou Art”. I do not know if
anyone here knows that song.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Please do not sing it.
Mr. Ken Epp: I will avoid the temptation to sing it on
the prompting of the member opposite but it has a phrase, “When
I consider the world that You have made, I see the stars, I see
the awesome grandeur of the mountains”. It is very seldom that I
go into the mountains that I do not think to myself and often say
to my wife or other family members who are with me, what
grandeur, what extravagance God used in creating this part of the
world.
Our native friends have that same affinity. They often express
in their religious faith the grandeur of God's creation. We need
to make sure that Canadians of all different backgrounds and
visitors to our wonderful country have an opportunity to stand in
awe of this huge monument of creation when we observe what our
parks are.
1035
There are some misdirected points in the bill before us. One of
the things Parks Canada and Heritage Canada try to do is to run
roughshod over the taxpayers and citizens of this country. That
is a totally misdirected priority.
There are limitations in the bill which say arbitrarily that we
are not going to permit a park to grow beyond its existing
boundaries. Boom, just like that. There is no consultation, no
input from the people, no input from the stakeholders.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is total nonsense.
Mr. Ken Epp: No, it is not nonsense. The member opposite
says that what I said was nonsense. What I am saying is not
nonsense. I am talking about Bill C-27. There is no requirement
for meaningful consultation among the stakeholders.
That is wrong. There are situations in Banff for example. A
place which hosts visitors to our country and tries to be
hospitable to them is now required to have buses to run its staff
out of the park for overnight stays because it is not permitted
to construct a building for the staff to stay overnight.
Talk about ecology, talk about the environment. What is better:
running a bus an extra 100 kilometres a day, or having a building
right next to where the people work so that they can walk or ride
their bicycles to work? It is case of using a sledgehammer to
solve a problem instead of trying to be reasonable about it.
I am very concerned about the way in which changes to parks can
be made if we pass Bill C-27. It used to be that under the old
Canada parks act, establishing a new park or adding land to it
required an amendment to the act itself. It would have to be
debated in parliament. It also required that notice be given in
the Canada Gazette as well as in newspapers in the local
area. That is not the case anymore. Now it allows simply for
orders in council. The minister could make a declaration and
whatever the minister said would be the new law. No public
notification is required. I think that is an error.
I believe very strongly that the ministers in many, many of the
bills which the Liberal government is passing are being given way
too much power. We are losing that thread of accountability
which comes in a good democratic system.
There is no mention made in the bill of required public
consultation, co-operation or support from local governments or
provincial or territorial governments in which the parks exist.
We need to not only provide for those points of consultation,
but I would love to see a government with the humility on many
occasions actually to accept what the people out there are
saying. Most of the time the people who are working day to day
in the parks and the area know the situation very, very well.
One of the things we are going to hear is that it would be
turned over to commercial interests. I want to talk a bit about
that. I do not believe for a moment even if we turned the parks
over totally to commercial interests that their task would be to
completely destroy them. Why would they destroy that which
attracts people from all around the world? I believe they are
very capable people who in conjunction with local, provincial and
federal governments could consult and come to an agreement as to
the degree of expansion required.
Tourism is so important to our country.
It is economically important. I will not negate that. It is
important.
1040
I have already spoken about the importance of allowing other
people to come to our country to share in its grandeur, but it is
also important that we provide decent Canadian hospitality and
that will come in balance. I am simply not prepared to say I
trust the federal government fully and I trust the commercial
interests not at all, because what we need is a balance. We need
a dialogue between them. We need to come to agreements.
Sometimes the federal government may have to give a little. I
simply do not believe in the high handed, autocratic, dictatorial
government. That is what we have in this bill.
I am very concerned about the long term future of our parks
under a bill like this one. The interests of the government in
proposing Bill C-27 seem to be much more to preserve its little
fiefdom, its little kingdom, its control. That seems to be what
the largest interest the government has in this.
The government is not interested in preserving the beauty of the
parks and their accessibility to ordinary Canadians. That is most
important. I would not begin to put a human being at the level
of an animal although some would, but if an animal has a right to
be in a park, in my view so does a human being, so do Canadians
and so do visitors from around the world.
I would like a parks policy which would permit co-operation
among the commercial interests, the interests of tourism and the
interests of allowing our Canadian citizens to enjoy the beauty
of our parks. That balance is missing in this very one sided,
give all the power to the government, in fact, give all the power
to the minister bill. We should have one that would be balanced
and which would serve Canadian people so much better.
I am aware that I could have more time to speak. I have
certainly emphasized the most important things that have been on
my mind and in my heart. I appreciate very much the attention
all members in the House have given today. Only two of them have
dared to squawk at all in protest about what I have been saying.
The others have been blissfully silent.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to address at second
reading Bill C-27, the Canada National Parks Act. This bill is an
overhaul of the existing act.
The main changes proposed in this bill are a new process for
the establishment of future parks, a substantial increase in
fines relating to poaching, and ways to restrict the development
of communities located within park boundaries.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However,
it will listen carefully to the comments and proposals by the
various groups appearing before the heritage committee. The Bloc
Quebecois also intends to raise certain major concerns,
including some that have to do with the wording of a fundamental
provision of the Canada National Parks Act, namely clause 4,
which deals with public use of parks.
The Bloc Quebecois also notes that while the Minister of
Canadian Heritage claims to want to put environmental protection
at the core of this legislation, she does not provide adequate
funding to Parks Canada.
Indeed, when it comes to funding, the minister is more inclined
to implement procedures that do not concern her department, such
as the increase in fines and in lease rates.
Worse still, while Parks Canada is faced with an urgent need to
radically change its culture to protect the parks' environment,
Parks Canada's net budget will be reduced from $313 million in
1998 to $283 million in 2001.
1045
I would like review the main amendments to the National Parks
Act and, in passing, indicate the Bloc Quebecois' position on
each.
Let us begin with the changes to the procedure for establishing
new parks. The current legislation calls for any new national
park to be created by legislative means. Bill C-27, however,
proposes a new procedure involving an order in council. This is
to be tabled in each House of Parliament and then referred to
the appropriate standing committees, but they will not have much
time to address it. Parliament will then be able to refuse to
endorse it, and thus it will be rejected.
As well, the area of a national park may not be reduced except
by legislative means.
We have two comments to make on this section of the bill. First
of all, we appreciate the fact that the government makes a
commitment in clause 5 not to create any new park without
provincial consent. This is very important. Respect for the
sovereignty of Quebec over its territory is essential to the
Bloc Quebecois' support in principle of this bill. We do,
however, feel that the time limit for examination of the order
by taxpayers and parliamentarians is too short.
In fact, clause 7 of the bill stipulates that, from the time a
proposal for a new park or expansion of a park is tabled in the
House, the House and the committee will have just 20 days—that is
right, 20 days—to reach a conclusion on the proposed modification
set out in the order.
We do not think that is enough to enable parliamentarians to do
their work and taxpayers to organize.
The bill also proposes the establishment of seven new parks:
three in Nunavut, one in the Northwest Territories, one in
Newfoundland, one in Manitoba and one in Saskatchewan. It also
proposes the establishment of a reserve, at Pacific Rim in
British Columbia. Finally, it proposes the expansion of the
Point Pelee to include Middle Island. This park is located in
Ontario on Lake Erie.
One important thing, the bill proposes to increase fines and
establish new offences. The existing legislation provides fines
for poaching wildlife. These fines vary from $10,000 to
$150,000 and may involve imprisonment.
With Bill C-27, the fines for poaching would increase from
$50,000 and/or six months' imprisonment on summary conviction to
$150,000 and/or up to five years' imprisonment on conviction on
indictment as the result of a charge.
These fines for poaching are in keeping with those found in the
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International
and Interprovincial Trade Act, the Canadian Wildlife Act and the
Migratory Birds Convention Act.
The bill contains a new offence for trafficking. This offence
will apply to fauna, flora and natural resources. Thus the
possession of rare plants and fossils for trade or barter and
the possession of objects with the intention of trafficking
constitute an offence.
The maximum fine will be $10,000, but it could go as high as
$150,000 with imprisonment when endangered or protected species
are involved.
1050
Bill C-27 also proposes penalties for repeat offenders. Its
provisions allow for the imposition of fines for each specimen
of wildlife species taken, and for each day during which an
offence is committed. Finally, the bill will allow authorities
to recover the costs of cleaning up the damage caused by
substances spilled in a park. The Bloc Quebecois cares about the
parks' environmental integrity and supports all of these
measures.
The bill also seeks to restrict the development of communities.
Currently, the existing act does not include any mechanism to
restrict the commercial development of communities located in
parks.
The proposed new legislation corrects this flaw by providing
that parliament will approve community plans that will become
schedules to the act. These plans will have to be consistent
with the management plan for the park in which the community is
located and with any guidelines established by the minister for
appropriate activities within the park community, provide a
strategy for the management of growth within the park community,
and be consistent with principles of no net negative
environmental impact and responsible environmental stewardship
and heritage conservation.
The plan will include a description of the lands comprising the
park community, a description of the lands comprising the
commercial zones of the park community, and an indication of the
maximum floor area permitted within the commercial zones of the
park community. This means that commercial growth will be
subject to ceilings, and any change will require passage of a
new act, which means a national debate in parliament.
Thus all opinions on the matter could be expressed at that
time. We note, however, that the bill has nothing to say on many
points relating to these communities. There is no reference to
who will draw up these community plans, nor to how the
communities will finance standard utilities. There is no
assurance of an elementary respect for municipal bylaws or
provincial regulations. This is a point of considerable concern
to the Bloc Quebecois.
Clause 16, moreover, gives the governor in council considerable
powers over the communities. It is stated in 16(g) states that
the governor in council may make regulations respecting:
(g)the issuance, amendment and termination of leases, licences
of occupation and easements or servitudes, and the acceptance of
the surrender or resiliation of leases and the relinquishment of
licences of occupation and easements or servitudes, of or over
public lands
(i) in towns and visitor centres, for the purposes of residence,
schools, churches, hospitals, trade, tourism and places of
recreation or entertainment,
(ii) in resort subdivisions, for the purpose of residence.
This clause disconcerts us because there is a total lack of
recourse for those living within national parks against
potential abuse of such regulatory power.
The Bloc Quebecois intends to listen to what community
representatives have to say when the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage meets.
In the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, their point of view must
be taken into consideration, and a proper balance struck between
their interests and those of conserving the environment.
Above and beyond this bill, a change in corporate culture is
required. Unfortunately, the bill shows no evidence of this.
In fact, the focal point of the bill, clause 4, states as
follows:
4.(1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the
people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment,
subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be
maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for
the enjoyment of future generations.
1055
The Bloc Quebecois considers that this bill puts the focus more
on the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada than on the
ecological protection of the national parks. The former appear
first, while ecological integrity comes second. We should
reverse the order of this provision and strengthen the wording
to make clear the primary purpose of a park.
In fact, in a recent report, the auditor general pointed out
that the national parks were used more for tourist purposes than
to preserve their ecological integrity. He deplored the fact
that the protection of the natural setting was at the mercy of
visitor traffic.
Allow me to quote the auditor general:
Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation
plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological
integrity of national parks.
Thirteen parks reported that they
did not have a fully completed ecosystem conservation plan. The
management plans of the six parks that we reviewed did not
provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and
initiatives. We are concerned that in some instances, management
plans emphasize social and economic factors over ecological
factors.
Last month, the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's
National Parks released its report in which it said:
The majority of the parks report today a considerable and
growing loss of ecological integrity, particularly in the
smallest parks and those located more to the south—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she
will have another 26 minutes. I thought that this was the right
moment to interrupt her speech and move on to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last month residents of Prince Albert had the shock of a
lifetime when a boarder showed up at their door in handcuffs and
shackles, accompanied by a Correctional Service Canada guard.
It turns out that he had been delivered to the wrong house and
that, unknown to them, their neighbours or even the city, the
house next door was a halfway house for offenders on supervised
release.
A bylaw in the city of Prince Albert does not require
notification where homeowners intend to open their home to room
and board as long as they do not have more than three people at
one time.
Correctional Service Canada has used the bylaw to avoid
disclosing its plans to house offenders on staged released
programs in the city. Stating that they were only obeying the
law, officials protested wide-eyed innocence when the issue
became public, and the solicitor general has not responded to my
letter on the matter.
As Canada's top lawman, the solicitor general must instruct his
own officials to do more than obey the letter of the law. They
must also obey its spirit and intent.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL COMPOSTING WEEK
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is
the end of National Composting Week, for which the theme this
year is “The Future Starts Here”.
Composting, a natural means of recycling, decomposes and
transforms organic matter into humus, a product that can be used
to improve soil texture and fertility.
Food, agricultural and gardening waste, and paper, wood, manure
and leaves are excellent organic matter for composting.
The Government of Quebec is a leader in this field, having
adopted, in 1998, an action plan on the management of residual
fertilizers so that by the year 2008 up to 60% of recoverable
putrescible matter will be recovered annually.
What explanation can there be for the absence of any reference
to composting on Agriculture Canada's website except this
government's deplorable lack of sensitivity with respect to the
environment, which is clearly demonstrated by its stand on
organic farming.
* * *
1100
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, why is the
Minister of National Defence not doing more to help our brave
gulf war veterans who are suffering from an assortment of very
debilitating illnesses associated with their military service in
the Persian Gulf?
These brave soldiers fought for our country and now they must
fight for themselves. Why is the military not doing everything in
its power to determine what is causing their terrible symptoms?
Is it because the military has known all along what is causing
the sickness?
Sue Riordan fought to save her husband despite meeting up with
indifference from our military. It is only after the death of
Terry Riordan and the subsequent discovery that he had unusually
high levels of depleted uranium in his bones that our military
took an interest.
We now learn that the Royal Military College did a study on
depleted uranium which showed the harmful effects it has on the
human body. It begs the question: Was the lack of interest in
Terry Riordan's illness caused by the fact the military already
suspected the cause of his sickness?
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 20,
Economic Development Canada announced an investment that will
benefit the entire Outaouais region: $9.3 million over the next
five years to help develop three important components of its
economy.
First, $6.8 million will go to the development of high tech
companies.
Another $1.2 million will be invested in developing new tourist
attractions.
Our region abounds in natural and manmade spaces with the
potential to interest people passing through our region.
Finally, $1.2 million will be allocated to stimulate the economy
in rural areas, an area essential to the economic growth of our
region.
Clearly, the strategy is tailored to the needs, strengths and
assets of the Outaouais region, which is one of the loveliest in
Quebec and in Canada.
This is additional proof that the Canadian government is working
to improve the quality of life of regions in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
GREATER NAPANEE
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a message in praise of
the vigour and vitality of small town Canada. A shining example
of that vitality is Greater Napanee, a town in my riding.
This is the eve of Walleye Weekend in Greater Napanee, an annual
event that attracts more than 7,000 visitors to the region. The
visitors will be coming to a town that Harrowsmith magazine
recognized last month as one of the 10 prettiest small towns in
Canada.
Members know Harrowsmith magazine as a national
publication, but I also know it as the publication that had a
start in a building a few doors from my home in Camden East.
Apart from its charm, Greater Napanee is alive with new economic
activity. Among that activity is the construction of a large
travel plaza that will include restaurants, stores, a service
station and a hotel.
Greater Napanee is an old town with a new spirit. As part of
that pride in the town, citizens are planting flowers to compete
in the national Communities in Bloom competition.
I invite all members, and especially members from urban ridings,
to stop by and smell the roses.
* * *
[Translation]
FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN MANITOBA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
government has once again invested in the future of our young
people.
On April 27, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Manitoba's
education minister reached an agreement in principle to
implement special investment measures for French language
education in Manitoba.
These measures will help improve the quality of the programs and
services provided at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary
levels. The $30 million contribution will be funded equally by
the two levels of government.
Thanks to that new intergovernmental agreement, young
francophones in Manitoba will have the opportunity to make a
place for themselves in tomorrow's world.
* * *
[English]
RIVERWALK 1999
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the Windsor Parks and Recreation
Department and all Windsorites on winning the first Molson
Canadian Achievement Award for Riverwalk 1999 as best community
event.
Riverwalk 1999 brought together the entire Windsor community
last summer in an effort to recognize the clean-up and
revitalization being done to our riverfront.
Riverwalk 1999 is just one more example of what makes Windsor
such a spirited Canadian community and one of the best places in
the world in which to live.
Congratulations to the event organizers and all the participants
for making Riverwalk 1999 an award winning event.
* * *
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. Also this year the local
Ottawa-Carleton Chapter is commemorating its 50th anniversary in
the fight against MS.
1105
This past year, through generous donations, the MS Society
raised $3 million for 13 research projects and six research
scholarships.
Since its founding in 1948, the MS Society has invested nearly
$64 million into finding the cause, prevention, treatment and
cure of MS.
During the month of May, volunteers across the country will be
taking part in fundraising and awareness campaigns in support of
MS research and in the provision of services to people with MS
and their families.
I encourage all Canadians to join in this effort.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, momentum for lower taxes is gaining
ground across Canada thanks to the surge in popularity of the
Canadian Alliance.
The Ontario government has moved a step forward with a budget
that cuts taxes significantly for both businesses and
individuals. Most encouraging of all to Ontario taxpayers is the
$200 rebate offered taxpayers on this year's taxes.
In taking such action, the Ontario finance minister holds his
federal and provincial counterparts to a higher standard. Let us
hope the federal government will not drag its feet on
administering and mailing out these cheques. It never hesitates
to collect taxes and it should be equally efficient when a refund
is owed.
On behalf of Ontarians who are awaiting their tax refund and all
Canadians who anticipate a Canadian Alliance government which
commits to significantly lowering taxes, I applaud this trend to
giving Canadian taxpayers their money back.
* * *
[Translation]
DRINKING WATER
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Wednesday, on drinking water conservation day, Environment
Canada's Biosphere and the Communauté urbaine de Montréal
presented the Biosphere 2000 awards.
These awards were presented to Stelfil Limitée of Lachine, to
Buanderie Villeray Limitée of Montreal, and to l'École
Édouard-Laurin and Manoir Inc. of Saint-Laurent, for implementing
programs that help reduce their drinking water consumption and
their waste water discharge.
The drinking water conservation day is the result of a
partnership between the Biosphere and the Communauté urbaine de
Montréal and is made possible thanks to the co-operation of the
municipalities producing drinking water and the members of the
joint committee on drinking water conservation and waste water
reduction.
The water savings made by the award recipients total close to
six million cubic metres annually, or 2.6 times the volume of
the Olympic Stadium.
Congratulations to the winners.
* * *
BATTLE OF THE ALTLANTIC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this coming Sunday, Canadians will pause to commemorate the
Battle of the Atlantic.
Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, 1939.
[English]
For six long years, members of the Royal Canadian Navy, the
Canadian Merchant Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force faced
perilous conditions in a titanic struggle for survival in the
longest battle of the second world war, the Battle of the
Atlantic.
The liberation of Europe depended on the ability of the allies
to deliver their precious cargo of goods and personnel across the
Atlantic, making their way through the menace of enemy submarine
wolf packs, hazardous fog and raging winter gales.
Canadians shared in some of the worst hardships imaginable.
Thousands paid the ultimate price, leaving us with a legacy of
bravery and sacrifice in the cause of freedom.
I invite my hon. colleagues and all Canadians to pay tribute to
those who fought in the Battle of the Atlantic.
* * *
THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, nowhere to run, nowhere to
hide. The folks in the Middle East gave a huge sigh of relief
when the Prime Minister returned to Canada and now it appears the
Prime Minister is having trouble booking a meeting hall in his
own country.
Even loyal Liberals are cancelling meetings when they learn the
Prime Minister is about to show up because protesters are
following him everywhere.
It seems Canadians want to send him a strong message. His
Middle East faux pas, coupled with his gross mismanagement of the
country's affairs, have made him a pretty unwanted guest.
It looks like Canadians will have to wait until the next
election to send the Prime Minister a love letter that will not
only shut down his computer but indeed his entire government.
* * *
THE NETHERLANDS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week the people of the Netherlands are welcoming back with
open arms thousands of Canadian heroes. These are men and women
who helped to liberate Holland some 55 years ago. Tomorrow, May
6, there will be a commemorative ceremony at Groesbeek Cemetery
where 2,338 Canadians are buried. Later that day, the town of
Hardenburg will honour returning Canadian veterans.
To understand how grateful the Dutch are, we only have to listen
to the following words from a first generation Canadian whose
Dutch parents survived the war:
Canada has been very good to us, and I shall never forget the
sacrifices made by Canadians to ensure that I would never know
tyranny and oppression. I have always felt immensely privileged
to be a citizen of such an equitable and well-respected nation,
whose existence sparks hopes and dreams of a better life.
To our Canadian veterans I say, we are all in your debt. We
offer you our humble and heartfelt thanks.
* * *
1110
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, most
Canadians, including many members of the House, are outraged that
two federal politicians convicted of serious offences are still
eligible to sit in parliament.
Senator Eric Bernston, guilty of defrauding Saskatchewan
taxpayers of more than $41,000, is once again free on bail to sit
in the Senate.
Meanwhile, the MP from Crowfoot is free on bail after being
found guilty yesterday of attempted rape.
The current rules stipulate that MPs can be barred from sitting
in parliament only if sentenced to a jail term of two years or
more. Electors find this repugnant and offensive. I believe
that they are demanding a higher standard for men and women
elected or appointed to parliament.
Canadians know that no business, organization, or trade union
would, for one instant, allow itself to be tainted in such a way.
To this end, an appropriate parliamentary committee must be
charged with reviewing cases such as these and find a more
suitable way to deal with our lawmakers once they become
lawbreakers.
* * *
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week is Emergency Preparedness Week. This is the week that
Canadians get together to prepare for eventualities or disasters
that may occur.
There is an old maxim that says “If you fail to prepare, you
prepare to fail.” There is no question that over the last 10
years we have been subjected to many disasters, such as floods,
forest fires, ice storms and toxic spills.
Our military, the Red Cross and many organizations are working
collaboratively to make sure that Canadians are safe.
This week we are holding forums to remind families, provinces
and communities to get together to work toward a plan that will
make these disasters less likely to create havoc in communities.
I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons and all Canadians
to work collaboratively with their families to be prepared so
that we do not have any major problems.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 1,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage went to the ridiculous lengths
of promoting “Canadian” culture in Boston with a beer ad. How
clever.
How can Quebecers define themselves within this selection of
Canadiana when the beer in question is not even sold in Quebec?
Molson long ago grasped the specific nature of Quebec and serves
us la Laurentide.
We in Quebec have a real department of culture, not one for
heritage.
What we fear is not comparison with the Americans but
assimilation with the Canadians.
In Quebec, when we say we are bilingual, that does not mean we
just know a few pick-up lines. Our objective is to make Quebec
known throughout the world, not to go to other countries and put
our foot in our mouth every chance we get.
Above all, when we in Quebec want some pro-Quebec advertising, we
do not hire an American.
My name is Richard and I am a Quebecer.
[English]
My name is Richard and I am a Quebecer.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
I seldom rise in the House because I think we tend to say too
much about too little. That having been said, I have a statement
today that passes my quality test.
On April 27 Canada signed a political accord with British
Columbia and Wet'suwet'en First Nation. The three parties have
committed to work together to identify and increase opportunities
for economic development in the Wet'suwet'en community.
The first nation is currently in negotiation of an agreement in
principle for a treaty with Canada and British Columbia. As the
House is aware, treaty negotiations offer one of the best ways to
settle unfinished business and build partnership in B.C.
The Wet'suwet'en have already started speaking to local
industries, including the forestry industry, to discover how this
accord might involve them as third parties. The accord will also
strengthen the already good relations the Wet'suwet'en have
forged with their neighbours.
Strengthened economic viability benefits not just the first
nations but its neighbours. This accord is a stellar example of
how Canada, the provinces and first nations are establishing
forward-looking, effective relationships.
* * *
SUMMER STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the summer student employment program is falling short
of the mark just at a time when students need it most.
Tuition fees have risen beyond our young people's ability to pay.
Student debt is at an all time high. Student bankruptcies are
the highest in the history of the country. These statistics seem
to have gone unnoticed by the federal government. Not only do
these programs help students but they help small businesses and
no-profit organizations as well.
1115
I urge the minister to transfer money from some of the less
productive programs in her department, which taxpayers have no
tolerance for, to programs that will help the students in this
country. The future of the country are young people.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the HRD minister continues to claim
that she has incorporated those recommendations in her six point
plan from Deloitte & Touche.
Recommendations were made by Deloitte & Touche on February 2 and
the minister made the final plan public on February 6. If we
compare the early version with the final version, it is pretty
clear that the minister was not in any mood for any revisions.
There are no substantive differences between those two reports.
Why did the minister even bother to hire outside help when she
knew she was going to ignore it anyhow?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that Deloitte & Touche was hired
to look at the draft plan. They looked at it and made
suggestions. The suggestions were taken into account in
preparing the final plan.
It is important to note that a very important individual, an
officer of this parliament, the auditor general, looked at the
final plan and spoke to it with approval in the standing
committee. I do not know why the hon. member is not willing to
accept the judgment of an officer of this House, the auditor
general.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the auditor general
was any more impressed with it than was Deloitte & Touche. Maybe
then this minister, when she actually found out the horror of
what was going on there, saw that she was totally responsible for
it.
If the minister is going to make a claim, she must be prepared
to back it up. The minister said that she had acted on the
advice of Deloitte & Touche. We know she has not. It would be
so simple to bring forward the truth.
Deloitte & Touche criticized the draft plan and there are no
substantive differences between that and the final version. There
is no clear underlined addressing of that in the final plan.
Could the minister or her representative prove it? Read it to
me. Where is it in that plan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is any horror it is in the unsubstantiated
premise of my hon. friend.
What the auditor general said about the six point plan, the
final version, in his appearance before the standing committee,
was that the action plan prepared by the department represented
an exceptional response. He also said:
I do believe this is a very thorough plan for corrective action
to address the immediate control problems that were identified.
Some longer term action plans are also included that further
strengthen the approach.
Here is somebody who knows what he is talking about, an officer
of this parliament. The hon. member should stop trying to
undermine the auditor general and his work.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is just a great quote where the
auditor general talks about the immediate problem. He knows
there is a long term problem here and it is simply not being
addressed.
It is unbelievable how a minister of the crown can say that
everything is incorporated and everything is going just fine. Her
parliamentary secretary thinks everything is grand as well. I
would like her to stand up in the House and address some of these
pretty serious concerns as well.
Deloitte & Touche said that there was not even, and I quote, “a
clear statement of what improvements and outputs it is trying to
achieve”. There needs to be a clear summary plan. There is a
statement that is necessary and that is not in there.
I ask the parliament secretary, where is that clear summary
statement in the six point plan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why she is not
willing to accept the word of the auditor general who spoke not
only about the immediate impact of the six point plan, but about
the long term impact when he appeared before the standing
committee and said, with respect to the six point plan, “Some
longer term action plans are also included that further
strengthen the approach”.
I ask the hon. member why she does not accept the word of the
auditor general. Why is she trying to undermine the work of an
officer of this House?
1120
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, now there is another scathing audit
of HRDC that the government tried to hide.
This audit, by respected accounting firm Arthur Andersen, blasts
the minister's department for failing to do even basic monitoring
of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. But surprise. The
six pages of the audit criticizing the federal government were
removed from the final version.
What is the explanation for this one?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
objective of the report was to identify potential risk areas in
the management of the operation and maintenance funds and to
review existing internal controls.
It is an interim report based on 15 interviews where people were
asked to identify possible risk areas. This is part of the
ongoing process of the department to ensure that we have adequate
financial management processes in place.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here are just a few examples of this
minister hiding damning evidence from Canadians. The audit
revealing the billion dollar bungle was kept under wraps until an
access request forced its release. Now access requests are being
routinely withheld. Deloitte & Touche's condemnation of the six
point plan was buried. And today we discover that the Arthur
Andersen criticism of HRDC was censored.
How can Canadians have any confidence in this minister with her
track record of hiding the truth?
The Speaker: Once again I would ask hon. members to stay
away from such terms as hiding the truth. We are getting a
little close.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
contrary, this minister is leading the government into methods of
modern comptrollership and transparency.
In this age of telecommunications, no one can hide anything and
no one wants to hide anything. We have released 24 internal
audits for the perusal of the opposition. Unfortunately the
opposition always looks for only one part of those internal
audits where certain things have been identified as being in need
of improvement. The opposition never mentions any time an
internal audit shows good practices, or best practices.
As usual, the way those members look at life, they harp on the
negative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in July
1997, Human Resources Development Canada in its analysis of the
files of the transitional jobs fund asked the firm International
Minicut Inc. to return an overpayment of $30,000 for three jobs
that were not created.
Why did the minister not make the same request of Placeteco
asking it to return the overpayment of $1.2 million, since the
company had created no jobs?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
given answers on this particular file probably 50 times in the
House and the answer remains the same.
In order to call back funds we have to establish the existence
of an overpayment. Our review of this file does not indicate
that there was an overpayment. Therefore we cannot ask for the
money back.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
covering up of tracks has gone on long enough.
Yesterday in her response to my colleague, the minister mixed
the file of Placeteco up with that of Techni-Paint, which appears
complete, unlike Placeteco's.
If the real invoices are related to real spending for job
creation at Placeteco, which we doubt, why is the minister not
tabling them in the House?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a
process for opposition members to access information they
require.
Yesterday they told us that they had asked for this information
through access to information, and I am confident that all the
information they are requesting, that can be released within the
law, will be released, as is the usual practice.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for the information of the minister, we did indeed reapply to
access to information, and there were no invoices.
For weeks, we have been asking to have the invoices tabled, which would
prove beyond a doubt that the money did go to job creation at
Placeteco, since we have a document in hand that proves beyond
any doubt that the money very definitely went to something else.
When will the minister be tabling the invoices?
1125
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I
would say that those invoices which they have requested will be
released if it falls within the law. The member knows there are
legal requirements that must be followed when publicly releasing
personal or business information.
I would encourage the member to stop making unsubstantiated
allegations and stop jumping to conclusions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to understand why we got the invoices with some
files and why with Placeteco it was impossible.
It is hard to understand the stubbornness of the minister, who,
day after day—50 times, she says—has served up the same response
on the subject of the Placeteco invoices. It has to be either
one or the other: there are no invoices or they are being
prepared.
When does the minister intend to table these invoices?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite has just made an allegation of impropriety. If she has
proof of this she should bring it forward and we will
investigate.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, St.
John's West has been losing $56.3 million per year since 1993 in
unemployment insurance benefits. This means that medium and
small businesses are losers too.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the
government make the necessary changes to unemployment insurance
to allow unemployed workers to feed their families in the
morning?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are concerned with the needs of the unemployed. That
is why we have had policies that have created close to two
million jobs since we took office in 1993.
For another month, now four months in a row, the unemployment
rate has stayed at the record low level of 6.8%.
I can assure my hon. friend that we are concerned with the needs
of the unemployed and the first need is to provide an unemployed
person with a job. That is what we have been helping to do.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
people of St. John's West who lost their jobs are not saying
that. The Minister of Finance is balancing the budget and
achieving a zero deficit on the backs of the workers who lost
their jobs.
Will this government soon make the changes necessary so that
those families can feed their kids in St. John's West and across
the country? The government has been stealing money from the
workers all along.
The Speaker: Sometimes in the heat of battle we say
things. I know the hon. member did not want to say stealing.
Mr. Yvon Godin: No, Mr. Speaker, taking.
The Speaker: It was taking, of course. I misunderstood.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be happy to take the hon. member's comments as a
representation, in spite of the tone.
I suggest to my hon. friend that he should leave the fight of
the byelection on the hustings, where his party is obviously not
doing very well or he would not have brought this up in the House
today.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the government is often accused of not honouring the
five principles of the Canada Health Act. Is it not time that
the minister came up with a sixth principle? I think it would
avoid some of the problems we have experienced in the country
over the last number of years. The sixth principle would be
predictable long term funding. It is something that is missing
in the system and I think it would address many of the problems
we are experiencing in the country today.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the course of the last four budgets the government has
increased by fully 25% the amount of cash transferred to the
provinces for health.
Let me raise a point which is particularly important for this
question from this party. In the least election campaign the
Progressive Conservative Party, along with the Reform as it was
then known, suggested we transfer all of the money to the
provinces solely by tax points, with no cash, thus depriving the
Government of Canada of any influence or moral authority to
enforce the Canada Health Act.
We reject the Tory approach and the Reform approach to
financing. We will continue to do it the right way.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, that is nonsense. It started out at a 50:50 ratio. Now
it is down to 85:15, with the provinces paying 85 cents on the
dollar.
This is truly hypocritical of the minister, because he—
1130
The Speaker: Once again I would ask members to stay away
from words like hypocritical.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full
well that that is nonsense. Comparing our position to that of
the Reform or the UA is complete nonsense.
We support the five principles of health care and suggest that
we need that sixth principle to avoid the problems he has
inflicted on the Canadian health care system.
Will the minister act or take—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the facts do not support the member's assertion.
The leader of that party supported the Alberta government in
bill 11. That is the approach they take toward public medicare.
In the last election campaign the Tory party proposed replacing
the CHST by transferring tax points to the provinces and
territories. That would end the role of the Government of Canada
in ensuring compliance with the principles of the Canada Health
Act.
That party's position, and the position of the Reformers, was
rejected by the Canadian people with very good reason.
* * *
INDUSTRY
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, SpaceBridge Networks Corporation, a high tech firm
created by industry giants Newbridge and COM DEV International,
received a $2 million grant from Industry Canada.
However, a SpaceBridge executive admitted in the Globe and
Mail that the real purpose of the government's TPC grant was
not so much to fund R and D, but to allow the company to start up
without diluting its shareholder equity.
Why does the minister think that taxpayer money should be used
as a substitute for the normal practice of raising venture
capital in the private sector?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on putting his
first question to me as industry critic.
I would like to point out to him that the technology
partnerships program does not give grants, so the premise of his
question is totally wrong.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the government seems to have endless money to spend on mismanaged
grants at HRDC, mindless dead rabbit art displays, and endless
politically motivated boondoggles.
One of the people in my riding told me that they would much
rather have an MRI machine in the hospital than a fountain in the
Prime Minister's riding.
When will the government correct its priorities, provide
adequate funding for health care, get the debt and interest
payments down, and give some real tax relief?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will know that support for tourism
infrastructure is one of the things that the Harris government
proposed to do in its budget this past week, making hundreds of
millions of dollars available to support locally supported
projects such as the fountain in Shawinigan.
If the Alliance party has a problem with that, it may want to
contact Mr. Long quickly and let him know that Mr. Harris is on
the wrong track.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Tom Kent is
a former deputy minister under the government of Lester B.
Pearson. His actions are said to have marked Canadian social
policies, particularly health policies.
Yesterday, Mr. Kent said before a Senate committee that the main
threat to our health system was the federal government itself.
Does the Minister of Health agree with Mr. Kent that this
government violated the commitment made by the federal
government in the sixties by making drastic cuts to transfer
payments, since 1995?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must know that in each of the last four budgets we
have increased transfers to the provinces.
In last year's budget, we increased those payments by $11.5
billion, over a four year period. This year, we increased them
again. The increase for the past two years is over 25%.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: Moreover, we invested money in research and
development, in transition funds and in the whole information
sector. We are in the process of achieving—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please keep their
voices down, because we want to listen to the minister's reply.
He has some time left if he wishes to add something. Otherwise,
I will hear the hon. member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government is constantly trying to include tax points in the
contribution for health to create a smokescreen.
Will the minister finally agree with Mr. Kent that this is a
“stupid” argument that it does not make “any sense”?
1135
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is the hon. member who is not making any sense. Again, the
transfer of tax points by the Canadian government was at the
request of the provinces.
Mr. Miller, who was Ontario's treasurer, asked that the full
transfer be in the form of tax points, because he was well aware
that these points would increase in value much more than cash
transfers.
We went 50-50, because we wanted to accommodate the provinces.
But we were well aware that it also takes money to maintain the
Canadian government's position and we will continue to maintain
that position.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, with every page we turn it is waste, it is
mismanagement and it is incompetence everywhere. According to
the auditor general's recent report, the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development is spending up to $65,000 per
special needs student and does not even know if the money is
being spent on the students.
Why is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
so incompetent and so poorly managed that it does not care about
ripping off the taxpayer and especially does not seem to care
about educating the students under its responsibility?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada takes the education of Indian children
very seriously. The questions raised by the hon. member are
quite inappropriate. The facts speak for themselves.
The truth is that under this administration over the last seven
years more first nations people have gone to university than was
the case prior to that and we have every intention of keeping
that up.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is tough to be at the bottom of
the food chain. Just ask a rabbit or a western farmer.
The recently announced increase in grain freight rates will add
$1.45 a tonne to farmers' surging costs. The CTA is not at
fault. It just crunches the numbers mandated by parliament. The
government is to blame for not acting on the recommendations of
two very costly reports.
Will the Minister of Transport get his act together before
August 1 and implement the revenue cap recommended in the Kroeger
report?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the intention is to try to meet the deadlines for
the crop year beginning August 1 and that will mean legislation
brought into the House of Commons very shortly to deal with the
issues raised in the Estey and Kroeger process, which have been
the subject of many consultations across the country for the past
two years.
Given the hon. member's enthusiasm for such changes toward a
more competitive system, I hope that he and the members of his
party will support that legislation expeditiously when it reaches
the House.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, either the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is ill-informed about GMOs
or he has his head in the sand.
On April 12, 2000, the European Parliament introduced mandatory
labelling of foods with a GMO content of more than 1%. The
legislation also covers foods containing food flavourings and
additives made from GMOs.
Given that the European Union has the technology and the
criteria for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, are we to conclude
that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is less
competent and that he has no wish to take action?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government believes that consumer information as it
relates to biotechnology and food must be meaningful, credible
and enforceable.
The European approach, to which the hon. member has referred on
many occasions with apparent approval, is one that has the
appearance of effectiveness, but in fact at the root of it the
Europeans do not have the capacity to make their system
meaningful, credible and enforceable. Therefore their approach
is largely a mirage.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that
the Laboratoire d'environnement SM in Quebec and Genserve
Laboratories in Saskatchewan can detect GMOs, does the minister
realize that his explanations are devoid of logic and that he is
losing all credibility on this issue?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is working very hard to ensure that all
consumers in Canada have the information which they need.
1140
First of all, we are investing in the science to ensure that it
is first class. Second, we are investing in the regulatory
system to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in the
science. Third, we are engaging in a broad consultation with
Canadians to get their input and their advice about how they want
their system to be run.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Robert Fahlman, former RCMP criminal
intelligence officer, said, “The Mounties were disappointed with
CSIS stopping sidewinder ”. Robert Proulx, director of RCMP
criminal intelligence, wrote the director of CSIS arguing that
the original sidewinder report was altered, sometimes
incorrectly, and in some cases some information was completely
removed.
Is the solicitor general still standing by his story that
sidewinder was not shut down, or is he saying that statements of
RCMP officers are untrue?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear up this subject
once and for all. First, sidewinder was not an investigation, it
was a study. Second, it was not shut down, it was completed. In
fact the RCMP and CSIS both indicated it was an excellent report.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, two days ago a man got three and a half years in prison
and an eight year driving ban for killing a man while impaired.
Yesterday another drunk driver went home with a two year
conditional sentence for killing Ellen Katarius, a single mother
of four.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has complained for years about
conditional sentences for impaired driving causing death.
Parliament is considering a maximum life sentence for the offence
while the courts continue to impose conditional sentences.
What does the Minister of Justice have to say to four motherless
children? Where is the justice in all of this?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the
Supreme Court of Canada recently rendered a judgment that
provides guidance to lower courts in relation to the use of
conditional sentences. In addition, I know the hon. member is
aware, since he is a member of the justice and human rights
committee, that I have asked that committee to do a thorough
review of the use of conditional sentences within this country. I
look forward to receiving that report from the committee.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage promised to get to the bottom of the CINAR
affair. But the Minister of National Revenue is refusing to
answer questions and, according to an RCMP officer,
investigators' hands are tied, which was not contradicted by the
RCMP yesterday.
Has the solicitor general received an internal investigation
report from Revenue Canada on the basis of which he could decide
whether or not to lay charges?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the
House, there is excellent co-operation between Revenue Canada and
the RCMP. In fact, yesterday a media advisory was put out by the
RCMP that there exists a strong co-operative relationship between
the two organizations. I do not know how it could be much
clearer.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next week is Forestry Week in Canada. I ask the Minister
of Natural Resources, how is the government planning to recognize
the important role that forestry plays in the lives of many
Canadians in this country?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next week is indeed Forestry Week across Canada.
Activities will be planned right across the country. We are
kicking it off this afternoon on Parliament Hill. The Deputy
Prime Minister and I will be planting Canada's new millennium
tree within the precincts of parliament.
We will also be honouring five young Canadians who are the
winners in an essay contest about the future of Canada's forests.
They are Marie-Hélene Basque of Rouyn, Quebec; Alison Stacey of
Vernon, British Columbia; Iva Veukin of Mississauga, Ontario; Jay
Potter of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; and Krysta Noseworthy of
Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. I know all hon. members will want to
join me in congratulating them.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, recently Stephen Truscott cleared his name on a
wrongful murder conviction. During that inquiry the justice
minister said that she takes allegations of wrongful conviction
very seriously.
1145
Two months ago the minister denied a new trial for Patrick
Kelly, despite the fact that the key witness admitted she lied on
the stand and one judge from the Ontario Court of Appeal called
for a new trial for Kelly.
Given that the key witness lied on the stand, why did the
minister choose to deny Patrick Kelly a new trial?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, my predecessor provided Mr. Kelly with a section 690
remedy in referring the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The
Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its judgment some months ago.
I have reviewed that judgment as well as information and
submissions made on behalf of Mr. Kelly. After a thorough review
of that information and the judgment of the Ontario Court of
Appeal, I concluded that there was no basis to seek a retrial or
referral of Mr. Kelly's case to any other judicial body.
* * *
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the 1993 Liberal red book stated “We
will establish strict guidelines for merit in government
appointments”. It is seven years later and nothing has happened,
nothing has changed. Bill C-31 dictates that members of the
Immigration and Refugee Board will continue to be appointed by
the minister, that is, through patronage.
Will the minister explain to Canadians why she refuses to move
to a system of open competition and merit in choosing members of
the IRB? Why does she continue this disreputable system?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of my
colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that we
have every confidence in the quality and ability of those who are
appointed to the IRB. I will take the opportunity to raise the
concern that you have brought up today with my colleague upon her
return.
Let me reiterate. We have every confidence in the ability and
integrity of those who serve on the IRB.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to please always
address the Chair.
* * *
NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
Earlier this week the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced a
sweeping review of foreign ownership rules for newspapers. Later
this week the Prime Minister's office informed the public that
the minister's announcement had not been planned and assured
Canadians that it was not the intention of the government to
actually conduct a full review of the newspaper industry.
Who is speaking for the government, the Prime Minister or the
minister? Is there a review actually taking place? Was the
minister simply making it up? Who is in charge?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government speaks
with one voice. In this instance—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you want an answer?
An hon. member: It will be the first one we ever got.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, in this instance—
The Speaker: Order, please. I know the hon. member was
addressing me and yes, I would like an answer.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes
a public debate on the question of newspaper ownership and
especially of newspaper concentration of ownership in Canada. The
method of that public debate has yet to be established. We would
welcome suggestions from the members opposite for establishing a
process that will lead to a debate from coast to coast to coast
on the importance of newspapers in communicating to Canadians
what is important.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, for seven months members of the House, Albertans and all
Canadians have been waiting for the answer of the Minister of
Health and his government to bill 11. Time has run out; the
product is here. Will the minister tell Canadians and members of
the House, does bill 11 violate the Canada Health Act? Yes or
no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in November we said we would not stand by and let health care be
privatized by stealth. In March I went to Calgary and spoke,
criticizing the policy behind bill 11 and saying why it will not
solve the problems in our health care system. Last month I wrote
to the Alberta government suggesting specific amendments to the
bill so that we could avoid some of the dangers it presents.
One thing is clear. No matter what happens in that legislature
next week, this government will protect the principles of the
Canada Health Act by monitoring and by enforcing.
* * *
1150
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, local
newscasts are the lifeline of many rural communities in Canada.
They are the one source of information that links many of our
smaller communities together.
With unity being a primary concern within this country, can the
Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us why she is willing to allow
the CBC to sacrifice rural newscasts for the benefit of urban
Toronto?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member had
listened to the minister's answers to questions, he might wish to
pose a different one.
One has to understand and respect that CBC has an arm's length
relationship with the government. It would be rather untoward to
dictate how it is managed.
Having said that, we and I believe CBC are fully aware of its
mandate as it is prescribed by law. I would invite the member to
refer to section 3.1 of the Broadcasting Act and he will have his
answer.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
have liked an answer.
The minister turned her back on the magazine industry through
the concessions to Bill C-55. She appears willing to allow
foreign ownership in our newspaper and broadcasting industry and
she screams content to allow the CBC to withdraw from local
newscasts.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us which foreign
investor will be charged with telling our Canadian stories to our
Canadian children?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has got to be the Canadian that is most proud
of our ability to tell Canadian stories and not having to be
dictated by foreigners.
I do not really understand where the member is coming from on
that. Time and time again the minister has stood in the House
and presented bills and interventions to support Canadian
cultural industries. We will continue to do so and we will
support her in her efforts to do so.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians rely on the CBC to find out about what is happening in
their communities. Can the parliamentary secretary reassure
Canadians that in fact local news coverage managed through
regional offices will continue to be an integral part of CBC?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to both
questions, I wish to refer to section 3.1 of the Broadcasting Act
which says that the CBC must “reflect Canada and its regions to
national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs
of those regions”.
The board that was to meet next Monday or Tuesday I gather has
postponed its meeting. This provides an opportunity for CBC to
engage in a dialogue with Canadians from coast to coast to coast
on the nature of the services they wish to have from their
national broadcaster.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, foreign affairs was so insecure about the Prime
Minister's inability that it commissioned a survey. Angus Reid
found that Céline Dion is the best Canadian to represent our
country, not the Prime Minister. She sung her way into our
hearts, not the Prime Minister. The survey found that Canadians
are embarrassed by the awkward Prime Minister on the
international stage.
Will the minister take the advice from that department's poll
and send Céline on the next international trip and not the Prime
Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should be the last person to give advice
to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs after his spotty record
in advising the Government of Liberia.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an
investigation into the infiltration of the Canadian immigration
office in Hong Kong by Chinese triads was apparently covered up
by RCMP officials.
Robert Read, in charge of the investigation until 1997, was
apparently sidelined after discovering weaknesses in Immigration
Canada's computer system that might pose a threat to national
security.
How can the solicitor general allow such a situation unless he
is covering up another blunder by the government?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House is well aware that there was an
investigation conducted by the RCMP. There was nothing to
indicate any wrongdoing.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
transport committee has found a number of problems with last
December's deal between the transport minister and Air Canada on
the takeover of Canadian Airlines.
1155
Small communities are only protected for three years and then
thrown to the wolves. There is forced divestiture of Canadian
Regional Airlines for no good reason. There is nothing to ensure
a smooth transition for airline employees.
As the minister knows, these problems are in the deal with Air
Canada, not in the bill itself. Our committee can only recommend
amendments to the bill. Will the minister please tell the House
what he can do to address the problems with the deal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the fact is that the agreement was
negotiated between the competition commissioner and Air Canada
pursuant to the Competition Act. The government accepted the
agreement.
The alternative last December was to have the bankruptcy of
Canadian Airlines within two days with 16,000 employees being
thrown out of work and creating absolute chaos to the air system
in the country. Yes, there have been problems. That has been
acknowledged by Air Canada. The fact is the result we have today
is much better than the result we would have had had we followed
the hon. member's advice.
We have to get the bill through to give the competition
commissioner power to protect the public—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova.
* * *
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, damage
caused in Nova Scotia by the 1998 ice storm was not deemed
significant enough to qualify for emergency federal funding. On
January 21 another winter storm severely damaged five wharves and
still there is no federal assistance.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why is it when
residents of Quebec and Ontario are faced with tragedy the
federal government is quick to provide assistance yet it can turn
a blind eye to Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member did not give me notice of this rather
detailed question. It is my understanding under the arrangements
nationally that the provincial government makes the initial
request and it is considered by the federal government. I will
have to check if such a request was made. I will get back to my
hon. friend with the fullest possible information.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Transport.
Since the inauguration of the St. Lawrence Seaway system 40
years ago, the creation of a marine transportation system became
a shining example of international co-operation between Canada
and the United States that is the envy of the world. Canada has
maintained the option of building an all Canadian seaway system
throughout this period. Can the minister please tell the House
whether or not this option is still necessary?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary and that is why this morning in
Cornwall I announced the termination of plans for an all Canadian
seaway route.
The fact is that this was a negotiating tactic used by the
former Liberal government headed very successfully by Mr. St.
Laurent against the U.S. in the early 1950s to overcome
Congressional objections to the building of the seaway. As a
result, the seaway is working very efficiently today and we do
not need all of the land for an all Canadian route. That is why I
made the announcement today. Three hundred acres of land, some
of it very beautiful along the shores of the St. Lawrence, will
be returned to its natural state and will be used for the benefit
of future generations of Canadians. It will enhance that
beautiful city.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, a 1997 internal audit of the trade association element
of the program for export market development revealed a number of
shortcomings including a lack of program priorities and methods
of assessing results.
The minister has had more than two years to implement
recommendations in the audit but has failed to do so. In the
meantime, the minister has spent $14.7 million of the taxpayers'
dollars. Why?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will look into the audit that my hon.
colleague is referring to.
I have had a number of discussions with my deputy minister in
the last few weeks and months. I am told that we have
implemented everything that was needed to make sure that the
distribution of grants and contributions in the Department of
International Trade respected very elevated criteria to make sure
that they served the purpose of the programs that we have created
to help Canadians to do better in international trade around the
world.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government is currently reviewing the Environmental
Assessment Act, which it uses to interfere in all sorts of
provincial matters.
However, this same government is refusing to submit major
federal projects such as the export of nuclear plants or the
import of plutonium to a full environmental assessment.
Will the Minister of the Environment agree to submit the export
of nuclear plants and the import of uranium to a full
environmental assessment?
1200
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada is quite confident that the
procedures and practices it follows at the present time, and has
followed in the past, are in full compliance with all legal
requirements.
As the hon. member knows, there is some outstanding litigation
at the present in time and therefore it would be inappropriate to
comment further other than to say that from the government's
point of view we are confident of our legal position.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal caucus of the Atlantic said “Let's catch the wave,
let's make changes to the employment insurance if we want to win
the next election”.
At the March convention the Prime Minister said that the
Liberals lost the Atlantic provinces because they cut employment
insurance and that changes were needed to get them back.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the Prime Minister
meant when he made those statements to Canadians.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for endorsing the words of the
Prime Minister. This is great praise indeed coming from the
NDP.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in response to me earlier, the minister said that he
will not say yes or no on bill 11. I suggest that he does not
have the nerve to say yes or no, and is hiding under—
The Speaker: It is getting a little bit rambunctious.
Please, go directly to your question.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I will shift gears a
little bit and go to a minister who may may give me a response.
The Speaker: I do not think so. That brings to a
conclusion our question period today.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of a delegation of honourable ministers
from the countries of Ghana, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria,
Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. They are
participating in the Africa Direct Conference.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
USE OF PARLIAMENTARY SUPPLIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I have given notice of a question of privilege and I
want you to refer first to Joseph Maingot's second edition,
chapter 12, wherein it is made clear that a question of privilege
is a proper vehicle for bringing to the attention of the House a
matter which the House may consider to be a contempt of this
House. I particularly direct your attention to pages 224 and
225.
1205
I make this point at the outset, Mr. Speaker, to remove from
your mind any consideration of the usual test that you would
apply for any breach of the immunities of parliamentary
privilege. I am compelled to use the vehicle of a question of
privilege to ask that you find there is evidence of a prima facie
contempt of the House.
I have a letter on House of Commons stationery, which was
procured at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. The letter
solicits attendance at a meeting to meet representatives for the
leadership race for the Canadian Alliance. The letter was signed
by the member of parliament for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby. It was sent out using first
class postal frank, which is again using a publicly financed
facility. I am prepared to table that letter.
Apart from the hypocrisy of using public funds by a member of a
party who says it is for fiscal responsibility, or stands for
fiscal responsibilities, and less use of public expenditures,
this is a gross misuse of the facilities put at the disposal of
members of parliament.
There is a place for partisan activity in every member's office.
However, I submit that it is a gross impropriety for a member to
finance his party's leadership race using publicly paid for
facilities and supplies. Supporters of the member's party should
pay for this sort of message not every Canadian taxpayer, whether
it is my riding, your riding, Mr. Speaker, or any other member's
riding.
I submit that every member knows that this is wrong and that
there has been a deliberate abuse of the system by the member for
New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby. This offends the unwritten
practices of the House and, as such, constitutes contempt of the
House.
The question that arises is just how much more of the Canadian
Alliance leadership race is going to be publicly financed by the
Canadian taxpayers? Why should I, as an MP, have to defend to my
overtaxed constituents this sort or abuse? This brings into
disrepute the reputation of every member of the House. This sort
of action brings public life into disrepute and, for this reason,
it is contemptuous of the House.
Party leadership races should be financed through the party or
private contributors. By abusing the trust which every member
has to use public supplies and services in a proper manner, the
member for New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby has, in my
opinion, brought the House into odium and public disrespect. As
members of parliament, we are all offended by this.
Should you, Mr. Speaker, find that there is a prima facie case
to be answered by the member, I am prepared to move the necessary
motion to refer the matter to committee.
On that, I rest my case. I am sure other members will also want
to engage in the debate on this question of privilege.
The Speaker: Before I hear any other interventions,
this has occurred before in the House of Commons. Madam Speaker
Sauvé gave a ruling on December 15, 1982. The ruling stated:
The Speaker does not interfere to tell Hon. Members in what
instances they may use their frank or may not use their frank.
This is up to the Hon. Member to determine. He does it within
his own conception of what is or is not proper. If something
improper arises, Hon. Members usually discuss it in the
Committee.
Where this usually comes up is in the committee for internal
economy and would possibly be sent to the committee for
procedure.
I think what you are asking, if not me, the House to do is to
look at all the material that members send out under their frank.
This would be extremely difficult. The House, or a committee of
the House, or the Speaker would become a censor to what members
can or cannot send out.
1210
I appeal to hon. members to use their good judgment when sending
out material. I think we have members here now who sit on the
Board of Internal Economy, where this should perhaps be brought
up, if not by one of the members here, by the hon. member's
spokesperson on the Board of Internal Economy.
I suggest that we handle this particular case in this way. I
will wait to have some kind of direction from the Board of
Internal Economy, which may or may not choose to forward it to
the procedures committee.
I have a point of order that I want to listen to now. The hon.
member for Peace River.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Industry
suggested that it was the first time I had asked a question of
him since becoming the industry critic for our party.
Hansard will show that is not true, and I—
The Speaker: That is not exactly a point of order, but I
am sure the hon. member has made his point. Of course I did not
like the words “not true”, but we will let it roll for today.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as the foreign affairs critic of the official
opposition, the Canadian Alliance, I asked a question today. In
his response, the Deputy Prime Minister gave some information
which, in my view, did not justify the situation. I would like
this clarified so that the Deputy Prime Minister can retract the
baseless information and the wrong premise that was said about
me.
Before the last election, one newspaper, which did not do the
proper research, published some comments about me in the
newspaper. I contacted the newspaper and, at the same time, I
contacted the ambassador of Liberia to Canada. The ambassador
wrote a letter to me justifying the truth and giving the
information surrounding the circumstances. Thereafter, I
contacted the newspaper. The newspaper confessed that its
research was not right and it verbally retracted the information.
I would like the House, and the media, which are not doing their
research properly, to know that I was an assistant professor of
management at the University of Liberia. As an assistant
professor, I had absolutely no connection with the government.
The ambassador's letter indicates that for one to participate or
get involved in Liberian politics, one has to be a Negro by
origin. That is what the ambassador wrote in the letter and I
have a copy of it.
Lastly, I had a business which dealt with agricultural
products. People in that country were dying of hunger because
they did not have enough food to eat. I wrote a letter to the
president of the country, simply to launch a green revolution. I
wanted them to invest in the soil so that people could be
self-sufficient in producing food, which would alleviate poverty,
malnutrition and hunger. Is that a crime? I would suggest—
The Speaker: I think the hon. member has moved his point,
that the information which was alluded to in the House was not
absolutely accurate. He has given ample information for us to
make up our own minds.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I have 15 more seconds.
The Speaker: All right, I will give you 15 more seconds.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask
the Deputy Prime Minister to retract his statement. Rather than
appreciating someone who is helping a poor country, he is
accusatory. That is wrong.
The Speaker: That is what happens in debate. Sometimes
people misinterpret things, but we are here to debate. The hon.
member is going to be on record and I am sure all hon. members
will read his explanation.
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after the referendum for the Reform Party took place, we
came into the House and handed a letter to the Speaker stating
quite clearly that members of this party were going to be called
members of the Canadian Alliance.
We hear at every occasion the government and members on the
other side referring to us as Reform members. I would like you
to advise—
The Speaker: The hon. member has advised them but I will
bolster that. The party should be known as the Canadian
Alliance. I guess they can refer to it as the former Reform
Party, but I wish that they would address it as the Canadian
Alliance.
1215
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
indulgence, but on my question of privilege I am asking for
direction from the Chair. What I am looking for and hoping to
get would be unanimous consent to refer this issue to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and permission
to table the documents which I have in my possession.
The Speaker: I see the hon. member is in no way
questioning my ruling and that is fine. I appreciate that.
Second, if I understand, the hon. member is now asking for
permission to put a motion seeking unanimous consent. Is that
correct?
Mr. Greg Thompson: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 25
petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on
behalf of my constituents.
Both petitions urge parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, to affirm
the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my fellow citizens of Rimouski—Mitis, I would like to
table a petition by over 1,500 people.
The petitioners really want the government to do something to
lower the price of petroleum products, which is outrageous and
seriously restricts tourism in our region. This is one way for
many people to earn a living between May and September.
[English]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 98
constituents of my riding who ask that parliament withdraw Bill
C-23 from its agenda as it fails to emphasize that marriage
should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others.
[Translation]
TRANSGENIC FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table a petition bearing 5,043 signatures. These people are
asking the government to require the mandatory labelling of all
GMOs.
This petition comes from my riding of Louis-Hébert, and I am very
proud to present it.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a
petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 containing tens of
thousands of names. The petitioners come from the communities of
Kamloops, Chase, Logan Lake, Clearwater, Barrière, Blue River,
Westwold, Savona, Deadman's Creek, Little Fort, Red Lake, Paul
Lake, Monte Creek, Monte Lake, Falkland, Vavenby, Birch Island
and many more.
It is a very long petition. Basically the petitioners are
calling upon the government to consider a major overhaul of our
taxation system; not the sort of tinkering and fiddling that we
have seen, but a complete overhaul based on the principles of the
Carter commission of a number of years ago.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated issue I have another
petition from residents primarily of the Kamloops region.
The petitioners ask the federal government to consider
introducing a national highway program so that the national
highway system of Canada could be improved. They indicate that
if the transportation infrastructure were to be improved it would
increase productivity, trade opportunities, job creation and
tourism.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 45 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 45—Ms. Pierrette Venne:
For the fiscal years from 1995-96 to 1998-99, can the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, indicate whether one or more
employees of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada and/or
federal member(s) of parliament, cabinet minister(s) or
senator(s) received money from CSIS, and if so, can CSIS produce
the documentation and the names of the individuals in question?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Based on precedents of the House of Commons followed for many
years and noted at paragraph 446 in Beauchesne's, when responding
to inquiries or parliamentary returns, the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, CSIS, does not comment on operational
activities nor release specific details of its budget and
expenditures for reasons of national security. This practice is
consistent with the policy set out in section 19 of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service Act that requires that the service
not disclose information obtained in the performance of its
duties and functions under this act.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1220
[Translation]
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an
act respecting the National Parks of Canada, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I
was interrupted by oral question period, I was referring to the
Panel on Ecological Integrity report—and had reached the third
statement:
The Panel concurs with the conclusions in the State of Parks
1997 Report. Ecological integrity in our national parks is in
peril.
On the following page, the Commission continues as follows:
Parks Canada currently lacks the necessary capacity in both the
natural and social sciences to effectively manage for, and
inform society about, ecological integrity in national parks.
With notable individual exceptions, all levels of Parks Canada
lack a well-established culture for conducting, using and
appreciating science as part of park management, interpretation
and regional integration.
This eloquently and clearly demonstrates that Bill C-27, which we
have before us, ought to clearly give priority to the mission of
protecting the integrity of the natural environment instead of
to visitor enjoyment, as clause 4 states very directly. This is
yet another clause in the bill which shows a certain lack of
concern for ecological issues. I refer to clause 8(2), which
states:
8(2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection
of natural resources shall be the first priority of the Minister
in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use.
We believe that, in the French version of the bill, the phrase
“s'efforcer avant tout” is not strong enough to ensure the
ecological integrity of the national parks. This phrase is a
joke when we know that currently the national parks system
receives 14 million visitors a year and that, with a 4.5%
expected growth rate, the number could double in the next 15
years.
This is why the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's
National Parks is suggesting Parks Canada radically modify its
corporate culture. The following are some of its
recommendations:
That Parks Canada transform itself and change its training,
staffing, decision-making and accountability structures to
reflect the central importance of ecological integrity
throughout Canada's national parks and make ecological integrity
the core of every Parks Canada employee's job; that Parks Canada
upgrade its social and natural science, planning and
interpretation capacity to be able to manage national parks
according to the principles of ecological integrity and better
educate the public, and that Parks Canada cease the product
marketing of national parks and concentrate instead on
marketing in keeping with parks values and focused marketing
when necessary.
Clearly, the concept of ecological integrity must be made the
priority of the bill. Moreover, we must see to it that
ministerial statements are translated into action in the field.
While calls for a change in the corporate culture of Parks
Canada are coming from everywhere, year after year we see a
steady decline in the financial resources Canadian Heritage is
allocating its national parks system.
1225
Before the Liberals took office, Parks Canada had a $410 million
budget. Today, its budget is $350 million. Its staff has been
reduced from 4,000 to 3,000.
Parks Canada paid dearly for budget cuts, as Kevin McNamee, of
the Canadian Nature Federation, stated in evidence before the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, during the study of the
bill creating the Parks Canada Agency. He said:
I think it's important to recognize that there has already been
a tremendous loss of experience in corporate knowledge from
Parks Canada across this country.
Three rounds of budget cuts, the Mazankowski budget cuts, the
loss of Green Plan funding programs I and II, the reorganization
of Parks Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage—all have
had a toll on the agency.
I could continue quoting Mr. McNamee, but I will move on.
Furthermore, it is worth reminding the House that some people
saw in national parks an opportunity to play petty politics. For
instance, the November 22, 1972 edition of the Montréal Matin
reported that, on November 19, the then Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, the current Prime Minister,
speaking about the Mauricie park, had stated, on CTV, and I
quote:
That is a quotation from the former Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and present Prime Minister. It was not
me who said that.
Such attitudes are revolting. If we want to protect the
integrity of the environment, we must do what it takes.
The proposed legislation also provides for the designation of
historic sites. However, it provides nothing about consulting
the provinces, and that is very disturbing. That is
unacceptable. Clause 42 of the bill provides that the Governor
in Council may set apart any land, the title to which is vested
in Her Majesty in right of Canada, as a national historic site
of Canada.
While generally it is only natural to do as we please on our own
turf, certain initiatives must be taken in consultation with
local people and their local and provincial elected
representatives and in accordance with existing acts and
regulations.
Recently, the transport department ignored the Quebec moratorium
on road advertising and allowed one of its agencies to take out
a lucrative contract for the installation of two dozen
billboards along well-travelled roads in Montreal, thereby
jeopardizing the safety of Montrealers and visitors.
The Bloc Quebecois will call for an amendment to that provision
of the bill in order to ensure the conformity of federal actions
with those of other levels of government.
In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill
C-27 in principle. But before principles can be turned into
reality, there are often practical considerations that have to
be taken into account, the first one being the respect of
interested populations and their local governments. That is why
the Bloc Quebecois will listen to the representations that they
will make.
First and foremost, this bill cannot and must not perpetuate the
overuse of national parks resources for recreational purposes.
On the contrary, it seems to us in the Bloc that the
preservation of the ecological integrity of these parks should
be the priority in this bill.
The weather is nice and warm today. I encourage Canadians to
visit their national parks; a word of caution however: respect
the environment.
1230
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-27.
I would like to start my remarks by reading section 4.(1) of the
bill, which seeks to amend the National Parks Act. It states:
4.(1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the
people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment,
subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be
maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.
I do not think there is a person in Canada who would argue with
those sentiments regarding what we consider to be one of our
national treasures, which is our national parks system.
In fact, throughout the notes and the newspaper clippings
regarding Bill C-27 people use the term national treasure. The
word treasure seems to come up very freely in people's minds when
they think of Canada's parks. It is probably very Canadian that
our greatest national treasure, our parks system, has no monetary
value. It is a very Canadian thing. Perhaps it is ironic that
we cannot put a price on our national parks. Nor should they
ever be commercialized in any way.
This is the sentiment that most Canadians have brought forward
to the committee that is dealing with Bill C-27. If we stopped
most Canadians on the street, I think they would emphasize over
and over again that the last thing they want to see is the
over-commercialization of what we consider to be our heritage and
our national treasure, which is our national parks system.
The original National Parks Act was passed in 1930. The most
recent changes were as long ago as 1988. The National Parks Act
sets out legislative mechanisms for preserving our national parks
system. It exists solely to preserve our national parks, and we
must keep that in mind.
Some of the comments made earlier today by members of other
parties frankly worried me in that both the tone and the content
of those remarks would lead people to believe that maybe there
should be a movement afoot to expand the commercialization or
even to expand access to the national parks, which would put into
jeopardy their greatest quality, the wilderness aspect and the
truly pristine nature of the parks, which is a tourist attraction
not just to Canadians, but to people all around the world.
On his radio program not long ago Peter Gzowski said that every
year he goes to our newest national park in the high Arctic, a
remote, inaccessible, fly-in type of wilderness reserve. He has
done this annually since the park was a created a number of years
ago. He was saying that he has yet to run into another Canadian
tourist there. The people who visit the park are the Japanese,
the Germans, the Swiss, the British—people from densely
populated areas of the world who value and cherish the pristine
nature of the true wilderness of the Canadian north and the
Canadian parks system. That sort of struck me. I think maybe we
do not appreciate what we have here. I think we undervalue the
true resources we have in ecotourism.
It would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg to
allow an advanced level of commercialism into a park. It would
deter from the ecotourism opportunities that should exist for
generations and generations. Those opportunities would become
more valuable as the settings became more rare and more
threatened by expansion.
There are parts of the world, and I have travelled to many of
them, where human beings have soiled their nest to the point they
can no longer lie in it. These people want the peace and
serenity that comes with communing with nature to a degree that
we can only do in our national parks system.
We are very pleased that Bill C-27 will amend the National Parks
Act to streamline the process of establishing new parks. We feel
this is very important.
We feel that the current system of establishing new parks has
been cumbersome and lengthy. We believe that the system could
benefit greatly if the early stages of the research necessary to
establish a new park could be done by order in council instead of
parliament. Ultimately, the final choice has to be made by
parliament, but the intermediate steps could be done by order in
council. This would streamline the process for creating new
national parks.
1235
We in the NDP are very pleased that Bill C-27 will control the
commercial development within park communities. There are seven
communities within our national parks. All communities, by their
very nature, wish to grow, prosper and develop. However, we have
to treat these seven communities very differently. There has to
be a different set of rules because of the very sensitive
surroundings they find themselves in. They are unique in Canada.
We have to allow these communities to prosper and flourish as a
community without the normal type of expansion that we see.
Steps have been taken to limit the population in Banff National
Park for that very reason. The town of Banff has to be curtailed
because of its immense international popularity. People
naturally crave and seek to live in those types of beautiful
surroundings. This has to be dealt with by government. We are
glad to see that Bill C-27 will expand and enhance the ability of
the government to regulate that sort of thing.
The amendments in Bill C-27 will increase the protection of
wildlife and other park resources. I know the hon. parliamentary
secretary used some examples of the horrific impact of poaching,
whether it is for trophies for hunters or whether it is for the
trafficking of animal parts for medicinal purposes and so on.
The hon. member used the example of Dall sheep. I am well aware
that the value of a Dall sheep trophy head is upwards of
$150,000. There is an enormous temptation for those who are
leaning that way to abuse the system and poach these animals.
Sheep Mountain is within Kluane National Park, where I used to
work, where Dall sheep are very famous. They are hunted
legitimately by hunters with permits, but they are also poached.
I am very glad to hear that Bill C-27 will take steps to further
punish those who would threaten our wildlife resources through
poaching.
We in the NDP believe that Bill C-27 is a Liberal reaction to
what has been allowed to become an absolute mess. I spent the
first few minutes of my speech pointing out the things that we
appreciate about Bill C-27, but I would be remiss not
to point out the fact that devastating Liberal budget cuts year
after year have decimated the ranks of our Parks Canada staff.
The cuts have decimated the parks in the sense that staff no
longer have the ability to control the traffic through our parks
or the number of people using our parks. Our national parks in
Canada are in desperate need of repair.
Before I blow its horn or sound its virtues too loudly, Bill
C-27 is the bare minimum that the Liberal government could be
doing to address what we consider to be an abrogation of
responsibility. Some cuts just do not heal, and the cuts made to
national parks personnel have really threatened and jeopardized
the integrity of our national parks system.
The bill formally establishes seven national parks, most of them
with names that I cannot say, as they are in a language I do not
speak. Three of them are in Nunavut, I am pleased to say. One
is in the Northwest Territories. One is in my home province of
Manitoba, on the shores of Hudson's Bay, and is called Wapusk.
Wapusk in the Cree language means white bear.
This area on the shore of Hudson's Bay, in the federal riding of
Churchill, is one of the very well known breeding grounds and
calving grounds for the polar bear population.
I am very pleased to see this area recognized and protected
within the parameters of a national park.
1240
There will be a new park called Grasslands in the province of
Saskatchewan, which will preserve some of the native prairie of
the great prairie region that I come from. There will also be a
new park in Newfoundland called Gros Morne. I should point out
as well that in British Columbia the Pacific Rim National Park
will occupy the area currently occupied by the West Coast Trail,
a very popular tourist destination. This area has such a degree
of traffic and such an interest for international travellers that
it is only fitting it should be preserved and enshrined as a
heritage area and designated as one of our national parks.
There has been a great deal of interest in the bill. I have
various newspaper clippings in which journalists have commented
on the action that will be taken by Bill C-27. One interesting
comment which was made in an Ontario newspaper pointed out that
under the current legislation, unbelievably, there are no
legislative controls on commercial development in park
communities.
People took it for granted that our parks were being cared for
better than that, that successive governments would have been
seized of the issue adequately enough to make sure that there
were some legislative controls on commercial development within
our parks, but this article points out that all that exists is a
provision whereby the boundaries of Banff and Jasper may be fixed
by adding them to a schedule of the act. That is a pretty modest
intervention; not really enough to be satisfied that our national
parks are being cared for or that commercial expansion is not
threatening the integrity of our parks.
We are pleased that within the proposed legislation community
plans based on legislated principles will be proposed for each
park community and that those community plans will be tabled in
parliament.
The legislation would control commercial development in the park
communities by providing the authority to entrench in a schedule
of the National Parks Act the boundaries of each park community,
the boundaries of the commercial zones and the maximum commercial
floor space allowed. We are really getting quite specific. We
are defining how big we will allow these communities to get
within our national parks.
No one wants to see the beauty of our national parks trivialized
by turning them into a Disneyland. We do not want Dolly Parton
setting up some kind of a theme park within one of our national
parks. In my opinion, that would cheapen those parks for all
future use.
As I said earlier, there are seven communities within the
national parks. Everyone is aware of the towns of Banff and
Jasper, and the visitor centres of Lake Louise, Field and
Waterman Lakes, but not many people know that Wasagaming and
Waskiseu are also within national parks. All of these
communities experience to varying degrees internal pressures to
develop. As I said, it is only natural for a community and for
the town councillors to want to promote and expand their
community. We have to caution them that they have the great
privilege of living within one of our national parks, among the
scenery, the beauty and the serenity of our national parks, and
that they have a unique obligation to maintain their community,
perhaps even to a higher set of standards than we hold for people
outside the national parks.
That will be in the legislation. It will no longer be an
option. It will be deemed to be law.
The community plans will have to be tabled in the House of
Commons. Most Canadians agree that a community plan for a
community within a national park has to be consistent with the
management plan for the park, first and foremost. A town or
community will have its own objectives and goals. Those goals
will have to be harmonized with the long term interests of the
park.
In the aboriginal community there is a saying that no decisions
should be made until we consider seven generations back and seven
generations forward. I think that would be a good motto or theme
for people who are considering the future of our national parks.
We have to consider with any changes we make what they will do
for at least seven generations forward. That would be our
obligation. If every generation adopted that, we would move
forward with some cohesive plan.
1245
I have already talked about the poaching penalties. I am
pleased to see in another newspaper article that the penalties
range from a $10,000 fine on summary conviction to a $150,000
fine and/or imprisonment of up to six months on indictment. I
approve of that wholeheartedly.
Having lived in the north and having seen poachers in action
even within the boundaries of our national parks, our party
supports thoroughly the idea that penalties should be increased
to be commensurate with the crime. As our natural wildlife
resources are depleted and get more and more scarce, that crime
is becoming more and more severe than it ever was before. It
should be viewed that way.
Bill C-27 could be considered to be the Liberal response to a
series of damning reports on Canada's national parks. It is no
secret to the general community what 10 years of negligence has
done to the national parks. It has been well documented and well
recorded in a variety of reports, not the least of which is the
1996 Banff-Bow Valley task force report and Parks Canada's own
1994 and 1997 state of the parks reports. Another very damning
and condemning report was the landmark report of the Panel on the
Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks.
The term ecological integrity comes up often. I noticed the
minister borrowed this language when she first announced Bill
C-27. In her statement of March 16, 1999 when she tabled this
legislation and spoke to it on introduction, she said, and this
is one comment with which I agree, “Our national parks are
treasures that we must protect for all Canadians and for all
future generations”. Nobody can argue with that kind of lofty
principle.
She went on to say, “The tabling of the bill fulfils my June
26, 1998 commitment to take further steps to preserve the
ecological integrity of the country's national parks”. That is
where we have to blow the whistle. It is really stretching
things to say that the tabling of Bill C-27 fulfils her June 26
commitment to take further steps to preserve ecological
integrity. I cannot agree with that and I am surprised the
minister had the nerve to say that Bill C-27 achieves that.
As I said, the term ecological integrity sums up the prevailing
wisdom of environmentalists in regard to development within
parks. It is common language usage and it has a very specific
meaning to those who are experts in the field. It is not just
two words thrown together. People recognize the term as meaning
a certain thing. I do not believe the minister can convince
anybody that Bill C-27 is going to have the effect of actually
preserving the ecological integrity of our parks.
The person who currently chairs the environment committee, and I
am unable to remember which riding he represents, but when he was
a member of the opposition in 1988 he was also a member of the
environment committee. He proposed an amendment to the Canada
Parks Act.
An hon. member: Davenport.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, he is
the member for Davenport. I thank the member who has just helped
me with the riding name of the chair of the environment
committee.
The member put forward an amendment to the Canada Parks Act that
would have given some satisfaction to the concept of ecological
integrity but his own party voted it down because the language
was too strong. I guess the Liberal Party was frightened by the
language. He did not even get the support of his own caucus.
The language of the amendment he put forward in partnership with
the leader of the NDP was that “the ecological integrity and the
protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when
considering the uses and activities of and in our national
parks”. Had that language succeeded in 1988, the national parks
of Canada would be in a far different state than they are today.
It would have been binding in the truest sense of the word.
This would have regulated and would have been the enabling
language where the enforcement officers could have acted in the
first interests of the national parks and not in the first
interests of commercialization, expansion, development, real
estate, and all the other competing interests for our treasured
national parks. Had the Liberal party supported its own member
on the environment committee with that amendment, it could have
carried the day and we would have been facing a different
situation today.
1250
I am here to say on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of our
national parks critic that the New Democratic Party believes Bill
C-27 is a good start. We in the NDP are happy to say that we
believe the basic tools for saving Canada's national parks are
found in Bill C-27. However, like most Liberal legislation, we
believe that Bill C-27 stops short of doing all that is really
necessary to protect the ecological integrity of Canada's
national parks system.
We will be fighting for amendments to the act. There is a long
list of them here, but the first and only one I have time to
express is that we want a definition of ecological integrity
built into the act so that people fully understand the impact
those words really have and what they mean to the environmental
community.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, my question deals specifically with two of our most
notable national parks, namely Banff and Jasper. Most Canadians
would agree that those are the two that stand out in most
people's minds.
It is quite valid for beautiful places like those to be
accessible not only to Canadians of wealth, but ordinary
Canadians as well. They should be accessible to those who come
here from other parts of the world simply because they want to
enjoy and admire the grandeur of God's creation in this part of
the world. It is highly desirable that these places be accessible
to people.
The member has indicated there should be no privatization in
these parks. Is the hon. member proposing that the government
should operate hotels, lodging places and places which supply
meals for visitors? Should the government do it instead of
private enterprise or is he simply proposing that we put up big
fences and just keep people out altogether?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I thought I had made
myself quite clear that we were against the expansion of
commercialization of the national parks beyond what would be
found within a community plan. The community plan would be
limited and regulated by parliament or by the department,
certainly by government. At no time was I saying that all
private interests should be kept out of our national parks. We
are not advocating the nationalization of motels.
I remind the hon. member that he opened his remarks by saying
that these places should be accessible. I agree that they should
be accessible within reasonable limits. He talked about people
having the right to enjoy the beauty of God's creation. I remind
him that God's creation is a very fragile place. The very
ecosystems we seek to preserve so we can show our children a
little bit about God's creation are very fragile. Once lost,
they are lost forever. Accessibility is one thing.
Even revenue generating is not an evil thing. If tourists wish
to come here from other parts of the world and they have the
wherewithal and the means, charging them a fee to get into our
parks is not untoward. Accessibility is a dual-edged sword. We
should not be pricing people out of enjoying the grandeur of our
national parks.
To answer the twofold question of the hon. member, we cannot
have unfettered access to the parks. The hon. member used the
example of an airstrip or future additional airstrips within the
parks. I disagree wholeheartedly.
1255
The other side of the question was commercialization. We are
against the unfettered expansion of communities within the parks
and the commercialization of retail stores, et cetera within the
parks, if it exceeds the community plan that was put in place by
the national parks act and the regulatory bodies.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I suppose we could just step
outside and have a conversation but we are doing it publicly
here.
The member said specifically that he was against the presence of
the small grass airstrips which are there. It is not possible
for large aircraft to land there. The small aircraft strips are
designed mainly for emergency and some recreational use by people
who own small planes.
If a small plane in the area is in trouble, would the member
rather have the pilot put his airplane into the side of a
mountain or to have an accessible airstrip? That is one
question. The second one is very short. I would like him to
respond to the present method of providing for the enlargement of
a resort location. Presently it requires a change in the act by
parliament. According to Bill C-27, it is going to be put
entirely into the hands of the minister. Is the member pleased
with that?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, to answer the question
about a small grass airstrip within the park, I used to be a land
use manager officer within the parks system in the Yukon. Every
national park or provincial park has airstrips, means of egress,
and an emergency measures operation manual for getting people in
and out if there is an accident, an emergency, a forest fire or
any number of things. Those provisions already exist.
I understood the member to mean a sports and leisure access for
hobbyists, for small plane owners to buzz around the national
parks. I can say that the ultralight craze was very disruptive
to the porcupine caribou herd that used to go through the Yukon.
Wealthy sports enthusiasts would buzz around the porcupine
caribou herd so that they could get closer pictures of them. I
do not think we want to encourage that at all but I am satisfied
that we have to have access into the park and a means of egress
for emergencies, forest fires or whatever.
In terms of allowing the expansion of parks or the creation of
new parks to be determined by order in council, I do not see that
as negative at all. I do not see it as taking away the authority
of parliament.
It is clearly stated in Bill C-27 that only the initial stages
of the expansion of a park or the creation of a new park can be
done by order in council. The ultimate choice and decision would
still be made by elected officials in the House of Commons. We
are not threatened by that. We do not think that is a devolution
of powers to the bureaucracy or to the ruling party alone. We
think that will expedite and fasttrack the creation of new parks.
Our party is very much in favour of that.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, with some
trepidation, it is a pleasure that I rise today as we begin the
important process of examining Bill C-27, the Canada national
parks act.
I recognize that changes are necessary if we are to protect and
enhance Canada's national parks system. Yet I am concerned,
among other things, that Bill C-27 will lead to the reduced role
of Canada's parliamentarians in the creation of future national
parks and national historic sites. Furthermore, I believe the
bill will seriously restrict the ability of local residents
living in our national parks to have any meaningful input into
the future of their communities. For instance, clause 9 of the
bill reads:
Powers in relation to land use, community planning and
development in park communities may not be exercised by a local
government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to
in section 35.
The agreement in question is for the town of Banff, but what
about the town of Jasper? In the May 2 Gazette there was a
story about the residents of Jasper who were very upset about a
Parks Canada plan to more than double and even quadruple the
annual rates residents and businesses paid for their land.
1300
We are talking about a figure of $2.2 million being suddenly
increased to $5.2 million. I would call that a very significant
increase.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage will likely point to the fact
that living within one of Canada's national parks is a privilege.
To live within one of Canada's most beautiful scenic areas in the
world is probably a wonderful privilege, a privilege which I am
sure the residents truly appreciate. However, let us not forget
that for many of these residents, this national park has been
their home for many years. They grew up there, as did their
parents before them. They have a vested interest in wanting to
help preserve the natural beauty of the area.
Mr. Dick Ireland, a chairman of the town committee that has some
limited input into the way Parks Canada manages Jasper, bemoaned
the lack of municipally elected officials by declaring that the
existing system is basically a system by which the residents pay
taxes without the benefit of representation.
[Translation]
Instead of improving the situation, I am convinced that this
bill will only make things even more difficult. Where will these
people turn to? Who will be their advocate? Will the heritage
minister be able to meet their needs?
The same problem exists in other national parks where people
live on a permanent basis. I have received letters from some of
those residents who want to express their displeasure with this
bill. They are not satisfied with the way they are represented,
even if they pay taxes. They see no solution in this bill.
[English]
As it stands now, these residents feel like they are paying
taxes without any representation.
I expressed concern about the lack of input being afforded
parliamentarians in the creation of a new national park. I can
appreciate why the Liberal government would want to reduce the
lengthy process involved with designating an area as a new
national park.
As we recently witnessed with the creation of Tuktut Nogait
National Park in the Northwest Territories, it can take virtually
years before we can finally arrive at a satisfactory agreement.
Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake for us to shirk our
responsibility simply in the name of expediency. Creating new
national parks by an order in council will rob Canadians of an
opportunity to witness some healthy debate. It reduces the role
of parliament by transferring more power to cabinet.
To remove any lands from a national park would require an act of
parliament. If an act of parliament is required to remove lands,
then perhaps it should also require an act of parliament to
create new or expand existing national parks.
Perhaps my fears should be lessened by clause 7.1 of the act
which states that any amendments to our national parks will be
tabled in each House of parliament and then referred to the
standing committee that considers matters relating to parks,
which in this case would be the Canadian Heritage committee.
I would welcome such a move since it would give our committee an
opportunity to closely examine the proposed changes while also
providing interested stakeholders another chance to voice their
opinions on the amendments. The government of the day would do
well to heed the advice of committee members.
The fact that Canada's national parks are in decline comes as no
surprise. Successive studies conducted in 1990, 1994, 1997, and
most recently the report released by the panel on ecological
integrity of Canada's national parks, have all called for
immediate action to help protect the ecological integrity of our
national parks.
As a member of the Canadian Heritage committee, I take these
calls for help very seriously. As I am sure all members of
parliament know, the Progressive Conservative Party has a long
history of wanting to protect our fragile ecosystem through the
creation of national parks.
Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, recognized the
intrinsic beauty of Canada's natural environment. He also
recognized, or perhaps he could foresee, the deep-rooted
affection Canadians would have toward their environment, which is
why he created Canada's first national park in 1885.
1305
I think it would be very interesting to witness the reaction of
our first prime minister if he could come back and see the
changes that have occurred in the town of Banff since he
designated those 26 square kilometres around the hot mineral
springs. He likely never envisioned the tremendous expansion
that has occurred in this little area when he was contemplating
Canada's first national park over 115 years ago.
The town of Banff in particular, but also Lake Louise and
Jasper, have grown tremendously over the years. The natural
beauty of the area has attracted tourists from all over the
world. These three areas are primarily responsible for the over
four million visitors the park welcome every year.
This national park has provided a tremendous boost over the
years to Alberta's economy. The increase in tourism has brought
about an increase in development within our national parks.
Hotels, lodges, golf courses and ski trails have all contributed
to the tremendous growth in the area.
However, we now recognize that this growth has not come without
a price. The physical landscape has been affected and the
wildlife has felt the ill-effects of the countless intrusions by
humans.
I think we all recognize that something has to be done. Even
the local residents who make Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper their
home would agree that some changes are in order to help protect
and preserve their environment.
Let us face it, local businesses are there to stay. Therefore,
it is imperative that we find some kind of workable balance that
will respond to the needs of the local community while also
managing to address the need to maintain ecological integrity.
[Translation]
I went to Alberta three times to visit our national parks. After
discussions with the local people, I am convinced that they want
to work with the federal government to find a solution that
would meet their needs. They want to be part of the solution,
not of the problem.
The federal government will have to work with these people to
find a solution. Unfortunately, the minister seems more
interested in imposing her solutions than in negotiating to find
a reasonable agreement.
[English]
Following the introduction of this proposed legislation, the
premier of Alberta responded angrily, accusing the federal
government of failing to consult with them prior to formulating
the bill. With such critical decisions required to limit the
further expansion of commercial interests within our national
parks, it might have been better or more conducive to achieving
agreements had the government entertained full public hearings in
this matter.
It has been the history of this minister to approach a situation
in a very confrontational manner. Rather than working together
to find a solution to a problem, she is often quick to impose her
own ill-conceived solutions that in the end satisfy no one.
Under the proposed legislation, a community plan for a park must
be consistent with the management plan for the park according to
the guidelines set forth by the minister. The community is
effectively being dictated to as to how its community is to be
run in the future.
The minister seems to want to assume responsibility for all
decisions affecting our national parks despite the fact that some
of these decisions might fall within town jurisdiction.
Canadians have often complained that they are being regulated to
death by government. When I look at some of the regulations
contained in clause 16(1) of the bill, I ask myself whether all
those regulations are really in the best interests of Canadians.
It says that regulations could be made respecting the protection
of air quality and cultural, historical and archaeological
resources. First, the federal Minister of the Environment failed
to live up to the Kyoto agreement so please do not blame me for
being a little skeptical about the Department of Canadian
Heritage somehow being more successful in protecting our air
quality.
I am pleased to see the minister wanting to manage and regulate
the fishery in our national parks. Let me tell the members that
she cannot do any worse than her colleague, the fisheries
minister, who has yet to find a solution to the Atlantic
fisheries crisis.
As for respecting culture, I can see where placing a life size
photo of Wayne Gretzky and Lucy Maud Montgomery in downtown
Banff will really improve the cultural or cultural component of
the town.
Is it not somewhat ironic when one thinks of it? One of the
problems identified in the state of the parks report is the
overabundance of tourist traffic in our parks, yet we would have
the minister introduce these life-sized figurines in Banff to
attract tourists.
1310
There are many positive elements to be found in this proposed
piece of legislation. The legislation, although flawed in a
number of areas, should provide Parks Canada personnel with a set
of rules that will provide them with the support they have been
asking for to ensure the long term protection of Canada's
national parks.
I am personally encouraged by the government's commitment to
conservation and protection of wildlife and other park resources.
It was imperative that any new national parks act contains stiff
penalties for poaching. Each year we lose an unacceptable number
of our wildlife and this must stop if we really are concerned
with ecological integrity.
Our wildlife must be protected against offenders if we want to
ensure that we maintain a representative assortment of wildlife.
It is important that the fines associated with illegal poaching
activity be significant enough that they will serve as a strong
deterrent. I believe the minister has taken this into
consideration as demonstrated by the huge fines and the threat of
a prison term incorporated into the legislation.
We should identify boundaries for all communities found within
our national parks. However these boundaries have to be
developed in partnership with all stakeholders. By this, I
include local environmentalists, Parks Canada officials, the
federal, provincial and local politicians, as well as existing
commercial interests.
I have many concerns about this proposed piece of legislation.
However, I and my party support sending this legislation to
committee where witnesses from across the country have already
expressed interest in appearing before the committee to share
their views on the future of Canada's national parks.
After listening to the witnesses and studying the many
interventions I suspect we will receive, we can then draft
appropriate amendments that will allow us to get on with the task
at hand of creating new parks across the country while protecting
the ecological integrity of Canada's existing national parks.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion for second reading of Bill C-27. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing Order
45(6), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until
the usual time of daily adjournment on Monday, May 8, 2000.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that you would find unanimous consent among the
colleagues present for us to proceed to the private member's
bill.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In order to do that
we would all have to agree to see the clock as 1.30. If there is
agreement, we could proceed right away. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now proceed
to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on
today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1315
[Translation]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make
labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory, and should
carry out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of these
foods on health and the environment.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today during this
first hour of debate on the motion that I proposed, which I will
repeat so that everyone is aware of what it is about; it reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make
labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory, and should
carry out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of these
foods on health and the environment.
Why are we calling for the mandatory labelling of genetically
modified foods? Why call for transparency in the process of
evaluation and acceptance of GMOs? Why this debate and
reflection?
The answer is very simple. First of all, we have a right to
know what we are eating. Every person is entitled to know the
nature of the foods he is eating. Second, 70% of the food
available to Canadians contains GMOs in whole or in part.
For the past five years, we have had GMOs in our plates and in
stores.
But the truth of the matter is that the public and consumers
have known about it only for about a year. If they know now it
is probably thanks to our representations here in the House.
Previously, the topic was totally ignored. And yet, there are
already some 42 genetically modified foods on the market. Far
too many questions remain unanswered.
In Canada, genetically modified foods are regulated according to
their stated characteristics and not the way they are produced.
In other words, a novel food is accepted or rejected according
to its substantial equivalence.
What is substantial equivalence? It is the comparative analysis
of a biotechnologically derived food and a conventional
non-modified food.
In a study entitled “Food Safety of GM Crops in Canada, Toxicity
and Allergenicity”, Dr. Ann Clark reviews the process used by
Health Canada to asses the level of toxicity and allergenicity
of genetically modified crops. Her study shows that the level of
toxicity was neither tested nor measured in 70% of the 42
genetically modified crops that were approved in Canada.
What is more, the allergenicity—and God knows how many allergies
there are around us—of those 42 genetically modified crops was
assessed neither through lab tests nor food trials. According to
Dr. Clark, statements to the effect that these crops are neither
toxic nor allergenic are based solely on deduction and
supposition.
According to her, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence”. In other words, the acceptance of GMOs, under the
Canadian system, leaves room for doubt. If the risks to health
seem plausible, what about the risks to the environment?
Let me quote Elizabeth Abergel on this issue:
The applications of genetic engineering to agriculture have
generated a strong controversy. Many consumers and a fair number
of scientists view these technologies as risky and even useless.
Again, this person is a Ph.D. student at York University and she
already has a master's degree in science.
The scientific community is divided as to the impacts associated
with the introduction of transgenic plants in the environment.
For many researchers, the scientific debate boils down to a lack
of concrete evidence and adequate data to state that GMOs are
innocuous. For others, the concern is with the methodologies,
the scientific insertions, the objectivity of the criteria and
parameters used by companies and governments to measure the
impact of transgenic plants.
The assessment of risks remains a difficult scientific issue.
However, the marketing of transgenic foods is accelerating, in
spite of these scientific uncertainties.
In Canada, the approval of transgenic products is based on data
provided exclusively by the companies. The obvious lack of
transparency of this regulatory system does not allow the
Canadian public to see the environmental issues related to
biotechnology. The Canadian system deems as probable the
management and mastering of the risks generated by GMOs, even
though these risks can be irreversible. This goes against the
principle of prudence, which promotes the anticipation of risks.
The Canadian regulatory framework is based on a scientific and
legislative basis that ignores the inherent risks of genetic
engineering. The expression “new form of plants” includes any
new variety. Genetic engineering is associated with the classic
methods of genetic selection, thus not generating new
environmental risks. Only the product is subjected to government
control, since the production method is not covered by existing
regulations.
The scientific studies on which the Canadian government relied
in determining the ecological risk associated with GMOs are
based on two criteria: familiarity and essential equivalence.
These two concepts allow assessment of the environmental risks
associated with new forms of plants.
GMOs are treated the same way as the species from which they are
derived, using the criterion of familiarity.
Thus, a GMO considered sufficiently familiar will not undergo
any environmental risk assessment. However, one that is not as
familiar will be put through an assessment to establish its
degree of essential equivalence compared to its counterpart.
Unfortunately, the scientific tests to which GMOs are subjected
in order to meet the essential equivalence requirements are
short-lived and often rely on criteria having to do with
agronomical rather than environmental performance.
It follows that essential equivalence limits the scope of the
research needed to establish the safety of GMOs, thus
eradicating scientific knowledge in this area.
In addition, commercialized GMOs are used as a point of reference for the
approval of new transgenic foods, thus implicitly forcing the
acceptability of ecological risks already present.
1320
All this is to say that ultimately, if we start with a
inaccurate premise, we end up with an inaccurate result, and
these results are being used to multiply new GMO approvals.
In an open letter to Le Devoir, Duong Dong Bong, a gene therapy
researcher, wrote the following:
The ecological risks of applying genetic engineering to
agriculture include the possibility that transgenic plants will
become harmful and affect ecosystems. Plants manipulated to
express or tolerate toxic substances such as herbicides can
poison untargeted organisms. Other plants manipulated to carry
viruses or virus fragments can promote the appearance of new
viruses that will eventually be responsible for new diseases.
The introduction of GMOs in the environment may seriously upset
natural mechanisms regulating both evolution and ecological
stability.
Given that viruses and transposons can lead to mutations,
strengthened vectors could be mutagens and be carcinogens for
humans and animals.
In addition, the presence of foreign genes in GMOs can promote
the existence of new metabolisms.
Thus, certain common foods modified by gene therapy could become
dangerous.
Persons with food allergies could be exposed to
increased risks, because some common foods would become
allergens through genetic manipulation. These are more of the
truly considerable ethical and cultural challenges raised by the
new biologies and technobiologies.
1325
To summarise my fears, I quote Jeremy Rifkin, who is probably
known to all of you. He is an expert and the author of 14 books
on the effects of scientific and technological evolution.
He declared recently before the Excellence 2000 symposium held
in Banff, and I quote:
According to him, there are other risks:
The use of a new crop of mustard to produce plastic involves
risks. What would happen to birds and insects during the seeding
season? In many years from now, the ecosystem could be facing
serious problems.
There are numerous crops which are being genetically modified so
that they can resist weeds without the usual use of pesticides
by farmers.
Where is the problem?
Mr. Rifkin adds:
With pesticides you can at least spray and stop there. But with
new plants, toxins are continuously released and filter into the
ground.
He adds:
Sooner or later, weeds will be able to resist the genes which
are used to destroy them and we will always be forced to create
new genes to fight them.
The questions raised are serious, but we still have found no
answer. The future of agriculture and of the environment and the
problems relating to health and biodiversity are at the heart
of the reflection that we, as parliamentarians, have to do on
the intrusion of GMOs in our lives.
Allow me to read a text written by Patricia Ramacieri, director
of the seedling program at Heritage Canada, on the importance of
biodiversity:
When we observe our planet, whether from the human, animal or
vegetable point of view, the common theme is diversity. It is
not happenstance, but a mechanism which makes it possible to
maintain balance, complementarity and abundance.
Throughout the
plant world, with the exception of extreme climatic conditions
such as the Sahara desert or the frigid cold at the poles,
nature fosters exchanges between multiple agents in order to
create an ecological and self-sustaining environment.
For the past 50 years, our society has encouraged standards to maximize
profitability.
The word profit is a constantly recurring one in this theory.
In agriculture, this has led to a more and more headlong rush
toward optimum yields, through the selection and standardization
of a few plants: soya, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, which
constitute the basis of our diet.
As a result, monoculture is being practiced to an increasing
extent and this artificially creates poor ecological and
environmental conditions that demand more sustained human
intervention via chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides,
and all those other “cides”, where an environment of
biodiversity could meet these needs naturally.
Today, when the limitations of human and chemical intervention
have been reached, we are seeing a new wave of products that
have been designed to change the genetic structure of the plant
itself, which ought to prompt the following questions: Are we
addressing the true problem? Do we have the right to change
nature to suit our needs? Are we part of nature? Why not adapt
to nature?
Every day, our planet is losing more and more of its
biodiversity, whether consciously or through neglect.
Whichever, the result is the same. Are we prepared to watch a
system slip through our fingers which has taken millions of
years to develop to the stage of a delicate balance, merely
because we do not value, or do not yet grasp, its wisdom and
logic?
Why, finally, should we put all our eggs in one basket
with GMOs?
1330
I gave many quotes this morning, which is unusual for me, but I
think that these very recent texts are food for thought. It is a
good thing to involve scientists to get a better idea of what
everyone thinks about this very important issue.
To conclude, the purpose of the motion presented this morning is
to stimulate thorough discussion and deep reflection. In other
words, it is a call in favour of the precautionary principle or
a moratorium on GMOs until there is transparency in the process,
the public understands it, and labelling is made mandatory so as
to let people decide what they want to eat.
Again this week the McCain corporation asked that the government
implement a funding program for farmers and make the labelling
of transgenic foods mandatory.
Right now, big corporations are in a monopolistic situation and
the governments support them directly or indirectly instead of
putting the money where they should to protect the population
and preserve our markets.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House
today to respond to Motion M-230.
The motion, from the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two parts.
The first would make labelling of genetically modified food
compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to carry
out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of genetically
modified foods.
Let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada's
commitment is always to safety first: safety for the protection
of Canadians, safety for animals, and the safety of our
environment.
[English]
Canada quite rightly prides itself on its regulatory systems. We
know that Canadians, whether they are consumers, producers,
distributors or health professionals, rely on and value these
safety systems.
In terms of labelling, Canadian federal legislation calls for
Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory labelling.
Health Canada sets the data requirements for the safety
assessments of all foods and undertakes comprehensive pre-market
reviews of new foods, including those derived through
biotechnology. Every new food goes through a rigorous and
thorough review process before being allowed on the market.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, carries out
inspection and enforcement activities relative to the food safety
standards set by Health Canada. The CFIA also has responsibility
for the environmental safety assessment of a number of
agricultural products derived through biotechnology, including
plants and animal feeds. Based on its safety evaluations of
foods, Health Canada determines if and when labelling is
required. As I am sure the hon. member would agree, any authority
for labelling must be based upon science.
I would like to emphasize that current labelling regulations in
Canada require that all foods, including those developed through
biotechnology, be labelled where a potential human health or
safety issue has been identified, for example, for people with
food allergies or if foods have been changed in composition or
nutrition.
Let me address the first part of the motion before us by
reminding the House that there are already several initiatives in
place to study the question of how and when to label a
genetically modified food. Canadians expect their views to be
heard and the government is doing just that by listening to
Canadians on how they want their foods to be labelled. The
government is committed to exploring how labelling can best serve
the public.
The government believes that all labelling must be credible,
meaningful and enforceable. For this reason the Government of
Canada has strongly encouraged the establishment of a Canadian
standard for the labelling of foods derived through
biotechnology. The Canadian General Standards Board under the
sponsorship of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors is in
the process of developing this standard through an open and
inclusive process.
1335
A committee composed of representatives and individuals from a
broad range of Canadian interests has been established. This
committee has developed working groups to look at areas such as
definitions, labels, claims in advertising, and compliance
measures. A completed standard is expected within the next six
to 12 months.
The government continues to listen to all Canadians. Canada is
the first country in the world to actively engage such a broad
range of stakeholders on this issue. Canada is fully immersed in
developing its own national standard in full consultation with
stakeholders and in a way that is open and transparent to all
Canadians.
[Translation]
My colleagues should be aware that by endorsing such a thorough
process to develop a labelling standard, Canada is indeed a
leader worldwide. We can see that the Canadian public is
already strongly engaged on the issue of genetically modified
foods.
It is also important to note that the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food raised this issue of labelling in 1998
when it tabled its report “Capturing the Advantage: Agricultural
Biotechnology in the New Millennium”.
[English]
On May 18 the standing committee will begin a series of hearings
on the labelling of genetically modified foods. I would like to
point out that in Tuesday's debate on this very same issue my
colleagues from the Canadian Alliance called for a joint study by
the health and agriculture committees on the issue of labelling.
Moreover, Canada is playing a strong role on the international
stage to promote standards for labelling these foods. For
example, Canada chairs the Codex Alimentarius committee on food
labelling. We are also heading a subcommittee of this
organization which has worked to draft recommendations for the
labelling of biotechnologically derived foods.
Around the world Canada is regarded as a leader on this issue.
In short, there are processes currently under way to address the
information needs of Canadians on the issue of labelling. These
processes must be given an opportunity to provide the
recommendations before we hastily embark on another course of
action.
The government recognizes that consumers want choice. We
believe, and I am sure hon. members would agree, that Canadians
want informed choice and labels which are meaningful. It is the
government's goal to ensure that the information provided to
Canadians enables them to make informed choices.
The House should vote down Motion No. 230 on the basis of the
first part of the motion. Let me now turn to the second part,
which urges the government to carry out exhaustive studies on the
long term effects of genetically modified foods on health and the
environment.
[Translation]
I would like to emphasize again that food safety and consumer
protection are priorities for the Government of Canada. We are
strongly committed to the safety of Canadians, animals and our
environment.
Canada has certainly built a strong reputation as a producer of
foods that are consistently safe, clean and of high quality. We
built that reputation by putting very rigorous regulatory
systems in place.
[English]
Our approval systems are science based and transparent. Our
government's decision to accept or reject a product is based on
sound science and proven facts. Our regulators include experts
in nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology, and
environmental science to name just a few.
These regulators use the best available science from Canadian
and international experts to determine whether these products
pose any hazard to people, plants, animals or the environment. If
there is any question as to their safety, we do not approve them
for use.
Even after a product has been approved, its case is never
closed. New scientific evidence is always taken into account and
appropriate action taken immediately if any problems are
detected.
The regulatory system assesses products on a case by case basis.
The research on safety required for evaluation directly addresses
the potential risks of the product to human health and the
environment. The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating
this science based approach around the world.
1340
We recognize the need for scientific research to settle any
questions relating to long term health, safety and environmental
issues. With that in mind, I believe the House will applaud the
efforts the Government of Canada has undertaken to maintain and
even enhance the safety of genetically modified foods.
[Translation]
Canada is committed to a regulatory system that is based on
sound science—a regulatory system that meets the highest
scientific rigour.
That is why, for example, the Minister of Health, the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of the Environment
asked the Royal Society of Canada to appoint an expert panel on
the future of food biotechnology. The Royal Society named its
expert panel last February.
[English]
This proactive forward looking body will look ahead over the
next 10 years to forecast the types of food products that are
expected to be developed using biotechnology.
The Government of Canada's commitment to open an inclusive
dialogue with Canadians has also resulted in the formation of the
Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC. The committee
will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise
the government, raise public awareness and engage Canadians in an
open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology matters.
I am sure the House will support the government's initiatives to
make sure the regulatory system can effectively assess the health
and environmental safety of genetically modified foods.
[Translation]
In conclusion, we have initiatives underway to ensure that
Canada is well positioned for the future. In addition, the
regulatory system in place is rigorous, thorough and scientific.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Motion
M-230.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
BILL C-11—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing
Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the second
reading stage of Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture
of the assets of and to dissolve the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act
and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
[Translation]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings of the said stage.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
LABELLING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 230.
The motion calls for the compulsory labelling of genetically
modified foods and for exhaustive studies on the long term
effects of these foods. This is a topical debate and one which I
think should take place.
I would like to split this debate into three components. I will
talk about science as it has been in the past, as it is in the
present, and then I will talk about solutions.
Traditionally we had used genetic modification to improve foods,
crops and animals. This was a natural process of slow selection
which had few surprises. With a plant or an animal that had good
characteristics we would try and bring the characteristics
through the genetic tree.
As an example, I think of new varieties of garden corn which
have a short growing time and which can grow in a cool climate.
There are early ripening varieties.
I cannot imagine anyone being concerned or feeling negative about
that process.
1345
However, even with this gradual process of improvement, we have
occasionally had problems. I would like to mention a plant that
was brought to North America in the early 1900s called kudzu.
This plant came from China. It is a very powerful vine-type
plant and there are no natural insects that prey upon it. It has
no natural enemies. This plant has now taken over seven million
acres of land in Texas and Louisiana. We have what some would
call a fairly natural process of planting a foreign plant in
North America and having it grow quite wild. There were concerns
and problems even with the old mechanism of the natural, slow
process of improving crops and animals.
If I could move toward science today, we now have the capability
at the microscopic level of manipulating the genetic tree. We
have an intervention in fact, at the molecular level, going on.
We are even capable of taking DNA from one species and linking it
with the DNA of another species. The difference between science
today and science in days of yore is that these changes now can
be quite rapid. There are some scientific concerns on this issue
and some scientific debate. That is why I say that this debate
is timely and worthwhile.
What are some potential benefits of this new form of genetic
manipulation? I will not be exhaustive, because time is
relatively short, but we could have seeds and crops that would
not require pesticides or herbicides. Most people concerned
about the environment would say that is positive. We could have
new medicinal properties brought more quickly to the market from
these processes. We could also see land that is less fertile
bearing crops and being productive. Those are just some of the
potential benefits. As I said, this is not exhaustive at all.
What do individuals see as potential hazards in this area?
There are potential hazards if we had unsuspected effects on the
human organism, on ourselves, from eating or being around such
genetically modified foods. We could have wild strains, much
like the kudzu plant I mentioned, overwhelming some of our
natural strains, having unsuspected effects on domestic plants.
Let me give an example from the medical field of changes that
are going on in our environment, in our society, which might be
related to these sorts of things. If we look at population
dynamics we see that young adolescents are going through changes
earlier than they did some years back, specifically young
adolescent females having the onset of periods earlier than they
did some 30 years ago. There is some medical information that
this may be related to estrogen-like compounds that are
circulating in our environment. Here we have estrogen-like
compounds that could come from genetically modified organisms,
possibly changing the whole hormonal balance in a large
population set, those of young adolescent women. This is not a
theory. This is not a guess. This is actually physically
happening now and we have to figure out how and why.
On this scientific debate there is some legitimate argument on
both sides and we should be open to those discussions and
arguments.
As to the solution from my perspective, I believe that the
consumer who has a concern about genetically modified foods
should have that information available. I believe that people
who do not want to take genetically modified food into their
bodies—a crop, a cereal or a product—should have that choice.
1350
It is technically very difficult to label all genetically
modified foods. For instance, pasta has constituents that come
from various sources and a genetically modified component would
be difficult to isolate. It could be done, but it would be
difficult. I feel it would be better to modify genetically
modified free food, rather than all those that have genetically
modified components in them. In my mind, this would give those
who want to make the choice the ability to do so.
I would actually propose a mechanism to label those genetically
modified free foods. It would be a graphic label. The one I
have chosen is a microscope with an x across it, which
would show all consumers that there is no genetically modified
food in that product. It would be a little similar to the
marketing mechanism used for organic grains. Those who do not
want to have pesticides or herbicides in their growing process
could choose that strain.
Also, I would suggest that this be voluntary. This is where I
digress from my colleague a little. The mandatory component is
something that smacks of bureaucracy and of people telling us
what to do. I favour small where small will do when it comes to
bureaucracy. I would much prefer a voluntary process driven by
the market. As an individual, I could then choose genetically
modified free foods. That is the process I would use.
The issue of science is where I think we should try not to be
political. Good science is science that can stand close, careful
scrutiny. We should try not to have a big political debate on
this. I have listened to some organizations politicizing this.
They seem to ignore good science on the one side and only pay
attention to the science on the other side. That does not make
any sense to me at all.
The principle that I would use on this issue is the principle of
letting the consumer know. Let the consumer be aware and let the
consumer choose.
The issue of the long term studies that my colleague has
suggested makes eminent sense. We saw a big debate on
recombinant bovine somatotropin, the substance used for
augmenting milk in cattle. rBST is being used in the U.S. It is
not being used directly in Canada. What a perfect opportunity to
look at the two populations. Scientists are, in fact, able to do
that. I hope that those people in the U.S. who are using rBST
would not be guinea pigs in this issue, but they are certainly a
good case study for a long term debate.
My congratulations to my colleague for bringing this debate. I
hope the House will consider it carefully. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on this subject.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
also want to begin by indicating my appreciation to the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert for bringing this important issue
forward. It is certainly a topic that has been in the forefront
of the minds of many Canadians.
Many young people I know are dealing with the issue of what they
call franken foods. This is an issue that has the general public
so concerned that they are calling my office and other members'
offices. They are looking to government for some direction in
this matter.
Canadians have clearly indicated in every poll, survey and study
that they want to know what they are eating. I would take that
one step further. They have a right to know what they are
eating. It is a basic, fundamental, health issue right. They
have made that abundantly clear.
I would put it to the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance
that voluntary compliance is not working. He actually
contradicted himself in the arguments we just heard. He said
that Canadians have a right to know and then they can make their
own informed choice. How would they know without adequate
labelling on the package? He is denying them their right to
choose by not clearly stating what kind of product they are
eating.
1355
The whole premise of the argument I will be making is that
Canadians are justifiably concerned about the quality of the food
they eat.
I believe the government has abdicated its responsibilities in
this matter by trying to promote voluntary compliance and by not
clearly stating what government agency will have jurisdiction
over this important matter. At the present time we have a
hodgepodge. It is an absolute mess. The government is readily
conceding that Canadians have a right to know and that they need
to know, but there are three different government agencies that
have been partially responsible for telling Canadians what they
need to know.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is involved. It deals with
the policing of plants and slaughterhouses, the storage of unsafe
items and so on. Health Canada has a role, but we are not sure
where one jurisdiction starts and the other stops. Health Canada
approves products with respect to quality and safety. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada assists in food production. Which
jurisdiction is it? If we could establish that first we could
then move the issue forward by demanding that the federal agency
do its job.
I come from an area with a large agri-food industry. In
Manitoba agriculture is key and paramount to the health of our
economy. I hear stories from Manitoba farmers about their
concern over genetically engineered and genetically modified seed
crops and oilseed crops. The hon. member mentioned canola oil as
an example. I have some personal knowledge of how concerned
Manitoba farmers are about the genetic engineering of canola.
One company had a monopoly on the seed stock. If farmers wanted
to buy seed they went to go to a certain company, but they also
had to sign a contract with that company indicating that they
would sell all of their yield to that company. Farmers could not
have the seed unless they promised to sell their yield to the
company. The real stinger was that the seed had been genetically
modified to have a terminator gene in it so it could not
reproduce itself.
Since time began farmers have set aside a certain amount of
their crop for re-seeding in future years. Farmers cannot do that
any more. They have to go back to the source company, a chemical
company, and buy their seed for the following year, which turns
out to have a genetic terminator. Perverse is the word for it.
Most Canadians are horrified when they discover how people are
manipulating our food supplies through genetic engineering.
At the very least, the government owes it to Canadians to let
them know whether the food they are eating is genetically
modified. Never mind if it is safe or not safe. The jury is
still out on that issue. We do not know. But let us not use the
absence of absolute, hard scientific evidence as an excuse for
not taking the precautionary measures Canadians are asking for.
Canadians should be given the right to choose. They should be
able to look at the labelling on a package and decide for
themselves whether they want to ingest the material.
There have been mistakes. There have been recent examples which
gave consumers cause for alarm. Recently a gene from a Brazil
nut was introduced to a foodstuff. This resulted in people
suffering a severe nut allergy, even though they were eating a
product that had nothing to do with nuts. People suffered severe
anaphylactic asthmatic reactions from a product that had nothing
to do with nuts. People had no way of knowing because in Canada
there is no obligation to tell.
The rest of the world seems to be further advanced than Canada.
That is ironic, as Canada is one of the leaders in agri-food and
agri-business. Europeans do not want genetically modified food
on their shelves. They demand to know if the food they are
eating is genetically modified.
The United Nations biosafety protocol was negotiated in Montreal
during the last week of January. Several large and well known
companies began taking their first steps away from genetically
modified crops.
They started to make noise in the right direction, but not on any
moral or ethical ground or even out of fear for public safety. I
think what they were really afraid of was a consumer backlash.
They know that consumers are becoming better informed about this
issue and are demanding to know if a product is genetically
modified, because if it is, they do not want it.
1400
We do have large companies like Frito Lay, the big potato chip
manufacturing company, which told its suppliers not to send any
more genetically modified corn for their corn chips, but it
stopped short of telling them not to send any genetically
modified potatoes for its potato chips. It produces about a
thousand times as many potato chips as it does corn chips.
As I said, the voluntary compliance side of things is starting
to catch on but in a very marginal way not in a meaningful way. I
do not believe in voluntary compliance measures in anything,
frankly, whether it is workplace safety, health or whatever,
because when the bottom line is profits to shareholders,
corporations have a vested interest in doing whatever is
expedient from a profit point of view and not doing what is right
from a moral, ethical or even public health point of view.
Seagrams, another major company, told its suppliers not to bring
it any more genetically modified corn but it fell short of making
a public announcement. It did not want to rock the boat. It will
not publicly say that its products are made without genetically
modified corn.
Loblaws has quietly made plans to stock its first genetically
modified free products in some stores. It will have separate
shelves. It will have genetically modified food on one shelf and
it will have genetically modified free food on another shelf.
Obviously it has sensed the concern in the general public.
Loblaws of Canada is not stupid. It has sensed that consumer
awareness is growing to the point where many Canadians will
demand pure food instead of frankenfood.
Who knows if our corn flakes might contain a gene from some
mutant fish? We just do not know the kinds of things that are
being done. The classic example is when some people got Brazil
nut genes in food and ended up having nut allergies. It is a
terrible problem.
Borden Foods, which makes Catelli pastas and sauces, has issued
a statement saying that its products are genetically modified
free. However, it has had to do that on its own as an individual
initiative. There is no obligation and no duty to do so.
Personally, I will look for Catelli products when I go shopping
because I appreciate what Borden Foods has done.
I have told hon. members about the impact that the whole genetic
engineering industry is having on the farm community where I come
from with the terminator gene. I think there is a healthy
distrust for the people who are engineering and genetically
altering our foods. It is an area of science that is new to most
Canadians. There is not a level of comfort yet for most
Canadians.
Even in the absence of absolute, hard, scientific fact that says
genetically modified foods are bad for us—and I am the first to
admit that we do not have that hard, scientific evidence—at
least the government should be taking steps to err on the side of
caution and err on the side of the well-being of Canadian people
and not on the profit motives of the food producers in the
agri-food business.
Let Canadians choose. Let them know what it is they are
actually eating. Make labelling mandatory. Yes, it is a burden
and maybe even a cost factor for the producers. They probably
will not like it. However, I would urge the government to show
leadership and to show that it cares for the consuming public by
mandating the labelling of foods so that we can make an informed
choice.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, what an interesting debate. As I said the other day,
there are many different points of view. If any of us speak long
enough we will probably disagree with ourselves at the end of the
day because it is a very complex topic.
I will begin by basically paraphrasing a former prime minister
with regard to a position on an issue. It might be ours and it
could be about any party's position in the House of Commons:
mandatory controls if necessary, but not necessarily mandatory
controls, because we do not like to see that type of rigid
enforcement.
1405
With the demise of one of the big players in the field,
Monsanto, there has been a slowdown in recent months in terms of
genetically modified foods. Monsanto's market share has
plummeted as compared to where it was in the marketplace over a
year ago. One of the reasons for that is the so-called
frankenfoods, to quote that term.
I want to speak specifically to that. The hon. member from
Winnipeg mentioned the controversy surrounding the Brazil nut. He
spoke about the crossing of genes from the Brazil nut with that
of a soybean. As members well know, the soybean is a major
source of nutrition for many parts of the world and they had
invented a product that would take on many of the characteristics
of the soybean or the Brazil nut in terms of the strength and
durability of the seed or the plant.
However, by crossing these genes they unknowingly brought in the
same characteristics and allergic reactions from the Brazil nut.
It was science doing one thing for a net gain to the public but
inadvertently creating another problem, which was the allergic
reaction to a new product that no one imagined would happen. The
good news is that it was, thankfully, pulled from the market
shelves by the agricultural community before it actually reached
the marketplace.
Michael Lipton, an economist at the University of Sussex in
England, does research on poverty and the demographics of food
distribution in the Third World. He said that when electricity
was first invented if the first two products of electricity was
the electric chair and the electric animal probe where would we
be today.
I think that is one of the problems that this science has
experienced in regard to genetically modified foods. There have
been some horror stories coming out and, suddenly, because they
are the first products, there is some fear-mongering, and rightly
so, and some uncertainty on the part of the consumer which is
showing up in the marketplace, hence, I guess, the demise of
companies like Monsanto.
That is not to say that they are going to die a natural death.
They will always be around because of some of the positive
benefits of the alteration of species, plant breeding and so on,
but what they have done in some of these cases is just taken it a
step too far and that has cost them. It has cost them a lot of
confidence in the marketplace which, at the end of the day, will
determine whether some of these products survive or not. As
consumers, we will determine that.
Animal genes are being crossed with food products, or plant
genes, to create a product that will withstand, for example, cold
temperatures. One of the recent discoveries was the taking of
genes from a fish that lives in the North Atlantic, some of the
coldest waters in the world, and crossing it with a strawberry.
They are taking an animal gene and putting it into a food product
with great success. One of the biggest enemies of the strawberry
plant is cold and frost, Madam Speaker, which you well know
coming from the province of Quebec where there is a huge
strawberry industry. They have been very successful in doing
that.
What happens is that this conjures up all the fears we have as
consumers. I only have to mention mad cow disease. What was
being done there was that they were feeding cattle their own
entrails, after going through a heat process. They were feeding
their own meat to their own species which in turn created a
problem within the cow. There is some evidence now that mad cow
disease has jumped the species barrier. I have asked the
Minister of Health what the department was doing and how it was
monitoring that. We have evidence that the disease has entered
the food chain and human beings are now being associated with
that disease. It seems to have gone from animals to people.
That is the result of science gone crazy or the application of
science not benefiting mankind as we would like it to do.
1410
Another example of that is atomic energy. Look at the gains we
have made in this world when we cracked the atom. Some of them
are very positive and some of them are very disastrous. The
result is that atomic energy can produce a very clean power but
because of mistakes made in the past, the atomic energy business
is almost at a standstill. It is almost dying on the vine, yet
it is something that should be growing. Scientists got off the
track and the monitoring and procedures that would be used to
keep people in check have not been there and we have seen a
demise in that industry.
The same is occurring in the genetically modified food industry.
There are so many examples of where science can do good. One of
them is in a new product called golden rice. A couple of
scientists, one is from Germany and I believe the other is from
Austria, have developed a gene which they placed into a rice
plant. It allows the rice plant to generate vitamin A, a missing
ingredient in the diets of about two billion people on the face
of the earth.
Last year over 200 million people died because of malnutrition,
because they simply did not have vitamin A in their diets. We
are talking about those societies that depend on rice crops.
They put in beta carotene, or vitamin A; there is a connection
between the two. They call it golden rice because of the beta
carotene which is what is in a carrot. They have put it into the
white rice crop with huge benefits. None of us disagree with the
benefit side of it.
We have to know where it will lead and where it will stop. Is
government going to put a check on these advancements and how
rapid will these be?
The other day I mentioned what they call the terminator seed. It
comes from the famous movie, the Terminator. Think about
it. A company like Monsanto, with the power that exceeds the
power of some governments, came up with a terminator seed. For
example if we are talking about a wheat crop, the wheat would
grow but the seeds that the crop would produce could no longer be
used. They could no longer reproduce because the seed had been
genetically modified so only that company could sell the seed. It
is a monopoly on seed and food production. That is what scares a
lot of us in the House. It is called the terminator seed.
Imagine the repercussions in the third world. Countries would
be forced to buy seed. They could not save their own seed for
the next year for planting and eventually harvesting.
Those are examples of science going too far. None of us will
deny the benefits of the science, but we want to see a check on
it. We hope that mandatory restrictions will not be needed and
that voluntary compliance will work. If it does not, we are
suggesting that government at that point does have to step in.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
It being 2.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next
at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.14 p.m.)